Why didn't Asia outpace Europe during the dark ages?

Factual Questions
21

I don’t know about that, the Eastern Roman Empire was the seat of the most advanced scholars and civilization outside of China until pretty much the very end of its days.

Something people often forget about the “Dark Ages” and the Roman Empire is that under Rome, Western Europe was by and large just as backward compared to the regions in the Eastern half of the Empire as it was during the dark ages. The dark ages didn’t really cause a “backward step” in technology and civilization for Western Europe as is often assumed.

The way to look at it instead is prior to the Roman Empire Greek culture spread throughout the Eastern Mediterranean. You had it intermixing with local cultures throughout the Levant, and specifically you had Greek monarchs in Egypt and even the pre-Roman Levantine had the Seleucid Empire. These were by far much more culturally and scientifically advanced states than anywhere else in that part of the world. Alexandria was a famous center of learning and several major cities in the Seleucid Empire had much more going in vis-a-vis scholarship than anywhere in Western Europe.

What changed with the Roman Empire is basically a Latin speaking Empire was overlayed on top of all that, but didn’t supplant or disrupt it. In fact the Romans adopted and studied a lot of the same stuff the Hellenistic cultures were studying. In Western Europe, this Latin Empire put its imprint on the top of society. Roman colonies or “Roman Towns” were built across Gaul, Hispania, and Britannia for sure, but by and large the peoples in those regions remained the same as they always were: illiterate, backward, and lacking in any major cultural or scientific centers.

When the Western Empire fell they lost their overlord, but pretty much kept going just as they always had technologically. I think a big part of the reason people see the Dark Ages as a retrenchment for Western Europe is because they do not understand that the Roman Empire wasn’t scholastically, intellectual, and scientifically homogenous. Rome was a massive city that certainly became a center of learning and science in its own right, but aside from that Western Europe was the backward part of the Roman Empire. The Hellenistic tradition never spread into the peoples of Western Europe aside from among the Roman upper classes that might move into those regions to administer them.

When the Muslim Empire started sweeping away everything before it in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 700s-1400s their society built on what was there before. They didn’t abandon the mathematics, science and etc of the peoples they were conquering, but built on them. Meanwhile Western Europe continued being more or less as backward as it always had been.

Something that is probably very important in explaining why Europe is not Muslim today is in fact the Roman Empire. The “Byzantines” as modern historians called them, were too powerful to be swept away. It basically took 700 years to conquer them, and that long period of being a bulwark in the East gave Europe the time it needed to advance to a point where it was too hard of a nut to crack for the powerful Muslim forces that had large organizational and technological advantages.

Europe steadily advanced technologically throughout the “Dark Ages” and Early Middle Ages, especially in areas of construction and military weaponry. In the Renaissance the Europeans basically imported all the ideas that up to then had only been studied in the Near East and in a few generations had wiped out much of the knowledge imbalance between them and the Muslim states. In the Enlightenment the Europeans came upon the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge as more than just a pastime for the wealthy upper class but as a societal goal. This lead directly to basically all the major innovations that caused Europe to significantly outpace the rest of the world technologically.

Specifically as to Eastern Europe, I don’t see how it was stifled by being under Roman rule. Especially since in Constantinople you had by far the most educated, sophisticated city in all of Christendom probably even up until its conquest. I think Eastern Europe just had many of the same problems that Western Europe did, and simply didn’t benefit from their more sophisticated overlords. They also were the battleground for a large degree of warfare and religious conversiosn which lead to deep seated problems between warring religious groups. Eastern Europe had to deal with Ottoman invasions, Mongol invasions, and the Ottoman invasion in particular created a lot of Muslims in Eastern Europe that didn’t get along with the Christians in Eastern Europe which made it a very unstable place.

22

“In the Enlightenment the Europeans came upon the scientific method and the pursuit of knowledge as more than just a pastime for the wealthy upper class but as a societal goal.”

I’d say it was more of a social tool. I.e.: “Look at how much better our engineering is when we study science!” Theories came to be seen not as contemplation to be pursed for its own sake (like art) but a means to use for greater effectiveness/efficiency.

Roger Bacon (1214-1294) was one of the most important figures of the empiricism which gave us the scientific method. Kant was really struck by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s theory of gravity. So, when would you say this reversal of the conception of science took place and what made it take place?

