Is 1492 the most important year in Western history?

Okay you retard.
When you have an achievement, the peak of it isn't the most important part. Its the point where you started rising towards the peak.

To give your shithead an example you can comprehend:
For Bill Gate's career wasn't the most important point the point where he became the richest man on the planet. It was when he founded Microsoft as a company.

>Hurr durr dem whites are bettr bc i they r white!
Read a book you idiot. Eurocentric revisionism was rebuked a long time ago. Check about how much of an impact on world economy the Chinese had. Also Europeans tried to colonise both China and its' tributaries, such as the Taiwanese and Chinese of Lanfang and Manchuria. All of them failed or gained some land after DECADES of conflict with primitive natives, Qing and Ming rulers generally thought whites weren't worth their time, so they only supported their tributaries with material help and token force. Even as far as 1900 Chinese Hui Muslims still inflicted enormous loses on better equiped Europeans.

>>Hurr durr dem whites are bettr bc i they r white!
Didn't even read farther than that. You're a fucking idiot and you're looking to race-bait

Definitely. Even India was the match of Europe up until the mid seventeenth century.

European civilization conquered the world for three reasons: ocean-going ships, gunpowder weapons, and later the exploitation of oil.

No oil, and decolonization looks like the post-Mongol world order, European elites ruling empires across the world; rather than the consolidation of the Western world order we got in real life.

It's definitely the most important year for Indigenous American History.
Ouch.

The Resurrection of Christ is the most important event for both Western and general history.

Hans you live in a western country for a reason. The asian meme is just that. A meme. China was just relevant through porcelain. Other than that it was pretty pointless on a global sacle

>European civilization conquered the world for three reasons: ocean-going ships, gunpowder weapons, and later the exploitation of oil.

You mean because of enlightement and scientific achievements that followed?

China wasn't always that great, I can understand that, but the birth of Si Wenming is traditionally considered the start of the golden age in China. Read more.
>Be illiterate
>Resort to ad hominem
Into trash it goes
India eventually got conquered many times in history, China at its' weakest merely got their dynasty killed off.

Anyone who had those resources would have developed those things. Europe got the resources for those things because they were one of the first to develop ocean-going ships (stone age Polynesians beat them by a thousand years), and they were among those who used gunpowder weapons.

>India eventually got conquered many times in history, China at its' weakest merely got their dynasty killed off.

You are claiming China was never ruled by conquerors from outside China?

When India gets conquered, Indians are ruled by Arabic, Turkic or British speaking people who still speak their native languages for centuries to come. When China loses a part of their territory (Mongols took only the northern dynasty) the victors start speaking Chinese after two generations. Frankly it's just another proof of superior Chinese culture, administration and statecraftsmanship.

>Anyone who had those resources would have developed those things.
Wrong. Unique European philosophy and wolrd-view goes back thousands of years. Saying the enlightenment and scientific revolution happened because of fucking ships is the most retarded thing i've ever heard.

Your entire argument consists of telling people to go to different boards and complaining when someone uses the same retarded argument yourself just made. I knew all Chinafags were like this.

Then China was conquered by foreigners.

>Whatabautism
Fuck off
When?

Agreed

Then you believe these developments would have taken place if Europeans never conquered any overseas territory?

Yuan Dynasty.

After the mongol conquests; rulers were using Chinese administration and started speaking Chinese.

So after the conquests you say didn't happen, rulers used existing bureaucracy to maintain their rule?

Like the British in India.

House of Lords isn't an Indian institution, queen Victoria didn't speak Hindi.

The consensus is that there is a gap in development between medieval Europe and the China and Middle East prior to the 17th century.
However, as a reaction to Western historiocentrism, there has been a tendency to argue that the West was incomparable to these society in any manner. The Crusades, the rise of the Caliphate, and the Mongol Empire are all demonstration of less societies overwhelming “greater ones.” In terms of military, organization is often the only relevant factor.
Now, 1492 is not the beginning. There was no saying at that point where colonization would go and how far it would advance. The most important stage is when the fruits of colonization had changed European society irreversibly.
However, 1839 is too far ahead. Britain completely wiped out Chinese forces during the Opium War. If we follow your logic that China was the world’s preeminent power throughout history, it logically necessitates that sometime before 1839, Britain had already surpassed China.
I’m not familiar enough with Europe to select a specific year. But I suspect it would correspond to the late Ming dynasty, was decline resulted partially from the influx of silver form the New World. Anyhow, when the West created a global, maritime “Silk Trade” and embraced mercantilism, the West finally started on its path to unprecedented cultural and political global domination.

>Self-hating Honk-kongian
That's all I understand from your post

...

>Britain completely wiped out Chinese forces during the Opium War.

During engagements they chose.

Plus let us not forget that to the Chinese, the British were the equivalent of the Mexican or Colombian cartels. Their empire was actually built on smuggling drugs.

>Anyhow, when the West created a global, maritime “Silk Trade” and embraced mercantilism, the West finally started on its path to unprecedented cultural and political global domination.

But it would have puttered out if they didn't exploit coal at the right time.

Except Victoria was fluent in written Hindi and knew how to speak it, too. It's befitting to your subjects to learn at least a little about their language, you know?

How about the direct rulers of India?

Did Victoria move her capital to Delhi?

The British raids on the Chinese coast, and I call them raids because they actually occupied a tiny fraction of territory, are comparable to viking raids. Defeating the standing forces of a country is wholly different from conquest. Not to mention the UK was the predominant western power, having previously defeated almost all the other western powers at some point, and whose most serious rivalry was with Russia. Russia incidentally has an actual land border with China, yet did not conquer it. It would be a whole different ballgame if say Portugal had defeated China, but for the number 1 maritime power in the world to do it, you have to expect more than just battles and diplomatic concessions, if they could have added China to their lasting conquests, they would have, just as India was absorbed.

Empires are founded on conquests. And make no mistake, ultimately the British empire collapsed, while China at least retained territorial integrity. A political system can be defeated but a true nation can outlast political systems.

China is an island.