I track the historical rise of West Europe by quantitatively analyzing the birth of notable people of science, and then I put it in context with other indicators of historical development. The data together show that West Europe had developmentally surpassed the rest of the world prior to 1500 A.D., before the establishment of overseas colonies or slavery. It is clear that the West’s rise to global prominence has deeper roots than often suspected.
Something I noticed in reading Charles Murray's 2003 book "Human Accomplishment" is that most of the rest of the Old World world went into cultural stagnation about the time that Europe took off in say the 1400s, well before European aggression could have been a sizable cause.
Japan was an exception and was moderately progressing, but still falling further behind up through 1853.
But much of the rest of the Old World -- Islam, India, China -- didn't do much to make themselves more advanced in the key years of, say, 1450 to 1750.
If I had to make a guess at a single leading reason, I'd probably say that the Islamic world didn't make use of the printing press. They weren't exactly against the printing press, but they weren't for it either.
The varying responses and abilities of different cultures to withstand the Mongol conquests and those of Genghis Khan's successors may play a role here? I'm thinking of Tamerlane in particular. Had the Mongols ravaged Western Europe, things would certainly have played out differently. My understanding based on my reading is that much of broader Asia was devastated by these conquests.
Many other factors to consider. Such a fascinating topic.
Another part of the Old World that apparently went into cultural stagnation at about the same time is Europe's Jewish communities. They were very prominent e.g. in Iberia before being expelled, but as they migrated to and settled in Eastern Europe they turned inward and largely dropped off the cultural map for several centuries. The Haskalah movement was perhaps somewhat analogous to Japan's transformation after 1853, both induced by a growing realization of their own backwardness combined with enough energy and talent to do something about it.
I recall reading once that the establishment of the Arabic printing presses in the Ottoman Empire was delayed due to the fears of tampering with the Quran. Obviously lots of reasons for it, but that may have been a bigger initial one.
Excellent analysis. I also like that you have debunked the myths that India was a rich civilization. Life in India has always been miserable until it became bearable during the British raj.
Also, Ibrahim Muteferrika was an ethnic European who was still drawn to the European rationalism despite converting to Islam.
What misses in your analysis is the role of the decimal system in supercharging European mathematics and establishing Western Europe as the pre-eminent scientific superpower by early 1600s. Stevin played a key role in developing the decimal system as explained here:
There's basically nothing about India in the main article. There's only a footnote which argues that India's GDP was high purely because of its big population, and per capita was lower than other civilizations. That's not an original thought; everybody who writes comparative history say that.
How "rich" any of those countries were, given the absence of clearly recorded data, is very subjective. If you read the accounts of Portuguese travelers and merchants in the southern Indian kingdom of Vijayanagara arount 1500, they describe it is a prosperous place. British accounts of Bengal in the late 1600s-early 1700s are quite flattering; it was literally the textile capital of the world at the time, and was also agriculturally rich. On the other hand, there are accounts of people suffering from famine in some parts of Mughal-ruled India earlier in the 1600s.
The difference,, it seems to me, is simply that between good governance and misgovernance, and state of war and peace. Long periods of stability where somebody's rule is not challenged does produce more prosperity. Innovation is even further downstream from that.
Great article! I am from India, and we often debate how Hindu India fell behind the Islamic world. A big reason we thought is Hindu philosophy's emphasis on spirituality and away from materialism. There was simply no push to continue to innovate in science and technology.
The "notable people" of India in the 6th and 7th century (before Islamic invasions) were almost all Hindu or Buddhist philosophers, except with the exception of Aryabhata who is credited with inventing "zero" and was a great mathematician - but his work too was in the service of astronomy which was an important part of the Hindu religious practices.
Similar thing seemed to have happened in the west with the great artists of the renaissance period enjoyed the patronage of the Vatican. But, the tradition of rational enquiry and science seemed to have spread to the rest of Europe where it was not tied to the Church.
I've always thought that the Church was an obstacle the to West progress in Science.
But in "How the West won", Rodney Stark shows that if Chinese and Indian civilizations were ahead of the West in Science at the beginning, the West finally invented Modern science because of the conception of the cosmos created by the Church: Modern science was born of the idea that the universe operates according to rational rules dictated by an organizing God, and that these rules can be discovered, making scientific research possible and desirable.
