|
| Thread: The Ascendency of Europe | |
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
posted October 30, 2007 05:34 PM |
bonus applied. |
|
The Ascendency of Europe
You often hear a lot of attempts at explaining the dominance of Europe in the centuries following the 14th. However, a lot of these are really inane, and are often based on prejudiced notions of non-European cultures, ethnocentricity, or blaming the less advanced cultures for their backwardness, as has recently been done with e.g. the Islamic World. Some even seek answers in biology, although this has thankfully been less common in the past 62 years. But what is it, then, that has enabled the European continent to rise up above the others and dominate the world for half a millennium? To answer this question, we must start out at the relative beginning.
When Marco Polo explored the East in the 13th century, the West wasn’t the most advanced civilization in the world — China was, both technologically and politically. Their production of iron was larger than that of Europe. They had gunpowder, compasses, larger cities and more advanced infrastructure. Additionally, Japan and certain Indian and Southern American civilizations could be compared to Europe.
However, by the 17th century, Europe begins to rise above the others, especially when it comes to military technology. To a larger extent than earlier, European states are able to exercise power in other parts of the world. And in 1875, most of the world is divided into colonies, spheres of interest, or similar European dominated political entities. The West has a global military hegemony. Why?
The reasons can be divided into four main categories, each of which I will discuss below.
Geography and the European states
Europe is a weird continent. On the one hand, most of it is located in temperate climate zones that for the most part steers clear of any extremes. There are few deserts, no tundra, and prior to the Middle Ages most of Europe consisted of huge forests, which were later cut down and transformed into farmland, thus providing a nutritional basis for the population.
Furthermore, and this is more important, Europe is split up into a lot of medium-sized chunks. Rivers and mountain ranges criss-crosses the continent, providing great natural borders, as well as barriers between peoples.
This, in turn, facilitated the rise of the European state systems. For the past 1200 years, Europe has consisted of a lot of small or medium sized states. As the Alps and the Pyrenees are great examples of, it is all but impossible to dominate other territories across mountain ranges, at least over time, and especially so if the core area of your power is fairly set in one place, and your state isn’t the size of e.g. the Ottoman Empire.
In this fashion Europe was divided into spheres of power, and no state has ever managed to establish itself as a lasting hegemon. This made competitiveness vital to a state’s survival. Unlike for example to Ottoman Empire, or China, states couldn’t afford to become complacent, as the moment they let their guard down, one of their neighbours would be bound to take advantage of it. Where the Ottoman rulers could invest their income in extravagant palaces, richly decorated furniture, and other outlets of conspicuous consumption, European rulers were forced to invest what income they had in their state organisation. When Spain created their European empire, funded by American gold, in the 16th century, it looked as if they were about to establish themselves as the continent’s hegemon, but in their seemingly endless riches they became complacent, arrogant, and so it all slipped from their hands.
Obviously, in a climate such as this, developments in military technology was especially promoted, as we shall see in the next section, but improvements in the statecraft was also imperative to the states’ advancement. Here, too, competition between the states brought with it constant progress and ever increased effectiveness, in bureaucratic and martial arrangements, as well as in the organisation of industry, trade, taxation, et cetera. It was all about the effective management of limited resources, as no state could afford to waste its available materials. This resulted in a different dynamics than in, again, the Ottoman Empire, which sat so safely in power, with no real threats to its hegemony.
Sail ship technology and gunboats
The capability to cross oceans and bring along heavy firepower is usually seen as one of the main reasons for the European hegemony. European sailing techniques had had a long time to evolve, and they’d also had great conditions. The Mediterranean Sea isn’t too huge, while it at the same time was surrounded by relatively advanced nations. This has been a great incentive for trade, which brought with it commercially adapted sail ships of a substantial size. In the 15th century the Hanseatic League started utilizing Mediterranean ships in the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea, replacing the traditional Germanic long ships. The Mediterranean ships were easier to arm with cannons, and opened for expansive use of ships. In China, where they had both great maritime skills as well as gunpowder at a much earlier stage than Europeans, such developments doesn’t occur. They sent some explorers both eastwards and westwards, but nothing permanent came out of this.
The European legal system
The European legal system was inspired by the Ancient Greeks and Romans, whose laws were adapted for extensive trade between multiple actors. This provided the basis for a merchant class. Nobility hindered this to a certain extent, but compared to how the situation was in other parts of the world, European merchants had an enviable position. There were several territorial pockets where the power of the nobility was weak, and unable to interfere in trade and production. Most prominent of these areas were Northern Italy and Flandern. In areas such as these, taxation was lax, and to a certain degree society’s structure was less rigid and hierarchical. This later spread to the cities of the Haseatic League, and to England, and in time it would spread to most of the rest of the continent as well.
