NationStates Jolt Archive

No, this is not a thread insulting or demeaning Europeans, suprise suprise :P

Looking over history, one might note that througout the course of Europes interactions with other powers, the Ottomans, Chinese, Aztecs, Incans, etc., Europeans have this knack for winning, which of course explains why English, French and Spanish are some of the most widely spoken languages on the planet (after Chinse of course, but the Chinese cheated by having an uber-huge population :P).
Of course, this all starts with Europe just happening to be in a prime position for world dominance, plenty of natural resources, a mild climate, and so on. Lots of metals and such. Of course, other places have similar resources, but few have as MANY. If you look at South America, and imagine the Incans getting their hands on lots of hard metals and the proper types of wood, I honestly think we could all be speaking Quechua at this point. But they didnt.
So, the Europeans get a point for resources, which in turn leads them to superior military technology, although China led up until about the 17th century or so, the Qings suddenly lost interest in being a power and decided that they were better than everybody else, so they could just sit back and relax for a few hundred years.
And this 'luck' doesnt only extend to technology and resources, if you look at various events in European history, they seem to have a good deal of luck there as well. Lepanto for example. If the Venetian armoury didnt explode, would the Ottomans have caught up in terms of technology to the Europeans? Maybe learned from the can of whoop-ass the Portugese opened on them in the Indian Ocean sixty years earlier? Perhaps...nations take a long time to do things sometimes.
Looking at the conquest of the New World, Cortez and the other Conquistadors and explorers NEARLY died or were captured hundreds of times, Cortez escaped death by the skin of his teeth on at least two occasions that I know, both times through luck. The Conquistadors also just HAPPENED to arrive in the Incan Empire shortly after a huge civil war. If they had come earlier or later, the result may have been a much different world map, even if the Incans hadnt been able to stand up to the Spanish, the Spanish would have been forced to expend much more in the way of resources to take the Incan Empire (especially if they hadnt been able to capture the Sapa Inca like they did), or would have been forced to simply go home.

So, does anybody else have an opinion on this subject? Some views on 'European luck'? Western European luck, anyway. People east of Germany seem to have a rough time of it, even when they manage to build up a respectable power base.

Read Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It explains all of your questions, and more.

I think that it is more natural talent than luck. Europeans and of course, the European offshoot, America, have built the most technology, military, culture, and democracy in the history of the World in much less time than other civilizations have languished in the darkness.

Read Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It explains all of your questions, and more.

That was exactly my suggestion too.

I think that it is more natural talent than luck. Europeans and of course, the European offshoot, America, have built the most technology, military, culture, and democracy in the history of the World in much less time than other civilizations have languished in the darkness.

Yes, because we're just naturally superior to those people in other countries. Right...

Yes, because we're just naturally superior to those people in other countries. Right...

Well look at any other civilization and where they are right now vs. how much time they have had to advance. The facts speak for themselves.

I think that it is more natural talent than luck. Europeans and of course, the European offshoot, America, have built the most technology, military, culture, and democracy in the history of the World in much less time than other civilizations have languished in the darkness.

It's circs. Read GGS.

Well look at any other civilization and where they are right now vs. how much time they have had to advance. The facts speak for themselves.

No one had Europe's advantages except Europe. It's complex and geographical, and Asia certainly got a long ways, they just had a few endgame issues.

No one had Europe's advantages except Europe. It's complex and geographical, and Asia certainly got a long ways, they just had a few endgame issues.

The middle east and asia have both had as good of a shot as the USA and Europe but somthing went wrong in their execution of development. Africa never got off the ground, for obvious reasons.

The middle east and asia have both had as good of a shot as the USA and Europe but somthing went wrong in their execution of development. Africa never got off the ground, for obvious reasons.

Middle East was at the right place, but with next to none of the right resources. Asia was either too united or too divided.

Middle East was at the right place, but with next to none of the right resources. Asia was either too united or too divided.

Oil? Asian culture let the asians down. Europe and the USA always seem to come out on top, and I do not believe in luck.

No one had Europe's advantages except Europe. It's complex and geographical, and Asia certainly got a long ways, they just had a few endgame issues.
Long winters etc? (not serious) India isn't complex and geographical?
Why Middle East isn't as successful?

They were. Just like Chinese and many others before.

Oil? Asian culture let the asians down. Europe and the USA always seem to come out on top, and I do not believe in luck.

Culture? Hardly. Culture in this case is merely a function of deeper geographical issues. Like I said, read GGS.

Middle East was at the right place, but with next to none of the right resources. Asia was either too united or too divided.
What you mean by right resources?

Culture? Hardly. Culture in this case is merely a function of deeper geographical issues. Like I said, read GGS.

I don't buy that at all. Look at the difference between the culture of one place in two different time periods.

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It explains all of your questions, and more.

Seconded.

His argument in a nutshell:

1) Eurasia had a larger population of domesticatable flora and fauna. Africa, the Americas, and Australia did not, for various reasons.

2) Eurasia developed agriculture faster because of 1. That lead to both industrialisation and both disease resistance and a large reservoir of highly contageous diseases.

3) China (and by default Asia) was held back by the large unitary central government that developed because of the lack of barriers present in Europe (various mountain ranges and water barriers), and ended up discouraging or quashing rapid techological advance.

4) Eurasia has longitudinaly oriented axis and lack of serious climate barriers allowed for easy spread of technology. Africa and the Americas' latitudinally oriented axis made the spread of technology, especially agricultural technology, difficult.

The theory and it's criticisms are fairly well laid out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

Long winters etc? (not serious) India isn't complex and geographical?
Why Middle East isn't as successful?

They were. Just like Chinese and many others before.

Certain stages require certain stuff. Europe, unlike the Middle East, has pretty good room for agriculture. (The Fertile Crescent ran out pretty early)

India had a lot, but I would argue it was too far south to allow for a lot of early crops, and thus didn't develop the trade relations it might've. Like how Alexander, Genghis Khan, etc, had to stop there. There are likely other reasons.

Again, Europe's current state versus the other biggies (China, Middle East) has a lot to do with more subtle issues.

I think that it is more natural talent than luck. Europeans and of course, the European offshoot, America, have built the most technology, military, culture, and democracy in the history of the World in much less time than other civilizations have languished in the darkness.

you cant say that...that is rascist...that would imply an anglophile superiority,whilst anglos have advanced the world in so many respects...culturally to mention one aspect...that would shortchange what africa and the middle east have contributed..and they have in vast amounts..think pyramids...

i was joking about the rascist thing,nothing wrong with being proud...but to think we are the only creative folk on the block is foolish.

I think that it is more natural talent than luck. Europeans and of course, the European offshoot, America, have built the most technology, military, culture, and democracy in the history of the World in much less time than other civilizations have languished in the darkness.

Nope. As others have said, go read GGS.

I don't buy that at all. Look at the difference between the culture of one place in two different time periods.

In this case. China's unitary culture is a result of its unitary geography, which stops it from splintering into a bunch of nations.

What you mean by right resources?
Fertile land in this case.

you cant say that...that is rascist...that would imply an anglophile superiority,whilst anglos have advanced the world in so many respects...culturally to mention one aspect...that would shortchange what africa and the middle east have contributed..and they have in vast amounts..think pyramids...

i was joking about the rascist thing,nothing wrong with being proud...but to think we are the only creative folk on the block is foolish.

I do not consider myself a racist, and I hope that you do not. I do not hate anybody, and have a great appreciation for other races and cultures. I studies abroad in China and had a long relationship with a hispanic. But look, the fact cannot be denied that whites in Europe advanced culture, economics, science, and themselves much further than any other region in the World, when, in fact, as a civilization, they have, in many cases, not been around for as long. Africa seems to have had leaps and bounds and then stagnated. Asia seems to have a hit a poverty roadblock. The middle east is endlessly inflamed in ruthless barbarism. There are many excuses for why things went the way they did. But the chips have fallen and the industrial revolution spelled out the final word on the matter.

In this case. China's unitary culture is a result of its unitary geography, which stops it from splintering into a bunch of nations.

well out of personal experience I can tell you...China does not have unitary geography.

well out of personal experience I can tell you...China does not have unitary geography.

Not necessarily the same climate, etc, but with less physical barriers, especially east of the deserts and tibet. Easier for one government to conquer, which is why China for much of its history had one government.

Not necessarily the same climate, etc, but with less physical barriers, especially east of the deserts and tibet. Easier for one government to conquer, which is why China for much of its history had one government.

