Ascension of the West

[Advernt]

Before I begin , I am going to make the prediction that I will receive many Euro Centric replies to this query , but here goes anyway .

Why was it Europe that gained an advantage in Science , as well as eventual mastery over the world by the 19th century , rather than the other major civilisations of that time ?

Europe , at the end of the middle ages , was arguably much poorer , much less resource rich , much more primitive and much less populous than its counterpart , occupying the tail end of the Eurasian Landmass . Why was it Europe that underwent a rapid advancement in Science and technology , rather than the civilisations that laid the initial foundations allowing European Science to thrive ?

And , with a POD of 1200 , and without ASB measures like a Years of Rice And Salt plauge , what will be needed to ensure that the rest of the world does not stagnante , but rather capitalize on their initial lead on Europe instead of whittling away ?

 

[Hendryk]

And , with a POD of 1200 , and without ASB measures like a Years of Rice And Salt plauge , what will be needed to ensure that the rest of the world does not stagnante , but rather capitalize on their initial lead on Europe instead of whittling away ?

No Mongol invasion would go a long way. While the outcome wasn't all negative, and cross-continent trade benefited for a while from the Mongols securing overland routes (the reason Marco Polo found it possible to make it to China), the invasion itself was a hugely disruptive event with serious long-term effects.

A favorite hypothesis of mine, but admittedly a biased one, is that without the Mongol takeover Song China may have taken the step from proto-industrialization to full-fledged industrial revolution. All the requisite ingredients were there: a large population with a high rate of literacy, agricultural surpluses, available capital, a thriving merchant class...

 

[Faeelin]

Europe , at the end of the middle ages , was arguably much poorer , much less resource rich , much more primitive and much less populous than its counterpart , occupying the tail end of the Eurasian Landmass . Why was it Europe that underwent a rapid advancement in Science and technology , rather than the civilisations that laid the initial foundations allowing European Science to thrive ?

A couple of things strike me; was Europe that much poorer? It had smaller cities, sure, by by the end of the middle ages the impression I get is that peasants in, say, England, were probably about as well as ones in Fujien. And certainly better off than those in Mesopotamia.

Some other advantages, by this point; optics; The Chinese just weren't interested in them at the time, although this would change. Clocks are another, and gunpowder.

Beyond that? Not a clue.

Does it have to be the rest of the world, or only parts of it?

 

[Faeelin]

A favorite hypothesis of mine, but admittedly a biased one, is that without the Mongol takeover Song China may have taken the step from proto-industrialization to full-fledged industrial revolution. All the requisite ingredients were there: a large population with a high rate of literacy, agricultural surpluses, available capital, a thriving merchant class...

I wish I knew more about Chinese banking. But some things do strike me as potential problems. For one, I'm not sure how good the Song were at precision metalwork, and I'm not sure if they'd hit upon the steam engine, which developed in fairly unique circumstances.

Although are steam engines necessary for an industrial revolution, especially at first?

 

[Bavarian Raven]

...it was because europe was resource poor that they kept expanding,,,and we are just better fighters too...

 

[Atom]

On a world Level, Guns, Germs and Steel tells it acurately, but on a continent level I'm not really sure. I'd agree withHendryk that not having the mongols would help, but also if there was more trade to the east after 1400 that might help too, because that way Columbus wouldn't have discovered America, and Newfoundland and Bahia would have been found first. This would be worse for Europe because there would be less Gold being thrown around, and crops might be found and adpoted later, although you could argue that this would be worse for everyone.

 

[Kalan]

Europe was not poor in resources, the opposite is true. There are enormous amouth of coal and iron which are the keys for the industrial revolution. The absence of those materials in most parts of the arab world were certainly one reason this cultur stagnated. An other reason is that europe was so deeply divided. This made it a) impossible that the hole continent would stagnet like china did and b) countries who did were forced to change or die.

 

[Hendryk]

Although are steam engines necessary for an industrial revolution, especially at first?

I think that in the initial stages it isn't absolutely necessary, especially with plenty of water power at hand, not to mention a dirt-cheap workforce.