Protestant ethics
The German sociologist Max Weber claimed that Protestants, when compared to people belonging to other religions, shows a greater will to work, as well as a lesser urge to consume. Honesty, thrift, and a lesser need for luxuries is some attributes of Protestants, according to Weber. (Who, I might add, was a Protestant himself.) This especially applied to Calvinists, as Calvinism viewed earthly success as a result divine blessings; being a successful businessman meant that you were predestined to go to Heaven. This, Weber claimed, resulted in Calvinists striving for wealth, to show how much they’d been blessed by God. However, this is an extremely disputed theory. As an example, not all Calvinist areas were as rich as e.g. Switzerland. Scotland is often used as an example of a unsuccessful Calvinist area, but I’m reluctant to do this, as Scotland is unfortunate enough to be located right next to England, and the Scots have been under the heal of their southern neighbours for almost a millennium. Switzerland, on the other hand, is protected on all sides by Europe’s highest mountains, and after they seceded from the Holy Roman Empire sometime in the Middle Ages, they have been independent. The fact that there also were wealthy Catholic areas has also been used to argue against Weber’s theory. Despite of the dubiousness of his theory, Weber’s comparative studies were so comprehensive, that it is in fact appropriate to ask if Protestants actually are turned more towards the temporal than the believers of other religions.
Some final words
In conclusion, we might say that while there is nothing inherent about the people of Europe that for a few centuries turned them into masters of the world, there are certain qualities in the geography of the western parts of the European subcontinent. (The Eastern part has some unfortunate features, such as a huge tract of relatively open land that stretches all the way to Mongolia, and that laid them open to attacks from the behemoth Russia, as well as her predecessors.) These qualities force the population of the area to compete for natural resources and for survival, and this competitive spirit was what eventually lead to the European world hegemony.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted October 30, 2007 10:36 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 22:36, 30 Oct 2007.
|
Hmm . . .
I would argue that Europe was conquered by the Romans and that single event did more to propel them forward as a civilization than any other historical record. I believe that once you discover the ecology of ancient Rome you should then be able to answer why the Europeans made their ascendency first.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 30, 2007 10:56 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 22:57, 30 Oct 2007.
|
Terje it seems you would be a lover of Jared Diamond's books (esp. Guns Germs and Steel, and Collapse). If you haven't read them already, you should. 
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted October 30, 2007 11:08 PM |
|
|
Religion also played a key role in establishing European dominance. Europe is largely Christianity based and this influenced people’s values, work ethic, communication, etc. Missionaries were common, and they encourage travel and spread culture. Also early Christianity wasn’t very tolerating of other religions, it being the true faith. This sparked wars in and around Europe. Nearly constantly being in a war with your neighbor promotes having a better military and superior technology. This causes competition, which can stimulate technology and the economy.
Also on the note of genetics; James D. Watson the world’s head geneticist (helped decipher the double helix in 1962) recently argued that whites are intellectually superior to blacks. His comments combined with political correctness forced him to resign. Watson’s ideas could give a different angle to the Europeans motives.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 01, 2007 01:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I would argue that Europe was conquered by the Romans and that single event did more to propel them forward as a civilization than any other historical record. I believe that once you discover the ecology of ancient Rome you should then be able to answer why the Europeans made their ascendency first.
I definitely see your point. But the Romans never conquered more of Western Europe than France, Great Britain and Iberia, and most of these regions were thinly populated, poorly developed, and quickly lost. Unless, of course, you count the Roman Catholic Church as a continuation of the Western Roman Empire, of course. However, most of the later Ottoman Empire was also a part of the Roman Empire, and for the most part was so for much longer. Additionally, these areas were more important areas in the Empire -- Egyptian and "Carthagian" grains, for example, fed most of the population of Rome -- and also more civilized. Arguing that Western Europe was revitalized by the infusion of Germanic peoples from the East, while the Middle East grew stagnant won't be any good, either, as both the Eastern Roman Empire and later the various Muslim empires were superior to the Western European ones until well into the High Middle Ages. Not to mention that most of Western Europe's knowledge of the Ancient world was lost during the Age of Migrations, and wasn't recovered until the time of the Crusades.
Quote:
Terje it seems you would be a lover of Jared Diamond's books (esp. Guns Germs and Steel, and Collapse). If you haven't read them already, you should.
You know, judging from what I just read about his theories on Wikipedia, I imagine I would. I've seen a lot of referances to his works, too, especially Collapse, which I remember reading some reviews of when it was published in 2005.
Quote:
Religion also played a key role in establishing European dominance. Europe is largely Christianity based and this influenced people’s values, work ethic, communication, etc. Missionaries were common, and they encourage travel and spread culture. Also early Christianity wasn’t very tolerating of other religions, it being the true faith. This sparked wars in and around Europe. Nearly constantly being in a war with your neighbor promotes having a better military and superior technology. This causes competition, which can stimulate technology and the economy.
First of all: Early Christian rulers were not the most pious of folks. Many of them converted to Christianity in order to gain the backing of a powerful political institution (the Roman Church), and in order to be able to legally puruse their rivals for being heathens. Additionally, kings wage wars against other kings independently of their religion, and seeing as most of Western Europe (with the exception of Scandinavia, but we're hardly Western Europeans, really) was Christened by the end of the 9th century wars against heathens wasn't that common. Also, the Catholic Church's attempts at making Christian rulers stop fighting each other were mostly failed, indicating the extent of these people's "religiousity". (Not that they weren't religious, far from it; they just didn't like religion to interfere with their politics.)
