Why do you think the West rose to the prominence it now has in world affairs? In the world of the 16th and 17th centuries, Europe was relatively poor and backwards technologically compared to the Ottomans or Chinese. Yet by the 19th century, Europeans were well ahead of the Chinese or Ottomans in wealth and technology, and many nations ( Britain, France, etc.) had large colonial empires. Why did this take place?

Quite on the contrary, Europe was pretty rich in the 16th and 17th century. It exploited all other parts of the world in the process of colonization, including the Ottoman and the Chinese empire.
Europe was more or less always dominant in world affairs. Even though it´s not really possible to compare fairly, the Chinese dynasties and the Roman empire were more or less equally dominant in their regions, only to be overrun by "backwards" barbarians. In the time of the Dark Ages in Europe, i.e. until 800AD, and also during the Middle Ages until 1400AD, development in Europe was very slow. But neither the Arabs, who constantly fought with Europeans (crusades) nor the Chinese took any "advantage" of this. The Chinese were rather satisfied with what they had and did not look for other areas to project power to. And the Arabs were occupied with war among themselves, with Crusaders and other non-islamic tribes. They also did not have the industrial basis to take a technological lead.

At the end of the Middle Ages in Europe, the growing poverty and population, as well as the waning influence of the Catholic church led to great steps forward.
But the most decisive factor for all new developments (sea exploration, establishing of trade routes, colonization) was IMHO the closeness and small size of European countries and that they shared the common goal of increased wealth and power. Unlike the Chinese, Ottomans or American native tribes, there was a great competition in Europe which led to the new era. And to new technologies. :yeah:

During the Middle ages, before the 15th century, the Ottoman and Chinese empires could be considered more powerful and richer than European countries, but that changed drastically in the next few centuries.

So I cannot agree with your assessment, but the answer would be competition among themselves, aided by increasing population and new inventions/developments. This trend was further supported, when later in the 18th and 19th century, the Industrial revolution began in Europe (and the N America). But this only strengthened the already strong grip Europe had of the world.
:D

Europe may have been pretty rich in the 16th and 17th centuries, but it was far less than the great wealth of the Ottomans and the Chinese. Also, China was never colonized until the late 18th or 19th centuries. The Ottoman empire was never colonized. It fell apart at the end of World War I, when it was divided between the winning parties in the war.

I think that there are two reasons:


(1) Macro

Success is often due to getting the right balance between competition, control, cooperation, freedom and innovation.

Both the Ottoman and Chinese states were large states
with sultans and emperors trying to exert central control.
The central control limited the freedom of individuals and
regions to innovate; mandating cooperation not competition.

Europe had a christian background with a common language
for educated people; latin; which facilitated cooperation.

However europe was divided with the separation of
philsophical & religious authority from political authority.
I.e. the pope/primates and the monarchs. The Chinese
tended to merge confucianism with state control and the
Ottomans mixed up politics with fundamentalist religion.

Consequently there was in Europe more freedom at the
bottom for networks of experts (i.e. medieval trade guilds)
to organically develop. These better permitted individuals
and small groups to cooperate together to innovate in a competitive environment which would evaluate ideas.

(2) Micro

The Chinese and Ottomans permitted multiple sexual
partnerships with multiple wives and concubines.
This meant that if you were a self made or inherited
wealth male; you used (dissipated) your wealth to
promulgate your genes. If you became bored; you
acquired another female compagnon. However the
Christians were only permitted to have one wife.
So if the Christian middle and upper classes got bored;
they had more time to consider what you could do with
lenses (make telescopes) or machinery (improve it).

There were also three key inventions, first developed in the Orient, but taken more advantage of in Europe.
1) Compass. China was not a very seagoing nation, as opposed to Europeans, who began exploring and trading over farther distances with it.
2) The Printing Press. Asian languages, with many characters, were not very suited to print. Western languages were. Thus, information could be distributed far easier.
3) Gunpowder. Perhaps the most important. China did actually make primitive guns, but never really exploited them. Europe used them to full extent, and developed them further.