“Something that is probably very important in explaining why Europe is not Muslim today is in fact the Roman Empire. The “Byzantines” as modern historians called them, were too powerful to be swept away. It basically took 700 years to conquer them, and that long period of being a bulwark in the East gave Europe the time it needed to advance to a point where it was too hard of a nut to crack for the powerful Muslim forces that had large organizational and technological advantages.”

In Western Europe, Muslim forces were stopped in 732 br Frankish forces. Then, just as it took about 700 years for Constantinople to fall in 1453, it took about 700 years for the Muslims to be pushed back out of Europe (1492). So, in both Western and Eastern Europe, you have the Muslims who are stopped in the 700s. The difference is that in Western Europe, it took 700 years for the Muslims to lose. In Eastern Europe, it took 700 years for the Muslims to win. Both stopped the Muslims at first but Western Europe won and Eastern Europe lost.

23

They weren’t against equally powerful Muslim forces. Even before the “Muslim Empire” or the First Caliphate broke down into smaller dynastic states Hispaniola was not the focus of their power. The force that was defeated at Tours / Poitier was honestly a raiding party compared to the forces that slammed against the Byzantines for 700 years. Once the Muslim expansion started to fracture into independent entities, the independent Muslim powers in the Levant were far more powerful than the Caliphs of Cordoba. The Byzantines basically fought against the most powerful military probably in the world, for several hundred years, at the height of their power. The Europeans in the Reconquista were pushing back against a relative backwater of the Muslim world.

As evidence of this note that by and large there weren’t any truly serious efforts to conquer the Frankish lands, other than a moderately sized force of historically ambiguous intention that was defeated by Charlemagne’s grandfather. Contrast this with Constantinople / the Balkans which repeatedly faced massive and powerful Muslim invasion forces. The Ottomans eventually tried to take Vienna several times, and it is highly unlikely they would have stopped there given their expansionist tendencies. However, by the time they got to Vienna Europe was a lot more powerful, they start pushing into Europe from the East probably 250 years earlier if not for the Byzantines and it’s unlikely any force in Europe could have stopped them.

As for the Enlightenment, it’s folly to try to peg a specific date for movements like that starting/ending. Scientific/cultural progress isn’t as clear cut as major political changes, so we can look at key political events like the Treaty of Westphalia as being watershed events in Europe, but there isn’t an analogue for scientific and cultural development.

24

The Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258 helped end the Islamic “outpacing” of Europe. Wikipedia quotes Stephen Dutch:

Glad somebody reminded us of Byzantines, who get too little respect in “Western Civilization” studies. The Fourth Crusade dealt a stunning blow to Constantinople before its final defeat by the Turks.

Then, how do you define the Dark Ages? Did they begin with the Barbarian Invasions–now called the Age of Migration? And the Early Middle Ages were pretty busy in most of the Old World; but nobody was doing much writing in some parts of Western Europe that later considered themselves the absolute pinnacle of civilization. (The blackout was not universal–sorry about your neighborhood!)

Great China & India were rising, falling & rising again–without caring much about Europe.

25

I have read that GG&S is not particularly well regarded by cultural anthorpologists and other acadedmics.

I read it and liked and it seemed reasonable to me, but have more recently read articles critical of Diamond’s approach and conclusions.

26

The Dark Ages weer also a major period of growth and development in much of Europe. Even significant chunks fo the Eastern Roman Empire were actually pretty undeveloped; during the late Roman Empire and throughout the Dark Ages, most peoples lives were actually becoming much wealthier, thought and trade more developed, government and culture broadening and becoming more sophisticated. This is often masked because the major focus we often see in history is the city, and in particular capiral cities - but these weren’t necessarily the focus of society in this period. In fact, the the Roman Empire tended to drain and impoverish agricultural zones over time. Roman agriculture was very productive, but the people doing it were more and more often slaves or deeply indepted to big central landowners, while the small freeholders were worn down. Population was likely declining in the Roman Empire.

The new germanic nations were extremely important for that very reason. During the Dark Ages, society was broader, with many diversiified and local zones of importance. While the old Roman cities declined, we see numerous new towns develop along with new industries and techniques. The difficulty is that people were rarely literate in this period, so they did not leave very many records of their accomplishments, whereas Romans were positively chatty. But a lack of records does not mean a lack of action, and definitely not a lack of development. Europe was born in the Dark Ages.

27

No…It’s just that they were well versed in wax on/wax off…and that’s all that mattered.

