[guorbatschow]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

the time scale you call short there are periods of 100-200 years. thats not short compared to today's world politics. if you call a war every 100 years frequent, then just compare to europe from 15th century to 20th.

and 1592? the ming dynasty lasted till 1644, and then it got succeeded by the qing dynasty, which itself reached its peak from kangxi to qianlong. it has always been like that in chinese history, starting from qin dynasty. first emperor comes to power, his successors build up the power and wealth, then it declines a bit, until the next revolution or invasion comes along and a new dynasty starts. you can call that fluctuation, but not decline.

the point is, europe never had any hegemoney after rome. both china and middle east had.

[Kamui4356]

[quote=guorbatschow;1375861]the time scale you call short there are periods of 100-200 years. thats not short compared to today's world politics. if you call a war every 100 years frequent, then just compare to europe from 15th century to 20th.[quote]

You're comparing Europe's age of expansion to short periods of relative stability in the rest of the world. If you compare it to similiar eras in the history of other regions you'll find no shortage of wars and conflicts.

and 1592? the ming dynasty lasted till 1644, and then it got succeeded by the qing dynasty, which itself reached its peak from kangxi to qianlong. it has always been like that in chinese history, starting from qin dynasty. first emperor comes to power, his successors build up the power and wealth, then it declines a bit, until the next revolution or invasion comes along and a new dynasty starts. you can call that fluctuation, but not decline.

The issue isn't whether it's a cycle, but when the decline was. Basicly it started in the 1470s and continues until the fall of the ming dynesty. Now what was Europe doing in that time. Whether permament or not, China entered a period of decline at a crucial moment in world history, the start of European expansionism. If they hadn't, it's likely China would have become a major player in world affairs then. Instead they fell behind, and were unable to catch up, eventually being taken over by Europeans.

the point is, europe never had any hegemoney after rome. both china and middle east had.

Which kind of proves my point doesn't it? China had been unified earlier in history than Europe, which really is just starting to happen now. Europe just had it's equivlent of China's warring states period begin late. Unlike China no single power was able to rise up and conquer the rest, and they had the technology to look elsewhere for easier prey. As a result they turned outward.

In the end it wasn't about religion, as the was suggested by the premise of the thread, but a case of the technology to make it possible being available, and no real competition outside Europe.

[guorbatschow]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

The issue isn't whether it's a cycle, but when the decline was. Basicly it started in the 1470s and continues until the fall of the ming dynesty. Now what was Europe doing in that time. Whether permament or not, China entered a period of decline at a crucial moment in world history, the start of European expansionism. If they hadn't, it's likely China would have become a major player in world affairs then. Instead they fell behind, and were unable to catch up, eventually being taken over by Europeans.

why does it even matter what china did at the precise moment europe started colonisialization? china could have done the same centuries earlier, but their policy just didnt include conquering foreighn cultures and there werent incentives tempting enough to do so. explorations and maritime trade in the southeast aisa region to african east coast and persia date at least back to tang dynasty (~600 - ~900), yet no conquest were made.

in the end china didnt fail because of military technology. that was, like i said, just a symptome. china failed because they believed themselve to be culturally superior than western cultures and underestimated them when that wasnt the case at least on the military area anymore.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by guorbatschow

why does it even matter what china did at the precise moment europe started colonisialization? china could have done the same centuries earlier, but their policy just didnt include conquering foreighn cultures and there werent incentives tempting enough to do so. explorations and maritime trade in the southeast aisa region to african east coast and persia date at least back to tang dynasty (~600 - ~900), yet no conquest were made.

in the end china didnt fail because of military technology. that was, like i said, just a symptome. china failed because they believed themselve to be culturally superior than western cultures and underestimated them when that wasnt the case at least on the military area anymore.

