So I was doing a bit of thinking last night about what the World would have been like

AMKC

If past Europeans were not so aggressive and not on a conquest to conquer everything. Imagine when Chritopher Columbus got to America realised there was already people on that continent and then decided to leave them and go back to Europe or when Australia was discovered the same thing leave the Auberiginals to there own devices and go back home. I think WW1 would certainly have been different. Maybe we would all be speaking German now and there would have been no WW2. As for a cold war well if there was one it would be between Russia and the Nazi Empire I suppose. But then maybe the Aztecs would have gotten very advanced in America and the Indians too and maybe they would have come and rescued Europe from the Nazi threat or maybe they would not care who knows.

rapul

Indeed!

Interesting to think about though alright

AMKC

rapul wrote: »

Indeed!

Interesting to thin:Dk about though alright

It sure is. I am guessing its quite in here because for people to think about this would actually require using some brain power.

AMKC

AMKC wrote: »

It sure is. I am guessing its quite in here because for people to think about this would actually require using some brain power.

So you assume people aren't posting in your thread because they can't use their brains?

Hande hoche!

Strong chance it would been the Huns or the Moors carving up the Americas and Africa.

ancapailldorcha

Aside from the various atrocities perpetuated by colonisers during these centuries, I don't think the world would like all that different.

Obviously, countries like the US, Canada and Mexico wouldn't exist while India would probably be quite similar to how it is now though definitely different. Same for China and Japan.

The thing is that the biggest driver for technological advancement has been warfare. It's also the reason European nations evolved from being feudal monarchies to something akin to the modern nation state though many countries also adopted monarchical absolutism such as pre-revolutionary France.

The reason I think that the European nations developed so much technologically was that there was no single European nation but many, each of which was vulnerable to its neighbours. The Ottomans and the Mughals could afford to become decadent and corrupt because there was no nearby regional power capable of conquering them though later Ottoman sultans had to contend with the rise of Russia on its northern flank.

The British had to invest in their navy to protect their trade and ensure their survival. It's also why they played the continental powers off each other. The French had to invest in domestic production and training to ensure self-sufficiency in the face of blockades by the Royal Navy. The Savoyards invested in their fortifications to counter French belligerence in 1494. The Dutch practically invented the precursor to modern finance to fund their armies in the 80-years war against Habsburg Spain. In Turkey, India, Persia, Arabia and Africa, falling behind meant a lower standard of living relative to that enjoyed by Europeans and in some cases, eventual conquest. A European major power that didn't possess a key advantage such as a potent navy, a strong economy, a large and willing populace or some other advantage was destined for oblivion.

AMKC

Deleted User wrote: »

So you assume people aren't posting in your thread because they can't use their brains?

Not at all. Just might need to think deeper than they are used to this is "After Hours" after all.

gw80

AMKC wrote: »

If past Europeans were not so aggressive and not on a conquest to conquer everything. Imagine when Chritopher Columbus got to America realised there was already people on that continent and then decided to leave them and go back to Europe or when Australia was discovered the same thing leave the Auberiginals to there own devices and go back home. I think WW1 would certainly have been different. Maybe we would all be speaking German now and there would have been no WW2. As for a cold war well if there was one it would be between Russia and the Nazi Empire I suppose. But then maybe the Aztecs would have gotten very advanced in America and the Indians too and maybe they would have come and rescued Europe from the Nazi threat or maybe they would not care who knows.

Who,s to say that things would not have turned out better in the long run for Europe if the nazis had taken over,
Maybe it could have evolved into a more United, stronger Europe today,
Its gona need rescuing pretty soon though.

I'm gona be on some list somewhere now aren't I.

Yurt2

If the Europeans hadn't got the bright idea to colonize and pillage the world, someone else would have eventually got round to it. Probably the Chinese at some stage.


It's a recurring motif in China that the Ming dynasty was on the cusp of global greatness with seafaring (Zheng He etc.) and general technological developments before those pesky Manchus and their silly haircuts conquered the Middle Kingdom and turned China inward. Basically, they're constantly low-key kicking themselves that they allowed Europe to get all the loot.

bazz26

Have a read of the book "The Man in the High Castle" or watch the Amazon Prime tv series.

Tell me how

AMKC wrote: »

It sure is. I am guessing its quite in here because for people to think about this would actually require using some brain power.

Thelonious Monk

People were always going to go to the Americas, that's what people do, they go to new places to hoover up resources. We'd hardly just leave North America as a giant wilderness.

riffmongous

gw80 wrote: »

Who,s to say that things would not have turned out better in the long run for Europe if the nazis had taken over,
Maybe it could have evolved into a more United, stronger Europe today,
Its gona need rescuing pretty soon though.

I'm gona be on some list somewhere now aren't I.