 

[Admiral Brown]

There are some who say that one of Europe's advantages it that it was divided, whereas China was united (by 1400). Division sparked competition, and thus, the develpment of tecnology. Divission meant nobody had enough, so commerce and war were neccesary. And thanks to those, tecnology improved steadily.

If Europe had been united by the end of the XV century, both Spanish and Portuguese voyages might not have occured, cause the goods they searched may have be obtained from the route Venice-Lebannon-Siria-India. But IOTL, the fact that Venice could get Eastern goods ment absolutely nothing to Spain, Portugal or the other countries, cause Spain was another state, and didn't benefit from the fact it was Venice who got them.

IOTL, when Columbus project wasn't accepted in Portugal, he went to Spain. If it hadn't been accepted there, he may have gone to England, or to another country. Thiscouldn't have happened in an united europe.

So, if you could have a much stronger Holy Roman Empire by 1200, which controls firmly most of Europe by 1400 or 1500, Europe isn't going to develop as it did. There wouldn't be enough pressure to impruve guns and other tecnologies...

 

[Advernt]

A couple of things strike me; was Europe that much poorer? It had smaller cities, sure, by by the end of the middle ages the impression I get is that peasants in, say, England, were probably about as well as ones in Fujien. And certainly better off than those in Mesopotamia.

Some other advantages, by this point; optics; The Chinese just weren't interested in them at the time, although this would change. Clocks are another, and gunpowder.

Beyond that? Not a clue.

Does it have to be the rest of the world, or only parts of it?

Parts of it . Preferbly one or two civillisations . Is there any possibility for technology to develop differently , but still at a level competetive with the Europeans in other civillisations ?

 

[Roberto]

In my opinion, there are a couple things you could change to make Europe less progressive. One, get rid of the Mongols, two get rid of the Crusades.

Both those wars are vital in the introduction of Europe to the outside world. Without them, Europe will stay in its own personal bubble, just as it had for the last eight hundred years.

 

[Tyr]

Freedom.
Most of the main progress in Europe came from free people- first the artisans in the Italian city states and then later on the people of Britain.

 

[Sgt Detritus]

In my opinion, there are a couple things you could change to make Europe less progressive. One, get rid of the Mongols, two get rid of the Crusades.

1. To get rid of the Mongols presumably you would have Genghis Khan die before he united the tribes.

2 But how would you get rid of the Crusades??

 

[Advernt]

1. To get rid of the Mongols presumably you would have Genghis Khan die before he united the tribes.

2 But how would you get rid of the Crusades??

Well , you could have a TL where everything goes right for Islam , and the Caliph rules everything from Mali to the Artic Circle ...

 

[Hendryk]

There are some who say that one of Europe's advantages it that it was divided, whereas China was united (by 1400). Division sparked competition, and thus, the develpment of tecnology. Divission meant nobody had enough, so commerce and war were neccesary. And thanks to those, tecnology improved steadily.

That point inevitably comes up in debates such as this one but, while there is an element of truth to it, I personally think that the positive impact of political fragmentation is overrated. It worked in late medieval and early modern Europe, but at other times political fragmentation was correlated to technological stagnation or downright regression, not innovation. When Europe traded the unity of the Roman empire for the multiple polities of the dark ages, that didn't exactly lead to any faster development of technology, rather the opposite. With trade routes cut off, every petty kingdom became quasi-autarkic and whatever was invented in any given location stayed there.

Further, in China the main periods of innovation were unrelated to political division. Key inventions like paper, the compass, the printing press or the blast furnace were developed during periods of unity. Granted, certain things did spread faster throughout China during periods of division and/or weak central control: new philosophical ideas and foreign religions.

 

[Ran Exilis]

1. To get rid of the Mongols presumably you would have Genghis Khan die before he united the tribes.

2 But how would you get rid of the Crusades??

Well , you could have a TL where everything goes right for Islam , and the Caliph rules everything from Mali to the Artic Circle ...

Or if you want something less ASB-ish; just make sure that Basil II of Byzantium has a proper heir, so the events that led to Mantzikert as well as its disastrous aftermath are prevented.

