Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Your reasons for holding to the fact that Europe was technologically more advanced than the Americas betray a misunderstanding and ignorance of historical principle, however.
New Forum Game: History Rewritten Development Thread
- Thread starter ilduce349
- Start date
Your reasons for holding to the fact that Europe was technologically more advanced than the Americas betray a misunderstanding and ignorance of historical principle, however.
Omega124
Challenging Fate
You two forgot probably the biggest reason why Europe colonized America: We had Rome.
Rome, not the Black Death, was the reason Euros won. Greece thought of modern Math, Geometry, Literature, Art, Theatre, Construction, among other things. However, they were the weak city states, and while Alexander made a brief empire, it was not to last (Except for making Greece a little more unified, and adding Macedonia into it). Enter Rome, a city built on the seven hills. They were an extremely lucky city, there was a powerful, unified empire to the north, and colonies of technologically advanced people to the south. They prevailed over both, but the Greek colonies to the south were very important. The Romans fell in love with the Hellenistic culture (Except for their language, which is why Greek has little to no relatives
)
They then spread the ideas of the Hellenistic culture throughout England, France, Iberia, and Northern Africa, assimilating them and creating the modern Franks, English, Spanish, etc. This shaved off hundreds of years of technological development needed, as the Greek's technological advancement spread throughout the land. Barbarians destroyed the unified empire, creating nation states, halting technological development, and the modern social classes. For the good or worse is an individual case.
In fact, America was developing their own variation of this. The Mayans were the technological but disunified empire, while the Aztecs were the militaristic empire. In fact, Aztecs had some horrible things done to them (Like the fact they aren't from Mexico, they were far northern up. They were forced from their homelands by a different tribe. And once they built their city on the swamp, they were the underdogs, but like the Romans, they prevailed.). Heck, the Incas were pretty much Grome, they had the technology of Greece with the empire of Rome. Both Aztecs and Incas had a great chance against the Euros. In fact, it was a bad sequence of unfortunate events that destroyed them. If it the Aztecs didn't treat Cortez like a god, and the Incas didn't just have a horrible civil war, both would had easily repelled the few Conquistadors.
Rome, not the Black Death, was the reason Euros won. Greece thought of modern Math, Geometry, Literature, Art, Theatre, Construction, among other things. However, they were the weak city states, and while Alexander made a brief empire, it was not to last (Except for making Greece a little more unified, and adding Macedonia into it). Enter Rome, a city built on the seven hills. They were an extremely lucky city, there was a powerful, unified empire to the north, and colonies of technologically advanced people to the south. They prevailed over both, but the Greek colonies to the south were very important. The Romans fell in love with the Hellenistic culture (Except for their language, which is why Greek has little to no relatives
) They then spread the ideas of the Hellenistic culture throughout England, France, Iberia, and Northern Africa, assimilating them and creating the modern Franks, English, Spanish, etc. This shaved off hundreds of years of technological development needed, as the Greek's technological advancement spread throughout the land. Barbarians destroyed the unified empire, creating nation states, halting technological development, and the modern social classes. For the good or worse is an individual case.
In fact, America was developing their own variation of this. The Mayans were the technological but disunified empire, while the Aztecs were the militaristic empire. In fact, Aztecs had some horrible things done to them (Like the fact they aren't from Mexico, they were far northern up. They were forced from their homelands by a different tribe. And once they built their city on the swamp, they were the underdogs, but like the Romans, they prevailed.). Heck, the Incas were pretty much Grome, they had the technology of Greece with the empire of Rome. Both Aztecs and Incas had a great chance against the Euros. In fact, it was a bad sequence of unfortunate events that destroyed them. If it the Aztecs didn't treat Cortez like a god, and the Incas didn't just have a horrible civil war, both would had easily repelled the few Conquistadors.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Nitpicking perhaps, but I might point out that Germany and Scandinavia stayed relatively outside the areas of Roman power, although Roman cultural influence did penetrate their borders. There's arguments to be made regarding just how the Anglo-Saxons (English) picked up Roman culture after their invasion of the Britannic Isles (400-600ish AD) although it is generally accepted that Latin made its way into the English language following the Norman Conquest.
I suppose my point is that you are thinking of the Celts when you speak of England and France, in that the Angles and Franks would come many years later, and only pick up Roman culture and language through military defeat/victory and adaptation.
I suppose my point is that you are thinking of the Celts when you speak of England and France, in that the Angles and Franks would come many years later, and only pick up Roman culture and language through military defeat/victory and adaptation.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
Exactly, Rome made Europe the developed continent we know of today. This is why they are more developed then the Aztecs and Incas.
Kinda wrong. If the Incas weren't in civil war, I would agree their vast empire would have repelled the 2000ish Conquistadors. However the Aztecs wouldn't have. Your forgetting that after the fighting begun the Conquistadors prooved that gunpowder matters more the numbers.
In one battler:
250 conquistadors
5000 cant remember the name of the tribe that was helping them
took on 30000 Aztecs and won.
And lets say the conquistadors did loose. Guess what would have happened. Spain would have sent more people over. Spain had the power of numbers, with Europe having 4 times the population of the Americas at the time. Spain had the power of gunpowder, meaning better soldiers. Spain had the power of experience. There is no way the Spanish could have lost to the Aztecs and Incas.
