 |
| |
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sn00py
I want to keep this on the off topic forum, but most of us are civers here, and we all know that playing a european civ can limit your ability to grow, as quick as, say the American Indians or the Aboriginies even!
So what was it exactly that gave the Europeans the edge?
I'm asking this because I believe that the game Civilization needs to change dramatically in order to function better (and I also think that would be more fun too - this is for those "but real doesn't mean fun" type of ppl  ) |
Your initial question is wrong.
Europe did not advance quickly. There was a gap of more than 1,000 years between the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the European nation states. During that period European civilization was far behind China, India and the Arab world.
The question should be: Why did Europe stagnate for 1,000 years (roughly 500AD-1500AD) and then take off during the past 500 years?
Obviously, Christianity in itself is not the key, although the development of the Protestant sect may have influenced matters.
If we look at the past 2,000 years then the idea that the diversity created by European in-fighting led to Europe rise is not very true. For more than 1,000 years, Europe was a primitive backwater beset by war, plague and ignorance. Diversity was a curse, not a blessing.
China's civilization under a single government maintained a high level of civilization from about 200BC to 1800AD. Civil war in China then creates chaos from about 1840-1949.
One question then is why did Europe emerge from its dark ages. Some scholars say that it was the result of Andalulsia (sp?) - Moorish Spain. From about 750-1492, Moorish Spain is a centre of civilization. Knowledge is translated from Greek and Arabic into European languages. It is through this process that Europeans regain their lost base of knowledge.
Europe is still caught in a destructive internal dispute. But that dispute seeds the ground for imperialism when the "new" world is discover.
People have mentioned the Chinese voyages of discovery. Those voyages came to a quick end because there was no need to settle new lands.
The European situation was different.
Spain, Portugal, France, England and the Netherlands were all hemmed in by opposing forces. Centuries of fighting had achieved very little (with the exception of the Spaniards kicking out the Arabs from Spain).
The "new" world offered new areas to expand and new battlefields.
Spain quickly destroys the empires of Central and South America. But with those conquests accomplished, and with the resources they gained, Spain tries to take over Europe and ends up bogged down in a war of attrition.
Portugal spread out across the world developing trade routes, but did not have the population base to challenge the European battlefield nor to challenge rivals in other parts of the world.
The Dutch establish a toe-hold in North America, but their ability to expand is checked by a small population and their fight against Spain.
England and France end up in a massive campaign in North America. Their power is checked by the strength of the North American Indians and by each other. Their incentive to fight over Eastern North America is driven by a desire to prevent each other from gaining dominance.
France ends up fighting a costly two-front war in North America and Europe. England, as an island, is able to put more resources into North America, not only its military, but also by migrating its civilian population. England's reliance on its navy also gives it an upper edge on the sea.
England eventually wins in North America against the French through its navy, but its success eliminates the American colonies' reliance on the England's military to defend them from the French so the Americans wage a war of independence.
Now the stage is set for the industrial revolution.
Europe is slow to industrialise because of the destruction caused by ongoing wars.
The English have excess capital to invest in new technology because they don't have to constantly rebuild their towns and cities, unlike the other European countries. But the English have a problem. Massive migration to the North America creates a labour shortage. This creates a pressing need for labour saving technology and that fuels the industrial revolution.
Other civilizations, such as India and China, have no need for labour-saving technology because they have large populations.
And at this point, this posting is way too long so I'll stop.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Og
|
|
Lurking in Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
Jun 2001
time: 07:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
Along with Black Death I should have included the Mongol invasions and various barbarian invasions. |
It can't be that because Mongol invasions elsewhere didn't have the same effect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
The question should be: Why did Europe stagnate for 1,000 years (roughly 500AD-1500AD) and then take off during the past 500 years?
|
Stagnate, with its population tripling, its institutions changing radically in all areas, its economy growing strongly?
Rubbish.
"China's civilization under a single government maintained a high level of civilization from about 200BC to 1800AD. Civil war in China then creates chaos from about 1840-1949."
Yeah, that's why its population fell in half from the end of the Song to the early Ming dynasty. The plague was as devastating in China as it was in Europe. Population density under the late Song wasn't higher than in most of western europe, if you can trust the estimates.
It's really strange that this cooked up history fantasy about europe's middle ages just doesn't want to die.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-06-2003 21:50
|