[QUOTE=Swebonny;34914203]But how many years differs from the buildings? I don't think architecture necessary show who's the most advance. In my eyes that's more about comparing different tradition and art/building styles. I mean, the style of Chinese buildings haven't changed much for hundred and hundreds of years.
Example from a book printed 1100 AD.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Yingzao_Fashi_1.JPG[/img][/QUOTE]
That points to the other major problem China had, they didn't advance.
Europe frequently went through revolutionary changes since the 15th century. I'm sure half the reason was because they weren't unified and needed to use technology and other cultural changes to their advantage in their endless wars. Chinese Emperors did feud against one another but because it was with such large land masses and even if you didn't have a technological advantage you could just overrun them, technology didn't play as large of part.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;34917750]That points to the other major problem China had, they didn't advance.
Europe frequently went through revolutionary changes since the 15th century. I'm sure half the reason was because they weren't unified and needed to use technology and other cultural changes to their advantage in their endless wars. Chinese Emperors did feud against one another but because it was with such large land masses and even if you didn't have a technological advantage you could just overrun them, technology didn't play as large of part.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, your theory doesn't differ much from this one:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_level_equilibrium_trap[/url]
It's quite interesting, and logical when you think about it.
[QUOTE]By comparison, the British economy at the time of the Industrial Revolution was much smaller and less efficient than China's. Local shortages could not be readily alleviated by internal trade; besides being far smaller than China, Britain lacked an efficient internal water-based trade network, which prompted the development of the steam engine and railroads. The early paucity of arable farmland in Britain encouraged technical refinements to improve crop yields at an early date, whereas the vast size of China permitted production to be increased simply by cultivating more land until late in the imperial period. Although overseas colonies provided cheap slave labor for part of the Industrial Revolution period, local labor in Britain itself was more expensive than in China, providing the capitalist class an incentive to improve worker efficiency.[/QUOTE]
Interesting.
So basicly because Europe was a shithole we rose to domination?
Interesting.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34907086]Indeed, but the way he was presenting it made one assume that the Europeans were indiscriminately slaughtering hordes of Moslems, when in actual fact the Europeans were mostly at their mercy until well after the age of discovery began.[/QUOTE]
actually European armies tended to be somewhat better in the field. They tended to have massive supply issues though. Which was the thing that broke them more often then not.
[editline]29th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Aerkhan;34924772]So basicly because Europe was a shithole we rose to domination?
Interesting.[/QUOTE]
it's more that they were the right amount of shit. Not too much but not too little either.
It's parallel to what occurs in nature evolutionarily. Think of a Kakapo, isolated from most of the world, no natural predators, plenty of food, it doesn't need to develop to survive because it can survive as it is. Then think of a Wolf, cold environment to survive, a few nasty predators and plenty of tough prey, they need to be stronger to survive.
When the two meet, the conclusion is obvious.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;34934298]It's parallel to what occurs in nature evolutionarily. Think of a Kakapo, isolated from most of the world, no natural predators, plenty of food, it doesn't need to develop to survive because it can survive as it is. Then think of a Wolf, cold environment to survive, a few nasty predators and plenty of tough prey, they need to be stronger to survive.
When the two meet, the conclusion is obvious.[/QUOTE]
A better example if Chimpanzee and bonobo. Since they are far more similar as species go.
So Europe was a tough environment, but it didn't kill people outright. On top of that it was fairly decent for large settlement migration. Couple into it that it essentially became a crossroads of nations and other stuff and you have a pretty decent idea why it suddenly boomed.
They got things from the Chinese/Asia in general, and used it to expand their own business. The Chinese invented things like the paper, the book press, noodles to pasta, gunpowder and more. The Europeans got the technology later, and called it their inventions.
The Americas wasn't properly explored at the time, and technology over there, in Australia, and Africa did not match the technology in Asia and Europe.
In my opinion, Asian people should have been credited more. The Chinese managed to be the biggest people on earth by using their knowledge. The Great Wall of China, which kept them safe. The Wok pan, which used the small firewood resource in a great way to help people cook their food.
They have always been awesome, and they will hopefully keep being that.
But yeah, they didn't move on.
Unification slows growth.
The Asian states were relatively unified through out history whereas Europe has been fragmented and divided.
Nothing drives technological progress like war or wishing to be more prestigious than your neighbour.
[QUOTE=kazookie;34941875]They got things from the Chinese/Asia in general, and used it to expand their own business. The Chinese invented things like the paper, the book press, noodles to pasta, gunpowder and more. The Europeans got the technology later, and called it their inventions.
The Americas wasn't properly explored at the time, and technology over there, in Australia, and Africa did not match the technology in Asia and Europe.
In my opinion, Asian people should have been credited more. The Chinese managed to be the biggest people on earth by using their knowledge. The Great Wall of China, which kept them safe. The Wok pan, which used the small firewood resource in a great way to help people cook their food.
They have always been awesome, and they will hopefully keep being that.
But yeah, they didn't move on.[/QUOTE]
Really gunpowder was the only revolutionary thing they made and in their hands, it was just a trinket. If you want to get technical then gunpowder was just a discovery, the gun was the invention, and for pretty much all modern ideas of a gun, Europeans did invent them. People used gasoline for killing head lice before the automobile, it doesn't retroactively mean the discovery of it was amazing, it just means that the automobile is a good invention.
[QUOTE=Mythman;34941976]Unification slows growth.
The Asian states were relatively unified through out history whereas Europe has been fragmented and divided.
Nothing drives technological progress like war or wishing to be more prestigious than your neighbour.[/QUOTE]
Certainly true for the HRE, lol.
Really, there are cases for and against it. You need some vigour to stave off stagnation but China had a lot of wars and loads of times they weren't unified. There are other conditions required to stimulate growth.
ITT: People referring to Europe as if it's a country.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("ITT: This is not how to post in Mass Debate" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;34942240]ITT: People referring to Europe as if it's a country.[/QUOTE]
I wish I could rate you dumb, I really do.
The point is though that we are not referring to a single country, we are referring to the fact that European, particularly west-European countries developed at a far higher rate than any other area and came to have a high level of influence over the entire world. Surely you understand the difference between a geographical region and a country, and that the references in language are almost indistinguishable. Really all you have done is show your own lack of ability in reading the damn thread.
[QUOTE=MingeCrab;34942240]ITT: People referring to Europe as if it's a country.[/QUOTE]
Nope, people are referring to it as a collective region. Much like people who are referring to Asia/America
[QUOTE=kazookie;34941875]They got things from the Chinese/Asia in general, and used it to expand their own business. The Europeans got the technology later, and called it their inventions.[/QUOTE]
Not quite, I would say that the Middle East and the Classical world (Basically west of Persia) had more of their own inventions and developments. The far east hardly interacted on such a scale with the west until the Age of Discovery really kicked off. Before that, most people thought of China as a semi-legendary empire.
I think they started to rise to power when they "discovered" american and colonized certain places of africa
Lots metal and slaves
[QUOTE=leonthefox;34944624]I think they started to rise to power when they "discovered" american and colonized certain places of africa
Lots metal and slaves[/QUOTE]
Nah, the colonies were more of a later sympton that only increased the growth as opposed to the thing that allowed the growth. Plus a number of strong European nations didn't have as many colonies as the others.
Germany, and the Austrian-hegemony come to mind. Though they did certainly catapult the dutch up.
Plus what made Europe so strong was already emerging even in the middle ages.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
