Sabrina de Leon
asked:
Jared Diamond states that the Eurasians were the ones who conquered the world due to geographical circumstances. However, the Middle East (the Fertile Crescent) also had everything to conquer the world, so why didn't the Middle East conquer the world? I was surprised Diamond did not address this issue since it is one of the main points he was trying to make. Does culture come into play in this case?
To answer questions about
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies,
please sign up.
Gustavo
I believe that answer is in the last few chapters, when he explains why China has not expanded its territory. He also talks about the Mongols — who were unable to enter Europe for geographical reasons, reaching at most as far as Hungary. In the case of China, he says that, compared to the Europeans, there was never a collective interest in conquering or even expanding the Chinese empire to the west. And China, unlike Europe, was united. Europe, in turn, due to dispute and disunity, went on a run around the world, always seeking to be ahead of the neighboring country. I believe that in the case of the Middle East, the “unity” factor counts as the main reason, since the Islam shaped the paths of this region and part of Asia (at least for a while). A religion has become a voice for a region, before headless, in a pseudo empire. Although Muslims reached Spain and Portugal, religious expansionism was not enough, since it Jared gave credit to multifactorial events to justify the success of some to the detriment of others.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more