How did the area of Europe advance so quickly? - Page 5

MrFun · June 16, 2003, 12:50

Maybe the Middle Ages Enlightenment that the Arabian intellectuals brought to Europeans?

DinoDoc · June 16, 2003, 12:51

Berz had the best answer so far.

Inverse Icarus · June 16, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Berz had the best answer so far.

what, did you miss my answer? i mean, i even quoted it twice.

DaShi · June 16, 2003, 13:07

That was good, but you forgot the aliens who helped develop Western techology.

DinoDoc · June 16, 2003, 13:08

I thought they were the ones that built the Pyramids.

MrFun · June 16, 2003, 13:09

Quote:

Originally posted by DaShi
That was good, but you forgot the aliens who helped develop Western techology.

DaShi · June 16, 2003, 13:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought they were the ones that built the Pyramids.

That's all the Egyptians could afford. Europe used to have quite a few dilithium mines. Apparently, the aliens needed a lot of dilithium suppliments in their diets.

Tingkai · June 16, 2003, 13:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Sn00py
I want to keep this on the off topic forum, but most of us are civers here, and we all know that playing a european civ can limit your ability to grow, as quick as, say the American Indians or the Aboriginies even!

So what was it exactly that gave the Europeans the edge?

I'm asking this because I believe that the game Civilization needs to change dramatically in order to function better (and I also think that would be more fun too - this is for those "but real doesn't mean fun" type of ppl

)

Your initial question is wrong.

Europe did not advance quickly. There was a gap of more than 1,000 years between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the European nation states. During that period European civilization was far behind China, India and the Arab world.

The question should be: Why did Europe stagnate for 1,000 years (roughly 500AD-1500AD) and then take off during the past 500 years?

Obviously, Christianity in itself is not the key, although the development of the Protestant sect may have influenced matters.

If we look at the past 2,000 years then the idea that the diversity created by European in-fighting led to Europe rise is not very true. For more than 1,000 years, Europe was a primitive backwater beset by war, plague and ignorance. Diversity was a curse, not a blessing.

China's civilization under a single government maintained a high level of civilization from about 200BC to 1800AD. Civil war in China then creates chaos from about 1840-1949.

One question then is why did Europe emerge from its dark ages. Some scholars say that it was the result of Andalulsia (sp?) - Moorish Spain. From about 750-1492, Moorish Spain is a centre of civilization. Knowledge is translated from Greek and Arabic into European languages. It is through this process that Europeans regain their lost base of knowledge.

Europe is still caught in a destructive internal dispute. But that dispute seeds the ground for imperialism when the "new" world is discover.

People have mentioned the Chinese voyages of discovery. Those voyages came to a quick end because there was no need to settle new lands.

The European situation was different.

Spain, Portugal, France, England and the Netherlands were all hemmed in by opposing forces. Centuries of fighting had achieved very little (with the exception of the Spaniards kicking out the Arabs from Spain).

The "new" world offered new areas to expand and new battlefields.

Spain quickly destroys the empires of Central and South America. But with those conquests accomplished, and with the resources they gained, Spain tries to take over Europe and ends up bogged down in a war of attrition.

Portugal spread out across the world developing trade routes, but did not have the population base to challenge the European battlefield nor to challenge rivals in other parts of the world.

The Dutch establish a toe-hold in North America, but their ability to expand is checked by a small population and their fight against Spain.

England and France end up in a massive campaign in North America. Their power is checked by the strength of the North American Indians and by each other. Their incentive to fight over Eastern North America is driven by a desire to prevent each other from gaining dominance.

France ends up fighting a costly two-front war in North America and Europe. England, as an island, is able to put more resources into North America, not only its military, but also by migrating its civilian population. England's reliance on its navy also gives it an upper edge on the sea.

England eventually wins in North America against the French through its navy, but its success eliminates the American colonies' reliance on the England's military to defend them from the French so the Americans wage a war of independence.

Now the stage is set for the industrial revolution.

Europe is slow to industrialise because of the destruction caused by ongoing wars.

The English have excess capital to invest in new technology because they don't have to constantly rebuild their towns and cities, unlike the other European countries. But the English have a problem. Massive migration to the North America creates a labour shortage. This creates a pressing need for labour saving technology and that fuels the industrial revolution.

