ParGha wrote:
The Mongols stopped at the outter edge of Europe, didn't they? As did the Arabs?
How about Attila?
That too against the MIGHTY roman empire.
Europe's dominance in war is cyclical, it comes and goes over time.
Dominance over whom?
Trying to hide from the Roman pretty established hegemony in West Asia and North Africa in the pre-GunPowder Era is simply deluding yourself
The same could be said for Persians to an extent; they had a see saw battle against the eastern Roman empire and Greece for the longest time. In fact growth of Islam militarily is directly linked with the last success of Pars.
(I don't consider the Greeks "Western").
Oh the ecchendee!! Do you know that most westerns today would die if they you told them that they were not the true inheritors of Greek high culture?
In fact they fancy themselves after Romans who were essentially a admix of Etruscan and Greek culture and Etruscan and Italic genetic stock and language.
Modern Rome was almost completely resettled with Germainc tribes post the fall of the original Rome. Most Europe as we know it are Germanic or Viking tribes.
You can check the wiki for history of Rome to validate my comments.
Thus not only are Romans of the period you are talking of not "European" in the sense of overgrown Norse louts but are direct descendants of Greece which you refuse as being European.
Johaann had a post as how though US likes to say it is modeled after the Greek city states is actually more Germanic in origin.
The truth is that Europe was never a culturally homogeneous place like India and that is why it has never been a nation unlike India almost continually being one. Most major elements of Europe through history actually clash severely against each other.
And Oh BTW I agree Greece is not European -- but then by the same token neither is Ancient Rome. What Is European is the Holy Roman empire.
Against almost all major foes the British superiority was in having a more coherent and stable national self-identity than their foes.
A trading company with national self-identity? Now that a new one to me. I always thought it was greed mostly.
A much easier explanation is less that the British East India company had national self-identity and more that Indians were divided bitterly; more on the basis of Individual claims to thrones and preferring Individual success over group success. Note that in almost all the Anglo-Maratha wars the British were minuscule; the real war was a civil war.
Just like you see in cricket always the only people who could defeat the Indians were Indians themselves and the failing of the Indians have been Individuals forsaking the group over their well being. Yet another lesson common to both histories is the import that Indians have shown in their leader and the massive loss of confidence that comes forth after he falls.
We are a "Hero" based individualistic (not in the western sense) society.
So while you may say that cricket and war are different -- many a wise man has suggested before that how you "play" sport talks of your national character -- to which I agree; we can see a lot about a nation from its other supposedly trivial pursuits.
(BTW Tolkein himself said he was trying to precisely that).