3 ms·

Europe was more technologically advanced than India. I know it is popular with revisionism, because people like to explain away Western dominance as if being al

Europe was more technologically advanced than India. I know it is popular with revisionism, because people like to explain away Western dominance as if being alone about excelling at being a bigger asshole than everybody else. Reality is that Europe conquered the world because it was economically and technologically superior to all other nations. Neither India nor China had modern science that developed in Europe in the age of enlightenment. There was nobody like Galileo Galilei, da Vinci, Kepler, Newton, Leibniz, Descart, Pascal, Christiaan Huygens, James Watt, Newcomb etc outside of Europe. This is just a small selection of European thinkers from that era. These was a huge number of them involved in all areas of science and engineering. All this stuff meant Europe could mass produce high quality guns, cannons, warships etc. It meant Europe could mechanize all sorts of production. Produce steam engines etc. I am not writing this to suggest that Indians or Chinese are somehow inherently lesser people. Development fluctuates over time. In periods India and China was more developed than Europe. However many developments happened in Europe which caused European development to get supercharged and move ahead. This wasn't colonization. Rather colonization was made possible due to technological, economic and social development which gave Europeans and advantage over their competitors.

naruvimama 5y ago
You need to check your facts. East-India company had nothing to sell and was spending its gold. It was precisely because of the concentration of wealth (from Europe) and the hemorrhaging of gold that it desired conquest and taxing the locals. Political weakness in India as against strong crown and church in Europe made conquest easy, but it did take a long time and it was mostly indirect (100s of princely states). Industrial revolution in Britain started 4 years after they set up their trading port in Calcutta and most definitely copying Industrial knowledge. If all they wanted was spices, they could have got that from North and West Africa, or in their new colonies in the Americas. Populations go through ups and downs as do their wealth and power, everyone copies not just China. Nobody grows in isolation. The idea that Europe suddenly started innovating from the dark ages and became industrial needs to be revisited. Call it revisionist all you want.

naruvimama 5y ago

You need to check your facts. East-India company had nothing to sell and was spending its gold. It was precisely because of the concentration of wealth (from Europe) and the hemorrhaging of gold that it desired conquest and taxing the locals. Political weakness in India as against strong crown and church in Europe made conquest easy, but it did take a long time and it was mostly indirect (100s of princely states). Industrial revolution in Britain started 4 years after they set up their trading port in Calcutta and most definitely copying Industrial knowledge. If all they wanted was spices, they could have got that from North and West Africa, or in their new colonies in the Americas. Populations go through ups and downs as do their wealth and power, everyone copies not just China. Nobody grows in isolation. The idea that Europe suddenly started innovating from the dark ages and became industrial needs to be revisited. Call it revisionist all you want.