How comes the territories of Western Empire become first world countries today, contrast to Eastern Empire?

It didnt.
Greece, Asia Minor, the Levant, Egypt had a far higher living standard then Italy or Spain or Gallica in the centuries following the collapse of the Roman Empire.

If you talk about today, yeah its over 1,500 years inbetween, it has no correlation to the end of the empire.

Why are you ascribing today's development to some inherent quality of Germanics and not their proximity to the Greco-Roman world who in turn was inspired by Egypt and Mesopotamia?

>Brits, French and Germans did lot more development during the later periods than anyone else ever did.

French are not Germanic. Brits had a colonial empire and probably more importantly all three entities interacted closely with one another and were in constant competition.

This fucking book again. You might as well go outside and watch paint dry, maybe you'll actually learn something.

cant you think of an argument that isnt related to genetics?

I'm closer to Greece than germanics are, but my country is a shithole. proximity only is not enough, Greco-Roman world, did some good to Germanics early on, but once they thought them the basics they did lot more things on their own.

French are partly Germanic, depends on the regions they can be purely Germanic, they are called French after Franks who were Germanic, Normans were Germanic and they are pretty close to Germanics genetically and culturally, Britain is probably less Germanic than France. there isn't that much difference between Celts and Germanics genetically either.

Why would I? we are genetics expressed in environment. engaging in an utterly abstract concepts is as completely accurate in the real world.
they are doing better, because they are better at functioning in a civilized society.

What's your criticisms of that book?

This videos might also be useful for explaining why most western Euros are more developed.
youtube.com/watch?v=P78Zd8265_k

because WW2 and Marshall plan

Islam spread retardation, endless wars and opression.

FOR 1000 years Byzantium protected christian Europe and suffered all indemnieties, humiliations and betrayals only to fall. Imagine Western Europe snugly, safely and comfortably building empires like the Franks, HRE, France and the Italian city states without a protected eastern frontier.

Stop this gondorification of Eastern Roman Empire.

Western Europe had access to the New World and all its resources. Eastern Europe didn't mean. Numerous intellectual movements were also born in the region, and colonial competition, competition on the mainland, etc spawned innovation.

And I do know about the details of the ethnogenesis of France and Britain. It's more complicated than just calling them Germanic. The need to link it all by pure association reeks of desperation.

That book is a masturbatory exercise of Eurocentrism, or more like Nordicism under the guise of Europeanism. His not so subtle scientific racism makes him popular with the alt-right (hence the video you linked) but he's not taken seriously in academia at all.

Also, what I meant is Eastern Europe didn't have colonies and was under subjugation or conflict with the Russians & the Ottomans, who like Western Europeans in the colonies, weren't very benevolent overlords.

Please tell me what enemy did western europe sucussfully defended against? Byzantine empire fought for 500 years the Arabs and another 500 years the Turks.

Western Europe collectively shit their pants when an Arab raiding expedition arrived in France, and became le glorious victory when they stopped a force of 12,000. Then they went on to get raped by the Magyars and the Mongols, with the Mongols stopping the rape because Genghis died and they had other shit to deal with like China.

gondorification = word of the day

I would say Tolkien based Gondor on the Byzantine empire actually

>>implying that the moors didn't mount a more serious invasion because they weren't afraid of the carolingian skullfucking they would receive if they seriously tried it.
>>implying the magyars didn't get stopped when they were ambushed by some germans in a forest.
>>implying that the mongols didn't come back and then get shitstomped because they couldn't take the stone castles that had been built in hungary.
>>implying that moors didn't get driven out of most of spain long before the reconquista was formally completed.
0/10.

>>implying that the moors didn't mount a more serious invasion because they were afraid of the carolingian skullfucking they would receive if they seriously tried it.

poortugal also had access to new world, but it's still a shithole along it's colony.
>Numerous intellectual movements were also born in the region
why do you think that happened?

>And I do know about the details of the ethnogenesis of France and Britain. It's more complicated than just calling them Germanic. The need to link it all by pure association reeks of desperation.
desperation about what? they are considered a germanic people, they are not the same as Norse people if that's what you are asking but lot closer to them than Balkan people for example.

>That book is a masturbatory exercise of Eurocentrism, or more like Nordicism under the guise of Europeanism
All I'm hearing is ad hominem attacks, guilt by association and appeal to authority.
you are an anti-white retard.

Arabs attacks were up to a point, Abbasids I would argue were far less focused on conquest than Umayyads. Most of their attacks-raids etc were for prestige/looting and not gaining land, there is a paper actually that talk about how Byzantines failed to realise the policy change from Ummayads to Abbasids.
Even if you don't count Ummayad incursions to france, we should not pretend as if western europe was all fine and dandy with no conflict at all.
For the case of Turks, notice how Byzantium gained land after 1st crusade mostly due to european efforts. I'm not a lover of Crusaders myself and I believe western europeans played a crucial role in the downfall of the empire (both with 4th crusade, and even with all the norman raiding of balkans etc) but still there is that
I think the decline of east is quite a complex topic that cannot be answered simply. Stephano Yeraisimus I believe has a book about decline of the ottoman empire and he aruges that one reason is the ottoman adaptation of byzantine administrative system which was quite detrimental in the long run.