The main thing that led to the First Crusade was the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia, which led to Alexios I Comnenus requesting the Pope for help from the West.

If Byzantium would have remained strong enough to resist the Turks and hold on to Anatolia (and judging from how borderline ASB the events surrounding Mantzikert and its aftermath were, this should be rather easy), the Byzantines would have no reason to desire something like a crusade from the (potentially hostile) Western countries anywhere in the Middle East.

And if the Byzantines would have intended to bring Jerusalem under Christian rule again, then all they had to do in that scenario would be waiting until the Great Seljuk empire collapses in on itself after the death of Malik Shah I, and then they could simply take advantage of the conflicts between the many pretenders to the Seljuk throne and the minor Turkish successor states.

 

[Dutchie]

I mentioned this in a previous post along these lines, and it ended up being a long running argument, so I hope it goes better this time:

I read long ago a theory that monotheism in Europe helped spur the concept of a rules-based universe, leading to the scientific method through predictibility and reproducability of results. The thought is that with one supreme god, there are rules for why things fall down, why the wind blows, why wood floats but stone sinks, etc. The difference in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Portestantism is immaterial here, as there is still just one god in each.

In a world with many gods such as throughout Asia, Africa or the Americas at the time of the Industrial Revolution, anything observed is just the whim of one diety or the other. In that case, there's no point trying to work out reasons for the way the world is, and therefore no scientific method. Certain skills may be learned by accident over time (ie. gunpowder or metalsmithing) but not through systematic discovery.

A counter-example with another mono-theistic metaculture: during the European Dark Ages there was widespread belief in angels, demons, spirits, etc. causing havoc in the world. Very little European progress in this time. The Arab world was at a scientific peak at this time, with the inventions such as Algebra and Alchemy (despite that not working out, it was still an attempt at science). Post Renaissance and Protestantism, the European world-view began to look at rules and cause and effect in nature, and demons or angels faded. A resurgence of mysticism in the Arab world also occurred, and progress stagnated.

This is not an advocation of mono- vs. polytheism, just to show that it may have been an important part of the background.

Aside from that, I think it's farily clear that the political fragementation of Europe did at least spur the development of the military sciences - offensively through guns, cannons, ships of war; defensively through fortification design and dense urbanization. In that respect the Europeans gained an advantage over other cultures even before the IR.

 

[Faeelin]

I read long ago a theory that monotheism in Europe helped spur the concept of a rules-based universe, leading to the scientific method through predictibility and reproducability of results. The thought is that with one supreme god, there are rules for why things fall down, why the wind blows, why wood floats but stone sinks, etc. The difference in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Portestantism is immaterial here, as there is still just one god in each.

This is an interesting idea, but it seems pretty much non supportable. "God makes the wind blow" seems no more scientific than "Hermes makes the wind blow."

And, well, modern East Asia, as well as premodern East Asia, were hardly backwaters.

 

[Dutchie]

This is an interesting idea, but it seems pretty much non supportable. "God makes the wind blow" seems no more scientific than "Hermes makes the wind blow."

And, well, modern East Asia, as well as premodern East Asia, were hardly backwaters.

Unless you look at as "The wind blows because of the way God made the world" as opposed to "The wind is from the East today because Hermes is stronger than Apollo. I shall pray to Hermes to change the wind to the South"

Never meant to say otherwise - that was my point about gunpwder, which was discovered in China. But stumbling upon something is different than setting out to understand and harness the natural world.

 

[Faeelin]

Unless you look at as "The wind blows because of the way God made the world" as opposed to "The wind is from the East today because Hermes is stronger than Apollo. I shall pray to Hermes to change the wind to the South"

Never meant to say otherwise - that was my point about gunpwder, which was discovered in China. But stumbling upon something is different than setting out to understand and harness the natural world.

But you seem to feel that people in non monotheist cultures aren't capble of nonsystematic thought; yet we see examples of this all the time, when it comes to things like agricultural treatises.

Likewise, division isn't necessarily a boon; Japan's cities blossomed in the Tokugawa era in part because it was an era of peace.