Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2023, 03:24:05 AM

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

Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 04:04:43 AM
Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

As somebody who's married to a historian specialising in England in the 15th-16th centuries, this really doesn't make sense. What "social structure cohesion" are you talking about? Wars of the Roses, anyone? Henry's break with Rome and the multiple decades of disruption that ensued?

Sure, East Anglia had a prosperous merchant class during a lot of this time (we were literally doing primary research in Bury St. Edmunds yesterday), but you might need to be a little more precise about "social cohesion" given that there was also plenty of prosperity & middle class in Asian cultures at the time.

Age of Enlightenment is usually later 17th through 18th centuries, so you might be off by a hundred or a hundred and fifty years? Or confusing cause with effect?

In the seventeenth century, in the onset to the Age of Enlightenment, you had the Thirty Years' War, where a large fraction of Germany is killed; it's not clear to me how you compare that to "N. American natives ... trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes". There's precious little reliable documentation about what the North American natives were up to before 1492 at the level you seem to be asking for - we know they had well-developed widespread trade networks, but how much else?

Quote from: Naburimannu on November 28, 2023, 07:31:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 04:04:43 AM
Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

As somebody who's married to a historian specialising in England in the 15th-16th centuries, this really doesn't make sense. What "social structure cohesion" are you talking about? Wars of the Roses, anyone? Henry's break with Rome and the multiple decades of disruption that ensued?

Sure, East Anglia had a prosperous merchant class during a lot of this time (we were literally doing primary research in Bury St. Edmunds yesterday), but you might need to be a little more precise about "social cohesion" given that there was also plenty of prosperity & middle class in Asian cultures at the time.

Age of Enlightenment is usually later 17th through 18th centuries, so you might be off by a hundred or a hundred and fifty years? Or confusing cause with effect?

In the seventeenth century, in the onset to the Age of Enlightenment, you had the Thirty Years' War, where a large fraction of Germany is killed; it's not clear to me how you compare that to "N. American natives ... trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes". There's precious little reliable documentation about what the North American natives were up to before 1492 at the level you seem to be asking for - we know they had well-developed widespread trade networks, but how much else?

Large amount of Indian tribes were quite warlike well before the Europeans arrived on their shores.  From large fortification complexes of three rings of logs to simply going to war to take slaves, it was present in Native Americans.  Go figure, human beings are going to war against each other no matter what leftard revisionist narratives try to portray them as innocent tree people.  If they had progressed technologically its likely they would have ended up more like Europe or Asia but they didn't so they were closer to tribal Europe and Asia.  Even looking at the Aztecs, they were slavering cannibal assholes, the only reason they lost were the enslaved tribes joined the handful of Spaniards to fight them off.

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/military-history/history-heritage/popular-books/aboriginal-people-canadian-military/warfare-pre-columbian-north-america.html

Quote from: Naburimannu on November 28, 2023, 07:31:15 AM

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 04:04:43 AM
Even the more regional social structures in India and and China didn't have the larger social structure cohesion that say England had. 

The major powers of Europe really took off in the age of enlightenment though they were improving along the same rate as they were improving their society.  Though it lagged by a few years, the rate of innovation increased with the level of individual rights and sense of belonging to a nation. 

Edit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

As somebody who's married to a historian specialising in England in the 15th-16th centuries, this really doesn't make sense. What "social structure cohesion" are you talking about? Wars of the Roses, anyone? Henry's break with Rome and the multiple decades of disruption that ensued?

Sure, East Anglia had a prosperous merchant class during a lot of this time (we were literally doing primary research in Bury St. Edmunds yesterday), but you might need to be a little more precise about "social cohesion" given that there was also plenty of prosperity & middle class in Asian cultures at the time.

Age of Enlightenment is usually later 17th through 18th centuries, so you might be off by a hundred or a hundred and fifty years? Or confusing cause with effect?

In the seventeenth century, in the onset to the Age of Enlightenment, you had the Thirty Years' War, where a large fraction of Germany is killed; it's not clear to me how you compare that to "N. American natives ... trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes". There's precious little reliable documentation about what the North American natives were up to before 1492 at the level you seem to be asking for - we know they had well-developed widespread trade networks, but how much else?

