Yes, I admit the achievements of the Carolingian Renaissance were real and important, but still, it was more of a specific effort at educational reform and the “rebirth” of interest in classical culture, not to the revival of Europe in general in this era. There was no explosion of cultural, artistic, scholarity and educational advancements at a larger scale. The things that came out of Western Europe were miniscule and irrelevant compared to the achievements of the Italian Renaissance and later events such as the Scientific revolution and Industrial revolution. And what are the achievements of these individuals other than writing and poetry?You admit that its achievements were real and that it was happening, that's a start. The Carolingian Empire WAS most of Western Europe, at least according to your own definition of the former parts of the Western Roman Empire. There was also Islamic Iberia which you claim for it to have had some achievements, so there's that. The Carolingian Renaissance was important, marking a period where there was some revival of Greco-Roman culture and it did have many achievements, see Carolingian Minuscule, new styles of architecture and art, centralisation of government, building of churches and schools etc. No known individuals? Paulinius of Acqueilla, Peter of Pisa, Theodulf of Orleans and more. As for nothing special coming out of Western Europe: This is evidently wrong, this paragraph partially shows why.
Islamic Iberia? Please. They weren't even politically part of Europe, they were part of the Islamic world at that time.
The Middle Ages were in fact in stagnation as a whole. The renaissance events mentioned are mostly efforts and didn't result in total revitalization and spread of Greco-Roman knowledge. There were no major scientific or technological advancements during those times (some, but only later on near the end of the Middle Ages). Urbanization was slowly declining, infrastructure crumbling, feudal economy. The Middle Ages may not have been a complete backwater with utterly no development, but you can't deny that there was slow progress compared to outside Western Europe.Let me repeat what people have already told you in this thread: ''Dark Ages'' as a period of constant stagnation and decline are a myth! Me and others have already mentioned the renaissances for one. On the Mongols and Asia I can't comment as it isn't my forte but it looks like other people are pointing out your mistakes there.
If you're referring to France winning many European wars in Continental Europe, it was because they were more economically and politically powerful and enough manpower on their sides, but eventually in the end, they got exhausted from the many wars they had. Was Sweden as powerful as the Western European powers, that is: Britain, France, Netherlands, Germany (i'll count them as Western European in this context). Did these Swedish individuals leave any ever-lasting impact?When they win general European war after general European war in short spaces of time it has to count for something. The Vietnam part is effectively a non-comparison. What important influences? Besides the military advances they were somewhat ahead of their time after 1721 during the ''Age of Freedom'' I would say. People like Carl Bellman, Olof Rudbeck the Elder, Olof Rudbeck the Younger, Emmanuel Svedenborg, Karl Linneaus, Axel Oxestierna, Arvid Horn are some of their most well known cultural, scientific and political figures, they are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. Your notion of development is presentism and disregards the actual historical reality. In the, let's say, 18th century Sweden was rather average and if not more advanced than some countries in regards to politics for example.
We are not going to derail this thread as it already is just to explain the long details of the course of the Napoleonic wars. In the end, it was a tough war which was eventually lost.While technically true, the Napoleonic part is again simplified and ignores much of the events and context of the age. For the stagnation: See above.
I was mainly referring to Austria-Hungary. Austria was indeed a major European power, but not a world power like Britain and France in the later centuries.Austria was a major power that rivaled France and fought many wars with them. Let's consider their time as a great power to begin in 1440, when the first Habsburg Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire took control. Austria-Hungary lasted for 52 years (1867-1918.) while Austria's time as a great power lasted almost 500. Far from short lived. Let's consider Sweden's time as a great power to begin with the ascension of Gustavus Adolphus in 1611 and end in 1721, 110 years of great power status.
Again, these Renaissance events weren't anything as significant as the Italian Renaissance. It only shows some progress, but they didn't produce anything major and Europe as a whole was still chaotic mess.While smaller than the Carolingian renaissance it shows that the notion of them stagnating and not doing anything is untrue. As for Venice: Are you judging a nation that had hundreds of years of history and was formed in the late 7th century by just one event in a military campaign?
Neither does the Carolingian and Ottonian Renaissance, nor is the fact that Mongols and Manchus were unrelated.That doesn't have much to do with anything else here, though.
Western Europe as a whole still progressed much slower compared to the Islamic world, China and India at that time, and the fact that Mongols and Manchus were behind China not advancing.