So it would seem that it was other factors than religion that sparked off the competition between states.
But sure, the monasteries were vital to the spread of pre-existing knowledge in Western Europe, at least through the turbulent centuries of the Migration Period. However, most of this knowledge was much more well known in, say, the Eastern Roman Empire or the Middle Eastern areas during the Middle Ages. These areas also enjoyed the benefits of being religiously uniform, as well as already having a civilization's infrastructure and communications.
Quote:
Also on the note of genetics; James D. Watson the world’s head geneticist (helped decipher the double helix in 1962) recently argued that whites are intellectually superior to blacks. His comments combined with political correctness forced him to resign. Watson’s ideas could give a different angle to the Europeans motives.
Their motives? How so?
Anyway, there are so many factors influencing how any given individual performs on intelligence tests (which to begin with aren't always equally reliable or valid), and so many incongruent research results to pick from, I feel reluctant to take any of them for true. I don't exclude the possibility of there being some differences in the potential intelligence of people of different races, but until I see some really convincing evidence, I remain a skeptic. 
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted November 01, 2007 05:55 AM |
|
Edited by Consis at 05:57, 01 Nov 2007.
|
Well...
Quote:
Unless, of course, you count the Roman Catholic Church as a continuation of the Western Roman Empire, of course.
No. I meant ancient Rome--the conquerers. Following being conquered by ancient Rome Europe was left with a lingering feeling of what it truly meant to be organized, wealthy, and powerful. After the Romans left, many wanted to return to it as would any human civilization. But after Rome left they lacked the capacity to organize and congregate effectively as a political body of people. And so this gelatinous mass of unorganized wealth-hungering people was introduced to the true reason why many castles were built: Viking raids. I believe that the Vikings played a key role in acting as a catalyst to the whole of Europe. It was something everyone could talk about and relate to. It helped galvanize peasants in building castles for their lords. And it showed the whole european continent, the Dutch moreso than any other, that there was indeed fortune to be found with this enterprise. Then the Dutch showed the rest of Europe exactly what could be gained from a global sea faring empire.
But exposure to wars and attacks still do not explain the technological advance as fast as it had taken place for the europeans over all the other warring peoples of the world. There is some secret yet to be found within Ancient Roman ecology that has not yet come to light. And I believe it has something to do with a cultural acceptance within a community of people who wanted to read and write things pertaining to inventions meant for wars of the state. Perhaps this secret was assimilated from the Greeks, but I cannot say for certain. But we do know that even today in our most modern classrooms we find a very interesting social and cultural occurence. We find even today that many children students actually take part in active open oppression and supression of other students getting better academic grades and practicing learned forms of speech communication. I can imagine that this odd form of behavior might have originated in prehistoric caveman times in which those members of a tribe or clan were ostracized, mocked, or condemned for drawing paintings on cave walls. I can imagine some of the most notable cave paintings we see today.....drawn entirely in secret away from the tribe and thus never actually being used to further learning and understanding.
At some point in human history reading and writing (or pictography) stopped being fictional and eventually became a wide cultural acceptance in which people largely and openly supported it rather than oppressed it as a people. I believe it was the ancient Romans that did this and that is their secret to offer the rest of the world. They somehow spread a cultural acceptance of reading and writing as means to further warfare and architectural culture-bearing status symbols. Other cultures can be credited with giving the world algebra, astronomy, and religious texts.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
la_ultima_hora
Adventuring Hero
STFU or DDOS
|
|
posted November 01, 2007 09:49 AM |
|
|
thats ALOT of WORDS!
good info though.
i like Europe
____________
~ Helsinki Vampire ~
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 01, 2007 04:33 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:41, 01 Nov 2007.
|
@Terje
I personally found Guns Germs and Steel to be the better of the two books. Much of the book is dedicated to the predestination of European ascendency. Obviously many people take umbrage at that assertion (for whatever reason), but the argument he presents, which boils down to mostly ecological and environmental factors, made real sense to me. Not to mention, the book was written well and was an entertaining read.
While GGS dealt with successful civilizations, Collapse focused on unsuccessful ones. It was still a good read, but it sort of meandered a bit and once you read about a third of it, you got the gist of what Diamond was trying to say, rendering the rest a bit unnecessary. (Though, I'll admit that the section on the Easter Island Maoi statues was really cool.)
The only reason I brought it up is because your first post is obviously exploring reasons why Europe was such a dominant force in human civilization, and that's pretty much exactly what GGS is about, too. It's definitely an interesting subject, though obviosly the more interesting question (IMO) of whether Europe was PREDESTINED to this role is a somewhat controversial one.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 02, 2007 02:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No. I meant ancient Rome--the conquerers. Following being conquered by ancient Rome Europe was left with a lingering feeling of what it truly meant to be organized, wealthy, and powerful. After the Romans left, many wanted to return to it as would any human civilization. But after Rome left they lacked the capacity to organize and congregate effectively as a political body of people. And so this gelatinous mass of unorganized wealth-hungering people was introduced to the true reason why many castles were built: Viking raids. I believe that the Vikings played a key role in acting as a catalyst to the whole of Europe. It was something everyone could talk about and relate to. It helped galvanize peasants in building castles for their lords. And it showed the whole european continent, the Dutch moreso than any other, that there was indeed fortune to be found with this enterprise. Then the Dutch showed the rest of Europe exactly what could be gained from a global sea faring empire.