Every single country has had internal divides but the ability to coalesce rather than keeping up a divisions afterwards is what I'm referring to.  It wasn't a flip of the switch event but a slow change in English culture that took centuries and hit some rough patches along the way.  The build up of a merchant class and the precursors to industrialization are significant evidence that there was a willingness to work together in larger groups than the typical "monkey brain" tribal groups.  Despite having watched their fathers kill each other, there was a willingness to set the issues aside and cooperate.

That's not so say that the differences were that great between various groups.  I would say that success was had at being just slightly better than others.  All it took was a little more social cohesion to beat out the Chinese.  Otherwise, I would be of mostly Asian decent and England may well have been a quaint little island country that was once the colony of the Ming Dynasty.  One of my favorite things about learning history is those cool moments when "if it weren't for this teacup" then things would have been very different.

As far as Native American wars and the constant inter-tribal and intra-tribal warfare, we have quite a bit.  Currently existing cultural elements, oral tradition, and actual archeological evidence demonstrate this.  The Iroquois nations council was a great innovation of diplomacy but it didn't stop the small scale conflicts that were frequently flaring up between the members.  Yes, the best we have is a fuzzy image pieced together from indirect data but it holds up.

I would love to give you references but I have shit for bandwidth right now.  I also recognize that there is no crystal clear answer to such a complicated question as to "why human?"

Suffice it to say, we are looking at the crossroads of archeology, history, anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and social psychology.  This stuff is complicated and it cannot be both accurately and concisely expressed simultaneously.     

Greetings!

Well, technology and politics are both simple concepts, and enormously complex, at the same time.

When the Western Europeans really got over to China--1500's or thereabouts--China *Laughed* at the best the Europeans could do. The Empire of China quite literally outclassed everything that the Europeans had, from gunpowder, rockets, clocks, farm technology, industrial technology, food cuisine, flavours, spices, clothing fashion, quality, science, literature, philosophy. paper money, and on and on.

As Professor Michael Wood said, "For the Chinese at this point in history, this fateful meeting--the Europeans could only offer gifts that the Chinese regarded as toys." Europe had NOTHING to offer China. China also had millions and millions of people, was self-sufficient in resources, and literally ruled over Asia politically, culturally, and economically, like a gigantic, colossal dragon. Only India remained more or less independent, and separate. Everything and everyone else, more or less paid homage to the Dragon Throne.

Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

During the Opium Wars, Britain blew the shit out of the Chinese Army, totally annihilated the primitive Chinese navy, and easily landed and overthrew major Chinese fortresses and strongholds. The Chinese numbers of troops? Slaughtered helplessly before the might of Britain. Disciplined volleys of musket fire over and over again, small cannons unleashing rapid hellfire of shrapnel into Chinese ranks. Utter disaster for the Empire of China.

The Chinese Emperor was confronted by the savage, terrible truth, amongst his counselors. China was helpless before the might of Britain and must submit.

Britain gained everything they demanded. Port rights, fortresses, trade rights, Hong Kong, and more. And Britain also could continue pumping Opium into Chinese markets, and export it as well, and make profits of staggering scale.

And China would bow their fucking head and suck it down. They would learn to be obedient to their European masters. Soon, besides the British, the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese, too, would join the party. Dark times for China, to be sure.

This also gets into cultural complacency, and arrogance. China had ruled and dominated for so long, everything and everywhere, they had *stopped* innovating. All their stuff was a century or more out-of-date when the Europeans returned with an axe to grind. Politically, socially, China was divided and weak, in many aspects. Resentments bubbled and were exploited by the Europeans. China, as large and wealthy as China was, failed to get their shit together culturally, politically, and technologically, and keep it all together.

That is how you lose in the arena of human competition and war, and get ruthlessly crushed.

Europe was divided, too! Whaa whaa. So what? The fact is, such divisions as I have alluded to, are differing by kind, texture, and degree. China, and India, just like the North American Indians, and the Celtic Irish, as well as most of Africa, were always far more divided along tribal and political aspects than much of Europe, whether it was the Romans, or the British or Portuguese.

Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser degree, the Dutch and Italians, and eventually the Russians as well--were able to unify faster and more cohesively in the time of need. They got on the team, and got with the program, to get shit done.

Along the way, they invented and exploited every knowledge to full effect, ruthlessly sharpened and honed for conquest and victory.

The Africans? The Indians? The Chinese? The American Natives? They were all defeated, and crushed.

That is the way things go. Within their own circles, all of the defeated nations and peoples were just as greedy, just as ruthless, as the Europeans. Just not to the same degree of unity, success, and application.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on November 28, 2023, 10:14:28 AM
Greetings!

Well, technology and politics are both simple concepts, and enormously complex, at the same time.

When the Western Europeans really got over to China--1500's or thereabouts--China *Laughed* at the best the Europeans could do. The Empire of China quite literally outclassed everything that the Europeans had, from gunpowder, rockets, clocks, farm technology, industrial technology, food cuisine, flavours, spices, clothing fashion, quality, science, literature, philosophy. paper money, and on and on.

As Professor Michael Wood said, "For the Chinese at this point in history, this fateful meeting--the Europeans could only offer gifts that the Chinese regarded as toys." Europe had NOTHING to offer China. China also had millions and millions of people, was self-sufficient in resources, and literally ruled over Asia politically, culturally, and economically, like a gigantic, colossal dragon. Only India remained more or less independent, and separate. Everything and everyone else, more or less paid homage to the Dragon Throne.

Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

During the Opium Wars, Britain blew the shit out of the Chinese Army, totally annihilated the primitive Chinese navy, and easily landed and overthrew major Chinese fortresses and strongholds. The Chinese numbers of troops? Slaughtered helplessly before the might of Britain. Disciplined volleys of musket fire over and over again, small cannons unleashing rapid hellfire of shrapnel into Chinese ranks. Utter disaster for the Empire of China.

The Chinese Emperor was confronted by the savage, terrible truth, amongst his counselors. China was helpless before the might of Britain and must submit.

Britain gained everything they demanded. Port rights, fortresses, trade rights, Hong Kong, and more. And Britain also could continue pumping Opium into Chinese markets, and export it as well, and make profits of staggering scale.

And China would bow their fucking head and suck it down. They would learn to be obedient to their European masters. Soon, besides the British, the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese, too, would join the party. Dark times for China, to be sure.

This also gets into cultural complacency, and arrogance. China had ruled and dominated for so long, everything and everywhere, they had *stopped* innovating. All their stuff was a century or more out-of-date when the Europeans returned with an axe to grind. Politically, socially, China was divided and weak, in many aspects. Resentments bubbled and were exploited by the Europeans. China, as large and wealthy as China was, failed to get their shit together culturally, politically, and technologically, and keep it all together.

That is how you lose in the arena of human competition and war, and get ruthlessly crushed.

Europe was divided, too! Whaa whaa. So what? The fact is, such divisions as I have alluded to, are differing by kind, texture, and degree. China, and India, just like the North American Indians, and the Celtic Irish, as well as most of Africa, were always far more divided along tribal and political aspects than much of Europe, whether it was the Romans, or the British or Portuguese.

Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser degree, the Dutch and Italians, and eventually the Russians as well--were able to unify faster and more cohesively in the time of need. They got on the team, and got with the program, to get shit done.

Along the way, they invented and exploited every knowledge to full effect, ruthlessly sharpened and honed for conquest and victory.

The Africans? The Indians? The Chinese? The American Natives? They were all defeated, and crushed.

That is the way things go. Within their own circles, all of the defeated nations and peoples were just as greedy, just as ruthless, as the Europeans. Just not to the same degree of unity, success, and application.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You also forgot about taughtness of vaginal surface area as well, they were top of their game.

Quote from: SHARK on November 28, 2023, 10:14:28 AM
Greetings!

Well, technology and politics are both simple concepts, and enormously complex, at the same time.

