What if the Normans don't conquer Sicily? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 19, 2024, 01:47:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History
  Alternative History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  What if the Normans don't conquer Sicily? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What if the Normans don't conquer Sicily?  (Read 4601 times)
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« on: May 26, 2007, 11:10:13 AM »

The history of the Crusades would read very differently without Norman control of Sicily. And the whole cultural and economical history of Europe would read very different without the Crusades. There might not even be a white man's country in the present-day US without the Norman conquest of Sicily.

Of course, all this makes it much more likely that, if the Normans hadn't conquered Sicily when they did, they would have done it thirty years later with Crusader help...
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2007, 10:35:18 AM »

Why would there not be a white man's country in the US? Are you presuming no successful reconquista?
Without the crusades, I'm presuming European/Christian/Caucasian/whatever domination of the world to never happen.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,206
India


« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2007, 04:47:13 AM »

Why would there not be a white man's country in the US? Are you presuming no successful reconquista?
Without the crusades, I'm presuming European/Christian/Caucasian/whatever domination of the world to never happen.

To the contrary, European domination was pretty much ensured from the beginning due to geography. While East Asia, South Asia and the Middle East all have basically everything they might want in pre-modern society close at hand and therefore have little reason to launch amssive explorations and to conquer other parts of the world, both Europe's production capacity and production diversity are exceptionally low. This means that Europe had far more pressure to both explore and conquer than East Asia, South Asia or the Middle East.

I spent quite a bit of college researching the topic. My conclusion was that Europe's strength in the 16th and 17th centuries and dominance in the 18th and 19th centuries was due precisely to its inherent disadvantages, not advantages. Nowhere else had any compelling reason to establish world-spanning trade empires since they already had enormous production capacities and diverse native goods.
There are other parts of the world with massive disadvantages as well. It is the combination of disadvantages and advantages that matters.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 11 queries.