What made Europeans so successful? What caused the shift in importance from the east to the west...

You could call this moving the goal posts but name one eastern european country other than Russia that successfully colonized. The Europeans who colonized the world were all Latins who certainly did not see the Byzantines as Europeans.

>Renaissance
*Black Plague

How was Iran ever under the European sphere of influence?

Why is Turkey not part of Europe on this map?

>what is the great game

>Europe has always had a much larger economy than the middle East and india

'no'

Europe was in a civilizational take-off process since the ~1000ad, but it wasn't until the Renaissance when it could actually take the edge.

And this happened because of exploration, discoveries, conquest and 'trade' aka economic exploitation of the extra-yuropean world. Then you got the ball rolling because with that comes the maritime mercantile companies, banking, insurance houses, bureaucrats, administrative personnel, soldiers, economic policies and theories to maximize the jewery and the rising of Capitalism as muh ideal and hardworking entrepreneur superior economic system. Born out of plain robbery.

It's like nobility. The original nobles were the thugs of the niggahood.

Europe is a continent therefore everyone living in it is European. Colonization is not a factor to being a European. Eastern Europe had it's own fair share of achievements, it's just not in the colonial field.

Soviet and British occupation

Population shifts plus massively differing culture.

They benefitted from Asian technology through diffusion from the East and then combined that with pure natural resources from the Americas. The combination made them get crazy ahead and blob

Eastern Europe has a low population density and Turks controlled the remaining areas. There were only two relevant countries in the area for a long time, of course it had a low success turnout.

>The Europeans who colonized the world were all Latins who certainly did not see the Byzantines as Europeans.
>source: my ass

Europe did not exist as a concept at the time, but Christendom did, and saying that Catholics didn't consider Byzantines as part of Christendom is just ignorant.

>everyone living in Europe is European
Sure thing, Mehmet

Europe was connected to Mediterranean trade and had good exposure to technology in the old world, whereas China and India were quite isolated.

From the 11th century onwards western European agriculture had become developed allowing high populations and good urbanization, Italy of course had large urban centers since Roman times.

From the 13th century onwards trade outside the Mediterranean increased in volume.

During the 15th century, technology became more important, being ahead just a few decades gave one country a very strong advantage. Technology also became more dependent on large capital investments and well developed institutions and trade.

Gaining an initial advantage gavee them a much larger advantage later on, a positive feedback loop, most notably Spain and Portugal and its colonies, though also the burgeoning manufacturing and trade centers in France, the low countries and later England.

Guns, germs and steel

THIS 2BH
H
I
S

2
B
H

>Europe mattered just about zero between the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. It
Not true, Europe did not disappear from the world for over a 1000 years.

Sorry champ, Veeky Forums has no upvote system, so stop trying.

Daily reminder that calitalism was invented in the middle east and many economic theories from the enlightenment were borrowed from Islamic scholars like Ibn Khladun.

Didn't they just concede land to the Russians?

Thanks for the (you) have a (you) too

Youre correct I generalized there European as a concept didn't exist, but the schism between East and West happened in 1054. They may have been "Christian" but they were accepted just as much as neostorians were. esp. after Latin massacures in 1182.

As far as Byzantium is concerned, the Western Europeans live in a different, niggerously barbarian world.

Proofs?
Also it doesn't matter were some theories were created, it matyers were capitalism was first brought to practiceon a large scale which was in Italy, although I might change my mind if you provide proofs of actual capitalism happening on a large scale in the muslim world

>Remember, Europe mattered just about zero between the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.

No, not really. If you really want to be conservative, you could say Europe became relevant when they were able to organize the crusades but it's easy to argue they were before already.

>It wasn't until the New World was discovered that old trade routes shifted

You're talking as if the trade routes shifting was a natural phenomenon. The trade routes were shifted by the Euros, on purpose.

And remember that there was no "global relevancy" before Europeans. Only regional relevancy.

Good answer The short answer: The new world
The long answer: Europe had internal competition, population boom and many willing settlers (puritans or people who just simply didn't have land)

I think the massive amount of competition between European nations is underestimated/not talked about enough.

This pretty much but trade routes were shifted cause Mamelukes denied Europeans access to Silk Road trade. hence Columbus looking for India when he sailed to the Americas

>Chinese thoughts on Europe in the year 1300: lol who cares?

>Indian subcontinental thoughts on Europe in the year 1300: lol who cares?

>Levantine thoughts on Europe in the year 1300: lol come get some more, shitters

>Persian thoughts on Europe in the year 1300: lol who cares?

>Mongol thoughts on Europe in the year 1300: lol who cares?

>European thoughts on Europe in the year 1300: oh shit what are all these pustules, better rub arsenic on them *dies*

And the mamelukes were conquered by the turks after the Portuguese made it their dream effort to shift all trade away from egypt to impoverish the mamelukes so they could capture muhammads corpse and secure jerusalem, it's weird how the Portuguese helped the Ottomans but they did

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism_and_Islam

Sources online are scarce, I've mostly read about it in books and journals. It's not something widely acknowledged in western academia.

