Reddit reviews Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not: Global Economic Divergence, 1600–1850
We found 1 Reddit comments about Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not: Global Economic Divergence, 1600–1850. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
>ot differentiation/integration. And modern day calculus has expanded far beyond the rudimentary discoveries of Newton and Leibniz. They only provided the framework. You should give more credit instead to Cauchy, Lagrange, Riemann etc.
& in your mind does that weaken my point?
>Also, apparently, our OP, while conceding classical physics was developed in Europe, claims that quantum physics was actually discovered in ancient India. Which he has yet to show proof of.
i'm not making that point.
just saying that indian discovery was not non existent nor education system poor.
europeans had the wealth & relative security to make
>The Indian Golden Age really ended around 700-800 CE but I'll be generous and push it to 1200 CE. After that, innovation in math/science wise, the subcontinent continued to decline compared to Western Europe before taking the final nosedive in the 1800s. High GDP at the time was due to proto-industrialisation under Mughals and a large number of natural resources.
not at all.
the mongols only had hindusthan region under control, southern india was just as rich & continued to import in tonnes of silver & minerals due to their main export-fine cloth.
mongol rule was waning & there was a series of prolonged wars so of course that region may not have had as much money devoted to scientific endeavours but the region was still relatively rich nonetheless.
indian laborers were richer & worked less than their european counterparts in the 1800s.
industrialization occurred as per the needs of the region, europe had little resources & had to resort to coal whereas india had plenty of fuel sources still.
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Europe-Grew-Rich-Asia/dp/0521168244