What was the secret(s) to Europe's global dominance for centuries until the recent modern era?

>implying Europe was itself remarkably centralized or cohesive
the the largest contributing factor was technological dominance. once you can answer why there was technological superiority, you have a piece of the puzzle

Scientific Revolution and Industrial Revolution.

The changes that happened in Europe in between 1500 and 1900 AD were probably more dramatic than the changes that happened in the three thousand years before that point.

Unironically, glass. I've read that the Chinese basically fell in love with Porcelain and refused to innovate any further because they thought it was the best shit, versus the europeans who were desperate to recreate it in Europe, but invented glass instead

Imperialism.

Technological superiority.

>implying Europe was itself remarkably centralized or cohesive
This is a complete deflection and no. Europeans needed to exploit a significant degree of fragmentation or societal disruption in almost every successful incidence of colonialism and lacked these advantages in almost every unsuccessful instance. You cannot dispute this.

Superior calorie intake

Lybia was italian, not english, and ethiopia and eritrea too

Trade Flows much easier east-west than north-south. technological superiority werent achieved before post-westphalia. Better use of glasswares. constant conflict setting of a race to establish more power anyway possible. just to name a few factors of this

>technological superiority werent achieved before post-westphalia
Europe was more advanced than asia since the XV century in every possible way.100 years old Portuguese weapons were still in use in Asia in the XVIII century for crying out loud

Climbing up the ladder then pulling the ladder up.

Newtons laws of gravity and laws of motion

Guns
Exploration
Exploitation
Knowledge

Guns they got from Mongols/Chinese
Exploration for wanting to trade with Chinese
Explotation after finding natives across the world and enslaving them
Knowledge from the old world like Greek(Arabs), Indians, and Chinese and the knowledge they gained from exploration

Development of universal education
Industrial revolution
Competition between a large number of maritime states
Lack of local resources driving outward expansion and innovation to fill in the gaps
They'd probably still dominate the world to this very day if they didn't blow themselves to hell and back from 1914-1945.

Holy fuck you people are retarded. Do you even understand the word "cause"? Because you are just lsiting the consequences

Being periphery of the world gave them relatively stable and peaceful conditions to develop
Legacy of Phoenicians/Greeks/Romans gave them a big naval focus
The Muslim scarecrow gave them the urge to expand in unconventional ways
Accumulation of technology (thanks to Mongol invasion that brought inventions from China like compass)

Unironically anarchisticism.

Everything is a cause and everything is a consequence.

The difference arises where you look at it. Do you think the introduction of guns to europe was the end of it?

>The development of universal education, the industrial revolution, maritime competitions, and need to expand outwards weren't causes of Europe's relative dominance
And you accuse others of being retarded

What was the secret(s) to Europe's global dominance for centuries until the recent modern era?
>inb4 true answers

This.
With a notable exception of the Opium Wars, European powers never conquered any nation (nation, not some fucking jungle tribe) that was united.

Desire to break into the muslim-dominated trade routes to India and China kicked off Europe's exploration.
They found themselves needing ports and midway points in order to maintain their fleets, which started colonialism, typically Euros would buy a port from a nearby kingdom or sometimes conquer them such as the Portuguese did with Goa.
With this newfound power projection, Europeans continued to increase their influence over trade and politics of a region, often manipulating political rivalries between differing factions to aquire land, favorable treaties, and trade agreements in exchange for some nominal autonomy and protection for the locals.
Sure, technological advantages factored into it, but honestly their effects are rather overrated. One must remember that, especially in Asia, European forces (often working with their local allies) often went up against enemies with rather similar weaponry such as matchlock/flintlock rifles, contemporary artillery, and sometimes even more advanced weaponry such as rockets in India.
If any "technology" could be credited for giving Europe an edge in colonization, it would be European tactics and strategies, both military and political.

>all those mixed up colonial borders
None of that shit makes any sense. Post-WW1 Africa, but a split America which still features Spanish and Portuguese presence? Baltics under Russian control but independent Finland? Also that central Europe. What kinda brainlet map is this?

Do you mean the thousands of years that western Europeans were kraut-tier barbarians while middle easterns, southern europeans, and chinafags were prospering? Why can't /pol/ into history?

Weaponized racism

Most of the "arabs" where Indo-Iranians who migrated to europe tho, i mean the word aryan litterly comes from Iranian.
And i don't think anybody is denying the fact that the Chinese are smart.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan

How does that support your view though? I know iranian and aryans come from the same source btw. Arabs are usually not considered to have had cultural values that encouraged science and math and shit.

...

>it's a Veeky Forums tries talking about history episode