When the Western Europeans really got over to China--1500's or thereabouts--China *Laughed* at the best the Europeans could do. The Empire of China quite literally outclassed everything that the Europeans had, from gunpowder, rockets, clocks, farm technology, industrial technology, food cuisine, flavours, spices, clothing fashion, quality, science, literature, philosophy. paper money, and on and on.

As Professor Michael Wood said, "For the Chinese at this point in history, this fateful meeting--the Europeans could only offer gifts that the Chinese regarded as toys." Europe had NOTHING to offer China. China also had millions and millions of people, was self-sufficient in resources, and literally ruled over Asia politically, culturally, and economically, like a gigantic, colossal dragon. Only India remained more or less independent, and separate. Everything and everyone else, more or less paid homage to the Dragon Throne.

Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

During the Opium Wars, Britain blew the shit out of the Chinese Army, totally annihilated the primitive Chinese navy, and easily landed and overthrew major Chinese fortresses and strongholds. The Chinese numbers of troops? Slaughtered helplessly before the might of Britain. Disciplined volleys of musket fire over and over again, small cannons unleashing rapid hellfire of shrapnel into Chinese ranks. Utter disaster for the Empire of China.

The Chinese Emperor was confronted by the savage, terrible truth, amongst his counselors. China was helpless before the might of Britain and must submit.

Britain gained everything they demanded. Port rights, fortresses, trade rights, Hong Kong, and more. And Britain also could continue pumping Opium into Chinese markets, and export it as well, and make profits of staggering scale.

And China would bow their fucking head and suck it down. They would learn to be obedient to their European masters. Soon, besides the British, the French, the Dutch, and the Portuguese, too, would join the party. Dark times for China, to be sure.

This also gets into cultural complacency, and arrogance. China had ruled and dominated for so long, everything and everywhere, they had *stopped* innovating. All their stuff was a century or more out-of-date when the Europeans returned with an axe to grind. Politically, socially, China was divided and weak, in many aspects. Resentments bubbled and were exploited by the Europeans. China, as large and wealthy as China was, failed to get their shit together culturally, politically, and technologically, and keep it all together.

That is how you lose in the arena of human competition and war, and get ruthlessly crushed.

Europe was divided, too! Whaa whaa. So what? The fact is, such divisions as I have alluded to, are differing by kind, texture, and degree. China, and India, just like the North American Indians, and the Celtic Irish, as well as most of Africa, were always far more divided along tribal and political aspects than much of Europe, whether it was the Romans, or the British or Portuguese.

Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and to a lesser degree, the Dutch and Italians, and eventually the Russians as well--were able to unify faster and more cohesively in the time of need. They got on the team, and got with the program, to get shit done.

Along the way, they invented and exploited every knowledge to full effect, ruthlessly sharpened and honed for conquest and victory.

The Africans? The Indians? The Chinese? The American Natives? They were all defeated, and crushed.

That is the way things go. Within their own circles, all of the defeated nations and peoples were just as greedy, just as ruthless, as the Europeans. Just not to the same degree of unity, success, and application.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

One hypotheses for China's lack of progress compared to Europe goes to wine of all things.  Wine doesn't store well in clay jars, it does store better in glass.  Europeans were driven to create glass that could also be used for magnifying glasses and glasses which allowed a scholar to read longer in their life, whereas in China they didn't have glass so their careers were shorter.  I mean its fun to read the theories, as to if they are true, /meh.

Quote from: SHARK on November 28, 2023, 10:14:28 AM
Europe, on the other hand, saw MUCH they desired from China. Everything from gunpowder, silk clothing, spices, rice, colours, porcelain, and on and on. The technological, food, clothing, knowledge, everything that China offered Europe was a HUGE level up, across the board in a staggering number of areas of life.

So, why didn't China fucking colonize Europe?

Well, this is where you get into knowledge, conceptually, and practically, what you do with that knowledge. China knew gunpowder, and had fireworks and simple rockets and some few cannon.

Europe made mass-produced muskets, mass produced cannon, both siege artiller, and smaller field cannon, and then mounted rows of cannons onboard warships.

Within two centuries, Europe would return to China, and China would helplessly kneel before the impossible might of the British Empire.

