No livestock

[tarchon]

One big difference between America and Eurasia is the practice of agriculture. Americans did not plow fields, either in the north or the south. Their agriculture is more 'natural' in a way. Their crops are interspersed with existing plants. I've been to native (post-Mayan) farms in the Yucatan. As a city boy, I can't tell the difference between a Mayan farm and untouched jungle. In fact, I doubt a farm boy would be able to either, unless maybe they were familiar with the specific crop plants that are interspersed. Of course, modern American farmers plow fields and all that.

Plows aren't much of an advantage without draft animals or tractors. There are human-driven plows of course, but even with steel shares, from personal experience, I know they're just slightly better than useless, especially if you have to break sod. The basic idea of dragging a stick through the dirt isn't too hard to come up with anyway. Getting a 500 pound animal to drag the stick is the important part.

Aside from that, agriculture was one of the few New World technologies which was comparable and sometimes even superior to that of the Old World. The rapid and deep penetration of New World crops into the Old World is ample evidence, along with the fumbling early history of European settlement.

In a fantasy world, you'd just just magic self-pulling plows though.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

I bet a hydra could pull on heck of a big plow

Yea, it might be able to pull a plow if you could keep all those heads in check!

 

[tarchon]

I also know of no European disease which decimated Asia.

I can't think of any either, unless you want to count Marxism.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Clay, Guns, Germs, and Steel, perhaps? Not an bad book. He made a few logical leaps and had trouble making his primary theory work properly with much of Asia. Though other cultural factors certainly contributed there.

Tractable, large animals were likely a big advantage in setting up the large populations that spawned the real reason for European and Asian advancement: War. For a variety of reasons, people at war always advance faster than people at relative peace. Plows and big mammals -> large population -> competition for resources -> War -> advancement in all walks of life. Even philosophy evolves faster during war. Taoism and Buddhism in China saw their greatest advancement during the Warring States period

Who needs a plow when you have a Druid?

Soften Earth & Stone or Rock to Mud, then send out the peasants to seed the ground, then Plant Growth. Who needs fertilizer or plow animals? Throw on a few well-timed Control Weather effects, and you're going to get a great crop.

Much more likely than yoked elementals. Remember, before you can yoke an elemental, you have to invent yoking. That's more likely to come from your farmers than your mages.

The Black Plague came from Asia and decimated Europe. I'm familiar with that one as well as European diseases devastating American natives. When did European disease decimate Asia?

As others have said, never happened.

 

[billd91]

You should take a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It makes a very strong statement about the effects of geography on human society, technology, and international relations.
In essense, geography determines a whole heck of a lot including explaining why American cultures domesticated so few animal species, why so few livestock species were available to domesticate in the first place, why they were so susceptible to disease, and why so few domesticated crops came from the Americas (compared to Eurasia) and were wide-spread. His arguments are pretty compelling.
One major reason disease ravaged the Americas when Eurasians came over is because so many diseases evolved in contact between humans and their livestock that the lack of significant livestock left the Americans relatively under-protected from disease.
As far as European diseases ravaging Asia or Asian diseases ravaging Europe, there are undoubtedly some both ways. But because they are a single land mass, the distinction is largely useless. If a disease evolved in one area, the other was certain to get it in a matter of a few centuries, just as they were likely to share crop and livestock breeds.

 

[silentspace]

Voadam and Thornir, I think you guys are both missing the point.

The Black Plague came from Asia in the same way that AIDS came from Africa. They are diseases that were previously unknown in the world and that devastated all humans they came into contact with. Sure, you can argue that Asians carried the Black Plague and Africans carried AIDS, but its different because they were also subject to it. They are not carrying diseases that they themselves are immune to, while at the same time carrying on a mission of colonization.

Saying that smallpox was known in Asia and India (which happens to be in Asia) 3000 years ago is a nice bit of trivia, but has no bearing on the theory that the diseases that the Europeans bore with them was a major factor in the success of European Imperialism, as there was no European Imperialism 3000 years ago.

This isn't my theory, and I don't claim to be an expert in it. If you're interested, I'm sure a quick search on the web or on Amazon will come up with lots of reading material, and will be able to present the theory much better than me. As stated above, basically the theory is that Europeans, due to their culture (specifically living in close proximity, often in the same structures, as cows, pigs, and other domesticated animals), were carriers of diseases that helped them in their colonization efforts, all over the globe.

 

[LostSoul]

Guns, Germs & Steel.

