Why have Africa and the Americas never historically been at the core of human civilization?

1, how strong is it now, only someone has the ability to brag about how strong their ancestors are, Europe and the United States are first-class strong, blowing the most ruthless, blowing so that the whole world knows his history, the mainland is worse than Europe and the United States combined, and it can also be blown, and others will know the history of their ancestors.

2. The most magical point is that the ancestors of horses originated in the Americas, and the horses that entered Eurasia through the Bering Strait land bridge have multiplied to various regions outside the Americas, including zebras, and the horses in the Americas have become extinct, and now all horses in the Americas are brought by European colonists.

3. I have read a sentence in the British Museum's Brief History of the World: "The probability of success in domesticating animals is not much higher than winning the billion lottery jackpot, and the Eurasian continent is lucky to win the lottery, while the Americas and Africa do not." "I've always thought so.

4. First of all, the basic conditions, just like North America, they have no horses there, that is, it is difficult to form nomadic tribes. Basically, Eurasia (Northern) Africa grew up in the ravages of cavalry, such as China in successive dynasties, as well as the invasion of the Huns in Europe. It can be said that the anti-aggression war can speed up the growth of civilization to a great extent, but the natural conditions in the Americas are superior, and everyone has a piece of land for several hundred years, so why should they fight when they are all well fed? In addition, there are no metal minerals to make weapons, and there are highly mobile horses, and so on, the conditions for the Indians to fight are very limited, so in the aspect of foreign aggression, the Indians are congenitally insufficient, and even the precious horses are sold to the Indians by the colonists. And then there was the collapse of the "empire", since the entertainment conditions were so scarce before, and we Indians didn't fight, so what are we doing? Religion, the reason why the Indians' technology tree is very biased, is that they basically can't start wars. For thousands of years, people did not know soldiers. In their writing, even if there is three-dimensional writing (that is, three-dimensional writing), their astrology is also very advanced, and in the absence of telescopes, they can compete with the rapid development of astrology in Europe. It stands to reason that no matter how powerful the colonizers are, there are not many of them, so why were they wiped out in a short incident? Mainly because of the benevolent and naïve character of their monarchs, and the meanness of the European colonists. The monarch of Aztec personally invited the Spanish colonists to meet him, but he was kidnapped by the despicable Spaniards, and after getting the ransom he wanted, he still brutally killed the monarch of Aztect. The Inca Empire in South America was similar, but after the death of the emperor, the high priests led the army, but because the colonists deceived the other natives, the Inca Empire was outnumbered, and the invaders ate the other natives one by one. The two empires of North and South America were destroyed. It is worth mentioning that there is a powerful tribe in today's Chile (the mountains of western South America), because it is full of vigilance against the European invaders, and has not been completely defeated, has been fighting against the invaders, and has a strong learning ability, and in a short time trained cavalry and musketeers. It is still a nation in Chile, and it is not on the verge of extinction like other Indians. To sum it up simply: "Without horses, are you going to let me ride an alpaca?"

5. The overall system of horses is not good, especially the digestive system. It's not as good as other large objects. Extinction is normal. Early extinction if there is no human need.

6. Guns, bacteria and steel have been talked about, this seems to be related to the difference between the horizontal continent and the vertical continent, the latitude of the horizontal continent is about the same, the spread of species and the exchange of civilizations are more convenient, the vertical continent is too different from the north and the south, and even the corn from Mexico has been used for thousands of years to spread to the United States, I remember the author also said that even if human history comes again, the center of world civilization is likely to say Asia and Europe.

7. Africa has the Sahara Desert blocking communication with Europe and Asia. The Americas are Mesoamerica, with dense forests and deserts blocking north-south communications. And the Americas as a whole is an island, and there is no advanced technology coming in, so it cannot develop.

8. It's not that I'm good When I was a child and studied history in junior high school, the history teacher emphasized many times that the four ancient civilizations Ancient India, ancient Babylon, ancient Egypt, and China Because the other three have been broken, you can add ancient China is a civilization that has been handed down from ancient times to the present.

9. This is compiled by Liang Qichao, who defined many words and meanings in later generations, as well as redefined the ancients. That is, the so-called Big Four, Liang himself said it first, there is no other research to corroborate, and he has not gone to the scientific examination. and Wang Anshi also pushed it again, because he wanted to change the law.

10. Horizontal investigation of all parts of the world, the places that can produce civilization meet the following conditions: the environment must have a certain superiority, can feed a large number of people, in order to achieve a complex social division of labor, but not too superior, must be through a certain amount of labor to obtain enough food, the pressure of survival will promote people to think and sum up experience, and develop a high degree of civilization. The places that meet these conditions are basically concentrated near the 30th parallel of the northern hemisphere. The relative abundance of heat at this latitude, the fact that agriculture can develop on a large scale and feed a large enough population, but not as much as the tropical sun, and that there must be ways to improve agriculture and develop handicrafts, has contributed to the formation of a high degree of civilization. However, due to the relative scarcity of land in the Southern Hemisphere, there are only two large areas of land at the 30th parallel, South America and Australia. Due to the large area of primeval rainforest in South America, the local people do not have enough ability to develop and utilize, so they basically live on the mountains on the edge of the rainforest, and the small place of residence restricts the development of the population, and because of the diversity of species in the rainforest, the local people do not need to work hard to obtain a lot of food, so the civilization lacks the momentum of development, and the development is very slow compared to the civilization of the northern hemisphere. However, due to the seaside mountains blocking the transport of ocean moisture, Australia's habitable zone is only a small and narrow area by the sea, and there is not enough place to accommodate the population and no sufficient food source, so there are only primitive aborigines and have not been able to develop civilization.

11. By the way, if you use this law to investigate the Aegean civilization (ancient Greece), you will find it Although it is located near 30 degrees north latitude, it does not have enough land to accommodate a large number of people, nor enough arable land for cultivation, and according to the results of ancient Greek culture that are now internationally recognized, both a complex philosophical system (Aristotelian philosophy) and a highly developed formal logic (Archimedes' geometry) should have arisen from a civilization with a high social division of labor, which necessarily meant a large number of people and a large supply of food. Therefore, I personally believe that the ancient Aegean Sea may have been inhabited by humans, but its cultural achievements should have been transmitted from the nearby Lianghe River basin or the Nile River basin, and are not its original achievements.