What were the reasons for the Renaissance / scientific revolution in Europe?

First, one needs to be geographically specific when referring to, "The Renaissance". When we study the history of "The Renaissance", we are essentially focusing on The NORTHERN Italian Renaissance, that is to say, cities directly to the NORTH of Rome, such as Florence-(The historic birthplace of "The Renaissance"), as well as Venice, Milan, Bologna, Pisa and Padua. It is important to mention this because it is directly related to the prior history of Italy, as well as to the earlier Medieval and Ancient periods.

One must remember that much of the Italian peninsula-(particularly to the NORTH of Rome), during much of the Medieval period, was at the Center of "The Dark Ages"; (in fact, it was a Northern Italian Renaissance Poet named Petrarch, who coined the phrase). "The Dark Ages" began almost immediately after the collapse of the (Western) Roman Empire in 476 AD/CE and lasted until 1050 AD/CE. Beginning in 1050, much of Northern Italy and Western Europe ushered in, "The Age of Scholasticism", which is a nickname describing The Late Middle Ages. If one examines this 1000 year historical period, you will notice that the Geography and peoples are nearly indistinguishable from the earlier Western Roman Empire. In other words, the lands and peoples of the Western Roman Empire, were the same lands and peoples of the Western Medieval period-(both during "The Dark Ages" and "The Age of Scholasticism").

When the "rebirth" of Classical Greco-Roman Antiquity took place, its Epicenter Florence, was the starting point of Northern Italy-(and perhaps even the starting point towards Northern Europe when seen from a South European or Mediterranean perspective). It was from Florence whereby, the Northern Italian regions of Tuscany, Lombardy and the Veneto helped to catalyze what would become The Northern Italian Renaissance-(1400-1600), or the birth of Modern Western History.

The reason why there was no "Renaissance" in the PRE-Modern History of Greece, was because of the fact that there was no "Dark Ages"-(unless you go back to the period before Homer, around 1100-800 BC/BCE or perhaps during the Slavic invasions of mainland Greece between 500 AD/CE-800 AD/CE. Though despite the Slavic invasions, the Greco-Byzantine Empire continued and even prospered). With these possible exceptions, there was no prolonged "Dark Age" within Ancient and Byzantine Greece. And since no prior Dark Ages existed in PRE-Modern Greece, there was no need for the renewal, re-cultivation or rediscovery of its earlier Hellenic roots and civilization. (It was actually when Greece was under Ottoman Turkish Muslim occupation for approximately 400-500 years that a quasi Dark Ages ensued, whereby much of Modern Greece was culturally distanced from the Western world and essentially forgotten about, as well as abandoned by the West....until the 1800's).

In the case of Italy, it was a different historical experience. The larger Italian ethno-racial group who inhabited much of the Italian peninsula in Ancient times, were the Romans. From the Italian peninsula, Rome went on to conquer several countries and peoples within Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. The Roman Empire, that is to say the Western Roman Empire, lasted nearly 500 years and collapsed into the Dark Ages for the next 600 years, only to be somewhat revitalized during The Age of Scholasticism for the next 350 years and then arriving at The Renaissance in Florence around 1400.

Italy's history has been a story of birth, advancement, decline, obscurity, a semi-reawakening, which resulted in a rejuvenation-(and furtherance) of its intellectual and cultural heritage. When examining the earlier years of Italy, one can chronicle and even chart the ups and downs, as well as the heights and plateaus of its historical lifespan. Such a timeline and charted map, made it possible for a Renaissance to occur, as well as distinct from the less historically elliptical lifespan of PRE-Modern Greece.

I think the premise of the question may be arguable. Scientific progress happened everywhere - it's human nature to inquire and explore. Scientific progress is also a threat to those in power. We have seen this problem in Europe, too (see the Copernicus trial).

So the real question shouldn't be why scientific exploration took place in Europe, but rather why were attempts to choke it off less successful in Europe than in the Islamic world?

I suspect that there were three separate reasons. One is that in Europe, science had reached a critical mass that the Church was unable to stop. A second one was that the church actually was split down the middle on that topic. The church actually was the major sponsor of scientific research, universities etc.

The third reason may simply be the maturity of the religion. Islam is about 700 years younger than Christianity, and historically we have seen it go through similar steps of development. Maybe there is a "natural lifecycle" to religions. Islam in the 16th century may simply have been where Christianity was in the 9th century.

Why Europe and not Middle East or China? The only good answer I can think of is Mongols. The cultural and technological momentum gained in Middle East and Song China came to a halt and did not recover after the Mongol Invasion.