1) Printing Press.
The Arabs banned it and the Orientals could not use it.
2)China did not want to expand. They had long ago mapped out the African coast and all the islands in the indian Ocean. Then they burned their navy. They did not colonize just explore.
3) Europe got very lucky.

Oh and up until the sixthenth century Europe was considered by the rest of the world to be back words and poor. The Romans got rich off land that is not technically in Europe. Egypt is in Africa, and Turkey is Asia. Also one of the Reasons the Mongols only got to Poland was they really did not care about conquering such a poor land.

Oh and one hole i learned from my Teacher is that up until some where in the 18th or 19th Century the Ottomons had the best cannons and guns in the whole world.

Originally posted by EdwardTking
(2) Micro

The Chinese and Ottomans permitted multiple sexual
partnerships with multiple wives and concubines.
This meant that if you were a self made or inherited
wealth male; you used (dissipated) your wealth to
promulgate your genes. If you became bored; you
acquired another female compagnon. However the
Christians were only permitted to have one wife.
So if the Christian middle and upper classes got bored;
they had more time to consider what you could do with
lenses (make telescopes) or machinery (improve it).
This is ludicrous! :lol: You could just as easily argue that the Chinese and Ottomans would be more productive - fewer men had women to take up their time, so they could invent things; Europeans were less productive because they vented their boredom at the pub or brothel. Ridiculous statement.

Originally posted by Lucky
growing ... population,
But the most decisive factor ... was IMHO the closeness and small size of European countries and that they shared the common goal of increased wealth and power.
Yes! The western peoples have historically been ones to exert power in order to further personal gain. All the immediate neighbors were more or less equally advanced militarily; The further americans and africans etc were relatively easy pickings for conquest and exploitation. Why start another prolonged war with an equal foe when you could march in to a more distant land and kick them about like dogs? The technology allowed it, the moral views of the times allowed and even encouraged it. Might was right, and wealth was there to be taken. So they took.

The current political domination is built upon the vast economic, social, and military growth that resulted from what took place in 16th thru 20th centuries. Also, there are new forms of exploitation to continue the status quo (e.g. World Bank). The developing world shook off the yoke of colonialism, but they are not free of its effects. That will take more time. Until then, the western world will continue to dominate.

Until then, the western world will continue to dominate.Not forever I hope. :) I'm looking forward to a more equitable partnership betw all the world's regions in a few centuries.

IMHO, China wasn't really behind the West that much until the 19th century. In 1800, steel production in China was still more than the combined total prod of all Europe and the average Chinese still lived well. It's the Industrial Age that did the Chinese in finally, coupled with the earlier devastating internal rebellions which began to wreck the country after the demise of the Qianlong emperor.

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Not forever I hope. :) I'm looking forward to a more equitable partnership betw all the world's regions in a few centuries.

It won't last forever, no regime is permanent. :king: As for equity, I think human beings have a long way to go to reach that point. :(

It is discouraging to read reports of all the things that the west continues to do to keep the developing world under its thumb. On the other hand, hearing about various efforts of those nations to shed the heavy hand of economic bullying shows that the will to change it is there. Eventually...

This thread has a precedent, here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9109).

It got a little hairy, as I recall. ;)

Thanks for the link, Vrylakas. I hadn't followed that thread, but I wish I had.

Redtom posted some serious nonsense about staple grains having such an influence over a peoples' rise in power! To argue that wheat, due to its higher nutritional value, would be a base reason for the rise of the west is ludicrous. Put simply, it would be a valid argument if humans only ate grasses. The reality is, of course, that the shortcomings of any grain are completely nullified by balanced food intake.

(Tangent) The common argument that protein content is the primary way to judge the quality of a grain is misguided, anyway. The concept of a complete or perfect protein is based on rat research that ignores the complete diet. It's an important factor, but not the critical measuring stick some would make it out to be.

