Respuesta :
Because Europe had merchants who traded with the rest of the world,so even though China was more advanced they did not have the necessary resources.
For the Islamic world they concentrated on their religion more than the sciences not to say they didn’t make some important discoveries.
And also Europe had an empire
For the Islamic world they concentrated on their religion more than the sciences not to say they didn’t make some important discoveries.
And also Europe had an empire
For me, it would be why did the Industrial Revolution start only in a specific place (Britain and Western Europe, shortly followed by Central Europe) at a specific time (around 18th century, give-or-take)?
As an amateur historian, I noticed that most fellow amateur historians and even professional historians from different parts of the world (Europe, India, China, etc) tend to engage in cultural chauvinism and what I would call centric-around-my-own-culture attitude. Many people tend to overhype in the cultural, technological, and social achievements of their own civilizations. At worst, they engaged in historical revisionism, and ret-conning.
For example, a common reason for the Industrial revolution was the creation of a legal system in Britain and Western Europe that supported a merchant class through property protection rights and a legal system that supported the creation of the Corporation. Is that accurate? I suspect if a historian dig hard enough, similar examples can be found elsewhere in other civilizations.
Another example is a common belief is that India and China was for much of the world’s history the hub of culture and technology. This idea suggests that the last 500 years was an anomaly due to the Industrial Revolution of the Western lands and both India and China are now re-taking their rightful place as the world’s supreme cultures. But this ignores other advanced civilizations in the Middle East and Southern Europe.
Ian Morris’s “Why the West Rules–For Now” showed the ancient cultures of Greece, and of the Near East were comparable to China in terms of science and technology.
In many “East vs West” comparison, a favorite topic is “Roman Empire vs Han dynasty”. In the end, the Roman empire declined around the 4th century. A few centuries later, China no longer had the Han dynasty but it had transitioned into the Tang and Song dynasty.
In researching on why the Industrial Revolution didn’t occur in China during the 18th century, the more I researched, the more confusing it got. It got to the point where it is relevant to ask why the Industrial Revolution didn’t happen in either the Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty either.
And by focusing on the question of China and India, we overlooked other regions, like the Middle East. Around the time of the Tang and Song dynasty, the Islamic Golden Age occurred as well. There were many technological and scientific advances made. Many of the scientific discoveries made during the Islamic Golden Age in the Caliphs of the Middle East were just as important as anyway else, if not even more so. I suspect that in certain areas, the Caliphs of the Middle East may have been even more technologically advanced than China.
Another example is that have been a lot of theories that the Gutenberg printing press really came from China. But if the printing press was invented in China much earlier, why did it seemed to have greater impact in Europe, in the creation of a scientific revolution via rapid spread of ideas?
Another problematic issue is the role of firearms and gunpowder. Many people tend to equate gunpowder technology and firearms technology with technological advancement.
