Rant on unreal westernization...

[WeissRaben]

You can acknowledge that the circumstances were lucky without implicitly dismissing the absolutely mind-boggling audacity and skill of people like Pizarro and Cortes. Ruthless, even monstrous, though they may have been, they were extraordinary.

They were absolutely extraordinary men. Monstrous, but extraordinary. They made the most of what they had, and made it count through every possible shrewd and audacious act.

It still could have gone to nothing. The Noche Triste went very, very near to killing off Cortez. In a more stable situation, the Inca Empire would have captured Pizarro and executed him.

They were extraordinary men, yes, but still they got were they got at the right time - which was out of their, or anyone's, hands.

 

[civfanatic]

You can acknowledge that the circumstances were lucky without implicitly dismissing the absolutely mind-boggling audacity and skill of people like Pizarro and Cortes. Ruthless, even monstrous, though they may have been, they were extraordinary.

I agree that they were highly audacious and daring, but I don't see what "skill" it takes to capture an unarmed emperor and slaughter his unarmed retainers, especially when the emperor comes to you and not the other way around. I would say Atahualpa's ignorance and stupidity, combined with the extreme audacity of the conquistadors, was more responsible for the conquest of Peru than any brilliant "skill" or military superiority of Pizarro and his men.

 

[FrigidSoul]

I agree that they were highly audacious and daring, but I don't see what "skill" it takes to capture an unarmed emperor and slaughter his unarmed retainers, especially when the emperor comes to you and not the other way around. I would say Atahualpa's ignorance and stupidity, combined with the extreme audacity of the conquistadors, was more responsible for the conquest of Peru than any brilliant "skill" or military superiority of Pizarro and his men.

Audacity, after a certain point, becomes indistinguishable from skill. The so-called Battle of Cajamara didn't arrange itself. Were Pizarro's opponents naive? Sure, but the bottom line is that Pizarro turned what seemed like an impossible situation into a victory -- through negotiation, deception, and daring. (And in fairness, it was 7,000 "unarmed retainers;" let's not make it sound like the emperor showed up with three doddering advisors and his great aunt Susie. He wasn't that stupid.)

And what about Cortes?

I understand that it's unpopular to lionize conquistadors these days, but to sit here and handwave what these men dared to do on the basis that it was "lucky" is to go way too far in the other direction. Imagine, for a moment, that we were to discover a wealthy empire of indeterminate size on, say, Mars. Would you be willing to take an expedition of 200-500 men up there to conquer it. even if you thought they were "primitive"? That's what we're talking about here; just the attempt is so freaking ballsy as to defy reason -- and then to pull it off? Ridiculous, almost irrespective of the circumstances.

It's so ridiculous as to make one wonder whether there wasn't something unusual about Spanish (or indeed, European) culture to encourage individuals to risk so much in pursuit of their own fortune. In Cortes' case, he even had to defy the governor of Cuba to get where he was going.

 

[LRDK]

There's a reason why the word Eurocentrism is a word, and there isn't a Chinacentrism, or Mughalcentrism. Because Europe, and what happened there, and was decided there, and a disproportionate impact over the globe.

Actually, I think it's probably because most historians you'll hear about if you live in the Americas or Europe have been taught in European based institutions, with European views on knowledge. There is a reason why there was such a demonisation of the Persians, because self centrism is an inevitable consequence when dealing with history, especially before patriotism started to fall out of fashion. And I think the words you would be looking for are Sinocentrism and Indocentrism respectively. I think you used the national names in order to discredit the entire idea of another -centrism before any actual logical argument, starting the opposite side off in ridicule.

 

[LRDK]

It's so ridiculous as to make one wonder whether there wasn't something unusual about Spanish (or indeed, European) culture to encourage individuals to risk so much in pursuit of their own fortune. In Cortes' case, he even had to defy the governor of Cuba to get where he was going.