"This is ludicrous! You could just as easily argue that the Chinese and Ottomans would be more productive - fewer men had women to take up their time, so they could invent things; Europeans were less productive because they vented their boredom at the pub or brothel. Ridiculous statement."


The importance of free time depends upon who has it.
If the rich and successful have it; they can use it to
discuss, experiment, innovate, and do things;
but if the poor and unsuccessful have it; they sure
won't spend it investing in a long term strategy.

Powerful, successful and wealthy Chinese and Ottomans
were expected to have large families and mistresses.
While many christians did too; it was more acceptable in
the west to remain single and the religious pressures
were against polygamy in the west.

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
2) The Printing Press. Asian languages, with many characters, were not very suited to print. Western languages were. Thus, information could be distributed far easier.


This is an enormous myth: the Chinese and Koreans actually printed enormous quantities of material, stocking public and private libraries hundreds of years before Europe printed anything. Most Chinese printing used a woodcut block printing process that eurocentric technological historians often ignore because it does not fit their image of a "real technology." But, in fact, a skilled carver - of which China had plenty - could outperform the typical European Gutenberg-model printshop. And paper supplies were far cheaper in China, meaning that an average person could actually afford a book, where European book prices remained very high until as late as 1860.

To make matters worse for the comparison, China conquered the language problem easily in its movable type systems, and printed frequently with movable type after 1400. Chinese doesn't work well on keyboards, but it works well enough in movable-type form typesetting, since a manageable number of characters would appear in any given book. Typesetters would actually use a sort of "lazy susan" to sort the characters, making them almost as efficient as a European typesetter. Add to that the fact that most European printshops had to print in several languages and alphabets until about 1620-50, meaning that the Chinese actually had an advantage (one written system served as the basis for several spoken languages, meaning that a book printed in Beijing could be sold in Shanghai without difficulty).

The big difference was not in the printing, but in what was printed. Chinese print technology was mostly used to print the Confucian and Bhuddist classics, to print endless essays dissecting those classics, and then to print exams for the civil service based on those classics. Literature and practical texts had to fight for shelfspace compared to orthodox knowledge. China basically built a print industry to reprint endless quantities of old content. Europe, on the other hand, began to shift from reprinting classical content to paying to produce new material and new knowledge by the early 18th Century, and hence put their printing technologies to entirely different uses.

This case, as in so many others, is a good example of how unimportant technology can be compared to a society's reaction to a technology.

R.III

Some good points there, R. III. However, it was the reaction to the technology, as you yourself say. Still, at least my other points stand (for now;) ).

One minor correction to Richard III's point, Chinese is actually easily typed on the computer through ping ying and other Chinese "alphabet" keyboards which there are plenty of. There is also an immense wealth of Chinese literature floating around out there that many western academics don't know about or have never gotten around to reading. A lot of it is because of eurocentrism in academia but much of it is because Chinese is such a difficult language to learn to master as a second language.

Originally posted by Lucky
Quite on the contrary, Europe was pretty rich in the 16th and 17th century. It exploited all other parts of the world in the process of colonization, including the Ottoman and the Chinese empire.
Europe was more or less always dominant in world affairs. Even though it´s not really possible to compare fairly, the Chinese dynasties and the Roman empire were more or less equally dominant in their regions, only to be overrun by "backwards" barbarians. In the time of the Dark Ages in Europe, i.e. until 800AD, and also during the Middle Ages until 1400AD, development in Europe was very slow. But neither the Arabs, who constantly fought with Europeans (crusades) nor the Chinese took any "advantage" of this. The Chinese were rather satisfied with what they had and did not look for other areas to project power to. And the Arabs were occupied with war among themselves, with Crusaders and other non-islamic tribes. They also did not have the industrial basis to take a technological lead.

