Is Europe rich because of America?

The states that benefited the most from exploiting the new world, Spain and Portugal, would go on to be largely irrelevant the 19th century. Similarly, Britain and France lost their important New World areas (inb4 "Canada") fairly early.

So no.

Remember the Ottomans? or Qing China? :)

>Europe wouldn't surpass Asia until the 1700's.
Asia was never on top of Europe. Spain was able to create a colony on China's backyard for crying out loud.
Le chinks were relevant is just a chink meme.

Both were BTFO by Europeans

europeans have dominated the world for far longer than 400 years

Historically there's a lot of other factors too. What with the Mongols destroying every other relevant civilization in Eurasia giving Europe the time to catchup.

Spanish Formosa? The Qings retook to twenty years later.
And Spain was in its golden age then too.

What year?

>the Ottomans never conquered any territory in Europe

The Ottoman were BTFO after they had been declining for a really fucking long time, like the Byzantines. Even then they BTFO'd the Greeks occupying them.

The Phillipines and Spain was on the other side of the globe and chinks could do shit as they were useless. Also Portugal had ruled Macao for over 400 years. Chinks are truly useless

All the years that they didn't fought fucking tiny slav kingdoms

The Philippines was never part of China. Why would they get involved?

it goes further back then that. alexander the great singlehandedly dominated half the world at a whim for a 1000 years prior. then it was rome, byzantine and all the off shoots of that through out out the middle ages and the conclusion was french spanish and english colonization of planet earth

no one continent has had its hands in so many pies through out history. europeans have always and will be at the fore front of innovation, futurism and human domination

make them pay money because china center of the universe

>at a whim

His grandfather and father built that army over decades of hard work. How dare you.

The Phillipines was full of chinks even before the Spanish arrived. They just got BTFO by the bottom of the barrel of the Spanish army.

It was due to those Slavic kingdoms that Western Empire was allowed to boom untouched. And tbf the Ottoman Empire was more powerful individually than any European nation in its prime.

How is that meant to mean anything? The way they saw it it was another foreign entity getting taken over. That's like asking why Spanish kingdoms didn't do anything when Tunisia got conquered by the Muslims.

the only accomplishment chinks have throughout history is their ability to resist european domination

apart from they had some very minor sucesess but were always followers or reculsionists. even the arabs had a significantly superior run through out history then the asians

>Btfoing croatia and Serbia and getting BTFO every time you face Spain or Austria means that you are powerful
Lol. The ottomans is a huge roach meme and they wpukd have been BTFO for good if Spain wasn't fighting 5 wars at the time throughout the globe

1,000 years ago, the Islamic world was more developed than dark ages Europe in everything from mathematics to philosophy, engineering to technology, agriculture to medicine; the medieval German nun Hrotsvitha called Islamic Córdoba “the ornament of the world”.

The source of Europe’s success, lies in the Reformation, a revolution in ideas and authority spread by what Martin Luther called “God’s highest and ultimate gift of grace”: the printing press.

Not until 1727 did the Ottoman state permit printing in Arabic script, Islamic clerics did not want the press to undermine their power, and the state – still tied to religion not commerce – had no incentive to overrule them.

The prohibition was one of the great missed opportunities of economic and technological history, a vivid example of the dead hand of religious conservatism.

than*

Europe was more advanced than any muslim shithole by 1200's.

>Philippines.
>Part of China.
>The Phillipines was full of chinks even before the Spanish arrived. They just got BTFO by the bottom of the barrel of the Spanish army.

If you're referring to Limahong's raid, most of the fighting was desperate and done by local Flip subjects. In addition Spain and Ming China cooperated in ridding Limahong. The Ming commander was named "Captain Omoncon" in the Antonio De Morga's "Sucesos de Las Islas Filipinas." The main historical account of early Spanish Colonization here in the Philippines.

As a rule, Spics always quaked in their boots whenever either China or Japan threatened their holdings in Flipdom. It happened twice and was a big reason why Southern Philippines remained Muslim: Spics would suspend all operations and turtle up in their fortified settlements in Northern/Central Philippines whenever some warlord from China or Japan looked to threaten them.

Trading, Africa.

>conquering the world was not an accomplishment

contd.

