The Rise of West and the Fall of Rome

Nov 2017
20
Geneva, Switzerland
#1
When rome fell western europe divided into smaller powers (england, france, spain, portugal and holland and later germany), these nations competed with each other leading to the creation of colonial empires and imperialism; and the conquest of the world by the West.

Meanwhile the east remained united in great empires as rome most of the middle and modern age. Example: China remained united and did not create colonies

So I ask this question is the fall of Rome better for the West? The competition was one of the main factors for the accession of the West?
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,931
Dispargum
#2
I can see how competition stimulated military technology but nothing else. Gutenburg did not invent the printing press because he wanted Germany to gain an advantage over Britain or France.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,104
#3
There was a long time between the fall of Rome and the rise of the West. Western Europe was a backwater for like 1000 years after the fall of the western Roman Empire.
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
#4
This is just plain ignorant. After the Arab conquests, the Byzantine Empire became something of a rump state challenged not just by various neighbouring Arab states but also by various European ones. Why do you think Eastern Europe has as many countries as Western Europe? Not to mention that Russia is part of Eastern Europe anyway and is today among the most powerful states in the world together with the United States and China, while states in Western Europe like Britain decayed and became today subordinated second-rate powers.

By no means was "competition" the cause of the rise of certain Western European states.
 
Nov 2017
789
Commune
#5
There was a long time between the fall of Rome and the rise of the West. Western Europe was a backwater for like 1000 years after the fall of the western Roman Empire.
For God's sake, this preconception has to stop too. Between the Frankish and Carolingian empires, the castles, palaces, cathedrals and Viking longships (that reached North America through the Arctic sea) and the various volumes written just in the first 500 years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it's impossible to maintain that Western Europe was "backwards".
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#6
There was a long time between the fall of Rome and the rise of the West. Western Europe was a backwater for like 1000 years after the fall of the western Roman Empire.
Not really. Rather after just 300 years. Just check "The Carolingian Renaissance".

Western Europe during the High Middle Ages(1000-1250) was superior to Western Roman Empire.
 
May 2018
424
Ramgarh
#8
When rome fell western europe divided into smaller powers (england, france, spain, portugal and holland and later germany), these nations competed with each other leading to the creation of colonial empires and imperialism; and the conquest of the world by the West.

Meanwhile the east remained united in great empires as rome most of the middle and modern age. Example: China remained united and did not create colonies

So I ask this question is the fall of Rome better for the West? The competition was one of the main factors for the accession of the West?
The Eastern Empires in China and India were three times larger than Rome, in wealth and population:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus...hina_India_Western_Europe_USA_Middle_East.png
 
Mar 2013
1,441
Escandinavia y Mesopotamia
#10
Early WRE or when everything was on fire? or heck both?
Both. Everything what the Western Romans knew the medieval population knew already in High MIddle Ages, and many aspect of architecture, agriculture, philosophy and technology were either there or have been improved in High Middle Ages.