Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
The point where Western Europe really starts to leap ahead is after 1500CE, which is just after they begin to colonize the Americas. That's clearly not a coincidence.

Not a coincidence, but maybe not all in the way you're thinking. It only happened once Europe had advanced nautically to have ocean-going vessels. Europe had an amazingly innovative and outgoing culture at the time. After all, it wasn't access to raw resources that led to Newon and Leibnitz inventing calculus. Around 1500, Copernicus was creating his heliocentric model. And that's the problem: separating cause and effect. The finding of the Americas undoubtedly boosted Europe, but how much was it also a symptom of Europe already leaping ahead?

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
1) It is the closest to the Americas. They are on the edge of the Atlantic, and the Atlantic is less than a third the width of the Pacific.

Europe is further from the Americas than either Asia or Africa is. The Bering straight is tiny. You might complain that it's really far north, but let's not forget that Europeans had already found a way to the Americas via Iceland and Greenland. And the gap from Africa to the Americas is smaller and along more hospitable climes, with Muslim cultures along the west coast of Africa which were part of the east-west knowledge exchange. If distance is so important, why didn't they get there first? Ironically, part of the reason was Muslims sitting on the east-west trade routes, driving the Europeans to head west to reach the Indies.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
2) Simply from their coastline, Western Europe would naturally be more of a seagoing civilization. They progressed from navigating the Mediterranean to managing along the Atlantic coast, and eventually through the Baltic and then across the Atlantic. One can access all through Europe by going around by ocean -- while the Asian coastline is much less lumpy.

There's a lot of Asia that's inland, and nobody is wondering why the Mongols didn't reach the Americas first. But much of Asia is coastal. Not just places like Japan, but even today, the vast majority of China's population is near the coast, even if its landmass isn't. So I don't buy that bit of geography holding them back. And once more, if we look at Europe, Africa and Asia:

1) they all have sizeable Mediterranean coasts
2) Africa and Asia each border 2 oceans (not counting the less-hospitable Southern and Arctic)
3) the Red Sea and Indian Ocean were (and still are) incredibly important and well-used sea-ways for both Asia and Africa

So although geography makes a difference, I still think that culture plays a big part.

Storms, you're forgetting storms, saved the Japanese in 4 occasions I think.

But you're correct on the Muslims being an obstacle the European nations wanted to avoid.

As for culture... Culture is shaped by the environment too, the foods you eat, the rituals you have are all a product of your environment.

The Tibethans never became sailors, wonder why
The Inuit never had a Sun God, because? Their environment
All cultures as far as I know had some type of alcoholic beverage, but not all cultures used allucigenic fungus as part of their rituals, once again environment shapping the culture.
The Aztecs knew the wheel, as proven by some toys, yet they never used it to move cargo, because of their environment.

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
The point where Western Europe really starts to leap ahead is after 1500CE, which is just after they begin to colonize the Americas. That's clearly not a coincidence.

Not a coincidence, but maybe not all in the way you're thinking. It only happened once Europe had advanced nautically to have ocean-going vessels. Europe had an amazingly innovative and outgoing culture at the time. After all, it wasn't access to raw resources that led to Newon and Leibnitz inventing calculus. Around 1500, Copernicus was creating his heliocentric model. And that's the problem: separating cause and effect. The finding of the Americas undoubtedly boosted Europe, but how much was it also a symptom of Europe already leaping ahead?

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
1) It is the closest to the Americas. They are on the edge of the Atlantic, and the Atlantic is less than a third the width of the Pacific.

Europe is further from the Americas than either Asia or Africa is. The Bering straight is tiny. You might complain that it's really far north, but let's not forget that Europeans had already found a way to the Americas via Iceland and Greenland. And the gap from Africa to the Americas is smaller and along more hospitable climes, with Muslim cultures along the west coast of Africa which were part of the east-west knowledge exchange. If distance is so important, why didn't they get there first? Ironically, part of the reason was Muslims sitting on the east-west trade routes, driving the Europeans to head west to reach the Indies.

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
2) Simply from their coastline, Western Europe would naturally be more of a seagoing civilization. They progressed from navigating the Mediterranean to managing along the Atlantic coast, and eventually through the Baltic and then across the Atlantic. One can access all through Europe by going around by ocean -- while the Asian coastline is much less lumpy.

