Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic European technological dominance (history)

Referring to way back in history. When did Europe become the technologically dominant society? I know China used to be more advanced. And the middle east. I'm just not quite sure when and the shift occurred. I was thinking the Mongol invasion of China is what did them in, but I'm not sure if that's correct. Was just thinking about it today and wondering if anyone could point me to any interesting papers, articles, etc. on the subject.

When, and more importantly, why these societies ceased being top dog is interesting to me. Note that I'm mostly talking about technology here, rather than land conquered or political strength or domination - but I guess there's a good bit of correlation there. So did they decline, did they just stagnate, or did Europe just move faster, even though they were also advancing? Is it just a natural progression over a millenia? That getting ahead doesn't mean staying ahead?

Long ago I read an essay with the following title: Why didn't China have a Newton?

According to the essay, Europe passed China because it did have a Newton (1643-1727). Newton was a force of his own, but he was also inspired by ideas of the Renaissance (in the 15th and 16th centuries), and he was the foremost representative of the scientific side of the Enlightenment (the 18th century).

What set Europe apart from China, according to the essay, was that it produced a Newton who dared to ask this question about reality: What, in itself, is this? In China, people only asked this question: Where in the hierarchy of reality should we place this thing, and how should we relate to it?

In other words, Newton and other Europeans explored reality in itself, but the Chinese mainly explored their own hierarchical relation to it.

Wikipedia says about Newton:

After Newton had laid the groundwork for classical mechanics, the European Industrial revolution followed on its heels.

Ann

Because of my interest in astronomy, I think that the reason why Europeans dared to ask questions about reality itself has to do with the fact that the authority that usually answered all the questions about reality, the dominant religion, was weakened. The dominant religion in Europe was of course Catholicism. But the Catholic Church had been weakened by an internal schism during the years 1378-1417. There were two Popes fighting for power, one in Rome and one in Avignon (but if you want the exact details of this, you had better look it up for yourself).

Anyway, Wikipedia says this about the Papacy in Avignon and the schism it led to:

So the reason why Isaac Newton and other people in England and France dared to ask themselves about the true nature of reality might be that the dominant religion had been sufficiently weakened that it could not stop people from searching for answers on their own.

Not that the Catholic Church didn't still try to assert its authority. This is what Wikipedia says about Giordano Bruno:

The Catholic Church remained strong in Italy, but lost most of its power in England and France. In England Henry VIII overturned the Catholic Church altogether, replacing it with the Church of England:

In France, the French Revolution dealt a severe blow to all kinds of old authority:

The French Revolution was undoubtedly somewhat inspired by the American declaration of Independence. But as you can see, there were many forces in Europe pushing for greater freedom of the mind.

You could probably make an argument that Capitalism, which became established along with the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, also propelled Europe forward very strongly compared with China.

Ann

I think there is one more factor that contributed very powerfully to the ascent of Europe, culminating in the 19th century, when Europe was the dominating power in the world. That is the seafaring prowess of many European countries, which started for real in the 15th and 16th century.

I live in southern Sweden very close to Denmark, and I'm aware of now-tiny Denmark's glorious past as a seafaring nation. But Denmark's glory happened long ago and Denmark only conquered its European neighbours. Other seafaring European nations produced explorers and conquerors who ventured further. The most famous of these explorers is of course Christopher Columbus. Wikipedia says:

The Chinese definitely didn't have a Columbus. But Europe did, and Columbus was followed by many other European explorers, such as Ferdinand Magellan:

And there was Francis Drake of England:

These European explorers paved the way for a European colonization of much of the rest of the world, and for European world dominance. Europe also became much richer than it had been before, as many goods from the colonies were brought back to Europe.

I have never heard of a Chinese explorer in the vein of Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan or Francis Drake.

Ann

Well, wow. This question got me going, didn't it?

I think we can confidently say that Europe overhauled China because Europe was changing while China was not.

In Europe, the old powers were crumbling. There were probably several reasons for this, among them the Great Plague that hit Europe in the 14th century, killing as many as perhaps a third of the European population. At the same time the dominant church, the Catholic Church, had proved itself incapable of taking back the holy city of Jerusalem from the Muslims, and it had been forced to cede parts of Spain to the Muslims, too. The Church even withdrew from its heartland in Rome, again showing its weakness, and ensuing internal Church bickering weakened it further.

At the same time, it had become popular in Italy to remember and pay tribute to the achievements of the Roman Empire, not least to pre-Christian Rome, whose greatness did not stem from its Christian piety but from its skilled craftsmen, its disciplined soldiers and its seafaring prowess. This "reawakening of the virtues of the Roman Empire" created the Renaissance and inspired bold explorers like Columbus. The success of Columbus and others like him underscored the potential rewards of seeking out new horizons, taking on new challenges and finding new answers, let alone finding new riches. As the Church was weakened even further England and France became the dominant powers of Europe, and together these two countries produced the Enlightenment. The scientific beacon of the Enlightenment was Isaac Newton, whose scientific breakthrough paved the way for the Industrial Revolution, while the French Revolution led to individual freedom and entrepreneurship in Europe.

