How did Europe get so advanced

[Verbose]

I'm all for stressing the importance of the nation state, usually.

But it's only really some 200 years old. It's contemporaries are of course industrailisation, colonisation and full blow imperialism. Still, the nation state is bit recent, thus a longshot, for explaining how Europe got itself to where it was poised to gobble up the globe around 1800 or so.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I'm all for stressing the importance of the nation state, usually.

But it's only really some 200 years old. It's contemporaries are of course industrailisation, colonisation and full blow imperialism. Still, the nation state is bit recent, thus a longshot, for explaining how Europe got itself to where it was poised to gobble up the globe around 1800 or so.

Nation states are indded fairly recent, however competition between several powers in Europe isn't. When there was a monopoly of power in China, the Arab World or the Incas, that has never been true in Europe. Well... that's what I was explaining in my post.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Very true, while the Nation-State didn't reach its height until the 1800s, the basic underlying principle was there, moreso at least then the scattered tribes of Africa and America. When the Europeans landed in America they did so for "Spain", "England" or "France", a philosophical leap forward from the natives whos existed as a tribe.

 

[Verbose]

Nation states are indded fairly recent, however competition between several powers in Europe isn't. When there was a monopoly of power in China, the Arab World or the Incas, that has never been true in Europe. Well... that's what I was explaining in my post.

You're quite right!
It's just that it's not a nation state thing.

It's more the fact that there never was blanket control in Europe.

You're a clever down-on-your-luck Scot engineer being killed in the competitive UK textile industry in 1800?
France will take you! There's a whole industry in Lyon just waiting for some technological innovation, and Napoleon himself is winking and invitingly waveing a fat contract...

You're non-titled clever French fellow with some pretty radical views on monarchy. You even wrote a book about it. Of course, it's unpublishable in France.
Hey, send it off to your printer in Geneva or Antwerp! If you're real lucky it will be place on index and the hangman will burn it publicly on the street in Paris. That always ensures the crowd knows it's a good read, so next time they pop into their local book-seller and ask to see... hrhmm... the stuff under the counter (mostly porn and politics) they'll know what to ask for.

Or you're a young Swedish country parson, ardent of spirit, with outlandish ideas about religion that doesn't sit well with the country's official heavy-handed Protestant orthdoxy.
You too have a dangerous manuscript. You could loose your head over it, as attacks on the official religion is deemed attacks on the Royal Person who is head of the C'o'S, hence High Treason.
But never fear! The printers in the free trade zone of Altona south of Hamburg will be happy to get it off your hands and get it sold.

Etc.

The competing European states, the dynastic states, were criss-crossed with networks and international contacts that ensured a considerable cohesion within Europe itself alongside the competition going on.

That might be important — always having more than one game in town.

But the comparative advantage of such a situation needs to be assesed by looking at how other societies did in fact work.
It might turn out looking less radically different than we may think, upon inspection.

 

[Plotinus]

I think that when the Europeans landed in America, they typically did so for wealth, power, or peculiar religious reasons. In each case, the motivation was related to themselves rather than to national interests. Or am I over-generalising a tad?

 

[Steph]

Very true, while the Nation-State didn't reach its height until the 1800s, the basic underlying principle was there, moreso at least then the scattered tribes of Africa and America. When the Europeans landed in America they did so for "Spain", "England" or "France", a philosophical leap forward from the natives whos existed as a tribe.

That's not so true... The Europeans did not land in America for Spain, England or France, they did it mostly for themselves. Conquistadors were more interesteed by gold than anything else.
And I don't think you can consider the Incas, or the Iroquois confederation, as seimple tribes. They were kind of nations to, weren't they?

And for France, the concept of Nation states appeared only late, at the time of the French revolution. Before, the state was the king. The people were from the different provinces of France often before being French.

 

[Kosez]

And for France, the concept of Nation states appeared only late, at the time of the French revolution. Before, the state was the king. The people were from the different provinces of France often before being French.

