How did the area of Europe advance so quickly?

[Ribannah]

That is because we defined the Ages.

[Az]

Europe also had a great advantage of being spared the wraths of the Mongols, which played an immense part in destroying everything good in the old world. All the great civilizations trembled under the mongol boot.
China: lost.
Eastern Europe: lost.
Middle East: lost.
Western Europe: Spared, by a freakish coinsidence..

[DAVOUT]

In the 15th century, China had a formidable navy with vessels three times as long as the caravels. They have travelled to the East coast of Africa, and the Golf. And suddenly, the Emperor decided that he was not interested in anything beyond the borders.

Is that the real explaination, what could have been the consequences on Europe of a different decision ?

[Paul Hanson]

The explanation is simple: to put it in terms that people here will understand, Euros roxor.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
The explanation is simple: to put it in terms that people here will understand, Euros roxor.

I will perhaps understand if you tell me what roxor is

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
In the 15th century, China had a formidable navy with vessels three times as long as the caravels. They have travelled to the East coast of Africa, and the Golf. And suddenly, the Emperor decided that he was not interested in anything beyond the borders.

Is that the real explaination, what could have been the consequences on Europe of a different decision ?

Suddenly? What was the need for the Chinese to go further? The ships and their travels were certainly impressive but they mostly served as a show-case for the Chinese imperial might. The ships were exactly designed to that purpose. Once they had shown their power there wasn't much of a need to explore further, as China was the world already. Why risk disturbances that come along with change and foreign influxes? (not to mention those huge expeditions were darn expensive) There simply wasn't a lot to gain for them and I doubt it would have been any different if their ships had arrived in Europe.
It's a completely different story with Portugal, they were tiny a dirt-poor country so they had nothing to lose and much to gain by exploring and opening up new trade routes to Eastern spice. (and thereby breaking the monopoly of the Venicians and the Muslims as middlemen)
Their ships may not have been as impressive but they certainly were a lot more efficient.

It's that monolith vs diversity thing again, in China one person literally controlled everything, from the army tp religion to a man's life. If he wished to cut off contact with abroad there wasn't anyone to oppose him and trade was considered vile anyway.
In Europe there was no such authorithy, even in individual Kingdoms there were restrictions to the power of a king and even peasants had gained some rights. If he'd make such a move he'd face revolts by the merchant cities (who were autonomous identities in many European countries, contrary to China) and he'd weaken his estates versus the king's next door.

I seriously believe the Roman Empire's fall was the best thing that could happen to Europe, and also that the continent was equally lucky Charlemange or any other king didn't establish a new one.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Uber KruX

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber KruX superior genetics. fairer skin.

[DAVOUT]

Bush arrived too late, and in the wrong country

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Azazel
Europe also had a great advantage of being spared the wraths of the Mongols, which played an immense part in destroying everything good in the old world. All the great civilizations trembled under the mongol boot.
China: lost.
Eastern Europe: lost.
Middle East: lost.
Western Europe: Spared, by a freakish coinsidence..

Don't forget the Mongol cavalry was at a serious disadvantage in Europe's densely forested areas. It isn't a coincidence most of their conquests succeeded in the open steppes or deserts. I doubt they would have gotten that far in Europe, so if they would, weak lines of communication would have made it very problematic to hold on to their conquests. (even in the steppes, the empire quickly fell apart in separate Khanates)

Besides, the Russian kingdoms were only tributaries to the Mongols and it wasn't all that long before they began asserting themselves and pushed back the Khanates.

[Q Classic]

@uberkrux

Don't forget the Mongol cavalry was at a serious disadvantage in Europe's densely forested areas. It isn't a coincidence most of their conquests succeeded in the open steppes or deserts.

both korea, manchuria, and much of northeastern china is densely forested and mountainous...
some of the largest reasons why the mongol horde failed in europe was sheer distance, the death of the khan, and a stronger than expected defense in europe.

[Urban Ranger]

The roots of their civilization lay in a religion which taught them they were a people voyaging in time, their eyes on a future made a little more comprehensible and perhaps a little less frightening by contemplation of past perils navigated and awareness of a common goal. As a result Europe was to be the first civilization aware of time not as endless (though perhaps cyclical) perssure, but as continuing change in a certain direction, as progress.

What kind of gibberish is this?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Colon
If he wished to cut off contact with abroad there wasn't anyone to oppose him and trade was considered vile anyway.

