How did the area of Europe advance so quickly?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Colon
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.

To whom? Granted, there were some European observers on Cheng Ho's fleet, but neighbouring countries wouldn't know about the voyages, right? A demonstration of might with no audience is completely worthless. Hence, that cannot be it.

Originally posted by Colon
The Chinese elite was very suspicious of traders and their activities and they weren't shy of banning their business and grabbing their property.

Not true. Businesses weren't encouraged per se, but they weren't frowned upon, either. A lot of foreign trading had began as early as the Han dynasty through the Silk Road, that's when forts were established to guard against barbarian raiders, mainly the Huns.

Originally posted by Colon
The fact that maritime trade by Chinese was outlawed is telling IMO.

What? When?

Originally posted by Colon
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?

That seems to be two different things. Europeans were interested in Asian cultures and such, don't forget Marco Polo spent 13 years in the courts of Kublai Khan. The Chinese weren't exactly interested in European cultures in the same degree that Marco Polo did. However, that doesn't mean that Chinese dynasties weren't interesed in the money businesses could generate.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by JohnT
" I think it is significant that the majority of the early explorers, who initiated Europe's long sea-borne invasion of the world, were citizens of the mediterranean,"

Actually, the early explorers were Portugese, which is not, last time I looked, a Med. country.

Technically, you're right, but the Portugese were players in the mediterranean trade route competition along with Venice and Genoa, and so from a commercial point of view Portugal was a mediterranean country.

[Ted Striker]

Chinese thought the Eurocoms were savages. And rightly so.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: How did the area of Europe advance so quickly?

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

What plague? There wasn't any plague in China. Famines, sure, and lots of people got killed by Mongol hordes, sure, but no plagues.

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that the reason that China failed to expand is the inward looking perfectionism of the Confuscian philosophical system that dominated Chinese society. You might also take into account that after 1200 AD China was ruled by successive waves of foreigners. Each of these dynasties required some time to make China theri home, and military dictatorships also twend to squash innovation. Wasn't there a period during which the imperial government actually went about book burning en mass?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Chinese thought the Eurocoms were savages. And rightly so.

Maybe there was a certain "air" about them?

[Urban Ranger]

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 concur with Colon on this. Since the Renaissance Judeo-Christianity was the main resistance to scientific development. Copernicus didn't dare to publish his theory until he's on his deathbed. The Inquisition burned Bruno at stake and forced Galileo to recant. Darwin wasn't even a Christian, and IIRC Newton didn't do his work for Jesus.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I think that the reason that China failed to expand is the inward looking perfectionism of the Confuscian philosophical system that dominated Chinese society.

If the reigning emperor were to buy into this silliness, yes, then the country would turn inward and close its doors. This unfortunately happened a lot more often since the Ming dynasty when the Confuscian school became more reactive and even metaphysical.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You might also take into account that after 1200 AD China was ruled by successive waves of foreigners. Each of these dynasties required some time to make China theri home, and military dictatorships also twend to squash innovation.

The Mongol rule lasted 89 years (the Yuan dynasty), which was succeeded by the Ming dynasty, which was kicked over by the Manchus, and eventually overthrown by the Nationalists. Though the real military dicatorship was only the Mongols - the Manchus were a lot more clever and Machiavellian.

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Wasn't there a period during which the imperial government actually went about book burning en mass?

Yeah, that was the Qin dynasty though, some time in the BCE's.

[Berzerker]

UR -

According to who? IIRC, Joseph Needham says something entirely differently.

I haven't read his book yet, but I often see him referenced in other books on Chinese history. I'm not sure if it was his work that others have recently brought to light or if new information has become available. But I saw some of the evidence in a documentary that the Chinese developed cannons first (and why not, first to gunpowder) but I guess they didn't figure out how to produce more effective cannonry and that technology was essentially disgarded.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I seriously doubt it.

And why would you identify britain with artilerry is beyond me.

if one nation prevailed in warfare technology in europe that was germany. if you want to be proud about it....
and germany didnt change history that much.

Actually, I wouldn't discount the French on the matter of military advances. Look how many military terms are French in origin, yet used by Germans, English, Americans, Russians etc.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Berzerker

Hersh -

Not the Europeans, but thanks for adding to the crappola.

Those large 8m cannons the Ottomans used in 1453 in the siege of Constantinoples were designed and built by a hungarian gunsmith in the service of the Sultan. IIRC he was carrying the good muslim name of Urban.

[Berzerker]

So he was a Muslim, wasn't that my point? Plus, I understand the Muslims made an important improvement using brass I believe.

[HershOstropoler]

Re: Re: Re: Re: How did the area of Europe advance so quickly?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

What plague? There wasn't any plague in China. Famines, sure, and lots of people got killed by Mongol hordes, sure, but no plagues.

ehm... right, it just originated there, most likely.

A little googling:

"The great pandemic of plague, known in Europe as the Black Death, is thought to have begun in China in the early 1330s. Reliable chronicles tell of an outbreak of the plague in China, beginning in 1331. Sources in Latin, Arabic, and Chinese tell of numerous natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes. These events might have destroyed the habitats of the plague-bearing rodents, forcing them into contact with other rodent populations and thus spreading their fleas (11). By the 1350s, two-thirds of China's population lay dead (12)."

http://www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/BUBONIC.HTM

The 2/3rds estimate is likely exaggerated, but so are most estimates for Europe. We have accounts in regional history of 4000 dead in a city that had no more than 2000 people, for example. But with the plague breaking out of central asia, why should china be spared? And it was part of the factors weakening Yuan rule.

"In China the outbreaks of the plague caused massive death rates and economic chaos, and contributed to the collapse of the Mongol (Yuan) Dynasty 14 years later."

http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sc...attuta/Battuta's_Trip_Ten.html

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Berzerker
So he was a Muslim, wasn't that my point?

That may be many things, but not a comeback.

[Berzerker]

I heard the Plague originated along the Silk Road - Western China - where people had some immunity. But the disease moved along trade routes east and west, so I don't know why the Chinese would have been missed. There's evidence of caucasions living along the Silk Road, but from several thousand years ago, maybe 1000 bc.