True. Very true. But I can't see what that has to do with their failure to develope into a world power by 1900. or their failure to surpass America's GNP when they have more than 3 times as many people and a trade surplus.

Not necessarily the same climate, etc, but with less physical barriers, especially east of the deserts and tibet. Easier for one government to conquer, which is why China for much of its history had one government.

That's one bit of GGS I never found all that convincing. Rome was able to take and hold a lot of europe for a long time. Had Augustus not fouled up, maybe it would even have had more.

China was not some monolithic entity for 2500 years either. The boundaries changed, and there were things like the Northern and the Southern Kingdoms as late 10th century.

I don't think the argument can be made that it was purely or even mostly geography. I think just luck in the way things turned out, and the way the roman empire collapsed - into lots of culturally isolated groups after sucessive waves of immigration - played a large part too.

Guns, Germs, and Steel.


as suggested by many others. Great read and pretty informative.

In this case. China's unitary culture is a result of its unitary geography, which stops it from splintering into a bunch of nations.

well out of personal experience I can tell you...China does not have unitary geography.

Not necessarily the same climate, etc, but with less physical barriers, especially east of the deserts and tibet. Easier for one government to conquer, which is why China for much of its history had one government.

Exactly so. See point 3 of my post above.

To expand, Europe has many mountain ranges that are not easily crossed. It also is made up of heavily indented peninsulas. These prevented a unitary government from forming and encouraged competion. China's lack of such barriers, particularly in the Chinese heartland, allowed for a unitary central government which tended to be conservative and quashed innovation (Zheng He's expeditions, for example).

I think that the specific culture of a country determines its fate. Culture is, indeed, bound the the civilization, which is bound to the land. But in many cases, culture's of prosperous nations have imploded. In many cases development and progress have began and then ceased.

True. Very true. But I can't see what that has to do with their failure to develope into a world power by 1900. or their failure to surpass America's GNP when they have more than 3 times as many people and a trade surplus.

See my post above.

Exactly so. See point 3 of my post above.

To expand, Europe has many mountain ranges that are not easily crossed. It also is made up of heavily indented peninsulas. These prevented a unitary government from forming and encouraged competion. China's lack of such barriers, particularly in the Chinese heartland, allowed for a unitary central government which tended to be conservative and quashed innovation (Zheng He's expeditions, for example).

And what of the constant warfare between European powers throughout history? That helped them how?

And what of the constant warfare between European powers throughout history? That helped them how?

Warfare is, was, and will continue to be a major source of technological innovation.

I do not consider myself a racist, and I hope that you do not. I do not hate anybody, and have a great appreciation for other races and cultures. I studies abroad in China and had a long relationship with a hispanic. But look, the fact cannot be denied that whites in Europe advanced culture, economics, science, and themselves much further than any other region in the World, when, in fact, as a civilization, they have, in many cases, not been around for as long. Africa seems to have had leaps and bounds and then stagnated. Asia seems to have a hit a poverty roadblock. The middle east is endlessly inflamed in ruthless barbarism. There are many excuses for why things went the way they did. But the chips have fallen and the industrial revolution spelled out the final word on the matter.

I think your error lies in believing that this moment in time is the deciding instance once and for all.
Europe and North America are successful at this time, and have been for - how long? 5 centuries maybe?
Cultures tend to rise and fall, though. The "European race" wasn't the most culturally developed for most of its history, there were periods (speaking in centuries again) when the Middle East was by far more advanced, both culturally as well as technologically. The same goes for Asia, and South America. Even African cultures were far more advanced than European ones at some stages in history.

The fact that the European/North American culture is the most successful at this very moment doesn't mean that it is inherently superior. It just means that we're going through our Golden Ages now, whereas other cultures had theirs in the past, and will again in the future.

I do not consider myself a racist, and I hope that you do not. I do not hate anybody, and have a great appreciation for other races and cultures. I studies abroad in China and had a long relationship with a hispanic. But look, the fact cannot be denied that whites in Europe advanced culture, economics, science, and themselves much further than any other region in the World, when, in fact, as a civilization, they have, in many cases, not been around for as long. Africa seems to have had leaps and bounds and then stagnated. Asia seems to have a hit a poverty roadblock. The middle east is endlessly inflamed in ruthless barbarism. There are many excuses for why things went the way they did. But the chips have fallen and the industrial revolution spelled out the final word on the matter.
The so called fact that there is such a thing as 'advancing culturally' can indeed be denied. To advance refers to progress or movement forward, which requires either a somewhere one is advancing/progressing to, or away from. There is no universal 'cultural destination' that I am aware of, nor am I aware of a widely accepted 'starting point'.
The fact of the matter is the time that has lapsed since industrialisation is insignificant in terms of cultural longevity. There is already at this very early juncture every sign that the life way of 'anglo-Western modernity' is utterly unsustainable. In all liklihood the culture you refer to as advanced is not even adaptive enough to be considered a 'pass', much less an advance on cultures that have already been demonstrated to be sufficiently adaptive to at least ensure they are not self-doomed by their own inherent unsustainability.

The so called fact that there is such a thing as 'advancing culturally' can indeed be denied. To advance refers to progress or movement forward, which requires either a somewhere one is advancing/progressing to, or away from. There is no univeral 'cultural destination' that I am aware of, nor am I aware of a widely accepted 'starting point'.
The fact of the matter is the time that has lapsed since industrialisation is insignificant in terms of cultural longevity. There is already at this very early juncture every sign that the life way of 'anglo-Western modernity' is utterly unsustainable. In all liklihood the culture you refer to as advanced is not even adaptive enough to be considered a 'pass', much less an advance on cultures that have already been demonstrated to be sufficiently adaptive to at least ensure they are not self-doomed by their own inherent unsustainability.

Wow that is well said. :)

An analogy is like reaching the top of Everest without enough supplies to stay there. Or to return to camp IV safely.

I think your error lies in believing that this moment in time is the deciding instance once and for all.
Europe and North America are successful at this time, and have been for - how long? 5 centuries maybe?
Cultures tend to rise and fall, though. The "European race" wasn't the most culturally developed for most of its history, there were periods (speaking in centuries again) when the Middle East was by far more advanced, both culturally as well as technologically. The same goes for Asia, and South America. Even African cultures were far more advanced than European ones at some stages in history.

The fact that the European/North American culture is the most successful at this very moment doesn't mean that it is inherently superior. It just means that we're going through our Golden Ages now, whereas other cultures had theirs in the past, and will again in the future.

The middle east , asia, and south america were never advanced. They were at one point, further along than europe, but there is no way you are going to call 12th century middle easterners advanced. You know its sort of like how I am required to teach that American Indians were an advanced culture....but compared to what? They had not even invented the wheel and they were in many cases eating each other.

The so called fact that there is such a thing as 'advancing culturally' can indeed be denied. To advance refers to progress or movement forward, which requires either a somewhere one is advancing/progressing to, or away from. There is no universal 'cultural destination' that I am aware of, nor am I aware of a widely accepted 'starting point'.
The fact of the matter is the time that has lapsed since industrialisation is insignificant in terms of cultural longevity. There is already at this very early juncture every sign that the life way of 'anglo-Western modernity' is utterly unsustainable. In all liklihood the culture you refer to as advanced is not even adaptive enough to be considered a 'pass', much less an advance on cultures that have already been demonstrated to be sufficiently adaptive to at least ensure they are not self-doomed by their own inherent unsustainability.

Starting point: tribal savagry
end point: complete cultural revelation
No other culture has ever reached the heights of the European and American culture. Ever.

Starting point: tribal savagry
Savage=Eurocentric term invented to describe peoples whose lifeway was dissimular to Europeans to a particular extent.

end point: complete cultural revelation
Which means what?

No other culture has ever reached the heights of the European and American culture. Ever.
What heights?

Savage=Eurocentric term invented to describe peoples whose lifeway was dissimular to Europeans to a particular extent.

Which means what?


What heights?

Ready......some people eat each other, live in mud cuts, hunt animals for food, subsist with poor agricultural techiniques, and have not made such breakthroughs as the wheel or print. Eurocentrism my ass. All people had to make their way out of savagry and into prosperous modernity. Some failed, gave up, or lost out along the way in the long climb from the swamp to the stars. Europeans, as a race, just happened to be able to do it the best.

