Why, since early modern era West was developing faster than China, and rest of far east? East Asians are intelligent and Confucianism is quite reasonable: it encourages hard work and discipline. In Imperial China's administration there were some elements of meritocracy.
If I had to say now, why it happed that way I would point:
>Some sects in ancient Greece were fascinated by pure mathematics because of their faith in world of ideas and reason/body dualism . It was beginning of our scientific tradition. I know I oversimplified.
>Catholic priesthood as class of (lets say) intellectuals led to establishing universities.
>Weaker authority of rulers in middle ages stopped them from oppressing burglars by excessive taxation and red tape.
>Many competing centers of powers (sovereign rulers, other feudals, the Church, towns' local governments)
>simpler writing system.
>white people have more testosterone, so the are more dynamic (?)
I am not sure about Max Webber's theory, that because Confucian junzi knows its place in harmonic society, and Christian saint as tool of God wants to reform world, Christian society is more dynamic.
What do you think about that?
Why the West developed faster then the East
Europe and by extension northern Africa and the Middle East had greater diversity amongst themselves leading to accelerated development through a melting pot of trade and warfare. China was a lot more stable than Europe making less of an incentive to innovate and develop technologies and even when they did innovate Europe was quick to adopt it and improve it.
>China was a lot more stable than Europe making less of an incentive to innovate and develop technologies and even when they did innovate Europe was quick to adopt it and improve it.
>China was a lot more stable than Europe
Was the difference really that great?
en.wikipedia.org
>Why the West developed faster then the East
It didn't, the West has THOUSANDS of years of additional development over the East.
Political decentralization was a boon for late medieval/early modern Europe. If China had a retarded emperor (which happened periodically), that whole part of East Asia was fucked. If Portugal was retarded, Spain or France or someone else might be making good policies. Look at how Zheng He got fucked over by the emperor versus how Christopher Columbus was able to speak to multiple kings about sponsoring a voyage.
European states were the first """globalist""" (i use that term loosely) states in the planet in that they had complete access to many resources the world over acquired via their colonies or trade.
This was especially true by the 1700s
What do you mean? 1700 BC there already bronze age civilization in China.
Mediterranean trade and the temperate grain growing regions of Europe provided good conditions for the renaissance.
>If China had a retarded emperor (which happened periodically), that whole part of East Asia was fucked.
Wrong.jpg. China isn't Rome in the sense that it is headed by an autocratic dictator. The office of the Grand Secretariat and the Three Departments and 10 Ministries- the official governing organ of China- would be there to assess, advise, and even counter everything he does. There have been *many* incidences when China was cursed with a retarded Emperor, only to be pulled together by a capable prime minister. Pic related, a very famous one.
The problem would be if that organ was corrupt. Which is how many revolts against dynasties tend to start.
>Look at how Zheng He got fucked over by the emperor versus how Christopher Columbus was able to speak to multiple kings about sponsoring a voyage.
Well, what the fuck would you want the Hongxi Emperor do? Continue fuck-expensive trade missions with a fleet of what essentially are luxury cruise liners guarded by warships in expeditions whose sole mission is designed to impress the Spice Route city states (which they have already done, 5 times)? Or reroute funding to the northern Defenses because the Mongols got their shit together (again) under the Four Oirats Confederacy, who were gearing to invade China yet again?
>East Asians
>smart
Implying?
>Douglas MacArthur.
>Smart.
Why are you adding full stops like newfag?
Also wrong. The emperor was more than a figurehead, and if he was an incompetent or unwilling administrator it created real problems.
The Wanli Emperor spent 20 years on strike from participating in government, which left many top positions unfilled and gave the Manchus freedom of action on China's northern border.
We call those "periods," friendo.
A "full stop" is that woman thing.
Ian Morris' theory.
m.youtube.com
Ian Morris rejects the "long term advantage" theory of the West, as he estimates that the Far East was more technologically advanced than the West from the Fall of Rome to the 16th century.
Western advancement was spurred on by the imperatives and the resources of the New World.
Technology and advancesments happen in response to a challenge, or a pressing need. Western Europe had the need to find a way to cross the Atlantic to supply their colonies, as well as ship the extracted raw materials back to Europe. Europeans became the best astronomers, because they had to make the longest open water journeys, and the stars were the most reliable optio . They became the best mathmaticians, because long distance dead reckoning requires complex math. They became the best mechanists, because you need very accurate and rugged clocks to calculate longitude for navigation. All these advances culminated in Europeans formalizing the scientific method, and developing a systematic way to research new technology.
bump
Interesting. I think he emphasizes geography too much and ignores how cultures react to geography, resources, and technological advancements
>Emperor was a figurehead
Wasn't saying that.
What I was saying is the Emperor is not alone in the decision making process like a modern autocratic dictator.
This desu
He does address the last 3, in that resources and technology change what geography means to a people, and the culture of a people is heavily influenced by the geography of their formative region.
The example he gives is how the arrival of 2 technologies change how Western Europeans see the Atlantic Ocean. The combination of complex ships with full rigging and waterproof compartments makes it possible to sail across the Atlantic, and guns to kill the people on the other side once they get there completely change European culture and the way certain technologies are viewed.
Think about the other possible examples as well. In the 150-200 years after when Spainards introduced the horse, plains indian tribes changed their entire culture to revolve around horses. Having horses changes everything about life on the great plains. Tribes that could only scratch out a meager existence saw their populations explode because horses allowed them to hunt buffalo much more effectively. This is actually a combination of resources (horses) and technology (horse domestication) that allowed this change.
because europe was closer to the cradle of civilization that rome was built on and after rome collapsed europe just swooped in and stole everything and went to china and stole gunpowder which basically allowed them to secure more resources and put their technological advancements into overdrive
>why did west beat east every time always
It didn't, you are just biased towards the current age, because you live in it.
Grossly oversimplified to the point of being retarded.
>Catholic priesthood as class of (lets say) intellectuals led to establishing universities.
'Universities' were already a thing before Christianity ala Academy and Libraries
There are obvious flaws in his argument. Most of the advances in navigation and seafaring were made in the 15th century before the discover of America and "rugged clocks" that could remain accurate while on a rocking ship and advances in optics did not come along until long after.
en.wikipedia.org
The only way he could be so irrational is if he is a pseudoscientist with some kind of bias or agenda.
>China was a lot more stable than Europe
This seriously makes me laugh, the Chinese people spend more than half of their time killing each other after 1AD
They're the people who are good at killing their own people, look at Mao
Norks nearly won though, they could have pushed the US out korea in the beginning
Colonies
bump
Identity, apart from the Japanese the East never developed localised identities like Europe did.