What really happened when Vasco Da Gama set foot in India

[scorpionx]

thanks for the vote of confidence. I think the communities which were at the crossroads of human migrational paths had the most exposure to technologies. I think the region comprising asia minor, Mediterranean, north Africa had that advantage. China was another region which was a big hub.
In human history , things don't happen in a day. I believe the spadework for the renaissance must have happened a few centuries earlier but I cannot put my finger on what exactly those sequence of events could have been.
Security from foreign invasions?? Most of Europe did not suffer from invasion that was culturally different (except the moors in spain) .. is that right?
I still feel that giving a stake to the common man was the one big factor that differentiated the west from any other culture like Mughals or qing/ming or any other. For eons it was accepted that there would be one king and everyone else would be a subject.
imagine you were a peasant in one of the major Indian kingdoms. What would be the impact to your life were the reigning king be supplanted by someone else. I think minimum. What would be your motivation to contribute to society with ideas.
I think somehow the Europeans let ideas from all people come in and germinate and used it.
any thoughts?

This may not give a plausible explanation on how European powers managed to dominate Asian territories (first sea and then land) from 17th century onwards. With the exception of England where sociopolitical enlightenment came a century earlier, Europe consistently maintained its faith in absolute monarchy with large dependence on traditional feudal social structure till two back to back political revolutions in late 18th century. The common populace remained largely poor, illiterate and indifferent to international policies as any other part of the world.

 

[scorpionx]

you have a good point because the French revolution (tale of 2 cities) happened as late as 18th century. then do you think genetically the Europeans have a superior mind that knows how to organize itself into a unit at the same time be individualistic? a super communist, structure with capitalist components?

Not at all. Maritime nations that sent long distant voyages in Asian waters and successfully colonized South Asian territories were not essentially the centre for technological or scientific advancement. A French Jacquard loom or a institutional technical training like the Prussian Bergakademie had no parallel in Britain yet even in the early 19th century Britain.

We are trying to understand something that took place over a period stretching almost three hundred years where it will be grossly inaccurate to identify it merely as a consequence of evident result of clash of meeting of one superior culture with a primitive one. Until the dual revolution in late 18th century, east and west met each other with almost equal terms, intellectual, cultural currents and industrial outputs flowed from east to west and silver from Latin America from West to East.But with the rapid and increasingly expansion of capitalist trade altered this tradition in favour of Europe which was vitalized by early Venetian model of trade which was hitherto unknown to Asian rulers.

Military supremacy certainly played a significant role but the capacity of West to cultivate the decentralized local rulers and to exploit their vulnerabilities and weaknesses from their non-European opponents contributed to bring the fundamental change in Asian politics particularly in India and Dutch Indies. The English were already a superior naval power in 1680s but a consolidated opposition from the Mughals forced them to retreat for a short period of time which again recuperated after the death of Aurangzeb. The early setbacks received by the Portuguese from the ottomans also proves the fact that in face of a centralized and determined power the European military discipline and superior training did not essentially succeed.

In my humble opinion, the gradual ascendancy of Britain in Indian political theater, if we consider for example must be attributed to the

i) Glorious revolution of the 1688 which helped Britain to remain stable during the age of social liberation movements

ii) In late 18th century the radical adoption of capitalist economic policies whose principles were fundamentally motivated by the theory propagated by Josiah Child almost hundred years ago that wealth should exclusively drawn from landed property and profit and power must go together. During this period, territorial expansion of the British reached its peak in India.

iii) Political vulnerability of Indian rulers against each other and their adherence to traditional cavalry warfare with only exceptions of Ranjit Singh and Tipu Sultan leading them to military disasters in front of cohesive infantry units synchronized with disciplined artillery fires.