All things considered, I don't disagree with Wyman's general narrative regarding the rise of the modern West and how it surpassed previous super-power states and cultures like that of the Ottoman Empire.
But rather than celebrate Capitalism and the way it has reshaped the world, I would offer some different narratives to consider.
I think a case can be made that the process began centuries earlier – long before Capitalism began to come together as a coherent economic system and to be fair Wyman might even agree.
The stability that emerged in the eleventh century along with the consolidation of power in the hands of the Papacy laid the groundwork for the Crusades. And contrary to the narratives of those who would defend these ventures, the knights and petty noblemen of English, Norman, and French extraction were not liberators of the so-called Holy Land. They had no intention on handing these lands back to any emperor – whether Holy Roman or Byzantine. They were conquerors who sometimes mixed in some self-deluded piety with their visions of grandeur while others most certainly used it as a pretense. This period was marked by rapacious expansion and as Eastern goods poured into the West, it unleashed what can only be described as unbounded avarice. The Church did not always condone this but tolerated it and in many cases the grasping projects of Western men of might were dressed up in the garb of Christian concern. And yet if we know a tree by its fruit, their real motives and character seem clear enough.
One could just as easily say that (read through the lens of the New Testament) the West was dominated by false Christianity that was reaching for the stars to pull them down and to build its Tower of Babel, its Mystery Babylon. It was an evil drive and motivation and while Wyman can simply shrug at the millions dead that resulted from this period of 'growth and progress' – and deluded and deceived men like John Robbins can celebrate it, the Bible-formed Christian must condemn it as the Satanic and Bestial abomination that it is, and one not yet fully reckoned with – as is so painfully clear in our present context.
This is not to say the Orient (as represented by the Ottomans for example) was godly but rather realistic (and on a street level even humble) in its limitations. There are of course notable exceptions, in addition to the expansionist sultans, one immediately thinks of monsters like Genghis and Timur. Westerners see a lack of imagination in both Oriental rulers and their subjects. Again, I am reminded of the Biblical imagery of pulling down stars – associated with Satan and with antichrist figures like Antiochus Epiphanes. The blasphemous celestial aspiration is also found in the likes of Timur and Genghis Khan but other leaders are (interestingly) more restrained and frankly the submissive humility of many Easterners puts the swaggering demeanour of the West to shame.
I am reminded of CS Lewis' The Horse and His Boy and the scene in Tashbaan when he contrasts the 'grave and mysterious' ways of the Calormenes (Middle-Easterners) with the carefree, open, and casual manner of the Narnian lords – and how lovely it was to behold.
Read and re-read the New Testament. You'll find the idealised picture presented is certainly not the 'grave and mysterious' manner that Lewis condemns but it's not quite the Narnian posture either. Joy and kindness are Christian virtues and yet even these are often misunderstood – especially the nature of joy. The overall picture of the New Testament life and calling is completely at odds with the Narnian swagger – let alone the American one. And this doesn't even touch on the bogus Western tradition of nobility and chivalry that Lewis also takes for granted and at times celebrates. The humility that characterizes many people across the lands of Asia and Africa is all but despised by Westerners and yet in some respects (and at times) it is actually closer to a Christian demeanour than what is expressed by the arrogant children of the 'Christian' West.
Another episode that comes to mind is in the film Seven Years in Tibet when the Harrer character (played by Brad Pitt) tries to show off for a Tibetan beauty but she explains how such putting one's self forward is alien to their culture and deemed offensive. It's one of those East-meets-West moments that either can generate some reflection on the part of a Western viewer or generate contempt.
Dominionism (though not a term in use) drove Christendom as a result of the Constantinian synthesis or Shift. The Kingdom of God was defined in earthly terms and equated with worldly glory. Western history is filled with episodes of dynamism – the creation of the Holy Roman Empire in the ninth century, the Gregorian Reforms of the eleventh, the Crusades and the mini-renaissance of the High Middle Ages, followed by the Renaissance and Reformation periods. Byzantine history by contrast is apart from the Iconoclast and Hesychast controversies one of stasis (often described as stagnation) and slow decline. Byzantium fought long battles with Persia, the Bulgars, and of course both the Arab and Turkish waves of Islam. There were periods of reform and reinvention but they are not as consequential or sweeping as what we find in the West.
After its initial and rather impressive expansionist period, Islam under the Turks stabilized and all but burned out – settling into a kind of political and cultural realism. And if we consider other great powers like China, we find that it never looked beyond its domestic and regional spheres. Apart from the Tang (and in some sense the Yuan) there was no concept of cosmopolitanism or a trans-national empire.
