![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
---
Why did Europe take over the world? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence )
I am not a historian and don't know much about this.
My guess is that it was due to communication technology, specifically the printing press. China developed the printing press first but because their language was ideographic rather than alphabetic, it was not as useful for them. China did have woodblock printing, which did make it relatively cheap and quick to make new books, but not as cheap or quick as the printing press made it for Europeans; for example, in Europe, "between 1518 and 1520, Luther's tracts were distributed in 300,000 printed copies", and also there were soon newspapers; it seems to me that in China it was not so cheap and easy to typeset a new text that this sort of thing happened.
I don't know why India didn't adopt the printing press sooner, though.
---
---
some of my notes/summaries of askhistorians answers NOTE I AM NOT A HISTORIAN AND THESE ARE NOT MY OPINIONS I AM JUST COPY/PASTING WHAT I READ ON THAT SITE (in the following sometimes i link to r/askhistorians in the questions, sometimes in the answer, there's no meaning to my choice, sorry for the inconsistency)):
Q: Why are there so many medieval paintings of people battling large snails? A: Unknown
Q: How were Atheists treated by Greek / Romans? How devout were Roman citizens? [1] A: They probably wouldn't mind your beliefs as long as you still engaged in the rituals; if you refused to partake in the rituals that would be a crime [2]. "The concept of "atheism" as we conceive of it is a very recent idea that resulted from the 18th Century's growing concept of a division between secular and religious realms of human experience. This itself was something that had been gradually bubbling up since the Renaissance, but it wasn't something that a person living in the ancient world would've understood. For us the concept of religion is the direct opposite of the secular, and there are lots of sharp distinctions that separate the two of them. Not so in antiquity. For a person living in that kind of society the way we think of religion in the modern west is entirely alien. The concept of doctrine being binding, for example, wouldn't make any sense to an ancient observer, who would probably find the insistence of religious authorities on a single true statement about the qualities of a divine power as being ridiculous. The division between secular and religious would've also perplexed an ancient observer, since religious rituals and secular rituals are one and the same, with no distinction (this is something that we've forgotten in the west, but which is still understood and present in many other religious traditions--such as those of Japan and China). And that ritual aspect of religion is important, since the concept of religious observance by faith alone is completely bizarre in antiquity and doesn't exist until Christianity starts to really take hold. What's important in ancient religions--and still in some, such as Shintoism--is the observance of the ritual. It really doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you perform the ritual. In reality it's a bit more complicated than that"
Q: Rome's ideas of other people's gods [3] [4] [5] A: "Take Britain, for example. When the Romans took control of Britain, a Celtic goddess known as Sulis had a cult and temple at modern day Bath. The Romans equated Sulis with their goddess Minerva and the cult of Sulis Minerva was born. Forgive the informal tone but it was really a case of "Wait, you worship this god? We totally do too! Let's call the same thing for simplicity's sake!"...It worked both ways though. When the Romans took over Egypt after the Battle of Actium, the cult of Isis (as a single example) became so wildly popular that shrines to Isis have been found in all corners of the Roman Empire. "
Q: Identification throughout history [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] A: Letters of introduction; seals ("The key to seals is that re-creating them identically was virtually impossible due to subtle variations that the individuals participating in a transaction would have been able to figure out. " [15]) ; registries of citizens; official letters; physical description of your body (note: official letters would sometimes describe the physical appearance of the bearer); physical description of clothing (most people didn't have too many items of clothing); testament of people who know you; metal 'diplomas' [16]. Social/political status identified by official letters, dress (note: sumptary laws), uniforms, whether you are literate. This didn't always work well [17].
Q: Why did Pirates even have flags? A: Intimidate the enemy into surrendering without a fight
Q: Who did people report crimes to? [18] [19] A: Sheriff; local magistrate; or nobody, you and yours have to deal with it yourself
Q: Have there ever been debates for "sword control" the way there are debates on "gun control" at the moment? [20] [21] A: Yes, eg in Japan Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Also, frequently only nobles were allowed to have various kinds of weapons.
Q: Examples of ancient humor? A: [22]
Q: Did Spartacus receive any moral support from Rome's intellectual class? A: No
Q: Did the average person living during the Roman republic or empire have a sense of what the "world map" looked like? Did the average patrician or senator for that matter? A: No, and not really
Q: where the Romans comfortable with the idea of showing physical affection to their children or spouses in public? A: For upper-class Romans, at least, no. In fact, one senator got kicked out of the Senate for kissing his wife in public in front of his young daughter.
