China and India were the most important places on Earth for almost all of history. The “Near East,” the “Far East,” Africa, and the Americas all had advanced empires at times, and most outstripped Europe technologically for most of history. The Ottomans famously made use of gunpowder before Europeans, but the Chinese were (of course) the first to weaponize it.
So what enabled Europeans to so successfully dominate the world? Obviously it wasn’t their exceptional genetics or superior “culture,” or even, I think, the massive experience in organized murder from Europeans all killing each other. Was it Capitalism? Industrialization? Agriculture? Did the massive trade network encompassing half the globe create a population with a huge array of immune disease carriers?
Notably, the “Scramble for Africa” happened much later than the settling of the Americas. Did the wealth sucked out of the Americas allow the Europeans to do something that would’ve been previously impossible (or at least not worth the effort)?
I know this is kind of a massive question to answer and I’m sure it’s very contested, but I’d appreciate any responses and any book recommendations.
I’ll have to give that book a read. The argument I remember* (for england & the Netherlands) was that the soil quality was poor compared to the rest of Europe. The landowners in both states turned to trade, first as a supplement but eventually whole hog.
**Also mildly surprised we didn’t read this book, seems just as relevant as Daemonologie /hj
The first chapter of Origin is dedicated to summarizing the various schools of thought (at the time of publishing) on where Capitalism originated in Europe and why, and one of those that the author rejects is the idea that Capitalism arose primarily from trade.
I don’t remember who recommended it, and it takes a specific position in a debate, so I’m sure there’s some sectarian element that’s beyond my understanding.