Thought the original statement is rather weak; it some up a question-
what factors lead to a world wide domination from Europe as opposed to- Aztec, Sioux, African, Filipino, etc.. society.
Accepted; European is a bit harsh, as China, Japan, Siam, Persia, Turkey can also be considered extremely powerful in given heydays; however I think it is relatively uncrontroversial to say it is "European Society" which has dominated, why is this?

I can see arguments coming from- Western Philosophy of prosperity as growth as opposed to Eastern community centric philosophy; an avoidance of Mongol attacks which set back Eastern societal growth e.g. destruction of the hugely powerful, important Bagdhad. Also; a relatively temperate environment with abundant resources.

Thoughts?

Jared Diamond wrote what I think is an excellent book on the subject from the environmental determinism perspective that's marketed towards a mass audience: Guns, Germs and Steel. I wouldn't be able to do it justice in a post. The Wikipedia article offers a summary.

In sum, Diamond argues (persuasively, imo) that Europe enjoyed environmental advantages that were the result of a chain of developments, each made possible by certain preconditions. Due to these environmental advantages, and what sprouted from them, they were in a position to dominate others around them -- politically, technologically, economically, etc.

Industrial Revolution coupled with Britain's dominance of the seas lead to empire building, which spread Western culture and relative prosperity all over the place. Prior to this, more general empire-building from other European countries, particularly Spain but also France.

And the post-IR era, of course, had a lot of spreading of Western ideas around, most importantly for world history: capitalism, industrialism and communism.

I always look at "ability to kick ass" and "willingness to kick ass" as important virtues in successful societies. I'm not enough of a history buff to know whether this always holds, and I don't necessarily like it, but maybe it holds here.

Not sure Diamond explained why Christian Europe beat out the Arabs in the end, but he does explain why Europe instead of, say, the Aztecs, Maya, Inca, Africans, etc.

I think he touches a bit on societal values, but his thesis is that it's mostly environment, long-term. That includes connections and competition with other societies.

I think the better question (after reading that book) is: why Europe instead of the Arabs? I have a decent answer, but I find it more interesting as Diamond really did a good job of explaining most of OP's questions.

I can't remember where I saw or read it but the Arab occupation of Spain pretty much ended due to the Arabs starting to fight with each other. There were different groups with different territories and their collective might was weakened by their reluctance to cooperate in some ways.

Scipio beat Hannibal.

End of thread.

Didn't two major European powers fight for like an entire century in the middle ages?

Diamond is persuasive on why Eurasia had a major advantage over Africa and the Americas but his attempt to explain why Europe overtook e.g. China is relegated to a single, very weak, chapter.

Niall Feguson has just released a book on this subject and there are lot of others.

This review gives a neat summary of Ferguson's argument

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...n-review.html#

Ferguson’s book is structured in a thematic and chronological way. He identifies six interrelated facets of Western civilisation which gave it the edge over its rivals. These are: competition, science, the rule of law, medicine, consumerism and the work ethic.

To take one of these, Europe in the 15th century was highly competitive. China was a single, centralised empire while Western Europe was divided by rivers, mountain ranges, marshes and forests.

There were hundreds of states in rivalry with each other, and within these states there were many competing cities and guilds. Political unity had made China strong; political fragmentation had made Europe weak but it also awoke a fiercely ambitious spirit.

I've read a little bit on a theory that China came to be dominated by the western powers because they themselves became so regionally dominant till about 1700 that their technological, social, and economic progress stagnated. They saw no reason to improve and became isolationist. By the time the Europeans showed up they were so behind the times that they fell prey to the western powers.

Its certainly an intrigueing theory but I don't know enough to support it.

France and England

I think some spartans might disagree.

sheer chance

Social Darwinism

I prefer Kenneth Pomeranz's The Great Divergence.

Mao got it right when he said "power flows from the barrel of a gun"

the most organised and determined got the gun first.