Why europe?

[Anarchaus]

I was thinking, why did the European nations advance so fast in comparison with other regions of the world?

or did other regions have their time in the sun that is all but forgotten now?

[swansont]

Read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel

[syntax252]

Greed and ruthlessness.

[Sayonara]

I don't think those traits were unique to the European nations.

[Bluenoise]

Read Jared Diamond's [u']Guns, Germs and Steel[/u]

 

Just to repeat it since it was such a good answer.

 

Basically it comes down to natural resources. (species available for domestication with good potential)

And the benefits of Eurasian having a east-west axis.

 

If you want an explaination of why exactley these help.

 

Read Jared Diamond's [u']Guns, Germs and Steel[/u]

[Anarchaus]

alright, thanks all.

[paleolithic]

Well there were many other empires from other regions that were technologically advanced, there were the Ghurkas from nepal. The Japanese and Chinese were also pretty advanced, and I don't know if Egypt or the Middle East is considered europe. I think it's Asia, right?

[Flareon]

The Japanese and Chinese were also pretty advanced, and I don't know if Egypt or the Middle East is considered europe. I think it's Asia, right?

 

Actually the Japanese have been no where near as advanced as China. Their success in technology and in the global market is a relatively recent phenomenon. One could also argue that that a large proportion of Japanese culture has been transmitted there from China.

[syntax252]

I don't think those traits were unique to the European nations.

Perhaps not, but they were certainly the best at implementing those traits to their profit.

[atinymonkey]

Cough *slavery* cough.

[AzurePhoenix]

South Americans did some amzing stuff with architecture and obsidian schultping.

[syntax252]

Cough *slavery* cough.

 

Cough, ahhhh, done by people of Euorpean decent????

[atinymonkey]

s'true.

 

South Americans did some amzing stuff with architecture and obsidian schultping.

Yup. But they found the sculptures were crap in an expanding global economy of military rule.

[AzurePhoenix]

Yeah, but the artistry involved and skill required to sculpt it was amazing, and flakes of the stuff are even used today as surgical blades. Too bad everyone's looking for durable durable durable these days rather than art.

[Aardvark]

I was thinking' date=' why did the European nations advance so fast in comparison with other regions of the world?

or did other regions have their time in the sun that is all but forgotten now?[/quote']

 

Geography.

 

Europe is physically divided into a series of penisulars and islands which act as natural barriers sufficent to allow seperate nations and cultures to exist whilst still interacting with each other.

 

These societies act in competition with each other, thus promoting technological, military and policitical advances.

 

In contrast China is geographically homogenous. There are no sufficent mountain ranges or penisulars to allow sepearte nations or cultures to develop. As such a uniform homogenous nation has developed. This resulted in relative stagnation. It was ironically when China was broken apart between warring states between 475BC and 221BC that China experienced great cultural and scientific advances.

 

It is this internal competition that forced progress in Europe. For instance, when Italy was divided amongst many competing City States the result was the Renaissance. When Greece was divided similarly it defeated the Super Power of Persia and provided the intellectual basis of Western civilisation.

 

It is Europes lack of unity that has been its making.

[ydoaPs]

What about North America? It advanced far more rapidly than Europe.

[AzurePhoenix]

Do you mean pre colombus? For that matter, did anarchaus initially mean pre colombus or post to modern?

[Aardvark]

What about North America? It advanced far more rapidly than Europe.

 

Until 1492 it was nowhere near as advanced as Europe. For the thousands of years that humans inhabitated the North America it remained relatively backward compared with other areas.

 

The more recent advances in North America can be seen largely in the context of a branch of European civilisation.

[ydoaPs]

indians=>"civilization"

[ydoaPs]

Until 1492 it was nowhere near as advanced as Europe. For the thousands of years that humans inhabitated the North America it remained relatively backward compared with other areas.

 

The more recent advances in North America can be seen largely in the context of a branch of European civilisation.

 

if you want to look at it that way, then we are all just a branch of the african civilization.

[syntax252]

What about North America? It advanced far more rapidly than Europe.

 

America was peopled by Europeans.

[AzurePhoenix]

Sure their society was nice, but engineering wise and architecturally, they were mostly way behind.

[Aardvark]

if you want to look at it that way, then we are all just a branch of the african civilization.

 

Not exactly.

 

Europe developed its own distinctive culture and civilisation which can be seen as being completely distinct from its very ancient African progenitors.

 

North America is still clearly a transplanted civilisation with its main roots in Europe. This isn't meant as any kind of america bashing, simply stating the obvious about the origin and nature of the civilisation that currently predominates in North America.

[ydoaPs]

european civiliation is based on the african. tools were first used in africa, therefore erope is a transplanted civilization. also, much of the "civilization" came from the rediscovered greek writings.

[Aardvark]

european civiliation is based on the african. tools were first used in africa, therefore erope is a transplanted civilization

 

In a very broad sense, as humans originated in Africa all human achievements could be considered to be based on the actions of the African progenitors.

 

However, it is clear that Europe did develop a highly distinctive and original culture and civilisation in the tens of thousands of years after the original settlers left Africa. Therefore it is fair to talk of European civilisation as an seperate cultural construct rather than a transplanted civilisation.

 

also, much of the "civilization" came from the rediscovered greek writings.

 

True. I fail to see your point, much of European civilisation is based on rediscovered Ancient Greek writings. As the Ancient Greeks were Europeans this in no way reduces the European nature of European civilisation.