There's a lot of Asia that's inland, and nobody is wondering why the Mongols didn't reach the Americas first. But much of Asia is coastal. Not just places like Japan, but even today, the vast majority of China's population is near the coast, even if its landmass isn't. So I don't buy that bit of geography holding them back. And once more, if we look at Europe, Africa and Asia:

1) they all have sizeable Mediterranean coasts
2) Africa and Asia each border 2 oceans (not counting the less-hospitable Southern and Arctic)
3) the Red Sea and Indian Ocean were (and still are) incredibly important and well-used sea-ways for both Asia and Africa

So although geography makes a difference, I still think that culture plays a big part.

Necessity is the motherhood of all invention.  It is why the Europeans innovated.  Lets look at religion, culture and slavery as reasons why Europeans dominated.  In 700 AD when Muslims were founded there were 5 great Christian cities and by 1453 the only remaining great Christian city was Rome, all conquered and sacked by Islam.  From the late 700's to 1700's there was continuous Islamic colonization of Europe.  1492 wasn't just when Columbus sailed the ocean blue it was the liberation of Spain by the Reconquista.  Meanwhile, Eastern Europe was being digested by the Ottoman Empire.  The Mediterranean Sea was called an Islamic lake for the Dark Ages and Renaissance due to Islamic slavers running roughshod and enslaving/sinking anyone not Muslim.  There are documented slave raids all the way up to Iceland.  Total combined slaves taken by the Muslims including Eastern Europe is over 2M.  Europeans were being systemically decimated by Islam.  On the West, it was an unknown Frankish chief who stopped the Moors close to Paris from conquering France.  In the East, its was 20,000 Polish Hussars who helped to stop the 1683 siege of Vienna by the Ottomans.  Europe had over a thousand years of colonization and slavery imposed on itself.

Having these pressures placed on Europeans gave them an incentive to expand to the Ocean to find new lands to settle and expand their power, because the East and South were filled with terrors and slavery for them and nations they could not beat in open battles.  Creating better sea going ships to get access to India for its spices and silks to bypass the Muslims and their slavery and wars was why we got Westward expansion by European powers.

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM
So although geography makes a difference, I still think that culture plays a big part.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 25, 2023, 09:17:38 PM
As for culture... Culture is shaped by the environment too, the foods you eat, the rituals you have are all a product of your environment.

The Tibethans never became sailors, wonder why
The Inuit never had a Sun God, because? Their environment
All cultures as far as I know had some type of alcoholic beverage, but not all cultures used allucigenic fungus as part of their rituals, once again environment shapping the culture.
The Aztecs knew the wheel, as proven by some toys, yet they never used it to move cargo, because of their environment.

Exactly. Culture is influenced very much by environment. Christianity did not look the same in Eastern Europe vs Western Europe vs Ethiopia and the rest of Africa. Those cultures developed very differently, even though they were all Christian.

The whole thesis of GG&S is that while Sumer had an advanced culture that developed writing and mathematics far beyond others compared to it, there were environmental factors that influenced Sumer's development of its literate culture.

---

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
The point where Western Europe really starts to leap ahead is after 1500CE, which is just after they begin to colonize the Americas. That's clearly not a coincidence.

Not a coincidence, but maybe not all in the way you're thinking. It only happened once Europe had advanced nautically to have ocean-going vessels. Europe had an amazingly innovative and outgoing culture at the time. After all, it wasn't access to raw resources that led to Newon and Leibnitz inventing calculus. Around 1500, Copernicus was creating his heliocentric model. And that's the problem: separating cause and effect. The finding of the Americas undoubtedly boosted Europe, but how much was it also a symptom of Europe already leaping ahead?

Europe in 1492 had the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion of Jews from Spain, and a corrupt Catholic Church selling indulgences. Columbus was seeking a new route to Asia because Asia had superior manufacturing - of porcelain, silk, spices, and other goods. China and India were not particularly impressed with any of European offerings at that point.