The middle east , asia, and south america were never advanced. They were at one point, further along than europe, but there is no way you are going to call 12th century middle easterners advanced. You know its sort of like how I am required to teach that American Indians were an advanced culture....but compared to what? They had not even invented the wheel and they were in many cases eating each other.

And why wouldn't I call him advanced? They were well ahead in medical sience, they had already established ways of navigating the oceans that would take Europe another 3 centuries to figure out, their understanding of mathematics was way beyond anything any European at the time could imagine, and their technological advances made Europe look very, very backwards indeed.

I would assume that a culture that manages to build a system pumping water up to Machu Picchu is very well advanced indeed. That wouldn't be an easy feat even for us today.
The same would go for the pyramids in Middle America.

Starting point: tribal savagry
end point: complete cultural revelation
No other culture has ever reached the heights of the European and American culture. Ever.

True. And in 1200 AD, no culture had ever reached the heights of the Chinese culture. Ever. And then the world moved on...

The middle east , asia, and south america were never advanced. They were at one point, further along than europe, but there is no way you are going to call 12th century middle easterners advanced. You know its sort of like how I am required to teach that American Indians were an advanced culture....but compared to what? They had not even invented the wheel and they were in many cases eating each other.

I just... can't stop... laughing... :p

Sorry it's just that your way of putting it is so... you know.

True. And in 1200 AD, no culture had ever reached the heights of the Chinese culture. Ever. And then the world moved on...

I don't know. Rome was doing pretty well there for a while.

The middle east , asia, and south america were never advanced. They were at one point, further along than europe, but there is no way you are going to call 12th century middle easterners advanced. You know its sort of like how I am required to teach that American Indians were an advanced culture....but compared to what? They had not even invented the wheel and they were in many cases eating each other.

Say what? :confused: I certainly hope the subject you are teaching is not history.... :(

I don't know. Rome was doing pretty well there for a while.

In 1200 Rome was little more than a backwater town, ripe with deseases and religious fanatism, much like the rest of Europe.

The Chinese had, by that time, invented gunpowder, paper banknotes and umbrellas. None of which had been seen anywhere in Europe before.

In 1200 Rome was little more than a backwater town, ripe with deseases and religious fanatism, much like the rest of Europe.

But a thousand years earlier it could have given 12th century china a run for its money.

But a thousand years earlier it could have given 12th century china a run for its money.

Not really... read my updated post again ;)

Not really... read my updated post again ;)

If it's a choice between paper money, gunpowder, and parasols or those huge spa-baths the romans invented, I know where I'm living.

Also, the romans had those big drunken orgy parties. Romans win.

(Don't get me started on pasta ;) )

If it's a choice between paper money, gunpowder, and parasols or those huge spa-baths the romans invented, I know where I'm living.

Also, the romans had those big drunken orgy parties. Romans win.

(Don't get me started on pasta ;) )

I admit I'm not very well informed about the states of Chinese baths in the 13th century... ;)

But considering what the Romans ate during the times of the empire, I'll stick with China, thanks very much. Our Latin teacher once brought a book of Roman recipes to school and we cooked one of those meals... it takes some getting used to.

Oh, and btw, word has it that the Chinese actually invented pasta, and the recipe reached Europe via the Silk Road

Ready......some people eat each other,
Yes, and some of those people are products of 'modernity', so I wont even bother asking you what you imagine your point is...

live in mud cuts,
I take it you mean huts. I see no problem with that.

hunt animals for food,
Aha, and this proves what?

subsist with poor agricultural techiniques,
Mmm, yeah like wiping out the valuable rainforest necessary to ecological stability in order to produce Big Macs.... that doesnt make Westerners savages, merely short-sighted.

and have not made such breakthroughs as the wheel or print.
Right like Europeans who had to 'borrow' print from some other culture that did make that 'breakthrough'....

Eurocentrism my ass. All people had to make their way out of savagry and into prosperous modernity.
You assume that modernity is a desirable thing to make one's way to, modernity is not universally prosperous. Take the effects that industrialisation (and its pollutants) have had on Africa. The fact is it is becoming increasingly evident that global dimming is responsible for the climatic conditions that have resulted in repeated cycles of drought.

Some failed, gave up, or lost out along the way in the long climb from the swamp to the stars. Europeans, as a race, just happened to be able to do it the best.
Your notion that 'modernity' is some kind of universal cultural/techonological destination is utterly flawed. You fail to address the inherent instability and likelihood of unsustainability that characterises this lifeway.

I admit I'm not very well informed about the states of Chinese baths in the 13th century... ;)

But considering what the Romans ate during the times of the empire, I'll stick with China, thanks very much. Our Latin teacher once brought a book of Roman recipes to school and we cooked one of those meals... it takes some getting used to.

Oh, and btw, word has it that the Chinese actually invented pasta, and the recipe reached Europe via the Silk Road

I actually have several books on roman cookery which include authentic recipies. A lot of them are not bad. (Some are positively dire tho'.)

That the chinese invented pasta is an urban legend. Lagana - what we call lasagna - was a favorite of Cicero's apparently. However the romans tended to fry theirs and it was not until the middle ages that cooking it by boiling became common. Really it's not surprising that both the chinese and the romans thought it up independantly when you consider how simple it is.

[QUOTE=Dontgonearthere]...Of course, this all starts with Europe just happening to be in a prime position for world dominance, plenty of natural resources, a mild climate, and so on... QUOTE]

Mild Climate??!!! I'm sitting inside here coz it's been pissing it down with rain for like a whole week -- in August!! I'm sorry, but the British climate is just about bearable in Summer! In winter it causes suicidal thoughts!

Mild Climate??!!! I'm sitting inside here coz it's been pissing it down with rain for like a whole week -- in August!! I'm sorry, but the British climate is just about bearable in Summer! In winter it causes suicidal thoughts!

Meh, I lived in Germany for a couple of years, and the climate there is quite mild. The highest average temp in Frankfurt is 23 and the lowest average low is -3. Here the highest average temp is 28 and the lowest average low is -10. Here it tends to be either really damned hot or really damned cold. In Germany it was generally warm or cool.

Oh, and 5 months out of the year the average low here is below 0.

But considering what the Romans ate during the times of the empire, I'll stick with China, thanks very much. Our Latin teacher once brought a book of Roman recipes to school and we cooked one of those meals... it takes some getting used to.

One word: garum.

Oh, and btw, word has it that the Chinese actually invented pasta, and the recipe reached Europe via the Silk Road

Just to add a bit to WDGann:

Pasta was invented independently in several places, with two of the earliest cultures being the Chinese and Etruscans. AFAIK, it was the Arabs who first boiled dried pasta, which would make them the inventors of pasta as we know it today.

One word: garum.

That's that sauce from rotten fish, isn't it? The memory alone is sickening....



Just to add a bit to WDGann:

Pasta was invented independently in several places, with two of the earliest cultures being the Chinese and Etruscans. AFAIK, it was the Arabs who first boiled dried pasta, which would make them the inventors of pasta as we know it today.

Not to forget that the main ingredient in most modern pasta dishes hails from the American continent. Can you get any more international than Spaghetti Napoli? :D

Meh, I lived in Germany for a couple of years, and the climate there is quite mild. The highest average temp in Frankfurt is 23 and the lowest average low is -3. Here the highest average temp is 28 and the lowest average low is -10. Here it tends to be either really damned hot or really damned cold. In Germany it was generally warm or cool.

Oh, and 5 months out of the year the average low here is below 0.

28?!?!? You poor baby! I wish I could trade your 28 for the average high here in Osaka in August of 32. :::melts:::

That's that sauce from rotten fish, isn't it? The memory alone is sickening....

Indeed it is.

Not to forget that the main ingredient in most modern pasta dishes hails from the American continent. Can you get any more international than Spaghetti Napoli? :D

:D

One word: garum.



Just to add a bit to WDGann:

Pasta was invented independently in several places, with two of the earliest cultures being the Chinese and Etruscans. AFAIK, it was the Arabs who first boiled dried pasta, which would make them the inventors of pasta as we know it today.

Oooh cheers. I did not know that it was the arabs that made the final leap.

I always imagined that garum would be like nuoc mam, or nam pa (sp-?). Neither of which are horrible if used properly. (Well to my mind at any rate, but then I'll eat anything).

Oooh cheers. I did not know that it was the arabs that made the final leap.

I always imagined that garum would be like nuoc mam, or nam pa (sp-?). Neither of which are horrible if used properly. (Well to my mind at any rate, but then I'll eat anything).

