Why was Europe the first to expand so widely throughout the world? Why not the Chinese? Were they driven by different factors? Did the Chinese become complacent with a status quo while the Europeans had a desire for more? Why didn't the Chinese colonize the Americas?
The world may never know. I myself subscribe to a variation of Jared Diamonds, "Guns, Germs and Steel" analysis (which basically chalks it up to favorable geography that gave Europeans immunities to diseases, great access to resources, access to technology and ideas from other empires and, most importantly, fragmented poilitical structures. China was a victim of its own success. It grew into an empire that had no local rivals for most of its history. As such, it became stagnant. Much of the efforts of the Chinese government were dedicated to keeping the existing social order in place (as that kept the rulers at the top). Europe had dozens of nations vying against one another for prestige and power, and frequently going to war with one another. The competition heightened their desire for additional resources, making exploration a more understandable investment decision. Once they hit the new world, disease took care of most of the indiginous population, guns pacified the rest.
Well, one thing is that China has always been incredibly isolationist. Add to this the strict dogmatism of their class structure and you get China sitting on its hands for a couple thousand years.
Who do you think the Native Americans were to begin with? There was a land bridge at one time connecting Asia with North America in the Berring Straights which was frozen over with ice. That's how many scientists believe the Native Americans came here.
I'm no expert, but my guess is that Native Americans were no more Chinese than the Vikings were Greek. China was 10 millennia away when they crossed over that land bridge, and many miles on foot to the South. They were Asian, to be sure, but not all Asians are "Chinese." Even the Mongolians are not Chinese, and Mongolia is closer to the landbridge than China is.
The latest theory is that they didn't cross a land bridge but followed the kelp beds in small boats. There was a special on the new theory on t.v. about two weeks ago.
And the primitives probably walked to the easter islands? No Their something in modern theories that ancients did not travel, I'm pretty sure that the Chinese or their forefathers visited california and for that mater that Vikings and ancient egyptians visited it as wel.
Regardless of what the Chinese, etc. 'may' have done, it begs the question why that's 'all' they accomplished. It's great to boast about inventing the printing press 1500 years before the European but that led to what? The first Chinese landing on the Moon in 500 AD?....first Jet flight in 475 AD? Nope. So the Chinese or other Asians sailed from A to B and did what?....started communication back home via satelite? The question remains the same as Ylooshi poses it: 'Why Europe' ? Not only did European civilization accomplish so much but did it while starting from a deficit position .... being several centuries in technology behind some cultures in Asia. It's estimated that over 90% of humans in the year 1 AD lived in the river valleys of China and Southeast Asia. Europe was a 'footnote' of mankind at the time.
Movable type revolutionized the transmission of ideas in Europe. The catch is that it only works efficiently with a small alphabet, which Chinese doesn't have.
Actually technicaly if you believe the out of africa theory Africans are the ones spreading out. Okay, jokes aside, the reason is because Asians are subliminal sociopaths, they don't associate with anyone other than asian, i'm not making this up. Look at Asian history, apart from the Mongols, when did they ever branch out and decide to settle anywhere already settled? Their economy has always been the same way too(China's Iron rice bowl policy). Europeans have always had a fascination and romance with human, the human condition, and human civilization. They either left their own lands because of lack of these factors, or left to improve them in others. Freedom, human aspiration, and individualism isn't exactly Asia's strong point. Another reason, probably the main reason, is because they were simply smarter, not that there is anything wrong with that, I personally know that if every race had always been equally intelligent we would have nucleared ourselves a long time ago. And if you look at it from another perspective, you notice that its usually those blue eyes, those northern Europeans, that first sailed around the world; maybe they were just fed up with the weather.
1453 Fall of Constantinople to the Turks. Traditional European trade routes to the East interdicted. The idea is born of a sea route around Africa to the East. Portuguese Henry the Navigator (under the inspiration of his English mum) prime advocate. 1471, Gomes reaches the Gold Coast (Ghana). 1488, Dias reaches Cape of Good Hope. 1492, Colon (aka Columbus) has crazy idea of going the other way round. Discovery of the Americas spurs surge of exploration, trade, industry, technological advance unparalleled in history. It's all quite simple, really Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! !
Hippocrates believes this was because of climate in a region or area. The climate showed it's affects on the people that lived in region. Europe climate was tougher than that of Asia so the people of Europe had to of been tougher than those that lived in Asia.
our climate was nice, so why move, makes sense to me. the best places in the world were not where europeans were. tropical islands and warm weather were not familiar to them. misery, coldness, tumult and dreariness were when u are satisfied or something works for u, you don't change much or seek out alternatives, until u have to