There were more suitable species in Eurasia for domestication. The horse, goat, sheep, I think. The pig and chicken, if I'm not mistaken, came from China.

There's the North-South axis, which makes it more difficult for technologies (including domestication of plants and animals) to travel North-South rather than East-West. Because the climate varies much more North-South. That's why Europeans had a hard time in sub-Saharan Africa and the tropics in Asia, coming from a temperate climate.

If, in D&D, there were no horses, I don't think you'd have any Mounted Combat Feats . People would get animal protein from dogs, chickens, sheep, goats, and fish. Probaby some rodents too.

I think armies would have heavy and light infantry, with lots of dogs of war and specialized groups of fast runners. There might be a spell that enables people to Hustle overland for long periods of time.

Halflings (and Gnomes) would probably have a large empire because they can ride dogs. That might give them an edge in mobility and moving information from town to town (the greyhound express). Although if you had enough Wizards, you might be able to set up some kind of telegraph system with Whispering Wind.

 

[Pielorinho]

re: disease, that was a factor I was thinking of as well: you could give a -4 penalty to saving throws vs. disease.

Daniel

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Voadam and Thornir, I think you guys are both missing the point.

The Black Plague came from Asia in the same way that AIDS came from Africa. They are diseases that were previously unknown in the world and that devastated all humans they came into contact with. Sure, you can argue that Asians carried the Black Plague and Africans carried AIDS, but its different because they were also subject to it. They are not carrying diseases that they themselves are immune to, while at the same time carrying on a mission of colonization.

Saying that smallpox was known in Asia and India (which happens to be in Asia) 3000 years ago is a nice bit of trivia, but has no bearing on the theory that the diseases that the Europeans bore with them was a major factor in the success of European Imperialism, as there was no European Imperialism 3000 years ago.

This isn't my theory, and I don't claim to be an expert in it. If you're interested, I'm sure a quick search on the web or on Amazon will come up with lots of reading material, and will be able to present the theory much better than me. As stated above, basically the theory is that Europeans, due to their culture (specifically living in close proximity, often in the same structures, as cows, pigs, and other domesticated animals), were carriers of diseases that helped them in their colonization efforts, all over the globe.

Well, I think we are looking at different points. What I got from the theory you posted was that the diseases that decimated the Americas and made it possible for them to conquer were zoonotic infections that were a result of the European's close contact with domesticated animals. What Voadam and I were arguing, was that the European domesticated animal had little to do with the spread of disease. The diseases mostly started in other parts of the world and became epidemics in Europe because of urbanization, a tremendous factor, but not because of the proximity to their animals, but instead because of the issues of unsanitary water and sewage (admittedly the animals contributed to this), and the close proximity of people for transmitting disease from one to another. It's well known that smallpox was a factor in the colonization of the Americas, but I'm not making the domesticated animal connection to all this. Yes, Jenner's milkmaids usually got a lesser form of the disease because of their exposure to cowpox, but that was not a widespread immunity across Europe, smallpox was still a deadly disease to the majority of Europeans as well.

And I would contend disease had nothing to do with the European Imperialism of Asia.

 

[silentspace]

Plows aren't much of an advantage without draft animals or tractors. There are human-driven plows of course, but even with steel shares, from personal experience, I know they're just slightly better than useless, especially if you have to break sod. The basic idea of dragging a stick through the dirt isn't too hard to come up with anyway. Getting a 500 pound animal to drag the stick is the important part.

Aside from that, agriculture was one of the few New World technologies which was comparable and sometimes even superior to that of the Old World. The rapid and deep penetration of New World crops into the Old World is ample evidence, along with the fumbling early history of European settlement.

In a fantasy world, you'd just just magic self-pulling plows though.

Sure, the idea of dragging a stick through dirt might not be too hard to come up with, but perhaps the real question is why would you want to drag a stick through dirt? One reason is to kill all the other plants, so that your crops have no competition. You point out that New World crops have become very successful. Two of the most popular ones in the West, potatos and corn, are extremely durable crops. I'm sure plowing fields makes them grow even better, but as the native Americans have shown, you don't need to plow for them to grow. I'm not a farmer, but I would guess that wheat and rice, for example, would be harder to grow in a jungle without plowing the fields first.

There's a movement in Landscape Architecture to create more natural, sustainable landscapes, which are landscapes that don't require as much water, care, and maintenance. Native American farms probably fit that bill.