Why Didn't China Colonize the World? A Review of Guns, Germs, and Steel
When I first started reading Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond, I expected a book that would explain the rise of European power in a historical sense. I did not expect it to make me rethink how geography could quietly shape entire civilizations. Diamond’s central idea is not about who worked harder or who was smarter. Instead, he argues that the success of any society is mostly based on geography, available resources, and exposure to disease. This is a book that does not look to personal genius or cultural superiority. Instead, it looks at the land, the crops, and the animals.
One of the most interesting parts of the book is the section about Asia, especially China. The story of China is often told as one of early brilliance and later stagnation. Diamond does not simply repeat that story. He tries to explain why it happened, and his answer starts with geography.
China has a wide and fairly uniform landscape. Large rivers like the Yangtze and the Yellow River made it easy for people to move and communicate. That might sound like a good thing, and in many ways it was. It allowed early farmers to spread rice cultivation. It helped build a strong and unified government. But Diamond argues that this unity became a problem later. When one emperor or ruler decided against a new invention or policy, the entire region followed. There were fewer rival states competing with each other. That meant fewer chances for new ideas to survive if they were unpopular with the ruler.
In contrast, Europe had many natural barriers. Mountains, rivers, and coastlines made it difficult to unite. As a result, Europe stayed politically divided. According to Diamond, this created a space for innovation. If one country rejected a new idea, another might adopt it. Political competition became a tool for progress. In this way, Europe's fractured geography became an advantage, while China's unity became a form of risk.
This point made me think about how we often assume progress is about brilliance. But Diamond wants us to see something else. He writes about how societies that domesticated animals like cows, pigs, and sheep gained early advantages. They had access to meat, milk, and most importantly, germs. These germs led to diseases that spread through human populations. Over time, survivors developed immunity. When Europeans later traveled to the Americas or the Pacific, their germs caused massive death. It was not a conscious weapon, but it was effective. Diamond does not celebrate this. He explains it with careful detail and a serious tone.
In Asia, the role of agriculture is also key. Rice farming supported dense populations. This allowed for the rise of cities and early governments. But Diamond points out that once a society reaches a certain level of comfort and order, it may become more resistant to change. China had invented paper, printing, the compass, and gunpowder long before Europe. Yet it was Europe that used these tools for global exploration and conquest. Diamond argues this was not because of a lack of intelligence or creativity in China. It was because Europe had a geography that rewarded risk and variety.
Japan, too, appears in the Asian section. Because it is an island, Japan had more control over its culture. It borrowed heavily from China but kept many of its own traditions. It remained isolated at key moments in history. This allowed Japan to avoid some European influence, but it also meant it joined global trade and war later. Korea, located between China and Japan, was more vulnerable to invasion and influence. Like Japan, it took much from Chinese civilization, but its path was shaped by its location and its neighbors.
What I found compelling in Diamond’s writing is how he never blames or praises any group unfairly. He constantly returns to the idea that geography creates opportunity or limitation. He does not say that Europeans won history because they were better. He says they had wheat, horses, steel, and disease. They also had competition, which helped push them forward.
Some people might find Diamond’s ideas too broad. He does not spend much time on individual leaders or specific wars. He does not dive deeply into art, religion, or philosophy. His focus is structural. He wants to understand the large patterns behind why some societies grew quickly while others stayed the same. This might feel cold or mechanical at times, but it is also honest. It forces the reader to ask difficult questions about luck, chance, and location.
One critique I have is that Diamond can repeat his ideas. At times, it feels like he is making the same point again in a different place. Also, while his writing is clear, it sometimes moves slowly. He uses many examples to support his arguments. Some readers might prefer a shorter or more focused version of this book.
That said, Guns, Germs, and Steel is a valuable read. It does not follow the usual style of historical storytelling. It connects farming, animals, disease, and geography in a wide, careful frame. The section on Asia shows how early advantages can turn into later limits. It makes us question our usual ideas about success and progress.
The final message is not that Europe was destined to rule or that Asia failed. It is that environment matters more than we think. Geography is not destiny, but it is a powerful force. Diamond teaches us to see beyond modern borders and into the roots of power, struggle, and survival. For anyone curious about how the past still shapes the present, this book offers a thoughtful and grounded answer.
