One which I brought up elsewhere in the thread is an old one - that Europe discovering, plundering, and then exploiting the Americas gave them the boost they needed to extend that hegemony to the rest of the world. They ‘lucked out’ into finding a bunch of ‘easy targets’ and a massive amount of land once they were done butchering.
Noneofurbusiness brought up capitalism, which is another common explanation - capitalism, for all of its faults, gave Europe in the 17th century AD an unprecedented period of sustained growth, which not only fueled Europe’s ambitions, but also the later Industrial Revolution which would extend its advantage even further.
Makes sense but that also requires Europe to have the resources, animals and geography to encourage naval expeditions. The Americas didnt come to Europe, presumably because of the lack of large domesticated animals (?)
Of course - there are a great many factors behind Europe being the ones to discover the Americas, and not vice-versa. But, importantly, many other Old World regions had the same access to material goods and technology that Europe did - China in particular - but did not end up discovering (or exploiting) the Americas.
The point in rejecting environmental determinism is not the rejection of environmental factors, but the rejection of determinism - history is a vast field, and even small changes can arrest entire civilizations.
You’re jumping ahead a bit there, because before they stumble on the Americas, they’ve still got to have the ability and willingness to sail thousands of miles into unknown territory. Which basically no one else did.
But plenty of people did? There are no end of expeditions to nowhere in world history, some success, most not. Hell, the only reason Columbus succeeded was because he was wrong about the size of the world - otherwise, he would’ve ran out of supplies long before landfall.
One which I brought up elsewhere in the thread is an old one - that Europe discovering, plundering, and then exploiting the Americas gave them the boost they needed to extend that hegemony to the rest of the world. They ‘lucked out’ into finding a bunch of ‘easy targets’ and a massive amount of land once they were done butchering.
Noneofurbusiness brought up capitalism, which is another common explanation - capitalism, for all of its faults, gave Europe in the 17th century AD an unprecedented period of sustained growth, which not only fueled Europe’s ambitions, but also the later Industrial Revolution which would extend its advantage even further.
Makes sense but that also requires Europe to have the resources, animals and geography to encourage naval expeditions. The Americas didnt come to Europe, presumably because of the lack of large domesticated animals (?)
Of course - there are a great many factors behind Europe being the ones to discover the Americas, and not vice-versa. But, importantly, many other Old World regions had the same access to material goods and technology that Europe did - China in particular - but did not end up discovering (or exploiting) the Americas.
The point in rejecting environmental determinism is not the rejection of environmental factors, but the rejection of determinism - history is a vast field, and even small changes can arrest entire civilizations.
That’s fair, I’m definitely no expert but the two theories seem very in line with each-other. The difference being how “certain” the outcome would be.
You’re jumping ahead a bit there, because before they stumble on the Americas, they’ve still got to have the ability and willingness to sail thousands of miles into unknown territory. Which basically no one else did.
But plenty of people did? There are no end of expeditions to nowhere in world history, some success, most not. Hell, the only reason Columbus succeeded was because he was wrong about the size of the world - otherwise, he would’ve ran out of supplies long before landfall.