Copernicus published his model in 1543, but it languished in obscurity for decades and was objectively worse at predicting the planetary positions than the Ptolemaic models of the time. By comparison, in India in 1501, Nilakantha Somayaji published his astronomical treatise Tantrasamgraha, where the planets orbit the Sun, including geometric series for calculating the arctan, with better predictive power than the Copernican model and published four decades earlier. It also languished in relative obscurity, of course. Similarly, the Gutenberg press was a great advance for Europe in 1440, but movable metal type had been in use in China and Korea for nearly two centuries at that point.

You say that resources have nothing to do with it, but I think GG&S makes a great show about how resources are important for invention.  Isaac Newton was absolutely a genius, but he depended not just on prior work - but on having an expensive education and the free time that comes with wealth.

-----

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
1) It is the closest to the Americas. They are on the edge of the Atlantic, and the Atlantic is less than a third the width of the Pacific.

Europe is further from the Americas than either Asia or Africa is. The Bering straight is tiny. You might complain that it's really far north, but let's not forget that Europeans had already found a way to the Americas via Iceland and Greenland. And the gap from Africa to the Americas is smaller and along more hospitable climes, with Muslim cultures along the west coast of Africa which were part of the east-west knowledge exchange.

Like the Chinese discovery of Australia, the Norse discovery of America Greenland had zero effect on the progress of history, and for centuries it was doubted whether they had even accomplished it at all. Discovering Alaska would have been similar to discovering Australia. It does not produce a return-on-investment from expeditions.

Western Africa is south of the East-West axis of civilizations according to Diamond's thesis. The distinction is that one cannot grow the same crops there as in the Middle East or Mediterranean. The climate is markedly different. Early farmers in sub-Saharan Africa grew sorghum and millet, which have relatively low yield. They had contact with these civilizations, but the thesis is that without the crops, they did not have the food surplus to support scholars and research to the same degree.

Quote from: Krazz on November 25, 2023, 05:39:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 23, 2023, 01:33:28 AM
2) Simply from their coastline, Western Europe would naturally be more of a seagoing civilization. They progressed from navigating the Mediterranean to managing along the Atlantic coast, and eventually through the Baltic and then across the Atlantic. One can access all through Europe by going around by ocean -- while the Asian coastline is much less lumpy.

And once more, if we look at Europe, Africa and Asia:

1) they all have sizeable Mediterranean coasts
2) Africa and Asia each border 2 oceans (not counting the less-hospitable Southern and Arctic)
3) the Red Sea and Indian Ocean were (and still are) incredibly important and well-used sea-ways for both Asia and Africa

I'll suggest Looking at this another way. If we compare Western Europe with China in 1492... China had advanced porcelain, textiles, metallurgy, literature, medicine, and many other fields compared to Western Europe. Indeed, Western Europe was desperate to get many of the goods that China produced. However, China had vastly worse ship design than Western Europe.

I claim that this is because of environment. If it became important, then China would have invested in ship design and gotten much better.

The geography and circumstances of China were such that they had little incentive to make better ship design. Europe had much more of a history of naval competition, invasions, and warfare. One can look at the Punic Wars of Rome to see this in action, when Rome suddenly jumped from having no navy to taking on a leading naval power (Carthage). Or look at Japan leading up to WWII, which within one generation created a fleet and air force to rival that of the United States.

Again, I don't disagree that China turned inwards and Western Europe turned outwards - but that had a lot to do with circumstance.

The Polynesian ships were better than anything any American culture had prior to the arrival of the Europeans, not because their culture was more advanced, or because no American culture had an ocean nearby, buth of those are untrue, but because of necesity.

Don't remember who invented the escaloned gardens style of agriculture, but it wasn't invented by the Aztecs who instead invented the chinampa, because their environments were different.

Some people seem to think that culture springs fully formed from the ether, or that saying the environment SHAPES the culture is somehow robbing some cultures from their merits, not true, other cultures in a similar environment didn't do the exact same thing because of other reasons, sometimes because they were being constantly invaded by people because it's easy to walk into the middle east.

Cultures grow near fresh watter sources, yet not all discovered that the river flooding the banks was good for their crops.

Also let's consider disease, it's not easy to live in a place where Malaria and other parasites or animals or the climate put you barely above subsisting and then develop an advanced culture, it's why certain jungles never allowed those living there to do so. Imagine there's periodic droughts, you can't make technological advancements because you're constantly on the verge of dying.

