How did the area of Europe advance so quickly?

[Berzerker]

That may be many things, but not a comeback.

I said Muslims produced those cannons and you found the proof, thx.

[HershOstropoler]

UUUURBAAAAAN!!!!

[Berzerker]

"Urban" is not a Muslim name?

[HershOstropoler]

Look, there were like 8 popes by the name of Urban! How much more obvious can irony get?

[Berzerker]

Ah, I don't keep up on the names of popes, but "Urban" does sound quite familiar.

In 1452 Mohammed II completed his preparations unhindered. He laid much trust in the ability of modern artillery and employed a Hungarian gunfounder, called Urban, to cast him a siege artillery of seventy guns. Another major part of Mohammed II's preparations was to contruct a fortress at the narrowest point of the Bosporus, called Rumeli Hisari, with which he could blockade the sea-straight.

According to a Muslim historian, Mohammed designed the guns (for what that's worth) and had them cast. But "Urban" may have been the guy's name before conversion. If he was a Christian, why was he helping Muslims conquer a Christian city?

[HershOstropoler]

Mohammed had the idea to use very big siege guns, and building them was a technical challange. As for "why was he helping Muslims conquer a Christian city", quite simple: he had been unemployed.

[Tolls]

"...he had been unemployed."

Quite. And over the next few hundred years there were to be many more unemployed European weaponsmiths and the like hired into the service of the Sultan, because they lacked the ability to produce this stuff themselves.

[Heresson]

I wouldn't overestimate Mongol raids. Egypt or (North) Africa wasn't ran over by them, and it was and is on the same level as other Arab grounds. Poland was ran over by Mongols and later it was doing pretty well, better than western states in many things, until half of XVII century.

[Az]

Since the Renaissance Judeo-Christianity was the main resistance to scientific development.

This always baffled me, what do the jews have to do with this? Judaism had no authority .

[Panag]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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.

hi ,

wake up , we allready had a culture with math , they just took our numbers , stein , shalosh , arba , etc , .... we allready could calculate a calender based on the moon and sun 3500 years before 632 , .....

so , to say that we where in the way of science , ..... till this very day the Israeli people and jews are among some of the best scientists of the world , ....

who do you think invented e=mc2 , ...

have a nice day

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
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.

The peoples living on the shores of Indian Ocean and the South China Sea make up quite a large audience I’d say. At one occasion they even captured a Ceylonese king and took him to China because he failed to acknowledge the supremacy of the emperor.
I don’t deny that trade took place during the expeditions but no durable maritime trade links were established. It was rendered impossible anyway as an imperial edict banned the construction of sea vessels 3 years after the last expedition took place. (in 1433) Whatever maritime trade happened afterwards was conducted by foreigners like the Portuguese and strictly regulated by the state. (although smuggling was widespread – but risking your life to sell goods isn’t exactly an optimal way to do business)

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.

Foreign trade was conducted by foreigners, not Chinese. Chinese weren’t even allowed to travel abroad because of an imperial edict issued in 1371.

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 interested in the money businesses could generate.

True the Chinese (or more specifically, the bureaucrat elite) weren’t interested in other cultures or only in so far they came to pay tribute to the glory of the emperor.
And sure, the Ming emperors were interested in money, but taxation and extortion were the preferable means of getting it.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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.

Sigh, laymen.

This is far more complex. Religious thought isn't as simple as you make it out to be. That's why you can't understand it. None of these people developed their theories to oppose the Church. It was the way of thinking that the Church and, more specifically, religious philosophers helped propagate that contributed to the conclusions of Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, and Darwin. Darwin, for example, was a devote Christians and was quite upset when his theories made the religious communities feel threatened. In Galileo's case, the Church actually believed him, but didn't feel that such information should be made public yet because they feared the reaction of the ignorant populace. In short, Judeo-Christian thought led to all these theories, but the result of these theories may not have been what the religious institutions intended.

[JohnT]

The closing shot at Newton makes no sense either:

http://www.essaybank.co.uk/free_coursework/391.html

Newton was without doubt a pious Christian, identifying God not just as a Creator and Preserver of His universe but as an Observer. A God that saw him swim in a tub on the Sabbath, heard him lie about a louse to a fellow scholar at Cambridge and could even perceive his unclean thoughts.1 Newton's commitment to Biblical scripture was always a theme underpinning his scientific writings. Throughout Newton's work his scientific assertions are given support by Biblical references. Newton suggests, for example, that the 'days' of the Creation may have been longer than the twenty-four hour period people are accustomed to, because the world may have been rotating more slowly. Thus a part of scripture that came under attack from natural philosophers is given scientific support by Newton. Similarly, comets are reinvested with religious significance: Newton sees comets as agents of God, used to maintain balance in the density of stars.

[Tingkai]

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

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

Hardly. Durign the period between 500-1500AD, the European economies most certainly did not grow strongly and most certainly did not achieve the standard of living of the Roman Empire.

Institutions did not change radically enough to produce the development necessary to lift Europe out of its chaos.

What we do see is isolated cases of economic development coinciding with constant warfare.

[QUOTE] 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.
[/QUOTE[
Whether half the population died off, or a quarter, or a third is irrelevant.

You cite the end of the Song to the beginning of the Ming dynasty, a period of about 100 years. During that time there was relatively short periods of chaos, but it was short-lived compared to the chaos that exist in Europe for centuries.

You also omit the massive population growths that occurred during the Ming and then the Ching dynasties.

You'll have to do a lot better if you want to argue that European civilization was on par with Chinese civilization between 500AD and 1500 AD.

[HershOstropoler]

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

mispost