Q: Actors throughout history have been considered lower class, even often associated with prostitutes. A: "Actors throughout history have been considered lower class, even often associated with prostitutes." In some societies, actors were prostitutes. "One of the things that makes...popular performance a problem for status in the Roman world was the idea that if you were paid for your services it was a bad thing. You could give it a way, and then you could accept tribute or gifts for your art, but if you charged, it was the equivalent of prostitution.""
Q: Was there any type of public outcry against the brutality of the "gladiator games" in Ancient Rome? A: Except for from Christians, not an outcry really, but some intellectuals thought it was bad.
Q: Attitudes to homosexuality in Greece and Rome [23] A: Greece: "...sex with women was necessary for procreation, but was always tainted with the sense of depreciating manly virtue. There are long arguments about the extent of pederastic relationships, most notably in the writings of Plato, who contended that non-sexual pederastic relationships enhanced virtue and manliness, while carnal relations were "brutish"." Rome: "Monarchic/Early Republican Rome seems almost "Puritanical" in its regulation of sexual roles, adopting none of the Greek attitudes. As we get into Late Republic/Empire, what we see is a distinction based almost entirely upon the role played within sexuality.... To be in the penetrative role essentially made you masculine, and while it was vaguely questionable, did not impugn one's reputation. To be penetrated, however, made you into something effeminate, and destroyed your masculinity. "
Q: Did the Greeks and Romans worship Eris/Discordia? A: No
Q: Belief in the Supernatural in the Roman Early Imperial period A: "Belief in magic and witches...was near universal...In the intellectual class..., the majority of intellectuals believed that the great majority of magic was fake, but that some wasn't. A few, like Pliny, seemed to have a view of magic that would be well in accord with today, accepting only the efficacy of poisons and certain cures."
Q: When did the concept of guilt enter Roman and Greek civilisation? A: It was always there. Guilt is probably a human universal.
Q: What did Romans think about the transition from Roman Republic to Roman Empire in Augustus's time? [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] A: They were well aware of it, and some regretted it, but no one could do much about it, and since it came after about a century of civil wars people were thankful for any peace. Note also that the transition was gradual, and that although it was known by all that Augustus had de-facto dictatorial power ("There was nothing subtle about anything that happened between 49 BC and 27BC (when Caesar crossed the Rubicon and when Octavian took the name Augustus and devolved his powers to the state). It was about as subtle as World War One"), he didn't formally declare himself a monarch, and allowed the Senate to have some power.
Q: How did the Roman public react to the assassination of Julias Caesar? [30] A: Very angrily. Caesar was highly revered by the common people.
Q: How did Roman non-Senators view politicians? Were they skeptical of them as we are today? A: Maybe you'd be 'on the side of' those Senators who were patrons of your associates [31]
Q: In ancient Greece or Rome, how much would non-historians believe the details of their own historians? [32] A: They'd probably mostly take them at their word. But they wouldn't be surprised if some things were exaggerated for dramatic effect. The idea of history back then was not focused on getting the details right through comparing multiple sources of evidence. Often the point of recounting history was to investigate cultural or moral character rather than literal historicity.
Q: How did Romans view the myth of Romulus and Rhemus? Were they at all interested in "fact" or was that not a principle of historical writing? A: There was some doubt. This wasn't a big deal, though (see previous question).
Q: Ancient judicial and law-enforcement systems? A: (no summary) [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]
Q: Human sacrifice and blood sacrifice in ancient mesoamerica? [43] A: "for the Maya human sacrifice was fairly uncommon. On the other hand, it seems that bloodletting of some sort was a fairly common practice of Maya elites"
Q: Did Native Americans ever produce alcohol? [44] A: Yes. They also drank tea [45].
Q: Is There Any Evidence That Moors Reached The Americas Before Columbus? A: No
Q: Does everyone value gold? Why? [46] A: Many cultures seem to value gold, probably because it's rare but it's not always identified with wealth in a special way.
