Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Why was Europe First?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 789
Author
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why was Europe First?
    Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 15:59

His ban had nothing to do with using the word "Aryan", period! Darius and Cyrus if you have more questions then pm me and I will explain the issues. If you don't then give it up and go back to the topic. You guys do not have a foot to stand on if you support the actions of Aurorum, ApologeticAurorum, and Aeolus. All three are the same person cheating the system. This topic will be closed if there is another question about him here!



Edited by Seko - 30-Sep-2008 at 16:03
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6240
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 17:21
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi

We don't need to be praised and we don't claim to be the only Aryan people in the world but Iran without Aryan has no meaning, if someone says "Aryans" were a great people and then you call him a racist, you have in fact insulted the whole Iranian peoples.


Yes you are extremely naive.
Somehow you have called me an "idiot" but I do not consider it an insult, the problem is that you can't expand your mind about the Aryans, Would you say these things if there were no Nazism?
 
His ban had nothing to do with using the word "Aryan", period! Darius and Cyrus if you have more questions then pm me and I will explain the issues. If you don't then give it up and go back to the topic. You guys do not have a foot to stand on if you support the actions of Aurorum, ApologeticAurorum, and Aeolus. All three are the same person cheating the system. This topic will be closed if there is another question about him here!
I have no complain about his ban, as you said he was not banned for his post here but I think Beylerbeyi shouldn't accuse him of being a racist (Nazi) just because he talked about Aryans.
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 17:59
What he said about Aryan people does not make him racist. He did not put down any race. In fact if you call him racist then you are are degrading many factions, as Cyrus has already said.


I am not degrading any 'factions' (factions??? what is this AE total war?) by calling a neo-nazi a racist.

if someone says "Aryans" were a great people and then you call him a racist, you have in fact insulted the whole Iranian peoples.


Adolf Hitler said that the 'Aryans' were a great people. According to you everyone who calls him a racist (that is 100 blood percent of mankind), is insulting the 'whole Iranian peoples'.

That's completely ridiculous.

Somehow you have called me an "idiot" but I do not consider it an insult, the problem is that you can't expand your mind about the Aryans, Would you say these things if there were no Nazism?


I don't understand what terrible things have I said about the Aryans? I said the Aryans are the ancestors of Iranians, Indians and Gypsies. They were a historic people with great achievements. However, Ancient Egyptians were not Aryans, neither were the Sumerians nor any Germanic peoples...

The nazis call themselves Aryans and consider you subhuman. You obviously don't know them. To see how the nazis see your Aryan ancestors, go and watch the movie 300...

I have no complain about his ban, as you said he was not banned for his post here but I think Beylerbeyi shouldn't accuse him of being a racist (Nazi) just because he talked about Aryans.


??? I wrote why I identified him as a neo-nazi above. It should be clear for anyone who can read and understand English.
Back to Top
dud View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jan-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 19
  Quote dud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Jan-2009 at 23:51
I think that Europe had a lucky combo of events. One was a population boom around 1500 CE. Also during the time of the Black Death, the public support of the Church faltered and there was much oppression from both Church and state. I think that European superiority was precipitated from the Enlightenment which promoted science when before it had been associated with evil forces. China just didn't have the incentives.  
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Jan-2009 at 00:46
Because Europe was poor, hungry and determined. The civlisations they conqured were rich, decedant, and belived they had a right to power.

The same reason why Europe has lost power over the previous 100 years to other more determined peoples.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Feb-2011 at 19:34
Originally posted by dud

I think that Europe had a lucky combo of events. One was a population boom around 1500 CE. Also during the time of the Black Death, the public support of the Church faltered and there was much oppression from both Church and state. I think that European superiority was precipitated from the Enlightenment which promoted science when before it had been associated with evil forces. China just didn't have the incentives.  

That's a rather narrow view on the historical development and emergence of modern civilization. Population numbers rose and fell all the time, in Europe, in China and else. To explain the rise of the modern world with plain demographics is almost the same as to avoid answering the queston, because demographics doesn't answer much at all.

Also, your view on pre-Enlightenment science in Europe is highly flawed, science as a method (eg. the scientific method) and as an endeavour came into existence in medieval Europe, though of course it had a long way to go before it was perfected. Apart from the early contributions of a few Islamic scholars, the development of science (as opposed to engineering/technology) was an entirely European endeavour which lasted for several centuries prior and up to the Enlightenment.

You OTOH mention science as if it was a readily available concept that appeared out of nowhere and was first rejected due to religious fervour and then suddenly accepted when the Church "lost its grip on people", which then marked the beginning of Enlightenment and a sharp break with the past. If there is one myth that deserves to be debunked, it's the one about Europeans living in darkness and ignorance due to the power of the Church.

But, back to the topic itself... Europe's rise was IMO due to 3 key factors: its Greco-Roman heritage, the emergence of the European nation state and scholasticism. The Italian Renaissance which someone mentioned was only a highly visual and artistic expression of some of the changes that were already taking place in Europe but by no means the originator or even a significant part of these processes.

The evolution of these 3 key factors and processes can be traced all the way back to the fall of Roman Empire but you could say that they became almost inevitable by the turn of the millenium. By then the Viking raids into mainland Europe had been mostly pacified, the Arab incursions into southern Europe likewise, many European nations were starting to take their modern shape (the Norman conquest of England, etc), all of which enabled long-term stability on the continent which in turn enabled further economic and other developments. But like I said, that's just the part concerning the necessary stability for development and prosperity for the processes to be successful. The processes themselves had much deeper roots...



Edited by abvgd - 18-Feb-2011 at 19:42
Back to Top
throughthepastdarkly View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: Bangkok
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3
  Quote throughthepastdarkly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2011 at 02:02
Originally posted by bagelofdoom

I would recomend reading Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.  Its an analysis of how certain societies became dominant.  He credits the fact that the Chinese were much more politically consolidated for their relative lack of power.  The consolidation he says, was both a blessing and a curse.  For example: when the central leader felt like expanding, massive trade fleets were built.  On the other hand, as soon as a new leader came to the forefront, a leader who disliked the trade fleets, expansion stopped.  In Europe, if a nation decided that progress was not in their best interests, a rival nation state soon progressed to the point where it was necessary for the first state to progress or die.  In China, the political consolidation didn't allow for that.  Essentially, they had no incentive to move forward, Europe's structure ensured that there was plenty of incentive to progress and expand. 

I may have misrepresented Diamond's arguments, it has been a long time since I read the book.  For any errors, I appologize.  However, I still recomend that you read the book. 

I'd second the recommendation. I'd summarize Diamond's arguments as an apologetic and overly-politically-correct nod to 'geographic determinism', a term Diamond himself vehemently resisted, even though it was appropriate. It is an excellent book. He says that it was LUCK that contributed to Europeans' domination of the world. Luck attributable to many factors (it's a thick book). 

However, I'd also recommend you read Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson as a balance to Diamond's PC-leanings. Hanson argues that there is an arc of consistent values held by Western civilizations from the ancient Greeks to the USA that sustained a relative superiority to non-western cultures. 

I had this same question "Why was Europe first?" years ago. These are not the only 2 books, but I guarantee you'll have a much more satisfactory understanding after reading Guns, Germs & Steel and Carnage and Culture.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 789

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.096 seconds.