How do they explain western dominance in other world regions?

[Ned]

Agathon, I am certainly not debating you that the Arabs help maintain civilization by preserving in their libraries texts from the Roman era. But it is interesting to note that even with those texts, the Arabs did not advanced technology in any significant degree. So the texts themselves have nothing to do with why Europe advanced technically after the fall of Constantinople.

And as was noted before, so they having a large empire itself has nothing to do with technical advance. There are simply too many examples both in modern history and in ancient history of large and prosperous empires where technology simply did not advance.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
Agathon, I am certainly not debating you that the Arabs help maintain civilization by preserving in their libraries texts from the Roman era. But it is interesting to note that even with those texts, the Arabs did not advanced technology in any significant degree. So the texts themselves have nothing to do with why Europe advanced technically after the fall of Constantinople.

And as was noted before, so they having a large empire itself has nothing to do with technical advance. There are simply too many examples both in modern history and in ancient history of large and prosperous empires where technology simply did not advance.

It depends what you mean. Technology certainly did advance after the fall of the Roman Empire and the Italian Renaissance. It would be false and unfair to fail to give the Arabs their due.

[Agathon]

And as for Western dominance, are you forgetting that the Ottomans laid siege to Vienna as late as 1683 and were a major power for some two hundred years after that?

[Ned]

Agathon, no doubt that the Turks were powerful. But in the end, they suffered from lack of technical advance and industrialization as that eventually caused Europe to dominate.

This simply goes back to why Europe and the US dominate. Technology is the reason. But that leads to the question of why Europe developed technoloyg so fast when no one else on the globe did -- even with the printing press, empires, trade and laws.

[Sandman]

European agriculture benefits more from innovation than the rice-based systems found in China, India and Japan, which benefit more from increased manpower.

Europe also had access to two technologies that were absent in the East; clockwork and glass. These were both critical in navigation and advancing other areas of technology.

[Ned]

Sandman, and clockwork and glass explain just why the West reached the Moon in 1969 while India, a much older civilization, continued to stagnate.

[JohnT]

The West succeeded because our ideas, our belief systems, and our desire for progress is/are superior.

There, I've said it.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

What did they change?
Alexander's empire didn't last. He made a big impression but didn't change anything. His conquest didn't change much in comparison with a situation where the Persian empire would have fragmented all of itself, which was very likely in certain regions like Egypt or Greece (where several cities, recognized, on paper, the authority of the Persian king).

I disagree with entire content of your post.
I think You're making things shallow while they're not.
In Alexander's case, as well as Mongols' one, You concentrate on the state-building, while there were more important things. it was not a matter of lasting of Alexander's state or not, it was a matter of cultural changes and spreading of Greek culture all over ME.
Without Alexander, there would be no Hellenistic age with its achievements. I'm no expert in this, but this would mean no great library of Alexandria - the creation of basis of literature comparative studies would at least movedaway, as well as many other achievements of that age.
Also cultural changes, such as introduction of goddyness of the ruler into the western culture could not occur. Greek wouldn't have became the language of cultural elites of all ME, the flow of culture would have been completely different. No-one knows how would the political history look later. Romans could never conquer Persia, and even if they would, Byzantium could not be formed etc

As for the Christ, one could say there were many prophets, and another one or another religion could have spawned or imposed itself.

Yes, some idiot could say that.

Gengis Khan: What long terms effect did this guy's conquests have? The invasions of mongols in China caused trouble but mongols were assimilated more than anything else, so it didn't trouble China that much. What are the long terms difference between Gengis Khan and an epidemics of plague?

Well, what happened there stopped Christian faith's expansion in the steppes of Asia, destroyed the khalifate in Baghdad and all the Muslim centers in Asia, resulted in great growth of power of Mamluks in Egypt which resulted in throwing the Christians out of ME etc


Of course, You can say that someone could do the same later, but it is the same probable that he wouldn't, or that He wouldn't manage to do it. Like - if Muslim expansion in Middle East started 30 years earlier or a couple years later, there would be no Muslims today.

byproduct of technological development that was caused by education (Martin Luther)

I'd say by Satan's inspiration.

In 1492 the "West" was as advanced technologically as "the East" (the muslim states and China primarily

When it comes to military. Turkey was about the right level, but Mamluks and Persians had problems adapting gunpowder

and I find it amazin to think the two facts (the 'discovery of America) and Europes sudden dash to be unrelated.

Not all European civs were colonial powers

It's no coincidence that the Crusades resulted in the reintroduction of many Classical texts to Western Europe.

First of all, Muslims got those texts from Byzantines.
Secondly, Outremer wasn't such important place of transmitting Muslim knowledge. I think Sicily and Spain were more important - and Sicily was in large part post-Byzantine.
Also, there was the IV crusade You know

we use their numbers?

Actually, the numbers are of Indian (by which I mean the India south to Afghanistan)

While the Arabs were busy running Alexandria, the successor to Athens as the centre of world learning. Hmmm...

