Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Nothern Mexico
Interesting assumption, Atlantia....but in fact, europeans did not were a world power since roman times, and only under the romans and Alexander the Great had that edge. They were always stamped out by oriental-middle eastern powers, except when the the "little crusaders" won Jerusalen for a relative short period, in which the islam power learnt to not underestimate the "franks" and united in a common front. Even using the same type of weapons. But the romans never controled all Europe, as the Rhine was always an usurpassable frontier. And Hannibal teached them more than a few lessons in african strategy. Also, the empire of Alexander was not european, in the sense that Alexander had no dominion over Europe, or represented Europe, but only Greece, and itīs empire had more oriental characteristics.
Historically, Europe was a small populated area, dominated by barbarians since the fall of the roman empire and hence in a cultural regression in relation with the classic culture, in front of the vast armies of the chinese, mongols, hindus, arabs or japanese, some of them form antique and a very sophisticaded cultures. The tuks, instead, dominated part of Europe in their big empire until realatively recent times, and that is why they are still heated and misunderstood in the european history and in the common "knowledge", and so are the huns and mongols, to this day. The are the "hordes", the "barbarians", when in fact they had very disciplined armies, and were evidently more capable than europeans on the battlefield. And donīt forget the arab domination over Spain, or part of it. Only during 700 years.
The turks had even the whole control over the Mediterranean, and the genoese and venetian fleets had to pay tribute in cash to navigate in this sea. Berber corsairs attacked with impunity european ships ans enslaved europeans, to the scandal of the "white" people, which considered that only the rest of the world could be subject of enslavement or colonization.
When europeans were superior on the battlefield? Only when they developed the use of the fireweapons, AND adopted a new war doctrine, which included strategy and tactics according with the use of fireweapons. Other asiatic and african countries adopted fireweapons, but not the new war doctrine. Winning battles over them in this new situation, was like winning a battle over english armies of the 17th Century using modern machineguns. They used the fireweapons but in their traditional array of the army. Germans, for example, had about the same weaponry than France in the II WW, in quality and numbers, but France was stamped out very easily, because they used the war doctrine from the I WW, meanwhile germans developed a new doctrine based in a special way to use the armored cars and the close colaboration of the air force with the ground forces: the blitzkrieg.
But military superiority is not equivalent to cultural superiority, as many times the history has teached us. And the tables could reverse, given enough time.
We can talk, also, about Vietnam, or today Afghanistan, if that were not against the rules. But if that were possible for me to decide, I would send my officers to specialize, not to West Point, Sandhurst or Saint Cyr, but to Vietnam. They have stopped the chinese, the mongol, the european and the USA armies, now for centuries. The 19th Century contemplated the initial decline of the european military might in favour of the USA (just remember the Boer War, which was african). This is the vision of many non european, and a small contribution to this perspective, not meant to offend. Just to make some precisions. After all, there are more than a few non european forumites here.