That's not true. Why do you think forts were established to protect the Silk Road, and that naval vessels were used to open up trade routes over the oceans? Porcelain and tea constituted the biggest exports to Europe. Don't forget, trade is one of the biggest driving forces for Western European countries to try to find sea routes to the Far East, bypassing the middleman as you pointed out.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
Europe also had a great advantage of being spared the wraths of the Mongols, which played an immense part in destroying everything good in the old world. All the great civilizations trembled under the mongol boot.
China: lost.
Eastern Europe: lost.
Middle East: lost.
Western Europe: Spared, by a freakish coinsidence..

Though after the Mongol rule was overthrown in China, it still had a strong lead over Europe. Not until the 17th century did Europe finally overtook China.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The availability of classical knowledge kept safe by Muslim states?

This is a vastly over rated misconception. The Greek Byzentines of course knew all about their classical past and the Italians were huge traders with the Byzentines. Also the vatican had/has copies of most of the ancient texts though they limited the distribution of them due to their pagan origin.

Have you ever read "How the Irish saved the world"? It's a great read. Believe it or not the Celtic Church was almost totally independent from the Roman Church for about 400-500 years and they, unlike the Catholics, put a high priority towards reprinting (by hand) all of the ancient Greek and Roman texts. During middle ages Celtic preist refounded many of the abbies which had been abandoned during the dark ages and took copies of the Greek & Roman writtings with them. This idea that all ancient knowledge was lost in Europe and the great Arab/Muslim civilization saved it is just false.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Though after the Mongol rule was overthrown in China, it still had a strong lead over Europe. Not until the 17th century did Europe finally overtook China.

Not true. By 1450 the European fire arms & cannonry were far, far better then anything you could find in east Asia.

[Oerdin]

When I was in college I read a very interesting paper about the long term effects of the Black Death upon Europe. Before the Black plague Europe had a surplus of labor but after losing 1/3 of the population it became difficult to meet all of industry's labor needs. Right after the black death subsided water wheels started preading across the content. Water powered grain mills where one of the first really great labor saving inventions of the pre-industrial world. They resulted in a steep drop in the amount of man hours needed to convert grain into flower thus allowing the excess labor to be utilized else where. They also lead to a new class of mechanics who specialized in designing, building, and maintaining these machines.

[Az]

Don't forget the Mongol cavalry was at a serious disadvantage in Europe's densely forested areas. It isn't a coincidence most of their conquests succeeded in the open steppes or deserts. I doubt they would have gotten that far in Europe, so if they would, weak lines of communication would have made it very problematic to hold on to their conquests. (even in the steppes, the empire quickly fell apart in separate Khanates)

All that is true, but the damage caused by their initial conquest to the social fabric and infrastructure of nation was terrifying.

Besides, the Russian kingdoms were only tributaries to the Mongols and it wasn't all that long before they began asserting themselves and pushed back the Khanates.

They became tributaries after being chewed and spat out by the Mongols that couldn't be arsed ( and didn't have the capability, 'cept via Tatar proxies ) to reign them in at all times. Still, as I said, the damage was done, and it took a couple of centuries to push the golden horde back.

[Dis]

black death

[Berzerker]

How did the area of Europe advance so quickly?

They didn't. When Paris and London were backwaters of maybe 10,000 people, Teotihuacan was home to an estimated 200,000 people. And then we can go a few thousand years and see how the Sumerians, Egyptians, Hittites, and Indus people were doing when Europeans were dancing around in groves smearing animal blood all over.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger That's not true. Why do you think forts were established to protect the Silk Road, and that naval vessels were used to open up trade routes over the oceans? Porcelain and tea constituted the biggest exports to Europe. Don't forget, trade is one of the biggest driving forces for Western European countries to try to find sea routes to the Far East, bypassing the middleman as you pointed out.

Obviously it wasn't a driving force for the Chinese to explore beyond the coast of Africa. As I already said, the primary reason for the Chinese to set up expeditions was to demonstrate their power and there wasn't any compelling reason to continue with it once the emperor's attention shifted elsewhere.
The Chinese elite was very suspicious of traders and their activities and they weren't shy of banning their business and grabbing their property. The fact that maritime trade by Chinese was outlawed is telling IMO. (the porcelain and tea weren't transferred to Europe by Chinese ships and that's exactly where the Portuguese reaped their profits)
To be sure, such suspicions also existed in Europe but merchants and/or trade would just migrate to a neighbour once conditions deteriorated. No single ruler could paralyse trade across Europe the way a Chinese emperor could.

