Will any Irish papers print the Muhammed cartoons?

[morryah]

Ah yes, expansionist but different. I get you, but not.

Overseas and naval: bad.
Overland: good.

This all ignores the ships that went to Indonesia, Phillipines, Spain and i fact most territories, India etc.

Clueless.

I think the point was that the challenges presented by exploring the Americas and opening sea-routes to Asia were a greater spur to European technological development than the maintenance of the Islamic empires (which were reasonably similar to classical empires). Thus, ultimately, and like China, the Islamic empires fell under the domination of the West. EastGalway hasn't yet connected this to the fundamentalist turn in Islamic thought, but it's reasonable to suggest that exclusion from secular power, with its attendant responsibilities, could account for the trend.

Not a good argument.

China (secular but with emperor) 'fell'?
Catholic Spain and Portugal expanded (then fell)
Islam: no history of technical development or radical thought stagnates.

[EastGalway]

So your saying the muslim raiders didn't enslave people? I think you're brushing them up a little too clean..

They did enslave, but the Ottomans were certainly more tolerant with their subjects than the Spanish and British with theirs. Unlike the Spanish, the Ottomans did not massacre people of a different religion as a point of principle, allowing the Orthodox patriarch remain in Constantinople (where the patriarch is still based). Compare that to the Spanish treatment of the native peoples of the Americas or Belgian conduct in the Congo in the 20th century.

[stringjack]

What challenges - apart from determination and luck. If you know your history, South America fell largely to imported diseases and gunpower (via china).

Long-distance navigation and the need to pack a strong military punch into a very small package.

There is no evidence that Islam wouldn't have done the same, had it the chance. It certainly had the determination at various point in its history.

That isn't the contention; the argument is that present day Islamic fundamentalism is something of an historical accident.

[zakalwe]

malta, crete, cyprus and sardinia. anyway thats beside the point.

a read of jared diamond's "guns, germs and steel" gives an interesting insight into why europe conquered and colonised much of america, africa, asia and australia.

it wasn't europeans' warring ways and imperialist tendancies (which were uniquely european) that enabled them to defeat almost every continent but technological superiority, robust immune systems and a complex political structure.

[stringjack]

Not a good argument.

China (secular but with emperor) 'fell'?
Catholic Spain and Portugal expanded (then fell)
Islam: no history of technical development or radical thought stagnates.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Sorry.

[morryah]

What challenges - apart from determination and luck. If you know your history, South America fell largely to imported diseases and gunpower (via china).

Long-distance navigation and the need to pack a strong military punch into a very small package.).

people were taking boats to australia long previous.

as I say, it wasn't a military victory as much as unintentional biological warfare

[zakalwe]

eastgalway,

the ottomans slaughtered the armenians and the kurds all through history.

[stringjack]

people were taking boats to australia long previous.

as I say, it wasn't a military victory as much as unintentional biological warfare

That reasoning is flawed. The Europeans did not predict the effects of their biological warfare (hence unintentional). They still had to get to and from the Americas and deal effectively with much larger indigenous armies when they got there. This was a challenge to which they devoted their energies.

(And what people were taking boats to Australia?)

[morryah]

Not a good argument.

China (secular but with emperor) 'fell'?
Catholic Spain and Portugal expanded (then fell)
Islam: no history of technical development or radical thought stagnates.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Sorry.

apols. trying to show no correlation between religions and growing or falling empires.

land grab is a common human trait.
so is religion.
not necessarily correlated.

the issues are economic, not religious.

[morryah]

people were taking boats to australia long previous.

as I say, it wasn't a military victory as much as unintentional biological warfare

That reasoning is flawed. The Europeans did not predict the effects of their biological warfare (hence unintentional). They still had to get to and from the Americas and deal effectively with much larger indigenous armies when they got there. This was a challenge to which they devoted their energies.

(And what people were taking boats to Australia?)

no sorry, it's not flawed.

a. the europeans did not know what to expect when they got there.
b. well, boats to the south seas which were colonised (and perhaps the north tip of oz, but leave it aside) about 10,000 years ago.

anyway, I think we're off topic now....