>Murray

>>18543195 (OP)
America and colonialism

>>18543195 (OP)
sauce?

We don't know a lot about "significant figures" in the east because we're not taught a lot about eastern cultures in general. I couldn't name you a single Indian ruler or Chinese Emperor that wasn't tied to a video game for example.

>>18543212
>sauce?
Charles Murray.

>>18543208
>America and colonialism
Did this matter that much in 1500 when there wasn't an industrial revolution or widespread colonialism? Also europeans gave away Constantinople around that time yet they started producing a lot of significant futures at the same time.

>>18543224
>Did this matter that much in 1500

Yes, agricultural goods, silver, general raw resources all began to get poured into Europe via Portugal and Spain. The more resources you have the better you do, generally.

>>18543241
And don't forget, they used those resources to trade for goods in the east which they circulated through Europe.

>>18543241
>>18543246
Was this a commodities supercycle or a stock market supercycle?

>>18543195 (OP)

>significant figures
>China spent the cultural revolution destroying all of its shit
>India got a whole lot erased by the brits
>Japanese erased Korean shit
>who has time to translate moonrunes and shitrunes anyway

Westerners didn't burn our historical works until after we had already copied them and dispersed them around the world.

>>18543250
Now we have AI to translate everything instantly to generate historical data

>>18543249
Don't know the difference not going to wiki to find out.

Do know:
>more resources more $$
>more $$ more quality of life
>more quality of life more invention time
>more writing time
>more patronage

>>18543253
We still need the prerequisite of it not having been destroyed.

>>18543250
>>China spent the cultural revolution destroying all of its shit
False narrative. More so because people constantly exagerate the CR. There was way more cultural destruction in Asia and Africa during the colonial years than during the CR.

>>18543271
Not really the point but ok

File: Jean Fusoris weight drive(...).jpg (83 KB, 640x439)

83 KB JPG

The reddit answer is "colonialism" yet the great divergence began beforehand while the economic contribution of the colonies was virtually irrelevant.

12th century Flanders invented a new vertical weaving loom that tripled productivity. Windmills sprung up across Europe, more efficient than early versions from Persia. Also in Flanders were the Walloon forges practicing economy of scale with low impurity ore from Sweden, water powered bellows and methods to carburize or decarburize the iron, allowing armorers to produce the hardened steel plates for knights. Architecture saw cathedrals rise higher than the pyramids. The mechanical clock evident of an understanding of physics arrived in the 13th century. The printing press in 1440.

After 1492 the main imports were gold and silver, which rapidly depreciated in value due to inflation, and spices like nutmeg. These things did not enrich Europe in aggregate, just allow the rich to squander more on luxuries. The populous colonies in the Spanish Empire did not yield many scientists to cause Europe to advance faster, the Spanish fell behind France and Britain before they had their own colonies. It would not be until new machines in Europe increased the demand for cotton that a functional raw material arrived from the colonies, yet it was still a tiny fraction of the overall economy.

All the evidence points towards a scientific and technological revolution taking place in Europe that outpaced the rest of the world, one borne almost entirely in the minds of white men, a cause of controversy, but no wonder. While most groups are IQ 70-90, white IQ is 100. East asians are also high IQ of course, however Europeans also possess a "liberty gene" that causes Europeans to be less conformist and more innovative.

https://www.academia.edu/3620724/Chinese_Lack_of_Empathy_in_Development
https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs53576

This allowed Europe to outcompete civilizations with far greater advantages like India and China.

>>18543278
>12th century Flanders invented a new vertical weaving loom that tripled productivity. Windmills sprung up across Europe, more efficient than early versions from Persia. Also in Flanders were the Walloon forges practicing economy of scale with low impurity ore from Sweden, water powered bellows and methods to carburize or decarburize the iron, allowing armorers to produce the hardened steel plates for knights. Architecture saw cathedrals rise higher than the pyramids. The mechanical clock evident of an understanding of physics arrived in the 13th century
According to Murray, europe did nothing before the printing press though. Then it all exploded. I think it has nothing to do with inventing but everything to do with free resources from Latin America perhaps. North America, Africa and India were just the cherry on top.

>>18543195 (OP)
Unironically colonialism. Before that there wasn't that much of a difference.

>>18543195 (OP)
Damn I guess the Islamic Golden Age was correct, it really helped them out.

>>18543278
>one borne almost entirely in the minds of white men
Leaving alot a lot of people and generalizing people for no real good reason.

>While most groups are IQ 70-90, white IQ is 100. East asians are also high IQ of course, however Europeans also possess a "liberty gene" that causes Europeans to be less conformist and more innovative.
Literal "we iz magic" slop. This is why everyone laughs at retards like you.

