You are here

Why Europe conquered the world

Feb 23,2017 - Last updated at Feb 23,2017

Eleven hundred years ago, Europe was a backwater. There were no grand cities, apart from Cordoba, in Spain, which was Muslim.

The Middle East was much further ahead, still absorbing the intellectual delights and challenges of Greek science, medicine and architecture that Europeans were largely ignorant of.

In southern China, agriculture advanced and trade in tea, porcelain and silk flourished.

By 1914, it was a totally different world.

The Europeans ruled 84 per cent of the globe and had colonies everywhere. 

How was it that Europe and its offspring, the United States, became the dominant dynamic force in the world, and are still today in most things?

If I walk round my university town and stop the first 10 students I meet and ask them why this was so, they would probably say because of the Industrial Revolution.

But in 1800, when the Industrial Revolution was only just beginning, Europeans already ruled 35 per cent of the world and had armed ships on every ocean and colonies on every continent.

If the students did not say that, they might say it was the way the Europeans spread their fatal diseases, smallpox and measles, to which they had gained a good deal of immunity, which enabled them to lay low native peoples. 

But, in fact, all the major Middle Eastern and Asian civilisations had this same advantage. 

In Africa, it was local diseases that attacked the Europeans more than vice versa.

Maybe one of the ten students would say it was because the Europeans were ahead in the development of gunpowder technology. 

After all, the military revolution preceded the Industrial Revolution. But I doubt that, even though on the right track, this one student
could explain why.

Gunpowder was invented in China and by the 16th century, the Ottomans were making high-quality artillery. 

But they could not keep up with the pace of European technological development. Europe had military competition and thus innovation baked into it. Europe, unlike the Ottoman Empire or China, was a very un-unified kind of place.

Since the fall of Charlemagne, there was no one strong enough to hold Europe together. Moreover, the popes preferred to divide and rule and did not want a single strong European leader to diminish their power.

In Europe, dozens of small states and principalities, often each vying to be top dog, were stimulated to nurse their competitive instincts.

This pushed research and the gunpowder technology forward at a much faster pace than anywhere else in the world.

In contrast, China was a massive hegemon; Japan and the Ottoman Empire sizeable ones. 

A hegemon inevitably comes to believe that since it is politically dominant far and wide, it does not have to work so hard at maintaining superior arms. 

But when it came to gunpowder technology and its adaption to warships, the smaller European powers, each seeking to outscore each other, could often call the shots against Asia’s hegemons.

Philip Hoffman, professor at the California Institute of Technology, argues in his new book “Why did Europe conquer the world?” that Europe’s pace of innovation was driven by a peculiar form of military competition that he calls a “tournament” — the sort of competition that under the right conditions can drive contestants to exert enormous effort in the hope of earning a prize.

This is what happened in Europe, but not elsewhere. 

European rulers raised taxes and lavished resources on armies, navies, gunpowder technology and pushed forward research.

Moreover, unlike in Asia, private entrepreneurs faced few legal, financial or political obstacles to launching expeditions of conquest and exploration. This is why the British East India Company could conquer much of India.

The wars that led to Europe’s and particularly Britain’s domination of the world made possible (although there were other important factors too) the Industrial Revolution, not vice versa. 

Victory in battle had given Britain a large share of Europe’s intercontinental trade. That created jobs in British cities. That raised wages and agricultural demand.

High wages stimulated the invention of labour-saving machines, such as spinning machines and steam energy.

Then, there were the huge deposits of coal. Hence, the industrial revolution. 

Some historians add into the mix the immense profits from the Caribbean and North American slave trade, which provided much of the capital needed to build machines and factories.

Others would add the long European tradition of the separation of church and state. 

Hoffman himself stresses the importance of Britain’s uniform legal and fiscal system and parliament’s control of the purse.

Well, as they say, that is history.


Now we have a new struggle for dominance. If only it could be done without another round of gunpowder technology and within the legal framework of the Charter of the United Nations.

116 users have voted.


Although thinking about Rome brings about ideals of liberty, gratituity, prosperity, and freedoms of expression and scientific discovery, it's not an accurate depiction of the ground realities during it's existence. The Roman Era of rule was actually very barbaric and a lot of people suffered under it. Although ancient Greek eras provide an escape from the treatcheries of Rome, it to was an opressive and barbaric governing entity, as scientists were put to death for expressing ideas. The only normal-most era of rule in the ancient world was the rule of the Arabs because they allegorically created bonds and protections between science and theology, whereas everybody else tried making science look queer and taboo for self-gains.

Europe was in the feudal system where they couldn't own anything and had to work for petty meal rations by their feudal masters. Nobody was allowed to own land, livestock, or capital goods, with the exception of clothes, which they never really washed because they didn't have soap from Jerusalem yet. But the point is Europe was under rule by ruthless kings who enslaved their populations under birth and born indebtedness clauses and arguments.

Queen Isabella was the whore queen of pagan occultism who against science, literature, and medicine.

But you're insinuating that Rome was livata to resurrection.

Recently, in Iran ,just before the exams , I saw a student reading a physics book. The text was in arabic but the formulas used roman and greek characters.
At some time , Arab science stopped developing

The sheer and utter devastation of the raids and scorched earth invasions in the Roman Empire were so great, that not a province in Rome nor a civilian in it were left unspared as the blood from their dismembered carcasses pooled their glorius roads red as their political sin.

Rome casted their subordinate populations into indentured servitude, not all the time, but throughout their history, they had a history of oppressing their populations and humiliation-casteing their subjects, which everybody identified as cruel and unusual. Crucifictions, gladiations, casteation-casteings, tax prisons, and such of the likes led to mass insurrections and scorched earth warfare policies against them.

Europe conquered the world because of the idealogies of liberty and freedom espoused post Tarek Ibn Ziyad's invasion. Prior to the invasions, liberty and freedom were alien idealogies, and under European feudalism and serfdom kingdoms after the fall of Rome, the European man was bound to slavery under indentured servitude social structures. The Arabs reformed social structures and economics such that anybody can attain wealth, health, liberty, and freedom, unbound by serfdom indebtedness. After, constitutions were written to guarantee, in literalé, the rights, liberties, and freedoms guaranteed to man from God.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.


Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.