I can't give a definite answer but I am going to suggest that something Fermat said gives a clue. He was discussing why he did the mathematical work that he did and he said something like, "I wanted to show that the ancients did not know everything." So I wonder to what extent that people's attitude changed, discoveries made by scientists and mathematicians that contradicted what was in ancient books. People stopped trying to rediscover and started to try to discover.

To break it down to the most simple form: book printing and the (re-)discovery of classical works (which were stored in large libraries and were being read by the odd monk from time to time). Furthermore, the Church had an iron grip on society for nearly a millenium, surpressing any attempts of enlightenment throughout the ages. It also had become a cumbersome apparatus of power to which naturally in time people will revolt (not only in the case of the Church, but in all cases). When Petrarca was writing his letters to Cicero the elder, he did so at the right time in the right place. Please don't make the assumption that the Renaissance meant a rejection of God; basically Spinoza, Descartes et al were simply trying to proof the existence of God by different means than the Church had done for all this time. Most of them weren't rebels, most of them were just looking for different ways to achieve what the Church wanted to achieve.

Reformation made usury acceptable at some level, so people started to live better and some of them got some money to spend on wars, sciences and arts. Hence we got the Renaissance.

Forget any notion of 'muslims kept knowledge alive'. That's not true at all. The renaissance began after the fall of Constantinople, when scientists fled from Constantinople to Italy. It is no coincidence the Renaissance started there and almost immediately after the fall of that city.

The Byzantine empire wasn't there any more. In the years before the fall it controlled only the city and a few out of the way places in Greece.

Muslims in general had very little interest in science. Most inventions ascribed to muslims were in fact taken booty by them, including the scientists. For example, the concept of zero was invented by the Indians. Not by muslims. They took it as booty when they conquered India. The didn't invent algebra, just came up with the word. That is not the same thing. ;-)

There are many claims by muslims, but very little proof of it. For example, there is a claim that the microscope or telescope was invented around the time of Charlemagne by a muslim. They just didn't didn't do anything with it for a millennium. Until it was 'reinvented' during the Renaissance.

Another point is the lack of religious oppression. The Renaissance moved to northwest Europe (France, England, The Netherlands) because the economy shifted to that region, and religious oppression (inquisition) was much less strong there. in other words: people could afford to spend time on tinkering with new ideas and didn't go to the stake or were beheaded. For example, Galileo was silenced. But he wasn't executed. Had Galileo lived in a muslim country, he would never got away alive.

So short story: fall of Constantinople. Scientist flee before the fall and after to Italy, because it was close by, they were welcome there and the economy thrived (Italian city states were rich). About 50-75 years later the economy moved north, Paris, London, Bruxelles, Ghent, Antwerp and Amsterdam became centers of commerce, so many scientist moved to where the money was. At the same time, religion was not as strict enforced there. Which made it possible to ask awkward/difficult questions without an automatic invitation to a public bbq.

Galileo had to withdraw his words, Copernicus was clever enough to publish his works by testament. Please bear in mind that the inquisition at its very worst was a good deal more lenient than islam ever was.

In addition to other comments, note that Renaissance began soon after Constantinople was looted by the West. It's possible that large amount of knowledge, first in the form of looted art and manuscripts and later in the form of scholars fleeing the Turks planted the seeds of Renaissance in Western world. It's quite common for the conquering civilization to absorbed a fair amount of the conquered one.

Isaac Newton once said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Many cultures have produced great thinkers, but are those great thinkers making solitary contributions, or collaborating across time and space to accomplish great things? One factor not mentioned in the other answers is: the Christian monastery.

See http://metanexus.net/essay/medieval-monasticism-preserver-western-civilization

Also see: How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

The Roman Empire was besieged for centuries from all sides, by Germanic tribes, mongols, Muslims, and many others. A colder climate (before and after the medieval warm period) led to famine, plague and depopulation. But Europe had one thing that other fallen empires did not have: a transnational corporation with thousands of research libraries sharing ideas, manuscripts, farming techniques, manufacturing skills. The middle ages had their own internet, and it was founded by Saint Benedict.

When a country was conquered, even if most of the monasteries were burned down, if one survived, when times of peace arrived, they would rebuild and spread what they had preserved. This made civilization in Europe unusually resilient, adaptable and communicable - since spreading this learning as a means of sharing the gospel was a top priority. The early universities grew from monasteries.

One essential difference between monasteries and intellectual organizations of the ancient world was that the monks believed in hard work as a means of serving their neighbor. Once they learned better ways to farm, they acted like the cooperative extension and shared their ideas with the community. The same goes for manufacturing, water-powered machinery, etc.

