Is there a consensus or leading theory among historians as to why Civilisations in the Old world, Europe in particular, progressed much faster than civilisations in the New world such as Australia and the Americas?

by [deleted]

[deleted]

Sebatinsky

There is no consensus, in part because defining "progress" in a consistent and useful way is very difficult.

Given the huge variety of societies in both the new and old worlds, this sort of comparison would be tough even if you had a workable definition. Then we run into the problem that European societies began to change much faster after they began extracting resources from Africa and the new world -- so sorting cause from effect isn't always straightforward.

And where do Asian societies fit into all this?