Yup, I agree on that. Nation States were invention of 19th century, but that doesn't mean there were'nt any signs of them earlier.
But a basic need to invent a Nation State was closely connected to levee-en-masse (or how is it spelled), or general recruitment, and that didn't came in to full scale until French Revolution.
Although I remember that Austrian Queen Maria-Theresa had planned something similar to recruitment, thus wanting to enforce housing enumeration. Off-course, nobody was very willing to die for good ol' queeny those days.

 

[jonatas]

The competing European states, the dynastic states, were criss-crossed with networks and international contacts that ensured a considerable cohesion within Europe itself alongside the competition going on.

A good point. International banking families, for example, such as the movement of key Jewish families moved from Spain, to Portugal, to Holland, Brazil etc... Interesting stuff for sure, which lets us get beyond stereotypical explanations.

 

[Brighteye]

What's this ridiculous obsession with trying to find strange and dubious economic reasons for Europe's advancement?

The key is in thinking, not economics. Europe was under the thrall of Catholicism, but in the early middle ages (1000-1200) Greek authors gradually filtered back into Europe from the Arabs, and changed the thought of Europe's great thinkers to attempting to create new philosophical arguments; they saw the attempts of the Greeks to make a coherent system of thought, and from the mysticism of Plato and Plotinus they swerved to Aristotle; this group of thinkers are called the scholastics, or schoolmen.
From attempting 'mystical' arguments solely about religion, they attempted to use logic and dialectic to perceive theological concepts. From this we eventually dropped the theology altogether.
It was this unique combination of a driving force (the ecclesiastical schoolmen) to develop and create new logic and philosophy, which required the support of the Church so that all men followed one from another in a Europe-wide collective, followed by the dropping out of the Church's influence from thought, that makes European philosophy so advanced.
We needed the power of the Church to condone such philosophy and make it acceptable not only to the academics who thought it, but the general populace, but thinking cannot advance much when it is tied up with religion, so we also needed the eventual casting off of the Catholic influence.
Thus the reformation, and the emergence of protestantism, are key moments in the advancement of Europe. Luther said 'Here I stand: I can do no other' He was, in effect making the decisive statement that he had to follow his own judgement and not that of the Church.

The individualism that was part of the development of, and developed from, Protestantism, is what drives innovation. People need to think differently to innovate.

 

[jonatas]

The individualism that was part of the development of, and developed from, Protestantism, is what drives innovation. People need to think differently to innovate.

The Early Modern Empires were Catholic, not Protestant. How would you explain their motives?

 

[jonatas]

The key is in thinking, not economics. Europe was under the thrall of Catholicism, but in the early middle ages (1000-1200) Greek authors gradually filtered back into Europe from the Arabs, and changed the thought of Europe's great thinkers to attempting to create new philosophical arguments; they saw the attempts of the Greeks to make a coherent system of thought, and from the mysticism of Plato and Plotinus they swerved to Aristotle; this group of thinkers are called the scholastics, or schoolmen.
From attempting 'mystical' arguments solely about religion, they attempted to use logic and dialectic to perceive theological concepts. From this we eventually dropped the theology altogether.

I'm certainly aware of Aristotle's contributions (or lack thereof-see another thread here for that) via Islam during the Medieval era, but the Renaissance was positively enamoured with Neo-Platonism. I guess Italy doesn't count for much, nor does Spain or Portugal, as non-Protestant countries?

 

[Plotinus]

Europe was under the thrall of Catholicism, but in the early middle ages (1000-1200) Greek authors gradually filtered back into Europe from the Arabs, and changed the thought of Europe's great thinkers to attempting to create new philosophical arguments; they saw the attempts of the Greeks to make a coherent system of thought, and from the mysticism of Plato and Plotinus they swerved to Aristotle; this group of thinkers are called the scholastics, or schoolmen.

I really don't think this is quite right. For one thing, late scholasticism certainly involved a lot of Aristotle; but there was scholastic philosophy before Aristotle was rediscovered in the west (which was in the late twelfth century). Look at Anselm and Abelard, for example. Berengar of Tours is sometimes labelled the first scholastic philosopher.

