European way to world primacy.

Malizai, yes they English did become familiar with the process of smallpox innoculation through observations of its use in Istanbul. Though the English made a notable improvement over it. They began using totally harmless cowpox instead of the Turkish method of purposefully infecting an individual with less severe smallpox from existing cases. They also made use of the injecting needle to administer this, itself an invention of the medieval Mahgreb.

Originally posted by JRScotia Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by JRScotia There were some advances but not all that dramatic. Improvements in medicine--nil. Representative government--nil. Rights of the individual--nil. This is actually totally untrue. A few examples will suffice. Immunisation was implemented during this period, resulting in smallpox vaccinations. That alone is a large improvement, never mind all the others. This is actually quite TRUE. From Wikipedia: "The process of vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner in 1796, who acted upon his observation that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox." Almost 50 years after the period that was specified.

Who decided that the Early Modern period ended in 1750? This sub forum classes it as extending to WWI, though personally I would be more comfortable extending it to 1871 or 1815 especially.

So this fits well within the Early Modern period by most definitions.

Didn't the Dutch republic spawn during this period? It was no modern liberal democratic state, but by the standards of the time it was a dramatic improvement over most forms of government so far as democracy is concerned. The Bill of Rights in England also was a very substantial improvement over previous standards of individual rights. Ok. You're right. It wasn't NIL. Only ALMOST nil. There were two instances in all of Europe of some small improvement. Actually my first statement was that there were tiny improvements, and that is the case. But they were very, very small. In no way can I see any dramatic improvements in those areas. Literature, sure. Art, absolutely. Some rather dramatic inventions in navigation and warfare, yes. But others that were mentioned, ethics, politics, medicine were amazingly stutified.

The Bill of Rights is no tiny improvement, it is a fundamental shift in how human beings viewed eachother legally at the time. It helped establish the notion that people were their own property with firmly established rights. At that time, this was a big change. To go from being born with your privileges and duties determined by social superiors to having your own innate rights is certainly a formidable shift. And when something like the Bill of Rights or Representative Democracy is established, it can spread to other countries and take root (which both did, and did quite dramatically).

It is wrong to claim there were no geat changes in fields like ethics. France prohibited slavery in 1794, while the UK did so in 1807 and then went on to conduct the most energetic anti-slavery enforcement campaign in history. Again this is merely one example. Ethics is an area which changed considerably through most of Europe during this time, the change in ethical standards being one portion in the overall movement known to history as the 'Enlightenment'.

As far as why Europe was able to dominate, it's the same reason, in my opinion, that the Mongols dominated a large part of the world (ignored by most of us of a European tradition) earlier. Military conquest--pure and simple.  Sometimes the greediest prevail. Military might was a product of other factors within the European territories (technological innovation, advances in the organisation of the nation state, economic organisation and management). The successful European empires did not succeed due to a simple greedy->military might->domination formula. This is a vast oversimplification, and is untenable. I disagree and since you offered no proof that I was wrong, I won't bother with listing the huge lists (conquering several contenents anyone?) of why I say I'm right. They were indeed greed and might based conquests and not based on some intrinsic superiority.

The ability to conquer several continents materialised because European countries developed the economic, political and military groundwork at home to conduct these campaigns. When England went to war she had superb shipyards which could churn out and repair vessels at an astounding rate, well drilled infantry with a generally superior rate of rifle fire. She adopted the practice of issuing war bonds under William III, where she could simply borrow the money from her own public to conduct a war, then repay when military victory was accompanied by economic benefits (a HUGE boost). England (and later the US) also benefited by developing a strong patenting system which protected the commercial rights of inventors to profit from their discoveries, which is why it hardly comes as a surprise that these two countries were chiefly responsible for the Industrial Revolution.

So with these factors, and many others I have omitted, what you end up with is a financially resourceful, technologically advanced, politically stable and militarilly well drilled nation facing its enemies. This is how nations in this period developed the economic and military might to conquer so much land. Throughout most of history, the urge to conquer and expand has usually been indulged without apology, constrained by logistical considerations rather than moral scruples. The Mughals under Aurangzeb and Persians under Nadir Shah showed the same tendencies during this period.

If you could please now demonstrate how an abstract moral concept such as 'greed' resulted in the same, I would be appreciative


Edited by Constantine XI - 03-Jun-2009 at 18:06

If you are going to take the moral high road you will end up with nothing. Simple as that. History tells us that only aggressive powers achieve any advancements. Empires that try to make nice are either conquered or end up in oblivion. China under the Ming and then Qing did this and come the 19th century the country that had a third of the world's population couldn't even prevent 10 thousand europeans from occupying its capital and humiliating the son of Heaven.

Originally posted by Parnell I seem to have opened a can of worms here... Hoped it didn't look like I was suggesting none of ye set foot in a university and I certainly didn't mean to offend JRScotia (I assume everyone on the internet is a man until told otherwise...)

 

Edited by drgonzaga - 03-Jun-2009 at 23:15

Not so sure about that, the literary differences between Gibbon and modern historians is quite vast. Being acquainted with the English language doesn't necessarily give me an added advantage when reading Gibbon. I just find his turn of phrase marvellous, a little like Drgonzaga here!

Ah, Lirelou, you betray yourself! A dazzled Romantic after all...the revival of the "capa y espada" genre in Spanish literature was a most welcome phenomenon at the hands of Perez-Reverte; however, I must warn you that the "powers-that-be" frown upon such an extended reparte in a language other than English.

Originally posted by lirelou Fantasus: in re:  “I think any discussion of British … (…English)…way to … "hegemony" should include some remarks about its extraordinary geographical situation ("advantages" from the imperial point of view) in several ways.”   Ireland and Scotland would have had the same geographical advantages in that they too were separated from the Continent. Yet neither of those ever became maritime powers. The Seven (Dutch) Provinces were a part of the Continent, yet they, like the English, developed as maritime powers, and thus acquired “Empire”. The real question is: Would either have done so had they been able to match the Spanish Army on land during Spain’s “Golden Age”? Yes, the gold and silver of the Americas financed Spain’s wars, but it was the birth of modern armies, as exemplified by the Spanish “Tercio”, that made Spain the master of Europe until at least the end of the “80 Years War” (Tachttien Jaar Orlog).

Parnell In re: "and were the nearest drop off point from North America to Europe."  that's true coming from west to east, but not for the trip over. In the age of sail, it was the currents off Senegal pushing towards the Caribbean that made for the shortest passage. Ergo, the reason that the Caribbean became a contested area from shortly after the Conquest. And, one of the reasons that Piracy arose there. At least, that was my take from Samuel Eliot Morrison's "The European Discovery of (North) America".

Originally posted by lirelou Ireland and Scotland would have had the same geographical advantages in that they too were separated from the Continent. Yet neither of those ever became maritime powers.

Scotland in fact got off to a rather good start in the 16th century, especially considering the disparity in population. As early as the 1520s they and the French were ahead of the English in raiding the Spanish in the Americas. They also at least held their own against the English in the North Sea, and English attempts to enter the waters around Scotland itself were rarely successful. By then of course Ireland and Wales no longer had independent fleets.

After 1603 the distinction between English/Scots ships became blurred, finally vanishing entirely into the Royal Navy.

A reason for special attention towards the relationship between history (and related disciplines) on the one hand, and what we can label loosely "geographical and environmental disciplines" on the other could be the "danger" of growing distance to reality, especially "past reality", loosing a possible path to understand. One reason to this of course is the growing "artificial world", that may make us unaware of anything else. especially academics in universities, but now more and more the majority of us.