Aaron Kuperman wrote:
> 2. The Europeans needed a better trade route (being hopelessly
> underdeveloped at the time, and needing access to trade with the developed
> countries in south and east asia). Any alternative from a non-European is
> irrelvant (there wasn't much for the Europeans to export yet, being that
> they were so backwards). The Europeans in the 16th century needed the
> Asians, not the otherway around.
It's not entirely fair to characterize 16th century Europeans as
underdeveloped. The imports in question were luxury goods. The
existence of large markets for such things implies economic
development, while the ability to send ships such long distances
implies technological development. Yes, the Europeans were not yet
clearly ahead of Asia, and yes, the Europeans did not yet grasp the
benefits of bathing regularly, but we ought not let our enthusiasm for
these facts overcome our common sense.
Richard R. Hershberger
|