Monasteries also started hospitals. By around 1200 there were over 14,000 hospitals in Europe. In the ancient world, medical facilities were for the rich or to treat soldiers returning from battle. But the church rescued orphans from infanticide, cared for the sick regardless of station. The Romans in antiquity complained that when a plague came to a city, the pagans would abandon their sick and put them out to die, but the Christians would care for their sick. As a result, more Christians survived. When your religion teaches that everyone should be cared for and you actually do it, will not medical advances eventually result? Won't a continent with 14,000 hospitals eventually produce a few competent doctors? Where you invest, there you will reap rewards.

So by the time men like Newton and Leibniz came along, they had a preserved and growing body of knowledge upon which to build.

It has also been noted that war can also advance technology. Muslim encroachment on Europe made it increasingly difficult to access markets in the Middle East and Far East. An estimated 2 million Europeans were captured and enslaved by the Muslim raiders from North Africa. Denied these markets, people like Christopher Columbus and the other explorers were forced by necessity to seek out new trade routes. This necessity lead to advances in cartography, navigation, shipbuilding, and the like.

The Renaissance happened in the Byzantine empire as well, but it was interrupted by the fall of Constantinople.

Anyway, Italy remained the most developed and scientifically advanced country throughout the Middle Ages. That is, it was the most scientifically advanced from the times of the Roman empire. It is completely incorrect to claim that the Muslim world was ever more advanced than Italy was.

For example, the best body armor, the best weapons, the best optics, the best ships, and the best paints were always made in Italy. Most of the books were issued in Italy as well. Germany was always at second place, which became attractive to scholars after Charles the Great.

Thus the renaissance quite naturally started in Italy because it was the most advanced country at the time.

To observers in the 20th or 21st century, technological progress is just a fact of life - why wouldn't you have it? But it is not inevitable. For one thing, change is often a risk to the people in power. Why should a ruler embrace a new technology, such as gunpowder or printing, if it holds the potential to unseat him? If other powers have already done so, a reluctant despot may have no choice or risk being overthrown by outside forces, of course.

For the previous 5,000 years of recorded history however, change came slowly, and occasionally went backward. The main inflection points were the scientific revolution/renaissance in Europe in the 16th century and the industrial revolution starting in the late 18th century. So why these places and times?

Many hundreds of books have been written on the subject. One I found persuasive is The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by Landes. Distilling his hundreds of pages of work into a nutshell: because Europe was made of dozens of independent kingdoms (and some republics), whereas China has generally been unified. Famously, the Ming dynasty destroyed China's oceangoing "treasure ships." One royal decree was all it took to roll back a potentially revolutionary technology. But at roughly the same time in Europe, Christopher Columbus was shot down by the rulers of Portugal, Genoa, Venice, and England before finally the Spanish decided to roll the dice on that madman with bad numbers.

That's one example. Likewise for other uncomfortable ideas and technologies - an inventor had many opportunities to find backers and markets. Kingdoms which ignored them for too long got swept away. This eventually created a culture which embraced novelty and constant change. Combined with recovered classical research, a growing scientific attitude to the pursuit of knowledge, and a need for automation after the depopulating plagues of the late medieval period, the renaissance began.

Partly it's because you are reading the history books of those countries and a certain amount is spin.

Islamic countries were the principle source of science between the Romans/Greeks and the 16C - inconvenient if you are a christian country and especially if you are a university that is essentially a religious institution. So you claim that these Arabs only had astronomy, algebra, alchemy (all arabic words) because they had copies of ancient Greek texts - who even if they weren't christians were at least honorary europeans.

The early renaissance in europe (12-13C Italy and Spain) were little more than copies of Arabic art and science. The later 16C scientific renaissance was largely due to people finally deciding that not everything could be determined by a closer reading of Aristotle and giving up on classic texts.

How much this was a weakening of the church's power and how much was the reformation promoting independent thinking is another question but ironically a political/religous shift in Islamic countries at around the same time went in the opposite direction - which is ultimately why your car has a German name not an Arabic one.

I'm going to add another answer specifically to address a separate part of your question: why didn't the same thing happen in Islamic world?

The answer is plausibly Al-Ghazali.

Quoting from Wikipedia:

Others have cited his movement from science to faith as a detriment to Islamic scientific progress (source: Sawwaf, A. (1962) al-Ghazali: Etude sur la réforme Ghazalienne dans l’histoire de son développement /Fribourg/)

Among other things, he

• rejected non-Islamic philosophers such as Aristotle

• saw it fit to discard their teachings on the basis of their "unbelief"

• played a very major role in integrating Sufism (Mythical spirituality) with Shariah.

