1. Of the explanations for European conquest that were discussed, I found Hoffman’s argument to be the most convincing. His argument, like Chase’s and Parker’s, hinges around the idea that faster military and political development allowed Europe to conquer the world. However, Hoffman’s argument differs from Chase’s and Parker’s in that it explains the outcomes of parts of Eurasia other than western Europe and China. In Hoffman’s tournament model, the conditions necessary for military and political improvement were all met in western Europe. His first condition for frequent war was very clearly present.
Many of the countries in western Europe were similarly-sized, both economically and physically. Countries in Europe faced similar fixed costs of war due to nearly equal tax revenues. The prizes of glory and territory greatly outweighed the cost of mobilizing resources, so war was encouraged. The second condition for lavish spending on war was also met, due again to the high value of the prizes of glory and territory in comparison to the cost of mobilization for war. The third condition for heavy use of the gunpowder technology was also met in western Europe.
Siege warfare and the style of battle that developed in Europe were optimal for firearms and gunpowder weapons. Finally, the last condition for easy learning from pervious conflicts was also met in Europe. Due to the short distances between countries in western Europe, diffusion of new innovations across the continent was not an issue. Therefore, according to Hoffman, military and political development were optimized in western Europe. From this argument, as in Chase’s and Parker’s, this perfect setting for military and political innovation allowed Europe to easily conquer much of the rest of the world.
However, where Hoffman’s model separates itself from Chase’s and Parker’s is in its ability to explain the development of the rest of Eurasia. Because Hoffman’s model contains Chase’s and Parker’s as a subset, it accounts for more historical examples and is thus more convincing. Hoffman’s first condition in the tournament model, that there must be frequent warfare, encompasses a large portion of Parker’s argument. Though Hoffman factors in a relationship between tax revenue and the sought prize of winning a conflict, the basis is the same.
Both Parker and Hoffman believe that frequent war plays a key role in military and political development. Similarly, Hoffman’s third condition for heavy use of the gunpowder technology is a form of Chase’s argument. Chase argues that the optimality of gunpowder technology in western Europe in comparison to other places in Eurasia (namely China) allowed Europe to gain the upper hand in military innovations. Therefore, Hoffman accounts for more historical cases than either Chase or Parker alone because he combines and adds to both other arguments.
His added second and fourth conditions for lavish war spending and easy learning from previous rounds of the tournament explain cases such as India, which do not align with Chase’s or Parker’s claims. Overall, Hoffman provides the most globally applicable model for the European conquest of much of the world. By combining and adding new conditions to the models of Chase and Parker, Hoffman creates an argument that can explain the faster development of European military technology, the stagnation of China, and the lack of innovation that resulted from conflicts in India which used the gunpowder technology.
Once the development of Europe has been explained, he agrees that it was this military and political progress that allowed Europe to colonize the world. Altogether, Hoffman’s model provides the most encompassing argument for the development of Europe. 2. The type of history that I enjoyed the most was narrative history, such as that of Andrade’s Lost Colony. In contrast, I least preferred histories composed of fact-filled descriptions, such as in Chase’s Firearms.
I found that I retained the most information from narrative style histories. However, in descriptive histories, I found myself bogged down with facts and statistics that detracted from my enjoyment, although I felt as though I got a better sense of the argument. In narrative style histories, I find myself immersed in the story, allowing me to effortlessly take in information. In Andrade’s work, he tells the story of Koxinga’s invasion of Taiwan in a storybook fashion that still provides essential historical details.
While there is undoubtedly some embellishment in the story, which Andrade often admits to, he remains faithful to the overall history. After reading his work, I am still able to recall the timeline of Koxinga’s invasion, the actions of his father, and the failures of the Dutch living on Taiwan. In addition, Andrade’s exciting descriptions of the battles on Taiwan and his dramatic portrayals of the characters involved in the conflict will continue to remain in my memory. However, what has not persisted in my mind is a strong sense of Andrade’s argument.
Though | remember his point about the Dutch being adequately equipped to deal with Koxinga’s forces and losing only due to a combination of incompetence and bad luck, his overall argument about the state of western European and other Eurasian militaries has become unclear. Because I was caught up in the storybook narrative, I do not have a sense of his position on the relative strength or weakness of European warfare. Conversely, in Chase’s work, I retained fewer historical facts and gained much less enjoyment, but I also have a much clearer understanding of his main points.