28

Actually, I don’t see much western advancements exceeding China and Japan before the industrial revolution (and Japan caught up kinda fast.) I could think of the works of mathematicians and physicists like Newton, et al going into the industrial age but little else.

29

Another vote for the Europeans having better motivations than the Asians. In Europe, you had a bunch of different nations of approximately equal power in close contact with each other. Each of them was looking for a competitive advantage so they were motivated to try new ideas. In Asia, the major powers were all pretty settled and had no interest in changing the status quo.

30

How about the printing press, gunpowder, the compass, the pintle-and-gudgeon rudder, and the fore-and-aft sailing rig. Notably, several of these ideas were invented outside of Europe but were developed more widely in Europe than in their place of origin.

31

Back to Diamond’s GG&S, he specifically attributes this to geography. Europe has a lot of natural boundaries making it easier for nation-states to endure competition with roughly equivalent military powers instead of being overcome and homogenized. In particular, Italy and Spain have immensely defensible mountain barriers between them and France, and of course England is uniquely defensible. Meanwhile, Scandinavia is difficult to conquer. Germany’s border with France is mostly riverine – although a significant military obstacle, not as imposing as mountains or seas – and you’ll note Germany was unified very late in the history of Europe.

(According to Diamond’s thesis) the presence of strong, dangerous neighbors who could not easily be eradicated or absorbed spurred intense economic and scientific competition, and constant warfare (or threat thereof) also drove innovation. The different nation-states, because they were not monolithic like China, could have different leadership and different politics as well (allowing things like Columbus getting financing from one monarch if not another).

I too have seen criticism of Diamond’s work – some of it by authors with a clear political agenda, like Victor Davis Hanson. At the risk of a hijack, after reading two of his books and one article, Hanson’s criticisms seem to me to be a result of almost deliberately missing Diamond’s point. Hanson rejects “geographic determinism” and insists individuals made a difference; Diamond is looking for first causes, not proximate causes, and might agree with Hanson if we were talking narrowly about a later point in the process than Diamond’s theory addresses. I further find it suspect, even culturally chauvinist, that Hanson cannot imagine China producing “individuals who make a difference” at anything like the rate that, say, Italy did.

I think that, as a broad fundamental theory, Diamond’s work holds up very well.

32

That argument has always struck me as extremely forced. Firstly the “natural boundaries” are pretty unimpressive by world standards - Europe has no deserts and its mountains are molehills compared to most other continents. Plus water transport in the pre-rail era was always easier than land transport and Europe has a lot of coastline and navigable rivers. If you’re going to try to claim the Rhine as a “natural boundary”, you have to explain why the Nile, the Ganges and the Yellow River aren’t “natural boundaries” as well.

Secondly, these boundaries rarely corresponded to actual political divisions until well after the Renaissance. The current French-Italian border is the result of a political deal in the 1850s - prior to that Piedmont covered both sides of the Ligurian Alps. French armies had no difficult sweeping into Italy during the Italian Wars of the Renaissance, any more than Imperial (German) armies had during the Middle Ages.
The Pyrenees only became the border between France and Spain in the 1650s - in the Middle Ages Aragon and Navarre extended both north and south. And of course in the Middle Ages there was no “Spain” and precious little “France” in the region - Aquitaine was under the English, Toulouse and Provence were quasi-independent and the Rhone valley was still technically part of the Empire.
England may be “uniquely defensible” (cough 1066 cough 1016), but from 1066 to 1553 England always held territory in modern France and never controlled the whole of Great Britain. And on and on.

33

This is part of the point, actually. These barriers were significant and in general kept any one gorup from excercising long-term domination of a large area. But they absolutely allowed for communication of ideas across barriers. The duality is critical, because you may need a certain amout of isolation to develop unique cultures and local ideas. Not all of these may be winners, but such diversity enables the foundation from which cultural competition and cross-development can occur.

Contrast China. While China often had very advanced sciences in ways, it was almost totally limited to an extremely thin slice of the upper classes, and not used for much beyond their interests. They frequently came up with new ideas… and then completely discarded them. It took other, smaller, and more diverse cultural millieus to turn these basic seeds or interesting concepts into something worth using, and using on massive scales. And this is likely due to the fact that one culture, one nation, and one state was (usually) enforced upon the Chinese by military power and bureaucratic fiat.

Obviously, diversity has its own issues and too cultures too different from one another often turn to bloody warfare. Neither Europan cultures nor China ever found a lasting peace with the steppe nomads on their doorfront.