Why did the Great Divergence Occur

In the 16-century on November 1519, Cortes and his men arrived in Tenochtitlan. Hernan Cortés and his army came to South America (Tenochtitlan) to claim new land for Spain. The Aztecs are Native American people who took over Northern Mexico at the tome of the Spanish conquest, early 16th century. The Aztecs had a nomadic culture and eventually settled on many small islands in Lake Texcoco in 1325 where they founded the town known as Tenochtitlan, which is now a modern day Mexico City. The Aztecs created an empire between the 15th century that was soon surpassed in size in the Americas only by that of the Incas.

The premise behind Guns, Germs, and Steel is explained with one question: why did Europeans develop faster and come to conquer other lands whereas others did not? Diamond spends the next 19 chapters using empirical data to establish a basis as to how different civilizations became so staggered developmentally. He offers an explanation based on geographical location, domestication of both food and animals, and environmental factors.

Jared Diamond's 'Weapons, Germs, and Steel' is an exceptionally amazing novel which uncovers the insider facts about the genuine history of the human humankind. I left away inspired by its achievement in compacting 13,000 years of mankind's history into a clear and convincing clarification of why the rate of financial advancement changed so remarkably on distinctive mainlands, without depending on culturalist or racialist contentions. Jared Diamond succeeds terrifically at demonstrating why Eurasia had gotten to be by 1500 AD (the beginning of "Europe's attack on the world") the world's most mechanically propelled landmass, a long ways in front of sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas and Australasia. In the last part, he extends the examination to question why, inside Eurasia, it was Europe that definitively overwhelmed obviously better-enriched contenders (essentially China) inside of the following four hundred years and continued to "change the world in its own picture". Be that as it may, his thought regarding the bases of imbalances between

Jared Diamond’s ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ is a very astonishing novel which reveals the secrets about the true history of the human mankind. I came away impressed by its success in compressing 13,000 years of human history into a lucid and compelling explanation of why the rate of socio-economic development varied so significantly on different continents, without resorting to culturalist or racialist arguments. Jared Diamond succeeds spectacularly at proving why Eurasia had become by 1500 AD (the dawn of “Europe’s assault on the world”) the world’s most technologically advanced continent, far ahead of sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas and Australasia. In the final chapter, he extends the analysis to question why, within Eurasia, it was Europe that decisively overtook apparently better-endowed competitors (primarily China) within the next four hundred years and proceeded to “remake the world in its own image”. But his idea about the roots of inequalities between the Europeans and the Rest of the world is pretty general. His purpose for showing the general roots for inequalities is to expand on the issue and

An interesting topic which we have yet to discuss in class is the relative development of China's technology, naval, and agricultural industries, at the time, in comparison with the west, and how it affected China’s position in the world throughout the 19th and early 20th century. Why didn’t China’s technological achievements propel it to become a global power in the later half of the millennia (before 1950). One interesting example is the comparison between Christopher Columbus's expedition vessel versus the Chinese Navies Zheng He “treasures ships”. For many centuries, the Chinese had had reached, and were operating at the pinnacle of technological achievement at the time. This leads the question - if Zheng He/s exploration efforts had not

By defining economics as the most important aspect of the rise in power of the West, Frank also defined when the importance of global economy came to be. Many historians and economist have stated that the global economic system occurred after the Rise of the West; Frank disagrees. Frank believes that the world economy has been occurring since 1500s in the form of global trading. “A single global world economy with a worldwide division of labor and multilateral trade from 1500 onward” (pg.7). Frank’s notion that economics is the driving force behind the Rise of the West is correct in the fact that economy is a major force behind all innovations and advancements. A country cannot advance if it does not have the money to research and better its technologies, culture, and society. Frank’s notion of a single world economy is also correct in the fact that trading between Asia, Africa, and Europe does define a global economic system. What Frank lacks in his idea of the Rise of the West is his unwillingness to accepting innovative culture as a driving force behind the Rise of the West.