Q: Which is more common in humans, monogamy or polygyny? Why? A: Conflicting answers [47] [48]
Q: Non-heteronormative marriage in native americans? A: [49]
Q: Did the Aztecs think Cortes was a god? A: Probably not; and a statement from the Aztec leader Motecuzoma II seems to explictily contradict this [50] [51] [52]
Q: Aztec human sacrifices A: Various forms. Some were selected from war captives, eg the ixiptla or 'Avatar'. The ixiptla was selected as a good-looking, smart person and was trained to act as Tezcatlipoca; after this, for a long period "He went about constantly covered in feathers and flowers, playing the flute, and dancing...The role of the ixiptla of Tezcatlipoca was literally to wander around being incredible....During this time he was accorded all the priviledge of a tecuhtli (lord)...He went about playing the flute. By day and by night he followed whatever way he wished....was married to 4 women" [53] (other Aztec rituals) [54] [55] "Mesoamerican cultures believed all living things contained a kind of vital essence or life force. Gods used this energy when providing things for humans, like rain. When humans ate crops, they consumed this energy from the earth. Because the energy was seen as in a kind of closed system, the only way for the gods to get more energy was if humans gave it back to them. This could be accomplished through making numerous kinds of burnt offerings, but the most potent offering was human blood, which contained the essence of life. Frequently this involved priests cutting themselves in painful places, spilling the blood on paper, and burning it. But occasionally, this meant killing a person and burning the heart." "Those who were sacrificed were believed to go to the best afterlife, along with warriors who died in battle. I think it would be naive to believe that sacrifices typically went to the altar willingly, but it would have at least provided some rationalization for cooperation." [56] [57]
Q: Curfew in medieval towns? A: "Most large cities had curfew laws that were enforced after dark, so the idea of a medieval nightlife is somewhat flawed. Tavern and ale-house owners had to be ready to kick people out at dusk or prepare to host them the entire evening." [58]
Q: History of the inquisition? A: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qyw8y/how_exactly_did_the_papalmedieval_inquisition/
Q: I'm a peasant living in 1300s England. How hard would it be to get a copy of the Quran. Is it even possible? Would I even know what the Quran is? A: You wouldn't know what it was, and it would be almost impossibly hard. Books were expensive.
Q: I am the lord of Castle 1, wanting to talk with lord of Castle 2, 800km between us. How do we communicate? A: Send a messenger on horseback with a sealed letter. Note: because the letter might fall into the wrong hands before or after delivery, if secrecy is desired you might just have the messenger memorize a sensitive part of the message ("some letters actually direct their recipient to question the messenger in a specific manner")
Q: What did the hierarchy of identities look like for, say, a northumbrian peasant -- was he a Christian first, or a resident of his village, or a man, or a farmer? A: A Christian went without saying. Your most important identity would be as a resident of your village. Then occupation.
Q: [What role (if any) did love play in non-royal marriages? In medieval times, what role did love play in common marriage?] [59] A: For peasants as well as royalty, marriages were unions of families more than romantic couplings; but less so, as there would be a better chance that you'd have known your future spouse beforehand.
Q: Would would in medieval England peasants chat about? A: Same ol' stuff we chat about today. Who's a good neighbor and/or worker and who's bad. Who's having sex with who. Sports, politics, weather.
Q: Literacy rate in late middle age England? A: About 10%; more people in town were literate than in the countryside.
Q: What did ordinary medieval English people know about neighboring nations eg Scotland, Ireland, France, Denmark? A: "For ordinary people borders were a pretty hazy idea. In fact, even rulers could be vague about who ruled what...In England, parishioners circuited their parish once a year "beating the bounds" as it was called: marking out where their territory ended and another began. There were few accurate maps so people had to rely on memory. Language would be the surest indicator that you were dealing with a foreigner...I suspect traders and international travelers (e.g., pilgrims) would be the authorities on what a different land was like. For a lot of people, things like "Ireland" or "Scotland" would be a bit like "Iceland" is for an average American. They've heard of it but couldn't find it on a map or tell you much about it...Judith Bennett suggests that 14th-century villagers had a radius of about 15 miles in which they operated: visiting weekly markets, going to other villages, etc. "
Q: How widely was the sort of sacral powers of kings believed in medieval England? Stories about the king's touch having healing powers, for example. A: "The “royal touch” to cure scrofula (tuberculosis of the lymph nodes) was a “talent” claimed by both French and English kings (the classic study: Marc Bloch, The Royal Touch: Monarchy and Miracles in France and England). From what I recall, the annual (?) sessions were popular, well-attended, and believed in. Any thing or action that promised relief from sickness tended to be believed in the Middle Ages."