Yep. Again, AFAIK, the first recorded boiled dried pasta is 5th C. and was spread around the Med. sea by the Arabs in the 11th and 12th C. (more advanced tech for BG ;)).
Nuoc mam's good, garum I don't know - maybe...

I don't accept that in the slightest. The majority of Europe comprised impenetrable forest until the latter middle ages, and materials were certainly not sufficiently plentiful so as to discourage colonialism, were they?

Indeed, the weather's sodding awful as well. Nice and grey yesterday, and toay; sunshine.

28?!?!? You poor baby! I wish I could trade your 28 for the average high here in Osaka in August of 32. :::melts:::

Yeah, but your lowest average low is 2. That's t-shirt weather.

In 1200 Rome was little more than a backwater town, ripe with deseases and religious fanatism, much like the rest of Europe.

The Chinese had, by that time, invented gunpowder, paper banknotes and umbrellas. None of which had been seen anywhere in Europe before.

yes but the Chinesse wern't using gunpowder to fire pojectiles it may of taken 200 years to reach Europe but within 80 years of it arriving they had to started to use it to knock seven bells out of each other

Well look at any other civilization and where they are right now vs. how much time they have had to advance. The facts speak for themselves.

Go to Shanghai, look around, and start quaking.

yes but the Chinesse wern't using gunpowder to fire pojectiles it may of taken 200 years to reach Europe but within 80 years of it arriving they had to started to use it to knock seven bells out of each other

Oh, really? And who told you that?

The Chinese first used gunpowder in warfare in 904, as incendiary projectiles called "flying fires." Its use was soon expanded to explosive grenades hurled from catapults. The third step was to use gunpowder as a propellant. Its first such use was recorded in 1132 in experiments with mortars consisting of bamboo tubes. Mortars with metal tubes (made of iron or bronze) first appeared in the wars (1268-1279) between the Mongols and the Song Dynasty....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder

Starting point: tribal savagry
end point: complete cultural revelation
No other culture has ever reached the heights of the European and American culture. Ever.

European culture as such is intersting and it could be argued about heights.

But American culture????? I am not too educated about Mexican and Argentinian cultures, but the heights of world, I doubt that. Cuba has developed quite interesting culture, but that's just recently and special conditions. And in North America there is really no culture to speak of (I mean, Mcs and 4th July fireworks??? Or there is some interesting deep culture that I am completely unaware and I am a moron).

I'm still waiting for America coming up with something as the Upanishads or the Tao te Qing.

Oh, really? And who told you that?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder

methinks someone just caught a severe case of PWNT

I believe English is the greatest/most learned language in the world, bigger than either chinese language, outside of English speaking nations people are learning it Chian has 250 million people who are learning it or ill be in the next 10 years India likewise.

Meh, I lived in Germany for a couple of years, and the climate there is quite mild. The highest average temp in Frankfurt is 23 and the lowest average low is -3. Here the highest average temp is 28 and the lowest average low is -10. Here it tends to be either really damned hot or really damned cold. In Germany it was generally warm or cool.

Oh, and 5 months out of the year the average low here is below 0.

Meanwhile, here in sunny Brazil, the temperature stays in a comfort zone - between 20 and 30 centigrade most of the time.

But guess what, this comfort in itself removes an incentive to develop technologies. Why do you want to work at farming and agriculture when there is plenty of wild food to be collected? Why do you want to develop building techniques and engineering when you don't need the shelter and protection from the weather?

Europe was fertile enough and mild enough to allow for people to have some energy left after doing what was needed to survive to think about abstract less immediately essential matters, but it was hard enough and limited enough to motivate people to think about how to be more effective.

...although China led up until about the 17th century or so, the Qings suddenly lost interest in being a power and decided that they were better than everybody else, so they could just sit back and relax for a few hundred years..

The Qing couldn't GET anything done if they tried - the Manchu minority who seized power spent the next 200 years of their rule trying to consolidate their power against the Han race which is 98% of all Chinese.

Starting point: tribal savagry
end point: complete cultural revelation
No other culture has ever reached the heights of the European and American culture. Ever.
As far as I can see, 'Savage' describes a native individual with a system of values, strong family ties, a generally peacefull lifestyle outside the occasional tribal squabble and advanced culture, used by Europeans as an excuse to kill them and take their land, usually. No, this isnt a dig at Europeans, its simply true. To deny it is to deny history.
'Savage' isnt isnt to be confused with 'Heathen', which is used against natives who had large buildings.

The 'Height' of European culture was marching around in funny clothes with huge feathers in their hats smacking each other with halberds. Meanwhile, the Chinese and Middle East were busy inventing things, and the Americans were performing brain surgery until they were so rudely interuppted by the Spanish.
From the history I know, most of the European 'breakthroughs' that brought htem out of the Dark Age came from the Crusades. Think about it, we wouldnt have the word 'sofa' if a bunch of idiots hadnt decided to run off to the Holy Land with a plan along the lines of 'Land, take Jerusalem, debauch, snag some land, get rich.'.

The Qing couldn't GET anything done if they tried - the Manchu minority who seized power spent the next 200 years of their rule trying to consolidate their power against the Han race which is 98% of all Chinese.


Indeed, I still find the Qing rather amusing, especially their reply to the English king (cant remember which one) that they did not require any new technology, but the King was welcome to come to the Chinese court and pay homage to the Emperor.

The only ones they seemed to respect somewhat were the Russians, possibly because they had a few horribly bloody wars :P

Europeans win, because those they are fighting are non eurpeans.:)

Read Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. It explains all of your questions, and more.
just bought it for some reading on holiday... looks good :)

just bought it for some reading on holiday... looks good :)

It is, it is. But have a look at the wiki I linked above to get a head start on the criticisms. ;)

It is, it is. But have a look at the wiki I linked above to get a head start on the criticisms. ;)
oh no, half the fun of reading books like that is to criticise and get angry as you read it :D

But guess what, this comfort in itself removes an incentive to develop technologies. Why do you want to work at farming and agriculture when there is plenty of wild food to be collected? Why do you want to develop building techniques and engineering when you don't need the shelter and protection from the weather?

Europe was fertile enough and mild enough to allow for people to have some energy left after doing what was needed to survive to think about abstract less immediately essential matters, but it was hard enough and limited enough to motivate people to think about how to be more effective.
Very good point.

A very simple example of how climate affects culture. Clock. In north people are very aware of time. We live by the clock. Our climate is so harsh that we (krhm..by "we" I mean my Nordic ancestors) had to finish everything in time. Failure meant death (most likely starving). Explains why most of Finland remained as periphery till 20th century. We are still quite effective althgough technology, globalisation and other things have changed our lives completely. Many of us, mostly elderly people, have serious problems with "mañana-lifestyle". My generation is a bunch of lazy slackers. I guess we're evolving :D

The answers are in Jared Diamond's world-historical masterpiece, Guns Germs and Steel.

Or, perhaps, we could stop refrencing that rather boring (and disputed) book and have a nice debate here, eh? You and the other twelve people who said 'Read guns germs and steel' can leave if you like.

Very good point.

A very simple example of how climate affects culture. Clock. In north people are very aware of time. We live by the clock. Our climate is so harsh that we (krhm..by "we" I mean my Nordic ancestors) had to finish everything in time. Failure meant death (most likely starving). Explains why most of Finland remained as periphery till 20th century. We are still quite effective althgough technology, globalisation and other things have changed our lives completely. Many of us, mostly elderly people, have serious problems with "mañana-lifestyle". My generation is a bunch of lazy slackers. I guess we're evolving :D
Weve STILL got that problem here in Arizona, although for the opposite reason. In summer and for about two months before/after, its nearly impossible to work outside for more than a half hour or so, and even then you need lots of water, considering the temperature can get up to 115 degrees.
And, of course, when it cools off during the monsoon, you get giant downpours which make working even harder due to our lovely clay/dirt topsoil mix which will stick to anything. Walking around with two inches of muck stuck to the bottoms of your shoes is not fun, and the stuff is slippery as hell.

How the natives managed to live here at all amazes me, although Im told the climate was much milder thirty years ago, back when we had water in our rivers :P

Luck of the Europeans? I think Western~European dominance goes back to the Greeks, and relative social/military strengths with their neighbours. The Hellenic societies produced a style of warfare that could dominate their neighbours - high exploitation of existing technology, use of shock, free thought applied to military strategy and tactics etc etc.