For anyone who isn't familiar with "Quantifying human accomplishment", what Murray did to quantify human accomplishment was select his favourite english language encyclopaedias (and only english), then write down if half or more of these encyclopaedias considers something worthy of note. And then if he considers them worthy of note, they go in.
>>18543195 (OP)
>Murray's book report in the big 2026
Embarassing.
>>18543212
You don't know it anon, but you just articulated the general problem with Murray's book.

>>18543318

damn islamic golden age ended when it ran out of White people and their superior non-Islamic ideas.

>>18543329
But it was clearly still the Islamic idea to copy white people or whatever, per the graph, and not an idea held by the previous brown retards. Browns should thank Islam for civilizing them.

>>18543195 (OP)
Evopsych goldilocks zone of an environment just harsh enough to select for planning and delayed gratification but still bountiful enough to support large urban populations. East Asia was similar.

>>18543329
>>18543331
It was very clever to start the graph at more or less end of the greek dark age. Long after the period care about Mesopotamia and Egypt for. Murray has always been a clever boy.

>>18543333
And he also conveniently left out the USA's peak of contributions.

>>18543329
Now Persians are white? What's up with these sudden blanching of groups to push narratives?

>>18543332
>Evopsych
Is a joke because it's literally mass wild guessing and head canons.
>enough to select for planning and delayed gratification
Existed everywhere.
>still bountiful enough to support large urban populations
Existed in many places too.
>East Asia was similar.
Extremely massive area and the history + development history all wildly varied even within states.

>>18543195 (OP)
> How did europeans develop a lot before the industrial revolution and not after?
The Renaissance?
Was caused by the black death and the Crusades.
But the inflation which you see, in the charts was caused by Fractional Reserve Banking multiplying the monetary supply.
i.e. The Medicis and their like, using techniques introduced by the Templars.

>>18543329
Do we have genetic proof of Norwegians running the middle east a thousand years ago?

>>18543327
Even Murray says europe was nothing before the turks took Constantinople which is weird because a lot of people say europe was actually ahead the whole time Murray they weren't.

are there any books that really deeply explain the causes and evolution of the disparity of technological advancement between europe and the rest of the world during this period of time? i mean books that aren't like "lol brown people dumb" or whatever else bullshit but give economical and social and material reasons

>>18543289
The "free resources" was mostly silver mines of Potosi and anyways only helped Spain. Portugal, England, France and others did not have large empires and the Spanish wealth was not shared by those countries. The divergence is not because of Latam.

File: image-959.jpg (195 KB, 944x1088)

195 KB JPG

>>18543195 (OP)
TL;DR Absolutism. Which could only consolidate thanks to Mercantilism, athough most of the profit from this went to private companies/bourgeoisie, not the absolutist state/king, and what the mercantilists really profited doesn't come from loot (especially since that was produced under coercion via serfdom and slavery, so the only thing that was actually stolen was labor, not the product itself), but from the monopoly of trade of commodities and manufactured goods.

Before the rise of Absolutism, Medieval Europe was a continent characterized by the profound political and social fragmentation of the feudal system. Following the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, centralized power largely vanished. Authority was dispersed among the Church/Clergy, which acted as a suprahierarchical force, the King and Nobles. In classical feudalism, particularly between the 9th and 13th centuries, the fundamental social relationship was of spiritual and temporal/secular power, suzerainty and vassalage:

The high clergy, bishops, archbishops and abbots, controlled vast ecclesiastical lands and wielded spiritual and temporal authority, stood above or parallel to the secular power of the king himself. As feudal vassals to the monarch for their secular holdings, the high clergy performed homage and owed obligations such as providing military contingents from church lands (yes, knights raised from ecclesiastical estates existed besides of the Crusader's Knightly Orders, Warhammer 40k and they're greatest in that time than the secular ones), financial contributions, counsel in royal assemblies, and administrative support. In return, they received the king’s protection, confirmation of their privileges and lands, and the ability to exercise justice and collect tithes within their domains.

1/?

File: native.jpg (109 KB, 745x656)

109 KB JPG

>>18543528
But the most imporant thing the clergy provide the king was divine legitimacy through the sacred rite of coronation and anointing.

In this ceremony, usually performed by a high-ranking bishop or the Pope himself, the monarch was anointed with holy oil in a ritual that mirrored the biblical anointing of kings like David and Solomon. This act transformed the king from a mere secular warlord or feudal overlord into God’s chosen representative on Earth, the anointed of the Lord. It conferred upon him a sacred aura of authority that no noble, no matter how powerful, could legitimately challenge without risking accusations of sacrilege or rebellion against divine order.

