What is Behind Europe's Advancement? Religion or Culture?

[jankren]

Many people especially Western Christians keep telling me that Christianity is the driving force behind Europe's high advancement. However, they seem to forget that Christianity does not only exist in Europe, it exists in every part of the world. So logically, if the religion is indeed behind the fast progress of European civilization then shouldn't all Christian populated countries all over the world have at least similar advancement?

Now let us look at other continents of the world. In Asia, the only Christian populated countries I could come up with are the Philliphines and East Timor. Those countries are in no way advanced. Even regional Muslim populated countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia are less backward. You might wanna say Australia, but that country is European in every way.

In the Americas, none of the non-European cultured Christian populated countries (So USA, Canada, or Argentina do not count) there is even more progressive than average Middle Eastern Muslim populated countries.

Similar thing can also be said about Africa. As far as I know none of the non-European cultured Christian populated countries (So South Africa does not count) there is more advanced than Muslim populated African countries such as the Sudan and Nigeria.

Therefore, is Christianity really driving force behind modern Europe's magnificent civilization? Or is it more due to its unique European culture? By the way please correct me if any of my observations above are wrong.

Peace ,

[Ummon]

No both, and chance options? Magnificent?

[Garbarsardar]

No both, and chance options? Magnificent?

You just have to ask...

I added one more option, I hope that the thread starter does not object...

Garb.

[Sher Khan]

You just have to ask...

I added one more option, I hope that the thread starter does not object...

Garb.

Aww... and I already wasted my one vote on the Spartans...

[DukeofSerbia]

Picture is not black-white in maniheism way.

There is no GAH! for voting.

[Cassy]

Are we talking about the religion that mudered Gallileo, launched Crusades that sacked Constantinople (furthering the Dark Age) and banned polyphonic music?

Actually I'm pretty down with banning polyphonic ring tones but that's not the point.

[Ummon]

Are we talking about the religion that mudered Gallileo, launched Crusades that sacked Constantinople (furthering the Dark Age) and banned polyphonic music?

Actually I'm pretty down with banning polyphonic ring tones but that's not the point.

Sorry, religion didn't murder Galileo. Galileo wasn't killed by the Church. You just disqualified your stance, I would say, with a clearly wrong statement like that... And also, the sack of Constantinople was decided by the (cultured and secular) Venetians, not the Church...

[Cassy]

Sorry, religion didn't murder Galileo. Galileo wasn't killed by the Church. You just disqualified your stance, I would say, with a clearly wrong statement like that... And also, the sack of Constantinople was decided by the (cultured and secular) Venetians, not the Church...

Ah, the apologist!

The Church ordered Galileo to basically cease and desist his heliocentric views. Eventually he was ordered to stand trial on the charge of heresy, and died not long after under house arrest.

Crusaders sacked Constantinople, can't deny that.

The Catholic Church remains and always has been the enemy of advancement.

[Lee1026]

Resources. That's the name of the game. By the time of the late medieval ages, when North Africa's wheat fields began to dry up and the Middle East's climate could no longer support massive agricultural production, Europe had the technology to till the cold north to be productive areas of agriculture. The assimilation of the Vikings into the Catholic fold brought the north sea trade routes into importance and roads began to connect north with south.

No so fast. Europe's wheat fields may have badly out stripped the production of North African fields, but they have no where near the output of Asian rice paddies.

The Crusades brought back experiences and technologies that the Europeans harnessed to its limits. Castles became larger and stronger rock fortifications, trade routes were opened with the East, etc.

But one wonders why the original owners of the technology did not bother to wield it.

I agree with much of your analysis's, but I disagree on a key point here and there. First of all, Gold does not mean anything to the economy as a whole. Just increasing the money supply isn't going to make anybody richer. Similarly, the trade routes did not really make anybody richer other then the merchants themselves. However, trade did mean something extremely important. Before, there was very little advancement bewteen classes. Now, with the rise of merchant class to rival the old nobility, Europe have a social mobility that is unseen else where in the world. And social mobility will evenually move the most competent men up the ladder to the point where they can help to advance their nations.

[Sher Khan]

No so fast. Europe's wheat fields may have badly out stripped the production of North African fields, but they have no where near the output of Asian rice paddies.

Asian rice paddies only supported China and India. The Mid East had no such product to fall back on.

India and China, however, kept to themselves despite their immense wealth. Even when the British Empire was on a roll, India's treasury dwarfed the Queen's. But they never bothered to reach out as Europe did. They were perfectly content with being isolated by the Hindu Kush and the Himalayas.

But one wonders why the original owners of the technology did not bother to wield it.

They did. Impressive citadels were constructed in the Middle East, but because of its expanse the castle did not achieve the importance it had in Europe, where the distance between cities were shorter. The world was smaller in Europe.

I agree with much of your analysis's, but I disagree on a key point here and there. First of all, Gold does not mean anything to the economy as a whole. Just increasing the money supply isn't going to make anybody richer.