At the end of the Middle Ages in Europe, the growing poverty and population, as well as the waning influence of the Catholic church led to great steps forward.
But the most decisive factor for all new developments (sea exploration, establishing of trade routes, colonization) was IMHO the closeness and small size of European countries and that they shared the common goal of increased wealth and power. Unlike the Chinese, Ottomans or American native tribes, there was a great competition in Europe which led to the new era. And to new technologies. :yeah:

During the Middle ages, before the 15th century, the Ottoman and Chinese empires could be considered more powerful and richer than European countries, but that changed drastically in the next few centuries.

So I cannot agree with your assessment, but the answer would be competition among themselves, aided by increasing population and new inventions/developments. This trend was further supported, when later in the 18th and 19th century, the Industrial revolution began in Europe (and the N America). But this only strengthened the already strong grip Europe had of the world.
:D

Han Dynasty is definitely more advanced than Roman Empire.China has already developed paper at that time,More population,Better infrastructure(roads),Better society(people who become official are ranked from their merits by examination) and better way of life.There is no such thing as slavery in China at that time.
So from 200 BC to 1800 AD China is the world only superpower
,Do you know that in 13 th AD China has experienced their own Industrial Revolutio by inventing the advanced coke oven and steel blast furnace.What advantage you mean,Ancient and Medieval Chinese technology is the most advanced in the world.

A lot of it had to do with culture, and in particular the newly formed protestant culture of Northern Europe. People were suddenly more interested in creating wealth, and because the reforms gave a rationalization of capitalism in terms of usuary teachings people no longer felt it morally wrong.

Probably more important though was the way scientists and thinkers started moving heavily towards applied applications, and ways to use them, wheras the easterners were more interested in purely scientific endeavors. It should also be noted that much of the applied that the Europeans had was made possible by the Eastern pure.

Originally posted by Fayadi


Han Dynasty is definitely more advanced than Roman Empire.China has already developed paper at that time,More population,Better infrastructure(roads),Better society(people who become official are ranked from their merits by examination) and better way of life.There is no such thing as slavery in China at that time.
So from 200 BC to 1800 AD China is the world only superpower
,Do you know that in 13 th AD China has experienced their own Industrial Revolutio by inventing the advanced coke oven and steel blast furnace.What advantage you mean,Ancient and Medieval Chinese technology is the most advanced in the world.

This dude is right. Not to mention that even though in terms of size the Roman Empire could match China, the Chinese had land that was far more productive, and they were more advanced. Although I wouldn't say China had the position that the states now has.

I would make the comparison as the Chinese being the Americans in the Cold War while the Romans where the Soviets. This is in terms of their power, not their relationship between eachother.

The chapter 35 of the 2nd book on fsmitha explains it very well.

Confucianism in China

The caste system in India.

A will in preserving Islamic values and disinterest in politics in the Ottoman Empire.

Those areas were not and still aren't industrialised.

Originally posted by Damien
The chapter 35 of the 2nd book on fsmitha explains it very well.

Confucianism in China

The caste system in India.

A will in preserving Islamic values and disinterest in politics in the Ottoman Empire.

Those areas were not and still aren't industrialised.


What are you talking about? China is very much industrialized it's one of the largest exporters in the entire world. Confucianism also can't be blamed for China falling behind, if anything Confucianism stressed the morals of society. It was a series of bad dynasties and horrible historical events that put China behind. You're forgetting about the opium wars, manchu dynasty, and ww2, and then the rise of communism which can all be attributed to screwing China up for at least 300 years. Not to mention Chinese policies that tended to gravitate towards isolationism in a period of time when communication with other civilizations would have benefitted them greatly with new technology and innovations.

Originally posted by feistymongol



What are you talking about? China is very much industrialized it's one of the largest exporters in the entire world. Confucianism also can't be blamed for China falling behind, if anything Confucianism stressed the morals of society. It was a series of bad dynasties and horrible historical events that put China behind. You're forgetting about the opium wars, manchu dynasty, and ww2, and then the rise of communism which can all be attributed to screwing China up for at least 300 years. Not to mention Chinese policies that tended to gravitate towards isolationism in a period of time when communication with other civilizations would have benefitted them greatly with new technology and innovations.