Other civilizations, such as India and China, have no need for labour-saving technology because they have large populations.

And at this point, this posting is way too long so I'll stop.

Dis · June 16, 2003, 15:09

Along with Black Death I should have included the Mongol invasions and various barbarian invasions.

Sir Og · June 16, 2003, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Along with Black Death I should have included the Mongol invasions and various barbarian invasions.

It can't be that because Mongol invasions elsewhere didn't have the same effect.

Az · June 16, 2003, 15:20

mongols never invaded europe.

Dis · June 16, 2003, 15:23

They invaded Russia. And Russia is part of Europe

China dealt with the mongol problem in different ways. In fact each nation has it's own unique ways of dealing with problems.

But I fealt certain traumatic events helped kick Europe in the ass and think about innovation to deal with outside and internal threats.

Kidicious · June 16, 2003, 15:24

Good one Tingkai. We get the point

Az · June 16, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

They invaded Russia. And Russia is part of Europe

The unsuccessful part.

Colon™ · June 16, 2003, 15:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
Good one Tingkai. We get the point

No we don't.

Dis · June 16, 2003, 15:55

hey! Russians did great things! *crickets chirp*

Okay often they were just trying to catch up to the rest of Europe.

Az · June 16, 2003, 16:21

noone denies they did, Diss.

the point is, they still had to catch up with europe.

Berzerker · June 16, 2003, 16:29

Quote:

mongols never invaded europe.

Huh? Not only did they make it to Prussia and Poland (and I believe eastern Germany) only to have the ruling Khan die back home ending the rampage, the Huns preceded them in Europe by about 800 years.

Btw, there is evidence the Chinese developed cannonry before Europe and the technology spread to Islam and then to Europe.
The siege guns used by the Muslims to take Constantinople were state of the art...

Az · June 16, 2003, 16:34

I should've said "successfully invaded entire western europe".

Is this better?

HershOstropoler · June 16, 2003, 16:38

I know why I've been avoiding this thread. Just looking at the last page, holy crappola.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

The siege guns used by the Muslims to take Constantinople were state of the art...

No really? And who designed and built them?

HershOstropoler · June 16, 2003, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Tingkai

The question should be: Why did Europe stagnate for 1,000 years (roughly 500AD-1500AD) and then take off during the past 500 years?

Stagnate, with its population tripling, its institutions changing radically in all areas, its economy growing strongly?
Rubbish.

"China's civilization under a single government maintained a high level of civilization from about 200BC to 1800AD. Civil war in China then creates chaos from about 1840-1949."

Yeah, that's why its population fell in half from the end of the Song to the early Ming dynasty. The plague was as devastating in China as it was in Europe. Population density under the late Song wasn't higher than in most of western europe, if you can trust the estimates.

It's really strange that this cooked up history fantasy about europe's middle ages just doesn't want to die.

Dis · June 16, 2003, 16:49

Or perhaps a better question would be:

Why didn't the rest of the world advance as quickly as it should/could have?

JohnT · June 16, 2003, 17:16

Quote:

Stagnate, with its population tripling, its institutions changing radically in all areas, its economy growing strongly?
Rubbish.

Hersh, I was going to make that point but my knowledge of that period of European history is much weaker than any other. Thanks!

Colon™ · June 16, 2003, 17:18

Go Roland! Go Roland!

Inverse Icarus · June 16, 2003, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Why didn't the rest of the world advance as quickly as it should/could have?

inferior genes. darker skin.

St Leo · June 16, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Or perhaps a better question would be:

Why didn't the rest of the world advance as quickly as it should/could have?

The Americas got a momentum going late.

Africa was stuck in the iron age due to a lack of good domesticables.

India/SEAsia were just unlucky.

China demonstrated the dangers of a single World Government.

Australians were living in paradise.

Imran Siddiqui · June 16, 2003, 20:01

Quote:

Yeah, that's why its population fell in half from the end of the Song to the early Ming dynasty. The plague was as devastating in China as it was in Europe. Population density under the late Song wasn't higher than in most of western europe, if you can trust the estimates.

Not only that but bureaucracy falling apart because of complacency. Corruption involving and then the end of civil service exams. A total lack of forward progress (because everything fell apart).