Except that you're missing the entire point. Did Europe go straight for the other advanced civilizations? No, they went after the Americas and western africa. The Chinese trade expeditions you talk about on the other hand are going to run across fairly advanced civilizations in India, the middle east and eastern Africa. These are fairly powerful cultures that could resist Chinese invasions. For there to be a period of Chinese colonezation to rival Europe's they need to get to the Americas

There is a huge difference between a ship following the coast line and a trans oceanic ship. Open seas are rougher and you need more advanced navigational equipment, like say a compass. China didn't invent the compass until the 11th century during the Song dynesty.

Unfortunately for China they were having a bit of trouble with the Jin in this period, and the mongols won't be far behind. After the mongol empire splits up, China's on it's own again under the formerly mongol yuan dynesty. They were more interested in getting rich and sold off most of China's technology to eager europeans, who were starting to become players on the world stage again. Still, it looked like they would lead China to properity. Unfortunately, political unrest doomed the Yuans.

Now we have the Ming, who in the late 13th and earily 14th centuries looked like they were going to start the expansion. However, that was shortlived and by the second half of the 14th century the ming dynesty was already in decline and turned inward. If not for that decline it's entirely possible North America west of the Missisipi would be speaking Chinese.

In short, China didn't have the technology to expand like europe did until the 11th century. By the time they actually had time to do it, Europe had caught up. Even then the window was too small and a declien of the ming dynesty doomed it.

[Longknife]

Originally Posted by Moshineko

But, where your theory falls down is that it isn't good or evil that causes expansion, many of the American Indian tribes on both continents were bastards, but having a technologically advanced neighbor with differing ideals to steal from. Or, really, strife in general. If you look for the advancements in human history, they're almost invariably centered around a war or revolution. It's violence that causes progress, not morals.

Yeah, I really didn't want to use the words "Good and evil," but decided to go with it just because it's something people have heard and understand.

Plus more dramatic titles get more views.


In this case, Good means, religious values and figures such as Jesus, are generally good. Even if you aren't religious, you can learn a thing or two from the morals of various religions. I know I do.

Therefore, the Muslim and Christian beliefs, like any other beliefs, are good.




In this case, evil means any negative effects for a corner of the world. We all have to admit, that there's some evil resulting from good in this case.



What I'm more after, is a specific thing. Does most RACISM stem from religion, is my pondering. I honestly can't say that many people tried to justify racism in Africa. They simply decided that for some reason, black wasn't as good. However, I do wonder if racism did stem up some due to religion in other cases.




That is more MY focus though. There's also questions of was it RELIGION that made Europe and the Middle East choose to expand and explore in the first place? I mean, they'd had a "recent" religious event that was more recent than all the other religions of the time, so they'd still be holding that confidence. From parts of your post Moshi, I'd say that religion IS sort of the reason the Middle East and Europe started going into other corners of the world.





Though interesting side note, you're also correct Moshi, in that "good" stems from "evil." There's actually a song by Yoko Kanno that I believe is called "Comatose Radio," that sort of explains this concept well. The song is basically about the idea of little elves who come and break things as people sleep, causing problems and death. The tone then changes and gives off the feeling that these elves have been caught and are about to be killed, and one of them desperately lets out a saddened "We do it so you'll try harder next time."

[guorbatschow]

my opinion on this is that europe colonialized because of intern competition. which triggered military technological advancement. china didnt have that inner competition and stagnated because there was no reason to develop further. extern threats were neglected because the chinese culture was considered superior.

you are saying that europe colonialized because they had the opportunities while china didnt. but china had the opportunity, but didnt see the reason to take advantage of it.

which is where religion comes into play. chinese explorers rather trade and dont even care about the natives beucase they are considered inferior. spanish explorers had the attitude to bring them the truth when they conquered, mixed with greed.

[Longknife]

Originally Posted by Ninjer-sauce

I think religion was more of a flag the explorers could wave to justify they're greed. If you think of the Conquistadors (sp?), even though they were acting in the name of God, they were not being very god-like at all. They just said, in Spanish I might add, "Hey surrender to Spain or we'll like shank you and stuff." How the bloody hell were they supposed to respond to that? 0.o
Obviously the natives couldn't really say much so they were labeled heathens, looted, and killed.