Undeniably, the Roman Empire remained an important inspiration to Medieval Europeans (if anyone wants "proof", go pick up a Medieval European chronicle and see how often the chroniclers compare their contemporary rulers to the Roman emperors). But this was true for most of the rest of the old Roman Empire, too. So how does this make Europe special? :\
You do have a point, though: The Viking raids probably made it easier for rulers to gather support from their nobles (peasants usually just did what they were told), and thus facilitated the creation of many European states. While it being far from the only reason, it is rather conspicuous how both the "English" and "French" states were unified and "founded" in the time of the Viking raids. A time that lasted for over 200 years, though, so it's not necessarily correct to relate these two historical processes too strongly to each other.
As for the Dutch, they originally made their fortunes on textiles, particularly wool, and the refinement of this. Then, when they'd already grown rich, they really started their sea-faring trade. It was the German Hanseatic League that was Northern Europe's dominating trade federation.
Quote:
But exposure to wars and attacks still do not explain the technological advance as fast as it had taken place for the europeans over all the other warring peoples of the world. There is some secret yet to be found within Ancient Roman ecology that has not yet come to light. And I believe it has something to do with a cultural acceptance within a community of people who wanted to read and write things pertaining to inventions meant for wars of the state. Perhaps this secret was assimilated from the Greeks, but I cannot say for certain.
First of all: The Romans, while inventive in certain areas, were outright lazy in others. It has been estimated that they had the capacity of starting an Industrial Revolution as early as in the fourth or fifth centuries, but they didn't. You know why? It's quite simple: Why should a Roman citizen bother about making work easier, so long as they had slaves to do all the work anyway?
There's also the point that I've already pointed out: Why did this "Roman effect" only take place in (Western) Europe? What about North Africa, the East Roman Empire (or Byzantium; an empire which, granted, lasted for a thousand years longer than its Western equivalent, was immensely more advanced and probably did its part in the ascendency of the West just by serving as a buffer between Western Europe and the Arab Muslims, and later the Turks), and what about the Middle East?
Quote:
But we do know that even today in our most modern classrooms we find a very interesting social and cultural occurence. We find even today that many children students actually take part in active open oppression and supression of other students getting better academic grades and practicing learned forms of speech communication. I can imagine that this odd form of behavior might have originated in prehistoric caveman times in which those members of a tribe or clan were ostracized, mocked, or condemned for drawing paintings on cave walls. I can imagine some of the most notable cave paintings we see today.....drawn entirely in secret away from the tribe and thus never actually being used to further learning and understanding.
Actually, the current consensus is that cave paintings were religious symbols of great importance, and that this importance rubbed off on the ones that painted them.
Quote:
At some point in human history reading and writing (or pictography) stopped being fictional and eventually became a wide cultural acceptance in which people largely and openly supported it rather than oppressed it as a people. I believe it was the ancient Romans that did this and that is their secret to offer the rest of the world. They somehow spread a cultural acceptance of reading and writing as means to further warfare and architectural culture-bearing status symbols. Other cultures can be credited with giving the world algebra, astronomy, and religious texts.
The Romans? Hardly. I haven't seen any specific figures on Roman literacy levels, but in spite of the lower levels of society's widespread use of grafitti, I haven't seen anything to support this assumption. Quite the contrary, actually. The Roman society had no schools (some academies, but these were mainly for the aristocracy), and Roman culture was basically an ultra-macho one, where warfare and similar pursuits (trade, too, but as there wasn't really a market economy in Roman society, and almost everything was based on the relationship between a client and his patron, this was complicated) were the only ones really accepted as proper occupations for real men. Also, the majority of Roman citizens were ignorant, unemployed, xenofobic and etnocentric.
As for language, included writing, ceasing to be pictographic -- this happened several thousands of years before the Romans' ancestors thought to domesticate sheep. Archeologists have discovered clay tablets from the truly ancient Sumerian civilization, and on them the Sumerians had inscribed such things as temple records, business transactions, and such things. It is in fact widely acknowledged that while most writing probably started out as religious symbols only used by priests or shamans, it quickly developed to become a tool for trade, administration and suchlike.
Quote:
It's definitely an interesting subject, though obviosly the more interesting question (IMO) of whether Europe was PREDESTINED to this role is a somewhat controversial one.
"Predestined" is such a tricky little word. It can refer both to a religious meaning and to a more materialistic one. Would you mind elaborating somewhat?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted November 02, 2007 03:56 AM |
|
|
terje_the_mad_wizard,
Quote:
But this was true for most of the rest of the old Roman Empire, too. So how does this make Europe special?
Not by itself it isn't special.....however when looked at in the proper sequence of events then more light can be shed on the question. True enough being conquered by ancient rome left those civilizations talking about them and comparing their leaders to them, yes. But did those other civilizations experience the consecutive unfolding events as well?
