Why did Western civilization become more advanced?

[LightSpectra]

Why is it that the West is the one that first came upon advanced weaponry, human rights, liberal democracy, etc.? The Islamic world was far more advanced during the Middle Ages, and the East was far richer. Why is it that the West became eventually became more advanced?

 

[TheLastOne36]

In europe, there are many many MANY different ethnic groups and civilizations all trying to become more dominant then the other. Being more advanced then your neighbors was a way to become more dominant. (if you play civ 4, then think of it this way, If you discover Rifling, then you have an advantage over your neighbors as riflemen are stronger then muskets or maces.)

This race to become more advanced to be more dominant, is what made Europe more advanced while in china where there was only one group of people and therefore, didn't advance as fast.

The Islamic world, became like china, more unified and the race to become more advanced ended for them.

That is also why the native americans of North America were not as advanced as the rest of the world. The lack of people caused a lack of competition. And there religious "ideas" of thinking the land is belonged not to them but to the gods(or something) certainly didn't help. While in Meso-America and the Incas were more advanced because the competition was there.

 

[Cutlass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
Get the book and read it. It'll answer a lot of your questions. For other parts of the answer, China was centrally controlled by a leadership that made a deliberate choice to focus inward and turn it's back on the world and technology. So just as the Renaissance was waking up Europe, China was going to sleep. The Arabs were very advanced through much of what was in Europe the dark ages, but they were devastated by the Mongols and never truly recovered. The Turks were corrupt to a point where they were stagnant. I'm unclear what the issue in India was.

Europe on the other hand had a lot of both commercial and military competition, and an explosion of intellectual inquiry. There was no power suppressing progress.

 

[scy12]

Maybe someone other can answer regarding the Medieval state of the western world , but i believe one should look at the Enlightenment and what followed from it like the scientific method , questioning of Religion , Rebellions around the world. Now if you ask what caused the Enlightenment in the western world i don't know exactly i must research it more.

 

[Shaihulud]

I wouldn't like to say that the scientific method was a unique discovery, not to be replicated by other society, but imo, it was the determining factor that allows Western civiliztion to become more advanced. It has the right kind of society/culture that encourages its growth, so it is the way people think that makes them more advance. I think the competition among equals is propably a good impetus as well.

 

[aronnax]

In europe, there are many many MANY different ethnic groups and civilizations all trying to become more dominant then the other. Being more advanced then your neighbors was a way to become more dominant. (if you play civ 4, then think of it this way, If you discover Rifling, then you have an advantage over your neighbors as riflemen are stronger then muskets or maces.)

This race to become more advanced to be more dominant, is what made Europe more advanced while in china where there was only one group of people and therefore, didn't advance as fast.

The Islamic world, became like china, more unified and the race to become more advanced ended for them.

That is also why the native americans of North America were not as advanced as the rest of the world. The lack of people caused a lack of competition. And there religious "ideas" of thinking the land is belonged not to them but to the gods(or something) certainly didn't help. While in Meso-America and the Incas were more advanced because the competition was there.

What about India? Hundreds of state, cramped together, outcompeting each other but failed to become top dog?

 

[Sharwood]

What about India? Hundreds of state, cramped together, outcompeting each other but failed to become top dog?

Because India was too divided. There were no true long-lasting nation-states. Most of the Empires had little to no coastal territory, and were primarily concerned with land expansion. The states that needed new territory, didn't have the resources. The states that did have the resources, had no interest.

Europe's (and the Iberian nations in particular) unique situation fed the Voyages of Discovery, and those voyages led to new economic prosperity, surpassing that gained during the crusades. At the same time, the Byzantine Empire had fallen, and many of its intellectuals and artists fled to Western Europe, in particular Italy. This led directly to the Renaissance. Basically, Europe got lucky.

 

[aronnax]

Okay, how about the Chola Empire. A tamil Kingdom that control most of South India which practised the art of a Maritime Empire. The Cholas had control in Malaysia and Sumatra

 

[Sharwood]

Okay, how about the Chola Empire. A tamil Kingdom that control most of South India which practised the art of a Maritime Empire. The Cholas had control in Malaysia and Sumatra

There were exceptions of course. But the Cholas disappeared around the 13th century I think - Indian history is not my specialty, which is why I'm watching the Mughal thread with great interest - and were at their height in the 10th century. They had trade with Japan, but so far as I know never looked West. And why would they? Arabia and Africa could hardly have appealed to them, and most of the trade with Europe still travelled overland through Persia. The Cholas were not in a position to discover America from the East, and kept to the coast, meaning they were unlikely to be swept all the way there from the West, and equally unlikely to find Australia. They didn't have the desire to find new trade routes like Spain and Portugal.

And their technology stalled precisely because they had no real competition to start with. Technological innovation requires something of a spark, and the Cholas never got one.

 

[WICKLC1]

I don't want to sound racist, but if you look at the "out of Africa" theory: humanity started in Africa and spread out. The more motivated and adventurous people would have moved to better land during droughts, no animals to hunt, etc. Those people eventually came to Europe,the middle east, and Asia and founded great empires and discovered new technologies, while the people who stayed behind in Africa countinued to live the same way they had for thousands of years, and continued to do so until recent times. This would explain the lack of civiliztion in Africa, but I don't know why Europe went ahead of Asia and the middleast, because there was some competition in those areas.