Spain as a power in Asia is pretty overrated IMO. All they were manage to bitch in the region was our ancestors, and that's because the Philippines was sort of an "empty" spot in Southeast Asia: no great powers resided there. Just a bunch of tribes and tiny kingdoms.

Otherwise, when presented with actual resistance, Spics tend to fold up. As this embarrassing shitshow vs. the DECLINING Khmers showed.

Alexander took an army his father made and pointed his soldiers East to a heavily declined Achaemenid Empire. After his death his empire would unravel and Persia would free itself a short while later in the Parthian Empire.

Congrats. They beat a island from one of the historically most undeveloped places in the world.

The Ottomans declined during the duration of the centuries long Hapsburgs war, which was when every relevant state in Europe teamed up just to take down a single lone empire.

And Croatia and Serbia fought much better than almost any Western Nation would have at that time.

It's about whether Europe could have done so without the Spaniards accidentally finding America and coughing them to death.
The answer is no.

>could europeans have conquered the world if they didnt conquer the world

really got my knickers knotting right now

>Did WesternEurope get to dominate the world the last 400 years because of the benefits of discovering America?
>goes on a completely separate tangent
>what is reading comprehension

>Japan
No.

well america is apart of the world is it not?

under what context would it be possible to "dominate the world" without dominating america also?

Because the world is a very big place and dominating the dying people of America (which is still only a part of the world) is very different from dominating the empires of Qing or the Ottomans or the Safavids or the Mughals. Without the benefits of discovering America that wouldn't really be possible (although the Qings, Mughals and Ottomans moreso fucked themselves).

Pic related. It's you right now.

yeah we made a big play and it paid off

whats your point?

>yeah we made a big play and it paid off
>we
Lol.
The Chinese and Slavs will win in the long run. Screencap my post.

>whats your point?
I'm just answering what the OP asked. No need to get so hostile kiddo.

so what you're saying is the reason europeans control the world is because they controlled the world?

very metaphysical take...

It's okay. We took the gold back. It just moved a little further north in this hemisphere.

>or they would have done it anyway even if they had not discovered it?
>still can't get into reading comprehension

>would europeans of controlled the world
>had they not taken control of the largest continent on said world

very interesting concept....

> And tbf the Ottoman Empire was more powerful individually than any European nation in its prime.

They were extremely powerful, but I would say France was about equal to the Ottomans during their peak.

That's not a diss on the Ottomans, France was extremely dominant in Europe until the mid 1700's.

Arguable that without the wealth of the New World, and the economic, social, and political systems it helped create, Europe would have a much, much harder time trying to take on the great empires of the east.

>The Chinese and Slavs will win in the long run
lol and you have the nerve to call anyone a brainlet
>answering what the OP
but you've provided no proof or evidence other than a blind and uneducated assertion. Need I remind you that the Portuguese and Dutch were the original two main colonizers of Asia and got rich and powerful without American gold? The dutch had the highest standard of living during their heyday. I'm going to assume you don't even know the differences between colonization in the 1700s and mid to late 1800s and how dramatically different the economies were and trade was

>unironically comparing the Americas (which was in the Iron Age iirc) to any of the various empires I listed here
>a continents importance and power is decided by its size
>ergo Australia is the most historically relevant place in the world

Yes. In fact the first incident was a Japanese-started one.

Toyotomi Hideyoshi was trying to make Japan have a bigger imperialist influence in late 1500s Asian politics and among the people he threatened were the Spanish- on account of all the missionaries, supposedly. He threatened governor Dasmarinas (the same cunt that fucked up in Cambodia) that he will Invade the Philippines and massacre/oust every Spaniard there unless they removed all missionaries send tribute to him, Chinese-Emperor Style.

The Spics were tremendously scared that they halted operations in Muslim Mindanao and gathered their forces in their principal cities. They also sent a Domincan priest knowledgable in Chinese- the lingua franca at the time- to talk to Hideyoshi. Fortunately for Spain, Hideyoshi moved on and invaded Korea instead.

>Did WesternEurope get to dominate the world the last 400 years because
europe dominated because it was the first area to undergo the enlightenment.
that is a fact.

Abundance of american gold and silver enormously facilitated accumulation of wealth and disponibility of capital for investment in merchantile and proto-industrial activities.

