History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedEuropean way to world primacy.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 23:49
Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

Parnell, I think you have to name those huge leaps in government administration, science, politics and ethics during that period, because I just plain don't see them.  The inequality, wars, stupidity, bloodshed and religious intolerance, yes. But it seems to me that most of the advances in the areas you say took place then, in fact by far took place in the modern era. There were some advances but not all that dramatic. Improvements in medicine--nil. Representative government--nil. Rights of the individual--nil.


Sorry, had passed over your post. Constantine pretty much summed up what I was going to say. I think it all has to be brought back to as it happened in its time. Its just pointless and counter-productive when we try and evaluate events and reform through the prism of a 21st century morality and thought process. Two ir-reconcilable divergences of thought here to be perfectly honest.

And don't forget John Locke wrote his little pamphlet during this era. And this was also the preceding century to the greatest events of American and European History  -  the American and French Revolutions. The writings (Principally of the Philosophes in France) cannot be overlooked. And the greatest literary and educational achievement of all time was the original encyclopédie, first published in 1751.

So to say that these years have little relevance to the modern world is, in a word, wrong.

Quote
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.


Ah, but what makes a country capable of consolidation? Its one thing to blow the path in front of you, another to build roads, levy taxes and execute justice. Government administration and the advances herein (Thomas Cromwell being one of the greatest practical thinkers/doers in this regard) made this more possible than it ever was before. Colonys were a testament to the success of western administration, as unglamourous and dull as that rightly sounds LOL
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-May-2009 at 23:57
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Simple explanations may sometimes be recommendable, but in this case I find the "greediness tesis" a poor one - because.1: It is a big question whether europeans at large are more or less "greedy" than peoples from other parts of the world. 2: but if it is so, it does not explain their succes very well - after all not all greedy ones get what they want! 3:In addition it leaves us with more questions (if we for a moment accept it´s true):what makes this difference in greediness? So we find this "answer" is not an answer after all, but rather some "I don´t care why".



Thats a good issue to raise. Human beings are equally evil, murderous and vengeful. I tend to think we're equally greedy as well. Personally speaking I think the only thing between us (Humanity) and an Hobbesian State of Nature is government. Take that away and we'd be hacking each other to death with blood on our hands, crazed to death with power and thoughts of evil.

Well perhaps not as dramatically as that, but something like it. It is the victory of the enduring power of the nation state that ensured the Europeans rose to dominance. It was the victory of constitutionalism and Liberalism that ensured that governments and peoples arrive at a grand compromise where both some liberty and safety are proportioned so as to ensure the maintenance of both (IE, Under a supreme state with complete authority in all things we would have complete safety and no liberty, under a weak government or no government we would have complete liberty, but no safety)
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 07-May-2009
Location: denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 111
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 00:02
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

 
Progress can only be measured with precision in terms of advancements in science and technology. There you simply count the number of discoveries, theories, medical procedures and inventions, and there you go; you have an objective way to  of it. 
It may not be that easy to determine and measure even such "advancements".
And I will add I find little evidence there has been any steady "rate" of progress during all times even in such a limited sense. 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Now, if we are talking about "those" kind of progress, Europe has contributed quite a bit.
 
 
 However, that continent shouldn't forget the root of Europe are in places like the Middle East and Egypt, and that include an ethic system and religion from ancient Israel: Christianism. Also a large part of the rough material that fueled Renascence, the Age of Discovery, the Scientific and Industrial Revolution, and even the Age of Reason, are based in developments from outside Europe: from India, China and the Muslim Middle Age.
 
Europe has its moment of glory (and misery, too) from 1492 to 1939. Today the European age is over. Welcome to Globalisation.
  
  No, but Europes role in early modern age may be a topic worth a discusion. And I think if we start to discuss that topic it may be better to continue on-topic at least for a while. Of course one shall never forget the roots, so I remind myself about european roots in Muslim Middle Ages, Cave Painters the African roots of Homo Sapiens and all the missing links.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 00:30
Well, it seems you are European, so of course you would tend to exagerate a bit the importance of Europe for the world. It is true that Europe has been very important for everybody in the last centuries, but Europe is not the only thing that exists under the sun.
 