The West was directly influenced by the Greeks, but Greek influences also helped shape the Romans, and Christianity, and a variety of other seminal 'western' culture-markers. So, I'd argue that it ultimately goes back to Greek thought on society, and the military strengths it generated.

Or, perhaps, we could stop refrencing that rather boring (and disputed) book and have a nice debate here, eh? You and the other twelve people who said 'Read guns germs and steel' can leave if you like.

Err... a large part of this thread has been devoted to a discussion of the merits of the book. If you want to debate it, do so. Don't just say it's boring and disputed, so go away. That's not debate, it sounds more like "I don't like that book, so everbody quit talking about it" sour grapes.

Luck of the Europeans? I think Western~European dominance goes back to the Greeks, and relative social/military strengths with their neighbours. The Hellenic societies produced a style of warfare that could dominate their neighbours - high exploitation of existing technology, use of shock, free thought applied to military strategy and tactics etc etc.

The West was directly influenced by the Greeks, but Greek influences also helped shape the Romans, and Christianity, and a variety of other seminal 'western' culture-markers. So, I'd argue that it ultimately goes back to Greek thought on society, and the military strengths it generated.

And what was it that led to Greek dominance?

And what was it that led to Greek dominance?

Being able to cover 1500m in full armor at a run. ;)

Being able to cover 1500m in full armor at a run. ;)

And what led to them being able to do that...

Europeans are the first to create actual modern civilization. All other societies fell short of that achievement. I find it absurd how relative most people are when they talk about advancement. In many history coarses that I have taken American Indians were called advanced when they were living in huts without the advent of the wheel or printing press. True advancement came from the Industrial revolution, which is somthing that I don't see Africa going through for at least another 2 centuries.

And what led to them being able to do that...

The hoplite run was an event at the olympic games. But I suppose the ultimate cause is that the greeks had a sufficient agricultural surplus to waste their time with a physical fitness mania.

Yet, there is no real reason why the Persians couldn't have beaten the Greeks at marathon. Even the greeks were well aware of this. Witness the Spartans showing up 'late'.

Europeans had a decent streak of luck in the past millennia, which is the point in time when their cultural advantages (lot's o' conflict) came into focus. For example, Europeans were the only group capable of large-scale states who were not conquered by the Mongols (primarily due to a lucky streak involving the shittiness of the Khan's system of succession), even though they were quite weak when the Khanate was at its peak. Navigable rivers also happened to be big on the European continent, and they were best situated to make the hop to the Americas (espescially North America, which had a similar climate and geography to much of Europe). They also hit the jackpot when it comes to choice of religion. Christianity, espescially western Christianity, found itself mixed with the growing tide of nationalism, and eventually found itself broken, divided and not particularly cohesive. As such, strong strains of individualism were more easily fostered than one would find with several other world religions. These strains of individualism led to the birth of liberalism, and the economic boom that liberal economic policies eventually resulted in. Not only that, but Christianity allowed for the venting through the relatively peaceful act of drinking alcoholic beverages later in the day. When mixed with coffee in the mornings (o' most supreme hangover buster) imported from the Arab world, European philosophy, economy, politics and science was able to go gangbusters. Pleasant climate, espescially following the end of the miniature ice-age, made for good, well watered growing seasons and facilitated the move to cities and industrialization. The strife and competition between European states also drove the engines of invention and industry. If competition was constant, than it was important to be the one making the new discoveries. Technological advancement became rapid. Liberalisation, capitalism and to some extent nationalism, drove these advances throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The nations that were most adaptable and willing to change, were the most successful.

These factors, combined with the traditions, strength and ideas of western antiquity were vital to the growth of western strength that has existed for the past half century. Since then, western ideas have been transmitted, in some form or another, to East and South Asia, and both regions have been making relative gains on the strength of the west since the era of decolonisation.

Europeans are the first to create actual modern civilization. All other societies fell short of that achievement. I find it absurd how relative most people are when they talk about advancement. In many history coarses that I have taken American Indians were called advanced when they were living in huts without the advent of the wheel or printing press. True advancement came from the Industrial revolution, which is somthing that I don't see Africa going through for at least another 2 centuries.

Ain't touching that with a 20' pole....

The hoplite run was an event at the olympic games. But I suppose the ultimate cause is that the greeks had a sufficient agricultural surplus to waste their time with a physical fitness mania.

Yet, there is no real reason why the Persians couldn't have beaten the Greeks at marathon. Even the greeks were well aware of this. Witness the Spartans showing up 'late'.

Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the Greeks (and other Eurasian peoples) have such an agricultural surplus?

Ain't touching that with a 20' pole....



Breaks several PC concepts I know. Its what I do.

Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the Greeks (and other Eurasian peoples) have such an agricultural surplus?
Specialization! Yay!

Europeans had a decent streak of luck in the past millennia, which is the point in time when their cultural advantages (lot's o' conflict) came into focus. For example, Europeans were the only group capable of large-scale states who were not conquered by the Mongols (primarily due to a lucky streak involving the shittiness of the Khan's system of succession), even though they were quite weak when the Khanate was at its peak. Navigable rivers also happened to be big on the European continent, and they were best situated to make the hop to the Americas (espescially North America, which had a similar climate and geography to much of Europe). They also hit the jackpot when it comes to choice of religion. Christianity, espescially western Christianity, found itself mixed with the growing tide of nationalism, and eventually found itself broken, divided and not particularly cohesive. As such, strong strains of individualism were more easily fostered than one would find with several other world religions. These strains of individualism led to the birth of liberalism, and the economic boom that liberal economic policies eventually resulted in. Not only that, but Christianity allowed for the venting through the relatively peaceful act of drinking alcoholic beverages later in the day. When mixed with coffee in the mornings (o' most supreme hangover buster) imported from the Arab world, European philosophy, economy, politics and science was able to go gangbusters. Pleasant climate, espescially following the end of the miniature ice-age, made for good, well watered growing seasons and facilitated the move to cities and industrialization. The strife and competition between European states also drove the engines of invention and industry. If competition was constant, than it was important to be the one making the new discoveries. Technological advancement became rapid. Liberalisation, capitalism and to some extent nationalism, drove these advances throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The nations that were most adaptable and willing to change, were the most successful.

These factors, combined with the traditions, strength and ideas of western antiquity were vital to the growth of western strength that has existed for the past half century. Since then, western ideas have been transmitted, in some form or another, to East and South Asia, and both regions have been making relative gains on the strength of the west since the era of decolonisation.

Add in the earlier (historywise) luck of the availibility of more easily domesticated flora and fauna and the latitudinal axis of Eurasia that I mentioned much earlier, and you've got it pretty much.

Europeans had a decent streak of luck in the past millennia, which is the point in time when their cultural advantages (lot's o' conflict) came into focus. For example, Europeans were the only group capable of large-scale states who were not conquered by the Mongols (primarily due to a lucky streak involving the shittiness of the Khan's system of succession), even though they were quite weak when the Khanate was at its peak. Navigable rivers also happened to be big on the European continent, and they were best situated to make the hop to the Americas (espescially North America, which had a similar climate and geography to much of Europe). They also hit the jackpot when it comes to choice of religion. Christianity, espescially western Christianity, found itself mixed with the growing tide of nationalism, and eventually found itself broken, divided and not particularly cohesive. As such, strong strains of individualism were more easily fostered than one would find with several other world religions. These strains of individualism led to the birth of liberalism, and the economic boom that liberal economic policies eventually resulted in. Not only that, but Christianity allowed for the venting through the relatively peaceful act of drinking alcoholic beverages later in the day. When mixed with coffee in the mornings (o' most supreme hangover buster) imported from the Arab world, European philosophy, economy, politics and science was able to go gangbusters. Pleasant climate, espescially following the end of the miniature ice-age, made for good, well watered growing seasons and facilitated the move to cities and industrialization. The strife and competition between European states also drove the engines of invention and industry. If competition was constant, than it was important to be the one making the new discoveries. Technological advancement became rapid. Liberalisation, capitalism and to some extent nationalism, drove these advances throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The nations that were most adaptable and willing to change, were the most successful.

These factors, combined with the traditions, strength and ideas of western antiquity were vital to the growth of western strength that has existed for the past half century. Since then, western ideas have been transmitted, in some form or another, to East and South Asia, and both regions have been making relative gains on the strength of the west since the era of decolonisation.