There were many negative and positive consequences that came with the contact between China and the European powers at the turn of the 20th century. These consequences are evidently seen in the impacts of European technology. China had no to intentions to welcome the arrival of Europeans and attempted to control the entry of foreigners into the Middle Kingdom. The assumed barbaric behaviour came from a group of Portuguese sailors during the sixteenth century that had set Chinese attitudes against Europeans. The Chinese banned these bothersome Europeans from entering the land, referring to them as ‘barbarians from the Western Ocean’. On the other hand European traders continued to seek Chinese goods such as silk, tea and porcelain, the proud Chinese expressed

The period 1450s saw an existence of powerful cities such as Asia, Africa, and Americas with established trading networks over land and sea. Societies in Asia and the Middle East were the world leaders in economics; in science and technology; and in shipping, trade, and exploration until about AD 1500 (Goldstone, 2009). Europe emerged from the Middle Ages and entered its Renaissance, well behind many of the advanced civilizations elsewhere in the world and did not catch up with and surpass the leading Asian societies until about AD 1800 (Ibid). This history leads one to enquire what was so special that the West did or have to rise to the current global stature that it has become. Though presumptions have been to point to a unique European defined path to success, these have been cast by a cloud of doubt following Japan’s rise as the second largest economy in the 1980s leaving the questions about the western origins of political and economic ideas and institutions (Rosenthal and Wong, 2010).

During the period of 1492 to 1750, Europe experienced drastic changes during their Age of Discovery. As a result of contact and colonization, Western Europe’s economy, political, social, and military systems changed, but also maintained certain aspects that enabled them to build strong civilizations. Such changes include increased (international) trade routes, more centralized governments such as monarchies, decreased unifying influence of the Catholic Church, and increased interest in military conquest and expansion.

Could the Eurocentric notion of China being “inferior”or having “failed” at achieving modernity constitute an overwhelming misunderstanding of China as a whole? Is the “failure” narrative evidence of how the propagators of the European academy use their understandings to pervert the very essence of true Chinese history? If it wasn’t intentional, could the West have ‘failed’ to understand the complex cultural and socioeconomic dynamics of China? Historians who adhere to the foundations of Eurocentric thought, in establishing the ‘China v. Europe’ comparative analysis, have often cited claims that European advancements throughout history were not only ‘unique’ but are in fact the precedent for modernity. In establishing this precedent, the West

Many historians debate the reason behind Europe’s global dominance, even to this day. This is because before 1800, Europe was fragmented due to religious conflict. In addition, their resources were depleting because of the Little Ice Age, which impacted Europe and North America and caused animal species, as well as crops to die out because of the immense cold. In contrast, by 1660, Japan controlled one third of the world’s silver supply, and they had a booming economy fueled by global trade. By the year 1800, Europe was poised for global dominance because they needed to colonize the New World in order to obtain natural resources, which were affected

The world of 1851 differed on a significant scale from that of 1500 for both Asia and Europe. Until the 1800s, Asia was considered the centre of the world in many aspects such as trade, innovation, wealth, manufacturing and territorial influence and expansion. In contrast, Europe was disunited and divided at the core of its superpowers due to massive political reforms and religious warfare. Yet, and from these reforms, the continent was well within a new age of discovery and improvements. It was undoubtedly the success of this era and its breakthroughs (technology, pace, unification…) that allowed the European powers to surpass their Asian contenders and reach unchallenged dominance around the 1800s.

The early western world benefitted from revenues from trading European products to the Eastern countries (Pomeranz, 2000). High earnings obtained from trading with eastern countries and sales of slave established seven percent profit per annum, which is a “relatively high rate of return considering the high rate of depreciation on pre-industrial capital stocks, which limited the amount of savings and capital accumulation”, stated Pomeranz (2000). Many theories suggest that the Great Divergence occurred as a result of trade development from Europe to Asia, which later on became the main factor of the New World. As, Pomeranz (2000) stated, “the greatest significant advantage for Europe was the vast amount of fertile, uncultivated land in the North America which could be used to grow large quantities of farm products required to sustain European economic growth and allowed labour and land to be freed up in Europe for industrialization.” A great example of this is how England saved approximately 23-25 million acres of agricultural space by importing goods such

Before the discovery of the Americas, Europe was a non-factor in regards to the rest of the world. According to Andre Gunder Frank, Europe was “backwards and far behind the rest of the world”. In the 1400s Asians had superior naval capacity during the Ming voyages, and had been dominating a world economic system that had been fully functioning without the participation of Europe. Frank argues that the “Asians were dominant” in every facet. From production, competitiveness, to trade, Asians dominated the global economy, and was amongst the most dominant global power in the world. Asians also had stunning technology and institutions that were far superior to those in Europe. Frank uses statistics such as per capita income, and population. The data further proves that Europe was backwards and a non-global factor in these times. Another major key that hindered Europe was the

History is full of unpredictable incidences, instability and uncertainties. It is quite difficult to foretell the condition of our world’s economic, social and political affairs for the upcoming decade. Anything and everything is possible. A perfect example of such an occurrence is the inability of China to dominate the world. What was it that led to China’s descent and its declining grip over achieving world dominance? What was it that led to Europe’s supremacy over the world? Any individual who existed