PS: think of Marco Polo. Why did an European made use of trade routes opened up by the Mongols to explore the east, while a Chinese didn't do anything similar to explore the west?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What kind of gibberish is this?

Augustinian. Read City of God for more clarification.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Azazel
All that is true, but the damage caused by their initial conquest to the social fabric and infrastructure of nation was terrifying.

Yes, so?

They became tributaries after being chewed and spat out by the Mongols that couldn't be arsed ( and didn't have the capability, 'cept via Tatar proxies ) to reign them in at all times. Still, as I said, the damage was done, and it took a couple of centuries to push the golden horde back.

" (and didn't have the capability, 'cept via Tatar proxies ) to reign them in at all times"

That's exactly my point. Defeating and conquering an enemy is one thing, maintaining control over them is another. If it was too hard for them to directly rule over the Russians, then why would they have had that capability over the rest of Europe?

[Vesayen]

I say the black death.......one of the big factors anyway.

Now before you say "huh" and scratch your head, think about it.

One third of europe population just died, what does that leave?

A TREMENDOUS food surplus! The general suruplus on materials and goods left over after 1/3rd of Europe croaked raised the standard of living and left more time for creative loafing-not to mention it jumbled the inbreeding royalty a bit by killing a big chunk of em.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I say the black death.......one of the big factors anyway.

Now before you say "huh" and scratch your head, think about it.

One third of europe population just died, what does that leave?

A TREMENDOUS food surplus! The general suruplus on materials and goods left over after 1/3rd of Europe croaked raised the standard of living and left more time for creative loafing-not to mention it jumbled the inbreeding royalty a bit by killing a big chunk of em.

Doesn't it occur to you there were also 1/3 Europeans less left to produce food?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Vesayen
I say the black death.......one of the big factors anyway.

Now before you say "huh" and scratch your head, think about it.

One third of europe population just died, what does that leave?

A TREMENDOUS food surplus! The general suruplus on materials and goods left over after 1/3rd of Europe croaked raised the standard of living and left more time for creative loafing-not to mention it jumbled the inbreeding royalty a bit by killing a big chunk of em.

Ah, so the mistake we made in Africa was to send them vaccines and penicilline instead of black death ?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


What kind of gibberish is this?

Actually, Christian-Judeo thought played a crucial role in the development of scientific progress in Europe. While to the layman of today this may seem ridiculous given the popular impression of modern religious fanatics, Christian thought is a keystone to the European mindset and development. Once it was determined that God can be understood and so on the universe itself, early scientists (ie. religious philosphers) once again began to speculate about the nature of their surroundings. This was a step that was lost in most of the Eastern world thanks to Budhism and similar philosophies which preached that the world is not real and not worth being understood.

[JohnT]

Not only that, but Christianity teaches about the perfectibility of mankind - i.e., not that man is perfect but that he is always capable of doing better.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DaShi


Actually, Christian-Judeo thought played a crucial role in the development of scientific progress in Europe. While to the layman of today this may seem ridiculous given the popular impression of modern religious fanatics, Christian thought is a keystone to the European mindset and development. Once it was determined that God can be understood and so on the universe itself, early scientists (ie. religious philosphers) once again began to speculate about the nature of their surroundings. This was a step that was lost in most of the Eastern world thanks to Budhism and similar philosophies which preached that the world is not real and not worth being understood.

I'm a bit sceptical about this because it's difficult which way the causation goes. Was the European mindset formed by Christian thought or was Christain thought formed by the European mindset?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
@uberkrux

it's about damn time someone laughed.

[Sir Og]

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 )

Any country/region can advance very quickly and reach the full potential that the technology at that time allows if it has a relatively stable and efficient political and economic system. There are a lot of examples in ancient and modern times.
Unfortunately it is impossible to keep the pace because inevitably these advanced societies become complacent and conservative.
And I am afraid that a game that can model this type of rise and fall won’t be much fun.
I don’t think though that the current civ model is the best compromise between fun and realism. The next civ game should have a lot more realistic representation of warfare (troop movement) diplomacy and government among other things. And it will be even more fun if its done right.