Eurocentrism

Iron is one of the most difficult technologies to master, and the accumulated knowledge a society gets about its working is very difficult to transfer or replicate. People work iron for 1500 to 2000 years before properly utilizing it. Only in about 500BC, due to obscure innovations from inner Europe and western Asia, do they start using it in a widespread way. Roman swords and helmets came from central European technology transferred to them by the Celts, the edge-hardened, carbon-strengthened iron swords that terrified the Greeks by cutting through bone on the battlefield, iron-rimmed spoked wheels, iron-shared ploughs, sickles, reinforced barrels, superior mills, long think nails that support large transport vehicles and wooden structures, e.g. Julius Caesar's observations the greatness of Venetic ships or iron reinforced Gaulish ramparts.

People often think Westerners came to rule the world because some renaissance guys started re-reading Greek stuff ... had nothing to do with it. That stuff if anything ******ed Europeans. Europe's advantages lay primarily with its advanced metallurgic technology and the skills that allowed them to excel in making at low cost everything from printed books to guns , chemical distillation equipment and steam engines. It was never backward when it came to those things. Even in the darkest of dark ages Frankish swords were among the most prized goods in the markets of the Middle East.
 
Even in the darkest of dark ages Frankish swords were among the most prized goods in the markets of the Middle East.

Not to mention the widespread black markets of those AK-47s of the Early Middle Ages.

One of those smugglers was Samo.

But when it comes to quality of swords - what about the Damascus steel ???

Here such an excerpt concerning Eastern European swords from Nestor's Primary Chronicle:

After this time, and subsequent to the death of the three brothers in Kyiv, the Polyanians were oppressed by the Derevlians and other neighbors of theirs. Then the Khazars came upon them as they lived in the hills and forests, and demanded tribute from them. After consulting among themselves, the Polyanians paid as tribute one sword per hearth, which the Khazars bore to their prince and their elders, and said to them, “Behold, we have found new tribute.” When asked whence it was derived, they replied, “From the forest on the hills by the river Dnipro.” The elders inquired what tribute had been paid, whereupon the swords were exhibited. The Khazar elders then protested, “Evil is this tribute, prince. We have won it with a one-edged weapon called a sabre, but the weapon of these men is sharp on both edges and is called a sword. These men shall impose tribute upon us and upon other lands.” All this has come to pass, for they spoke thus not of their own will, but by God’s commandment.
 
Lots of areas of the world made good swords, the point is that Europe was always good at that stuff. Even people in mud huts can be master smiths. If you just had archaeology and judged parts of the world only on surviving metal products, you'd might well think central Europe was the most advanced both in 500BC and in 1500AD.

EDIT: Thanks for that quote Domen, interesting.
 
I sometimes wonder if ALL people in Scotland who visit this forum are of 'peculiar' views, to say the least :D
Rome had no superior tech to the civilized world, bro. It nearly was destroyed, and twice saved due to indifference of the Greek world to send forces so as to finish it. First by not helping its own Pyrrhos with his campaign in Italy. Then by not helping Hannibal. Your posts sound stranger by the day :\
 
Pangur Bán;13082276 said:
People often think Westerners came to rule the world because some renaissance guys started re-reading Greek stuff ... had nothing to do with it. That stuff if anything ******ed Europeans. Europe's advantages lay primarily with its advanced metallurgic technology and the skills that allowed them to excel in making at low cost everything from printed books to guns , chemical distillation equipment and steam engines. It was never backward when it came to those things. Even in the darkest of dark ages Frankish swords were among the most prized goods in the markets of the Middle East.

The stuff that "******ed" Europeans set the foundation of the scientific revolution, which was instrumental of technological developments.

Do you have a degree in science, by any chance? Just wondering.
 
The stuff that "******ed" Europeans set the foundation of the scientific revolution, which was instrumental of technological developments.

Do you have a degree in science, by any chance? Just wondering.

You are just repeating what I claimed to be a myth. It was European metal-working skill that turned outside technology into books and guns and so forth, the useful Greek and Roman stuff had already largely been absorbed by the time of the Renaissance and was thereafter a set of distracting mistakes and dead ends.

Our myth about Renaissance learning and 'classical revival' is to a large extent the product of Renaissance and Enlightenment propaganda from non-church literati trying to get jobs and patronage from the church guys.
 
Makes perfect sense, afterall those ancient Greek (and Roman) art and literature pieces were known to have the 12 faces of Jesus on mount Olympjesus.

(so at this point i'll assume you were joking from the start).
 
Pangur Bán;13084303 said:
You are just repeating what I claimed to be a myth. It was European metal-working skill that turned outside technology into books and guns and so forth, the useful Greek and Roman stuff had already largely been absorbed by the time of the Renaissance and was thereafter a set of distracting mistakes and dead ends.

Our myth about Renaissance learning and 'classical revival' is to a large extent the product of Renaissance and Enlightenment propaganda from non-church literati trying to get jobs and patronage from the church guys.

Well, that and Whig history.
 
I'm also going to throw in, like the rest of the dark ages myth, the "greek translations set off the renaissance and therefor the scientific revolution", has kind of a strong element of assumed superiority of Northern Europeans.