For instance, since the 1900s, United States have been as much important as the whole Europe, and by itself. Most of the changes of the twentieth century were produced in the United States, from the first flight to the moon landing, from the atomic bomb to computers, from cartoon movies to 3-D animation, from Jazz to Rock, from McDonalds to MTV. Everything has been developed in the United States.
 
Today there are large parts of the so called (by Europeans, of course) Third World that have been developing fast. Places like Korea, China and Latin America are getting there.
With them a shift in global culture with happened, and is happening. From an Eurocentric worldview to a more global way of looking at the world.
 
It that framework, Europe will be still important, but it won't be the center of the cake anymore.
 
 
 
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 01:45
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Quote 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.


Edited by JRScotia - 31-May-2009 at 01:46
Saor Alba
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 03:06
Parnell: Amen
Penguin: First:  China and Korea have never been considered Third World. China would have been "Second World" until the fall of the Soviet Union. Ditto for North Korea. South Korea would have been classed as "First World", along with Japan, as both were allied with the "West". Both China and Korea were civilized states long before the First Inca ever knotted a Quipu, or heard a tune on a chasqui. The forerunner state to the Chinese Empire may predate the Peloponnesian War, but Korea does not, though a Korean state can be traced back to 200 A.D., and perhaps 300 B.C. More importantly, only South Korea can rightly be considered First World. The DPRK must be considered "Third World" since the fall of the USSR, as there is no "Fourth World" category. 
Second, the U.S. may be geographically North American, but it is European in the cultural and philosophical sense.
Third, note that the language of choice for the rising Asian nations is English, and that the preferred accent in China,. Singapore, Taiwan, and India is "Acquired English" as opposed to American Standard.By the way, if you google "Raffles Singapore" And "Sarawak Raja" you will discover that not all European colonialism was negative as far as the descendents of the "colonized" are concerned.
JRScotia: In re:  "They were indeed greed and might based conquests and not based on some intrinsic superiority."  Wouldn't you consider superior organization skills, superior logistical projection capabilities, and a mental framework that allows one to analyze a situation and forge alliances among competing peoples as some measure of cultural superiority in that time and place? The Spanish conquest of the Americas was testimony of their military might. Indeed, even on the European continent, their land forces were invincible until 1627 (Breda?), ergo the reason the United Provinces and Britain developed into maritime powers. As for the British, their colonial wars were hardly walkovers, and just to cite the Sikhs as an example, the military technology of both sides was comparable as regarded armaments. British superiority was organizational and logistical, rather than technological. It was hardly simple might, but rather knowing how to best employ and sustain the forces they had.
Just some thoughts.

Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 03:18
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Penguin: First:  China and Korea have never been considered Third World. China would have been "Second World" until the fall of the Soviet Union.
.
 
Something wrong with the definition, then. Don't you think?
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Ditto for North Korea. South Korea would have been classed as "First World", along with Japan, as both were allied with the "West".
.
 
So, you mean "The West" is the same than gringo-allies? Curious definition.
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Both China and Korea were civilized states long before the First Inca ever knotted a Quipu,
 or heard a tune on a chasqui. The forerunner state to the Chinese Empire may predate the Peloponnesian War, but Korea does not, though a Korean state can be traced back to 200 A.D., and perhaps 300 B.C.
.
 
DeadDead
Well, that shows clearly you don't have a clue about quipus or chasquis. The first quipu ever found was in Caral. And Caral is from 3.000 B.C., just a century after Egypt and a long time before Chinese civilization as we know today appeared.
Besides, Chasquis didn't play tunes when running, only a small trumpet to call the attention to the next chasqui when arriving to the Tambos.
 
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

More importantly, only South Korea can rightly be considered First World. The DPRK must be considered "Third World" since the fall of the USSR, as there is no "Fourth World" category. 
.
 
Indeed. Don't you have countries to put in the "Fifth world" cathegory?
 
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Second, the U.S. may be geographically North American, but it is European in the cultural and philosophical sense.
.
 
Well, if you consider Americans to have a culture ... LOL.  French complain for Eurodisney and McDonalds.
 
