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.

Both China and the Islamic world had firearms before Europeans. The Spanish actually began using the cannon after observing its effectiveness among "Arabic" troops.

Really, if I had to answer such a broad question (which, incidentally, is usually how I frame my "Middle Period" World History course), I'd point to a confluence of factors resulting in a type of "perfect storm."

1. The Columbian Exchange benefited Europe in a much more direct and immediate way relative to other Old World societies, and especially relative to all New World societies (mostly because of disease, vis-a-vis Diamond, see also Alfred Crosby's Ecological Imperialism).

2. The growth, or rather regrowth of a global trade network happened to occur in concert with the Columbian Exchange and European conquests that greatly improved Europe's financial situation. With the influx of New World silver and the domination of the Indian Ocean (see 3, below), Europe could more easily trade with China, which was still more technologically advanced as late as 1700 (or even later).

3. China happened to withdraw from the Indian Ocean (and seaborne trade in general) only about 80 years before the first serious European forays into the Indian Ocean, before any other powers had an opportunity to consolidate power. The traditional Islamic world was still undergoing transformation as a result of recent conquests from Central Asian peoples (the Ottoman Turks, the Safavids, and the Mughals). China withdrew from seagoing trade largely for idiosyncratic cultural reasons (a decision by the Confucian scholars of the Ming Dynasty who won out over their eunuch rivals), but also because of pressing tactical (Mongols, Manchurians, and other "barbarian" invaders) and economic developments. Diamond points to the "unity" of the Ming political system as a potential disadvantage relative to European "competition," but this is perhaps too simplistic a view, because there was certainly a large Chinese export market and a good deal of merchant activity, much of it outside the sphere of State control (which in turn meant lost revenue for the State).

4. Europe happened to industrialize first, partly because of ecological advantages inherent to most European coal relative to Chinese coal. This is a big part of Pomeranz's argument in The Great Divergence. Specifically, British coal was located far closer to urban centers of production and was less dangerous (relatively speaking) to mine in comparison to Chinese coal, which was located farther from urban centers in the East. How clear this advantage was was not actually clear until about the time of the Opium War, when the supremacy of European arms became apparent. Before then, China was still politically autonomous, and even most of the rest of the Old World did not fall under European political control until the 19th or 20th century (when, of course, they re-established some degree of political autonomy).

Can't rememebr the source but an interesting view I've seen was the introduction of trusted accounting in Italy (Florence I think) was a huge factor.

People could suddenly reliably invest in other companies allowing a huge expansion of trade.

Maybe a factor, maybe a salutary lesson.

Whatshisface said something similar in one of those old British Civilisation series. Actually, I think a couple British Whatstheirfaces said so.

I'd imagine inflation and serious increases in investment capital created by fractional-reserve banking (something like it) probably were important when combined with ample new investment opportunities in inter-cultural material wealth exploitation of previously undiscovered (and therefore weak) peoples. That plus a proper legal framework for trade and business and increasing freedom/control by merchant classes over upper classes, and the fractured, competitive nature of European politics all probably played a part. Add into that the inadequacy of the successors to the Arabs, the Ottomans, and it's first horse out of the gate.

That many of the fractured states had little option but to expand through the sea (into new continents), rather than through each other, helped. It's not really surprising that the least landlocked countires with the largest shores dominated this period (England, the Dutch, Spain, Portugal, and Italy).

My guess (still need to get to Chinese history in a few months) would be that the Chinese central government sapped a lot of resources/talent/capital from its coastal provinces for central concerns, which would likely have been continental. England in the 15th century was more able to channel its centralized resources into oceanic expansion. Someone correct that.

And that these cultures caught the development wave as an intellectual revolution came about that crested into the industrial revolution and kept propelling them forward is a bit of luck.

The answer is "Industrial Revolution". It really is that simple.

Other cultures could have become dominant just as well, but the Industrial Revolution was decisive in allowing the Eurpean Nations to conquer the whole world and make it into colonies, thus preventing the othe cultures from expanding.

What about the conquerings of Aztec etc.. that all happened before the IR? Also; why didn't the Arabic and Eastern worlds partake in this? What gave the Europeans the possibility for the IR?

I am inclined to agree with you though.

A lot has to do with fortunate timing and political structures that developed there.

There were diseases out there waiting to lay waste to entire civilizations and make them vunerable. Europe was fortunate to be hit with them early on at a time when there were no outside invaders who could take advantage of them. Then Europe was fully recovered when the contact with America happened, so the disease hit the unexposed Americans while Europeans were basically immune.

The good communications in Europe also helped it develop an excellent weapons technology, ready for use when Europeans came into conflict with African and Asian nations. Some credit for these good communications should go to the Church which was a semi-unifying force in Europe - the church created a situation where Europeans nations could war with each other temporarily, and yet share and commune with each other when not at war.

Notice that Europe never had much success against its close neighbors (the Muslims) who had close enough contact to never fall too far behind Europe. Europe excelled relative to its contact with distant cultures, in America, in Africa, and in Asia.

What does OP mean when he says "a worldwide domination by Europe"?

I'm not trolling, just really wondering what constitutes "dominance". Are you referring to a financial domination? Military? Cultural? Or maybe all of them combined?

Bonus question: How long has Europe been dominant?

Cultural, political, and militarily. I'm not saying China, Japan and the Arabic world aren't very important but-
Culturally- it is movements towards democracy being seen worldwide. The internet is western (not really cultural, but you know). Western products are world wide and as such the culture goes with it; coca cola being the most obvious one. The west steers musical direction. You know...
Militarily and politically- No war without the west.

China is obviously a huge power as is Japan; but they are dominated by the Western society.

Its been going on probably since maybe the IR? Maybe the end of the Black PLague?

I think it started with the renaissance europeans became much more interested in science and new ideas, they rediscovered the ancient philosophers and began to think with more reason than before. Then they applied their new ideas to the world around them.

The near east and far east both became culturally inward looking open for exchanges in trade but not in ideas which led them to stagnate.

I'm very skeptical of the "greater innovative spirit" type explanations.

It's a huge issue, but here are some major factors that for sure helped Europe:

-Proximity to the New World. This allowed Europe to catch up and surpass its betters, China and Arabia, using American riches. Spanish gold and silver from America revolutionizes finance.

-British coal allowed speeding ahead of African kingdoms.

-Luck of timing. Empires rise and fall, Europe steps up at a time when more powerful adversaries are in periods of decline.

-Late arrival: Europeans are notable for borrowing all the best technologies from Arabia, China, African iron works, etc. As new societies, they are not locked into certain patterns of social/economic relations and can better choose what works in the new situation. This is the non-ethno centric version of the "Euro Christian entrepreneurial spirit" argument.

-Ready supply of labor: African kingdoms turn their societies upside down to sell slaves to the Atlantic trade, building Euro empires in the process. This also drains West Africa of life force, but I really have no idea how much this held back its empires.

But they are getting all this learning through Arabia. The Muslim world had all that knowledge, and it is first discovered by Europeans by reading Arabic translations of the Greek. To trace European greatness only to Greece is to say you are related to your grandfather, but not your father. What was really different was proximity to America.