Random thought: Jesus ish uber roxorz, k?

Yes but, the Spanish in Mexico and Yucatan are quite an especially greedy example. We also have the Spanish more south, who didn't go quite as far, the French up north who for a long time weren't much assholes at all to the Native American tribes, and various British and Dutch instances that have varying degrees of greed, not directly related to religion.

Also, the Aztecs DID resist the Spanish. They COULD say something, because they definitely weren't weaker than the Spanish. It wasn't the spanish armies themselves that brought down the Aztecs, it was the new (new for the Aztecs, anyways) diseases that the Spanish brought with them.

Originally Posted by Moshineko

A lot of them did. Look up the Jesuits. They were very active in Southeast Asia for a long time before most others, and got royally pissed when England came along to ruin their fun.



Actually, I think you'll find we probably stole most of our technology from the Muslims and Chinese. We be theives.

And there was some evidence that the Chinese came to the Americas before even the Vikings, but the next Emperor in line didn't like boats, so they burned them all.

Yes, a lot of technology has come from the Middle East, Europe, and Asia combined. As I've said, the Americas simply didn't strive for much and were happy with simpler lives, and Africa both in some cases shared this attitude, and just had the shit torn out of them from all sorts of conflicts, in other cases.
Now if Europe actually put all of this combined technology to better use, (and by better, I mean simply used and abused it more) that would be an interesting arguement.



And isn't that a THEORY? I mean, it's possible the Chinese did it, but I don't think that's quite a fact, is it?

Originally Posted by LaLa115

In response to the statements of the Middle Ages era lulling in tension and/or war you have your facts off slightly. The tensions between different nations had become so strained that they were guarding their territory not "keeping to themselves"; this resulting from over 1400 years of bloody battles in the struggle to force the beliefs of overzealous Christian followers onto the people of Europe, Egypt and the Middle East.

If you were to research history through sources OTHER than the bible and biblical texts you would have a much broader understanding of the events that occurred. The tensions and wars of our long ago history originated more from personal gain. The few skirmishes documented that refer to religious beliefs did not become an issue until Egyptians changed their beliefs to where the Egyptian royalty were worshipped as god like beings second only to whichever god the current leader believed. They are actually the oldest documented area to venture out due to religion. I am referring to B.C. times of course lol.

Thus we come to the age of Jesus. Holy Hell hath cometh. Originally seen as a silly new faith that would soon be gone, Christianity gave the people that had before lived in fear of life in the physical sense a chance to see life in a spiritual otherworldly sense.

To sadistic leaders it created a new outlet to their worst desires and fears. It created wars fought in the belief of "saving" others but only achieving to dominate and control those who lived differently. People were murdered and beaten and worse for not accepting a faith that was centered on love and forgiveness of sins. (Lol go figure)

1000B.C.-1500A.D. Is a critical factor to this thread yet you chose to skim over it when it is the time when everything actually began.

The tensions will always be. You can not erase the memories of entire nations nor can you expect tension to cease between conflicting religions that teach judgement of any differential and condemn all who choose free will.

To truly analyze this topic and be able to give correct and unbiased opinions you have to originate from the root of the problem and work your way outwards to the current status of each theory and stereotype you posted.

In a sense it appears you based your arguments on popular belief and US high school history books. You then coupled these with Western stereotypes and opinions without checking the validity of Western knowledge.


toodles LaLa (I R Smart Bish lol RAWR)

***It is a wonderful thread and an interesting one and sounds exactly like a friend and I when we debate on Christianity and the resulting world because of it. You just gave too many examples of such broad areas of time and location that its difficult to give good responses without getting lost in all the added topics lol**

I'm sorry but that kind of came off as really fucking snotty. D:


If I truly am uneducated here, educate me. Don't sit here and say "omg ur opinions are so ignorant" and then go without even proving a damn thing or really adding much to the topic other than "SUMTHING IMPORTANT HAPPENS BETWEEN 1000BC AND 1500AD; GO LOOK."