More importantly, perhaps, the late scholastics were easily as Neoplatonic their predecessors. Don't let Aquinas' professed love of Aristotle mislead you. His real primary influence (after the Bible) is Augustine, and there's a healthy dose of Pseudo-Dionysius in there too. Bonaventure is even more clearly Neoplatonic. His whole system, rational and peripatetic as its method may be, revolves around the mystical contemplation of God revealed in nature.

From attempting 'mystical' arguments solely about religion, they attempted to use logic and dialectic to perceive theological concepts. From this we eventually dropped the theology altogether.

Again, Aquinas and his colleagues would never accept such a distinction in the first place. They certainly believed that, ultimately, theology rests upon revelation, and this revelation is beyond reason (although reason may consider it). But this had nothing to do with Aristotle: Christian philosophers had been taking that line for centuries. Again, look at Abelard.

Thus the reformation, and the emergence of protestantism, are key moments in the advancement of Europe. Luther said 'Here I stand: I can do no other' He was, in effect making the decisive statement that he had to follow his own judgement and not that of the Church.

The individualism that was part of the development of, and developed from, Protestantism, is what drives innovation. People need to think differently to innovate.

It seems odd to me that you state that religious influence holds back thinking, and then commend Luther and the Reformation. That was a religious movement, and the Protestants were just as religious as the Catholics ever were! They were also, arguably, even more closed to new ideas than the Catholics. Luther famously dismissed the ideas of Copernicus, for example - but Galileo was a Catholic, and it was Catholic scholars who really advanced astronomy in the seventeeth century. Kepler was Protestant, but his Protestant university, Tubingen, refused to countenance heliocentrism and he was unable to get tenure there as a result. I don't really see good evidence to suppose that Protestants were better at innovation than Catholics. The best schools in seventeenth-century Europe were those of the Jesuits. Was there a Protestant equivalent to Athanasius Kircher?

Again, Protestantism wasn't really about individualism or the casting off of authority. *Some* Protestants thought like this, but they were part of the radical Reformation, not the mainstream one. They were people like the Anabaptists, who thought that each individual had the power to determine theological truth; or the Quakers, who refused to submit to the authorities. Luther and the other leaders of the Reformation were even more opposed to that sort of thing than they were to Catholicism. For Luther and his colleagues, being a Christian is a matter of submitting to the Bible rather than to the Pope - it's not a matter of submitting to no-one at all. Remember Luther's social conservatism and his support of the princes when they put down the peasants.

 

[Ribannah]

Keep in mind, that the standard by which we measure advancement here, is European. By other standards, Europe was and is not so advanced at all.

 

[Brighteye]

I really don't think this is quite right. For one thing, late scholasticism certainly involved a lot of Aristotle; but there was scholastic philosophy before Aristotle was rediscovered in the west (which was in the late twelfth century). Look at Anselm and Abelard, for example. Berengar of Tours is sometimes labelled the first scholastic philosopher.

I'm defining a general trend towards admiring Aristotle, not a sudden leap that occurred at the beginning of scholastic philosophy. I'd still maintain that the gradual influx of thoughts and writings from the arabs, much of it preserved from the Greeks, was a major factor in scholastic development.

More importantly, perhaps, the late scholastics were easily as Neoplatonic their predecessors. Don't let Aquinas' professed love of Aristotle mislead you. His real primary influence (after the Bible) is Augustine, and there's a healthy dose of Pseudo-Dionysius in there too. Bonaventure is even more clearly Neoplatonic. His whole system, rational and peripatetic as its method may be, revolves around the mystical contemplation of God revealed in nature.

Yes, any reader of Aquinas can see that he's as mystically platonic as the next fool. The point is once again that it's a trend; an acceptance of logic and dialectic as reasonable points of thought. As they became more integrated into learned men's repertoires, they became more and more the basis of thought, rather than an add-on.
The schoolmen were necessary because they opened themselves to these ideas, and accepted them as worthy of consideration, even if they still gave mysticism priority.

