Europe has taken a technological lead from the thirteenth century onwards.Through this gap, Europeans were able to cope with few people militarily. Even before the first ships run in the sixteenth century, Europe was already further developed and more prosperous than most other parts of the world. Why this gap arose in Europe is still a debate among historians. There are several theories that do not have to exclude each other.
I mention some:
- Culturally: In Europe, the individual was more central, and more importantly, in the North Sea countries, women were an independent legal entity instead of a man’s wife, daughter, mother or sister.
- Institutional: Europe consisted of small areas of power that competed with each other.
This led to military innovations, but also to more favourable conditions in terms of freedom and taxation in order to attract talent. Also state, nobility and church were separated and competitive power factors.
We needed good houses, clothes, shoes, waterworks and roads to not sink into the swamp or to become hypocooled. Furthermore, Europe was favourable with many rivers and good harbours along the whole coast.
This led to innovation in order to achieve labor savings which ultimately led to the industrial Revolution. Labour shortages also led to relatively higher wages and thus to the spread of prosperity. This prosperity led to a broader purchasing power which also stimulated demand for luxury goods the demand also stimulated the technical development and also the incentive to import exotic products. The Ottomans made sure that the Europeans were no longer able to get their spices out of India (according to me because they take revenge forests after the Crusades, but I don’t know for sure).Since the wealthier inhabitants of Europe did want spices, they chose the difficult path. When traders in Europe chose the difficult road they saw that the world was bigger and more diverse than we thought for a long time in Europe, and when Columbus had a good idea for a shorter route to India, the world was still a whole lot bigger. Since we had to navigate the sea routes to find another way to India, we had to build good ships, and colonize the world was a useful additional advantage of that. China has never colonized very much because, besides war with Japan, there was not much to do for them at sea, they had access to everything thanks to the Silk Road. The wise lesson to learn from this is: be careful to make the lives of others harder when you are angry with them, because of great challenges they can get better if they overcome those challenges. The same applies to climate change: if we win this game of the world we have a lot more stable energy sources, and we do not need to import oil anymore.
Because it was a lot more advanced.
For a long time it was far too far away to send an army to it: then one had to either go through Russia (endless swamps where wanted to live) or over the Himalayas (high mountains and wanted to be grown up with their rifle or their machete).
In addition, one could also get cheap copies of popular Chinese products in the west (Hello, Delft Blue).
But the big problem was simply: which army would be there to cope with the Chinese?The technological differences were not far from each other for centuries (the Europeans had fine canons, but the Chinese had excellent arcuballistas, huge crossbows), and then: who has the most dolls and horses and the best strategists.
As long as there will be no more advanced techniques, there is no point in subjecting another country or people that does not want to be subjected.There, the Italians, at the end of the 19th century, came back when they left Ethiopia, a country that had been lying around for thousands of years and colonisers.
(The Battle of Adwa, where the Italians were chopped into the pan)
So far, the Italians did not encounter the Ethiopians.
Yes, they had more artillery pieces, but the Ethiopians were able to put more heavy cavalry against it. In addition, in contrast to what was thought in Rome, the Ethiopians were also in possession of modern rifles that were highly skilled. Add a few brilliant strategists to that, and it’s not strange that the Italians with their 18,000 soldiers could do little more than hoist the white flag when 120,000 soldiers stood in front of their nose. Of course, Italy was completely in front of Europe (varying from: “that you cannot defeat a little bit! ” to “do not say that we have not warned you!”), something they tried to rectify in the 1930s.Without much success, incidentally (this time they took tanks, poison gas and airplanes). This ended with foreign troops that firmly for 脥n Italy.
This outing is typical of how China eventually got foreign troops across the floor.After all, the West (where I also count Japan) had more advanced technologies (such as battleships and quick-fire guns), they went to try it anyway.
The British interspersed drugs.
The Russians did their well-known sliders with border poles. And the Boxer Rebellion was also a reason to station a lot of troops in China without having the intention to leave.
Yes, these countries have all had some land.
What ‘ very favourable trade treaties ‘ concluded with this-and-this Chinese duke or prince. But full submission and complete control was not there. The Japanese have a frantic attempt. But this ended in a very bloody exercise and a shot at Japan.
The British kept it still the longest.They had to return their last land at the end of last century:
Note: It is good that China has helped them remember.
Westminster knowing it would otherwise have become such a Brexit story without end.
Peter has of course called an important element.Furthermore, Europe was always expansionist. In addition, the development of weapons in Europe has been an important place since the Middle Ages. The combination of expansionism and superior armament is another important element.
China was very isolationist.That’s the whole story.
China was not only isolationist.What they conquered bordered on China so it is no longer noticeable. Tibet is the last asset.