Those things weren't the causes of China screwing up, but rather the RESULT of it.

He isn't necessarily criticizing the Confucian way in its essence, but rather the form it had taken at that point in time. One of the reasons that Islam is having so many problems right now, is that it is going through the painful and bloody secularization process, while many groups are resisting this. Chrisitianity had already gone through that painful phase (as we all know), so even though the dogma hasn't changed much, the place the religion in society has.

Exactly.
Confucianists disliked trade and those growing rich with trade became aristocrats rather than manufacturers.

About China,30% of the pop live in towns,the other 70% in the country.

Originally posted by Damien
Exactly.
Confucianists disliked trade and those growing rich with trade became aristocrats rather than manufacturers.

About China,30% of the pop live in towns,the other 70% in the country.

Yes, all of those towns that are bigger than Paris

Big towns don't mean urbanization.

Originally posted by Sobieski


Those things weren't the causes of China screwing up, but rather the RESULT of it.

He isn't necessarily criticizing the Confucian way in its essence, but rather the form it had taken at that point in time. One of the reasons that Islam is having so many problems right now, is that it is going through the painful and bloody secularization process, while many groups are resisting this. Chrisitianity had already gone through that painful phase (as we all know), so even though the dogma hasn't changed much, the place the religion in society has.


I've never heard so much nonsense in my life..it most DEFINITELY wasn't a result of confucianistic thought. It's not even a 'religion' per se as it is a philosophy loosely believed in Chinese culture.
You obviously have no clue because it was only the recent 300-400 years since the manchu's took up reign that things started sliding downhill. The previous eras were marked by relatively prosperous dynasties with occasional dynastic changes. This is the first time that such an enormous series of upheavels have happened in such a short time in China's history. Also, 100% of the causes were from outside influences.. the British starting the opium wars, ww2, japanese imperialism, the spread of communism from the west. These were all things that are not part of Chinese civilization..it was the rest of the world imposing itself on China in the worst way possible.

Blaming it on confucianism or chinese culture as the root is a joke and shows the degree of western orientated bias I see so often on forums such as this.

Originally posted by Damien
Exactly.
Confucianists disliked trade and those growing rich with trade became aristocrats rather than manufacturers.

About China,30% of the pop live in towns,the other 70% in the country.


Wrong..go read up on history and make note of the part where it talks about the Silk road. Chinese were some of the biggest regional traders during that era. It's amazing how many of you guys make blanket assumptions without actually reading up on chinese history.

Start here..

http://asterius.com/china/index.asp

and come back when you are sufficiently educated.

Originally posted by Damien
Big towns don't mean urbanization.


Wrong again and spoken like someone who has never been to China to begin with.

Originally posted by Damien
Big towns don't mean urbanization.

They have some very industrialized areas, and in fact the area in the river valley north of Hong Kong is the largest manufacturing region in the world. China does have a long way to go, and I think my point was lost on you.

China isn't a completely rural area like you suggested but rather a polarized nation where there is a large growing urban population, but also a larger shrinking rural population.

I guess you could liken it to a France that is far less developed, as France has a couple major urban centres, but the remaining population mostly lives in part urban, part rural areas.

feistymongol,i read chinese history(on fsmitha) and about urbanization it's true that the pop is concentrated on the coast but one of the important problems slowing china is that 70% still live in the country.

Confucianists called for respect for the authorities and people working in the administration got their job by passing an exam which was mainly on Confucianism.

When a religion or a philosophy leads the state and not secular matters,things don't change.

Originally posted by feistymongol



I've never heard so much nonsense in my life..it most DEFINITELY wasn't a result of confucianistic thought. It's not even a 'religion' per se as it is a philosophy loosely believed in Chinese culture.
You obviously have no clue because it was only the recent 300-400 years since the manchu's took up reign that things started sliding downhill. The previous eras were marked by relatively prosperous dynasties with occasional dynastic changes. This is the first time that such an enormous series of upheavels have happened in such a short time in China's history. Also, 100% of the causes were from outside influences.. the British starting the opium wars, ww2, japanese imperialism, the spread of communism from the west. These were all things that are not part of Chinese civilization..it was the rest of the world imposing itself on China in the worst way possible.