On the other hand, the portuguese were already on their way to reaching India and Europe in general was already ahead in every aspect to the rest of the world. So even if America were never found, Europeans would have sailed to Asia and conquer places. The capability was there.

But in reality both events complemented and fuel each other. Trade with Orient, though very profitable for 1st hand and even 2nd hand sellers in the european market, was deficitarian for Europe as they would only accept gold and silver as currency for silk, porcelain and etc. Without the influx of american precious metals to sustain it this global trade network would have been difficult to maintain, but as it was there, not only facilitated it but also allowed and spurred the funding of maritime exploration overseas and a capitalist oriented economy in Europe. It was a sort of mutual feedback process.

>lol and you have the nerve to call anyone a brainlet
Eastern Europe has nearly always had more power and relevancy than the West. PLC for a quick example. And Russia has the potential to step back into the world stage if they got rid of sanctions and unfucked their shit.

And China's always been a superpower for most history. It's just bad luck for them that they declined during the past few centuries when W. Europe grew.

>but you've provided no proof or evidence other than a blind and uneducated assertion. Need I remind you that the Portuguese and Dutch were the original two main colonizers of Asia and got rich and powerful without American gold? The dutch had the highest standard of living during their heyday.
The Portuguese and Dutch got rich because they had a good navy and controlled the trade. And like said the wealth of the New World had a butterfly effect.
> I'm going to assume you don't even know the differences between colonization in the 1700s and mid to late 1800s and how dramatically different the economies were and trade was
Don't talk down to me brainlet.

Yeah France is underrated.

>turtle up in their fortified settlements in Northern/Central Philippines whenever some warlord from China or Japan looked to threaten them.
What the fuck did you expect them to do? Start a war when you're horribly outnumbered, under supplied, and in a completely foreign land. Even if they won the crown would be pissed.

>Otherwise, when presented with actual resistance, Spics tend to fold up
No shit, Asia was a side-show compared to the Americas. Philippines were only held so they could trade. The English, Portuguese, and Dutch out competed them, especially since the Portuguese controlled most African ports. Not to mention Tordesillas.
>this embarrassing shitshow vs. the DECLINING Khmers showed
If you're going to quote a wiki article, at least bother to pick one with a modicum of information other than who won and a basic outline of what happened. Doesn't even have numbers.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Pérez_Dasmariñas#Expedition_to_Cambodia
>one vessel of moderate size and two junks, with 120 Spaniards and some Japanese and Filipinos.
what a mighty invasion force.

Are you some butthurt gook? Your usage of "spic" and the way you spin stories makes me think you're compensating for something.
>halted operations in Muslim Mindanao and gathered their forces in their principal cities
This is like basic logic when you've been threatened with an invasion.

>Islamic state was a shining light surrounded by European mud huts

When will this meme die? Just because there was a Arab golden age does not mean everyone else was a shit eating savage. During the great Islamic expansion and golden age you have
>Byzantine Empire
>Frankish Empire (including east, west and middle)
>HRE
>France
>Mercian Supremacy
>Visigothic Spain
>Kievan Rus

Like seriously these people and their contributions to art, history etc are all forgotten because some people think a golden age somehow means everyone else is playing with dirt while one group is playing with gold. For gods sake the English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italians are all meant to be having "a golden age" of some description at the same time for example. The Arab golden age does not mean everyone else was an illiterate peasant playing in the mud.

>brag about how chinks were btfo by the "bottom of the barrel of the Spanish army."
>Told it wasn't the case and Spain wasn't some great power in SEA.
>"The Philippines was a sideshow anyway."

K.

I'm kind of split on how I feel about the Portugal and Dutch empires. They were powerful for the time but a few small setbacks (Portugal getting kicked out by Abbas of Persia and the Dutch by that kingdom in India) unraveled their empires quickly.

They were only as important when they had important routes to occupy in their golden age. They came down like a stack of cards when they lost their best ones.

wow its almost like we used the resources available to us on planet earth to increase and distribute our influence or something...

so what you're saying is if europe hadnt of had the mental foresight to colonize other parts of the world and utilize resources to our advantage. they wouldnt of had the resources needed to then colonize other parts of the world.

so basically the only reason eastern empires dont rule the world now is because they werent like the europeans. my neurons are on fire dude. its almost like the better player won or something...