I think all civilizations, when they peak, do so because they have been in pursuit of knowledge for a while before that; since humans learn from one another, knowledge accrues within that civilization till it reaches a certain kind of threshold where this knowledge translates into benefits in terms of superior technology for military use and/or economic use. As an example, Indians were masters in metallurgy in the Iron era - the Roman empire used to import iron from India.
The Islamic civilization entered its golden age in the 9th and 10th centuries, but for whatever reason they could not sustain the culture of the pursuit of knowledge, leading to their eventual decline.
From what I understand (though I am no expert), Christianity definitely had a major impact on the western civilization, but mostly, I feel, through the way it shaped the society. I find Joseph Henric (W.E.I.R.D) thesis about how the church shaped the western civilization very compelling. I also think, as christianity spread to all of Europe, it became easier for knowledge seekers to collaborate across all the European nations even when the nations themselves may be at war. Again, a critical mass was achieved, which has continued to sustain.
But the Vatican was against the findings of Copernicus and others, and the scientific discoveries continued despite the opposition from the Church. So, I am not sure I agree that Christianity uniquely helped usher in the modern science.
"I think all civilizations, when they peak, do so because they have been in pursuit of knowledge for a while before that": that is a fair point.
I remember visiting Qutub Minar and be amazed by the state of the Iron pillar (it appears to be recent desptie its 15 centuries), thanks to its level of purity (99% iron if I remember well).
The point of Stark is to show that the European "scientific stars" of the 15th-17th were mainly devots (as Newton for example), looking for the rules created by the christian God. It was their motivation.
But you are right it is not the only factor behind the rise of Modern science, other factors could be competition between European nations and the rise of a merchant class independant from political power fostering innovation (capitalism)
I did not know that the Iron pillar was 99% Iron! That is from Chandragupta II's reign in the 4th century AD. Indeed the composition is such it is rust proof. I agree with the central point that many stars of that era were deeply religious.
Fantastic post. As to the causes, perhaps Europe's rise was simply suppressed by cold climate and fragmentation until the 1000-1500 saw a relative return of moderate stability. The early rise of states (e.g. England, to some extent France) and the improving fortunes of Northern Italian city-states which expanded in both scope and wealth.
One of the key mysteries to me is why East Asia didn't take off given their high intelligence. I suspect there may be non-intelligence factors involved, such as greater creativity on the part of Europeans. However, we don't have any good way to measure creativity so it remains an unresolved puzzle.
Interesting stuff, thank you for taking the time to write this.
I think the seeds of Western success are old indeed. There is something in the Western military tradition dating back to ancient Greece that has made its armies unusually deadly against its enemies, even during periods of (apparent) relative Western technological or cultural backwardness. Victor Davis Hanson lays this out nicely in his book Carnage and Culture. The uniquely Western concept of the citizen/soldier seems important here, as are ideas like "rule of law" etc. I don't think Western success can be fully appreciated without taking into account the Greco-Roman heritage.
Also glad to see recognition of the numerous technological advances Europe made during the supposedly "dark" ages. It was a much more innovative and exciting time than we might think!
This is a very narrow view IMO. The Greeks and then the Romans did achieve dominance for a while against Near Eastern powers, though the Persians under the Sassanids eventually fought the Romans to a stalemate. But Europeans were never much of a match for Central Asian warriors, from the Huns to the Mongols. Only after the Russians turned the tide in the 15th century onward did the military threat to Europe from the Asian steppe cease.
The reference to the works of Jared Diamond, Joseph Henrich and Gregory Clark is noteworthy. After reading them, one is tempted to take each of their propositions as the defining explanation for the nature of civilisation. And your work appears to synthesise everything together. One only wonders if there could be yet another view that challenges your submission.
Good job on the view about colonialism. It’s a necessary caveat. The revisionists who reduce western progress to colonialism would not be impressed.
An observation - Africa is rarely mentioned in the chronicling of human progress. What might be the explanation? Non-notable contributions to human knowledge? A lack of intercontinental adventures and conquests by Africans? A perception of primitiveness clouding everything else? Or?
I think per capita is the better analytical tool. But to satisfy others (and my own curiosity) who might argue different social structures might still create significant scientific advancement (e.g. Confucian styled scholasticism in China, reserving education and science to a defined and limited social class with relatively low volatility/mobility) could you also present in absolute terms? I guess that would demonstrate a Chinese/Indian/Arab advantage in early years and a less explosive and slightly delayed but still very noticiable European ascendancy slightly later.