There we go :)

However, the 'streak of luck' seems to extend beyond the long term. The incidents in the New World I pointed out, the number of times Cortez and other explorers ALMOST died/were captured/had to leave is quite interesting when you look at it as a whole.
As I said, if Pizzaro hadnt arrived almost EXACTLY when he did, his take over of the Inca Empire would have been very different, he would have met a much larger Incan army (and considering the population of the Incan Empire (10,000,000 in the 1500's!) that is no laughing matter.) Sure, the Spanish could inflict mass casualties, but unlike the Aztecs, the Incans werent overly interested in capturing the average soldier to rip his heart out, and their weapons and tactics were many steps ahead of the Aztecs.
As it is though, he came right in the aftermath of a nasty civil war, and just HAPPENED to meet the Sapa Inca himself.

The whole string of events has little to do with European society or technology, IMO, it seems more like some sort of divine guidance or something, or, if you dont beleive in that sort of thing, luck.
Its like somebody flipping a coin ten times and guessing the right side EVERY time.

Compare the rate of advancement and level of advancement to any other civilization. I do not believe in luck. It was hard work, intellect, and innovation that others lacked. If it was not for European advancement the rest of the World would not have made the meager steps that it has made.

Breaks several PC concepts I know. Its what I do.

More importantly, it breaks with reality. I'd point out where, but your past behaviour indicates you'd ignore it.

Now we're getting somewhere. Why did the Greeks (and other Eurasian peoples) have such an agricultural surplus?

Quite. I've read guns germs and steel. I found it mostly very convincing. Really my quibble is the conclusion that European dominance was an inevitability given the various underlying conditions. I don't see that at all. For example, a persian victory at marathon is entirely possible.

Or Spain could very easily have remained Al Andalus, for example, and the battle to exploit the new world could have ended up with an Islamic faction.

I also don't see that it as inevitable that Europe had to outstrip china or India simply because of geography. Like I said before, the romans managed to unify a great deal of it and a lot of the national boundaries in europe are marked by cultural differences, not geographical ones.

I think pure luck has a lot to do with it.

Add in the earlier (historywise) luck of the availibility of more easily domesticated flora and fauna and the latitudinal axis of Eurasia that I mentioned much earlier, and you've got it pretty much.
Yeah, I was primarily focusing on the recent half millennia of *bam*, but the earlier stuff cannot be forgotten.

More importantly, it breaks with reality. I'd point out where, but your past behaviour indicates you'd ignore it.

Reality: European culture and scientific advancement is more than any other in history or today
Reality: the pitiful progress of others is a result of the advancements of European influence

Compare the rate of advancement and level of advancement to any other civilization. I do not believe in luck. It was hard work, intellect, and innovation that others lacked. If it was not for European advancement the rest of the World would not have made the meager steps that it has made.

2/3rds unexplained (hard work and innovation - why did Europe develope these?)
1/3rd bigotry (Europeans are intellectually superior)

Either explain or drop the bigotry, and give an explaination for the other parts, and we'll have grounds to start discussing your ideas.

Reality: European culture and scientific advancement is more than any other in history or today

Partial reality.

Reality: the pitiful progress of others is a result of the advancements of European influence

Partial reality.

I find it absurd how relative most people are when they talk about advancement. In many history coarses that I have taken American Indians were called advanced when they were living in huts without the advent of the wheel or printing press. True advancement came from the Industrial revolution, which is somthing that I don't see Africa going through for at least another 2 centuries.

Unreality.

Because of the lucky breaks Europeans got, eventually they no longer needed the breaks. This point came at about the time when the King of Poland Jan Sobieski smashed the Turks at Vienna. The political, social and economic systems that were being born in Europe at the time, would be perfectly tailored to the conflict inherent in European culture, and the advances were clear. Subsequent to the adoption of these ideas by Europeans, an intense strain of cultural conservatism was to be found in much of the world. During the next several hundred years, only one non-western nation seemed to adopt any of the western systems in any serious manner, and that's Japan.

Reality: European culture and scientific advancement is more than any other in history or today
Reality, cultures dont advance. Reality, culture is not technology, cultures change, they do not become more or less advanced.

Reality: the pitiful progress of others is a result of the advancements of European influence
Reality, your notion of progress is subjective and appears to not have been given much thought by you.

It should be obvious to anyone that there are many technologies that are complex and could be considered 'advanced' under particular criteria (note such criteria must be posited by a subjective agent, it isnt inherent an independent inherent objective quality), and that many of these technologies have either originated within anglo Western, or have been incorporated into Western culture.

Because of the lucky breaks Europeans got, eventually they no longer needed the breaks. This point came at about the time when the King of Poland Jan Sobieski smashed the Turks at Vienna. The political, social and economic systems that were being born in Europe at the time, would be perfectly tailored to the conflict inherent in European culture, and the advances were clear. Subsequent to the adoption of these ideas by Europeans, an intense strain of cultural conservatism was to be found in much of the world. During the next several hundred years, only one non-western nation seemed to adopt any of the western systems in any serious manner, and that's Japan.

Ooohhh. Now there's a good question. It's moderately easy to say when Eurasian cultures reached this point in regards to non-Eurasian cultures (agricultural revolution), but I'd be rather hard pressed to pinpoint a such specific point in time for Europe over Asia. Maybe the ending of Zheng He's exploations...

While the resource/geographic factors, along with the "pure dumb luck" ones explain most of European dominance, one factor that should not be underestimated is choice. At certain points in history, Athenians decided "Hey, let's have a democracy!", while at another one the Manchus of China decided to forge an oppressive unitary government. There have been for most civilizations certain key crossroads where they could choose to move in one direction or another, and Europeans simply managed to make the right choice more often than their fellow civilizations, at least within the narrow time period we're looking at.

yes but the Chinesse wern't using gunpowder to fire pojectiles it may of taken 200 years to reach Europe but within 80 years of it arriving they had to started to use it to knock seven bells out of each other

A non-European king routed an European army in the first ever use of rockets in a battle.

I am sick of Eurocentric nonsense. The luck of the European is largely an accident of geography.

I also don't see that it as inevitable that Europe had to outstrip china or India simply because of geography. Like I said before, the romans managed to unify a great deal of it and a lot of the national boundaries in europe are marked by cultural differences, not geographical ones.

I think pure luck has a lot to do with it.

Luck does not come out of nowhere....and you have to be in a position to take advantage of the lucky opportunities. The luck that Cortez had for example was due to his mere presence there which has more to do with Spain's geographical proximity and its sea-faring prowess due to the circumstances of its location.

India, OTOH, is hemmed in by its geography, with seas and ocean on three sides, the Himalayas in the north with only a small pass (Khyber) in the northwest. Areas westward of Khyber were occupied by semi-nomadic invader types because those areas could not support a settled agrarian lifestyle like the Indus and Gangetic plains. It was inevitable that those invaders would attack often and once the invaders could gain strength through Islamic conquests it was inevitable that north India would be ravaged by invaders. And when the European colonists came, the divided and weakened country was taken piece by piece until the whole country was occupied by British.

If you take one moment in history and freeze it and try to analyze it at that point, it is very easy to come to the wrong conclusions (mostly based on inherent biases of the observer).

But history is not a series of individual snapshots. It is is continuum and should be viewed as such.

Luck does not come out of nowhere....and you have to be in a position to take advantage of the lucky opportunities. The luck that Cortez had for example was due to his mere presence there which has more to do with Spain's geographical proximity and its sea-faring prowess due to the circumstances of its location.

Granted. But if the battle of Covadonga had been won by Moors, we probably wouldn't even be discussing eurocentrism. There are points in history where it could have gone either way, and it just comes down to lucky accident. The idea that this is the only way it could have turned out seems to me silly.

I accept that there are good reasons why some things are just not possible, for example the new world colonizing the old, or africa dominating western europe, but as far as eurasia is concerned I don't think it is that clear.

India, OTOH, is hemmed in by its geography, with seas and ocean on three sides, the Himalayas in the north with only a small pass (Khyber) in the northwest. Areas westward of Khyber were occupied by semi-nomadic invader types because those areas could not support a settled agrarian lifestyle like the Indus and Gangetic plains. It was inevitable that those invaders would attack often and once the invaders could gain strength through Islamic conquests it was inevitable that north India would be ravaged by invaders. And when the European colonists came, the divided and weakened country was taken piece by piece until the whole country was occupied by British.