Q: Just how religious were the common folk in medieval England ? Was religion just kind of an expected activity every now and then to please the clergy/nobility/higher classes? [60] A: "If by “religious” you mean believers in an otherworldly realm filled with powerful spirits/gods, then pretty much everyone was religious. If you mean how Christian were Christians (the overwhelming majority of the population), there are two schools of thought basically. One...says that ordinary people, especially in the countryside, ... had a “thin veneer” of Christianity layered over a very deep foundation of traditional folk beliefs (which some dismissively call “superstition). The other...says that folk beliefs certainly got mixed in with Christianity but that on the whole the hierarchy of the church had been largely successful at instilling the basics of Christianity into ordinary folks..."
Q: How did ordinary people in medieval England view their rulers? A: "Royalty-most of whom peasants never encountered-were advertised as benevolent, paternal figures. Peasant beefs were with the local nobility who were their landlords."
Q: What sort of recreational and/or religious drugs did medieval English people take? A: "In England, ale was a daily drink for everyone, but it was brewed fast w a low alcohol content so folks weren't "drinking while plowing." For festive occasions they upped the alcohol content in the brew."
Q: How much interaction commoners and everyday folk in a medieval English setting would have with their direct feudal lord? A: "It depended on the kind of manor you lived on. If your manor was owned by a corporation (like an abbey) or was one of several manors of a baron, you would seldom if ever see him; his agents would be his only representatives. If you saw him, you would not recognize him unless told who he was. If your lord was somewhat minor nobility and was resident in your village, you would see him except when he was at court. By the later Middle Ages (say late 1300s) he and his family would be at your parish church (unless they had the rare privilege of a private chapel) but would probably either be in the chancel with the priest (otherwise forbidden to laity) or in a private stall. If you crossed paths with him (or her) you would be expected to bow and be obsequious. He probably would be generous at Christmas and invite you to a feast. But he might also feel free to sexually assault your daughter, much the way masters in the antebellum south assaulted women slaves. You weren’t a slave, you might not even be a serf, but you were a social inferior—vastly so—you were under his control. I suspect nobility would send lackeys to do their shopping but I’m just guessing. Markets probably held attractions for lords and peasants alike...It wasn’t all groveling and sniveling even in the 1300s when half of England was still in serfdom. There could be defiant and disrespectful serfs though the examples are isolated. "
Q: Upward mobility for ordinary people in medieval English society? A: "Theoretically by manorial law, any peasant who left the manor (often illegally) and resided for a year and a day without being apprehended was free of the manor. But that meant you would a) have to leave the manor either furtively or with your lord’s permission and b) have some kind of marketable skill once you got to the town. The best place for social advancement was in the church. There a priest with a little education and some good connections could rise very high. The most famous example is bishop Robert Grosseteste whose parents were peasants. He not only was educated at Oxford and was a notable theoretician about optics but he was also bishop of one f the wealthiest English diocese. In towns, merchants could succeed so well that their wealth greatly surpassed that of nobles who depended mostly on farming income. In the Italian city-states of the 13th century on, nobles often lost power to rich, non-noble merchants (who then later on desperately tried to get/but noble titles for themselves, like the Medici)."
Q: [61] A: Dunno how common but it happened and the authorities did things to try and prevent it (eg "Laws of Wihtræd of Kent which required particular stretches of forest roads to have trees cleared to a certain depth or which required travellers to stay within the road and not at the edges and not to stop, for such travellers were then no longer protected by law."). Twist: often the bandits were actually "nobility and their quasi-legal hangers-on. These organized bandits set up tolls on bridges, assaulted trains of other nobles and ecclesiastics with whom they had feuds, and helped to create the image of the lawless middle ages".
Q: In medieval Europe, how widespread was prostitution? Q: It was widespread. Note: "...there was absolutely rural prostitution in your average peasant village as well, although probably significantly less of it than in towns. One thing to keep in mind is the "occasional" nature of medieval prostitutes....one thing that numerous scholars have shown is that women (even married women) might turn to prostitution temporarily to shore up weak finances."
Q: Did the concept of chivalry extend to commoners? A: No. "There was little or no such incentive to preserve the life of those who could not pay a ransom. There are literally dozens of famous examples of the execution of common soldiers after a battle. The modern concept of the merciful knight has intruded from the historiographical conflation of the Peace of God movement and the Romanticisation of chivalry in the eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuries. Mercy was extended usually to your peers and the rest may as well go hang."