>Eastern Europe has nearly always had more power and relevancy than the West
fucking brilliant. The Crimean War and Russia being subjects of the Mongols for 300 years really proves that. Poland going in and out of existence really shows their power. The Balkans being a war zone for two bigger powers who easily dominated them politically, militarily, and socially really shows the power of eastern euroe.
>PLC for a quick example
A shitty example. They got devoured by the west. Not to mention their economy was small, required loans and support from the west to survive and their urban population tiny. Meanwhile, Spain is dominating America and the mainland, being able to project considerable power in France (war of three henrys) and the Netherlands, France then takes control of mainland politics from the thirty years war and on.
>Russia has the potential to step back into the world stage if they got rid of sanctions and unfucked their shit.
Russian everything is outdated and worn down. It's a new nation with lots of potential but is never going to unseat the US or Western Europe.
>superpower
You don't even know what that means.
>bad luck
Or, you know, they got btfo and you've got to cover their ass with lame excuses and hark back to past times.
>past few centuries when W. Europe grew.
ehes.org/ehes2015/papers/Broadberry.pdf
tl;dr no. I'd share the full published version but that requires a subscription.
>The Portuguese and Dutch got rich because they had a good navy and controlled the trade.
Yes, not American wealth.
>New World had a butterfly effect.
No shit, but the Portuguese started earlier and Lisbon was the center of wealth for a long time due to their connections in Africa and India. Again, not America.
>Don't talk down to me brainlet.
Then demonstrate at least a cursory knowledge of colonial economics rather than spouting retarded crap and ad homs. Brainlet.

Different person

>slavs aka slaves
>power

pick 1

>does not mean everyone else was an illiterate peasant playing in the mud.
Yes it does, its called feudalism.

Charlemagne for example was illiterate, unlike a preceding Roman emperors, or the contemporary Muslim rulers who had enormous libraries.

>"i could have easily beat you in that fight. if i was more like you"

-gooks and arabs

What about the Byzantines then? Their Emperors were all literate. Charlemagnes children were all literate including his daughters. The amount of writing found dating from Anglo-Saxon England indicates many there were also literate.

Most of the wealthy everywhere had their children educated. Saying "Charlemagne doesn't count" because he couldn't read is like saying "the Arabs don't count!" because Muhammad also couldn't read or write.

> so what you're saying is if europe hadn't of had the mental foresight to colonize other parts of the world and utilize resources to our advantage. they wouldn't of had the resources needed to then colonize other parts of the world.

Nowhere else in the world was as conducive to colonization like the Americas.

Africa could only be colonized on the coast, since quinine hadn't been invented yet. European explorers into Africa had an abysmal survival rate due to Malaria and Yellow Fever. The scramble for Africa happened in the 1800's not because the Europeans didn't want to conquer into Africa, but rather disease control technology made it feasible to do so economically. With control of the African Coast, you can make some money, but the big OTL moneymaker, slaves, would be considerably less valuable without New World plantations to work on.

Past Africa, you have India, which is extremely profitable for trade, and if you could control it, be extremely profitable as a colony. Some problems pop up. First, without new world gold and silver, Europe has limited resources to actually buy Indian goods with. Up until the Industrial revolution, India had higher industrial production than Europe, simply because it had 3 time the population of Europe. Indians could make pretty much everything the Europeans could, except the advanced weapons. If you trade gold/silver, Europe will run out of precious metal very quickly. If you trade them weapons, it makes the conquest harder.

China is similar, but an even harder nut to crack, because China was considerably more centralized than India, which makes the "divide and conquer" tactics used to take India much harder to pull off.

>Yes it does, its called feudalism.
is this the power of stupidity and public education? where are you from, I could make fun of your country for your idiocy

Trade, eventually using superior technology to dominate Asia and Africa.

>wow its
I don't know if you're being purposely obtuse but you're moving the goal posts about what this thread is about.

Was Europe relevant on a large scale in the past few centuries?
Yes. Undeniable.

Would Europe have been as relevant without the Americas?
No. Historically speaking probably not.

> the mental foresight
The Spanish discovery of America was not pre-planned lmao.