Also, the Aztecs had the home advantage.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Please, Omega, don't encourage the ignorance present here. There were a lot of factors that assured victory for the Spanish, perhaps least of them their possession of gunpowder. The Spanish had control of the seas, with large enough vessels to transport hundreds of soldiers and colonists, alongside the Papal support necessary to raise a force of that size and command it with the prescribed authority.
The reason that Europe prevailed over the Americas, while overtly appearing to be a difference of technology, was more that Europe was socially prepared for colonialism. That is, that Europe had the correct social demographics and situations that allowed such efforts to be undertaken. These social demographics were not a result of technological prowess other than various sanitary technologies available to Europe that would have been impractical in the Americas, but the result of a growing "revolutionary", movement that would sweep away the affairs of feudalism and medieval life, preparing Europe for the industrial revolution, which came about in Europe not so much because of the technology present in the region, but because of the social conditions.
Columbus's expeditionary voyages made colonialism an option for Europe, and moved the "center of the world", away from the Mediterranean which had previously represented the height of average means and social advancement, to the Atlantic areas such as Spain and Britain, not to mention the Reformation which took a hold of Atlantic Europe (far less under the sway of the Papacy than the Mediterranean save for Spain) and introduced a form of religion less constricting to organization and scientific thought, propelling western Europe into social and technological change.
Ultimately, the reason that Britain and France were to win the colonial race for the Americas, and the rest of the world, as opposed to Spain is that Spain remained for many years firmly in the grip of the Papacy which maintained its ancient and staid Catholic rites and inhibitions towards new and different thoughts. Illustrating this, it is safe to say that Europe's colonialism was more a social movement, than a technological one.
The reason that Europe prevailed over the Americas, while overtly appearing to be a difference of technology, was more that Europe was socially prepared for colonialism. That is, that Europe had the correct social demographics and situations that allowed such efforts to be undertaken. These social demographics were not a result of technological prowess other than various sanitary technologies available to Europe that would have been impractical in the Americas, but the result of a growing "revolutionary", movement that would sweep away the affairs of feudalism and medieval life, preparing Europe for the industrial revolution, which came about in Europe not so much because of the technology present in the region, but because of the social conditions.
Columbus's expeditionary voyages made colonialism an option for Europe, and moved the "center of the world", away from the Mediterranean which had previously represented the height of average means and social advancement, to the Atlantic areas such as Spain and Britain, not to mention the Reformation which took a hold of Atlantic Europe (far less under the sway of the Papacy than the Mediterranean save for Spain) and introduced a form of religion less constricting to organization and scientific thought, propelling western Europe into social and technological change.
Ultimately, the reason that Britain and France were to win the colonial race for the Americas, and the rest of the world, as opposed to Spain is that Spain remained for many years firmly in the grip of the Papacy which maintained its ancient and staid Catholic rites and inhibitions towards new and different thoughts. Illustrating this, it is safe to say that Europe's colonialism was more a social movement, than a technological one.
Claiming the Black Death made Europe great is a ridiculous argument. You might as well claim that the Great Plague of 1665 made London great. What it did do is pretty much end the era of the villein overnight and set up the conditions for such events as the Peasants' Revolt of 1377.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
Thank you, Arakhor.
Omega124
Challenging Fate
May I please ask why the fudging hell we're having this debate, anyways?
Link
Scarves
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2009
- Messages
- 1,706
How would they send more people if their explorers were dead and they had know way of knowing what had occured?
It's possible, but unlikely. The Incas would have adapted to Spanish weapons (and did), but they had no defense against the diseases that were cutting down their forces.
The Aztecs almost did defeat the Spanish, in fact. IIRC more than half of the Conquistadors were slaughtered when they were expelled from Tenochtitlan under Cuitlahac. The Spanish only survived due to the Aztecs' enemies helping them and help them besiege Tenochtitlan by the tens of thousands.
A smallpox-induced disparity, mind you. Still, it took forty years for the Spanish to pacify Peru.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
So, Cannon beats stone city in rl. According to my source, the Aztecs had 7 million when Cortez started killing them. The Aztecs would have lost no matter what.
The Aztecs prophesied fall of civilization was on the date the Spanish took their capital.
The prophesied end of the world is December 20th 2012.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
I admitted they relied on there help, but if the conquistadors did all die, Spain would have sent reinforcements.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
ilDuce, you're still missing the point. And you're thinking of the Mayans, not the Aztecs.
ilduce349
(Financial, Philo)
No, I'm not missing the point. The point is Spain would have beaten the Aztecs no matter what.
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
No. The point is that had conditions in Europe been even slightly different, Spain may not have had the chance to make the voyage at all. To simply wipe away the fact that Spain has to supply the conquistadors with food and weaponry, as well as the logistics involved in that, is a massive fallacy and historical inaccuracy. The first "battle", the Spanish fought against the Aztecs was an abject defeat, in which the Spanish fled Tenochtitlan. Ultimately the Spaniards had to take allies in the Aztecs' long enemies, the Tlaxcala.
You've over-simplified the equation involved in Spain's conquest of the Aztecs, and missed the point that they were able to do so not because of their technological capabilities so much as the social circumstances that made it possible for them to send that many people across the Atlantic with the goal of enlarging Spain's territory.