Muslim times weren't quite the best times for Alexandria

and were a major power for some two hundred years after that? [about Turks)

It's not right to say they were a major power. they were a large state, but not a major power.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by debeest
Western civilization's current position is largely a result of accidents of geography, particularly their having been in the best position to exploit the New World at the particular time when it became possible for any civilization to exploit the New World.

I find myself unconvinced of this argument's validity on a number of counts. Spain and Portugal were the first colonial powers but contributed little to the technological explosion of the early modern era, or the renaissance before that. Nations and states that had no colonial presence contributed much more in fact, especially in Italy, Germany / Central Europe. The Dutch had a major impact on seafaring technologies long before they set out on a colonialist's path. I'm not at all convinced that the voyages of discovery were not the result to some extent of a revolution in technology and thought in Europe rather than the other way around.

I don't mean to completely diminish the impact that the New World had on the Old, particularly in regard to new crops and cash, but the impact on the first states to receive these bounties seemed to offer them only a temporary relative benefit, while those states which were more suited to take advantage of these developments as well as those that followed seemed to reap the vast majority of the relative benefit over time. Diamond exceeds his own competence IMO the closer to modern times his opinions reach. Geography does not explain the difference between the advantages gained by Germans to new crops and technologies and those gained by Spain.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Heresson

First of all, Muslims got those texts from Byzantines.

They were freely available. If you mean got them by conquering most of the Byzantine Empire, then you are right. Same goes for the Romans. Sulla famously took all Aristotle's books back to Rome.

Secondly, Outremer wasn't such important place of transmitting Muslim knowledge. I think Sicily and Spain were more important - and Sicily was in large part post-Byzantine.
Also, there was the IV crusade You know

Blah blah...

It's a fact that for most of the period between the fall of the Western Empire and the Italian Renaissance, most classical learning was in the hands of the Islamic World. The greatest philosophers and mathematicians of the age were Islamic or (for example Maimonides) influenced by or active in the Muslim world.

The twelfth century renaissance is due in part to the rediscovery of Aristotle by the West. I know for a fact that the Arabs had the canonical texts since I've recently attended reading sessions in which some of Aristotle's texts are being reconstructed and the reconstruction takes place with one member of the group consulting the standard Arabic translation, because we know it was translated from manuscripts which are now lost.

Actually, the numbers are of Indian (by which I mean the India south to Afghanistan)

That doesn't change the fact of where we got them from.

Muslim times weren't quite the best times for Alexandria

That's not what I said. Alexandria was the centre of world learning up until the Islamic conquest, after which Baghdad became an important cultural centre.

It's not right to say they were a major power. they were a large state, but not a major power.

During the period from 1450-1920. You must be crazy. The Ottoman Empire was one of the major powers of WWI. It's not like they were minnows like NZ or Australia.

This thread smacks of ignorant people thinly trying to disguise their anti-Muslim prejudices by selectively ignoring history.

It's a fact. From about AD 650 to AD 1200 and probably further on, Western Europe was an uncivilized cultural backwater possessing fragments of Classical learning and unproductive of anything worthwhile until Aquinas. During this time Islam was arguably the major civilization on the planet. You can't change facts just because you don't like towel heads.

[Ned]

Agathon, Arabia clearly was both culturally and technologically ahead of Western Europe during the Dard and Middle Ages. But, still, technology did not advance there at a rapid pace. Just having a high degree of civilization, wealth and trade are not enough to incent invention.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned
Agathon, Arabia clearly was both culturally and technologically ahead of Western Europe during the Dard and Middle Ages. But, still, technology did not advance there at a rapid pace. Just having a high degree of civilization, wealth and trade are not enough to incent invention.

It advanced more rapidly than it did elsewhere. Weren't they the first to use cannon?

The Dark Ages were only dark in Western Europe if at all.

[Berzerker]

The more interesting question is why Europe over North Africa and Asia? And that, I don't think you can explain geographically.

Geography was very important, navigable rivers and adequate sea ports, etc... That's where the earliest civilisations began...

There's no way that geography can explain the effects of Genghis Khan. Occasionally, a single guy can change the world.

The vast Siberian Steppes region where horses were invaluable spawned a warrior culture adept at fighting on horseback, I'd say geography had alot to do with the Khans...

Geography explains the two classes of Scottish, the enlightenment Scots who assimilated under Roman rule and added so much to the sciences and the Scots of the Highlands who fled the Romans who later ended up migrating to...umm...the Highlands of West Virginia and starred in movies like Deliverance. Quite an example of the effects of isolation on populations...

[Berzerker]

This simply goes back to why Europe and the US dominate. Technology is the reason. But that leads to the question of why Europe developed technoloyg so fast when no one else on the globe did -- even with the printing press, empires, trade and laws.

Greater freedom and enough peace to allow stability with enough warfare to spur technological advancement? It seems to me much of the Old World was comparable in technology but the west took off over the last ~400 years. The riches of the New World were a major incentive driving shipping technology and gunpowder/guns/cannons was/were probably the most important invention of that time frame.

[Berzerker]

Who invented handheld "cannons"?