Why Did Europe Conquer the World?

Why? Gunpowder Technology mostly. Why didn't other civilizations make use of it? Well, this is because many of them were involved in conflicts with steppe nomads. And some others were fighting mostly with and against cavalry. In the beginning gunpowder technologies were useless or minimally effective in both these cases. Guns simply had not yet advanced to the point of being decisively useful in these types of battles.
The Europeans, on the other hand, for the most part fought only against each other, with battle formations and tactics such that improvements in their gunpowder technologies paid big dividends. And so they spent time and treasure improving it. This constant warfare internal to Europe forced the combatants to improve battlefield tactics, global strategies, technologies, and everything that had to do with waging war. (Our author refers to this constant warfare as the 'Tournament'.)
There was also a concurrent improvement in sailing technology in Western Europe. Later, as cannons came into common use on ships, gunpowder technology paid very big dividends here too.
On top of that, European governments were more efficient in collecting taxes than the Eurasian powers when measured on a per capita basis. We all know that if you can't fund your war, you will soon find you can't fight it either. Thus, improvements made in gunpowder technology, sailing technology, and increasing (or at least steady and predictable) monetary resources available for military technology and actual warfare (gold and silver from the Americas of course added to this) made European dominance inevitable.
This was a very scholarly discussion. It is not intended to be a thrilling read. And it is not. But it is very thought-provoking nonetheless. Many readers, I expect, will find the mathematical model (mostly buried in the appendices) indecipherable and boring.

A book that is essentially an equation, it raises more questions than it answers. Good comparative, global history approach that is wickedly teleological, trumpeting the accuracy of an equation predicting European outcomes that was based essentially on studying the success of European outcomes. What of Islam, that dominated vast swathes of the globe for roughly 1300 years? He's a crisp, clear writer, filled with interesting observations, but who in the end posits 'political history' as a root cause, without really explaining it. How the hell would ordinary non-economically trained mortals critique an equation that reads like a hieroglyph? ( )