> The inflection point — around 1300 AD — is followed by an enormous, unprecedented rise of notable people, truly marking the beginning of a new era.
Can't tell for sure this is what's happening here without the actual data, but many s-shaped processes show constant growth rate from very early on that isn't visible in a linear graph because it's very close to exponential at that time. Ex: https://twitter.com/josecamoessilva/status/1640137696407601154
This would suggest that differences between geographical areas come from earlier than 1300 AD, and possibly ran into [human] resource constraints when the growth rate starts to slow down (which would show as a flattening area in a log-y chart).
Thanks a lot. You mention the question at the end that indeed has yet to be answered: Why, in Eurasia, this little corner that is Europe decisively took off in the 1500s?
Jared Diamond explains with convincing arguments why it was Eurasia vs. the rest.
But why Europe?
I would put forward another factor (rather than an explanation): The absence of European unity since the end of the Roman empire. The constant rivalry between competing States, always pushing for more innovation.
And why such rivalry?
There again Geography plays a big role: Isolated UK, Mountains separating Spain, France, Italy, etc. Yet enough population density and resources to support ambitious States.
Enough separations to prevent unity, but not enough to prevent ideas from flowing across the continent.
Put together, this competition pushed Europe towards global domination in 1900 ... before it self-destructed.
What's your precise definition of a "university"? Why don't old Indian (Buddhist) universities like Taxila or Nalanda (ultimately destroyed or forced to be abandoned by invaders) qualify as such according to you? Or something like Al-Azhar in Cairo?
When you say "your precise definition" and "qualify to you" you're making it seem like I have some atypical definition which I devised to exclude others. Not at all the case. This is how historians generally use the term, and it would require extra justification for me to go out of my way to reject the general usage of the word. However, I did go out of my way to point out that institutions of higher learning did exist in other places, even if they are typically not considered true 'universities' by most historians.
However, it is important to note that nothing in my post relies on universities being uniquely European (in the Middle Ages). The reason I track universities was not so much for comparison with non-European cultures, but rather to track the internal within-Europe development. The fact that universities begin to get established in large numbers in Europe starting in the 1200s (after the initial Oxford, Paris, and Bologna universities) is a noteworthy indicator of the region's development over time.
As for how historians typically define "university", John Kenneth Hyde writes the following:
'A university is something more than a center of higher education and study. One must reserve the term university for—and I'm quoting Rashdall here—"a scholastic guild, whether of masters or students, engaged in higher education and study," which was later defined, after the emergence of universities, as "studium generale".'
I wonder if "notability" measures are really tracking literacy. After all, people are more likely to be remembered, and thus become notable, if they're stories are written down.
Interesting stuff, but you totally ignored the Byzantine Empire for no good reason. Constantinople from Late Antiquity until 1204 (although Cordoba probably overtook Constantinople for a time somewhere in between) was the largest city in Europe and was the capital of the Roman and Byzantine (East Roman) Empire. It was a major gatekeeper of Ancient historical records and great theological and artistic thought and was a very dynamic state.
The independent historian Sean Gabb has made videos on the Byzantine Empire and one of his arguments is that somewhere around 1200 and 1300, Europe's technological, philosophical, and economic capacity rapidly eclipsed the Byzantine Empire, although I assume that the 1204 Sack of Constantinople played a major role in this as well.
Your article shows very convincingly that the take-off of the West between 1500-2000 was prepared during 1000-1500. This take-off is one of the most interesting historic questions to answer.
In "Civilizations, The West and the Rest", Niall Ferguson writes:
- "Just why, beginning around 1500, did a few small polities on the western end of the Eurasian landmass come to dominate the rest of the world, including the more populous and in many ways more sophisticated societies of Eastern Eurasia?"
- " The rise of the West is, quite simply, the preeminent historical phenomenon of the second half of the second millennium after Christ. It is the story at the very heart of modern history. It is perhaps the
most challenging riddle historians have to solve."
Something I noticed in reading Charles Murray's 2003 book "Human Accomplishment" is that most of the rest of the Old World world went into cultural stagnation about the time that Europe took off in say the 1400s, well before European aggression could have been a sizable cause.