So, China didn't get their shit together with using the technology in the same dynamic ways that Europe did.

I agree about the comparisons. GeekyBugle claims that in 1492, the Europeans were far superior in technology to China. I disagree, and your point here seems to agree with my view. This includes with gunpowder. In 1492, Chinese guns were roughly the equal of European guns. The Chinese had mass-produced cannons and matchlock hand cannons. For example,

QuoteThe Ming dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang, who declared his reign to be the era of Hongwu, or "Great Martiality," made prolific use of gunpowder weapons for his time. Early Ming military codes stipulated that ideally 10 percent of all soldiers should be gunners. By 1380, twelve years after the Ming dynasty's founding, the Ming army boasted around 130,000 gunners out of its 1.3 to 1.8 million strong army. At the outbreak of the Ming–Mong Mao War (1386–1388), the Ming general Mu Ying was ordered to produce a couple thousand hand cannons. Under Zhu Yuanzhang's successors, the percentage of gunners climbed higher and by the 1440s it reached 20 percent. In 1466 the ideal composition was 30 percent. In the aftermath of the Tumu Crisis of 1449, government authorities around the Tumu region collected from the field 5,000 sets of abandoned armour, 6,000 helmets, 30,000 firearms, 1,800 containers of gunpowder, and 440,000 crossbow bolts.

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

However, I also agree with you that two hundred years later, European gun design was vastly improved, and they then outclassed China. (Though China didn't kneel until 1830 with the Opium Wars.)

The question is, were there any factors about the two hundred years after 1492 that made a difference for Europe? I think China was largely complacent, while Europeans were driven to compete with each other and innovate over the conquest of the Americas. The influx of ideas and resources made a big difference.


EDITED TO ADD: When I speak of "influx" I obviously don't mean that the Europeans just sat there and advancements came to them without work. (Though maybe that implication is what people object to?) The Europeans were motivated to compete with each other for New World resources - like gold, silver, sugar fields in the Caribbean, and tobacco and cotton in the Southeast. With great opportunities, they needed naval advancements to get there, military advancements to fight each other over territory there, and governmental advancements to manage a cross-oceanic empire. The discoveries and opportunities shook up everything in Europe, and motivated all peoples to capitalize on it. The Europeans accomplished a lot with the right motivation.

But I think that's true with all advancements. Environment and opportunity shape culture.

Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2023, 12:27:25 PM
The question is, were there any factors about the two hundred years after 1492 that made a difference for Europe? I think China was largely complacent, while Europeans were driven to compete with each other and innovate over the conquest of the Americas. The influx of ideas and resources made a big difference.

Are you actually implying that Europe pilfered it's innovations from the Americas?

Quote from: BadApple on November 28, 2023, 01:46:47 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2023, 12:27:25 PM
The question is, were there any factors about the two hundred years after 1492 that made a difference for Europe? I think China was largely complacent, while Europeans were driven to compete with each other and innovate over the conquest of the Americas. The influx of ideas and resources made a big difference.

Are you actually implying that Europe pilfered it's innovations from the Americas?

Cross-posting, I just added a note about that.

Advancements depend on resources. From a corporate point of view, if the company is nearly bankrupt and struggling to just get by, then they have no budget for Research & Development. If they have a monopoly and no competitors, they don't need R&D to make a profit. However, if they have a lot of lot of resources and need an edge over their competitors who also have a lot of resources, then the market is more dynamic.

The conquest of the Americas was extremely profitable for Europe. Some of it was direct - processed gold and silver from the Aztec and Incan empires, but also new domesticated species - like corn, potatoes, tobacco, and chocolate. One of the biggest resources was land, though. With 90% of Native Americans dying off from disease, and the survivors massively outclassed militarily, there were huge new tracts of land available unlike anything in the prior centuries. These opportunities created new markets that made Europe more dynamic.

QuoteI mean Europe was experiencing an Ice Age till 9,500 BC, then waves of settlers spread out through the landmass over thousands of years. Meanwhile those other places you mention were stable and settled.