Blaming it on confucianism or chinese culture as the root is a joke and shows the degree of western orientated bias I see so often on forums such as this.

Yes I agree,the main problem why China became weak at that time because of the incompetence government ,weak rulers,isolationism that refused newer ideas and technology from outside world

Originally posted by Damien
feistymongol,i read chinese history(on fsmitha) and about urbanization it's true that the pop is concentrated on the coast but one of the important problems slowing china is that 70% still live in the country.

Confucianists called for respect for the authorities and people working in the administration got their job by passing an exam which was mainly on Confucianism.

When a religion or a philosophy leads the state and not secular matters,things don't change.

China used to be superpower for millenias using Confucianism.I dont think Confucianism is the main reason China failed in Qing Dynasty,there were several major problems already at that time

The two most important factors of any countries success or path in the world are always the political situation and the social situation. IT doesn't matter how advanced the individual Chinese were, because their governments brought them down.

Originally posted by feistymongol
One minor correction to Richard III's point, Chinese is actually easily typed on the computer through ping ying and other Chinese "alphabet" keyboards which there are plenty of. There is also an immense wealth of Chinese literature floating around out there that many western academics don't know about or have never gotten around to reading. A lot of it is because of eurocentrism in academia but much of it is because Chinese is such a difficult language to learn to master as a second language.

Okay (although my point on the keyboard is more about assumptions of impracticability than realities). But I would be interested to hear your reaction to my main point, namely that the trouble was that China's printing industry was fairly strong, but did not in the long term create and market content in the same way Europeans did...?

Just curious.

R.III

Originally posted by Richard III


Okay (although my point on the keyboard is more about assumptions of impracticability than realities). But I would be interested to hear your reaction to my main point, namely that the trouble was that China's printing industry was fairly strong, but did not in the long term create and market content in the same way Europeans did...?

Just curious.

R.III

Richards point also helps to prove my point that the political and cultural situation are two of the most important, if not the most important factors in long-term development.

The culture did not value marketing new content, and therefore didn't "progress" as fast. Whether that is a bad thing or a good thing is subjective, but it is still the truth.

Originally posted by Sobieski


Richards point also helps to prove my point that the political and cultural situation are two of the most important, if not the most important factors in long-term development.

The culture did not value marketing new content, and therefore didn't "progress" as fast. Whether that is a bad thing or a good thing is subjective, but it is still the truth.


Where are you guys gathering these assumptions from? There is quite a large amount of Chinese literature and various written records from the ancient period. Saying it didn't value marketing new content and didn't value "progress" is false. Like I said, a lot of you are making blanket assumptions without knowing anything about Chinese culture or been there to begin with. It's based on prevailing stereotypes or misinformation rather than anything factual. You have to remember europe was considered very backwards back in 1200 (pre renaissance) and before then. It wasn't until there was a cultural reawakening to the rest of the world that things got moving.

The rise of the west is marked mainly by a few things..constant conflict in western europe and trading of ideas by several cultures in close contact which helped innovation. Think about this in terms of economics..when there is one major monopoly (or dominant culture) chances are innovations will be slow as there is no reason to improve because you will sell the same amount of goods. Now, if there is always competition as in the case of Europe (many cultures in close contact) then people will be quick to come up with cultural innovations and new ideas to compete for survival. The Asian region did not have the same benefits..there were only a couple strong empires mainly Japan and China. They were also closed off from each other or received limited contact throughout history. War was also mostly internal..not externalized to the point where innovation was always necessary to compete. Now that the world is entirely open, things are different. We saw how quickly Japan went from an imperialist antiquated society to industrialization and thena dominant technology orientated society. Hell, most of us drive Japanese brand cars, use Japanese electronics, etc.. It's only fairly recently in history that Asia was opened up to the rest of the world to allow competition to flourish..thus innovation.