It's the basis of Mercantilism. There's a limited supply of gold, so we've gotta go get it before the Spanish do. It doesn't help economy, sure, but it creates an expansive treasury that certainly adds to a nation's wealth and its ability to develop itself. Then there's the side-effects. The need for gold leads men to discover new regions and other riches soon follow.

Similarly, the trade routes did not really make anybody richer other then the merchants themselves.

Who better to make richer than the middle class, who could then afford to pay artisans for their products and in turn pay higher taxes for the ruler to profit off of. The only ones who don't benefit are the peasantry - but when have they ever?

However, trade did mean something extremely important. Before, there was very little advancement bewteen classes. Now, with the rise of merchant class to rival the old nobility, Europe have a social mobility that is unseen else where in the world. And social mobility will evenually move the most competent men up the ladder to the point where they can help to advance their nations.

Exactly.

[Sher Khan]

Culture and religion? They fleshed out Europe's identity, but were not the driving force behind them.

Resources. That's the name of the game. By the time of the late medieval ages, when North Africa's wheat fields began to dry up and the Middle East's climate could no longer support massive agricultural production, Europe had the technology to till the cold north to be productive areas of agriculture. The assimilation of the Vikings into the Catholic fold brought the north sea trade routes into importance and roads began to connect north with south.

The Crusades brought back experiences and technologies that the Europeans harnessed to its limits. Castles became larger and stronger rock fortifications, trade routes were opened with the East, etc.

As technology advanced, Europe had the advantage in natural resources. Timber a-plenty, rivers and wind everywhere for mills, and lots of natural minerals for building and war. Comparatively, North Africa's most valuable resource became slaves, nothing else was comparable. There was gold coming up from Ghana, sure, but only after a costly and long trip through Saharan hell.


Near constant fighting amongst one another advanced warfare without worry about limitations on environmental factors (no heat to dissuade Gothic fluters). Every king or duke in Europe hoping to make a name for himself was on an endless quest to one-up his neighbors in battle tech and battle prowess. And as we know, lots of innovations for modern life comes from the need for better tech in warfare.


Pax Mongolia gave Europe a taste for the Orient. They wanted silks from China and spices from India. It was expensive before hand as there was no unifying power to hold the trade routes before the Mongols. But after a few hundred years, the Ottoman Turks took control of the Anatolian land routes to the Silk Road. So, the Europeans, namely Italian and Iberian merchants, looked to Mamluk Egypt to circumvent the Ottomans. Soon, however, Egypt fell to the Turks and an Ottoman wall was built (in the form of high tariffs) barring Europeans from the cheap Silk Road of yesteryears.

Then came the discovery of the New World. It's initial plunder supplied Western Europe with enough cash to buy their survival against the Ottomans. It's later settlement created a new trading base allowing a European monopoly on the raw goods - of which there was a lot - in America. Soon, the Europeans could grow, harvest, and ship coffee from America for far cheaper than the Ottomans could sell it from their farms in Ethiopia. Not only that, the Europeans could now sell it to the Ottomans for cheaper than they could harvest themselves in their own territories. This, as any business whiz can see, created a bad trade-deficit between East and West. Europe once thought of the East as a place of endless riches. Now, it dwarfed the East with its own riches both grown in Europe or shipped from America.


But the Silk Road still called to European merchants. The Americas were rich in material wealth, but Asia still had silks and spices unavailable to the European market - at least cheaply. Utilizing the same technology developed to reach the Americas, Portuguese merchants circumnavigated Africa to open up trade routes both around and behind the Ottomans. Unprepared for a European presence behind them, and foolishly discrediting its danger, the Ottomans couldn't fight away the Portuguese. Others followed, the French, the English, etc., who hoped to set up trading ports in India and China to ship back its riches without having to pay the Ottomans anything. It was practically a steal, in merchant terms. The loss of this trade resource was the final stab to finish off the Ottoman economy, and it fell through subsisting only on local taxes.

Mercantilism was born, the need to search out and collect the wealth of the world before your rivals could get there first. You could almost say it was greed that brought Europe into the height of its power, but I'm trying to stay objective as much as I can here.

From mercantilism we see the growth of colonialism, confounded by a growing population. The wealth collected by Europe allowed for such idleness by the non-merchant, non-military population that it resulted in the Renaissance and the glory of the Victorian Age.

From then on it was simply Europe maintaining the status quo.

[Ummon]

I find this historical analysis somewhat excessively oriented towards economy. It overestimates the importance of crusades, as well.

[Sher Khan]

I find this historical analysis somewhat excessively oriented towards economy. It overestimates the importance of crusades, as well.

I find economy to be that much more important to the rise of Europe (and more specifically the fall of the Ottomans) than the other factors of culture or religion. The advancements happened in spite of them, much as they did in the old caliphates with wealth abound and golden ages everywhere.