So? Farming, animal husbandry, metallurgy started millenia later after end of Ice Age, AFTER European Hunter-Gatherers resettled Europe.
Before farming Middle-Easterns were just as much hunters as northeners.

QuoteEdit:  To be clear, this stands in direct opposition to Diamond in that he's trying to say that we just got lucky due to geography and I am saying that social structure and culture shaped innovation and development.  I believe that the N. American natives could have easily conquered the world if they could have cooperated with each other for a few hundred years rather than trying to commit genocide every 10 minutes.

But that's nonsensical because Europeans did not stopped warring each other - neither in Reneissance, nor Englightement nor XX century.
If anything modern warfare and strife become much stronger in modern times - and fall of unifying religion resulted in lack of common cultural cohesion that once linked lands from Spain to Lithuania.

But European innovation era did not happen in times of peace - but in times of using those vast industrial resources to murder each other way more strongly.
So I call bullshit on this cooperation worship. China compared to Europe had way better social cohesion with long centuries of unified Empire, and ethnic minorities firmly under Han's thumb.

It's a very entertaining and thought-provoking book. However, it started a conversation, and in the course of the conversation, a lot of the specific points haven't held up. But there are obvious cases like crops being able to propagate at the same latitude, keeping animals in your house versus outside, the relative value of wild animal stock for domestication, etc.

I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to. The Chinese used gunpowder for fireworks and fire lances, but didn't hit upon the idea of heavy cannon, or projectile muskets. The Vikings sailed all over the place, from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean, but people in Southern Europe, after the collapse of Rome, just kind of forgot how to go anywhere for a few hundred years. The South American peoples might not have had much call for wheeled carts, up on the mountains, but why didn't they use wheels in construction, like the Egyptians did? Even today, think about what we use the Internet for today, versus what it was like in 1995.

It's certainly a step up from simplistic ideas like "ice people" and "sun people," while making similar observations about the availability of food, the cheapness of life, and the available of certain minerals in creating a warlike people or a peaceful one, an urban people or a rustic one.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:48:48 AM
I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to.

I think this is addressed in the book. I dispute some of your later examples, but in general, it's definitely true that there are some key ideas that get passed around.

1) A key insight in the book is that history tends to focus on metal and stone artifacts. This archeological view neglects soft technologies - especially domesticated grains, animals, and textiles.

2) Discoveries are enabled when a civilization has a food surplus such that they can invest in time-consuming other activities. Having the surplus to feed merchants, industry, and scholars is an important prerequisite.

3) Many discoveries depend on each other and on the resources to use them. Having bronze and later iron tools, for example, enables a lot of other construction that wasn't possible. Having writing depends on the food / resources to support a literate scholar class.

4) Diamond has many example of how discoveries along the Eurasian East-West axis built on each other. The sheer number of peoples working to make discoveries and passing them back and forth along that axis was far greater than the relatively isolated communities of Meso-America and South America.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 30, 2023, 12:48:48 AM
I think where it kind of falls apart is cases where a tool exists, but someone somewhere in the world had a brilliant idea about how to use it, and other places just didn't happen to. The Chinese used gunpowder for fireworks and fire lances, but didn't hit upon the idea of heavy cannon, or projectile muskets. The Vikings sailed all over the place, from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean, but people in Southern Europe, after the collapse of Rome, just kind of forgot how to go anywhere for a few hundred years.

I think these two are based on false premises. Just two posts ago, I cited about cannons and muskets in the Ming dynasty. Here was my quote:

QuoteThe Ming dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang, who declared his reign to be the era of Hongwu, or "Great Martiality," made prolific use of gunpowder weapons for his time. Early Ming military codes stipulated that ideally 10 percent of all soldiers should be gunners. By 1380, twelve years after the Ming dynasty's founding, the Ming army boasted around 130,000 gunners out of its 1.3 to 1.8 million strong army. At the outbreak of the Ming–Mong Mao War (1386–1388), the Ming general Mu Ying was ordered to produce a couple thousand hand cannons. Under Zhu Yuanzhang's successors, the percentage of gunners climbed higher and by the 1440s it reached 20 percent. In 1466 the ideal composition was 30 percent. In the aftermath of the Tumu Crisis of 1449, government authorities around the Tumu region collected from the field 5,000 sets of abandoned armour, 6,000 helmets, 30,000 firearms, 1,800 containers of gunpowder, and 440,000 crossbow bolts.