The inclination of exploration shouldn't be attributed to European culture, but the wave of rediscovery that accompanied the Renaissance. It could have happened to any culture at the time. Also, Cortez was ballsy not to the point of skill, but to the point of delusion, in the se way as Hitler taking on Russia, but this time the gamble payed off. As far as Cortez knew he could have come up against a very strong and centrelines pore, rather the civil war embroiled Aztecs he found. He scuttled his own ships. Taking those chances without much prior knowledge is delusional

 

[moorsonthecoast]

Actually, I think it's probably because most historians you'll hear about if you live in the Americas or Europe have been taught in European based institutions, with European views on knowledge. There is a reason why there was such a demonisation of the Persians, because self centrism is an inevitable consequence when dealing with history, especially before patriotism started to fall out of fashion. And I think the words you would be looking for are Sinocentrism and Indocentrism respectively. I think you used the national names in order to discredit the entire idea of another -centrism before any actual logical argument, starting the opposite side off in ridicule.

I was going to say --- author doesn't know much about the Middle Kingdom, does he? It has a lot in common with the Mediterranean, lit. "Middle Earth."

 

[Derp]

Jeffrey Dahmer was also pretty extraordinary

 

[FrigidSoul]

The inclination of exploration shouldn't be attributed to European culture, but the wave of rediscovery that accompanied the Renaissance. It could have happened to any culture at the time. Also, Cortez was ballsy not to the point of skill, but to the point of delusion, in the se way as Hitler taking on Russia, but this time the gamble payed off. As far as Cortez knew he could have come up against a very strong and centrelines pore, rather the civil war embroiled Aztecs he found. He scuttled his own ships. Taking those chances without much prior knowledge is delusional

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. The Renaissance was a part of European culture; the fact that something like it could have occurred elsewhere is irrelevant.

As far as delusion goes, sure. By our modern standards -- by any standard -- the conquistadors were possessed of an arrogant, risk-taking mentality that flirts with megalomania; yet they were entrusted by their monarchs with their respective delusional quests. That's sorta the point -- that to us, sitting in our comfy 21st century chairs, what they did was unthinkable, and although we can certainly judge them monstrous or delusional, we should be careful not to brush aside their legitimately extraordinary qualities and accomplishments.

History is full to the brim with people who changed the world, for good and ill, despite or perhaps because of what might be fairly judged as delusional risk taking.

 

[FrigidSoul]

Jeffrey Dahmer was also pretty extraordinary

Good call. We should totally dismiss all historical figures' qualities on the basis that they were immoral.

Yep, can't admire anything about Caesar cause he was a Gaul-slaughtering tyrant. Can't admire Napoleon's military skill cause he was a non-Gaul-slaughtering tyrant. You're really onto something here.

 

[Derp]

Good call. We should totally dismiss all historical figures' qualities on the basis that they were immoral.

Yep, can't admire anything about Caesar cause he was a Gaul-slaughtering tyrant. Can't admire Napoleon's military skill cause he was a non-Gaul-slaughtering tyrant. You're really onto something here.

Jeffrey Dahmer was very skilled at murdering people, can't you admire him for that?

 

[zbyrne]

The Spanish conquests of central Mexico and Peru were entirely due to dumb luck and fortuitous circumstances, facilitated in large part by serious blunders by native rulers (like Atahualpa's decision to appear in person before Pizarro with unarmed retainers, leading to his capture), as well as devastating diseases like smallpox. The former should be easily preventable by a human player with the benefit of hindsight (you can't model that in EU anyway), and the latter would have happened even if some guys from Mali had landed in Mexico. Nietzscheian hallucinations of "conquistador supermen" aside, it is difficult to see what special characteristics of the Spanish in particular enabled this "conquest" to take place. If the Spaniards possessed such overwhelming military superiority over native Amerindians, they should have been able to replicate these conquests in places like southern Chile or northern Mexico with ease (given that the peoples in these regions were at a generally lower level of development than those of central Mexico or Peru), but they failed to do so even with extensive native allies and support (the Spaniards were defeated in northern Mexico during the Chichimeca War and in Chile during the Arauco War). In the case of northern Mexico, pacification and integration was achieved in a largely peaceful fashion by Roman Catholic missionaries, not by some great Spanish military superiority (the Spaniards were defeated when they tried to use force). In the case of Mapuche territories in southern Chile, pacification wasn't achieved until the late 19th century by the modern army of independent Chile.