Plus you seem to be under the impression I'm a Christian, (you could be, or not. Not sure) which isn't so.




And I never said the Middle Ages were calm. I simply said they were calmer in the sense of other corners of the world I named not going into one another as much.

Really, a lot of people seem to be misunderstanding that when I'm saying things like "keeping to themselves" and "calm," I'm referring to China and Europe not seeing each other, NOT that the Franks and several other Germanic tribes are sitting up there having a tea party in Europe, while the Mongols, Japanese, and Chinese are sitting there complimenting each other on their new dresses. I'm simply stating that during those times, there's not wild exploration or conflict with farther countries.

[Longknife]

Originally Posted by guorbatschow

my opinion on this is that europe colonialized because of intern competition. which triggered military technological advancement. china didnt have that inner competition and stagnated because there was no reason to develop further. extern threats were neglected because the chinese culture was considered superior.

you are saying that europe colonialized because they had the opportunities while china didnt. but china had the opportunity, but didnt see the reason to take advantage of it.

which is where religion comes into play. chinese explorers rather trade and dont even care about the natives beucase they are considered inferior. spanish explorers had the attitude to bring them the truth when they conquered, mixed with greed.

This theory, I actually have to go with.


Simply don't just look at China, look at Japan, too. Japan probably stayed more isolated than any other country. Yes they had plenty of exposure with Mongols and Chinese, but they still had much less than other countries. Even the many native tribes in the Americas were pretty adapt to wars. Even during colonialization, when India and China were seeing plenty of trade, Japan TOO saw trade, but eventually refused all trade with everyone, the two exceptions being the Chinese (who are...right next door) and the Dutch.


Now, why is it that Japan didn't expand?

However, I have to disagree that this was based on technology. Japan was obviously able to run out unwelcomed foreign trade, and also, stomped on growing Christian influences during a rebellion in the Edo period where the Christian populace felt they'd been dealt injustice.

It wasn't until much later in the 1800's that Japan again opened their doors to trade, when the US demonstrated to them, how Japan had fallen behind in terms of technology.



What I DO think, however, is this. When Japan, China, and the Mongols are sitting there, and for the most part they only ever have to worry about....Japan, China, and the Mongols (sometimes Russia comes too. :V), there's not much pressure.

Whereas, in Europe, fuckers flipped a shit on each other all the time. Italy, several Germanic tribes, France, the Netherlands, and the British were just a few regular participants. Perhaps this is a stretch but, wouldn't it be logical that a country that constantly has to watch their back, would also feel more likely to explore new ways to win wars? They think "ok I need a treaty," and they go for it. They hear about this technology in the Middle East and Asia, and decide they need to open up trade to get to it.


But really, that's a rather wild theory I just through out there...doubt that's it. :/

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by guorbatschow

my opinion on this is that europe colonialized because of intern competition. which triggered military technological advancement.

This I can agree with.

china didnt have that inner competition and stagnated because there was no reason to develop further. extern threats were neglected because the chinese culture was considered superior.

This on the otherhand I cannot. China didn't stagnate, and they certainly didn't neglect external threats. They even built a big wall to try to keep them out. When that didn't work, they started introducing gunpowder weapons to the battlefield. However, after fighting a long war against the Jin, both sides were weakened and then conquered by the mongols. The external threats basicly grinded down China's power, until an even more powerful external threat conquered them all.

Much like Rome, China underwent a steady decline where we see their borders getting pushed back. Also like Rome, they would eventually be conquered. China does manage to survive as part of a larger empire, then as a remnent of it though, unlike Rome which was shattered apart by the germanic tribes. As such it only took China a few hundred years to rebuild instead of the thousand years it took Europe. However, they still were in decline for that time and would have to rebuild. During that period Europe made it's comeback.

you are saying that europe colonialized because they had the opportunities while china didnt. but china had the opportunity, but didnt see the reason to take advantage of it.