Sure, the Greeks still had the texts, and the Arabians, but they couldn't do modern science with it in the hundreds of years they had them. It was only when Civilzed Man got in touch with his Civilized antecedent that people could read Aristotle properly

Of course maybe I shouldn't look to deeply into such claims, and just take it for granted that modern science is based on Humor theory.
 
You could also interpret it that the Greek man was intellectually superior to the northern European because they worked out this science.
Just sayin'.
 
Pangur Bán;13084303 said:
You are just repeating what I claimed to be a myth. It was European metal-working skill that turned outside technology into books and guns and so forth, the useful Greek and Roman stuff had already largely been absorbed by the time of the Renaissance and was thereafter a set of distracting mistakes and dead ends.

Our myth about Renaissance learning and 'classical revival' is to a large extent the product of Renaissance and Enlightenment propaganda from non-church literati trying to get jobs and patronage from the church guys.

The Renaissance occurred due to a multitude of factors and nobody said the revival of interest in Greek culture is THE cause of it. However to claim it actually ******ed the development of the Western society is a pretty atypical point of view. And now you claimed that the "useful" stuff was already well-absorbed long ago and that it's the "re-reading" of the "useless" stuff that were ******ing the progress... well, whatever you say...

And to claim superior metallurgy as the principle factor of European superiority is a bit misleading. Yes, Europeans were superior because they had much better technology (like that wasn't obvious enough) but they probably didn't just acquire such an advantage purely by chance. Rather, there were intrinsic and environmental factors that enabled to break through while other formerly technological superior cultural groups (i.e. Arabs, Turks, and Chinese) lagged behind. Decadence, reactionarism, and competition are often cited as important factors.

TL;DR. IMO, advanced metallurgy is only a secondary cause of the rise of Western Europe.
 
The Renaissance occurred due to a multitude of factors and nobody said the revival of interest in Greek culture is THE cause of it.
How does something that's not even a thing have multiple causes?

Decadence, reactionarism, and competition are often cited as important factors.
Oh, that's how. Lol.
 
Am I wrong for thinking that Europe's rise* had little to do with its ability to work with random objects out of the earth, and more on its actions in distinct, contingent situations?

*I don't know about you guys, but I always feel silly when having to say stuff like this. I feel like it truly gimps a lot of history just to categorize an entire continent as one, and then to say it "rose" as if getting out of bed or something. Just doesn't feel like it does any justice to the actual history of the situation. I mean, the 19th century does involve a large amount of hegemony by European powers, but to characterize as them as "rising" above other cultures/continents/other silly category, it just seems, I don't know, silly.
 
Am I wrong for thinking that Europe's rise had little to do with its ability to work with random objects out of the earth, and more on its actions in distinct, contingent situations?

Yeah, basically. "Contingent" is the key word. People love to find systemic explanations for stuff, because it makes them think they have what is needed to solve future problems, but, in truth, history has been more about people making very specific choices in a variety of very specific situations. The "rise of Europe" had a lot to do with discovering the Americas, for instance, and that's as random an event as you can have. A lunatic who didn't estimate the size of the Earth correctly being bankrolled by a king on a whim, after initially being rejected...

And I also agree with your asterisk. The "rise of the West" is in truth split into a number of rises and falls, starting with the Spaniards (who is now barely even of regional importance), continuing with the English and the French (no longer world powers either) and ending with the Americans (the current world power).
 
Indeed ParkCungHee

People love to find systemic explanations for stuff, because it makes them think they have what is needed to solve future problems, but, in truth, history has been more about people making very specific choices in a variety of very specific situations. The "rise of Europe" had a lot to do with discovering the Americas, for instance, and that's as random an event as you can have.

Monocausal explanations are obviously ridiculous, but 'people making very specific choices ' explanations are just as bad. Make good stories, but that's it. America was getting discovered in the 1490s, or at least within a century, whether or not there ever was a Columbus. And of course Columbus' individual greatness doesn't explain, say, Henry the Navigator, or the Russian conquest of Siberia. Doesn't explain how they were enabled by the swords, guns, ships, etc, etc. Systemic stuff matters more, and systemic situations get systemic explanations.
 
I guess the arabs had even crappier swords than the Greeks/Byzantines, and this is why their entire fleet was reduced to ash by the greek fire. Cause we all know that science does not matter, all that matters is having enough bearded weirdos (beardos?) working the anvil :)
 
You could also interpret it that the Greek man was intellectually superior to the northern European because they worked out this science.
Just sayin'.
Sure it creates a unique position for the Ancient Greek man. In fact, most people who hold this position have the weird, simultaneous belief that northern Europeans in Antiquity were barbarians who didn't know how to do anything (which is also nonsense). But the whole idea of that the Renaissance created modern science is built around the assumption that the Greeks and Arabs living in the middle ages couldn't do science with Aristotle, because reasons.

The Greeks and the Arabs are just passive transmitters of knowledge to the Northern Europeans who are the only ones able to actually act on this knowledge.
 
Top Bottom