Western Europe did not come to dominate the world thanks to science and rationality, but thanks to disease which wiped out the natives, effective use of organized violence, and successful use of divide-and-rule politics. Expansion happened long before scientific revolution had any success.
Nazis were quite sane, command of German armed forces was very clever, and Hitler was a very smart politician.
In both cases you can find plenty of intelligence where in mattered—organized violence and politics, and plenty of superstition and silliness in other areas.
Given wrong facts, I’m not sure what you’re arguing about.
“Western Europe did not come to dominate the world thanks to science and rationality, but thanks to disease which wiped out the natives, effective use of organized violence, and successful use of divide-and-rule politics.”
Disease was a major ally in conquering the native Americans, of course, but in Asia it was neutral, and in Africa disease was a major factor on the side of the natives. The Europeans still conquered most of it eventually.
The Europeans were generally adept politicians, but they did not rely primarily on their political skill; they relied primarily on their military power, which by 1900 allowed them to defeat native forces with a casualty ratio of more than 100:1.
“Expansion happened long before scientific revolution had any success.”
Exploration did, but during the fifteenth century, except for the Americas (where the Europeans had a disease advantage, as noted above), they were not generally superior to the people they were trying to conquer, and were frequently defeated and killed (eg. Magellan). It was only later on that they established an overwhelming military advantage.
“Nazis were quite sane, command of German armed forces was very clever, and Hitler was a very smart politician.”
The German generals were indeed very smart, but the German generals weren’t Nazis (it was illegal at that time for a member of the German military to belong to a political party). And I wasn’t trying to discuss German victories in battle, but Nazi victories in politics.
Under what conceivable definition of the word was Adolf Hitler smart? He failed his first year in high school, was later expelled for using his school certificate as toilet paper, failed to get into art school (twice), was homeless for a while, eventually joined the army but had a hard time getting promoted past private because he “lacked leadership ability”. This is hardly the track record of a generically “very smart” person; if a person walked into your office with such a resume, there’s no way in hell you would hire them for a position requiring very high intelligence.
The Europeans were generally adept politicians, but they did not rely primarily on their political skill; they relied primarily on their military power, which by 1900 allowed them to defeat native forces with a casualty ratio of more than 100:1.
This is not as impressive as you think. Those “native forces” were Neolithic people, nothing like that happened in conflicts against other civilizations like Islamic states or China. And such ratios require merely good organized violence—for example Romans claim 50:1 casualty ratios for conquest of Gaul.
It was only later on that they established an overwhelming military advantage.
Europeans didn’t really expand after Late Medieval / Early Modern period—they temporarily established various levels of controls over local governments all over the world, and had low level migration there, but all major areas of persistent European settlement are those conquered much earlier—thanks to disease and opponents still being in Neolithic.
Hitler rose to a place of prominence in the early years of the party (1919 − 1923) largely as a result of his considerable skills in oratory, organization and promotion.
Did you even read the article? They had twenty thousand people who were armed with rifles, which means that, even if they had a backwards culture, their technology was very far from Neolithic.
“Romans claim 50:1 casualty ratios for conquest of Gaul.”
All numbers that ancient historians give for enemy armies are highly suspect in general (everyone wanted to exaggerate their triumphs).
“Hitler rose to a place of prominence in the early years of the party (1919 − 1923) largely as a result of his considerable skills in oratory, organization and promotion.”
Yes- notice how rationality and intelligence are not on that list.
“Hitler rose to a place of prominence in the early years of the party (1919 − 1923) largely as a result of his considerable skills in oratory, organization and promotion.”
Yes- notice how rationality and intelligence are not on that list.
Intelligence should be, or at least it should be acknowledged that high generalised intelligence allowed success in the diverse combination of skills mentioned.
They had twenty thousand people who were armed with rifles, which means that, even if they had a backwards culture, their technology was very far from Neolithic.
Even if you disregard the rifles, the Ndebele were not a neolithic culture, since they worked iron.
Lobengula had 80,000 spearmen and 20,000 riflemen, armed with nine pound Martini-Henrys which were modern arms at that time. However, poor training meant that these were not effective weapons.
Hardware is tiny part of technology. This wasn’t an army with modern technology—just a mob which got its hands on hardware, without any of the know-how and training necessary to use it properly. And in any case rifles were already ancient technology by then—the battle was won with Maxim machine guns like most battles of that time.
Such number are not atypical. See battles of Carrhae, Legnica, Poitiers, Německý Brod and many others—all against modern enemy armies, not some Neolithic mobs which got its hands on some hardware it didn’t know how to use. It was very typical about warfare that losing side got massacred while fleeing, so 10:1 casualty ratios were the norm, and 100:1 not unheard of.
As for Hitler, organization skills require a lot of intelligence.
In 16th century there was neither science nor mass production in Europe—and enemies against which Europeans won so readily were still in Neolithic. It wouldn’t surprise me if in some parallel universe Roman Empire conquered Americas after their accidental discovery.
Against more modern Islamic powers, Late Medieval/Early Modern European track record was more or less even—Europeans managed to win the oceans, but Ottomans defeated Europeans over and over again until 1683, resulting in net loss of Christian land in Europe. The only major European conquest of lands in which more or less equivalent civilization level existed—India—was a textbook example of divide and conquer, and required neither science nor even much in terms of technological advantage.
(and in general, if you want to use some historical process or event as example based on conventional wisdom about it, conventional wisdom usually overstates things)
“Against more modern Islamic powers, Late Medieval/Early Modern European track record was more or less even”
Agreed- that’s precisely what I said. Except for the Americas (where they had a huge disease advantage), the Europeans did not have overwhelming military power until science and Traditional Rationality were well-developed.