Yes China had the opportunity, for about 30 years. Even if they had expanded, the decline of the Ming dynesty would have made it a footnote in history as they'd have to pull back.

which is where religion comes into play. chinese explorers rather trade and dont even care about the natives beucase they are considered inferior. spanish explorers had the attitude to bring them the truth when they conquered, mixed with greed.

Except it was never about converting the locals. The Spanish cared more about getting the gold from central and South America. If the missionaries they brought along wanted to try to convert the locals, so much the better. The english and french didn't care about the locals either. They wanted the land. It wasn't about the people, it was about what they had.


Even if we ignore China, what then would prompt the Mongols to go on to build their empire? It didn't last long as it was torn apart by internal conflict, but at it's height it stretched from Europe in the west to Korea in the East. This is not a small regional empire by any defination. If western religion inspired expansion, what then drove them?

Originally Posted by Longknife

This theory, I actually have to go with.


Simply don't just look at China, look at Japan, too. Japan probably stayed more isolated than any other country. Yes they had plenty of exposure with Mongols and Chinese, but they still had much less than other countries. Even the many native tribes in the Americas were pretty adapt to wars. Even during colonialization, when India and China were seeing plenty of trade, Japan TOO saw trade, but eventually refused all trade with everyone, the two exceptions being the Chinese (who are...right next door) and the Dutch.


Now, why is it that Japan didn't expand?

They tried. They didn't get very far. Like I mentioned before in 1592 they tried to invade China. They were fought to a draw, and evetually the leader of the expedition died. Japan tried to become a major power, but they didn't quite succeed at the time. Until the late 19th, earily 20th century Japan was a minor power, strong enough to defend itself, but not strong enough to conquer its neighbors and lacking the resources to pursue overseas conquest. Once they became a major power, pretty much the first thing they did was join the Europeans in gobbling up what was left of China's carcass.

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Except that you're missing the entire point. Did Europe go straight for the other advanced civilizations? No, they went after the Americas and western africa. The Chinese trade expeditions you talk about on the other hand are going to run across fairly advanced civilizations in India, the middle east and eastern Africa. These are fairly powerful cultures that could resist Chinese invasions. For there to be a period of Chinese colonezation to rival Europe's they need to get to the Americas

Muahaha. Europe eventually found the lever, though. OPIUM! Yes, Europe at some point in the 1400s found out that the best way to make trade work was to trade silver for Chinese goods (far better than European goods of the time), and then trade opium to get the silver back. It's rather analogous to what the Chinese are doing to America at the moment, lending us back our money to buy more of their crappy plastic toys (crappy plastic toys- the new opium!).

And now that I think about it, it was the mongols that started it all. That continent-spanning empire was a great opportunity for trade in spices, as there was one tax you had to pay to cross Asia. When it collapsed, there were all sorts of new taxes to pay, and Europe's addiction to spice caused them to think differently about things. Yup, greed and addiction ftw, I suppose.

In response to the statements of the Middle Ages era lulling in tension and/or war you have your facts off slightly. The tensions between different nations had become so strained that they were guarding their territory not "keeping to themselves"; this resulting from over 1400 years of bloody battles in the struggle to force the beliefs of overzealous Christian followers onto the people of Europe, Egypt and the Middle East.

If you were to research history through sources OTHER than the bible and biblical texts you would have a much broader understanding of the events that occurred. The tensions and wars of our long ago history originated more from personal gain. The few skirmishes documented that refer to religious beliefs did not become an issue until Egyptians changed their beliefs to where the Egyptian royalty were worshipped as god like beings second only to whichever god the current leader believed. They are actually the oldest documented area to venture out due to religion. I am referring to B.C. times of course lol.

HAHAHA. No.

If you were to study sources other than your over-inflated ego, you'd find that a majority of "religious wars" were fought in order to get the church more money. Everyone remembers the rhyme "Ba, ba, black sheep?" Well, the rhyme was actually a protest against taxation. "One for the master" was a reference to the Lord, aka J.C. and the church.

