|
|
|
|
|
|
by jhbadger
2480 days ago
|
|
|
Exactly, the article tries to say it was a good thing because it was the time that modern national identities emerged (Spanish vs. French, etc.), but it is questionable if that was really a good thing. While the EU (minus Britain unless there's a last minute saving) is a thing, wouldn't it have been better if Europe never culturally fractured in the first place? |
|
|
It would have been better for the people living at the time, but probably not for us. It's that diversity in different nations, different cultures, different forms of government and different ideas, that drove progress.
Compare China, which has been mostly unified for that period of time. Despite starting out as the most powerful country on Earth, it was eventually overtaken by European countries. A famous example is how China built a massive fleet ready to colonise the world in the 14th century, but then a new emperor came alone who decided there was nothing of interest outside China. In Europe, if one country wouldn't be interested in something, another would. That diversity and competition was probably why Europe eventually overtook China. Though there are benefits to both approaches: as long as you can avoid stagnation, there can also be a lot of efficiency in a single central government.