So? Regardless of how it happened it still happened. The Spanish, with like a handful of men, conquered half a continent. Europeans went on to utterly dominate the New world. Who cares how it happened, only that it did. Half of all historical events owe something to being lucky. The Americans wouldn't have won their war of independence without a degree of luck for instance.

I don't think anyone denies that European states, beginning with Portugal, were the first to establish trade contacts on a truly global scale, and consequently had much wider influence on different parts of the globe than polities like Vijayanagar or Safavid Iran. Unfortunately, this is completely irrelevant to the premise of the OP, which is specifically about Western superiority and dominance during the period covered by EU4. There was no European domination whatsoever over Asia and Africa as a whole for the duration of EU4, and Europe did not occupy the "central and dominant position". The Mughals even in 1700 had a far greater income than all of Western Europe combined, but by 1900 Western Europe had industrialized and had far surpassed India in all economic parameters. Ergo, Western dominance and Eurocentrism belongs in Vicky II, rather than in EU4.

Right and I think that yes the conversation has moved away from exactly what OP started it off on, but as I said I'm talking not necessarily about military power, but trade and global influence - so it sounds like you actually agree with me?

For the timeline of EU4, the only continents dominated by Europe besides Europe itself were those of the New World. There was no European domination over Asia or Africa as a whole during this period.

Again, not in the sense that they "conquered" or subdued those places - but in spreading a global influence and dominating the trade, then yes they did. China and Africa were insular places, either by design or not, and as a result failed to project anything globally, whereas the Europeans did project globally, onto those places. The Portuguese for example, introduced Christianity and cannons to Japan in the 16th Century - Japan being an entirely isolationist country up to then.

Finally I'd be careful about you claiming that Europeans had no influence over Asia - when I think you mean China. They obviously had considerable influence over the Philippines (named after a Spanish King no less) as well as the rest of the East Indies, as well as Japan, as mentioned above. India too, and Russia (not myself, but some would argue is a European nation - and whilst I wouldn't call it a European nation, it was certainly primarily preoccupied with events in Europe) owns quite a large chunk of Asia. So to say that Europe had no influence over Asia is a massive disservice.

 

[zbyrne]

Actually, I think it's probably because most historians you'll hear about if you live in the Americas or Europe have been taught in European based institutions, with European views on knowledge. There is a reason why there was such a demonisation of the Persians, because self centrism is an inevitable consequence when dealing with history, especially before patriotism started to fall out of fashion. And I think the words you would be looking for are Sinocentrism and Indocentrism respectively. I think you used the national names in order to discredit the entire idea of another -centrism before any actual logical argument, starting the opposite side off in ridicule.

Right yup I should have looked up the appropriate words first. My bad on that, but not a deliberate attempt to discredit the entire idea of another -centrism.

However the definition of Eurocentrism I have always understood and operated off is the following:

"European dominance over the world, as it had developed during the height of the European colonial empires since the Early Modern period"

And based off of that understanding, I have operated, as opposed to it specifically being about Western interpretation of European significance - now Sinocentrism or Indocentrism cannot fall into the same definition because they never did these things!

 

[WeissRaben]

Who cares how it happened, only that it did.

Aaaand here you lose the right to talk about history and be considered a relevant addition to the argument. Ignored.

 

[zbyrne]

Aaaand here you lose the right to talk about history and be considered a relevant addition to the argument. Ignored.

as opposed to dismissing the events because of the means they came to pass? Seriously I've had several people dismiss the Spanish conquests, because they were "lucky". that is surely worse, and I'm not at all dismissing the importance of the events - but in this debate I don't consider the how something happened to be of importance, more the results.