The Crusades were started in order to get gold and other Islamic goods. The Muslims had no beef with Christians for the most part, provided they paid their taxes and didn't openly preach. At the time, the Moorish and Islamic cities were flush with Christians and Jews, who flocked there due to the much superior living conditions.

In 1010 or thereabout, the Caliph Al-Hakim-Bin-Amr destroyed the Church of the Holy Sephulcre, a mildly important church for the Christian faith. This was essentially what WMDs were for Bush: an excellent PR reason to go to war with the Islamic empire. But, what it was really about was the fabulous wealth of the Islamic nations.

Note the end of the major crusades coincides fairly well with the start of the Black Plauge. After the Black Plauge, major crusades dropped off. Why? The Rennaissance. Europe finally became a livable area, so the need to go off to war seemed less important to the majority of people, especially the nobles who had benefitted from the crusades.

It's also impossible to say what happened when in B.C.E. times (read an anthropology book , you'll get it) in other areas due to one fact: they didn't have written records. It's very easy to posit that the Egyptians were the first at lots of things, as they were the oldest written records we could find. However, this leaves out a good 90% of the world. It's really impossible to say when religious wars began, especially since what you seem to define as "war" involves fairly large states, which simply weren't in existence much before Egypt. I'd still argue that if you only know of three tribes in an area, and two fight it out over whether the Bear-God likes rye or wheat, that's a religious war.

Additionally, the problem with Christianity had very little to do with the afterlife, or anything really spiritual. Any High School history book will tell you that the Romans venerated their Emperors as gods, and expected their vassal states to think likewise. The local religions could continue, as long as the Emperors were also worshipped. The first tenet of Christianity "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me," is what was the issue. Jews by that time were an established religion, and less reactionary about the demands of the Romans. Christians, for the most part, were a militant group that got lucky. They were one of many groups that didn't believe that the Emperor should be considered a god. This undercut Roman power, most of which was based on reputation and bluster at that point. This, coupled with the decline of the Empire, caused Romans to freak out about Christianity. It was essentially a "fifth column" threat to them.

Kudos for failing all around. Please don't post here again, you've got a terrible attitude. It's debate forum, not "prove I'm right" forum.

[Longknife]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Yes China had the opportunity, for about 30 years. Even if they had expanded, the decline of the Ming dynesty would have made it a footnote in history as they'd have to pull back.


Except it was never about converting the locals. The Spanish cared more about getting the gold from central and South America. If the missionaries they brought along wanted to try to convert the locals, so much the better. The english and french didn't care about the locals either. They wanted the land. It wasn't about the people, it was about what they had.


Even if we ignore China, what then would prompt the Mongols to go on to build their empire? It didn't last long as it was torn apart by internal conflict, but at it's height it stretched from Europe in the west to Korea in the East. This is not a small regional empire by any defination. If western religion inspired expansion, what then drove them?

Ok first of, all the arguements and constantly wandering points are confusing me. xD

Mind restating again your main theory right now? Simply that Europe and the Middle east expanded more because they had technological advances in military (thanks to the fact that these areas had more wars than all others) that other areas didn't?

And that expansion is a result of greed? (I say this cause you sure seem to call the colonization of the americas greed)


Because I still ask...with this theory, it seems that the Middle East and Europe having more wars is entirely by just...that's the outcome. By chance, if you will. I have trouble believing that in some ways.

My question that would remain is WHY were Europe and the Middle East more war-prone? Was it the falling of the Roman empire that made several people say "FINALLY, now let's try to be the NEW guys in charge," was religion really playing a factor, or was it something else?


And yes, I'm aware of the Mongols. Though, I'd really rather, can we name another example? On one hand they're a good point, but if we had TWO good points like the Mongols, it'd back it up more, because there's always a chance for one instance run by pure greed or heck if I know. The Mongols, of asia, were definitely pushing into the Middle East, and hitting the borders of Europe. This doesn't fit in with my theory in the first post.