Why is it the Innuit used to keep their people barely above starvation levels even during the good years? They learned they needed to get used to barely survive to withstand the bad years.

If you live in a place where being a hunter-gatherer is enough to live then you'll remain a nomad until something changes, the tribes that moved further south from the Rio Grande found different environment that allowed them to produce surplus, ergo artistic, scientific development was possible.

The rulling class among the Maya and Aztecs (and likely those who came before them) went to school, among other things to learn to make war but also learned arts, poetry, music, etc.

Not because they were genetically superior to their northern cousins, but because they had surplus, a more moderate weather and none of the parasites the African people had to suffer. Thus "progress"  is possible.

Now, some cultures ARE superior to others, for instance not enslaving and making war to your neighbors to have human sacrifices seems to allow for a better society and more progress to be made.

One of the biggest things that GG&S fails at dealing with is the level of cooperation some of the a fore mentioned cultural and technical developments needed.  Every culture has infighting but the more intense or the more fractal the infighting is the lower the rate of development is.  European powers that grew to world dominating levels did so because of a strong internal cohesion relative to other cultures. 

Edit:  I believe that the other cultures that didn't accelerate are due to either infighting and therefore no cooperation that's needed or oppressive regimes that suppress free thought and innovation and therefore no cooperation.

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:30:24 AM
One of the biggest things that GG&S fails at dealing with is the level of cooperation some of the a fore mentioned cultural and technical developments needed.  Every culture has infighting but the more intense or the more fractal the infighting is the lower the rate of development is.  European powers that grew to world dominating levels did so because of a strong internal cohesion relative to other cultures. 

Edit:  I believe that the other cultures that didn't accelerate are due to either infighting and therefore no cooperation that's needed or oppressive regimes that suppress free thought and innovation and therefore no cooperation.

That seems like a fine line to split. Some of the most devastating wars in history have been fought among Europeans up through the 20th century - i.e. going back there is WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years War, etc.

Yes, Europe developed the Enlightenment in the late 1600s, but that was *after* they started to leap ahead technologically. Indeed, GeekyBugle suggested the opposite, that a reason for Europe's innovation was precisely their infighting.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 01:20:50 PM
Lots of small neighboring nations making war to each other gave an impulse to innovation

If we look to the 1500s and earlier, Western Europeans were united in their Catholic faith, though they still fought each other. However, under the Catholic Church, they didn't have significantly more free thought than other civilizations. If you spoke out against the church, you were likely to be branded a heretic and burned at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting that the stars were other suns with their own planets. If anything, India and China had more freedom of religion and philosophy than Europe in this period. There were many religious minorities in India and China, and a flowering of philosophical writing.

After the Reformation, there were even more devastating wars among Europeans over religion. A century later, the Enlightenment and free speech did help innovation, but by the timing, it was a result of advancement rather than a cause. The Enlightenment was after the Scientific Revolution and other advances.

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 12:47:35 PM

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:30:24 AM
One of the biggest things that GG&S fails at dealing with is the level of cooperation some of the a fore mentioned cultural and technical developments needed.  Every culture has infighting but the more intense or the more fractal the infighting is the lower the rate of development is.  European powers that grew to world dominating levels did so because of a strong internal cohesion relative to other cultures. 

Edit:  I believe that the other cultures that didn't accelerate are due to either infighting and therefore no cooperation that's needed or oppressive regimes that suppress free thought and innovation and therefore no cooperation.

That seems like a fine line to split. Some of the most devastating wars in history have been fought among Europeans up through the 20th century - i.e. going back there is WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years War, etc.

Yes, Europe developed the Enlightenment in the late 1600s, but that was *after* they started to leap ahead technologically. Indeed, GeekyBugle suggested the opposite, that a reason for Europe's innovation was precisely their infighting.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 01:20:50 PM
Lots of small neighboring nations making war to each other gave an impulse to innovation

If we look to the 1500s and earlier, Western Europeans were united in their Catholic faith, though they still fought each other. However, under the Catholic Church, they didn't have significantly more free thought than other civilizations. If you spoke out against the church, you were likely to be branded a heretic and burned at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting that the stars were other suns with their own planets. If anything, India and China had more freedom of religion and philosophy than Europe in this period. There were many religious minorities in India and China, and a flowering of philosophical writing.