Quote:
A time that lasted for over 200 years, though, so it's not necessarily correct to relate these two historical processes too strongly to each other.
I believe it is when shown in the correct historical timeline. Imagine Europe as a strand of protein sequences. Ribonucleic acid alone does not itself make a double helix we know to support life.
Quote:
It was the German Hanseatic League that was Northern Europe's dominating trade federation.
I do not believe this is part of the timeline significant to Europe's ascendency. This piece of historical account is part of Asian ascendency. Ghengis Khan opening the trade between the two worlds and all that......it had little effect on Europe's rise.
Quote:
It has been estimated that they had the capacity of starting an Industrial Revolution as early as in the fourth or fifth centuries, but they didn't.
I know of what you speak. I don't recall the name of the inventor but I believe you are referring to a technological discovery which describes a device that was actually the basis for the idea behind a steam engine locomotive. I agree that the possibility to start an industrial revolution was present but did not come to fruition.
Quote:
Why should a Roman citizen bother about making work easier, so long as they had slaves to do all the work anyway?
A revolutionary statement this is. Truly an important observation. ancient rome and indeed all of the ancient world was very much almost symbiotic with its slave labor.
Quote:
Why did this "Roman effect" only take place in (Western) Europe? What about North Africa, the East Roman Empire (or Byzantium; an empire which, granted, lasted for a thousand years longer than its Western equivalent, was immensely more advanced and probably did its part in the ascendency of the West just by serving as a buffer between Western Europe and the Arab Muslims, and later the Turks), and what about the Middle East?
An excellent question. If I may beg your forgiveness for what I'm about to say....because those other parts of the old roman empire became hyper religious. It is a well-known fact that a great many people blame the dark ages for not having come to our current level of technology sooner. The Dark ages are widely looked upon as one of the greatest religious proliferations in human history. And as we all know from examples like Galileo, Davinci, and others....organized religion's greatest fear is the written text of a scientific blasphemer. They don't admit it (no ofcourse not!) but instead declare their polar opposite opposing religion as the greatest enemy; such as Christians vs. Muslims. In the end all that religious warring and fighting really does is hinder progress, both scientific and cultural.
Quote:
The current consensus is that cave paintings were religious symbols of great importance, and that this importance rubbed off on the ones that painted them.
No. That is the consensus of ~European~ cave paintings. And that is the only place that I am aware scientists of making such a consensus about cave paintings. I was personally shocked to see the pictures of those. It was an amazing moment for me to see all those groups of hand prints together in a such a communal location. It was truly an amazing moment for me. And that would support what you have said but such groups of communal-natured cave-paintings are not here in the Americas to my knowledge.
Quote:
The Romans? Hardly. I haven't seen any specific figures on Roman literacy levels, but in spite of the lower levels of society's widespread use of grafitti, I haven't seen anything to support this assumption. Quite the contrary, actually. The Roman society had no schools (some academies, but these were mainly for the aristocracy).
Herein lies the hidden secret. I believe it's there.....somewhere. You see you're somewhat right. They didn't have schools per say, not schools but tutors. The ancient Greeks's culture was practically absorbed into ancient Roman civilization. There has been recent discoveries of devices that were almost like a clockwork made with cogs....possibly for telling time during the time of ancient rome. We know that Alexander the great (who came long before) was tutored. We know they used tutors and we know they had magnificent technological devices such as for measuring distances on roads, steam-power, clockworkings, and also medical advances to include the tools for it. Now in my mind the question remains: How can all this be done withOUT some form of written record? We don't know the answer to this yet. In the meantime my imagination leads me to recall the same reason why no written record of those peoples who inhabited Easter Island. They used some kind of perishable wood for a writing common form of writing medium. It is my only guess at this point.
Quote:
As for language, included writing, ceasing to be pictographic -- this happened several thousands of years before the Romans' ancestors thought to domesticate sheep.
No. I said reading and writing in a socially accepted environment for the wars of the state. Yes it's true reading and writing had been around long before but the purposes of such was (I believe) prohibited from those persons in the communities whose expert craft was war.
Quote:
Archeologists have discovered clay tablets from the truly ancient Sumerian civilization, and on them the Sumerians had inscribed such things as temple records, business transactions, and such things.
Yes. I believe it was called Cuneiform~(spelling???) But if you look at what was written, it was not by Tsun Tsu yes? Those writings were not for war. They were for legal laws and other things.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 02, 2007 05:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Predestined" is such a tricky little word. It can refer both to a religious meaning and to a more materialistic one. Would you mind elaborating somewhat?
Yes it is. I do not mean to use it in any philosophical sense, of course. We can have a free-will discussion elsewhere if you want. 
What I mean is: given the ecological/geographical situation in Europe - a combination of climate and geographical features like mountains/deserts, etc. - was is inevitable that European civilization would develop faster than, for example, Africa or South America? One question that Diamond was fond of asking (paraphrased) in GG&S was: why did Europe travel to Central America in 1492 and not vice-versa? Another way to ask this is - was it inevitable that Europe was the conqueror and not the Native Americans?
