Nah, being spared the Mongol invasion was incidental at best. What really gave the Euros their kick-start was discovering a whole-ass continent filled with resources, and polities that did not have the capacity to resist the sudden introduction of Old World technology.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say with a self-administered grain of salt that colonialism didn’t really matter that much to European development in the grand scheme of things. Really we’re looking at the Renaissance and the beginnings of capitalism here. The only contemporary society that could’ve competed on both fronts was the formerly-Abbasid, formerly-proto-capitalist Middle East, but the Mongols heavily derailed that. I’m not sure how correct the post is in general, but it does bear thinking how the Renaissance would’ve went had Florence met a fate similar to Baghdad.
I’m a little tired right now and going to have a bit of a lay down, but I’d point out that Europe’s increasing economic parity, and then slowly gaining economic superiority, over the rest of the world would have to be one hell of a coincidence to match up nearly perfectly with the discovery and exploitation of an entire continent’s worth of resources. Vitally, the Americas provided Europe with trade goods (or the appropriate environment for growing them) that the rest of the world wanted - a recurring weakness of Europe in European history.
Prestige projects are an ancient endeavor, though. The Norse, for example, were not exactly awash in riches during the height of their exploratory voyages, but a few desperate men or leaders with little else to their name (or boundless ambition) can make a massive difference.
In any case, Europe’s economic success is largely concentrated post-Columbus; at the time of Columbus, Europe was not particularly wealthy compared to the competing states. There are European advantages which contributed to the decision, but I don’t think wealth or industry is a compelling factor.
Nah, being spared the Mongol invasion was incidental at best. What really gave the Euros their kick-start was discovering a whole-ass continent filled with resources, and polities that did not have the capacity to resist the sudden introduction of Old World technology.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say with a self-administered grain of salt that colonialism didn’t really matter that much to European development in the grand scheme of things. Really we’re looking at the Renaissance and the beginnings of capitalism here. The only contemporary society that could’ve competed on both fronts was the formerly-Abbasid, formerly-proto-capitalist Middle East, but the Mongols heavily derailed that. I’m not sure how correct the post is in general, but it does bear thinking how the Renaissance would’ve went had Florence met a fate similar to Baghdad.
I’m a little tired right now and going to have a bit of a lay down, but I’d point out that Europe’s increasing economic parity, and then slowly gaining economic superiority, over the rest of the world would have to be one hell of a coincidence to match up nearly perfectly with the discovery and exploitation of an entire continent’s worth of resources. Vitally, the Americas provided Europe with trade goods (or the appropriate environment for growing them) that the rest of the world wanted - a recurring weakness of Europe in European history.
Also Real Mughal Hours
Could be reverse causality? Rich and industrializing countries have the money and resources to send out explorers and start colonies.
If you’re not on the rise already, you’re probably not throwing away ships on suicide missions.
Prestige projects are an ancient endeavor, though. The Norse, for example, were not exactly awash in riches during the height of their exploratory voyages, but a few desperate men or leaders with little else to their name (or boundless ambition) can make a massive difference.
In any case, Europe’s economic success is largely concentrated post-Columbus; at the time of Columbus, Europe was not particularly wealthy compared to the competing states. There are European advantages which contributed to the decision, but I don’t think wealth or industry is a compelling factor.