Japan was an exception and was moderately progressing, but still falling further behind up through 1853.
But much of the rest of the Old World -- Islam, India, China -- didn't do much to make themselves more advanced in the key years of, say, 1450 to 1750.
If I had to make a guess at a single leading reason, I'd probably say that the Islamic world didn't make use of the printing press. They weren't exactly against the printing press, but they weren't for it either.
The varying responses and abilities of different cultures to withstand the Mongol conquests and those of Genghis Khan's successors may play a role here? I'm thinking of Tamerlane in particular. Had the Mongols ravaged Western Europe, things would certainly have played out differently. My understanding based on my reading is that much of broader Asia was devastated by these conquests.
Many other factors to consider. Such a fascinating topic.
Another part of the Old World that apparently went into cultural stagnation at about the same time is Europe's Jewish communities. They were very prominent e.g. in Iberia before being expelled, but as they migrated to and settled in Eastern Europe they turned inward and largely dropped off the cultural map for several centuries. The Haskalah movement was perhaps somewhat analogous to Japan's transformation after 1853, both induced by a growing realization of their own backwardness combined with enough energy and talent to do something about it.
I recall reading once that the establishment of the Arabic printing presses in the Ottoman Empire was delayed due to the fears of tampering with the Quran. Obviously lots of reasons for it, but that may have been a bigger initial one.
Excellent analysis. I also like that you have debunked the myths that India was a rich civilization. Life in India has always been miserable until it became bearable during the British raj.
Also, Ibrahim Muteferrika was an ethnic European who was still drawn to the European rationalism despite converting to Islam.
What misses in your analysis is the role of the decimal system in supercharging European mathematics and establishing Western Europe as the pre-eminent scientific superpower by early 1600s. Stevin played a key role in developing the decimal system as explained here:
https://gnosophia.org/divine-ugsaggiga-sumerian-emegir-isopsephy-babylon-yahweh/
There's basically nothing about India in the main article. There's only a footnote which argues that India's GDP was high purely because of its big population, and per capita was lower than other civilizations. That's not an original thought; everybody who writes comparative history say that.
How "rich" any of those countries were, given the absence of clearly recorded data, is very subjective. If you read the accounts of Portuguese travelers and merchants in the southern Indian kingdom of Vijayanagara arount 1500, they describe it is a prosperous place. British accounts of Bengal in the late 1600s-early 1700s are quite flattering; it was literally the textile capital of the world at the time, and was also agriculturally rich. On the other hand, there are accounts of people suffering from famine in some parts of Mughal-ruled India earlier in the 1600s.
The difference,, it seems to me, is simply that between good governance and misgovernance, and state of war and peace. Long periods of stability where somebody's rule is not challenged does produce more prosperity. Innovation is even further downstream from that.
Great article! I am from India, and we often debate how Hindu India fell behind the Islamic world. A big reason we thought is Hindu philosophy's emphasis on spirituality and away from materialism. There was simply no push to continue to innovate in science and technology.
The "notable people" of India in the 6th and 7th century (before Islamic invasions) were almost all Hindu or Buddhist philosophers, except with the exception of Aryabhata who is credited with inventing "zero" and was a great mathematician - but his work too was in the service of astronomy which was an important part of the Hindu religious practices.
Similar thing seemed to have happened in the west with the great artists of the renaissance period enjoyed the patronage of the Vatican. But, the tradition of rational enquiry and science seemed to have spread to the rest of Europe where it was not tied to the Church.
Thanks for the comment. I agree that that made a big difference
I've always thought that the Church was an obstacle the to West progress in Science.
But in "How the West won", Rodney Stark shows that if Chinese and Indian civilizations were ahead of the West in Science at the beginning, the West finally invented Modern science because of the conception of the cosmos created by the Church: Modern science was born of the idea that the universe operates according to rational rules dictated by an organizing God, and that these rules can be discovered, making scientific research possible and desirable.
https://www.whythewest.com/p/how-the-west-won-by-rodney-stark
I think all civilizations, when they peak, do so because they have been in pursuit of knowledge for a while before that; since humans learn from one another, knowledge accrues within that civilization till it reaches a certain kind of threshold where this knowledge translates into benefits in terms of superior technology for military use and/or economic use. As an example, Indians were masters in metallurgy in the Iron era - the Roman empire used to import iron from India.
