How do they explain western dominance in other world regions?

[LDiCesare]

For example, if Alexander the Great, or Jesus Christ, or Confucius were never born, history would have gone far off the path it went down in real life. There's no way that geography can explain the effects of Genghis Khan. Occasionally, a single guy can change the world.

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).
As for the Christ, one could say there were many prophets, and another one or another religion could have spawned or imposed itself. There had to be a state religion in the Roman Empire, it switched from Roman paganism to a monotheism, but I don't think it changed that much.
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?

Back to Europe vs. Middle East or North Africa:
The Middle East and Africa were home to very ancient agriculture, which, by being too intensive, led to deforestation (Lebannon) and desertification, thus removing any chance for these countries to remain major players. Again, concerning northern Africa, they didn't benefit from the diversity of cultures Europe had, and this can be in part explained by the lack of barriers in Northern Africa. Britain/France/Spain rivalries, the blooming renaissance in Italy, would not have happened without the English Channel, Pyreneans, Alps, which prevented conquest by a single empire. Switzerland too is explained by geography, and at the time it was born, provided a revolution in military tactics (use of long pikes). Agreed, Switzerland might not exist without a single man (Arnold von Wilkenried) but then wouldn't another swiss have revolted later and won a battle to defeat Austria?

[Drake Tungsten]

Even the US couldn't stand him.

You're my favorite little Turk, paiktis. Keep up the good work, kiddo.

[Bereta_Eder]

Thanks.

And now the US is delivered and he's in Japan. Where he is also perceived for the spineless dork he is. He can't really escape himself. I mean he works in a place full of women but none of them even dares approach him.
He gets rejected all the time then comes to an internet gaming forum and begs for advice on how to "score" with a Japanese babe.

pathetic anyway you look at it. The perfect duo with Turd sruker. W@nkers extraordinaire, one in the dumpsters of some texan hole the other all alone and miserable in Japan.

[Drake Tungsten]

<----- literally

[Bereta_Eder]

Well that's all.

[Brundlefly]

Re: How do they explain western dominance in other world regions?

Originally posted by VetLegion
I was browsing through a list of significant inventions and discoveries of the last millenium and as we all know - the west is responsible for the majority of them.

As a result the west really dominated the last 500 years or so.

I'm not suggesting Europeans are superior or anything like that, but when they teach about world history say in China, how do they explain that?

Don't know about China, but it seems that in poor Islamic countries they leave it to the religious leadership to explain the disparity as the difference between good and evil.

[Bosh]

He made a big impression but didn't change anything.

The rise of the Hellenistic Kingdoms wasn't a change?

What long terms effect did this guy's conquests have?

Massive ones. China's population was decimated, it allowed for further melding of disease pools (results in several epidemics) and by bringing the bulk of Asia under one political authority it allowed for communication and trade across the breath of it, without the window to the east that the Mongol Empire allowed its doubtful that the Age of Exploration would have had the force it did historically.

The Middle East and Africa were home to very ancient agriculture, which, by being too intensive, led to deforestation (Lebannon) and desertification

And salinization. That's really hurt Iraq's agriculture. Same sort of stuff goes for a lot of north China, real ecological wreck.

[Az]

It wasn't agriculture that led to Lebanon's deforestation ( though it still has woods ), it was it's fine timber.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
Problem with GGS is that he pretty much discounts the worth and value of ideas and human desires, and essentially turns historical development into little more than the realtor's motto of "Location, location, location!"

Nothing is ever that simple.

We've had this argument before, and this is a distortion of Diamond's thesis. Yes, geography is the most important aspect in the long run, given the scope of the past 11,000 years, but the nuances of Western civilization aren't all tied up into it so simply.

[Bereta_Eder]

I doubt there is such a thing as "Western civilization". It was just a political term convenient for a time period but expired.

[Boris Godunov]

Alexander's expansion was well after the golden age of Greek civilization. It was in a marked decline after the militarism of Athens following the catastrophic war with Sparta. He created a unified state, yes, but as most historians know, such a thing usually comes during the decline of a civilization and precedes its fall. Considering what happened after Alexander's death, this appears to be true.

[Bereta_Eder]

Yopu can say there is "european" civilization as opposed to others but even that isn't accurate since it isn't that homogenious to encompass all and this is also a politically motivated and created term.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I doubt there is such a thing as "Western civilization". It was just a political term convenient for a time period but expired.

There is such a thing as much as there is a "Hellenic civilization," a "Sinic civilization" or an "Orthodox civilization."

[Drake Tungsten]

He created a unified state, yes, but as most historians know, such a thing usually comes during the decline of a civilization and precedes its fall.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


There is such a thing as much as there is a "Hellenic civilization," a "Sinic civilization" or an "Orthodox civilization."

And what could be the "defining aspects" of western civilization which even more hilariously it is portraited as having an historical continuity no less.