In fact-filled, descriptive histories, my enjoyment of the work is lost in the constant tangential historical examples and statistics. In Firearms, Chase argues that western European military technology overtook that of China because firearms were less useful in Chinese conflicts. While reading Chase’s work, I often felt bored by the numerous historical examples and facts provided. It was difficult for me to be immersed in the work because Chase constantly moves from point to point, with arguments supported by history.
However, though I did not find this type of historical work exciting to read, it was effective at getting its argument across. I felt that the dryness of Chase’s work contributed greatly to my understanding of his arguments. Because Firearms was so fact-filled, it forced me to take an analytical perspective while reading. Chase presents the reader with heaps of historical background and data, which caused me to thoroughly evaluate his argument and follow his train of thought. Though it was unenjoyable at the time and I recall much less of the historical details, Chase’s larger argument is clearer in my mind than Andrade’s.
I found that there was a tradeoff between enjoyment and understanding in these two types of histories. In narrative history, I retained the most information due to being immersed in the story, but I also lost my understanding of the overall arguments in the process. In contrast, in fact-filled histories, I read the works with an analytical mindset that detracted from my enjoyment but also improved my understanding of the argument. 3. No matter how much progress the world goes through, there will always be conflicts and wars. However, this does not mean that peace is an unattainable ideal.
Rather, peace is a difficult balancing act that must be navigated carefully in order to be meaningful. From the readings for this class, I have learned that peace must be sought by all sides in a conflict to last for a long time. Achieving a lasting peace through the intimidation or weakening of one side is impossible. In addition, effective communication between the different sides in a conflict is also paramount to creating peace. Intimidation and forceful weakening of one side of a conflict does not lead to a lasting peace.
In Lost Colony, Andrade escribes Putmans’ betrayal of Zhilong as an attempt to achieve “free trade in China, a trading base on Gulangyu,” and other diplomacies between the Dutch and Chinese. However, Putmans’ method of achieving these diplomatic relations was completely misguided. He felt that Zhilong would be pressured into peace because of his trade interests. Moreover, Putmans thought he could even scare Zhilong into peace, as he believed that Zhilong was “very frightened” by the Dutch forces and their allied pirates. Putmans learned quickly that this method of achieving diplomacy between countries was not effective.
Zhilong played along with Putmans for a time, writing polite letters to the Dutchman that fed his ego. However, eventually the deception fell through and Zhilong attacked, surprising and crushing Putmans’ fleet. While Putmans’ goal was diplomacy between the countries, albeit diplomacy that benefited the Dutch, his technique had no chance of achieving peaceful relations. These events demonstrate that intimidating an enemy into a true, lasting peace is impossible. Peace cannot survive when one side in a conflict feels as though they have been wronged.
Instead, all sides must feel as though they have something to gain from peace. Furthermore, effective communication between the sides in a conflict is necessary for peace. If the players in a conflict do not have the same idea of peace in mind during negotiations and these concerns are not made known, peace will never last. In Firearms, Chase describes that the Japanese and Chinese agreed to different versions of the same peace treaty in 1593 (Chase 188). Due to the ulterior motives of the envoys involved in peace negotiations, the Chinese and Japanese terms of the treaty were very different.
Once Hideyoshi realized that he had been tricked, the peace treaty fell through entirely. A second invasion of Korea quickly began and the sought peace was lost. This example demonstrates that peace cannot be achieved if communication between the sides of a conflict is not airtight. Because the envoys who negotiated the peace lied to Hideyoshi, either to advance their own ends or just to bring a stop to the drawn-out negotiation process, the peace was doomed to fail. All in all, peace is achievable, although it must be negotiated expertly with effective communication between all parties involved.
Peace will not last long if one side has been intimidated into ceasefire or has been forcefully weakened by another. Peace of this type leads to frustrations that will eventually result in conflict once again. Furthermore, if the communication channels during peace negotiations are weak or corrupted, as in the case of the envoys of Japan, peace will never last. Overall, to encourage peace, leaders must understand that peace is about compromise among all sides rather than advancing their own goals or beating one side into submission.