Maybe. But I don't see why it is at all inevitable that it happened that way. You seemed resigned to Islam coming east, surely had things been different something could have come west from india. And india is not completely isolated like australia or the new world, it shares a costal region which is relatively flat that runs through pakistan into iran. Alexander the great had no problem.


If you take one moment in history and freeze it and try to analyze it at that point, it is very easy to come to the wrong conclusions (mostly based on inherent biases of the observer).

But history is not a series of individual snapshots. It is is continuum and should be viewed as such.

I'm not taking a snapshot. I'm suggesting that there are points in history where there is no obvious european superiority - for reasons of geography or otherwise - where things could have turned out completely differently but for luck. A drier 1529 might have meant the end of central european powers for example and the ottoman empire reaching the borders of france.

I just don't buy the idea that this is the only way things could have happened.

And india is not completely isolated like australia or the new world, it shares a costal region which is relatively flat that runs through pakistan into iran. Alexander the great had no problem.

Alexander failed to penetrate even the Indus valley. There are accounts of his defeat in local literature.

The coastal region that you speak of is actually the Balochi desert which is quite harsh and unforgiving. Khyber pass is the only way of entering the subcontinent in those days. The silk road passed through that for a reason.;)

I just don't buy the idea that this is the only way things could have happened.

But that is the only way things did happen.;) :p

Europeans are the first to create actual modern civilization. All other societies fell short of that achievement. I find it absurd how relative most people are when they talk about advancement. In many history coarses that I have taken American Indians were called advanced when they were living in huts without the advent of the wheel or printing press. True advancement came from the Industrial revolution, which is somthing that I don't see Africa going through for at least another 2 centuries.

Oh, yes. And all inventions that were made by the various different cultures outside Europe and that laid the foundation for European progress and that made the Industrial Revolution possible are completely insignificant.

Europeans took what they could from other cultures, and then took all that a couple steps further. Just like every great civilisation before them had done. And just like every great civilisation after them will do. Stop thinking of the present as the ultimate achievement of mankind, you're letting your self-centeredness cloud your view of the world.

Alexander failed to penetrate even the Indus valley. There are accounts of his defeat in local literature.

The coastal region that you speak of is actually the Balochi desert which is quite harsh and unforgiving. Khyber pass is the only way of entering the subcontinent in those days. The silk road passed through that for a reason.;)

Well his army mutinied after the defeat of Porus and refused to cross the ganges. The point is though, that he had no problem getting there. I assume, therefore, that there was no real obsticle for things to go the other way.

Also, I believe that Balochistan was the ancient province of Gedrosia. It couldn't have been all that bad back then. Certainly the Achaemenids thought it worth conquering and holding. It was certainly part of their empire, and had good communications with persopolis and babylon.


But that is the only way things did happen.;) :p

That's like saying that evolution inevitably leads to man. Sort of affirming the consequent eh ;)

why europe great?

simple. darwin. europe wants more, europe gets more.

Yes, West European luck.

Dex vult.

Quite. I've read guns germs and steel. I found it mostly very convincing. Really my quibble is the conclusion that European dominance was an inevitability given the various underlying conditions. I don't see that at all. For example, a persian victory at marathon is entirely possible.

Or Spain could very easily have remained Al Andalus, for example, and the battle to exploit the new world could have ended up with an Islamic faction.

I also don't see that it as inevitable that Europe had to outstrip china or India simply because of geography. Like I said before, the romans managed to unify a great deal of it and a lot of the national boundaries in europe are marked by cultural differences, not geographical ones.

I think pure luck has a lot to do with it.

Not at all. Europe enjoyed no more, or, for that matter, less, "luck" than any other cultural region. The disunity, and attendant competetive insticts, of the European states, furthered advancement to a greater extent than pure luck.

Yes, West European luck.

Dex vult.

Who's dex, and why is he willing it?

Who's dex, and why is he willing it?

Not familiar with the classics, are we?

*smirk*

Not at all. Europe enjoyed no more, or, for that matter, less, "luck" than any other cultural region. The disunity, and attendant competetive insticts, of the European states, furthered advancement to a greater extent than pure luck.

Yes, well, the disunity was a result of luck. That's my bloody point. It could have ended at any time before the seventeenth century (in a meaningful way).

Pretty much every place has a history of competetion, so I'll ignore that point.

Not familiar with the classics, are we?

*smirk*

Not dex, no.

Not dex, no.

Hint: try a numismatic catalog.
Lux Lex Pax Dex and all. ;)

Yes, well, the disunity was a result of luck. That's my bloody point. It could have ended at any time before the seventeenth century (in a meaningful way).

Pretty much every place has a history of competetion, so I'll ignore that point.

Disunity owed nothing to luck. The interaction of the decline, and ultimate fall, of the empire, and the cultural differences fostered by pre-Roman tribes, rendered Europe divided.

Indeed, it could not, at any point as of yet, been unified. Nominally Charlemagne, Napoleon and a multitude of Hapsburgs, could contend to have ruled a unified Europe, however linguistic, logictical and cultural disparity have recluded permanent unification.

Disunity owed nothing to luck. The interaction of the decline, and ultimate fall, of the empire, and the cultural differences fostered by pre-Roman tribes, rendered Europe divided.

Indeed, it could not, at any point as of yet, been unified. Nominally Charlemagne, Napoleon and a multitude of Hapsburgs, could contend to have ruled a unified Europe, however linguistic, logictical and cultural disparity have recluded permanent unification.

Which presupposes that the fall of the roman empire was inevitable, the manner of its fall was inevitable, or indeed that its rise and then the subsequent manner of its fall was also inevitable.

As to your second point about it not being reunfied until now, that discounts the fact that the romans managed to unify it once before. So that clearly can't be true.

Hint: try a numismatic catalog.
Lux Lex Pax Dex and all. ;)

I gather you're saying right wills it. I just can't be bother to look it up is all.

I gather you're saying right wills it. I just can't be bother to look it up is all.


In that case, you can't share in the luck of the Europeans.
After all, God helps those who help themselves.
And you must admit those West Europeans excel at that.

In that case, you can't share in the luck of the Europeans.
After all, God helps those who help themselves.
And you must admit those West Europeans excel at that.

Sed qui facit per alium facit per se.

Sed qui facit per alium facit per se.

Which means bad luck for those who can neither help themselves, nor others. ;)
*impressed, though*
*tries to hide that*

Fiat coelus, ruat justitiae.

Which means bad luck for those who can neither help themselves, nor others. ;)
*impressed, though*
*tries to hide that*

Fiat coelus, ruat justitiam.

Res ispa loquitur. (sed quid in infernos dicet?)

Res ispa loquitur. (sed quid in infernos dicet?)


I said: let ( the will of ) Heaven be done, though it may ruin Justice.

Compare the rate of advancement and level of advancement to any other civilization. I do not believe in luck. It was hard work, intellect, and innovation that others lacked. If it was not for European advancement the rest of the World would not have made the meager steps that it has made.
Urmm what about the Far East?

They've provided us with the printing press, medicines and steel.

The Middle East?

They've given us our whole numeric system, plus several engineering techniques and cartography.

South America?

More medicines, as well as gold, which has been the basis of trading for a few hundred years now.

Europe has a massive advantage in that it's in a useful location, it's quite mild, natural resources are readily available, it has contact with everywhere else in the world, and people are generally working for themselves, which makes advancements in, say, industry more easy.

The reason for the industrial revolution occuring in Europe are manyfold, it's not because Europeans are the most intellectual people in the world, or whatever you claim, there are a whole load of reasons which are responsible.

For starters, at the time we possessed knowledge from all across the world, such as how to make steel (Japan), knowledge about steam (the Middle East) and how to engineer large buildings (the Romans, but also the Middle East again).

The Industrial Revolution was basically an accumulation of the information which we had, rather than anything uniquely "European".

Europe and its colonies also had vast amounts of raw materials, which could be very easily exploited, due to a lack of environmental regulations.

Since the Agricultural Revolution, there was also a desire for some form of organised effort to produce machinery, something which had not been so necessary before, but the advent of tractors, which took an enormous amount of time to produce via cottage industry, it was clear that something needed to change.

There was also a large amount of self-motivation from the people who were then to become mill owners.

This is in contrast to, say, China, in which the industrial revolution happened very slowly, due to all of the knowledge being widely shared and debated, and with an area as wide to cover as China, various businesspeople and intellectuals doubted the need for factories entirely, due to the fact that they were doing just fine with agriculture performed via manual labour, it took years to actually win approval for industry, and for this reason, more developments have had to be 'imported' from Europe.

