| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
One of my hobbies is reading history. I am currently romping through a book entitled "The Foundations of Early Modern Europe 1460-1559". And a good, and often asked question, arises: Why was European culture the only one to go global?
My thoughts:
1. Military technology brought about by having too many small highly poplulated principalities protected by large stone walls (required cannon to break).
2. An alphabet suitable for use in a printing press.
3. An economic set up that allowed for a merchant class, and allowed said merchant class to purchase it's way into nobility (over generations).
4. A series of economic shocks (both good and bad) that completely destroyed, over the course of 200 or so years with the help of #1, the foundations of fuedalism, encouraging #3 to bring fresh blood into the ruling classes.
#3 and #4 encouraged exploration which allowed #1 to completely unsettle the existing status quo on 4 continents (S America, N Amer, Africa, Eastern and southern Asia).
While #2 insured continuation of #1, and allowed #3 to be self replicating.
Any thoughts on this quick summary?
PS - An interesting read dealing with this topic in broader terms can be found in Jarod Diamonds "Guns Germs & Steel", I read this many years ago and have forgotten large chunks of it, but found it to be amazingly interesting.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:16 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
Actually, if we allow the time span to extend to before the middle-ages, we would realize that several other cultures tried to go global too. The most obvious of these is the Arabic culture, which as late as the 20th was still causing trouble in Europe (Balkans). And let's not forget that they went all the way to Spain. The Arabs were, for much time, the "enlightened" culture, contributing the most to literature and science. It irks modern Arabs no end that they lost that leadership position to Europeans. From all the books of history of warfare and general history I've read, I've come to the basic conclusion that it was neither economy nor warfare that were the predominant factors to defeated the Arab culture. In the end, it was their very religion (especially the Sunni "branch"), which forbade a Muslim to fight another. That was a crucial factor which nearly halted the expansion of the Mamelukes, and Seljuk Turks. It later made life hard for the Ottoman Empire to put out local rebellions. And in the end, some religious leaders, annoyed with the rise of European culture, forbade the adoption of new military techniques. By the time the "Young Ottomans" tried to modernize their army, with help from the Germans, it was already too late.
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Tue Feb 25, 2003 4:47 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
@Goshuto - Exactly! Only the 'Europeans' (a tag for a loose bunch of states) actually succeded in going global.
IMO the Muslim expansion imploded because, at its roots it was not as flexible (see #2 and #3 above). While the merchant classes were respected there was not enough corruption (at first) to allow easy transitions of new blood into the ruling elite. Later, after they'd lost the dynamic energy required to grow, corruption becomes the rule rather than the exception.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:21 pm |
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
I think the Romans can be blamed/thanked for much of the list above. Their military and technolical advancements (roads, etc.) set them ahead of the rest of the world.
Another thing I think can be noted as an influence is the great number of islands (England, much of Greece and the Mediterranean) peninsulas (Scandanavia, Spain) and continents (Africa) that were more easily reachable by ship. Thus the mariner science was explored to a great extent in Europe, at least moreso than most other places.
One post-Roman expansion aspect I think is important is the christian religion and its morbid fascination with crusades and missions. With the spread of missionaires attempting to convert 'heathens' worldwide so followed military might and colonization and eventually cultural assimilation of the natives. I'm not promoting this as the sole cause or means of Europe's cultural dominance, just a strong aiding factor. Other more primitive mythologies did not assert religious superiority over other religions, they saw their gods and myths as more parables and suggestions than scripture. When two would come in contact they would discuss the similarities (of which there are very many, see any of Joseph Campbell's books) rather than blame satan for telling them confusing lies. Culture is based to a large extent on religion-- thus the missions became small expanding cells (tumors?) of european culture that's goal was to invalidate the existing religion resulting in the invalidation of the culture based on that religion. In summary, my hypothesis is that christianity's propensity towards forced superiority and non-acceptance of other religions aided the cultural spread of Europe throughout the world.
If this is a bit disjointed it is because I'm at work and stopped and re-started a few times in the process of writing it.
-vaticide |
|
Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:41 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
@Goshuto - Exactly! Only the 'Europeans' (a tag for a loose bunch of states) actually succeded in going global.
But my point is, Muslims did go global! They were then toppled by Europe, but they were global for a time. Regarding Europe, there is no assurance that the European (now western) culture will be replaced by, say, an Asian culture in two hundred years.
quote:
Originally posted by vaticide
One post-Roman expansion aspect I think is important is the christian religion and its morbid fascination with crusades and missions.
The early Muslim religion also had something similar. It was exactly this that led to the Arab expansion towards North Africa and Europe in the first place.