It's been quite some time (9 years?) since I read GG&S so I'm unable to intelligently discuss the finer details of his work, but IIRC Diamond argues that it WAS inevitable that Europe traveled to Central America and not vice-versa. His argument is centered around geographical features of Europe versus those of Central America. As I recall, one of the central arguments is that North America (and Africa/South America) is situated in sort of a north-south orientation and Europe is situated in an east-west orientation. In a north-south orientation, the migration of animal species (in particular, animals capable of being domesticated for human use, such as horses, camels, oxen, etc.) is burdened by the fact that they must cross zones of different climates, whereas in an east-west orientation, migration is not retarded (generally speaking) by such climate effects. The basic end result is that while Europe was "predestined" to have access to a wide variety of animal species capable of being domesticated (and hence, access to advanced agricultural development, such as the use of the plow), North America had no domesticatable animals, and so the development of human society was restricted. That's of course a very ineligant representation of Diamond's argument, but it's the best I can do off the top of my head. I hope you get the gist. I may go back and have a look at the book to refresh my self.
Of course, a number of (most non-European) people take offense at the idea that Europe was "predestined" to become the most advanced center of human civilization (ignoring the far east). One can obviously (perhaps erroniously) infer from such a thesis that, if correct, it would mean therefore that European humans are somehow "racially superior" (whatever that means) to, for example, African humans. This is the same sort of emotional backlash reaction to the sort of, admittedly crude, statements made (whether justified or not) recently by James Watson. Perhaps that's a topic best left to another thread, but I think it's necessary to suppress such knee-jerk emotional responses to the question of whether European culture was destined - if only due to location - to rule the world, because they are unproductive. The simple matter is that it's a fact that European culture DID conquer Central America, and not the other way around, and if one lets prejudices and feelings of insecurity get in the way of answering the question of why it happened, the truth of the matter will never be reached.
Btw this is a very interesting thread. I haven't had a chance to read most of what's been written. I do intend to!
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 02, 2007 05:45 PM |
|
|
Nice and interesting thread. QP applied!
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted November 02, 2007 07:18 PM |
|
|
Two Words
Printing Press.
Edit: And I'm not saying another word to you unless there's some guarantee you won't fly away to GG and never be heard from again--again.
____________
|
|
Orfinn
Supreme Hero
Werewolf Duke
|
|
posted November 10, 2007 03:02 PM |
|
|
Alot of interesting read there. Good job terje.
____________
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 10, 2007 05:54 PM |
|
|
As we are speaking of Europe's success, we could find some reasons in other parts of the world. IMO key to finding out the reason is finding out why Europe got industrial and why not China/Far East?
Up to 17th, or even early 18th century China were technologically no less technologically developed than Europe (or even more, although there were some differences), and they were more populated, and united.
Yet Europe, not China, led the world afterwards. Why?
Religion?
Model of society?
State organisation and ideology?
Preferred personal behavior and goals?
The technological details(Europe had something Asians didn't and it was important)?
Luck/coincidence?
Colonization of America(~Luck, as Europeans did this first)?
Genetic differences?
I do not have my own thery on this, but I would support that this was a combination of coincidence and preferred model of personality - individualistic, future oriented and heading towards success.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
posted November 15, 2007 11:47 PM |
|
|
First of all, I would like to issue two apologies. The first one, the least important one, is for my long absence. I know it's been two weeks or so since I made my last post here, and I've meant to come back before, but I got caught up in some studying. It's exam time, you know...
The other apology is rather more substantial. You see, I've been an ass.
In my last post, I recently realized, I allowed my prejudices against the Roman Empire run away with my reason. The Romans -- or, more precisely, the Roman aristocracy -- were much more intellectually minded than I give them credit for. As Consis has already pointed out, they had academies, they had tutors, they had great intellectuals who produced a lot of philosophy on various topics. I'll get back to how this is vital for what we're discussin later.
Then there's the importance of the Ancients for the people of the Middle Ages. I see now that I didn't reject this importance as categorically as I've been fearing, but I still brushed it aside rather to quickly. You see, for some reason I was unable to realize that what was important here wasn't how the Ancients "really" were (i.e. how we see them today), but how the people of the Middle Ages perceived them.
Granted, those who lived during Medieval times didn't know that they did, and they didn't see any breaks in the continuity from the days of Rome to their own times. However, what they did recognize was that they had hit some bad times. Thus, the era of the Roman Empire and of Ancient Greece stood out to them as a Golden Age in every way, except perhaps in religion, and they strived to emulate this era in various ways. After all, what did they know of the weaknesses of the Roman political system, of the days of the Legionary Emperors, of the systematic tendency of tax evasion which in the end disabled the Emperors from paying their legions, and so on? Hardly anything.