Again, Aquinas and his colleagues would never accept such a distinction in the first place. They certainly believed that, ultimately, theology rests upon revelation, and this revelation is beyond reason (although reason may consider it). But this had nothing to do with Aristotle: Christian philosophers had been taking that line for centuries. Again, look at Abelard.

Haven't actually looked at Abelard, but my previous point is vaguely relevant

It seems odd to me that you state that religious influence holds back thinking, and then commend Luther and the Reformation. That was a religious movement, and the Protestants were just as religious as the Catholics ever were! They were also, arguably, even more closed to new ideas than the Catholics. Luther famously dismissed the ideas of Copernicus, for example - but Galileo was a Catholic, and it was Catholic scholars who really advanced astronomy in the seventeeth century. Kepler was Protestant, but his Protestant university, Tubingen, refused to countenance heliocentrism and he was unable to get tenure there as a result. I don't really see good evidence to suppose that Protestants were better at innovation than Catholics. The best schools in seventeenth-century Europe were those of the Jesuits. Was there a Protestant equivalent to Athanasius Kircher?

I knew someone would get touchy over this. I didn't say that protestants were better. I said that the individualism which led to Protestantism is a central feature of any culture that successfully encourages innovation. I also said that Prostestantism encourages the growth of individualism.

Of course the best schools were Catholic. Schools that have developed prestige over many centuries can still attract better teachers and thinkers than new ones. Many of the best thinkers would have been Catholic for two reasons: Catholics were still the large majority, and secondly, one can remain Catholic whilst being influenced by the individualism and free thinking that led to Protestantism. The Protestantism that initially emerged may not have been correct either, but it is a hugely important step in the emergence of individual thought.

Again, Protestantism wasn't really about individualism or the casting off of authority. *Some* Protestants thought like this, but they were part of the radical Reformation, not the mainstream one. They were people like the Anabaptists, who thought that each individual had the power to determine theological truth; or the Quakers, who refused to submit to the authorities. Luther and the other leaders of the Reformation were even more opposed to that sort of thing than they were to Catholicism. For Luther and his colleagues, being a Christian is a matter of submitting to the Bible rather than to the Pope - it's not a matter of submitting to no-one at all. Remember Luther's social conservatism and his support of the princes when they put down the peasants.

We can see the flaws in all the thinking, but questioning authority at the time, and placing one's trust in an authority one has decided to trust oneself is a big step forward from blind submission. I'm not saying that all that Luther thought was right; I used a quotation from him to demonstrate a broader point.

 

[Plotinus]

Yes, but the "Here I stand, I can do no other" quote is apocryphal. Besides, I think it's a very dubious claim to suggest that Protestantism was inspired by individualism and free-thinking. I don't see such ideals as inspiring the young Luther or any of the others: rather, they were inspired by purely theological considerations. Don't forget that Luther never intended to mount a rebellion against the Pope - on the contrary, when he criticised corruption in the selling of indulgences he expected the church authorities to agree with him. You're undoubtedly right that individualism was an effect of Protestantism - at least in some quarters such as the Mennonites and the Quakers - but I think you're overplaying it, and I certainly don't see that sort of thing as a cause. Luther and the other mainstream Protestants didn't regard themselves as deciding to place their trust in the Bible rather than the Pope - they believed that they were forced to do so, that this was what all Christians should do and always had done. You could hardly call Calvin's Geneva a bastion of free thought and individualism, surely.

I'd still maintain that the gradual influx of thoughts and writings from the arabs, much of it preserved from the Greeks, was a major factor in scholastic development.

I'm not convinced by that - is there any evidence? I think you can easily trace a line of development in western philosophy from, say, the Carolingian renaissance to the eleventh-century flowering without needing to posit much external influence.

Of course the best schools were Catholic. Schools that have developed prestige over many centuries can still attract better teachers and thinkers than new ones.

But if the best schools were those of the Jesuits, then it wasn't because they'd been around for ages and had the greatest prestige. The Jesuits - and all their schools - were founded after the Reformation began.