However, what is true is that Genghis Khan was uniting several different tribes that, earlier, had been fighting amongst one another. Would it be fair to say, that still, it was some form of a GOOD unification that gave his people inspiration, and drove them to expand?

Nah that wouldn't float... Dx It still begs the question, what drove Genghis to do it all?

[guorbatschow]

i consider mongolian conquest the singlehanded achievement of genghis khan. he united mongolia and conquered further for his penorsize. much like alexander the great.

thats why both empires fell apart quickly.

also, i dont get where you got that only 30 year window of yours that china had to expand. its not like ming dynasty was everything china got. every dynasty had its peaks, and there were lots of dynasties since my aforementioned tang dynasty.

china just got behind because they failed to see that europe caught up. europe virtually got a cultural shock when chinese culture was introduced to them in early renaissance. proof are those chinese chambers in versaille, schönbrunn and other royal palaces across europe. china didnt get invaded because of that respect. they couldnt just go and conquer everything like they did in america because the chinese culture was considered advanced. it wasnt until the trade deficit triggered opium imports and showed how vulnerable china actually was that made western nations start exploiting.

see, europe overestimated china, china underestimated europe. because of that underestimation, china didnt care about arms race. its also becaus of that overestimation that western nations didnt conquer china right away and resorted into unequal treaties instead. i could quote some passages from the historian osterhammel, but nah. that would be too academic.

if you say china never had a chance to expand further than it had, then i have to disagree. it just never made sense to.

now if you look at europe. the colonization efforts were also fueled by competition. germany, a nation that started out late and never should have entered the race for colonialisation, started arming up under bismarck, to secure its piece of pie, a "platz an der sonne" (place at the sun). similarly spain and portugal splitting up south america.

there was never a "steady decline" and no steady pushing back of borders of china. it fluctuated all the time.



oh and making out 1592 as a major point in chinese history is quite an exaggeration. a failed attack, nothing more. you seem to focus on the decline of ming a lot. when it didnt even had contact to the west as the qing dynasty did. you also overlook that qing dynasty prospered for two centuries before the opium wars. now show me one european time frame with more than two centuries of peace... yea rome.

i remind you again: sure there were wars in asia and middle east in history, but that was events that occured once every few generations. its not a constant state where several nations lust for hegemony and carried that out also by colonialisation.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Longknife

Ok first of, all the arguements and constantly wandering points are confusing me. xD

Mind restating again your main theory right now? Simply that Europe and the Middle east expanded more because they had technological advances in military (thanks to the fact that these areas had more wars than all others) that other areas didn't?

My theory is Europe came out of the middle ages at the right moment in history. The technology was in place for overseas conquest. Their potental rivals had weakened and turned inwards. There were huge continents with no one that could really pose a threat rich with gold, silver, jade, and other valuable goods. As a result Europe turned outward to expand.

And that expansion is a result of greed? (I say this cause you sure seem to call the colonization of the americas greed)

Wasn't it? Why did the Spanish conquestidors go out? They saw rich civilizations in the Americas that lacked the means to really defend themselves in a meaningful way. Thus they came, and they plundered.

Because I still ask...with this theory, it seems that the Middle East and Europe having more wars is entirely by just...that's the outcome. By chance, if you will. I have trouble believing that in some ways.

The problem is you're understating the number of wars other regions had. You seems to be under this belief that China was completely peaceful from the warring states period until modern times. It's just not true. They may have had a few less wars, but that was only because they were unified early in their history. Even then they still had wars of conquest, revolutions, and the like.

My question that would remain is WHY were Europe and the Middle East more war-prone? Was it the falling of the Roman empire that made several people say "FINALLY, now let's try to be the NEW guys in charge," was religion really playing a factor, or was it something else?

It might be once again that China was unified earlier in it's history.

And yes, I'm aware of the Mongols. Though, I'd really rather, can we name another example? On one hand they're a good point, but if we had TWO good points like the Mongols, it'd back it up more, because there's