Since China is also a very large country, there is for less jostling for position, so to speak, than in Europe, in which Germany, France, Holland and the UK were all trying to outdo the other states in various ways, and one of the main contests was to see who could industrialise and become very wealthy the quickest. China covers an area of all of those countries put together and as such there is less competion and a will to get one over rivals.

China's does have one real enemy, Japan, but there is less "constructive" competition between the two (atttempts to best the other in the fields of reseach etc.) and more outright warfare, of which China has generally been the victim, due to a less militairistic culture than Japan and no real need for space or resources, unlike Japan which is extremely densely populated in its habitable areas and really needs more space and generally takes it by force (see Manchuria).

Since China doesn't actually need more space for its residents, it rarely starts wars, and generally tries to turn its invaders into Chinese citizens, rather than simply killing them, which is less usefel in the long run.

China doesn't have the same advantages of Europe - i.e. there is less contact with other continents, there is less available water, the climate is also not quite as mild and whilst there is a lot of coal, it's of quite low quality, and there isn't nearly as much in the way of iron in China compared to Europe.

On the other hand, now that the Far East does see the value of industry, its advancements in the field have totally outstripped the developments of Europe and the US for the amount of time they've had.



The Middle East had some major problems at the time of the European Industrial Revolution, in that it had very little usable water, oil wasn't actually useful for very much, so its trade was very limited, the fact that the European powers all had colonies of their own in Africa and also in India led to the Middle East no longer being used as a trading centre for the two regions, and hence it lost its prosperity and hence pretty much everything else stagnated as well.

The rivalry between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims has also stopped a lot of cooperation between states in the Middle East, and this will probably continue for quite a while yet, which is rather a shame.

After the Industrial Revolution, and the discovery of fractional distillation and cracking, on the other hand, the Middle East is becoming exceptionally wealthy again due to its oil, which was, at one time, a fairly useless product. There is still not enough water, or means of food production (the UAE is beginning to use hydroponics, though, which is good).




The problems with Africa are fairly large, from massive tribal rivalries and consequent violence even as recently as about ten years ago (see Rwanda), to the very limited supplies of water, the horribly corrupt leaderships of most of the African nations, issues of racial tensions and discrimination (from Apartheid at one end to Zimbabwe at the other) and problems with breaking out of colonial trade patterns.

At the time of the Industrial Revolution, pretty much all of Africa had been taken over by one power or another and not too long before that, it had been used for slave trading.

This kind of exploitation really reduced the generally esteem of Africa, and it's still only just recovering from colonial rule.

This has also created a completely unfair circle of trade, with African nations generally giving up vast amounts of raw materials in return for limited amounts of factory-produced goods.

This is actually changing now, which is good, with some states such as Kenya now producing more consumer goods for the European markets, and also branching out quite heavily into tourism, although this is very much at the cost of their environment.

You also have to realise that the geography of Africa really prevents an industrial revolution in the way that has been created in Europe.

In South Africa, for example, which has a warm and yet quite temperate climate, as well as a fair amount of water and good land, there has been a "conventional" kind of industrial revolution, in a similar style to that of Europe.

In the Saharan countries, on the other hand, there are large problems with disposing of industrial waste, and indeed of transporting raw materials into the states and sending goods to other nations.

In Europe, this is possible with ships, which are easily the most economical of ways to get large amounts of goods from place to place.

In Saharan Africa, on the other hand, this is somewhat more difficult, and the costs involved, which make European nations balk at the prospect of paying, mean that the transport of goods is often just too expensive and inconvenient to be considered at all in these nations, which are amongst the poorest already.

There is also the problem of what to do with the money that these countries recieve.

In many of the African nations, the large business owners are also the rulers, and a great deal of the GDP of these nations goes right into their pockets, rather than being redistributed back to the people who created the wealth of the nation.

In some occasions, such as Chad, which is now beginning oil production, the World Bank has set various percentages of income which need to be spent on social welfare (70% in the case of Chad, I believe, although this has been relaxed somewhat lately).

Wars and terrible dictatorships/governments have also adversely affected Africa.

For example, the rule of Idi Amin in Uganda, following a coup, which lead to all of the Indians in the country, the people of the middle class who owned all of the businesses, being dispossessed of their jobs and a lot of them were also kicked out of the country.

This in turn led to a recession, since Amin put the shops in control of the native Africans, most of whom didn't know how to read, let alone run a business efficiently. There were some minor successes, but his actions caused a total collapse of the whole economy of Uganda.

At the same time, he spend a vast amount of what remained of the income of Uganda on the "Whiskey Run", his personal jet, in which he entertained his allies, but also made them fearful, as one example, he often kept the heads of his foes in a freezer on the plane to show people "the price of failure".

The continuing crises in central and eastern Africa, such as the current conflict in Somalia, the crisis in Sudan and the various rebel actions in the DRC, as well as the problems in the RCA and Chad show the current problems of Africa, in that all of the countries are vying for power and a lot of countries in the area are spending much more on war than on improving the lives of their own citizens, which is a shame, really.

The various wars also destroy all of the infrastructure that has already been created, and actions such as poisoning the water supplies of villages also kill off large amounts of people, which really ruins any chance of any industrial progress, due to such things needing large amounts of workers to work properly.

HIV/AIDs is also becoming a problem very rapidly in the region, which means that a lot of the workforce is expiring at quite a young age, which really prevents workers from gaining the skills that the countries affected need to have, such as a knowledge of electronics etc. which would improve industry in the region.



All in all, your view is a very Euro-centric one, which is not entirely correct. European ingenuity was a factor in the Industrial Revolution, but there are so many others which lead to it.

I also hope I've helped to show you why Africa will probably never have an Industrial Revolution in the same style as any country in Europe, and why Asia in general has been "slow on the uptake", so to speak.

I won't presume to speak for others on this,
but I don't think I've attributed anything but to the Will of the Almighty,
+ a good dose of willingness to get it right.

Which presupposes that the fall of the roman empire was inevitable, the manner of its fall was inevitable, or indeed that its rise and then the subsequent manner of its fall was also inevitable.

As to your second point about it not being reunfied until now, that discounts the fact that the romans managed to unify it once before. So that clearly can't be true.

The fall of empires is inevitable, you just have to wait long enough

I said: let ( the will of ) Heaven be done, though it may ruin Justice.

well, yeah,

I took it as the sky (heavens) are made (done), though is justice ruined.

Which is sort of self evident. So it does speak for itself.

There we go :)

However, the 'streak of luck' seems to extend beyond the long term. The incidents in the New World I pointed out, the number of times Cortez and other explorers ALMOST died/were captured/had to leave is quite interesting when you look at it as a whole.
As I said, if Pizzaro hadnt arrived almost EXACTLY when he did, his take over of the Inca Empire would have been very different, he would have met a much larger Incan army (and considering the population of the Incan Empire (10,000,000 in the 1500's!) that is no laughing matter.) Sure, the Spanish could inflict mass casualties, but unlike the Aztecs, the Incans werent overly interested in capturing the average soldier to rip his heart out, and their weapons and tactics were many steps ahead of the Aztecs.
As it is though, he came right in the aftermath of a nasty civil war, and just HAPPENED to meet the Sapa Inca himself.

The whole string of events has little to do with European society or technology, IMO, it seems more like some sort of divine guidance or something, or, if you dont beleive in that sort of thing, luck.
Its like somebody flipping a coin ten times and guessing the right side EVERY time.
hmm. I haven't reaf the book, not even the rest of the posts but I wanted to say this same thing in the first post.
I bet you know Cortez wasn't the first European on South America. Maybe there wasn't a change to beat them earlier and that's why we remember Cortez. He happened to be at the right place at the rigth time. You call that luck. I say it was almost inevitable. Every single person before Cortez was certainly willing to beat the natives but they couldn't. Just like you said, not because Cortez was so much stronger but because of his timing.

Even ancient Egyptians were dealing with South Americans.

The rivalry between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims has also stopped a lot of cooperation between states in the Middle East, and this will probably continue for quite a while yet, which is rather a shame.
I'd tend to disagree that the divide is a bad thing. In fact, I'd have to say that a religious divide and decentralization is very beneficial to driving technological and social advancement. I believe the conflict intiated by the reformation in western Europe was extremely beneficial. In fact, I'd have to say that the middle east would have been radically better off if Islam had been more divided.