I could not post last week end as the server was down, and this is the first chance I got to post. I cant get HTML to work so used please excuse me if its not clear.
I'm not sure anyone argues that Western Civilization didn't start with Greece. I also don't think anyone is stupid enough to claim there wasn't a culture and civilization before.
The Point is that IF you except that west was dominant at some point (and many of you are taking Greece as the starting point – which is pushing it) then you are ignoring all that came before. You can not just pick a starting point with out looking at what got you to that point.
What we ARE saying that the Greek civilization clearly began to set itself apart from the cultures around it during the time period in question.
Set it self-apart? As in having a elite that ruled in the name of a democracy? Depending on which work you want to use as a start point the great Athenian democracy extended to as low as 20% of the population. Not the mention the huge slave population that Athenian wealth was dependent on.
I am also not sure what your comment about Greeks and Persians means. The two clearly didn't like each other. Were they supposed to support and affirm each other's way of life while killing each other? Tell me again why it is surprising that the Greeks debased Persian accomplishments?
Because your augments sound the same. It’s a very western centric view point.
Your second paragraph falls squarely into the argument most people make in this discussion. I AM NOT DISCOUNTING CHINESE / AFRICAN / INDIAN ACHIEVEMENTS ! ! ! Can we get past it? Clearly people in the East had achievements. Clearly the West borrowed from them, at times heavily. It does not matter. The argument here is clearly defined to warfare and how it is waged. Who cares if the Egyptians invented paper (or whatever) when you are having a discussion on warfare? It simply does not apply. Did they use the paper to kill anyone? Did it affect how their strategies and tactics were used? Did it allow them to conquer Europe? If the answer is no, then it was a notable achievement that has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
To take one example you have given. Try to wage war without paper. War does not exist in a Vacuum. All aspects of a society are involved. You have to raise troops, pay them, give orders, write reports and so on. Try all that without paper.
Also, for the last time, I am NOT saying that Westerners are better in any way than other people. We are not smarter, stronger, more good-looking, or more moral. We have no innate superiority due to skin pigmentation. We are completely equal as individuals. This is NOT a discussion that in any way poo-poohs or discounts the individuality and equality of people. What I AM saying is that Western CULTURE has influenced how the West wages war differently than other people's culture has influenced them. This CULTURE has allowed the West to reach a dominant military height in the current world structure. Please remember that we are talking about culture and not people.
Ok well we can agree on something.
Finally, your Chinese exploration example only proves my point. If the Chinese were capable of exploring the world just like the Portuguese but they didn't, then you must ask why. I would stipulate that it was a cultural difference. The Chinese culture was less interested in outside exploration for whatever reason. The Portuguese (and the West in general) had a bent towards exploration. It was the cultural differences that made the Portuguese world travelers. I don't see how we have overlooked any Chinese achievement. For whatever reason, they did not sail into Lisbon. We can't go about making what ifs. We must ask why the Chinese didn't continue to explore. I would argue that it is cultural, just like the West's military march to dominance.
Does not prove your point. It proves that the west had so little to offer that the Chinese had no reason to discover it. However the west (which has run a trade in balance with the east from Greek times) very much wanted what the east had to offer. It’s the west lack of having what it wanted that forced it to come to the east not a failure on the East part.
The middle ages. This period is imo of the utmost importance for western europe, it saw the transformation of a backward region in ruins to a unique and advanced society (around 1450 WE was leading in the use of machines for example). They created the feudal society, parliament and university (in the modern sense). Most importantly there was no totalitair government like in the east or south america. This meant that people could be certain that the rights they had (like ownership) were guaranteed. Without this it makes no sense to embark on innovations or discoveries as any gains can be taken by an emperor.
This is true if you don’t take into the account the heavy taxes paid and the poverty.
The other point was that people (including the kings) began to feel responsible for their society (as illustrated with parliaments). This was completely lacking elsewhere. Also despite the non-unification of WE there was some sort of overall society (first in religion later in science) due to the church and the use of latin.
Do you have an example? As to Latin if the knowledge that were lost to the West were not translated back into Latin would have been hard for Latin to have done much good. Keep in mind that most other regions of the world have the equivalent of a ‘universal’ language.
Another point is the separation of church and state in actual fact. Sure you could be in trouble if you were a heretic in the middle ages, but many princes, burghers and scientists were able to separate their tasks from the religion, without problem (only later it became less separated when the reformation started).
I am not sure you can make this statement. Religion is often times less Prevalent in other societies. Hinduism is well known for its tolerance. To such an extent that its often refereed to as not one religion but many (You should not confuse current Hindu fundamentalism that you mostly hear about in the news with mainstream Hinduism – much like other religions)
I think Green is refering to the Classical Greek texts that were "lost" to the West and rediscovered through Muslim and Christian contact (often facilitated by Jews) primarily through Spain (though some in Sicily and the Middle East).
Yes.
Although this sounds like a desperate plunge from someone resentlful of the West's influence over the world's affairs in trying to point out instances to challenge this assertion. Even if one grants the truth that the West did borrow heavily from the outside, it still proves the point that the West is more open and receptive to foreign ideas as the opposite exchange (East to West) is nowhere nearly as prevelant. This disparity in exchange has only gotten worse; a couple of years ago tiny Spain with its 40 million people translated more books than the entire Arabic world.
Desperate plunge? Resentful? I could take that a bit negatively but Ill pass. Hopefully you will next time as well. It proves that the Arabs also borrowed from the west. When the Arabs conquered parts of the west they came in contact with the influence absorbed it and expanded on it. When the west was wallowing in darkness the Arabs had a renaissance of its own. Yes latter the west was able to reabsorb the information.
I would also not attribute Western dominace of the world not through cultural or climatic factors . Rather, I see the key difference is that for Europe, many independent states exsited and fought one another more or less continuously for hundreds of years. States compete with one another through war, trade and technology. Ideas and people moved across borders quickly.
I don’t see how this can be the deciding factor – India
has rarely had a united government.
Through this competition, military technology improved rapidly. To take one example, there is probably little difference between a Ming cannon and a Rennaissance era European cannon in range, reliability and firepower. But by the 18th Century, when many forts in China is still using Ming era 16th C cannons, European cannon technology had advanced by leaps and bonds. There is no way non Europeans nations can match this technological advancement UNLESS they are also exposed to them and ready to adopt them. The American Indians, for example, adopted the horse and firearms, and hence managed to hold off the westerners well into the late 19th Century.
Which shows that dominance it hard to define. One could easy see that if it were not for diseases the native Americans peoples might have resisted the western advance.
But then they didn’t fight the Ming either, I think it’s quite clear that only China perhaps Japan and the Muslim world could match the Europeans in the 15 and 16 centaury.
I believe a case could be made for other regions as well, (Aztecs did defeat the spanish (and their native allies) but disease may have been their undoing.
Hanson is a polital creature who twists history selectivly to support his political bias, because he also states in other works that the US won WW2 because the same dynamics that allow greeks to defeat Persians, Britis to defeat Zulus, North to defeat in the ACW, are all indicative of the same point he wants you to believe, read his thesis on greek warfare of 2 decades ago( which is required reading, and he lectures on at the Naval Academy this year) and you will see he has to contradict himself to prove his points. Read his serouse works, not his politicly motivated nonsense.
Boy I could not have put it better.
Another book worth reading is “Imagined Histories’, American Historians interpret the past. Even if you don’t agree with the book – it plots how (American) historians have changed how they view the past