That’s silly. It’s like saying, “In 1945, the US had a huge army, but the Nazis and Japanese were already mostly defeated anyway, so the huge army didn’t really have much to do with it”.
You got facts entirely wrong.
Western Europe did not come to dominate the world thanks to science and rationality, but thanks to disease which wiped out the natives, effective use of organized violence, and successful use of divide-and-rule politics. Expansion happened long before scientific revolution had any success.
Key events in Western domination happened in final decades of the Late Middle Ages (the first few decades of 16th century still count as “Late Middle Ages” as far as I’m concerned) - like establishment of naval domination over Arabs in 1509, conquest of Aztecs in 1521, Incas in 1530s etc.
Nazis were quite sane, command of German armed forces was very clever, and Hitler was a very smart politician.
In both cases you can find plenty of intelligence where in mattered—organized violence and politics, and plenty of superstition and silliness in other areas.
Given wrong facts, I’m not sure what you’re arguing about.
“Western Europe did not come to dominate the world thanks to science and rationality, but thanks to disease which wiped out the natives, effective use of organized violence, and successful use of divide-and-rule politics.”
Disease was a major ally in conquering the native Americans, of course, but in Asia it was neutral, and in Africa disease was a major factor on the side of the natives. The Europeans still conquered most of it eventually.
The Europeans were generally adept politicians, but they did not rely primarily on their political skill; they relied primarily on their military power, which by 1900 allowed them to defeat native forces with a casualty ratio of more than 100:1.
“Expansion happened long before scientific revolution had any success.”
Exploration did, but during the fifteenth century, except for the Americas (where the Europeans had a disease advantage, as noted above), they were not generally superior to the people they were trying to conquer, and were frequently defeated and killed (eg. Magellan). It was only later on that they established an overwhelming military advantage.
“Nazis were quite sane, command of German armed forces was very clever, and Hitler was a very smart politician.”
The German generals were indeed very smart, but the German generals weren’t Nazis (it was illegal at that time for a member of the German military to belong to a political party). And I wasn’t trying to discuss German victories in battle, but Nazi victories in politics.
Under what conceivable definition of the word was Adolf Hitler smart? He failed his first year in high school, was later expelled for using his school certificate as toilet paper, failed to get into art school (twice), was homeless for a while, eventually joined the army but had a hard time getting promoted past private because he “lacked leadership ability”. This is hardly the track record of a generically “very smart” person; if a person walked into your office with such a resume, there’s no way in hell you would hire them for a position requiring very high intelligence.
This is not as impressive as you think. Those “native forces” were Neolithic people, nothing like that happened in conflicts against other civilizations like Islamic states or China. And such ratios require merely good organized violence—for example Romans claim 50:1 casualty ratios for conquest of Gaul.
Europeans didn’t really expand after Late Medieval / Early Modern period—they temporarily established various levels of controls over local governments all over the world, and had low level migration there, but all major areas of persistent European settlement are those conquered much earlier—thanks to disease and opponents still being in Neolithic.
Re Hitler
“Those “native forces” were Neolithic people,”
Did you even read the article? They had twenty thousand people who were armed with rifles, which means that, even if they had a backwards culture, their technology was very far from Neolithic.
“Romans claim 50:1 casualty ratios for conquest of Gaul.”
All numbers that ancient historians give for enemy armies are highly suspect in general (everyone wanted to exaggerate their triumphs).
“Hitler rose to a place of prominence in the early years of the party (1919 − 1923) largely as a result of his considerable skills in oratory, organization and promotion.”
Yes- notice how rationality and intelligence are not on that list.
Intelligence should be, or at least it should be acknowledged that high generalised intelligence allowed success in the diverse combination of skills mentioned.
Even if you disregard the rifles, the Ndebele were not a neolithic culture, since they worked iron.
Hardware is tiny part of technology. This wasn’t an army with modern technology—just a mob which got its hands on hardware, without any of the know-how and training necessary to use it properly. And in any case rifles were already ancient technology by then—the battle was won with Maxim machine guns like most battles of that time.
Such number are not atypical. See battles of Carrhae, Legnica, Poitiers, Německý Brod and many others—all against modern enemy armies, not some Neolithic mobs which got its hands on some hardware it didn’t know how to use. It was very typical about warfare that losing side got massacred while fleeing, so 10:1 casualty ratios were the norm, and 100:1 not unheard of.
As for Hitler, organization skills require a lot of intelligence.
“Effective use of organized violence” included having superior weapons, and science and mass production contributed a lot to make them possible.
In 16th century there was neither science nor mass production in Europe—and enemies against which Europeans won so readily were still in Neolithic. It wouldn’t surprise me if in some parallel universe Roman Empire conquered Americas after their accidental discovery.
Against more modern Islamic powers, Late Medieval/Early Modern European track record was more or less even—Europeans managed to win the oceans, but Ottomans defeated Europeans over and over again until 1683, resulting in net loss of Christian land in Europe. The only major European conquest of lands in which more or less equivalent civilization level existed—India—was a textbook example of divide and conquer, and required neither science nor even much in terms of technological advantage.
(and in general, if you want to use some historical process or event as example based on conventional wisdom about it, conventional wisdom usually overstates things)
“Against more modern Islamic powers, Late Medieval/Early Modern European track record was more or less even”
Agreed- that’s precisely what I said. Except for the Americas (where they had a huge disease advantage), the Europeans did not have overwhelming military power until science and Traditional Rationality were well-developed.
By that time Europeans had some level of control over most of the world, achieved thanks to diseases, politics, and fighting very low tech opponents.
What large victories were left to be done?
That’s silly. It’s like saying, “In 1945, the US had a huge army, but the Nazis and Japanese were already mostly defeated anyway, so the huge army didn’t really have much to do with it”.