Is it true Europe was totally irrelevant until the fifteenth century?
>>395842
>>395842
Could you repeat the question?
Yap
>>395842
Scientifically? Yes
Culturally? Yes
Economically? Yes
>>395874
we protestant now
>>395874
>historical GDP
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>395842
>what is: antiquity
>>395916
It's in Purchasing Power Parity terms brah what's the problem?
>>395928
>It's in Purchasing Power Parity terms brah
You say that like it makes things better rather than worse. PPP is only worth anything when comparing closely related economies.
No.
So I get a lot of historical study was heavily Eurocentric about 80 years ago but why in the fuck did we have to do a total about-face and start trying to revise and diminish everything Europeans did in history in academia these days.
There is literally no such thing as moderation with human beings.
>>395842
From small seeds big trees will grow.
In that sense Europe was never irrelevant. However if you want some sort of clear marked event of Europe mattering i'd pick the first crusade. First time Europe looked outward rather than inward.
Though really the 12th century is more important, universities are founded, Greek and Roman knowledge is debates, challenged and proven wrong, Gothic architecture starts and a load of other things.
>>395949
Exactly. Europe was relevant a thousand years ago. Not as relevant as it would later become, but it wasn't insignificant either.
>>395949
>human beings.
Change that to Americans and you quite literally cover all of American history and politics.
>>395959
Wasn't Rome Europe looking outward?
>>395949
Exactly. Europe was relevant a thousand years ago. Not as relevant as it would later become, but it wasn't insignificant either.
>>395935
How so? PPP is considerably better as it adjusts for local pricing of goods.
>>395966
I think OP didn't really consider antiquity, otherwise you are right.
Well they didn't have much wealth to trade except for olives, so yeah, they were kind of irrelevant globally.
>>395963
>quite literally cover all of American history and politics.
American education?
>>395989
Are you kidding me?
>>395842
Uh no. They domesticated the aurochs.
>>395842
not irrelevant, but geographically isolated.
Even all the most advanced prehistoric art is in Europe.
Europe has always been relevant to Europeans. On the world stage however, it has only been relevant for a few short periods.
>>395874
"Per capita" isn't the way to measure relevance at all.
>Norway calling itself more relevant than China and USA.
>>396088
That's because the "world stage" didn't exist until the colonial powers created it.
Rome was pretty relevant desu senpai.
>>396097
It demonstrates Britain and Holland have had a modern economy for the past 600 years,
Europe has been relevant since Greece, but that doesn't really mean anything.
Western civilization has been relevant since 800 AD, and among the most relevant since 1200 AD.
One Rabbi may say yes, another may say no.
>>396119
"Modern" isn't a buzzword
>>396136
Okay?
good?
What makes India or China relevant in 1000AD?
Yes, it's just that different parts of Europe were relevant, such as Sicily and Greece, instead of England and France.
Ass question
>>395842
it's almost like you aren't from the western world
Greece and Rome confirmed barbarian savages.
>>396100
Depends really. While it's certainly true that no civilization at that point had extended its contact and connections to a world scale, plenty of places were vastly better connected than Europe. For example, by even the 11th century if not earlier, the Indian Ocean trade network extended from China, Indonesia, Arabia, and South-East Africa along with everything in between. Further extensions from that went into parts of the Mediterranean and West Africa from there, with Europeans not exporting a terrible lot back upstream.
Then you also had places like North America which, while they didn't have unified states like the Old World, had trade networks that extended over nearly the whole continent in ways that Europe at the time simply didn't going back into the Classical Era.
Don't get me wrong, important developments were happening in Europe at the time, but the rest of the world did not share in the same degree of isolation it had at the time.
>>395842
you can believe that if you're an ignoramus
>>395842
look at hystory of eastern europe ,faggot
>>396203
>Then you also had places like North America which, while they didn't have unified states like the Old World, had trade networks that extended over nearly the whole continent in ways that Europe at the time simply didn't going back into the Classical Era.
Can you elaborate?
>>395842
more relevant than the rest of the world
>>398474
More relevant to the Muslims slave market
>>395842
No.
Venice was relevant, so was Genova and the other Italian merchant city states. Islamic Spain was also relevant, and so was Greece if we consider them to be representatives of Byzantium. Hanseatic league was relevant, HRE was relevant. Normans in Sicily were relevant.
>>396088
Are you serious nigga? What is Alexander? What is Charles Martel? What is Marco Polo? Thomas the Apostle? Alopen? Europeans have never stopped being influential throughout the world
>>398642
How was Charles Martel relevant outside of France and a little of Spain though?
>>398642
Marco polo relevant?
>>398642
Who's Charles Martel?