After the Reformation, there were even more devastating wars among Europeans over religion. A century later, the Enlightenment and free speech did help innovation, but by the timing, it was a result of advancement rather than a cause. The Enlightenment was after the Scientific Revolution and other advances.

Because the Mongols and the Muslims don't count as bloody wars fought on Europe against "European" peoples.

Also because European culture has ever been a thing.

BadApple's point about infigthing is a valid one, just look at which countries became super-powers, they were figthing other countries but had internal cohesion.

As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 12:47:35 PM

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:30:24 AM
One of the biggest things that GG&S fails at dealing with is the level of cooperation some of the a fore mentioned cultural and technical developments needed.  Every culture has infighting but the more intense or the more fractal the infighting is the lower the rate of development is.  European powers that grew to world dominating levels did so because of a strong internal cohesion relative to other cultures. 

Edit:  I believe that the other cultures that didn't accelerate are due to either infighting and therefore no cooperation that's needed or oppressive regimes that suppress free thought and innovation and therefore no cooperation.

That seems like a fine line to split. Some of the most devastating wars in history have been fought among Europeans up through the 20th century - i.e. going back there is WWI, the Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Hundred Years War, etc.

Yes, Europe developed the Enlightenment in the late 1600s, but that was *after* they started to leap ahead technologically. Indeed, GeekyBugle suggested the opposite, that a reason for Europe's innovation was precisely their infighting.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 01:20:50 PM
Lots of small neighboring nations making war to each other gave an impulse to innovation

If we look to the 1500s and earlier, Western Europeans were united in their Catholic faith, though they still fought each other. However, under the Catholic Church, they didn't have significantly more free thought than other civilizations. If you spoke out against the church, you were likely to be branded a heretic and burned at the stake. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in 1600 for suggesting that the stars were other suns with their own planets. If anything, India and China had more freedom of religion and philosophy than Europe in this period. There were many religious minorities in India and China, and a flowering of philosophical writing.

After the Reformation, there were even more devastating wars among Europeans over religion. A century later, the Enlightenment and free speech did help innovation, but by the timing, it was a result of advancement rather than a cause. The Enlightenment was after the Scientific Revolution and other advances.

Because the Mongols and the Muslims don't count as bloody wars fought on Europe against "European" peoples.

Also because European culture has ever been a thing.

BadApple's point about infigthing is a valid one, just look at which countries became super-powers, they were figthing other countries but had internal cohesion.

As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

Europe wasn't superior to the Ottomans till the 1700's.  The Ottomans ran roughshod over Europe for centuries.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM
As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

I agree about pushing to compete with each other. That's why I quoted you. You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

---

As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

It wasn't until the 1700's that the Ottoman Turks Navy declined.  AND even then the Barbary pirates took up their stead and through piracy they were the terror of the European countries even then.  The Barbary pirates had the US being their bitches and ordered them to make ships of the line for the Barbary pirates to get their sailors back, and weren't ended until 1830.

The Turks had no need to conquer Western Europe while they could tax and enslave Europeans, essentially farming Europeans.  Think of it as you are in a PVP game and you come across a nube miner, do you kill him and take everything from him OR do you leave him with his pick, backpack and enough food to get him back to town?  You farm the nubes, its what the Ottoman's did to the West., they farmed them like sheep.

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM
As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

I agree about pushing to compete with each other. That's why I quoted you. You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

---

As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

China has never had good internal cohesion, not compared to England or Spain of the late middle ages.

Innovation usually comes from specialists that are able to be specialists because their general labor isn't needed as badly.  A larger group of similar specialists in the same or similar fields means accelerated innovation.  This can only happen when there's a large enough community helping each other to allow for a number of specialist to rely on them.

Also, infighting doesn't necessarily need to come in the form of warfare either.  People simply being passive aggressive and refusing to communicate will be just as detrimental.  This is why oppressive societies don't innovate either.   

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:55:52 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM
As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

I agree about pushing to compete with each other. That's why I quoted you. You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

---

As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

China has never had good internal cohesion, not compared to England or Spain of the late middle ages.