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


Third, note that the language of choice for the rising Asian nations is English, and that the preferred accent in China,. Singapore, Taiwan, and India is "Acquired English" as opposed to American Standard.By the way, if you google "Raffles Singapore" And "Sarawak Raja" you will discover that not all European colonialism was negative as far as the descendents of the "colonized" are concerned.
 
So, what that means? I bet English is preffered because it is a simple language. A lot more than writting in chiken steps.
 
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
malizai_ View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Alcinous

Joined: 05-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote malizai_ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 03:28
Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Quote 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.
 
Wasn't there a precedent with the Turks who were inoculating way before? Vaccination being just another form of inoculation.
"We didnt land on Israel, Israel landed on us!!"--Palestinian X
antiwar.com
crimesofwar.org
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 04:02
I suppose IF you consider Turks European. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I don't.

Originally posted by malizai_ malizai_ wrote:

Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Quote 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.
 
Wasn't there a precedent with the Turks who were inoculating way before? Vaccination being just another form of inoculation.
Saor Alba
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 04:10
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

Parnell, I think you have to name those huge leaps in government administration, science, politics and ethics during that period, because I just plain don't see them.  The inequality, wars, stupidity, bloodshed and religious intolerance, yes. But it seems to me that most of the advances in the areas you say took place then, in fact by far took place in the modern era. There were some advances but not all that dramatic. Improvements in medicine--nil. Representative government--nil. Rights of the individual--nil.


Sorry, had passed over your post. Constantine pretty much summed up what I was going to say. I think it all has to be brought back to as it happened in its time. Its just pointless and counter-productive when we try and evaluate events and reform through the prism of a 21st century morality and thought process. Two ir-reconcilable divergences of thought here to be perfectly honest.

And don't forget John Locke wrote his little pamphlet during this era. And this was also the preceding century to the greatest events of American and European History  -  the American and French Revolutions. The writings (Principally of the Philosophes in France) cannot be overlooked. And the greatest literary and educational achievement of all time was the original encyclopédie, first published in 1751.

So to say that these years have little relevance to the modern world is, in a word, wrong.

Quote
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.


Ah, but what makes a country capable of consolidation? Its one thing to blow the path in front of you, another to build roads, levy taxes and execute justice. Government administration and the advances herein (Thomas Cromwell being one of the greatest practical thinkers/doers in this regard) made this more possible than it ever was before. Colonys were a testament to the success of western administration, as unglamourous and dull as that rightly sounds LOL


I wasn't saying they had no relevance only that there wasn't as much progress in some areas as you were indicating, Parnell.

As for road building and executing justice--are you acquainted with the history of the Americas? (Sorry, I really don't mean that to be rude) 1. The Aztecs for example had amazing architecture so I'm none too sure of European superiority or at least large superiority. 2. Justice? If you were an indigenous American or a member of say the Irish population during that period, you might question the very existence of such a thing.  (Cromwell? He was certainly a "doer" but do you really want to try to link that with JUSTICE? Rather reminds me of a recent conversation about Edward I)

Europeans did do some things very well in those things but others I don't see any superiority in. Admittedly those improvements starting to come soon after, some no doubt started during that period. But I see huge improvements in how to conquer other peoples (military) and I'm in serious doubt about the road building issue but it'll take some research on my part--not something I know off-hand. I don't see any kind of superiority of culture.


Edited by JRScotia - 31-May-2009 at 04:23
Saor Alba
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 07-May-2009
Location: denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 111
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 08:50
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Well, it seems you are European, so of course you would tend to exagerate a bit the importance of Europe for the world. It is true that Europe has been very important for everybody in the last centuries, but Europe is not the only thing that exists under the sun.
No, perhaps it is not? Some times it may be beneficial not to discuss everything under the sun or every period.
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

For instance, since the 1900s, United States have been as much important as the whole Europe, and by itself. Most of the changes of the twentieth century were produced in the United States, from the first flight to the moon landing, from the atomic bomb to computers, from cartoon movies to 3-D animation, from Jazz to Rock, from McDonalds to MTV. Everything has been developed in the United States.
 