Many, many inglorious lists

Thelonious Monk

The Auberiginals sounds like a vegan 2 tone band

Tell me how

I think in general that if people hadn't been of the mentality to explore and conquer, we might not be having this conversation as previous generations might have had more of 'We'll do what we need to do, instead of what we can do' and this 'can do' attitude has fueled a lot of exploration both geographically, and in a technological sense. I've previously thought that America got to where it did in the world because many of the settlers from Columbus onward brought this 'can do' attitude and hadn't grown up thinking 'I'll do what my father did' etc.

In terms of the general thought process around thinking on these subjects, I did find myself wondering over the last few months, how would the conflict of the 1940's have turned out if the current incumbent in the White House had been President at that time. Cynically, and without deep analysis I will admit, part of me thinks it could have been drastically different.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you assume people aren't posting in your thread because they can't use their brains?

Less “can’t” more “can’t be arsed”, stupid comment regardless imo and fairly insulting sounding.

AMKC

Tell me how wrote: »

I think in general that if people hadn't been of the mentality to explore and conquer, we might not be having this conversation as previous generations might have had more of 'We'll do what we need to do, instead of what we can do' and this 'can do' attitude has fueled a lot of exploration both geographically, and in a technological sense. I've previously thought that America got to where it did in the world because many of the settlers from Columbus onward brought this 'can do' attitude and hadn't grown up thinking 'I'll do what my father did' etc.

In terms of the general thought process around thinking on these subjects, I did find myself wondering over the last few months, how would the conflict of the 1940's have turned out if the current incumbent in the White House had been President at that time. Cynically, and without deep analysis I will admit, part of me thinks it could have been drastically different.

Oh I agree if Trump had of been around and President of America in the 40s even with the pearl harbour attack he still might not have got involved in the war
But all we can do is speculate.

Wibbs

Yurt! wrote: »

If the Europeans hadn't got the bright idea to colonize and pillage the world, someone else would have eventually got round to it. Probably the Chinese at some stage.

Just as likely they wouldn't have bothered. The two big differences between Europe and China is China is an empire more than a country and that informs a nation's mindset. Imagine if Rome hadn't fallen. It would have had a few flowerings of innovation interspersed by long periods of stagnation. Just like China. It's what happens to empires. The Ottomans another example. Stagnation.

Look at printing. Invented in China, they do remarkably little with it, goes along the Silk Road right through the Muslim empire and they do bugger all with it too. Gets to Europe and the world changes in a generation. Why? Because Europe is made up of endlessly competing states so any innovation is grabbed and improved. You can say similar of the rudder, gunpowder and the compass, also Chinese innovations.

Plus Europe had way more options for social mobility(this was the case even in Rome). Make a better mousetrap and make a few quid and a couple of generations later you're hanging with the big knobs. In China nope. Unless you were a mousetrap maker already you'd largely be ignored.

Plus while Europe was a collection of states it was also an "empire" of the mind and faith. In one sense Rome never went away. Until the Reformation anyway. So you had a two tier system of governance which tended to put the brakes on too much nuttery.

Plus why go off empire building when you already have one? Your resources become too stretched and it's easier to set up a trade deal than stick flags in things. In a Europe of small nations who couldn't really spread out among each other(though many tried to bring back Rome again. Hitler included), they looked beyond her shores.

Manach

The OP's asseration is at its core bunk. To single out Europeans for being too agressive is historicaly revisionism. All nations/political entities have been colonisers and expansion at some historical period and if Europeans (leaving aside the complexity of peoples in that group) had not undertaken such an endevour then the Chinese, Arabs or various others peoples would have. It is rather unlikely that they would have the same mis-givings than now though seem endemic in the Western education estatablishments.

Kaybaykwah

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The Auberiginals sounds like a vegan 2 tone band

Beat me to it, man.

That contraction of Aubergine and Aboriginal is very savory, and auriginal.

Your Face

They are still aggressive, just not in a military way.

Capt'n Midnight

Manach wrote: »

The OP's asseration is at its core bunk. To single out Europeans for being too agressive is historicaly revisionist.

There was a bit of a culture clash.


On one side there were non-Christian stone age civilizations with loads of land for the taking.

On the other there were the sons who didn't inherit the farm. These land hungry people who literally had nothing to lose had just spent most of the last 800 years fighting religious wars with the non-Christian Moors. And they ran out of places to conquer with the taking of Granada in 1492.

Capt'n Midnight

Lots of African empires, and pre-Columbian American ones. LOTS of ancient empires too.

The conquests of the Arabs including most of the East coast of Africa was interrupted by the arrival of the Portuguese and other European powers.

When the Dutch got to South Africa it wasn't all that long after the Zulu's got there.


The Japanese were able to keep the Europeans out from 1639 to 1853

Europeans only got much better tech than everyone else from a few centuries ago. A big one was in finance where they could support development of better and more. But Guns, Germs, and Steel isn't a million miles from the truth.