It should also be pointed out that the Protestant revolution and the Lutheran Church, which certainly didn't touch all of Europe, became significant not least because it demanded that every person must learn to read for himself or herself, so that he or she could find his or her own religious truth by studying the Bible.

Meanwhile, I think China remained the same: extremely rigid, extremely hierarchical, highly introverted and in lack of an industrious, daring, inquisitive yet disciplined middle class.

Ann

I'm not so sure. For one, there was Zheng He .

All things considered, it might actually have been pure luck on the European's side. Columbus didn't set out to find America. He set out to find a shortcut to India. China, on the other hand, already had everything they needed right there and no reason to find faster/safer routes to Europe.

Plus, right at the time when Europe started to leave the middle ages, China retreated upon itself, e.g. by the Emperor's mandate to halt further naval exploration.

Michael

I have already posted four posts here, so I may as well post another, right?

What about the Middle East? Why did they stagnate? It should be remembered that Muslim Arabia was hugely powerful for many centuries, and so was Muslim Turkey. As recently as in the 18th century Europe was seriously threatened by advancing Turks, who came very close to conquering the very important European city of Vienna. Also back in the 9th, 10th and 11th century, Muslim Arabia was much more scientifically advanced than then-rigid Europe.

So why did the Muslim world decline? My answer is that when they declined, as I think that every powerful nation or empire eventually must, they turned to their own history to find the reasons for their former glory, and they found their religion. The point I have been trying to make about Europe is that it achieved greatness by seeking inspiration from its non-religious past. The Muslim world, by contrast, has sought to find its way back to its former greatness by becoming ever more extremely religious. Instead of concentrating on finding new answers to existing problems, Muslims are often encouraged to solve their problems by adhering very strictly to hundreds of age-old religious rules.

Why is China rising these days? Perhaps because they have been able to absorb European ideas and use them to their advantage. They have, of course, taken over the European idea of Communism, creating a rigid society controlled by a single party. On the other hand, China has also assimilated European ideas about Capitalism, so that they have a quite efficient fairly Capitalist economy in a one-party Communist totalitarian society. They have benefitted from European and American technological breakthroughs. China has a much more welcoming attitude to European ideas than most Muslim countries, which often try to solve their problems by applying ever stricter forms of their own religion.

Ann

I would highly recommend James Burke’s Connections series. The series was made in the 1970’s and each traced a technological or sociological change through time to the present. Very very well done and highly thought provoking. I’d recommend this to anyone interested in science, history or science fiction.

Several episodes are available either on YouTube or at Burke’s Connections website. Please search for “James Burke Connections” on your favorite engine. Sorry-- I can’t access streaming media through this connection and I won’t post an untested link so I’m not giving one. I actually found the YouTube played better than the Connections website but that may just have been my home account.

Burke’s explanation is that the Rennaisance Christians essentially believed that study of the creation was indirectly study of the Creator. God wanted to be known so exploring the creation was encouraged. (Galileo might beg to differ, though.)
Also since we were made in God-the-Creator’s image, our creations are a natural extension of who we were made to be.

The Chinese philosophers believed differently. Though a model of a natural process may appear to behave in the same manner as the original, the model doesn’t have “chen” (sp?) or life-force. Since mankind has no way to imbue a model with life-force the model will never be more than a toy that imitates real life—nothing of consequence can be learned. There were brilliant "Newtons" in China but their knowledge didn't spread through society as it did in the Western world.

Burke explained this much better than I am here.

There were of course many brilliantly gifted people in China, but there was no one who studied the mathematics of reality the way Newton did, and no one who decribed the physical reality in terms of exact mathematical equations.

But in any case, if China didn't accept the brilliant groundbreaking ideas of its most brilliant minds, then by definition it didn't have a Newton.

If there was a Newton in China at the time of Newton in Europe, then the mathematical principles of the "Chinese Newton" have not survived. We may guess that such a Newton existed, but it's not something we can know.

Therefore, the Chinese didn't have a Newton.

Ann

I've seen one article that thought part of it was that since China had a more unified government and better transport the gains from better tech tended to get used up by rising population and standard of living. Even when China was divided it was a lot fewer parts and more connection than Europe.

Like most things I expect that saying X is the cause is wrong. There are multiple factors and any could changed things.

Exactly, which I was I said this:

That is more than one factor. I have also mentioned the creation of capitalism as a factor that helped making Europe dominant. There are other aspects to be taken into account, too. I quite agree that there were a number of factors that worked together to make Europe's ascent possible. Surely some of those factors had to do with pure luck, as Michael pointed out.

