Here, you may place your requests for the Monthly questions!
Okay, I've got one - according to Jared Diamond's book Gun, Germs and Steel, the reason Eurasian powers dominated the world wasn't completely due to cultural reasons, but also because of the shape of the European/Asian supercontinent. It's east-west orientation meant the entire continent covered a very narrow area from north to south, so climate was relatively constant across the whole area, allowing crops and farming technology to spread more easily.
In the Americas, on the other hand, civilization never reached the point of Eurasian sophistication because civilization existed in small pockets where each crop could grow. Mesoamerican farmers weren't willing to meet the Anasazi because their staple foods, including maize, couldn't grow in the future American southwest. Therefore, ideas couldn't be shares, cultures didn't mingle and compete with each other and most American cultures never progressed beyond the Bronze Age, if they even adopted agriculture at all.
Granted, it's just a theory, but it's an interesting one. My question is this - if the Americas were oriented east-west instead of north-south, do you think that American civilizations could've dominated the world instead of Eurasian ones?