Anyways, the past is the past in a lot of ways...it's where the future is heading that truly counts.

Originally posted by feistymongol



Where are you guys gathering these assumptions from? There is quite a large amount of Chinese literature and various written records from the ancient period. Saying it didn't value marketing new content and didn't value "progress" is false. Like I said, a lot of you are making blanket assumptions without knowing anything about Chinese culture or been there to begin with. It's based on prevailing stereotypes or misinformation rather than anything factual. You have to remember europe was considered very backwards back in 1200 (pre renaissance) and before then. It wasn't until there was a cultural reawakening to the rest of the world that things got moving.

The rise of the west is marked mainly by a few things..constant conflict in western europe and trading of ideas by several cultures in close contact which helped innovation. Think about this in terms of economics..when there is one major monopoly (or dominant culture) chances are innovations will be slow as there is no reason to improve because you will sell the same amount of goods. Now, if there is always competition as in the case of Europe (many cultures in close contact) then people will be quick to come up with cultural innovations and new ideas to compete for survival. The Asian region did not have the same benefits..there were only a couple strong empires mainly Japan and China. They were also closed off from each other or received limited contact throughout history. War was also mostly internal..not externalized to the point where innovation was always necessary to compete. Now that the world is entirely open, things are different. We saw how quickly Japan went from an imperialist antiquated society to industrialization and thena dominant technology orientated society. Hell, most of us drive Japanese brand cars, use Japanese electronics, etc.. It's only fairly recently in history that Asia was opened up to the rest of the world to allow competition to flourish..thus innovation.

Anyways, the past is the past in a lot of ways...it's where the future is heading that truly counts.

I wasn't necessarily talking about the Chinese, I am talking about civilization in general, and I was making my example based on what the other guy was saying, but you could use that for any civilization. China's problem was more political, and that they valued pure science over applied science. Their pure was well ahead of the west for a LONG time. Their politics were a different story however.

I was just making my point that political and cultural situations usually determine the destination of a civilization.

Originally posted by feistymongol
Where are you guys gathering these assumptions from? There is quite a large amount of Chinese literature and various written records from the ancient period. Saying it didn't value marketing new content and didn't value "progress" is false. Like I said, a lot of you are making blanket assumptions without knowing anything about Chinese culture or been there to begin with. It's based on prevailing stereotypes or misinformation rather than anything factual. \

Whoa! How do you know where I have been, or what I know? And how do you conclude that what I'm saying - which is based, frankly, on little knowledge about Chinese literature but a great deal of knowledge about what Chinese printers printed - is based on "prevailing stereotypes?"

If you read back a whole few posts, you will notice that I recognize the "large amount" of Chinese lit and written material, and the first reference anyone makes to large quantities of it is me. So why are you picking on me?

Literature is merely a small portion of the overall content produced by either the Asian or the European early print industries. Wow, there was some Chinese lit. Virtually everybody had a literary tradition. But while I know crap about the substance of Chinese literature (despite ample expertise in my family on the subject), I know a great deal about the conditions it was written under and even more about what else the printers were printing. And the bulk of it wasn't what western culture understands as "literature."

So I'm sorry I asked. I had thought I might get informed criticism. Instead I just got [EDITed version follows...] attacked for having "a whole lot of assumptions" by someone who uses even more generalized assumptions as his weapon.

R.III

Originally posted by Richard III


Okay (although my point on the keyboard is more about assumptions of impracticability than realities). But I would be interested to hear your reaction to my main point, namely that the trouble was that China's printing industry was fairly strong, but did not in the long term create and market content in the same way Europeans did...?

Just curious.

R.III

On what year are you talking about,in 1300 AD,half of all the writings (such as books,written records,history records) in the world are in China,so all the writing records of all the countries in the world including all the history records previously written centuries before are equal to a Single Nation .