>>398696
Curbing the spread of Islam into Europe is a pretty big deal. Maybe not internally relevant in the short term, but if you consider how Europe has developed in the 1200 years since, compared to the Islamic world in the last 800, the answer becomes pretty clear.
The effect doesn't need to be immediate for it to be considerable.
>>398739
First significant exploration of the world by a European since ancient times, spreading of western knowledge, customs and faith. Etcetera.
>>398743
See above, fought the Umayyad Caliphate at Tours, stopped the Islamic conquest of Europe in its tracks. 'Saved' Europe from Islamic Conquest. Was the grandfather of Charlemagne, King of the Franks and first Holy Roman Emperor.
>>398763
>stopped the Islamic conquest of Europe in its tracks
temporarily
>>396119
lol
>/his/
Fuck this board seriously
>>398763
The Muslim conquests ended under their own initiatives, not because of Tours. The force that Martel fought was actually only a recon force; iirc the Muslims simply decided it just wasnt worth invading France because France actually mattered so little.
As for Marco Polo, he literally didnt do anything. The mongols were well known for employing administrators from all different countries and Marco Polo was no acceptation. The only thing he really did was to bring back a couple stories from the East to promote the idea of going back.
Alexander is the only character of real importance, mentioned.
For this baiting question, yes europe was unimportant compared to China, the Near and Middle East.
However the broader answer is that Europe had a rich cultural history even during this period and layed the foundations of what would later become the renaissance.
If Europe was so unimportant, then the Turks and Alhomads would not have keep battering at the walls to get in. That the Mongols wouldnt have sent their expedition to check out the lands for conquest.
It mattered but wasnt the most important thing in the world
>>398778
Thermopylae also stopped the Persians temporarily, but no one would dispute it's historical significance.
>>398799
>the Muslims simply decided it just wasnt worth invading France because France actually mattered so little.
With all respect, I doubt that. The Umayyads attempted several more attempts to invade Francia after Tours, each of which was driven back. Tours was the first significant check to Muslim expansion in Europe, where the Umayyads were driven by expansion, either empirically or for religious purposes. Charles essentially gave them the first big "Fuck you".
If you can even begin to imagine a Europe even partially under Islamic rule, you can see how significant it was across the entire continent of Europe. Imagine him to be an early version kf Jan III Sobieski and the Battle of Vienna.
>The only thing he really did was to bring back a couple stories from the East to promote the idea of going back.
Just like Christopher Columbus. Like I said, just because the significance of an act isn't immediately apparent, doesn't mean it isn't internationally significant.
![Central_Asian_trade_routes_V2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5IXGdsp.jpg "Central_Asian_trade_routes_V2[1].jpg")
>>398763
>First significant exploration of the world by a European since ancient times, spreading of western knowledge, customs and faith. Etcetera.
The first one was actually "Giovanni da Pian del Carpini" he traveled to the east 30 years before Marco.
>>396011
No.
China and the Ottoman Empire were more relevant to global trade until the Age of Sail.
Greece and Rome were relevant. So was the Greek Empire, in a way.
Western Europe was not irrelevant. It just was poorer and technologically behind the Middle East, North Africa, India and China.
During the early medieval period, it was much less prominent in global affairs than the Middle East or Asia, yes. Doesn't make it "irrelevant". Also, did you forget about the Roman Empire or something, OP?
>>398763
>See above, fought the Umayyad Caliphate at Tours, stopped the Islamic conquest of Europe in its tracks. 'Saved' Europe from Islamic Conquest. Was the grandfather of Charlemagne, King of the Franks and first Holy Roman Emperor.
So basically, he was only relevant to Europe.
>>395842
Irrelevant to whom? It was relevant to Europeans, it was relevant to Muslims. It was't relevant to China, it wasn't relevant to Sub-Saharans, it wasn't relevant to Native Americans. It wasn't relevant to Indians.
Was China relevant? It was relevant to Muslims, it was relevant to Indians, it was relevant to the Japanese and Koreans. Was it relevant to Europeans? Was it relevant to Native Americans? Was it relevant to Sub-Saharans? Was it relevant to Polynesians?
This is such a stupid question. Europe was relevant to those within Europe's sphere of influence. China was relevant to those within China's sphere of influence. Incidentally, places far away from each other weren't relevant to each other.
>>399665
>Was it relevant to Europeans?
>was the place that produced goods Euros payed exorbitant prices to acquire relevant to Europe
still more relevant than the middle east.
Before the 15th century the rest of the world was barely discovered yet, so the rest of the world was pretty irrelevant.
No.
The Roman Empire was the closest thing we got to an industrial revolution before the industrial revolution, far surpassing it's competitors.
