Not an evolutionary change per say... just a lucky POD for said horses.
I think horses were already declining before humans were introduced, so it would be ASB in that case.
Not an evolutionary change per say... just a lucky POD for said horses.
Diamond's thesis is academically controversial, even if lots of laymen accept it at face value because he writes well. I personally think Eight Eurocentric Historians countered GGS quite well.
Anyhow I mostly agree with your first and third points, although I'd note that Iroquois agriculture was significantly more productive without plows than early New English settlers' agriculture (with plows), and according to a Dutch (IIRC) explorer rudimentary plows with a relative of the llama were being used on a Chilean island that had had minimal Spanish contact by that point.
I disagree with the axes hypothesis because the temperate zone is actually split up by huge mountains and deserts, and because I haven't yet been introduced to any definitive evidence.
Yes, but rather paradoxically plow-less Iroquois agriculture produced much more surpluses (per land area, not per capita) than European agriculture in the same period and the same region. The Paradox of Plows and Productivity: An Agronomic Comparison of Cereal Grain Production under Iroquois Hoe Culture and European Plow Culture in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries is an article that directly addresses this, you should see it here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3098/ah.2011.85.4.460?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contentsAs to domestic farm animals; they are really useful for helping develop a settled domestic and urban society. To get real, rapid technological development you need to develop a creative class; people who can spend their time creating new things and developing new, more efficient technologies rather than having to constantly hunt, gather or farm just to feed themselves and their families. This means the person who does do the farming has to not just be able to generate enough food for themselves but also for the people who are not farmers. Here pack animals can really help one farmer do the same work that would have taken several farmers without animals.
Yes, but rather paradoxically plow-less Iroquois agriculture produced much more surpluses (per land area, not per capita) than European agriculture in the same period and the same region. The Paradox of Plows and Productivity: An Agronomic Comparison of Cereal Grain Production under Iroquois Hoe Culture and European Plow Culture in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries is an article that directly addresses this, you should see it here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3098/ah.2011.85.4.460?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I think horses were already declining before humans were introduced, so it would be ASB in that case.
With respect to (1), there were plenty of strong native nations (e.g. the Inca, the Aztecs); it didn't especially help them (indeed, having a single central power structure to dominate made the conquests of Mexico and Peru easier than that of e.g. the Great Plains, where the much looser tribal confederations were tied with general mobility and individual raiders).So, I think we've seen thus far that to make the new world dominate over the old world it would take huge changes (geological reconfiguration, different evolution, the presence of different animals, etc.) -- few things that humans could control/decide.
I'd like to mention a few human changes that could significantly affect the balance of power (old v new), though not likely to lead to the new dominating:
1) Stronger native nations. IOTL most Native Americans (NAs) were primarily associated with a local tribe and (some) a larger nation. In any case, the structures were mostly loose and cooperation limited. If, instead, most of the NAs were in more centralized nations and those nations more zealously recognized and guarded their borders, the Europeans would have had a much harder time progressing incrementally.
2) More aggressive NAs. In many cases, relations with the arriving Europeans were (at least initially) friendly or businesslike. This definitely benefited the NAs in many cases. However, if they were more often hostile, slaughtering all Europeans that came ashore, the Europeans would likely move on to try to find friendlier areas.
1) Stronger native nations. IOTL most Native Americans (NAs) were primarily associated with a local tribe and (some) a larger nation. In any case, the structures were mostly loose and cooperation limited. If, instead, most of the NAs were in more centralized nations and those nations more zealously recognized and guarded their borders, the Europeans would have had a much harder time progressing incrementally.
2) More aggressive NAs. In many cases, relations with the arriving Europeans were (at least initially) friendly or businesslike. This definitely benefited the NAs in many cases. However, if they were more often hostile, slaughtering all Europeans that came ashore, the Europeans would likely move on to try to find friendlier areas.
The Iroquois and their neighbors are a very good example of this. Yes, they were eventually defeated and contained post-ARW, but that's more than 150 years after from first contact with Europeans. In the meantime, their trade with the Dutch and English meant that they were able to conquer or exterminate most of their neighbors to establish hegemony over a much wider area than they had ever ruled.A needlessly hostile tribe (remember, they don't know what it'll mean when Europeans settle) in the case of 2) will end up outcompeted by tribes who accept European trade.