>fucking brilliant. The Crimean War and Russia being subjects of the Mongols for 300 years really proves that. Poland going in and out of existence really shows their power.
>A shitty example. They got devoured by the west. Not to mention their economy was small, required loans and support from the west to survive and their urban population tiny.
I'm not going to bother with this. You're just revisioning history for your own ego.
>You don't even know what that means.
Of course I do. Not a global scale but in the various fluctuations of powers in the world they were nearly always at the top.
>Or, you know, they got btfo and you've got cover their ass excuses
>forgetting that they declined heavily under the manchus
>forgetting that the worst Europe had to fare with was the Turks i.e bitches of CA
>ehes.org/ehes2015/papers/Broadberry.pdf
GDP per capita China and India have always been poor. It's the upper classes who were rich.
>No shit, but the Portuguese started earlier and Lisbon was the center of wealth for a long time due to their connections in Africa and India. Again, not America.
Portugal is the exception to all the other colonial powers.
>Then demonstrate at least a cursory knowledge of colonial economics rather than spouting retarded crap and ad homs. Brainlet.
I am literally running circles around you, you S E E T H I N G brainlet.

Pic related is you.

Kys.

I'm not denying history. But none of that would have happened without the Americas lmao.

The Philippines was not "China's back yard"

>implying Veeky Forums will accept this

>The scramble for Africa happened in the 1800's not because the Europeans didn't want to conquer into Africa, but rather disease control technology made it feasible to do so economically.
Pretty sure this is from a john green video. Anyway it's true but also incorrect at the same time. Colonization of the 1600s/1700s is different to late 1800s imperialism because the economies were dramatically different. Africa was split up and divided valued for its natural resources, particularly rubber as it was crucial to European manufacturing. In the 1700s, there was no real need of these in the scale that would be later, and if they did want these items they could acquire them without much effort at trade posts like the Gold Coast and Ivory Coast. More important to Europeans at the time were coastal forts where spices and items could be collected/traded for. These posts would allow ships to rest and make further voyages to Asia. The Portuguese were particularly tact because they used control of coastal forts and settlements to tax traders and skim off extra wealth. It's the same idea the Venetians used in the Med.; they don't need to conquer huge swaths of land, they just need outposts.

That's one reason. Huge amounts of wealth has been funeled to Europe from a long time ago. America was just another moment.

But then, one must note something else: In Europe happened way more different things than in other parts of the world; i.e. there were may people dedicated to many DIFFERENT activities, there were a more wide variety of things happening in Europe, different from other parts of the world.

To put it in perspective, to build an astronomical observatorium in Europe there were needed many different kinds of craftsmen and experts to fund the proyect, acquire the lands, prepare the foundations, build the structure, prepare the instrumentation needed (build telescopes, sextants, drafting instruments, ...) set up the instruments, operate them and handle the data and so on...

Another case, this time regarding to trading: In order to trade it is needed to first identify the markets and the trade hubs, settle trade agreements, set up a trade party (caravan or either a riverine or a sea fleet) where one can find doctors, bankers, traders, accountants, voyagers, craftsmen and even militarymen...

As one can see, the european way of life contained a lot of specialized activities therefore a lot of specialists, different from other continents where people were either peasants or craftsmen or traders or nobility, leaving not much room for different specializations to exist.

I make the example of Charlemagne being illiterate because it shows how even the most powerful man in western europe was not educated, compared to other rulers in other lands.

thats like saying if human beings didnt discover fire and then use it to their advantage they wouldnt have been sucessful therefore their successes dont count

europeans spent millions conquering america and innovated sea farrinf as a concept, drew the world map. we did it all because its who we are. we are conquerers, we are innovators and we are leaders

dont be mad your people built a wall while we built the world. its okay dude not every can be a winner