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

So the Chinese did have cannons and muskets, and in 1492, their cannons and muskets were the equal of European designs. It wasn't that there was any idea lacking, but from 1500 to 1800, China wasn't pressured to develop better gun designs the way that Europe was. Europe had many high-risk / high-reward wars over competition for the New World - like trying to plunder the Spanish gold fleets.


Likewise, medieval Italian shipbuilding was superior to Roman shipbuilding. There are some examples here:

https://naval-encyclopedia.com/medieval-ships.php

Medieval Italians had better ships and sailed the existing trade routes more effectively than the Romans could. So this was also a question of motivation - i.e. what was the payoff for bigger fleets going further? The Vikings had massive gains to be had by improving their ship designs, because southern Europe was far richer and more advanced than they were.

For centuries, while Italians improved their ships, their potential gains were limited. Sailing farther and more effectively down the coast of Africa or up to the North Sea wasn't profitable for them. So while they did get better, for a long time, there was little profit to be had for improved shipbuilding. It wasn't until they could successfully navigate around the horn of Africa and across the Atlantic that profit started to roll in and the pace accelerated.

Well, your source starts with this:

QuoteThe medieval era devoted to the maritime scene the emergence of new techniques of construction and navigation, mainly from the North, with imports from the east (Arabs, and indirectly Chinese).

and it's mainly talking about later eras, but the point stands. You're talking about Medieval Italian ships, that ones that began the process of building Italian wealth. In the era I'm talking about, "Italy" hardly existed. From the fall or Rome in 476 and for a while, European navigation languished. Christopher Columbus was able to use bad science (even for his day) to get financing to go West.. In that same era, Vikings already criss-crossed the Atlantic, and Polynesians accomplished similar or more impressive feats all over the Pacific. This is despite mainland Europe retaining a lot of wealth, and Italy in particular preserving a lot of knowledge and technical skill that was relevant.

During the Ming period, the 1300s, there were also cannons and portable gun in Europe. And of course the Turkish and Europeans would develop a huge capacity. The evidence of gunpowder in Europe was slight for a long time; the evidence suggests good formulae traveled West, ultimately from China. But Europe and the Mediterranean built the guns, and by the 1500s, 1600s, the guns were moving back east. China was no longer the innovator. It was the application that made the difference. And Guns, Germs, and Steel doesn't really have a cogent explanation of how China went from being a muscular feudal state to a stagnant empire, to suffer a loss of might and fall behind in technological progress. If anything the hoary old "cycles of history" seems to address that in a more useful fashion.

So I think GGS does a great job of discussing culture, especially environmental culture, but as I said, doesn't really address the aspects more to do with sociology, philosophy of science, and technology per se. And the story sort of ends in the modern world; nowadays, technological powers find the natural resources, wherever they are, and take them. So the "end of history" is sort of the end of GGS's story, too.

This thread has only the most tenuous connection to RPGs. It's obviously politically motivated.

We read Diamond's book in my family when I was young. It was years later before I found out he had essentially fabricated most of his arguments and made a number of wild statements about melanisians (Papua New Guineans) being more intelligent than white people. This is part of an extensive pattern of fabrication or motivated reasoning.

The idea of environmental determinism appeals to a sense of fairness that most of us have, but it's also an inversion of reality in many cases. It's easy to trick people into believing it because it makes them feel good and moral. The truth is often ugly, complicated and unprofitable if you want to land a book deal after a life spent in academia.

When I think about cultures or races in the worlds I create for RPGs, think about them as peoples that change through time based on a combination of an essential essence that's part of their life in concert with their choices. What part of themselves do they send into the future. Geography can be a factor, but as with many cases in history, entire groups of people have decided to get up and leave if conditions become too unfavourable for the continuation of their way of life. Not so in every case, but it does represent what I think about.