Actually, that Europe conquered the world makes a kind of twisted sense. Yeah, they were at constant war with eachother, but war doesn't lead to technological stagnation, it does the exact opposite. Because of the constant fighting, each state had to do everything in its power to stay one step ahead of its rivals and that means more soldiers, better armour, and better weapons. Warfare breeds better weapons like an open wound breeds bacteria.
Lots of money doesn't necessarily breed lots of good weapons or lots of good soldiers. It might lead to scientific gains, but scientific gains don't always directly translate to an increase in military power. If I remember my pre-modern world history correctly, the Asian countries were, mostly, far too insular and xenophobic to bother conquering other areas, instead focusing their efforts largely on the home front, as well as importing and exporting goods. While everyone else was busy building stable, wealthy empires, Europe was building armies of well-trained, battle-hardened soldiers with the full brunt of several generations' worth of war tech development at their disposal. When you look for conquerors, you look for warriors.
Because pre-columbian america, sub-saharan africa and southeast asia were just these wonderful peaceable places where everyone got along in perfect harmony before the evil europeans ruined it.
They totally didn't have entire periods of centuries where local powers were pwning the living shit out of each other for centuries at a time. The chinese invented gunpowder just for the pretty fireworks, obviously.
The idea that war breeds technological advancement is a good one, but it sounds here like you're trying to claim that europeans were technologically more advanced than their competitors on other continents because OMG MOAR WAR.
Which is bull, if you look at how every other society on the planet at the time was functioning (lol aztecs)