>You're just revisioning history for your own ego
lmao, nice reply
>Of course I do. Not a global scale
Barely even coherent at this point. So basically you're saying they're powerful. Woopty fucking doo everyone knows they were powerful in their region.
>fluctuations of powers in the world they were nearly always at the top.
there's no "top" or scale for power. this isn't a video game where you rank empires and states. go ahead and prove that "in the various fluctuations of powers in the world they were nearly always at the top." which is phrase more bloated and loaded with crap than a construction workers toilet. A phrase completely devoid of meaning, congrats.
>>forgetting that they declined heavily under the manchus
They declined and got btfo. That's a fact. That's not "bad luck" or whatever excuse you want to come up with.
>>forgetting that the worst Europe had to fare with was the Turks
Turks are very powerful, what are you trying to say? They weren't unstoppable and were rivaled if not surpassed by Europeans at all times but the ottomans weren't pushovers. They dominated North Africa, Iran, and Anatolia.
>GDP per capita China and India have always been poor. It's the upper classes who were rich.
Did you bother to read the abstract? Are you saying that we're only comparing the rich chinese and rich indians to europe? the point of posting the article is to disprove the "great divergence theory" which you mentioned.
>Portugal is the exception to all the other colonial powers.
They started the whole show and inspired the Spanish, how the fuck are they the exception? They prove that Europe didn't need Spanish wealth to become rich and since they started before, you can't claim butterfly effect.

there are two types of people in this world.

people who conquer the world and people who get conquered before they can conquer the world

you're the second one op

> In Europe happened way more different things than in other parts of the world; i.e. there were may people dedicated to many DIFFERENT activities, there were a more wide variety of things happening in Europe, different from other parts of the world.

Good thing you brought this up, because it's true. But there's also something more to it.

When did Europeans start specializing into these activities and studies that nobody else in the world was doing?

Astronomy is an example you brought up. The brightest and most important stars have greek names, but when you look at the names of the less important stars that are still visible to the naked eye, they mostly have Arabic names. The Arabs were the best astronomers in the world from the 8th century to the 13th century, because they relied on astronavigation more than anyone else in the world. Arab traders navigated by the stars through featureless deserts, across the Indian Ocean, and very importantly, used it to find the direction of Mecca when building a Mosque in a far away land.

Before Europeans ventured into the open seas looking for a way to India, they didn't look into astronomy all that much. When the Europeans did need to learn about Astronomy, they learned it from Arab scholars and translated Arabic texts to Latin, which is why stars have Arabic names. The Arab's knowledge of the stars simply wasn't good enough for transatlantic voyages, which is what drove European development of Astronomy, which in turn drove development of mathematics, optics, and metalworking to build instruments that allowed them to study the stars in more detail. The information learned from Astronomy would go on to inspire even more complex mathematics, and the conflicts between astronomers and the church would lead to secular science that would eventually result in the enlightenment.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

>thats like saying if human beings didnt discover fire and then use it to their advantage they wouldnt have been sucessful therefore their successes dont count
No. That's like saying if Europe didn't discover they would have always been secondary to MENA, Central Asia and China. Which is true.

>we did it all because its who we are. we are conquerers, we are innovators and we are leaders
Lol this b8. I'm proud of my history. Western Europe has had a place but it's only been very recently in history that they amounted to anything relevant.

>Barely even coherent at this point. So basically you're saying they're powerful. Woopty fucking doo everyone knows they were powerful in their region.
No but you've always been on the losing end. Funny how it's always "reclaim Jerusalem" and never "reclaim Mecca".
>there's no "top" or scale for power. this isn't a video game where you rank empires and states. go ahead and prove that "in the various fluctuations of powers in the world they were nearly always at the top." which is phrase more bloated and loaded with crap than a construction workers toilet. A phrase completely devoid of meaning, congrats.
There is.
>implying Europe could hold a candle to the Afsharid dynasty or the Timurid Empire
They were always more focused on the Persia or us (China) because Western Europe was always a desolate shithole full of petty kings.
>They declined and got btfo. That's a fact. That's not "bad luck" or whatever excuse you want to come up with.
It is bad luck considering it was the weakest they've been for centuries.

>Turks are very powerful, what are you trying to say? They weren't unstoppable and were rivaled if not surpassed by Europeans at all times but the ottomans weren't pushovers. They dominated North Africa, Iran, and Anatolia.
Lol. Turks were betas that got kicked out of Central Asia + MENA because they got their ass handed to them by the Mongols. They never really could hold a candle to other steppeniggers.
>Did you bother to read the abstract? Are you saying that we're only comparing the rich chinese and rich indians to europe? the point of posting the article is to disprove the "great divergence theory" which you mentioned.
Find me the link of the full article and I'll give it a read later. No fucking way I'm doing it now.
>They started the whole show and inspired the Spanish,
Yes who THEN discovered America which changed Europe.
>how the fuck are they the exception? They prove that Europe didn't need Spanish wealth to become rich and since they started before, you can't claim butterfly effect
>Lisbon was the center of wealth
Nowhere close to what they were until after the colonization of the Americas. A bronze turd in a sea of shit is still a bronze turd.