The Islamic civilization entered its golden age in the 9th and 10th centuries, but for whatever reason they could not sustain the culture of the pursuit of knowledge, leading to their eventual decline.
From what I understand (though I am no expert), Christianity definitely had a major impact on the western civilization, but mostly, I feel, through the way it shaped the society. I find Joseph Henric (W.E.I.R.D) thesis about how the church shaped the western civilization very compelling. I also think, as christianity spread to all of Europe, it became easier for knowledge seekers to collaborate across all the European nations even when the nations themselves may be at war. Again, a critical mass was achieved, which has continued to sustain.
But the Vatican was against the findings of Copernicus and others, and the scientific discoveries continued despite the opposition from the Church. So, I am not sure I agree that Christianity uniquely helped usher in the modern science.
"I think all civilizations, when they peak, do so because they have been in pursuit of knowledge for a while before that": that is a fair point.
I remember visiting Qutub Minar and be amazed by the state of the Iron pillar (it appears to be recent desptie its 15 centuries), thanks to its level of purity (99% iron if I remember well).
The point of Stark is to show that the European "scientific stars" of the 15th-17th were mainly devots (as Newton for example), looking for the rules created by the christian God. It was their motivation.
But you are right it is not the only factor behind the rise of Modern science, other factors could be competition between European nations and the rise of a merchant class independant from political power fostering innovation (capitalism)
I did not know that the Iron pillar was 99% Iron! That is from Chandragupta II's reign in the 4th century AD. Indeed the composition is such it is rust proof. I agree with the central point that many stars of that era were deeply religious.
I wrote an article about The India Way, the book written by the Indian minister of External affairs. I thought it might interest you! https://www.whythewest.com/p/the-world-seen-from-delhi
Fantastic post. As to the causes, perhaps Europe's rise was simply suppressed by cold climate and fragmentation until the 1000-1500 saw a relative return of moderate stability. The early rise of states (e.g. England, to some extent France) and the improving fortunes of Northern Italian city-states which expanded in both scope and wealth.
One of the key mysteries to me is why East Asia didn't take off given their high intelligence. I suspect there may be non-intelligence factors involved, such as greater creativity on the part of Europeans. However, we don't have any good way to measure creativity so it remains an unresolved puzzle.
Interesting stuff, thank you for taking the time to write this.
I think the seeds of Western success are old indeed. There is something in the Western military tradition dating back to ancient Greece that has made its armies unusually deadly against its enemies, even during periods of (apparent) relative Western technological or cultural backwardness. Victor Davis Hanson lays this out nicely in his book Carnage and Culture. The uniquely Western concept of the citizen/soldier seems important here, as are ideas like "rule of law" etc. I don't think Western success can be fully appreciated without taking into account the Greco-Roman heritage.
Also glad to see recognition of the numerous technological advances Europe made during the supposedly "dark" ages. It was a much more innovative and exciting time than we might think!
This is a very narrow view IMO. The Greeks and then the Romans did achieve dominance for a while against Near Eastern powers, though the Persians under the Sassanids eventually fought the Romans to a stalemate. But Europeans were never much of a match for Central Asian warriors, from the Huns to the Mongols. Only after the Russians turned the tide in the 15th century onward did the military threat to Europe from the Asian steppe cease.
An epic post.
The reference to the works of Jared Diamond, Joseph Henrich and Gregory Clark is noteworthy. After reading them, one is tempted to take each of their propositions as the defining explanation for the nature of civilisation. And your work appears to synthesise everything together. One only wonders if there could be yet another view that challenges your submission.
Good job on the view about colonialism. It’s a necessary caveat. The revisionists who reduce western progress to colonialism would not be impressed.
An observation - Africa is rarely mentioned in the chronicling of human progress. What might be the explanation? Non-notable contributions to human knowledge? A lack of intercontinental adventures and conquests by Africans? A perception of primitiveness clouding everything else? Or?
lmao i thought u were kevin bird for a second was very confused when i started reading article
Timur Kuran also realized the colonization-development story was backward:
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.622.6373&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I think per capita is the better analytical tool. But to satisfy others (and my own curiosity) who might argue different social structures might still create significant scientific advancement (e.g. Confucian styled scholasticism in China, reserving education and science to a defined and limited social class with relatively low volatility/mobility) could you also present in absolute terms? I guess that would demonstrate a Chinese/Indian/Arab advantage in early years and a less explosive and slightly delayed but still very noticiable European ascendancy slightly later.
