Book of the week: Guns, Germs, and Steel
I. Why Did Some Civilisations Advance While Others Fell Behind?
Imagine standing at the dawn of human civilisation—13,000 years ago. Across the world, small bands of hunter-gatherers roam, surviving off the land. Fast forward to modern history—some societies built empires, while others remained in subsistence economies.
Why? Was it superior intelligence? Hard work? Or something else entirely?
Jared Diamond, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs, and Steel, argues that geography, environment, and sheer luck—not genetics or culture—determined the rise of dominant civilisations. Through agriculture, disease, and technology, Diamond rethinks why power shifted across societies.
This essay explores his core arguments using Socratic inquiry to analyse the patterns of history, the role of environmental determinism, and whether individuals can ever defy historical momentum.
II. How Much of Civilisation’s Success Was Really in Human Hands?
Diamond’s thesis is simple yet revolutionary: the fate of human societies was shaped not by intelligence or willpower, but by location. Eurasian civilisations had access to the best starting conditions—abundant domesticable plants and animals, favourable geography, and early exposure to disease resistance.
The Fertile Crescent (modern-day Middle East) had wild wheat, barley, and large mammals like cows and sheep—ideal for domestication (Diamond, 1997). The result? Early agriculture, surplus food, population growth, and rapid technological advancement.
Contrast this with Australia or sub-Saharan Africa, where few domesticable plants or animals existed. Societies in these regions remained reliant on hunting and foraging for much longer, delaying large-scale agricultural and technological development.
If resources shape progress, was societal success ever a fair competition?
III. How Did Geography Give Some a Head Start in Farming?
Agriculture is often seen as humanity’s great leap forward, but not all farming was equally beneficial. Eurasia’s east-west axis meant crops, animals, and innovations could spread easily across similar climates (Diamond, 1997).
In contrast, Africa and the Americas stretched north-south, crossing extreme climates—tropical rainforests, deserts, and mountain ranges. This slowed agricultural diffusion. A crop that thrived in Mesopotamia could spread to Europe and China with minimal adaptation. But crops domesticated in Mexico struggled in Canada’s colder climate or the Amazon’s humidity.
This geographical challenge meant that agricultural progress in certain regions was inherently slower—not due to a lack of innovation, but because of environmental barriers.
IV. Did Europeans Win History—Or Did They Just Survive It?
European expansion wasn’t just about conquest—it was carried by three silent forces: guns, germs, and steel.
Guns: The Advantage You Can See
Firearms changed the nature of warfare. Muskets, cannons, and warships gave European conquerors a tactical edge. But having guns alone didn’t guarantee victory—they required supply chains, skilled warriors, and economic systems that sustained innovation (Diamond, 1997).
Europe didn’t just make guns—it sustained technological momentum through mass production and trade.
Germs: The Unseen Killers
History’s greatest weapon wasn’t forged in steel—it was bred in the human body. Smallpox, measles, influenza—these diseases arrived in the Americas before most European soldiers ever did. By the time Spanish forces set foot in the Aztec and Incan empires, disease had already decimated up to 90% of the indigenous population (Diamond, 1997).
Why were Europeans largely immune? Livestock. The long history of animal domestication in Eurasia exposed people to zoonotic diseases for centuries. Survivors passed down immunity. Native Americans, having never encountered these diseases, faced near-total collapse before a battle could even take place.
Steel: The Infrastructure of Civilisation
Beyond guns and germs, Europe’s greatest advantage was its ability to organise, expand, and innovate on a massive scale. Steel wasn’t just about swords and armour—it represented a whole technological system that allowed Eurasian societies to build cities, sustain economies, and manage empires.
Writing played a crucial role here. Unlike common belief, the earliest writing systems weren’t used for poetry or philosophy—they were used for tax records and trade documentation. The Sumerians developed cuneiform to track food stores, debts, and legal matters (Schmandt-Besserat, 1992). Writing allowed rulers to control resources, enforce laws, and coordinate military strategies across vast distances.
So, Did Europeans Win History?
Europeans didn’t necessarily win history through intelligence or military brilliance. They survived it—they adapted early, developed resistance to deadly diseases, and benefited from thousands of years of technological momentum.
If guns, germs, and steel determined the fate of empires, then the real question is: How much of history was ever in human control?
V. If Writing Was a Civilisational Advantage, Why Did Some Societies Never Develop It?
Writing didn’t emerge as a tool for storytelling—it was born out of necessity. The earliest writing systems, such as cuneiform in Mesopotamia (circa 3100 BCE), were designed for accounting and administration (Oppenheim, 1964). Kings and rulers needed to track grain storage, taxation, and trade—not compose literature (Schmandt-Besserat, 1992).
Why Did Some Societies Never Develop Writing?
Surplus food allowed writing to flourish; survival-focused societies couldn’t afford scribes. Without stable agriculture and administration, there was no need for record-keeping.
This created an intellectual compounding effect: the more knowledge a society recorded, the faster its innovation accelerated.
If written language was one of history’s greatest advantages, what does that mean for cultures that never developed writing systems at all?
VI. If History Is Luck, Do Individuals Still Shape It?
Jared Diamond’s argument is persuasive—civilisations didn’t rise or fall because of genius or willpower but because of geographical fortune. Yet, this raises an uncomfortable question:
If history is predetermined by location and resources, do individuals really matter?
Do Great Leaders Shape History, or Does History Shape Them?
Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon reshaped history—but would they have risen in different times and places?
Khan didn’t create the Mongol horse or the vast steppe that enabled his army’s mobility. Napoleon was a military genius, but without post-Revolutionary France’s instability, he might never have seized power.
Even the most powerful individuals can only work within the conditions history gives them. No leader has ever truly defied geography.
Can Economic and Technological Systems Overcome History’s Bias?
If geography shaped history, can modern economic systems override historical disadvantages?
Some argue that globalisation, trade, and technology have reduced geography’s impact. Countries once limited by their environment—like Singapore or South Korea—have transformed into economic powerhouses. But others, such as landlocked nations in Africa, still struggle with the same geographical disadvantages that limited their development centuries ago.
Diamond suggests that past inequality doesn’t just disappear—it compounds. The wealth and power that emerged from Eurasia’s early advantages still affect global economics today.
If that’s true, how much of the modern world is still shaped by history’s original winners?
VII. If You Were Born in Another Place, Who Would You Be?
Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel challenges the traditional view that some civilisations succeeded due to superior intellect or culture. Instead, geography, environment, and biological luck created the conditions for European dominance.
This reshapes our understanding of history:
The winners were not necessarily the smartest or the hardest-working—they were simply in the right place, at the right time, with the right resources. Global inequality, then, is not just about personal ambition—it is the cumulative result of history’s starting positions.
Yet, throughout history, this idea has been distorted. Rather than recognising the role of geography and chance, some have sought to justify inequality through pseudoscientific theories of racial superiority—leading to the atrocities of eugenics. The belief that some people were biologically destined to rule, while others were meant to serve or perish, ignored the structural and environmental forces that shaped history.
If Diamond’s argument dismantles these dangerous myths, it forces us to ask: How many of our present inequalities are still rooted in misconceptions about human potential?
And if geography dictated history, then how much of our own lives are shaped by forces we cannot control?
References
Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. W.W. Norton & Company.
Oppenheim, A. L. (1964). Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a dead civilization. University of Chicago Press.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1992). Before writing: From counting to cuneiform. University of Texas Press.