But through the Catholic Church many Ancient traditions and doctrines of philosophy were kept alive through the onslaught of the Germanic, Asiatic and Slavonic barbarians in the early Middle Ages. And in time, these would spread out through the Medieval societies, and become the basis of theology, of ethics, of what would eventually evolve into science. So, when they reached the Reneissance, the following situation occured:
Quote:
“Another of Burckhardt’s characterizations of the civilization of the Reneissance, the discovery of the world around man, was not one of the humanists’ primary aims. Yet, in their quest for the writings of antiquity, they also discovered the large corpus of the scientific work of the ancients and this they also proceeded to publish. The results were unexpected. Differences of opinion among the ancient philospohers and theologians were well known ever since Abelard had deliberately pointed to them. Men had tried to cope with such differences according to their own philosophical inclinations. Not so with natural science in which Aristotle, Galen and the other relatively few ancient writers who were known in the Middle Ages had been regarded as unquestioned authorities. Now, with greater knowledge of the ancients, it became apparent that they, too, often contradicted each other. There was only one way around this problem: to find out for oneself. […]
It was a this point that the efforts of the humanists became involved with the work of the late-medieval scholastic philosophers. These dominated the universities and continued to do so until the seventeenth century. The humanists usually attacked them for their rigid methods and the aridity of much of their philosophical discussions. It was they who smeared the scholastic philosophers with the story that they liked to argue about how many angels could dance on the point of a needle. (This problem had indeed, once been set, but as a deliberately humorous exercise in scholastic method for undergraduate student[s.])”
— H.G. Koeningsberger,
Mediveal Europe 400-1500, page 366f.
(And just in case anyone wonders, I am indeed taking a course in Medieval history this term, and it is reading for this course that has kept me away for the last couple of weeks. )
In my last posts I've also asked some questions about what made (Western) Europe special, as compared to e.g. the Islamic world, or Byzantium. In addition to what I outlined in my opening post, one answer is the Catholic Roman Church. The Church in the West was allowed to establish itself as an independent power during the alternating periods of vacuum and anarchy during the first five or six hundred years after the fall of Rome. In contrast, the Eastern Church was under the direct control of the Emperor, while the Ummayad Empire... well, the Ummayads and their successors, the Abbasids, actually flourished, relatively speaking. But in neither of these Eastern societies did a lasting power struggle between Church and State develop. (The Arabs also lacked a natural barrier to protect them from various "barbaric" conquering tribes, and was in time overrun by Turkish peoples, who later would establish the enormous Ottoman Empire, which was too safe for its own good, cf. my first post.) In addtion to adding another dimension to the general spirit of competition within Europe, one of the results of this power struggle was that each of these two institutions, through their respective intellectuals, used reason to defend their respective positions. They both had the same starting point -- Scripture and the various known writings of the Ancients -- but since none of these really said anything explicit enough on the Church-State relationship, they were forced to rationally extract support for themselves from their source material.
After the Church defeated the Holy Roman Empire, the regional states took over the latter's part in the conflict. I'll once again let Professor Koeningsberger take the word:
Quote:
“The papacy pushed its universal claims and international organization to their highest point and defeated the rival universal claims of the Holy Roman Empire, only to be defeated, in its turn, by the regionally based monarchies.
“Here was the turning point of internationalism in the Middel Ages. The distinguished philosopher-historian Arnold Toynbee saw it as the point where the history of European society took a tragically wrong turn which would lead, almost inevitably, to the ultimate fall of this society. It seems rather that the turning away from internationalism occurred not because something went wrong in the development of European society, but, on the contrary, because this development was proceeding very successfully. The internationalism of the central Middle Ages which, as has been shown, was the internationalism of only a small educated and skilled class — this internationalism could have survived only if Europe had become an economicallu static and intellectual stagnant society. But this would have negated all the dynamic elements of this society deriving ultimately from the merging of the barbarian tribes with the advanced civilization of the late Roman Empire. It was the success of the international sector of medieval society in creating economic and cultural growth which fragmented Europe and undermined this sector itself. This fragmentation, in its turn, was a further dynamic element; for it increased variety and competition and thus forced men to modify traditions through reason and inventiveness. It was these characteristics which, by the end of the fifteenth century,were to give the Europeans their technological, military and political edge over native Americans, Africans and most Asians. They were conquered and sometimes enslaved. But the Europeans, too had to pay a price. They had to come to terms with the collapse of a unified Christendom and found themselves embarked on a course of apparently inescapable wars between states, all claiming the universality which seemed to have belonged to the Church. The achievements and the tragedies of European and human history cannot be easily separated.”
— H.G. Koeningsberger,
Medieval Europe 400-1500, page 279.
In light of all of this, The Gootch's comment makes a lot of sense:
Quote:
[Two words:]
Printing Press.
The Chinese invented the printing press a couple of hundred years before Gutenberg, but because China lacked a lot of the other factors of Europe's success (most notably, in my humblest of humble opinions, any real, lasting competition with other states) it didn't become as important there. In Europe, on the other hand, the printing press allowed intellectuals from different corners of the continent to correspond with each other and know that they were discussing the same edition of a work. They were also able to spread their own original ideas a lot faster and much more effective, than had been the case when books had to be copied by hand.
There. I hope I've managed to elaborate a bit on my initial post, which, in retrospect, probably was a tad too materialistic in its approach. If anyone's interested in the sources I us, my first post was based on the first chapter of Global Political Economy. evolution and Dynamics by Robert O'Brien and Marc Williams (Palgrave-Macmillan 2004), whereas this one predominantly came from Medieval Europe 400-1500 by Helmut Georg Koeningsberger (Pearson Education/Longman 1987).