> The inflection point — around 1300 AD — is followed by an enormous, unprecedented rise of notable people, truly marking the beginning of a new era.
Can't tell for sure this is what's happening here without the actual data, but many s-shaped processes show constant growth rate from very early on that isn't visible in a linear graph because it's very close to exponential at that time. Ex: https://twitter.com/josecamoessilva/status/1640137696407601154
This would suggest that differences between geographical areas come from earlier than 1300 AD, and possibly ran into [human] resource constraints when the growth rate starts to slow down (which would show as a flattening area in a log-y chart).
Just a thought.
Thanks a lot. You mention the question at the end that indeed has yet to be answered: Why, in Eurasia, this little corner that is Europe decisively took off in the 1500s?
Jared Diamond explains with convincing arguments why it was Eurasia vs. the rest.
But why Europe?
I would put forward another factor (rather than an explanation): The absence of European unity since the end of the Roman empire. The constant rivalry between competing States, always pushing for more innovation.
And why such rivalry?
There again Geography plays a big role: Isolated UK, Mountains separating Spain, France, Italy, etc. Yet enough population density and resources to support ambitious States.
Enough separations to prevent unity, but not enough to prevent ideas from flowing across the continent.
Put together, this competition pushed Europe towards global domination in 1900 ... before it self-destructed.
What's your precise definition of a "university"? Why don't old Indian (Buddhist) universities like Taxila or Nalanda (ultimately destroyed or forced to be abandoned by invaders) qualify as such according to you? Or something like Al-Azhar in Cairo?
When you say "your precise definition" and "qualify to you" you're making it seem like I have some atypical definition which I devised to exclude others. Not at all the case. This is how historians generally use the term, and it would require extra justification for me to go out of my way to reject the general usage of the word. However, I did go out of my way to point out that institutions of higher learning did exist in other places, even if they are typically not considered true 'universities' by most historians.
However, it is important to note that nothing in my post relies on universities being uniquely European (in the Middle Ages). The reason I track universities was not so much for comparison with non-European cultures, but rather to track the internal within-Europe development. The fact that universities begin to get established in large numbers in Europe starting in the 1200s (after the initial Oxford, Paris, and Bologna universities) is a noteworthy indicator of the region's development over time.
As for how historians typically define "university", John Kenneth Hyde writes the following:
'A university is something more than a center of higher education and study. One must reserve the term university for—and I'm quoting Rashdall here—"a scholastic guild, whether of masters or students, engaged in higher education and study," which was later defined, after the emergence of universities, as "studium generale".'
I wasn't trying to challenge you. My question was meant literally. Anyway, your comment above clarifies your point quite amply. Thanks for responding.
Also, I'd missed reading your footnote #5, so I can see you did not exclude other centers of learning from your definition in the article.
I wonder if "notability" measures are really tracking literacy. After all, people are more likely to be remembered, and thus become notable, if they're stories are written down.
Interesting stuff, but you totally ignored the Byzantine Empire for no good reason. Constantinople from Late Antiquity until 1204 (although Cordoba probably overtook Constantinople for a time somewhere in between) was the largest city in Europe and was the capital of the Roman and Byzantine (East Roman) Empire. It was a major gatekeeper of Ancient historical records and great theological and artistic thought and was a very dynamic state.
The independent historian Sean Gabb has made videos on the Byzantine Empire and one of his arguments is that somewhere around 1200 and 1300, Europe's technological, philosophical, and economic capacity rapidly eclipsed the Byzantine Empire, although I assume that the 1204 Sack of Constantinople played a major role in this as well.
Your article shows very convincingly that the take-off of the West between 1500-2000 was prepared during 1000-1500. This take-off is one of the most interesting historic questions to answer.
In "Civilizations, The West and the Rest", Niall Ferguson writes:
- "Just why, beginning around 1500, did a few small polities on the western end of the Eurasian landmass come to dominate the rest of the world, including the more populous and in many ways more sophisticated societies of Eastern Eurasia?"
- " The rise of the West is, quite simply, the preeminent historical phenomenon of the second half of the second millennium after Christ. It is the story at the very heart of modern history. It is perhaps the
most challenging riddle historians have to solve."