That is because the muslim world didn't have capitalism, it had proto-capitalism and would lag behind in this aspect during the Ottoman age, because muslim rulers did not understand the value of capitalism
Still amazing how complex and developped trade was in the muslim world

>Trade routes and New World
What about Eastern Europe? From the 15th century onward they are more successful than the rest of Eurasia.

It's hard to put eastern europe into one package, nations there developped so differenly compared to each other

Russian attempt to influence Korea and bring them into their sphere was a major cause behind the Russo-Japanese war you blackguard.

Siam was bullied by France and the """""Great""""" Shitstain. Perhaps not officially conquered or put into a sphere, but definitely a bitch of the west.

The only countries that can truly have resisted western imperialism are Liberia and mighty Japan, but I can already tell the mapmaker and OP are both stinky Koreans

>capitalism, it had proto-capitalism
I tend not to make this distinction because capitalism was defined as such by eurocentric Marxists

success works like that. most everything ever done is worthless, but one in a million will actually get something right.

what your map shows is how much that occasion matters.

Wow great arguments. I'm convinced!

PLC was powerful but became puppet state of France, Austria or Russia or 1700s. Russia is the only Eastern European power that maintained its dominance and thats because it had resource rich areas to expand to like the west had new world

>resource rich areas

Well it's clearly not as developped, simply compare how the Ottoman economy developped with the economies of western europe, large scale investment, business venues and stock markets were not as invested in or developped by the state and as a result capitalism was underdevelopped, meanwhile in europe states did understand the value of these things and invested in them, showing that they had a more developped understanding of these things.
That in itself is already a huge difference and enough to make a distinction

GUNS
GERMS
STEEL

As we all know, Europe got rich by selling curry to Indians and black slaves to West Africans. It's all about the trade routes.

Seriously though, how does an inherently internal activity like white people reselling spices to other white people lead to external influence?

It gave them motivation to move out, but wanting to do something doesn't give you the power to do it.

>Europe mattered just about zero between the Roman Empire and the Renaissance
t. irrelevant autist

Maybe you should make your distinctions in Arabic.

Cultural Superiority, specifically constant competition and seldom periods of complacency.

That is more Geopolitical than Cultural though

Shouldn't Japan be the same colour as China? There was partial Yuropoor influence, not as much as China but it was there.

That one orange spec in Africa is also confusing me.

That orange spec is Liberia, a state created by the USA, so it's technically not European

They managed their guns, germs, and steel correctly while everyone else did not.

Oh right, thanks

Shit map desu, pic related is more accurate

Iran and Afghanistan were conquered by Alexander. They should be green as well.

>Since the 14th century there has been an unprecedented value the West has accumulated that was never matched.

That's just your western perspective

In reality, the western world can only brag about capitalism and liberalism. Those things are distinctively western things. But in the eastern world there are things which don't have focus in the western world, family values, more group oriented society and values.

So really it's just a matter of perspective.

>Capitalism is western
As much as Gunpowder is Chinese

>Everybody's thoughts on distant place at that time: lol who cares?
Prior to the age of exploration if you didn't share a border or a religion you probably didn't care about eachother.

I think you can simplify any discussion related to this question -

When you think of intelligent life in the universe, and the chances of us meeting other space faring races, etc, you appreciate the odds of finding two similarly advanced societies. Pretty impossible.

Chances were, that one region on our planet would grow to become more dominant, in a lot of ways. Socially it was impossible odds for equality to be across the entire planet.

This fake history shit isn't funny anymore, please stop.

>Also how do you trade in buildings?

You don't have to be able to load it on a camels back to be able to trade it you dense motherfucker.

People sell and buy, a.k.a. trade, houses literally all the time.

And then evolution sealed the deal

Mongols desu

I'll never get why Liberia is always excluded in those maps when it was very literally created by said Western imperialism.

If you'll notice, Europe is in the center of the world, bisecting the eastern and western hemispheres. It makes sense that as technology and wealth increased in the region, it would grow much more influential in trade, exploration and ideas in general. Kinda like how Islam spread through trade in the East through the silk road. It was far reaching and had more impact over time.

>average IQ of America
>not 100
Is this a joke?

>Bosnia
>Albania
>Kosovo

Figures that even in Europe the biggest retards are muslims.

It's 98 actually.

100 IQ is literally defined by the US average.

how would they get an accurate IQ test from best Korea that wasn't 2000?

That was back when there were more white people in the US, user.

So is the iq higher because of better economy or is economy better because of better IQ?

I would think the European exploring factor was a big one. Traveling across the world and colonizing increases the resources and territory available, or opens new trade routes. Furthering economic competition encourages growth in technology and infrastructure.