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.
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.