• Most importantly:

  His 11th century book titled The Incoherence of the Philosophers marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. The encounter with skepticism led Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present will of God.

  The Incoherence also marked a turning point in Islamic philosophy in its vehement rejections of Aristotle and Plato. The book took aim at the falasifa, a loosely defined group of Islamic philosophers from the 8th through the 11th centuries (most notable among them Avicenna and Al-Farabi) who drew intellectually upon the Ancient Greeks. Ghazali bitterly denounced Aristotle, Socrates and other Greek writers as non-believers and labeled those who employed their methods and ideas as corrupters of the Islamic faith.

There are many reasons, and I'm going to present the materialistic one championed by the Marxists (collective thud as the audience of History.SE falls off their chairs and faints).

One of the requirements for having scientific progress is economic - you need enough surplus to enable the resources devoted to scholarship. This was enabled at the beginning of the Renaissance by a combination of:

• Black death killing off enough of population that the rest started making higher wages.

  As a side effect, Black Death is claimed to have had an effect in somewhat weakening the power of the Church (which wasn't exactly of much help against the plague and thus lost influence).

• General migration to capitalist system from feudalism. This was both a cause (greater surplus) and - in a runaway feedback loop - beneficiary (scientific/technology improvements helping with the migration).

• Economic benefits from expansion to new world.

I'm afraid any answer to this question must begin by considering what is understood to be the 'Renaissance' and the 'Scientific Revolution'. And that consideration, in turn, inevitably reveals a number of historiographical difficulties.

The first of these is that neither of these were 'events', at least, not in the sense of a war or an assassination. They have been used to signify shifts in intellectual pre-occupation. In the case of the Renaissance (which arguably occurred from the fourteenth to the early seventeenth centuries, and was NOT exclusive to Italy as some on this forum have suggested), scholars were increasingly concerned to formulate an authoritative corpus of works from classical authors, and to produce a more sophisticated appreciation for Greek and Roman customs and language. In the case of the Scientific Revolution (which is generally associated with the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) the drive was rather different. Rather than seeking to recover or reconstruct knowledge from the past, intellectuals turned their attention to the formulation of NEW, observable, and experimentally driven analyses of the natural world. It was, on this telling, the transition from Renaissance to Scientific Revolution (and eventually to Englightenment) that proved so foundational to our present, modern world.

Both of the claims I have described above are no longer uncritically accepted by any historian. They continue to be used as conceptual placeholders, but the Renaissance was not a straightforward reconstitution of ancient knowledge, and the scientific revolution was neither revolutionary nor was it scientific.

With regards to what could be called the Renaissance, there certainly was a drive to get away from the prior reliance on Latin translations of Arabic translations of original texts, and the integration of texts that were demonstrably the work of scholars in the 10 century ce (like Pseudo-Aristotle) rather than 5th century bc. But this process was not one devoid of seemingly 'scientific' endeavors, a point to which I will return in a moment. The central drive to do this sort of work stemmed ultimately from Catholic and later Protestant anxieties over intellectual authority. The drive from within the Church itself, and then the influence of wealthy patrons across Europe, to formulate a definitive and orthodox understanding of the past was ultimately the mechanism by which scholars eventually (after more than two centuries of tearing out their hair) were forced to conclude that they could not in fact write history in any definitive sense, try though they might.

The point about evaluating and understanding ancient authorities through seemingly scientific experiments is something that is very familiar to academic historians of science. This is why the Renaissance and so-called Scientific Revolution are in fact two terms for the same process—of generating new information and new knowledge in order to recover ancient wisdom. Or, at the very least, to sort out the wheat of the ancients from the chaff of modern innovation.

The 'real' historical picture of this development is not at all clear for a very simple reason. To adequately understand how intellectual change in any form occurred over time, historians should be looking at each individual scholar—their particular institutional and political circumstances, their own private musings about what they were up to, and the way they justified their enterprise publicly. No historical category—certainly not the Renaissance or Scientific Revolution—survives a rigorous consideration of the past at such a granular level. But that's why asking how the Renaissance gave way to the Scientific Revolution is approaching an important historical process from the wrong standpoint.

The point about this dynamic of increasing intellectual activity, is that people were desperately trying to bring together a range of discourses that we now see as different, if not totally antithetical. And our perception is the inheritance of their failure to make science, history, and indeed the humanities, work for religious ends. That is the legacy—and we would be well advised to understand it on its own terms before we start trying to do the same thing while expecting a different result.