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

[Colonâ„¢]

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

Originally posted by Uber KruX


superior genetics. fairer skin.

[DAVOUT]

Bush arrived too late, and in the wrong country

[Colonâ„¢]

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.

[Dinner]

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.

[Dinner]

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.