And Corribus, interesting view of the "direction" of the continents! Never thought of that factor before.
Finally: Angelito, thanks for the QP. I stopped caring too much about them after I got my eighth, but they're still nice to get.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted November 16, 2007 04:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The Chinese invented the printing press a couple of hundred years before Gutenberg, but because China lacked a lot of the other factors of Europe's success (most notably, in my humblest of humble opinions, any real, lasting competition with other states) it didn't become as important there. In Europe, on the other hand, the printing press allowed intellectuals from different corners of the continent to correspond with each other and know that they were discussing the same edition of a work. They were also able to spread their own original ideas a lot faster and much more effective, than had been the case when books had to be copied by hand.
Three commments here.
1. I do believe that the lack of competition was the biggest reason why Europe exploded in the 15th-16th centuries and China did not. Competition drove exploration and colonialization. China had no such impetus.
2. The printing press obviously had a much bigger impact in Europe, and I feel this is related to the nature of religion in Europe. The printing press was revolutionary because it made literature accessible to common people, who could then break out of the dominance of the Catholic church. The ease with which information could be spread among an increasingly literate population obviously directly leads to reformationist ideas, and new technological endeavors, especially in scientific fields which inherantly require cooperation and the sharing of information. Needless to say, this also probably played a roll in European imperialism, as well as the Renaissance. The relationship between literacy and imperialism is simple: with the rise of the printing press, the use of latin declines (also, the Church weakens) and more works become published in local languages. This leads to a rise in nationalism, which increases international competition, etc., etc.
3. The printing press did not have as large an impact in China, probably because there was no major religious (political) institution AND because of the Chinese "alphabet".
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 16, 2007 06:13 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 18:19, 16 Nov 2007.
|
Hmm . . .
I disagree with the printing press being one of the significant reasons for European ascension. The printing press means very little unless a person could read it. The printing press also means very little unless proliferated on religious pretexts, which is what actually happened. You see during the crusades the europeans were actually falling behind technologically. As I understand my history, it was the Arabs who had perfected the art of sword-making first, not the Europeans and not the Japanese. It was the Arabs who had Damascus steel and its proliferation. It was the Arabs who gave the world Algebra. So what happened? How did the Europeans surpass them? Get ready for the answer, here it comes! Because the Quran expressedly forbids drawing and writing while the Bible was taken to be translated by almost all of europe through Tindal, King James, and others.......even though some might be shocked in hearing this....even King Henry VIII. It was NOT the printing press that made all the difference. It was the massive grandiose scale to which most of Europe took to printing copies of Tindal's bible. Sure the printing press was available but now Europeans could have God's word in their pocket! And not the Latin translation from Hebrew! No indeed! It was translated into English, French, and many other languages!!!!! Now the common peasant could read about God for him/her self! Now Martin Luther's dream really could happen! A personal relationship with God with no need for the middleman. Now (finally!) reading and writing had value among the common man or woman! Now reading and writing was providence! Thus this explains how Europeans ascended in the area of education. Reading and Writing become a continental endeavor while the Arabs continue to actively oppose drawing pictures and great state-sponsored movements were formed to oppress unpopular books and other written works!
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 16, 2007 08:59 PM |
|
|
Europe didn't ascend. Europeans didn't ascend either. Mankind ascended. Europe was merely a convenient place to do it.
If you assume civilization started in Mesopotamia or somewhere thereabouts, it's a simple matter of geography, climate, fertile lands, water (both fresh and salt water), and proximity.
Everything else is overanalysis.
I guess I wouldn't make a very good publisher of text books. As far as I'm concerned 3/4 of the pages in most texts can be thrown away.
Consis, we've talked about the process of writing and how it takes on a life of it's own once started. If an author is into writing, and maybe a bit of liking to hear him/herself talk, then long overly complicated text books are the results.
Don't you think it's odd that in our education, we learn our ABCs first and the art of language and communication second? We start with the details and don't learn until later the purpose of those details. Why not learn to express first and let the ABCs come as they will?
We take an anatomy class to memorize the bones and muscles. It's not until later that we go to medical school to learn there is a system called a body.
We memorize genus, family, order, class and phylum before learning that the cat eats the mouse.
In history we are so concerned with memorizing dates and the geneaolgy of kings that we miss the big picture, when it's the big picture that makes history so interesting. We aren't teaching our children history, we are teaching them that history is a chore, that it is dry and boring.
When a child is lying on her back on a warm summer day, watching as the clouds float past, not thinking about much of anything, but simply observing and contemplating the wonder of it all, that's the basis of true learning. It's the art of observation. It's the seed of wonder. And hopefully, it's one of many thousands of times in a child's life when their eyes widen and with a smile that will melt the heart of any teacher exclaim "wowwwww, that's really cool!!!". Now they are hooked, now they are ready to carry us into the future. The details will take care of themselves.
Um, I think I mentioned Europe somewhere, right.
____________
|
| |
|
|