>The Arab's knowledge of the stars simply wasn't good enough for transatlantic voyages, which is what drove European development of Astronomy,
No it was the maritime compass

>we could have beat you if we had of done x and y

could have would have should have.

sucks for your people, wish you the best though man

@3463401
>strawman
You don't deserve a you. And the way i see it my country has a future unlike the caliphate of Europe anyway so thanks anyway.

>all this rationalization and revisionism to deal with the fact your people got rekt

hahahahah build a better army next time abdhul/chang and you wont have to taste western asshole for all of eternity

Just the compass alone also isn't good enough. You can only get direction from a compass, but not longitude or latitude, which you need astronomy for.

>its another strawman
>you can easily tell he's asspained over the redpill i shit on his """history ""'
>really thinks i care about stuff that happened centuries ago beyond causal discussion
Im more butthurt about the nips desu.

Last response im humbling you with. Cya wouldnt wanna be ya.

>>really thinks i care about stuff that happened centuries ago beyond causal discussion
of course not, its why you've been in this thread for hours writing paragraphs

They weren't kicked by asian states. The Dutch predated on the Portuguese and the English predated on the Dutch.

America was big, but in grand scheme, it was a small part in making Europe rich. The larger share was all the slaves from Africa, all production from India and the sales of opium to China/Asia and the colonies around the world.

>amerindians
Wrong. Superior development rate.

>prosperity is measured by literacy
>feudalism is shit for everyone everywhere anytime

France had the largest population in Europe in the middle ages, the whole country was filled with towns and cities while the vast majority of the Muslim world(save for Egypt, Mesopotamia and Andalusia) was desert fucking wasteland.

The Islamic world had a golden age because it was united under one banner and followed one religion, meaning there was constant peace so people could focus on technological advancement and land development more while Europe was constantly fighting petty wars for small plots of land. The crusades somewhat unified the catholic world while the rise of the Shia, the separatist governors and the eastern invaders fucked whatever unity the Islamic world had.

Triangle trade

The European nations were already among the strongest and most technologically advanced in the world. It would've taken them longer, things would've been different, but European powers(especially eastern ones in this scenario) would've went on to dominate the world, perhaps even more directly.

Take Russia for example, how much do you think the colonists half a continent away influenced them towards expanding in Siberia and the steppes? They would've still done it, Habsburg Austria and the PLC would've still been major empires to combat the Ottomans. Spain would've still been formed and perhaps they'd focus on conquering North Africa along with Portugal, hell, Africa was still there waiting to be colonized. Let's be serious guys, Europe was on it's rise before the Americas were discovered or colonized, it sure sped up the process of their domination but the colonization of America wasn't necessary for that domination to happen eventually.

>Reformation
The renaissance started before that bud.

>They weren't kicked by asian states. The Dutch predated on the Portuguese and the English predated on the Dutch.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian–Portuguese_war
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travancore–Dutch_War

>By the order of Abbas I, in 1602, the Persian army under Imam-Quli Khan, managed to expel the Portuguese from Bahrain.
>In 1612, the Portuguese Empire took the city of Gamrūn and transliterated the name to Comorão. Almost two years later (in 1615), Comorão was taken by ‘Abbās the Great after a naval battle with the Portuguese and renamed Bandar-e ‘Abbās,. In 1622, with the help of four English ships, Abbas retook Hormuz from the Portuguese in the Capture of Ormuz (1622).
>In 1622 when the Persians retook Hormuz, the Portuguese Empire was the one of the largest and one of the most powerful empires in the world. The defeat of the Portuguese had many consequences including defeat in the Mombasa war and the capture of Fort Jesus by the Imam of Muscat, supported by the Persian king.
>With the Arab/Baluchi seizure of Portugal's key foothold at Fort Jesus on Mombasa Island in 1698, the Portuguese Empire declined and lost most of its land in east Africa to the British. The British recognised the Persian empire as only sovereign of the Persian Gulf and it was in the article 5 of the Preliminary Treaty of Friendship and Alliance in 1809. This recognition would be modified in after negotiations including the Definitive Treaty of Friendship and Alliance, 1812, and the Treaty of Tehran, 1814, and remained the framework of Anglo–Persian relations over the next half century.