Yes, why not a discussion about the way to US world primacy, though such a discussion should not be placed in the early modern subforum I think. Perhaps a discussion of the geographical factors that may have had contributed and to some degree perhaps directed this way. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Today there are large parts of the so called (by Europeans, of course) Third World that have been developing fast. Places like Korea, China and Latin America are getting there.
With them a shift in global culture with happened, and is happening. From an Eurocentric worldview to a more global way of looking at the world.
 
It that framework, Europe will be still important, but it won't be the center of the cake anymore.
 
 
 
 
 
 
I think You are mistaken about who invented the term "Third World", since I have an idea it was coined in the ninetenfifties under a conference of afro-asian countries in Bandung  by the chinese. (I anyone knows better comment)
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2007
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 1367
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 12:32
JR,

I like our little tete a tetes. You've a good tone, its full of bombast but there's a hint of reasonability to it as well. Quite fun really.

My issue wasn't necessarily anything to do with road building persé, its the administration, government administration, that made such mighty leaps and bounds in the era. Roadbuilding being one simple example of which. Along with canals. And the general provision of infrastructure.

And when I say justice I'm not passing a moral glance in that direction at all, I'm talking about the authority of the state. I'm using an essentially neutral tone to describe how the power of the state increased along with its authority, and the beginnings of a state governed by the rule of law began to emerge. The actual laws are irrelevant, the fact that they were beginning to be enforced throughout both the conquered and the homeland with some sort of regularity and uniformity is a testament to the power of the state. Which is why Europeans rose to be dominant.

The Ancient Romans built their Empire through the power of their laws and systems of justice - for their statebuilding. The ancient Greeks built it through the power of innovation and the glory of their individuality and their arts. But they didn't build an enduring Empire like the Romans. Thats were the key to understanding European supremacy comes in, I think.
"Neither apathy nor antipathy can ever bring out the truth of history" Eoin Mac Neill.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 15:45
Thanks, Parnell. I try to keep hold of some degree of reasonableness. And I also enjoy our little discussions.  Listen, if you can't bring passion to history there doesn't seem to be a point. At the same time, even people you intently dislike were actual people and most of them had both a good and a bad side. Some are harder to see than others though (*cough cough* Oliver Cromwell). Wink

I still don't see the huge leaps in administration that you see, but maybe I'm missing something. And I see what you're saying about legal administration, but I think you're still saying something that isn't the case. they were beginning to be enforced throughout both the conquered and the homeland with some sort of regularity and uniformity Now maybe what you mean by regularity and uniformity isn't what I mean. To me that means that it's equally applied to the conqueror and the conquered. Parnell--you know that isn't what happened. Indios got equal treatment? Irish? Catholics? Ummmm No. They didn't. If that's not what you meant, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Maybe that they were effective administrators?

That they were capable of administering bits and pieces scattered all over the world might be some increase in administrative capabilities, I suppose. But it does seem to me to be more administration in bits and pieces rather than large scale, organized administration with consistency throughout. Edit: In fact, the administrative weakness of the early modern nation state may well have been a good thing considering its often lethal intent. Otherwise, for example Cromwell's campaign of ethnic cleansing would have been even more effective than it was.

Like I said, I can see some big jumps, I just think some of them came a bit later than you're saying. 

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

JR,

I like our little tete a tetes. You've a good tone, its full of bombast but there's a hint of reasonability to it as well. Quite fun really.

My issue wasn't necessarily anything to do with road building persé, its the administration, government administration, that made such mighty leaps and bounds in the era. Roadbuilding being one simple example of which. Along with canals. And the general provision of infrastructure.

And when I say justice I'm not passing a moral glance in that direction at all, I'm talking about the authority of the state. I'm using an essentially neutral tone to describe how the power of the state increased along with its authority, and the beginnings of a state governed by the rule of law began to emerge. The actual laws are irrelevant, the fact that they were beginning to be enforced throughout both the conquered and the homeland with some sort of regularity and uniformity is a testament to the power of the state. Which is why Europeans rose to be dominant.

The Ancient Romans built their Empire through the power of their laws and systems of justice - for their statebuilding. The ancient Greeks built it through the power of innovation and the glory of their individuality and their arts. But they didn't build an enduring Empire like the Romans. Thats were the key to understanding European supremacy comes in, I think.