I'm also not sure about the comment, 'overestimates the importance of crusades.' I only mentioned the crusades once in only two sentences, both of which are no exaggeration I believe. Templar and Hospitaller castle building techniques perfected in the Crusades surely influenced later castles in Europe, which produced a need for better war tech to counter them. And as the Italian presence in the MidEast after the crusades is any indication, trade routes were greatly expanded during and after the crusades. Honestly, I played down their importance and focused more on Europe and the Ottomans.

[Ummon]

Ah, the apologist!

I would do the same with almost any religion.

The Church ordered Galileo to basically cease and desist his heliocentric views. Eventually he was ordered to stand trial on the charge of heresy, and died not long after under house arrest.

Unfortunately for your queer theory, the Church did so because Galileo had insulted the Pope in his "Dialogo Sopra i Massimi Sistemi". The Pope took personal revenge on Galileo, but nobody had anything to say against Copernic who invented heliocentric system... And contrary to what you stated before, Galileo wasn't killed, he died of old age, while confined inside a country villa...

Crusaders sacked Constantinople, can't deny that.

Indeed, for economical and political reasons.

The Catholic Church remains and always has been the enemy of advancement.

Like for example, when it payed Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel, or when the monastries were the only place where classical culture survived the middle ages, and arab books were translated into latin...

I find economy to be that much more important to the rise of Europe (and more specifically the fall of the Ottomans) than the other factors of culture or religion. The advancements happened in spite of them, much as they did in the old caliphates with wealth abound and golden ages everywhere.

The Chinese were more advanced, and richer. But they developed no science. They were nearer and probably knew of America, but they didn't colonize it...

I'm also not sure about the comment, 'overestimates the importance of crusades.' I only mentioned the crusades once in only two sentences, both of which are no exaggeration I believe. Templar and Hospitaller castle building techniques perfected in the Crusades surely influenced later castles in Europe, which produced a need for better war tech to counter them. And as the Italian presence in the MidEast after the crusades is any indication, trade routes were greatly expanded during and after the crusades. Honestly, I played down their importance and focused more on Europe and the Ottomans.

The role of advancement in castle-making is essentially marginal, if not nonexistent...

[Real]

Indeed, for economical and political reasons.

Which are?

[Sher Khan]

The Chinese were more advanced, and richer. But they developed no science. They were nearer and probably knew of America, but they didn't colonize it...

Isolationism didn't help them much in the end. I'd wonder about America, however. The nearest place they could feasibly colonize was Alaska. The Pacific seems far too vast for the Chinese to have navigated through - unless they developed the technology for ocean travel. Thus, I believe, Alaska was their closest place to land in America.

And, like Utah, it would hardly be desirable as a place of settlement. The Vikings would like it better there.

The role of advancement in castle-making is essentially marginal, if not nonexistent...

I would disagree, noting the change in castle-building after the crusades. Or do you mean that castle-building didn't have much to do with advancement in general?


Eitherway, I only saw fit to devote a whole two sentences to that specific topic.

[Ummon]

Isolationism didn't help them much in the end. I'd wonder about America, however. The nearest place they could feasibly colonize was Alaska. The Pacific seems far too vast for the Chinese to have navigated through - unless they developed the technology for ocean travel. Thus, I believe, Alaska was their closest place to land in America.

And, like Utah, it would hardly be desirable as a place of settlement. The Vikings would like it better there.

Then why should we suppose that entrepreneurism was completely independent of religion? A religion which encouraged individualism (to a degree) and also conversion, the latter as intensely as Islam...

There is an archeological theory about a Chinese fort on the western coast of the US, suffragated by evidence, although not certain...

I would disagree, noting the change in castle-building after the crusades. Or do you mean that castle-building didn't have much to do with advancement in general?

Eitherway, I only saw fit to devote a whole two sentences to that specific topic.

And I pointed out the two IMHO weak parts of your argument.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

In response to the original question:What is Behind Europe's Advancement?

It was individuals...

[Sher Khan]

Then why should we suppose that entrepreneurism was completely independent of religion? A religion which encouraged individualism (to a degree) and also conversion, the latter as intensely as Islam...

I did not say that religion did nothing to advance Europe. I believe it did do things, yes, as much as many other factors, but I believe the economic wealth that was accumulated through the work of merchants and later imperialism led Europe to the height of world power.

Yes, religion played its role, but it was not the source of achievement in my opinion. Papal Holy Leagues may have stopped the Ottomans from wiping Europe out, but gold from the New World funded more than one Holy League.

There is an archeological theory about a Chinese fort on the western coast of the US, suffragated by evidence, although not certain...

Interesting. I'll see what I can find out about this myself.

And I pointed out the two IMHO weak parts of your argument.

The economy point, maybe to some degree, but I made no real point about the crusades. I barely mentioned them, which is surprising considering how much time I spent studying them.

[Sétanta]

Religion shaped the culture that drove advancement. The barbaric, backwards middle easterners couldn't keep up once the Europeans opened their eyes. Of course, 99% of the great leaders and scientists who contributed to European domination were devout Catholics.