>The Battle of Colachel was fought on 10 August 1741 [O.S. 31 July 1741][1] between the Indian kingdom of Travancore and the Dutch East India Company, during the Travancore-Dutch War. The Dutch never recovered from the defeat; and no longer posed a large colonial threat to India.

It wasn't immediate but it was the beginning of the end for them.

1/2

Rather than look at it as a purely causal relationship, I believe one must investigate the "great divergence" in more of the inherent characteristics of the European west, and these don't become understandable unless one studies four key events stemming from the high and late middle-ages. The first is the crusades, the second is the rise of mercantilism, the third is the decline of feudalism and the rise of the burgher, the fourth the decline of the east, and the fifth is the reformation.

The first is extremely important because even though it seems a minor episode in W.Europe's early history, it formed a collective mission in the Frankish and Latin west, and that was missionary christianity propelled by conquest and the acquirement of riches. Though little more than a piratical raid, it was W.Europe's first experiment in colonialism and the co-operation of the merchant and the feudal noble-warrior class. The crusades were also not mobilised by random, the targeted key areas of maritime trade in the Mediterranean like the Levant, Syria or Egypt and taking out key rivals in the contest of the Mediterranean like the Byzantines, after which Genoa and Venice dominated the Aegean and Ionian seas.

The Second follows concurrently the first (and the third), the rise of the merchant republics allowed for the merchant class to develop techniques of calculation and money saving (banking) which allowed for the reinvestment of money and future savings. Mercantilism begun in north Italy , but it was not limited to it, the famous Lombards, banking magnates were found all over Europe and in the Low Counties too, trade and finance begun to be interlinked. Essentially this was the beginning of proto-capitalism, and more importantly the reason why the motivation existed for new trade routes and lands for colonization. Marco Polo was Venetian, Christopher Columbus Genoese, it was only there were the technology and the economic was acquired by Spain, France and England.

2/2

The third, is self explanatory and is the slow decline of the feudal class against the burgher and the rising centralised monarchies. The shift from the primarily feudal economy one centered on city life did not stop until the French revolution when the burghers won a decisive victory. But it begun in the late middle-ages.

The fourth is the decline of the east, which often neglected, had the east not declined the crusades would have been impossible. The caliphates and sultanates were splintering to a hundred peices due to the unstable of Muslim tribal politics and over reliance on a specialised warrior class (turkics). Further, because they so splintered to many factions they were unable to defend against masses of enemies like the Mongols or the Timurids. The loss of naval supremacy of the Muslim world was also a decisive factor which begun at the Byzantine-Arab wars and ended in Lepanto. Parallel to it is the decline of Ming and Qing China, which was far cry from the Tang golden age and the economic powerhouse it was. This was equally as important especially considering the silk trade.

The fifth the Protestant reformation, the decline of one authority allowed for ventures like the crusades, great religious wars, and the impetus for new lands by Spain. By product of the reformation was the spread of information by the printing press that allowed greater spread of communication and ultimately technological innovation.

>. Spain would've still been formed and perhaps they'd focus on conquering North Africa along with Portugal
Which would've been impossible for them as they were then.

No shit it was a desert wasteland. It's a literal fucking desert. All of the places people could like reasonably were thick with major metropolis the scale of which Europe didn't really have because they had effective sanitation. European cities wouldn't really catch up in development or population until after the Crusades for numerous reasons.

Spanish silver was enormously important in setting the stage for global economic development, but it's likely that with the large advantage that the Europeans had in ship construction and cannons that they would have managed to still dominate trade. It would have taken substantially longer and I'm not sure the Dutch and English could have stripped the Iberians of their holdings without it considering they had nothing to trade and would have to carve the markets they wanted out of existing kingdoms. In general the more violent the colonizer needs to get to do shit the worse it ends up in the long run.

No they dominated because of closeness to the Atlantic Ocean.