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:53 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
@goshuto -
The muslems went semi global - they never made it out of southern Asia, and Africa (okay the Balkans, but that is a small exposure). They did not have the sea orientation that the Europeans did. They were the middle men getting rich off the spice trade with the Orient. The Portugese voyages of exploration began with an urge to dominate the west african gold trade, but quickly expanded to take aim at cutting the Muslems out as middle men in the spice trade. Recall that Columbus was searching for a short cut to the Orient.
This kind of "global" seamanship was mandated through the economic situation the Europeans found themselves in...they had a big incentive ...cutting out the guy in the middle... the guy in the middle had no such incentive. I also believe that the "society" of the Muslems at that point would not have allowed the inovation required to branch out into new areas of scientific discovery ... in fact ... now that I think of it, faced with European ascendancy the Muslem empire(s) kind of went into a stasis where little changed. When faced with the challenge of being cut out as middle men, they folded their hand (as a society) and quit the game instead of rising to the challenge. They were content to hold onto what limited trade was left to them and allowed the global initiative to shift, first to Portugal and Spain, then the Dutch, French and English.
So in summary the muslem society failed the test. It did not rise to the occasion. It did not produce first rate military and/or scientific advances to counter Europe's growing influence, instead it retreated and became conservative, lawyer bound (I am not 100% sure on this, but I do know the code of laws was VERY rigid - always a bad sign), and inward looking. It's great advances in optics and math were, at this time things of great antiquity, while Europe forged ahead with great advances in Metellurgy, Astronomy, Math, Physics, Farming, Finanace, Guns, etc, etc, etc. building a lead in technology that persisted through the early 1900's - with only the US, Japan, and to some extent the USSR achieving an equal level by 2000.
Note: I am considering the modern day British Commonwealth as part of Europe.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Tue Feb 25, 2003 8:39 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
@Lintra: OK, I agree that the Muslims failed; no doubt about that. However, let's analyse a bit what "going global" means. I'd say it means either colonizing, or spreading and exerting influence over most of the world known at the time. Now, if we consider the Muslim civilization to have reached its peak at about 1000AD (although they had already lost the Iberian peninsula by then, and Europe was only crawling towards the Enlightenment), I'd say they had no means to go any more global than they did. Consider: maritime travel was a risky business back then, limited mostly to the Mediterranean. It wasn't until about 300 years later that a country (Portugal) would achieve the level of technology necessary for safe high-seas travel. (although, arguably, the Vikings had some). Africa: the Muslims got the Northern part, and pretty much ignored the rest, because there was no means available at the time to enable anyone to properly colonize, or even travel to, the dense jungles of central Africa. Asia: I'd say the problem here was logistic outreach -- the same problem that plagued Alexander the Great. South-eastern Asian civilizations were a tough nut to crack, and required large armies to fight. Large armies required large amount of supplies -- logistic problems! Remember this is ~1000AD. Americas: unknown except for some Vikings here and there. Australia: unknown. Europe: Well, they did get the Iberian peninsula (holding it for so long so as to influence the architecture of the region), and the Balkans. They would have gone further if it wasn't for Venice, or if they had succeeded in the siege of Vienna. So I'd say the Muslims did go goblal with the resources they had available at the time.
To further my point, consider the Roman empire. They also went global, IMHO. With the resources they had available to them, they colonized most of the known world at the time.
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Wed Feb 26, 2003 1:57 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
C'mon, Lintra, you can't possibly agree with me! Prove me wrong! 
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:35 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
C'mon, Lintra, you can't possibly agree with me! Prove me wrong!
Okay - its easy 
I disagree with your definintion of global. The Romans did NOT infulence the far east (not even as far east as Alex), nor did they influence Africa outside of the Med's coast line. They lost the 'drive' to go further.
As to the Muslims, well, they too, ran out of steam. Instead of pulling an end run on Europe they were content to let it exist. Tiny Portugal could not confront Muslim might head on ... and succeded in an end run - which inspired Columbus etc. No. The Muslims did not go global either. They had contact with the wider world but were content to live out their lives as middle men.
The Roman thing does bring up a good question....Why did technology flower between ~500BC to about 100 BC and then grind to a halt? There were some pretty impressive engineering accomplishments, but no real change in technology. Any good ideas?
Or do you want to stay with the global issue?
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Thu Feb 27, 2003 9:45 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
Why did technology flower between ~500BC to about 100 BC and then grind to a halt? There were some pretty impressive engineering accomplishments, but no real change in technology. Any good ideas?
I'm of the opinion that significant technological advances need societies rich and prosperous enough to "stimulate and support" them. After the decline of the Roman empire (roughly at around 400AD or thereabouts), such prosperous societies did not exist, hence no technological progress. Although I'm not sure what it was like in the Far East at that time: was it prosperous? Were there technological advances in there?
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
Or do you want to stay with the global issue?