This is pretty much the argument for dismissing military history (ie. the events and course of a war) and focusing on the causes of the war / results of the war.

And in this case, the argument is that Spanish did conquer and rule much of the Americas - how exactly they arrived at said point isn't all that relative to this, just that they did.

 

[LRDK]

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. The Renaissance was a part of European culture; the fact that something like it could have occurred elsewhere is irrelevant.

As far as delusion goes, sure. By our modern standards -- by any standard -- the conquistadors were possessed of an arrogant, risk-taking mentality that flirts with megalomania; yet they were entrusted by their monarchs with their respective delusional quests. That's sorta the point -- that to us, sitting in our comfy 21st century chairs, what they did was unthinkable, and although we can certainly judge them monstrous or delusional, we should be careful not to brush aside their legitimately extraordinary qualities and accomplishments.

History is full to the brim with people who changed the world, for good and ill, despite or perhaps because of what might be fairly judged as delusional risk taking.

Cortez was not actually permitted by the monarch to take on the Aztecs, and the Renaissance mentality isn't exclusive to Europe specifically. In theory, had any other culture had the same rediscoverence of facts from an older empire it could have gone into a renaissance like state where risky ventures are encouraged. In EUIV terms the Renaissance is almost like a modifier, not an integral or exclusive part of the culture, but an overlay over an existing culture

 

[Sarmatian]

Far from that I'd interrupt the pissing contest, but I started a discussion on westernization in the Suggestions forum, although limited to in game westernization as opposed to a discussion about history. So, if anyone is interested in that discussion, here's the link https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/westernization-brainstorm.871270/

 

[Haccoude]

It's so ridiculous as to make one wonder whether there wasn't something unusual about Spanish (or indeed, European) culture to encourage individuals to risk so much in pursuit of their own fortune. In Cortes' case, he even had to defy the governor of Cuba to get where he was going.

I would actually say yes, and the way I'd say that is that Cortez was not merely Spanish, but specifically Spanish Low Nobility. Now I'm going to quite a bit back, into CK2 territory rather than EU4 territory. Also here we see European Low Nobility pulling off quite ballsy feats, or at least risking all in the attempt. You have the Hautevilles, but you also have Roussel de Bailleul, you have the various Condotierri companies, including Sforza who managed to turn his mercenary company into being Duke of Milan.

If you look specifically at Medieval and Renaissance Europe, prior to the consolidation of states, there's "stereotype" that seems to reoccur, that of the "Second Son" (to the extent that the Normans have even been referred to as a "Culture of Second Sons"), getting the education only afforded to nobility. One who has tasted the luxury of nobility throughout his upbringing, but who stood to inherit no land that could ensure he would keep the life of luxury. Skilled in the art of warfare (especially since Medieval European Nobility specifically derived their power from their status as a military elite. Their raison d'être as a social caste was skill at warfare), yet only receiving a Second Son's inheritance, in the form of fighting equipment and enough money to maintain a few retainers.

The common Second Son often ended up a mercenary, and they formed the bulk of many a mercenary company. But, some of these Second Sons were more ambitious, and were not just skilled in fighting, but in tactics and leadership as well. These ended up being the leaders of mercenary/adventurer companies, and among those leaders a few were skilled enough, ambitious enough and ballsy enough that they turned to wanting to carve out their own principality. In the Middle Ages, these are Robert Guiscards, and the Tancred of Antiochs, and also the Hernán Cortéses, and the prestige and wealth they could acquire is how you get the Francisco Pizzaros and the John Hawkwoods who started out as common soldiers, but was skilled enough to rise up to the level of Adventurer/Mercenary Captain and then use that to gain their nobility.

It's not uniquely European, but it is unique to strongly militaristic cultures with primogeniture succession, a military nobility and practically no way to gain status through the path of an administrator, bureaucrat or diplomat. So in effect, it is uniquely European.