 

[Sharwood]

I don't want to sound racist, but if you look at the "out of Africa" theory: humanity started in Africa and spread out. The more motivated and adventurous people would have moved to better land during droughts, no animals to hunt, etc. Those people eventually came to Europe,the middle east, and Asia and founded great empires and discovered new technologies, while the people who stayed behind in Africa countinued to live the same way they had for thousands of years, and continued to do so until recent times. This would explain the lack of civiliztion in Africa, but I don't know why Europe went ahead of Asia and the middleast, because there was some competition in those areas.

Not quite. Much of Africa was very easy to live in without ever needing to reach for 'higher' civilisation. Most of the rest of it didn't suit the sort of large scale agriculture that places like Mesopotamia and Egypt did. Civilisation then spread from those "cradles" into other areas, like Europe.

People always migrated in searh of food, territory, or because they were forced too, in Africa longer than anywhere else. So your hypothesis fails. If it were true, the Aborigines would be the most advanced people on Earth.

 

[Dann]

One word: Motivation.

Look at the world of the late Middle Ages/Renaissance.

The Mongols are gone. The Byzantine Empire has fallen. The Ottoman Empire now straddles the middle of the Eurasia. The Islamic world controls both the Silk Road and maritime trade in the western half of the Indian Ocean all the way down to East Africa (gold, ivory etc.). India controls the eastern half and shares Southeast Asian trade (spices) with China. China totally dominates the Far East.

The Islamic world quickly grow smug and complacent. And why should they not be? Everything that everybody else needs now has to pass through them.

India for its part has always been extremely content. Apart from some luxuries she produces everything she needs. The outside world holds no attraction for her. Every invader from outside the subcontinent that comes along ends up relinquishing their territories outside and choosing to become a true Indian state instead. Is that not proof enough of their cultural and spiritual superiority?

China generally shares the same attitude as India (except for being more expansionist whenever its strength allows) but at least tried to eh... test the waters. Results were disappointing. The Ming voyages saw no worthy lands to conquer. Simply put, the homeland was far richer. Conquering and maintaining colonies would not be a cost efficient endeavor.

Now contrast this with Europeans of the time. Limited land, growing population, competition and conflict, survival of the fittest. Any way at all to bypass the Ottomans would be a good thing. Such an environment is paradise for thinkers, the wilder the better since rulers would literally grasp at straws, unlike the centralized realms of the old empires where any new idea will have to go through a gauntlet of bureaucracy, and where the bean counter guys would quickly shoot down any idea that is "economically unfeasible". Can you imagine a Chinese Columbus getting sponsorship from the emperor? He'd be laughed out of court instead.

And thus Europeans were fated to be the ones who would accidentally 'discover' the Americas (gold! Gold! GOLD!), and gained control of the spice trade. They are the ones who have all the motivation to colonize, as their colonies are much more productive than the homeland. With the sudden shifting of territorial and resource balance it's easy to see why in a couple centuries Europe caught up and surpassed the old empires. Industrialization was but the clincher and the final nail in the coffin.

 

[chad187]

The ottoman empire was going to be the next great power untill the nations of westeren europe discovered the new world which boosted there economy which put them ahead.

 

[Commodore Nate]

European culture fosters competition and, at the time, allowed for -limited- dissent.
So really, everything everyone else has said already.

 

[Sharwood]

The ottoman empire was going to be the next great power untill the nations of westeren europe discovered the new world which boosted there economy which put them ahead.

It would also have collapsed like every other great power. Spain was the real threat to the rest of Europe, with a large, well trained, , well equipped and experienced military. Ferdinand and Isabella had to to something with them, or they would likely have turned on the people. So no voyages of discovery, you could very well end up with Spain seeking territorial expansion in Europe - although Africa was more likely.

 

[allunderheaven]

For one thing, I know that China was at the time was quite content, it could produce anything it needed and was superior in its region and so they grew so full of themselves that they felt that the outside world had little to offer them.

 

[Sharwood]

The first that had human rights? Liberal democracy?

You're joking? Right?

If he's including Greece in the West, he's right. If not, he's probably talking about the Age of Reason, when many things, including democracy and 'human rights', were rediscovered.

 

[Princeps]

Superior race and free markets. Obviously.

 

[scy12]

Greece may been part of the west. However with the fall of the Roman empire , much of Europe was ignorant of that knowledge . As Europeans rediscovered ancient Greek thinking so did the Arabs and much earlier than they did. So i don't think that the rediscovery of Greek ideas is only a western thing. But then again the western world had not always surpassed the Islamic world.

 

[philippe]

i did a study on this, I come to the conclusion that different factors, (maybe I'll write a bit more this evening about this subject)

First you need to know there was a time of what is called "substitentieminimum" which means there was just enough agricultural output to support pop. with in the medieval ages agricultural techniques improved, cities growing and universities being founded set the basis for a chain of revolutions in all kinds of areas, such as juicidal factors, for one a company founded in middle-eastern countries would dissolve after the death of the owner, and in where in Europe these companies could keep on existing without being divided. Also The protection of merchants vs their own rulers with constiutions, privileges and treates created a factor of stability. the stronger position of women in England and the less children that need to be fed becuase of this played a part.

Anyway, it set off all kinds of revolutions which interacted with each other, scientific, military, and so on.

Anyway, China was very similar with europe on the technological field but due to certain factors (like the isiolationism pointed out) Europe catched up and eventually got to be the first area where the industrial revolution happened.

ps: remind me to write it out more fully when i get back home from work .