Edited by JRScotia - 31-May-2009 at 17:26
Saor Alba
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 19:52
Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

[QUOTE=JRScotia] Parnell, I think you have to name those huge leaps in government administration, science, politics and ethics during that period, because I just plain don't see them.  The inequality, wars, stupidity, bloodshed and religious intolerance, yes. But it seems to me that most of the advances in the areas you say took place then, in fact by far took place in the modern era. There were some advances but not all that dramatic. Improvements in medicine--nil. Representative government--nil. Rights of the individual--nil.
Doesn't the discovery of the circulation of the blood count as rather a significant medical advance?
[QUOTE]
(Cromwell? He was certainly a "doer" but do you really want to try to link that with JUSTICE? Rather reminds me of a recent conversation about Edward I)
I think you're mixing up your Cromwells. Parnell said Thomas.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-May-2009 at 20:04
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

I think You are mistaken about who invented the term "Third World", since I have an idea it was coined in the ninetenfifties under a conference of afro-asian countries in Bandung  by the chinese. (I anyone knows better comment)
 
It was coined in the fifties but in France I think so I think it was originally Troisième Monde. You're correct that it meant the non-aligned countries - those who were neither Communist or Capitalist (Soviet bloc, American bloc if you like). On the whole they did tend to be poorer countries, but the term included, for instance Yugoslavia, Egypt and India - Tito, Nasser and Nehru being the three most influential leaders of it - and there were also poor committed countries, including at that time western-allied countries like Pakistan, which was First World. NB: As the presence of Tito indicates, a country could be actually communist and still be third world if it was independent of the Soviet bloc.
 
Anyway it wasn't meant to be an economic term at all. Confusion arose later, especially with the end of the cold war.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
JRScotia View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 12-May-2009
Location: Alba
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JRScotia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 14:10
So he did. I had to go back and check.

I beg your pardon, Parnell. I did read rather carelessly.  THOMAS Cromwell was an interesting man but history making as to organizing government? Perhaps, but not that I see really. Certainly King Henry regretted his execution. I've read quite a bit about him and I don't recall his have done anything to improve the basic makeup of the governance. I've always been more impressed with his patronage of the humanists and there were some remarkable advances in the area of philosophy during this period.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by JRScotia JRScotia wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

[QUOTE=JRScotia] Parnell, I think you have to name those huge leaps in government administration, science, politics and ethics during that period, because I just plain don't see them.  The inequality, wars, stupidity, bloodshed and religious intolerance, yes. But it seems to me that most of the advances in the areas you say took place then, in fact by far took place in the modern era. There were some advances but not all that dramatic. Improvements in medicine--nil. Representative government--nil. Rights of the individual--nil.
Doesn't the discovery of the circulation of the blood count as rather a significant medical advance?
[QUOTE]
(Cromwell? He was certainly a "doer" but do you really want to try to link that with JUSTICE? Rather reminds me of a recent conversation about Edward I)
I think you're mixing up your Cromwells. Parnell said Thomas.



Edited by JRScotia - 01-Jun-2009 at 17:49
Saor Alba
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 15-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 609
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 15:17
The French demographer Alfred Sauvy (1898-1990) coined the term Tiers-Monde [Third World] on 14 August 1952 in an article published in L'Observateur, that closed with this summational phrase:
 
"...car enfin, ce Tiers Monde ignoré, exploité, méprisé comme le Tiers Etat, veut lui aussi, être quelque chose."
 