This divine legitimacy was the king’s greatest symbolic asset in the fragmented feudal world. It provided religious and moral justification for his rule, helped unify vassals under a common Christian loyalty, and elevated his status above that of the great suzerain nobles.

Speaking of them, the suzerain nobles, also known as the high nobility, great lords, dukes, counts or magnates, were the most powerful secular group (the king was just an individual, not an entirely independent group because of their family, since them, king and high nobles, were all blood related because Germanic Tribes). They were the direct vassals of the king and swore homage and fealty to him, recognizing the monarch as their suzerain (overlord). This oath of loyalty was heavily influenced and legitimized by the clergy, who played a central role in reinforcing the idea that the king held a sacred position of authority, even if his practical power remained limited.

These suzerain nobles possessed extensive fiefs that often exceeded or rivaled the king’s own domains in size and wealth. They controlled the majority of the land, private armies, castles, and judicial rights over large territories.

2/?

>>18543278
Seriously, why do retards always obsess over empathy and textails? Those are such weirdly specific topics that it deserves an explanation.

File: Philo_mediev.jpg (371 KB, 928x675)

371 KB JPG

>>18543557
Their military support was absolutely essential, without the loyalty and armed contingents they provided, the monarch was effectively powerless, functioning more as a primus inter pares (first among equals) than a true sovereign ruler.

But that’s the thing, the majority of members of the high clergy came from the nobility, especially non-firstborn sons, landless/feud-less, young/single or/and old/retiree. This allowed them to them families extend their influence without dividing the feufs through inheritance (Ecclesiastical fiefs could not be inherited, divided, or sold, since they were inalienable and legally belonged to the patrimony of the Catholic Church, which made them more powerful than the secular fiefdoms). These noble-born high clergy controlled vast ecclesiastical lands that operated as feudal domains, collecting tithes, exercising judicial power, raising troops, and managing manors. This created a powerful fusion of secular and spiritual authority that even the King himself didn't have, since it was the Church, of which they were high-ranking members, that crowned him.

Below the high clergy but above in spiritual powerthe low nobility came the low clergy, parish priests, monks and minor ecclesiastical officials, who lived closer to the daily realities of the medieval peasant population, providing spiritual guidance, basic education, charity and medicine while often serving as administrators or record-keepers. They held a respected position in the social order due to their religious status, even with their theological education (I forgot to mention in past post that who that had/accessed the Universities, which emerged in the Middle Ages, it was the High Clergy. Before the Counter-Reformation, there was widespread illiteracy and superstition/heresy among the lower clergy) and material power being lower than that of the high clergy and low nobles, because local chapel or church within most fiefdoms was administered by the lower clergy.

3/?

File: Middle-Passage-Map-Final-(...).jpg (876 KB, 2048x1496)

876 KB JPG

>>18543278
>the economic contribution of the colonies was virtually irrelevant.
This argument is made for the "New Imperialism" phase of colonialism, but it's not true for the colonialism that happened during the Age of Exploration

File: Traicitié_de_la_forme_et_(...).jpg (415 KB, 1280x855)

415 KB JPG

>>18543620
Atlhough the wealth of churches belonged to the high clergy and the fiefdoms where they were located belonged to the lower nobility. But the high clergy were more concerned with taking care of their own larger ecclesiastical lands/fiefdoms, while the low nobility were with their secular careers.

The noble vassals, commonly known as low nobilty, knights or vavasours, formed the essential middle layer of the feudal military and administrative structure. They received smaller fiefs from their suzerain nobles and were bound by vows of homage. While they are most famous for their role as armored cavalry, providing military service (often forty days per year) in exchange for their land, their functions extended far beyond the battlefield. They acted as local lords of the manor, managing day-to-day agricultural operations, collecting feudal dues and rents, presiding over manor courts to settle disputes among peasants, enforcing customary law, and maintaining basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, mills and granaries within their holdings. Many were also involved in hunting, tournaments, and the cultural code of chivalry, which mixed martial prowess with ideals of honor, loyalty and protection of the weak, although in practice their behavior varied widely between noble conduct and predatory exploitation.

Not all commoners remained tied to the land. A growing urban population developed in cities and towns that enjoyed varying degrees of autonomy. These city-dwellers, artisans, merchants, craftsmen and traders organized in guilds, operated outside the strict rural feudal bonds and above the feudal peasent popularion. They did not need fiefdoms to survive and were not dependent on suzerainty/vassalage system. They produced goods, engaged in local and long-distance trade, and gradually accumulated wealth through commerce, so instead of appealing to military force for knights through vassalage to protect their trade routes/cities, they paid them.

4/?