How likely is this?

I've run across a theory in a dusty old book I got from a professor last semester that Europe pulled ahead of the near East not because of anything inherent to Europe, but instead because of the sheer devastation wrought by invaders in the late Middle Ages. Whereas Europe was able to recover from the commercial collapse at the end of the Roman Empire naturally after the German invasions slowed and stopped, everything east of Anatolia underwent terrible invasions, first from the Mongols but then from men like Timur. Hundreds of thousands died, entire cities disappeared, country-sides were emptied, and this didn't happen once but multiple times.

The initial lead on technological and economic development the east had was lost and Europe surged ahead. The discovery and exploitation of the Americas just exasperated a situation that already existed.

What do you think?
 
I just thought that the many Kingdoms in Europe allowed for more competition between nations, leading to the rise of a primitive sort of capitalism (ive worded this very badly), whereas east Asia was dominated by large empires with the opposite effects.

Well, at the time it wasn't. The Rum Seljuks in Anatolia were a different state from the Ayyubids, who were a different state from the Khwarezian Empire, and on and on.

Western Europe was really only a few states, too.

EDIT: Oh, and proto-capitalism emerged from Dutch world trade in the 1600's, not entirely because of inter-state competition.
 
Well, at the time it wasn't. The Rum Seljuks in Anatolia were a different state from the Ayyubids, who were a different state from the Khwarezian Empire, and on and on.

Western Europe was really only a few states, too.

EDIT: Oh, and proto-capitalism emerged from Dutch world trade in the 1600's, not entirely because of inter-state competition.

If you can find one definition of East Asia which includes Anatolia and Egypt, I would love to see it.

Anyway, I've never really gotten the whole "small states breed advancement" school of thought. For the most part outside of Renaissance Italy, small and squabbling states were horribly counterproductive entities which only spent money and killed each other. It's hard to advance technologically when there is a statelet next door trying to conquer you.

That's not so say that a monolithic, globe-spanning empire would be any better. But for example, I think had the Holy Roman Empire took on a moor centralized form, it would have been more advanced and productive than the feudal statelets of OTL.

Also for the counterproductive warring states: see India.
 
If you can find one definition of East Asia which includes Anatolia and Egypt, I would love to see it.

Oh fuck, I thought he had just said Asia.

Why the hell is he talking about East Asia when I'm talking about the Muslim world? China clearly recovered from the Mongols well enough, considering the Ming resurgence which ended up being far more advanced than contemporary Europe.

Anyway, I've never really gotten the whole "small states breed advancement" school of thought. For the most part outside of Renaissance Italy, small and squabbling states were horribly counterproductive entities which only spent money and killed each other. It's hard to advance technologically when there is a statelet next door trying to conquer you.

Small states competing do breed advancement, they just need something to tie them together so they don't squander the advancement in destroying each other. The European, Christian identity tied (Western and Central) Europe together enough that, even though the differing state apparatuses led to almost constant warfare in Europe throughout the 17th and 18th centuries (upon whose back a military revolution rode), their economies and population bases stayed relatively intact (except in Germany as a result of the Thirty Years War).

The Muslim world may have had much of the same thing going for it (a common, group identity between nations), but instead the invasions off the steppe destroyed their economies and population bases so that they fell behind the Europeans in everything but military technology (which could be imported).

That's not so say that a monolithic, globe-spanning empire would be any better. But for example, I think had the Holy Roman Empire took on a moor centralized form, it would have been more advanced and productive than the feudal statelets of OTL.

Also for the counterproductive warring states: see India.

What? India was one of the most advanced parts of the world for centuries and centuries. Things only fell apart when the Mughals came in only to collapse after a century.
 
Small states competing do breed advancement, they just need something to tie them together so they don't squander the advancement in destroying each other. The European, Christian identity tied (Western and Central) Europe together enough that, even though the differing state apparatuses led to almost constant warfare in Europe throughout the 17th and 18th centuries (upon whose back a military revolution rode), their economies and population bases stayed relatively intact (except in Germany as a result of the Thirty Years War).
.

Yeah thats it.
You need rivalry but not a outright competition for survival.

But of course this only works up to a certain period. Once the age of capitalism is coming into swing you can then start to unite the world and it'll still advance. From the industrial age unity could actually in many ways mean faster advancment.
 
Oh fuck, I thought he had just said Asia.

Why the hell is he talking about East Asia when I'm talking about the Muslim world? China clearly recovered from the Mongols well enough, considering the Ming resurgence which ended up being far more advanced than contemporary Europe.
I have no idea. The Muslims were hit much harder than China was. I think the ten percent of Persians who survived can attest to that.


The Muslim world may have had much of the same thing going for it (a common, group identity between nations), but instead the invasions off the steppe destroyed their economies and population bases so that they fell behind the Europeans in everything but military technology (which could be imported).

Although the Muslim decline almost certainly began before the Mongols and maybe even before the Seljuks...


What? India was one of the most advanced parts of the world for centuries and centuries. Things only fell apart when the Mughals came in only to collapse after a century.
But also varying parts of it was dominated by Muslims from the 10th century onward, which a lot of the time was bad for the people of India.

Were the Mughals really that destructive? The north was already under Muslim control, so the invasion would not make that much difference. So was the Deccan, and Bengal.

The problem with India is like what Leej said in the post above mine. In India a lot of the time it was competition for survival, which is not very productive.
 
The nomadic invasions were certainly a factor, but more important, and related, is the much more fragile ecological environment of the Middle East. Western Europe has heavy and regular rainfall, whereas the Mid East is very arid and prone to drought. That results in lower crop yields in general and serious and regular catastrophe during droughts, when large numbers of people and horrendous numbers of livestock perish.

That is partially dealt with through irrigation schemes, but these are labor-intensive, expensive, and very fragile.

Example: Mongols invade, smash irrigation, massacre people. Large numbers die off in famines, there aren't enough left to repair and maintain the irrigation. Hence, Mesopotamia becomes a poor backwater.

When people talk about the backwardness of Eastern Europe and blame it on the Russians, Ottomans, and Communists, they ignore that it was always that way - sparsely populated and fragile.
 
Top