Guns, Germs, and Steel drew me in with a question: why did history unfold this way? What would have had to be different for it to go another way?
Why did Europeans conquer so much of the Americas, rather than American societies sending ships across the Atlantic to conquer Europe? Jared Diamond follows that question back beyond the ships and weapons, to conditions that existed long before anyone planned those voyages.
In his account, the wild plants and animals available for domestication gave some societies a head start in producing food. He points to the Fertile Crescent’s wheat, barley, sheep, and goats. Food production could support larger populations and specialists who did not grow their own food. Diamond connects that to the development of states and technologies, tracing advantages at the moment of conquest back to much earlier differences in what people could grow and raise.
That gives the “what if?” something to work with. What if the useful plants and animals had been distributed differently? Which later advantages might have followed? The appeal for me was in following those possible consequences and asking how much of the familiar outcome depended on the starting conditions.
I don’t take an absorbing explanation as proof that everything happened exactly as it says. There are serious objections to how far Diamond pushes geography: historian J. R. McNeill argues that an explanation for Eurasia’s advantages does not adequately explain why Europe, specifically, became dominant within it. That is a useful distinction to keep in mind while reading.
Diamond is an engaging writer, and I enjoyed following his answer without treating it as the last word. What would have had to change for history to turn out differently?