 

[Brighteye]

There are two types of inspiration: direct, acknowledged inspiration, and unconscious changes in people's patterns of thought.
A general shift to logic, as apparent to the thinker, rather than divine mystery, as dictated by the Church, can be summarised as a rise of individualism. This individualism, even if it is a subconscious effect, leads to the casting off of the Church's teachings; the questioning of authority.
Luther may only have questioned the Church's authority and put another equally arbitrary one in its place, but to start a movement (rather than be a 'lunatic' on one's own) that has as a founding principle a lack of acceptance of the authority of other thinkers is a big shift towards innovation; it sets a precedent that the great figures are not to be revered; they are men like yourself.
Previously thinkers would have ideas, and if the Church doctrine was not complementary they would be put down by the Church, and the thinker would accept this as a final arbitration. That is a way of stifling ideas through theology.
Now we have people like Luther who have an idea, and when the Church disagrees, they don't revert to traditional doctrine; they move on. This is a big event in the history of thought. It's less important if their rejection of Church doctrine was for philosophical or theological considerations. It is the rejection, caused by individualism, that is important. It's all about trends in thought, and the rise of Protestantism demonstrates and helps create the all-important trend.

Did the Jesuits have more money? Did they have the support of more people? Did they have more academics from amongst whom to choose? Did they encounter less opposition? Could they found themselves in more established places?
I'm not exactly a knowledgeable historian, and certainly not of the Jeuits, but these are the first few questions I'd ask.

I think that 'The Making of the Middle Ages' by Horowiecz (or similar) and 'The History of Western Philosophy' by Russell make good cases for the influence of the percolation of thought from the arabs. I can't remember them offhand though.

 

[MISER SVM]

@ Spartan: The real reasons for the high death toll of the Taiping Rebellion were not direct fighting, but rather terrible famines; the Taiping ravaged one of China's economic powerhouses and breadbaskets, they sacked cities and were corrupt, inefficient and highly cruel rulers (which multiplied the suffering of the local peasantry). That's why high tech weapons are irrelevant here.
Keep in mind that this "Civil War" lasted for over a decade in one of the most densely populated regions by that time!

I think China already fell behind in the late 1700s; the Europeans were already technologically ahead (think of the Jesuits at the Emperor's court) and while being a great emperor in his younger years (e.g. expansion), Qianlong became more and more decadent and incompetent (particularly due to the corruption by Heshan). And then we have a lot of weak and barely capable rulers after him... (modernization was far from possible under the given political circumstances) yet another reason for China becoming the ideal prey of European, American and Japanese imperialism. In other words: the Chinese government was just too conservative to adapt, with an ossified political system (especially under the reactionary, highly authoritarian Qing administration).
The spectacular defeat in two Opium Wars is the most striking proof how backwards China was (at least militarily); her navy was no match for both the British' and French'. Ironically, China's Confucian-Legalist system was revered by European intellectuals (e.g. Leibnit) and was also en mode (Chinoiserie).

(and that's also one of the reasons why many Chinese believed their culture was rubbish from the past and had to be replaced by its Western equivalent in 20th Century; read Lu Xun's works)

Sorry, this has been kind of OT...

 

[Brighteye]

Sorry, my mistake. 'The Making of The Middle Ages' is by R. W. Southern.
Horowiecz wrote something else.

 

[Kosez]

If Arabian world helped Europe rediscover Greek philosophy then that means they knew it. And they could've use it even befor Europeans. So that's probably not the right answer.
Although I agree that a radical shifts in 16th, 17th and 18th century thinking did wonders for Europe (More, Bodin, Beccaria, Hobbes, Bacon, American and French constitution, etc...), and that would've been impossible without Greek knowledge.

 

[Princeps]

If Arabian world helped Europe rediscover Greek philosophy then that means they knew it. And they could've use it even befor Europeans. So that's probably not the right answer.

They did. In fact the very fundamentals of Islam are influenced by Greeks and Christians... During the hey-days of their empires, scholars openly discussed Greek philosophies, sciences, and so on, advancing them immensly as well as preserving them.