 

[LRDK]

I would actually say yes, and the way I'd say that is that Cortez was not merely Spanish, but specifically Spanish Low Nobility. Now I'm going to quite a bit back, into CK2 territory rather than EU4 territory. Also here we see European Low Nobility pulling off quite ballsy feats, or at least risking all in the attempt. You have the Hautevilles, but you also have Roussel de Bailleul, you have the various Condotierri companies, including Sforza who managed to turn his mercenary company into being Duke of Milan.

If you look specifically at Medieval and Renaissance Europe, prior to the consolidation of states, there's "stereotype" that seems to reoccur, that of the "Second Son" (to the extent that the Normans have even been referred to as a "Culture of Second Sons"), getting the education only afforded to nobility. One who has tasted the luxury of nobility throughout his upbringing, but who stood to inherit no land that could ensure he would keep the life of luxury. Skilled in the art of warfare (especially since Medieval European Nobility specifically derived their power from their status as a military elite. Their raison d'être as a social caste was skill at warfare), yet only receiving a Second Son's inheritance, in the form of fighting equipment and enough money to maintain a few retainers.

The common Second Son often ended up a mercenary, and they formed the bulk of many a mercenary company. But, some of these Second Sons were more ambitious, and were not just skilled in fighting, but in tactics and leadership as well. These ended up being the leaders of mercenary/adventurer companies, and among those leaders a few were skilled enough, ambitious enough and ballsy enough that they turned to wanting to carve out their own principality. In the Middle Ages, these are Robert Guiscards, and the Tancred of Antiochs, and also the Hernán Cortéses, and the prestige and wealth they could acquire is how you get the Francisco Pizzaros and the John Hawkwoods who started out as common soldiers, but was skilled enough to rise up to the level of Adventurer/Mercenary Captain and then use that to gain their nobility.

It's not uniquely European, but it is unique to strongly militaristic cultures with primogeniture succession, a military nobility and practically no way to gain status through the path of an administrator, bureaucrat or diplomat. So in effect, it is uniquely European.

Arabic succession?

 

[LRDK]

Right yup I should have looked up the appropriate words first. My bad on that, but not a deliberate attempt to discredit the entire idea of another -centrism.

However the definition of Eurocentrism I have always understood and operated off is the following:

"European dominance over the world, as it had developed during the height of the European colonial empires since the Early Modern period"

And based off of that understanding, I have operated, as opposed to it specifically being about Western interpretation of European significance - now Sinocentrism or Indocentrism cannot fall into the same definition because they never did these things!

I would say the definition of eurocentrism is looking at history through a biased lense in the favour of Europe, or a disproportionate focus on Europe. As I said before, eurocentrism extends to far before the colonial era, to the Persians. More and more revisionist historians have started to shed light on the Persians positive side, discrediting previous, Eurocentric views based on Greek writing, Persia's enemy

 

[Haccoude]

Arabic succession?

Are you talking general Arabic succession (which I'm not too up on), or the Ottoman succession that is presented as Arabic in CK2? Because if it's the latter, then the extent of how open it is works against it. The fact that any sons can rise to become king, means they will all fight over the old kingdom, rather than creating new ones. You want a culture that pumps people whose motivation is: "I have tasted the life of a king, and I will regain it by any means necessary or die trying.", and then you want a culture is "locked down" enough that they can't regain a "King's Life" within the old kingdom. The stereotype is called "Second Sons", but it might be more accurate to describe them as third, fourth of fifth sons in actuality. People who genuinely have no chance of inheriting.

as opposed to dismissing the events because of the means they came to pass?

I'm not going to dismiss the Spanish conquests, but I will say that if you're going to be making alt-history, dismissing the events because of the means is a much better idea than dismissing the means because of the events.

Understanding why or how something happened helps you immensely in determining what would make likely and plausible alt-history, knowing what happened means you know the Original Timeline, but helps jack squat in alt-history.