This paraphrasing of the Abbe Sieyes had the intent of identifying the aspirations of the dispossessed, and Sauvy intentionally referenced the political and economic aspirations of the new and emerging nations of the world in terms of popular discontent with the international status quo and economic development. Sauvy was active in the UN bureaucracy from the 1950s and his classification caught on and was modified several times by later commentators, including the facile distinction between Capitalists, Communists, and Neutrals. The 1955 Bandung Conference did not originate the classification and its sponsor states (Burma, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India and Pakistan) sought to instill a socio-political cohesiveness among new and emerging states so as to weaken their reliance on Europe and the United States. "Third World", as with Barbara Ward's distinction in Rich Nations and Poor Nations (1962) touched more upon conditions of daily life and social justice than politics. True, the setting within the context of the Cold War proved confusing but from the perspective of the United Nations it was a fortuitous "neutral" term through which to address the aspirations of "development" absent the entanglement of ideology.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 07-May-2009
Location: denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 111
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:27
OK, so the term "third world" is of french origin, and I got it wrong. Still I have the impression many, also from "non-european" part of the world adopted the term.
Perhaps there now are more significant divisions? Any suggestions?
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 137
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 17:58
drgonzaga: Amen!
Penguin. There were no Incas three thousand years ago. Indeed, if I remember my Prescott and Garcilaso de la Vega, the Incas did not rise until after 1000 A.D. Remember, there was one one Inca at a time. As for "Chinese chicken steps"; Chinese writing was the perfect instrument for governing an Empire. It could be read by anyone, ragardless of their local language, though it was long the sole provinence of the literatti. Even the Vietnamese, Koreans, and Japanese adopted forms of Chinese writing as their own. Later the Koreans and Vietnamese developed their own writing systems, but neither gained any acceptance until the early 20th century. English is the language of choice in Asia because the prominence of Anglo-American culture within Western culture is universally recognized there, and respected. Furthermore, English is the language of modern business. It is not a simple language to learn, as you should well know. Basic, spoken Chinese is easier to learn than Spoken English, unless you are tone deaf, but written Chinese is much harder. (East Asian languages get harder once past the basics, because there are no pronouns, per se. Nouns are used as pronouns, and the noun you use to refer to either yourself or others depends upon the relationlship between you.) Spoken Mandarin Chinese, or Hanoi dialect Vietnamese, is as elegant as high class Castillian Spanish or Parisian French.  The real point here is that the most dynamic socio-economic cultures in today's world are learning English as a second language.

Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Jun-2009 at 21:54
Hello to you all
 
Well I have been looking into this problem for years. Up to this point I think there are three events and three movements that made europe what it is today.
 
The events are the peace of Augsburg, peace of Westphalia and of course the discovery of America.
 
The three movements are the university movement of the 14th century, the exponential growth in trade in the 16th and 17th century and the institutionalisation of the state from the 16th century onwards.
 
Why I chose these, well for the following reasons.
 
Augsburg finally distroyed the last vesteges of papal authority and legitimized the existance of faiths other than the catholic faith. From now on half of europe was outside the pope's authority and the other half under papal anger. Popes would never be strong again.
 
Wesphalia established for the first time the idea of independent nations and internal independent of nations. Now, war was not fought on a whim of the ruler but through diplomatic means. States were now free to develope themselves with relative freedom of fear that their independence would be infringed upon. Of course this didn't happen immediately but it was a step non the less.
 
As for America well it is self explainatory.
 
For the movements, it is from the university that the renaissance came, it was from university that reformation movements begging from the Lullards and ending with Luther began. It was in the university where european science developed and then prospored. It was from the university that the great ideas of philosophy were forged. One can trace all the great ideas that shaped europe to this often forgotten and unrecognised institution.
 
Trade replaced religion as the prime mover of europe from the 14th century. However with the discovery of America, the demise of the papacy and the realisation tht people want the guy who gives them food not sell them superstition trade got the kick start it needed. Europe was poor, extremely poor. 95% of the people were either serfs, tenants or simply beggars. Religion was the only way to conrol these people and because of it those nations lost to the pope. European monarchs found it more profitable for them and their subjects to support trade because the more money you had the stronger militarily you were and the nearer to the pope's heart and later to the people's heart. As wealth poured in europe everything took off. Industry, science, which you coul not navigate oceans without, technology, how to reach to the destination faster than your competitor etc.
 
Finally states were ruled in the fasion of germanic tribal chiefs of old. This lead to nothing. However seeing that countries with a bureaucracy like Venice and the Ottoman empire prosper and achieve massive wealth and weild huge power and influence both on their subjects and outside made european monarch mouths water. The history of europe was always plagued by the struggle between nobility and the monarch. Now it was time to get rid of them and instead put people of humble origins but great skill at the helm. Richelieu and Mazarin did in France and it made France the wealthiest, strongest and most advanced nation in France. seeing this Britain followed and with one advantage, an active parliament. By the 1763 Britain became what France was 100 years ago.
 
Al-Jassas 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.