Re: An Islamic history of Europe - a rarely told story
What do you mean pecifically?
Originally Posted by USViking
I dd not say that colonialism explained everything, merely that it explained a lot. Moreover is the question of the Ottoman Empire's fall not directly correlated with the rise of Europe and the other way round (apart from the direct neighbours maybe)
The Wiki article on the Ottoman economy indicates that agriculture was favored
more than commerce and industry compared to Europe. The advantage from this
incurring to Europe did not depend on colonial venture.
I was not talking about "scientific monopoly". I am talking about the rise to the most powerful region on earth. That is not quite the same, even though scientific progress is part of that development. Colonisation made a lot of increase in R&D necessary. That became obvious for the colonial powers and also lead to substantial progress in naval and military techniques for example. After Spain got into big business with exploitation of the new world this translated into big power gains also within Europe. Other European powers had a great interest in catching up and catching up meant also technologically, colonial power or not.
This does nothing to support your contention that income from colonial America
was the decisive factor enabling European scientific monopoly.
Apart from pure scientific progress colonization also meant the introduction of several very important plants to Europe. Some of them revolutionized European agriculture. Potatoes are just an example. I am not sure how much you value agriculture but progress in agriculture is a very important aspect even today. Many people keep underestimating that. It meant less farmers could feed more city dwellers and that meant more human resources for trade, manufacturing, research etc.
[quote]Internal development is not a form of colonization in American English usage, and
is off-topic in the context of this thread.
German eastern conquests reached their greatest extent before 1492, and the
German states in fact lost more ground than they gained for about the next 200 years.
The term "east-colonization" for German settling of eastern realms exists also in English to my knowledge. But I am not a native speaker of course. That "east-colonization" does not mean conquest, it meant settling sparsely populated areas in the east. Sometimes on areas of German realms but also in a lot of totally other realms.
Sorry if the arguments I have given above are not sufficient for you. I am just a layman and have not studied history. You are free to propose and support your alternative explanations.
It is insufficient to claim a hypothesis is “not unsupported”- you must give supporting examples.
That is a chicken egg problem. It is pretty clear in my opinion however that WWI was a consequence of the arms race at least as much as some conflict.
Off topic, and IMO arms races are symptoms rather than causes of potential conflict.
Well, not completely. The Ex-Yugoslaws did a fairly decent job in this regard only 15-20 years ago. But by large I am quite confident that these times are over.
Perhaps Europe’s self-inflicted misery is finally over.
Secret laws, secret courts, secret rulings, secret prisons.
Rule of law?