Anyways, to make a Gondor out of Byzantine empire is abusrd to me (personally ofc, you can call it as you like) because not everything was fine and dandy in west either. The only difference is they fought mostly other christians while Byzantines (when they are not busy with usurper emperors or normans) fought against muslims.

Wish I could find that paper comparing abbasids/ummayad aggresion. By the way by no means I'm labeling myself as an authority, I'm certainly not, its just my personal opinion.
Thank you.
I just believe that is not doing justice to Byzantine Empire, it had its godlen age-revival in 900s-1000s for example. Hardly Gondorish

1. They were not going to receive any skullfucking whatsoever Charlemagnes glorius army was btfo by a bunch of Basque peasants when he wanted to expand in spain.

2. The Mgyars were not stopped they went as far as France before settling in modern Hungary.

3. They came back with a signifficantly reduced force, and only lost because the Hungarians and Poles hid behind their casttles and the Mongols died from dease. BUT EVEN THEN, it was not actually western europe that was fighting there, but eastern europeans, without them Mongols would have swept through western europe like they did in Russia.

5. The reconquista was fought against the Berber moors , a minor caliphate that recieved no military support from the rest of the islamic world due to them fracturing. Now it took the whole of western europe to launch enterprises like the reconquista, Lisbon was re-conquered only because of Enlish and german crusaders, and in places where they actually brought the fight to the Arab world like in the Crusades in the holy land they got majorly btfo.

Perhaps at that time it was important, but it's irrelevant to present development of the countries.

>only one g*Rmoid cunt in the top 4

>I just believe that is not doing justice to Byzantine Empire, it had its godlen age-revival in 900s-1000s for example. Hardly Gondorish
We don't know if Gondor had a golden age after Aragorn took the helm! What if the age we are living now is exactly that?

>western European have higher IQ
why?

Keep in mind how many of the great contributors where Jewish (especially in the eastern countries)

What have you studied?

I don't mean it in an attacking way. Only asking because as someone with a rudimentary background in genetics it seems laughable to ascribe things on this scale to genetics.

R*man """"""civilization"""""" naturally devolves into barbarism. The west thrived because of superior Anglo-Nordic men while the east died because of m*d inferiority.

>burn down library of Alexandria
>destroy countless cultures
>Live in dirty shit filled proto-commieblocks
R*man """"""civilization"""""" everyone.

>rome
>epic buildings are built by slaves for benefit of few
>government is ruled by elite
vs
>germanic/nordic lands
>everyone is fed and clothed
>everyone can participate in government life
>le epic mudhuts sure but at least mud is great isolator
i rather be born as equal german/nordic brother than end up being slave in rome

the ottoman's decline more or less

>i rather be born as equal german/nordic brother than end up being slave in rome
are you suggesting that tribal germscum didn't own slaves?

not that many, Jews are exaggerated by other jews and turned into celebrities, for every Jewish contribution there is 100 gentile contribution behind him.

nothing. I only learn things by myself. too smart to waste time on university.
again you are trying to appeal to authority and attack my character instead of addressing anything i say. go talk about you degrees on reddit, faggot, this is an anonymous board, nobody gives a shit.

I don't know the reasons. they just were more selected for it, artificially or natural.

You need to be an imbecile to not see the problem with this bullshit.

lol

>My argument is mainly focused on genetics because it's the only way reason are bad

. Absurd and asinine. The muslims wouldn't have anywhere to retreat to if Charlemagne came looking for them, and the christians of Iberia would have gladly helped him.

. The magyars were stopped, they got their asses kicked and had to withdraw from western europe, the fact that they rampaged around a bit before that asskicking does not change this.

. Pitiful excuses, the mongols had no ability to siege down the stone castles in Europe, and more soldiers wouldn't change this.

4.The reconquista may have had other europeans involved, but it was mostly an Iberian effort, and it was actually mostly finished for quite a while before they decided to finish off the last of the moorish states. The crusader states in the levant lasted for quite a while against the armies of Islam, far longer then they really should have given the quality of the opposition.

Silkroad's gone

The fact that you are even asking this question makes you a brainlet.

...

>Germanic people tend to be also more orderly and less impulsive

...

maybe

It's almost like hundreds of years of social, economical and political events happened between the fall of both empires to today.

t*rks

>neoclassical revisionist artwork
>implying that sacking cities wasn't the most common thing for EVERYONE to do
And Rome razed Carthage and salted the fucking earth, what's the difference?