Ann

Let's focus for a while on why China remained stagnant while Europe surged ahead. This is what other posters have said:

Michael said:

Shallowford said:

dcarson said:

Doesn't all of this give you the impression of a well-functioning but stagnant, inward-looking empire which isn't looking for new challenges or new answers any more?

Ann

Since I am so interested in astronomy, I can't help talking a little about what role astronomy played in "propelling Europe forward".

The view of the Catholic Church, which was unchallenged for many centuries, was that the Earth was at the center of the universe. The Church embraced the Ptolemaic model of the universe. This Greek philosopher claimed that the Earth was the static center of the universe, and the Moon, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn orbited around it (in that order). Above the "planets", as these "orbiting bodies" were called, was the sphere of the "fixed stars".

Although the Ptolemaic system gives an altogether false bild of the universe, it was nevertheless a sophisticated and carefully put together mathematical model. To explain why the planets moved "oddly" and not as they "ought to move" if they were orbiting the Earth in simple circles, Ptolemy invented a complicated system of so-called epicycles and equants. Thanks to these tools Ptolemy was able to approximate the true apparent motion of the planets across the sky fairly well.



The Ptolemaic model with the Earth at the center and a complicated set of circles for the other planets to orbit inside.

The reason why this erroneous world view was embraced by the Church was twofold. First, it was easy to combine with Genesis, which certainly suggests that the Earth is at the center of God's creation. Second, it was a sophisticated well-wrought model, and it was hard to prove that it was faulty. And why would the Church want to topple a view of the universe that could easily be combined with its own teachings?

I have to go now, but I'll be back.

Ann

Enter Nicolaus Copernicus, 1473-1543, Polish mathematician, astronomer, jurist, physician, classical scholar and Catholic cleric. Wikipedia says this about Copernicus:

Copernicus put forth the idea that the Sun, not the Earth, is at the center of the universe, and that the Earth, along with the other planets, revolves around the Sun.

A few points should be noted. Copernicus was, as I said, a classical scholar, and he was particuarly interested in ancient Greece. The ancient Greeks were much better astronomers than the Romans, so by taking an interest in ancient Greece Copernicus was inspired to formulate astronomical theories of his own, just like the Greeks had been fond of doing.

Second, while several Greek philosophers had been able to put forth hypotheses about the world and the universe that were absolutely remarkably correct - Aristarchus of Samus, for example, formulated a heliocentric model of the universe in the third century B.C. - these models remained untested, and the hypotheses put forth were philosphies about the world rather than rigorously scientific theories.

In the same way, the Copernican heliocentric model of the universe can be described as a philosophical suggestion rather than an exact mathematical description of the solar system. In point of fact, the Copernican model worked less well than the Ptolemaic model did when it came to predicting the motion of the planets. What Copernicus failed to take into account was that the planets follow elliptical orbits, and instead his model assumed that the orbits were circular. Ptolemy, in contrast, had carefully observed the actual movements of the planets and tweaked his model so that it would do the best possible job of predicting the movements of the planets while at the same time assuming that the Earth was at the center of the universe.

Copernicus didn't publish his book about the heliocentric universe until he was on his deathbed. Interestingly, it didn't cause much of a stir, and it didn't make the Catholic Church react strongly. Wikipedia says:

So the chief censor of the Catholic Church may have planned to condemn the book, but he didn't get to do so because he was prevented by his own death. Could the book have been suppressed if the chief censor had lived a bit longer? And if so, could the scientific revolution of Europe have been delayed, maybe to the point that China could have overtaken Europe centuries ago?

Anyway. Copernicus' book didn't go away, and after a while it began to irritate the Church. Wikipedia says:

But in the end the Church did take action, and in 1616 the book was put on the Catholic Church's Index of forbidden books.

What happened now was that Europe became a sort of battlefield between the Catholic Church and its pretensions on absolute authority, versus science, particularly astronomy, which used scientific measurements to prove that the Church's teachings on astronomy were wrong. At the same time, astronomers were spurred to search even deeper to understand reality. The Church and the foremost astronomers were like two champions honing their skills in their attempts to go for the knockout. A number of astronomers made fantastic discoveries, particularly Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton was able to make extremely good use of astronomical discoveries which had already been made by others. Newton was a scientific giant, but he is famous for having made this statement:

So Newton was a genius, but his fantastic works of mathematics may not have been possible if others before him had not made such great scientific discoveries by diligently observing the sky and trying hard to make sense of the motions that were discovered up there.



Newton, the Moon and an apple. Oh yes! Johannes Kepler had already described the motion of the Moon very well, and now Newton could explain that its motion was caused by the same kind of force that made an apple fall to the ground.

Ann