Was European Supremacy Inevitable?

I agree, but IMHO, there was also a political problem. Islam was essentially concerned with community, and then, I would say, there is far less room for ANY type of State-based political legitimacy. While I value this somewhat positively in general, it must be admitted that European nation-states were far more efficient when it comes to conquest and looting,

The problem with this is that one of Europe's most collectivist societies has been Russia, and it was Russia that overran a full sixth of the planet, withstood several disastrous invasions and ended the 20th Century overlord of half of Europe.
 
not at all. Asia-Mideast-North Africa stood very good chances of stopping Europeans but said countries suffered due to backwardness and mismanagement and internal divisions. SO not at all European domination wasn't inevitable due to the existence of Mideast, north Africa, and Asia.

The points where you would consider them backwards were points where they all had vibrant state systems and political, economic, and social ferment where European state systems and economic systems had completely collapsed into an anarchy riven by warlords and vulnerable to incursions by tribal confederacies whose numbers were hardly very big. There is no means to say that they suffered internal division and Medieval and Early Modern Europe which saw the Orthodox-Catholic and Emperor-Church feuding and then the religious civil wars of the early Modern Era did not.
 
-that religious dogmatism was also the reason the Ottoman Empire became backward very soon after the Conquest of Constantinople. You cannot impart knowledge if you cannot use images in text books.

Explain how the Ottoman Empire was backward when overkill was required to take it down in the late 17th century, and even with that overkill the gains the Holy League made were small.
 
You seem to forget that in 1 AD, the Roman Empire controlled the Eastern Mediterranean. Largely due to the campaigns of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (106-48 BC) who conquered Cilicia, Pamphylia, the remnants of Pontus, Phoenicia, and Coele-Syria. While turning Armenia and judea to "allies"

No, I'm quite aware of this fact, which I think actually supports my contention that one cannot confuse the rise of Rome as proof that European dominance was inevitable. By AD 500, the "Roman" Empire had effectively abandoned Rome and western Europe and the Eastern Empire was as much Middle Eastern as anything else, despite the greek and italian trappings. Through much of its history, the eastern mediterranean looked East or South (to Persia, to Mesopotamia, etc) not west. Most of Europe, in particular the nations that came to dominate the world after 1800, were barbarian hinterlands

IN AD1, any neutral observer would see the spread of "civilization " into western and northern Europe as a new development - and one that could well be temporary. China, India, Persia were at least the equal of Rome and had been around "for ever"
 
The problem with this is that one of Europe's most collectivist societies has been Russia, and it was Russia that overran a full sixth of the planet, withstood several disastrous invasions and ended the 20th Century overlord of half of Europe.

I was not saying that Islam was "collectivist" in the sense Russia has been. I was not contrasting _community_ and _individual, but community and state. The collectivist Russian society has usually had a very strong State on the top of it, which had great legitimacy vis a vis that society and was, for most time, sanctioned by religious authorities with a significant emphasis. it was the Russian _state_, not the Russian _society_ that got the historical success you correctly pointed out.
Islamic states tended to achieve comparatively less success on average, despite some considerable exceptions like the Ottomans. I would say that Islamic _societies_ however, have been at least that successful and probably even more. Converting almost the entire Indonesia alone, basically without military conquest, is quite an achievement.
 
IN AD1, any neutral observer would see the spread of "civilization " into western and northern Europe as a new development - and one that could well be temporary. China, India, Persia were at least the equal of Rome and had been around "for ever"

Its true that compared to other centers of civilization such as in the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, European civilization was relatively new (but don't forget ancient Greek civilization). And if we were to go way back in time, the inevitability of European supremacy looks somewhat less likely. After all many things could have happened to retard European development. But by 1AD, it was too late.

The point to make is that by 1AD, Rome was advancing by then already controlled Iberia and Gaul. At its height, Roman civilization was the most advanced and powerful in the world compared to its contemporaries. Since the most advanced civilization had reached Western Europe and since Western Europe had a huge advantage being not far from the New World, it was destined for supremacy.

The idea that civilization in Europe would only be a "temporary" phenomenon is pretty much impossible. When Rome fell in the West, it only led to political fragmentation but did not and would not lead to regression to barbarianism. European ascendency was assured once the Roman Empire spread civilization to Western Europe.
 
Last edited:
I disagree vehemently. 1 AD does not a European supremacy world make. I think by around the 1400s we're talking "very likely", at least in terms of a maritime hegemony, and by the time the British are conquering in India almost certainly. But 1 AD is far, far too early. Gaul and Iberia? They're barely half of the size of some of the largest and most populous Chinese provinces today. The Romans certainly were advanced for their time, but let's not forget the Han and Song Dynasties (Printing Press, Kites, Toilet Paper and Sewage networks, Gunpowder, etc. etc.) advancements under Ashoka and later Indian Empires, complex irrigation networks all across Mesopotamia and Egypt that were improved on after the Arab Conquest...

Ancient Greek civilization was impressive, no doubt, but it was no more impressive than the civilizations developing elsewhere throughout the world. Europe was also the great beneficiary of many instances of great historical luck, something that may not reoccur with a PoD in 1 AD.

So, so much can change.

Its true that compared to other centers of civilization such as in the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, European civilization was relatively new (but don't forget ancient Greek civilization). And if we were to go way back in time, the inevitability of European supremacy looks somewhat less likely. After all many things could have happened to retard European development. But by 1AD, it was too late.

The point to make is that by 1AD, Rome was advancing by then already controlled Iberia and Gaul. At its height, Roman civilization was the most advanced and powerful in the world compared to its contemporaries. Since the most advanced civilization had reached Western Europe and since Western Europe had a huge advantage being not far from the New World, it was destined for supremacy.

The idea that civilization in Europe would only be a "temporary" phenomenon is pretty much impossible. When Rome fell in the West, it only led to political fragmentation but did not and would not lead to regression to barbarianism. European ascendency was assured once the Roman Empire spread civilization to Western Europe.
 
Last edited:
Europe being one of the areas that count for something, as opposed to the areas that never emerge as possible world-hegemons, seems likely...but even that's uncertain.

Up to around 800-1000 AD, Western and Central Europe not being plunged backwards here is not a given.

But "one of the areas"...is not saying much.
 
Isn't the amount of importance that Europe had to the Roman empire overrated? Iberia was of some use thanks to its silver and agricultural production, as was Italy (minus the silver), but Gaul and Britannia were not worth too much when compared to Egypt, Asia Minor, ect. Long story short, much of the wealth of the Roman empire was found in the East, not the West.
 
Isn't the amount of importance that Europe had to the Roman empire overrated? Iberia was of some use thanks to its silver and agricultural production, as was Italy (minus the silver), but Gaul and Britannia were not worth too much when compared to Egypt, Asia Minor, ect. Long story short, much of the wealth of the Roman empire was found in the East, not the West.

The Eastern Roman empire always had more infrastructure and there was an extreme disparity between East and West.
 
Top