>>399665
>it wasn't relevant to Sub-Saharans
starting in the 12th century that was untrue. European salt and grain was very important to restarting the trade routes thru the Sahara Desert to central Africa.
>>395842
>Is it true Europe was totally irrelevant until the fifteenth century?
No. However it would be true to say Europe became mostly irrelevant after the Plague of Justinian 541 to the rest of the world for a long time afterwords. The Population of Europe in 700 AD was only 40% of what it was in 540 AD to give you a idea as to how bad it was. The last out break of it was in 750. The eastern Mediterranean was the hardest hit area, which cause trade with middle east and north Africa to come to a effective end till the 12th century. A that point Europe became important rather fast.
The 10th and 11th century had been very hard on the middle east and north Africa. The very slow and painful death of the Abbasid Caliphate
caused all manner of ill effects in the region. Trade from the Silk Road almost came to a end because the goods could not safely be moved out of Syrian and Egypt. Enter the Italian merchants. They started to provided a outlet, demand, and safe means of transportation for those goods that would otherwise only maybe able to be passed along to north Africa via land route. This greatly improved almost all of the region economies in the area.
The great irony is that the wealth from that event was used to pay for conflict inbetween various Christian and Muslim rulers. However only at the highest points of conflict would direct trade with the Italians be stop.
It was to important for a little thing like war for it to put be put on pause.
>>400408
>The Roman Empire was the closest thing we got to an industrial revolution before the industrial revolution, far surpassing it's competitors.
Wot? Song Dynasty China got far closer
>>395842
>Rome
>>395842
The West conquered the world in 1000 years....
Ill just leave that there.
>>400623
>china
China writes their own history.
It should be alarming to any scholar that we don't have any concrete references for Ancient/Medieval China.
Sure we have digs and writings but we have nothing compared to what we have in Europe.
The Chinese have lied about history before so we need to use our discretion when handling Chinese history.
>>401744
>we don't have any concrete references for Ancient/Medieval China
What? There are hundreds of texts and archaeological digs pertaining to the Tang and Song Dynasties. Also 1st hand accounts from various Islamic travelers.
Sure, China loves to lie about their distant past with the whole "5000 years of Civilization" meme, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Song dynasty was the closest any pre-1700s society got to industrializing.
>>395842
no... do greece and rome mean nothing to you?
>>402062
>was the closest any pre-1700s society got to industrializing
How exactly are you defining "close to industrialization?"
It isn't exactly something that is easy to recreate
>>395874
>the empire of the qing dynasty
>>402879
>It should be alarming to any scholar that we don't have any concrete references for Ancient/Medieval China.
1) We do
2) Most of them aren't translated yet
Because 1) China just recently opened yet and Chinese archaeology restarted in the late 70's and 2) China doesn't think foreigners would be interested in its study and left then untranslated.
There is no vast CCP conspiracy to edit Imperial Chinese history. In fact they spent most of the 20th Century making the Empire look like shit.
>>395842
No, but it definetely wasn't the center of the world and there were far more interesting things happening elsewhere.
>all these historical revisionism niggers itt
>>395842
>tfw no overwhelmingly attractive gf
>>395842
irrelevant as opposed to where?
europeans were the first, after ancient times, to start practicaly and routinely connecting the world by sea routes
before that anybody could have been as 'relevant' as they pleased, they practicaly didnt even exist for 80% of the human population on the planet
>>395842
What is Rome?
What is Greece?
Now fuck off, muslim!
DEUS VULT!
>>395842
Irrelevant to? Who? Irrelevant to europe? No. Irrelevant to some ass backwards group in the middle of the Atlantic? Yeah. Irrelevant to anybody that managed to evolve to a solid foundation in art, warfare and economics? No.
>>398454
>>396203
No he can't elaborate, because it's bullshit.
By the Archaic (800 BC) the Greeks had colonies as far north as the Sea of Azov in the east and as far north & west as the Atlantic Coast of modern Portugal and perhaps even France.
Greeks were trading with Baltic peoples and the Irish before Rome appears in historical record.
Roman trade was even more extensive since they conquered over half continent.
>>402827
>How exactly are you defining "close to industrialization?"
>It isn't exactly something that is easy to recreate
Song Dynasty China produced more Iron than any other pre-industrial society.
They produced extensive amounts of steel
They had paper money
They used coal for fuel
They drilled boreholes to extract natural gas
They built mechanical clocks and created hydraulic-powered armillary spheres
They had mechanical belt drives
They had printing
They had blast furnaces
They used windmills and watermills
Here's a source if you want: https://books.google.com/books?id=8kfAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA264&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