Wyman argues that the Ottoman model required constant warfare and expansion which reached its limits in 1529 with the failed siege of Vienna. And it is thus implied that period of 1529-1683 was marked by a kind of stagnation which was then followed by the period of decline – resulting in the Sick Man of Europe period from about 1700 to the empire's final collapse in the 1920's.
We've seen this sort of model at other times in history. Historians have pointed to Napoleonic France as having a similar system. Its economy was militarized and relied on war and success in war. Everything went well until 1812. After the retreat from Russia which was complete by December, the War of the Sixth Coalition began in March of 1813. Just over a year later France was broken and defeated and the Allies had taken Paris. Within weeks Napoleon was ousted and exiled to Elba.
Wyman is suggesting that it was Capitalism which gave the West the dynamism and energy to eventually eclipse the Ottomans. But there are other ways to consider this. All empires fall into decadence regardless of their ideology or economic models.
As the Ottomans went into cycles of decline and decadence, the West was in the process of re-invention. The Renaissance and Reformation both set in motion forces that would break the Medieval model dominated by the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy. The Empire was only formally ended in 1806 by Napoleon, but for all intents and purposes it was a dead concept by the Peace of Augsburg in 1555. And after years of struggle, any attempt to revive the corpse was abandoned by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years War.
The Papacy survives to this day, but the Reformation broke its power in Northern Europe and the Renaissance set in motion forces which would limit and curtail its power even in the Catholic sphere. By the nineteenth century the Papacy was all but broken as a political power. It survived by reinventing itself and continues to do so to this day.
Revisiting these topics, one is also led to muse on popular Evangelical narratives regarding the West and in particular the denialism regarding the state of the West during the Dark Ages as well as the cultural advancement and superiority of the Orient and in particular the Islamic world.
They mistakenly think that admitting this rather patent reality implies some kind of inferiority, but this is a mistaken interpretation. To admit the weakness and cultural inferiority of the West during this period says nothing of intrinsic status, but rather recognizes the catastrophic nature of the Western Empire's collapse in the fifth century. Western Europe was left broken and unstable and for centuries faced constant external threat – the exact opposite of the Orthodox-Slavic world which (despite periods of great crisis) remained relatively stable and didn't face its real 'Dark Age' until about the fourteenth century – a period that would last until the late 1800's and up to World War I. As stated, their decline began just as the West was beginning to bask in the sun of the Renaissance – which would include the Magisterial Reformation.
The Dark Ages ended around the year 1000 and the West entered a period called the Middle Ages or by some reckonings the High Middle Ages. Those who eschew the Dark Ages label will tend to refer to the entire c.500-1500 period as The Middle Ages but it requires distinctions as the first five hundred years was very different from the second.
The Renaissance introduced dynamism but also created something of an epistemological crisis that was foreshadowed by the Nominalist-driven implosion of Scholastic theology and events like The Great Schism (1378-1415). The subsequent Magisterial Reformation poured fuel on this already smoldering fire and it is this following period (roughly 1517-1648) that is marked by crisis-turned-chaos with everything from the philosophical revolution (or Age of Reason) and with it the rise of science, as well as the witchcraft craze and the terrible wars of religion.
It was the period of epistemological chaos that provided the matrix for new philosophies and the subsequent systematization and philosophical justification for Capitalism.
Someone might ask or argue, isn't this all Providential – and thus a blessing connected to the Reformation? Of course all of these developments fall under the aegis of Providence – but try as you might, you can't read or interpret it – or spin it. And avoid those who think they can. The means to understand what God is doing is beyond us. We know how the story ends with the Parousia of Christ, the end of this age, and the fiery destruction of the Earth – followed by the New Heavens and Earth in eschatological glory.
In terms of Providence, we see that empires are beasts (even Protestant ones), and that they fall into patterns and cycles of judgment – hydra heads dying and yet being reborn as it were. We are told of the beast-cycles leading up to the birth of the Messiah and the Church age – Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.
Some of the beast powers represent a mix of good and evil and yet they are still Bestial powers connected to the Dragon and as such are accursed enemies of Christ. This lesson has been forgotten in the West as the final and most terrible Beast of the old order – Rome, was adopted and sanctified by a Church fallen into apostasy. For all the changes since that time, nothing has changed and the Magisterial Reformation did nothing to correct or undo this legacy of error.
Instead it created the conditions for new empires to arise – which some ecclesiastics in their spiritual blindness and moral bankruptcy have sought to sanctify as well – ignoring or even sanctioning some of the most horrendous and horrific crimes in history.
The Verge is an interesting read – if one has discernment. I can agree with his framing of the history and the story of development. And yet I break with Wyman when it comes to not just its interpretation but its meaning and how such history should be judged. Wyman's excitement is palpable – he wants people to understand this period so they can truly appreciate the world it created. As a Christian, I also think the period needs to be understood but for completely different reasons – ones I do not celebrate.