Innovation usually comes from specialists that are able to be specialists because their general labor isn't needed as badly.  A larger group of similar specialists in the same or similar fields means accelerated innovation.  This can only happen when there's a large enough community helping each other to allow for a number of specialist to rely on them.

Also, infighting doesn't necessarily need to come in the form of warfare either.  People simply being passive aggressive and refusing to communicate will be just as detrimental.  This is why oppressive societies don't innovate either.   

China has always been divided along ethnic lines, the Han vs everybody else and everybody else against each other too.

For China the corruption or hiding bad news for fear to lose face (and your head and the heads of your family) it's nothing new, of course for the "Western bad" bunch the worst system ever was European Feudalism (prior to colonialism) but as bad as that was the Chinese version was way worst, remember the Kings had divine right but weren't divine, the Chinese Emperor was considered divine.

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 03:32:11 PM
As for those super-powers and Europe in general owing their advancement to their conquering of the Americas... BS, they were already far superior in many technological aspects to the middle east and China, and they had the push to compete with each other, unlike China who had no one Chalenging them after the Mongols. What need had China to sail for silk or spices they could trade with their neighbors?

I agree about pushing to compete with each other. That's why I quoted you. You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

---

As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

Why you insist on treating Europe as a single entity?

Internal cohesion in each separate country, lack of infighthing inside the country.

As for progress prior to 1492...

Of course, follow the links to the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_science_in_the_Middle_Ages

I know it's not fashionable to admit that the conquest of the Americas brought exactly ZERO knowledge or that we lowly huwhites are capable of discovery without the help of our betters, but fuck it, why not give the hypothesis that "Europeans" weren't and aren't inferior a chance?

Quote from: BadApple on November 27, 2023, 05:55:52 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM
You and I seem to agree that the infighting and competition between different European countries (England vs France vs Spain etc.) was likely a benefit to innovation. In his appendix on development after 1500, Diamond says similar. China seems to have developed strongly to a point, had strong internal cohesion, and then stagnated. But BadApple claimed the opposite - that strong internal cohesion and lack of infighting was a benefit.

The question of infighting and internal cohesion doesn't seem clear to me either way, or at least, it's not a simple factor.

China has never had good internal cohesion, not compared to England or Spain of the late middle ages.

The question had been about comparing large regions like Western Europe vs the Mediterranean vs the Middle East vs India. None of these were countries in 1492. They were cultural regions.

The English cultural region is a subsection of the island of Britain, which in 1492 was divided into competing cultures of English (about 2 million), Welsh (0.5M) and Scottish (0.5M). Western Europe more broadly was divided into many other nations. The Iberian peninsula was divided into Portugal, Castille, and Aragon. The Italian peninsula was divided into many city-states. The largest nation was the Holy Roman Empire, which was only marginally unified politically.

East Asia, by contrast, had a much larger area and population that were unified under a the Ming government with between 60 and 100 million people. Add to that 8 million Joseon who were pretty unified, and 10 million Japanese (about as unified as Britain).

I agree that the 60 million Chinese were more loosely joined than the 2 million English were with each other, but that's a lot more people unified. Yes, the Ming would fall apart by 1644, but then, England had a civil war in 1642 that broke the country apart too.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 27, 2023, 08:18:59 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 27, 2023, 04:14:15 PM
As for European superiority prior to 1492, can you give some examples of what you're thinking of? I would agree that Europe had superior ship-building in 1492, but in nearly all other fields, they were roughly comparable at best. As honeydipperdavid noted recently, in 1492, the Europeans did not have a significant military edge over the Ottomans. They had some victories but also some losses. Most of Europe still used Roman numerals, and had worse mathematics than the Middle East or India.

As for progress prior to 1492...

Of course, follow the links to the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_science_in_the_Middle_Ages

Thanks. I'm pretty familiar with the history of science, though. I found this book pretty interesting for the original sources in it on medieval European science.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/731391

The question is still in what fields you think Europe was much more advanced in. I don't disagree that medieval Europe had scientific developments - but China, the Middle East, and India had tons of discoveries as well. Gunpowder and the compass were invented in China, for example. As some sampling,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_the_Indian_subcontinent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

For example, this is a salt drill in medieval China, using pipes to separate brine from underground.



cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_well