Q: What caused Africa to be so poor and corrupt? A: colonialism
Q: Differences between the Diamyo of Japan and the Dukes of Europe? A: [62] [63]
Q: How did the shogunate and daimyo dynamic work during the Tokugawa period? How much autonomy did the daimyo actually have? A: [64]
Q: Why do India and China have high population compared to places like Europe and South America? A: Crop yield? Large amounts of arable land? Good climate, many rivers? Consolidation (China, and perhaps India, managed to unify into a large empire)? Rapid modernization? [65] [66] [67]
Q: Opinions on AskHistorians? of Howard Zinn's A People's History? A: Not inaccurate but shouldn't be the only book you read on the topic due to its focus. [68] [69] [70]
Q: Opinions on AskHistorians? of Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our Nature? A: His evidence is considered flimsy. Note also that whether or not hunter/gatherer societies had high levels of violence is a current topic of academic debate [71] [72] [73] [74].
Q: Opinions on AskHistortians? of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? A: Good but out of date. The Christianity and moral decadence theory is no longer considered credible, nor is his portrayal of the Byzantines; many of the facts he gave are still relevant though [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81]
Q: Great divergence? A: [82]
Q: Books recommended on AskHistorians?? A: [83]
Q: A: [84]
Q: How was the American Revolution initially covered by the French press? A: At first, not very much, and from a British point of view [85]
Q: Why didn't Quebec join the 13 Colonies' revolution against England? A: They were happy with England and busy trying to survive. "The Quebec Act, passed in 1774, allowed the Quebecois to practice the Catholic faith and even practice french civil law. They didn't want to rebel because, to an extent, they were pretty content with their situation and didn't want to ruin it all. Interestingly enough, the Quebec act is also called "The Unforgivable Act", because it was partially responsible for the American revolutionary war! The colonists couldn't believe that Quebec received such liberties while they, Anglophones, got nothing!" [86]
Q: Was there anything like a Reign of Terror during the American Revolution? A: "Leaving aside the treatment of active Loyalist guerrillas and agents, a number of people were brutally beaten and tortured for their loyalty to the Crown. Many were stripped of their property during the war and forced to leave their homes for British-controlled territory. After the war, thousands of Loyalists lived in hastily erected refugee camps where many died of exposure or disease.
This all pales next to the treatment of black Loyalists. During the war, the British promised freedom to black slaves that came to fight for them. Thousands of escaped slaves served. Some of them escaped with the British, but many more did not. About 14,000 former slaves escaped with the British when they evacuated. Many of these slaves, tragically, found themselves victims again when British officers who'd joined the war in search of booty sold them back into slavery in Caribbean ports. One ship leaving Charleston found itself low on food, and simply abandoned hundreds of former slaves on a barrier island to starve to death. A relatively lucky few made their way to freedom in Spanish Florida or British Canada.
Thousands of former slaves never made it onto overloaded British ships. The British leaving Charleston smashed the hands of desperate blacks trying to climb onto their ships, leaving them to drown. 20,000 former slaves recaptured by the Americans were declared captured war property and auctioned off to help cover the new nation's staggering debts. Small bands of former slaves went renegade; some continued to fight in Georgia for several years. Many more filtered south and west, joining the Creeks and Seminoles. " [87]
Q: What was the minimum crime in England that was required to send someone to Australia as punishment? A: Not much; it varied a lot because a lot was up to the sentencing magistrate [88]
Q: Did soldiers in the ancient world carry water bottles with them to war? A: Yes [89]
Q: Why did the Portuguese colonies in South America evolve into a single country (Brazil) whereas the continent's Spanish colonies broke off into nearly a dozen countries? A: "When Napoleonic forces invaded Portugal, King João VI and company, with the help of the British, fled to South America." [90]
Q: Why did Republican Romans dress so lightly, while medieval Italians wore seemingly a lot of clothes, while living in the same climate? A: They were made of wool, and also they wore more in reality, the toga-only idea was idealized fancy dress [91]
Q: Is it true that "America has been at war for 222 out of 239 years since 1776" A: "...whoever made it was as liberal as possible with what constitutes a "war" in order to end up with the highest conceivable number of years possible. For instance, a nebulous group of peaceful occupations and occasional military clashes rarely lasting more than a day or two across several different countries gets all lumped together into the "Banana Wars" for this tabulation and counts for the list at 35 years of uninterrupted warfare - regardless of whether there was fighting or not. " [92]
---