I can't just leave it at that, can I? I agree completely with you about the Muslim and Roman empires. They did not effectively go global according to your definition. My question is: could the Roman empire go global, had it wanted it? Was the technology of the time (including military logistics) enough to enable them to do that?
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Fri Feb 28, 2003 10:30 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
...I'm of the opinion that significant technological advances need societies rich and prosperous enough to "stimulate and support" them. After the decline of the Roman empire (roughly at around 400AD or thereabouts), such prosperous societies did not exist, hence no technological progress. Although I'm not sure what it was like in the Far East at that time: was it prosperous? Were there technological advances in there?
Okay, I have a proposition for this one. The Roman empire was rich, very rich, but there were no advance in technology after about 100BC - the begining of the golden era of Rome.
For technology to advance there has to be some wealth, but more importantly there has to be a need and the society has to be vigorous enough to respond agressively to that need. From 100 BC to about 100 AD the empire was most likely vigorous enough, but it was 100% dominant with what it had.
quote:
Originally posted by goshuto
I can't just leave it at that, can I? I agree completely with you about the Muslim and Roman empires. They did not effectively go global according to your definition. My question is: could the Roman empire go global, had it wanted it? Was the technology of the time (including military logistics) enough to enable them to do that?
As to whether the Romans could've made the same voyages of discovery the Portugese made ... most likely. With the exception of gun powder the available technology was about the same. But Rome was not ship-centric, Portugal was. In addition, Portugal was a new nation at the time bursting with expansionistic energy, and no where to go by land ...
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Wed Mar 05, 2003 4:48 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lintra
With the exception of gun powder the available technology was about the same
The Romans didn't have the caravel! Nor did they have the "advanced" maritime travel knowledge that Portugal had. This knowledge was brought about with the foundation of the center for maritime studies in Sagres by Dom Henrique around the year 1418. These considerable accomplishments (along with some other issues, such as the early establishment of monarchy in Portugal, compared to Spain) enabled Portugal to expand in the 1430s. So, you see, technology did have to be developed; the Romans did not have it.
BTW, is that book you're reading any good? Would you recomend it?
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Sat Mar 08, 2003 2:17 am |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
Damn, I am too busy to properly reply but in a nut shell:
The Romans had all the basic technology available. Including knowledge of the Atlantic. That they didn't advance their maritime ability is only due to lack of drive, not basic technology. The Caravel is not THAT different from the boats the Gaul used to trade with England and Ireland. The viking long ship was new technology, but the caravel .. not really.
In any case, why did they not explore down the african coast as did the Portugese and the Cartheginians? The quick answers are:
1. They saw no need. They'd already conquored everything (but they knew that wasn't true, Alex had gone all the way to India, and the Romans know OF Cathay).
2. The explorer spirit wasn't there.
3. There was little economic incentive.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:26 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
I have moved this from a soon-to-be-deleted user group since I thought the discussion an interesting one, and would value futher input/feedback etc.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:02 pm |
|
|
Bytespawn
Tempered Warlord
Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 295
Location: Belgium |
Why europe got global? That happens to be everything I learned in this Trimester in history lessons.
-The roman empire? Not really, the WRE was completely overrun by barbarians (our forefathers) and the turks overrun the ERE one thousand years later.
little of their culture was spared out of italy, exept for roads and government.
-Did it happen in the middle ages? The catholic church supressed all inventors, and executed those with new ideas (Ex. Copernicus, heliocentrism)
But they had a lot of power however and countrys in Europe formed more alliances, even if it was just to fight someone else. But then the 15th and 16th century, Italy: Humanism, people started thinking differently and suddenly everything was focused on life itself, instead of living towards your death, to live on in paradise. Inventions were made, a lot of art too: The Renaissance, AKA the rebirth. Knowledge spread out of Italy due to trade routes between Flanders and Italy, German and Italian wars, The art of printing with metal letters (Gutenberg 1550) and normal paper wich made bookprices decrease dramatically-> learning for poor people! The effect of all this was huge: hundreds of new inventors wich led to naval inventions to determine speed, depth, location. Better ships. Better cards. More seatrade wich as we al know led to discovering america. We destroyed cultures there, we convinced India to wage war against the muslims, we simply opressed anything that stood between us, and wealth. The king of spain and all the spanish colonies got a daughter, that daughter married the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire and the seventeen provinces (thats where i live) Their sun became the most powerful man in the whole world: Charles V, he conquered more than half of europe, a great part of america, and colonies in Oceania and Asia. A quote from him was "In my empire, the sun never goes down"
Yeah i think the Europeans got global
By the way, he was born in Flanders, only 50 miles from where i live.
_________________
One blade good, two blade better |
|
Sat Dec 25, 2004 9:22 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
