No one preaches that the Reinassance was unassisted, or that it was the source of all knowledge - but the technological development that allowed this boom came from Europe.

It's not by random chance that this creative boom came after the print press was invented - in Europe.

After it, the knowledge that was limited to a few people, was spread out via a media development: books, the medium that fueled all of this.

Leonardo was just curious, and had fuel to feed the curiosity, with answers.

It's questionable whether the printing press was an entirely novel invention. Movable type printing had been around for centuries in China, it was just less useful there due to the large number of pictographs. In fact one of the major innovations of Gutenberg was the alloy he used for the type that was both easily workable and durable in use.

Additionally, the major change people usually aren't aware of was the spread of papermaking knowledge through Europe around the 12th and 13th century. Before that point, most books were created on Parchment, which was much more expensive. I've read somewhere that a single bible took ~3000 sheep to produce.

But I didn't said it was a novel invention - yet it was indeed the European concept/invention that thrived and allowed for the boom in Europe.

Regarding the papermaking, I believe we can fit it in the same boat as other craftsmanship that evolved previously and allowing for the development for the press itself (but definitely papermaker had a greater role in some dimension - cost/manufacturing/distribution).

Sure. Good luck doing science without the scientific method in ridiculous impractical numerals, and printing books on sheep skin. Also good luck developing a theory of planetary motion without astronomic almanacs.

If you struggle, you can ask your highly educated peers (<1% of literacy at the time) to provide some help, or you ask the scientific elite at the time, a bunch of theocratic fanatics that would prosecute you, torture you and burn you alive along with all your findings as soon as you publish them.

Stop hoarding the credit. The Reinassance wasn't a self-emergent phenomenon. It required external influence to happen and that is factual.

Are there historical records of the Islamic Empire having all of the inventions and scientific knowledge that came to Europe in the Renaissance, or are you talking about specific preliminary discoveries?

The Reinassance started after a massive amount of scientific and philosophic literature was imported into Europe, and the further development of what became known as the scientific method.

Of course, that literature was not originally in Latin, and had to be translated. Where and when was it translated? In great part, in Toledo, Spain after the fall of Al-Andalus.

e.g: Nicolaus Copernicus started his studies using almanacs and tables such as the Alfonsine tables, the tables were originally in Arabic and were collected/translated by Alfonso X of Castile in Toledo. They included observations ranging from the days of Ptolomy onwards. Without that, Copernicus could not have done what he did.

St. Albertus Magnus, the teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas, studied the works of Aristotle, commented by Averroes, translated from Arabic and Greek into Latin. Without that, St. Thomas Aquinas' works on philosophy and everything based on that would not exist.

Many Western discoveries came from innovations in optics (e.g: telescope, microscope). The foundation from that in great part can be credited to the Islamic empire. They experimented with reflection, refraction, lenses, etc... and that is original work with literature to support it.

There is of course much more but I don't really have the time to go through all that, e.g: numerals, medicine, trade, etc.

So, wrapping up, without their influence this is what would have happened: no scientific method, no real philosophy and/or theology, unsafe medicine, no microscope, no telescope, using ridiculous impractical numerals... a scientific setback worth hundreds of years. Today you would be at best in the middle of the first industrial revolution.

People would take it more seriously if it wasn't seen as religious proselytizing

I would lay some merit at the feet of a weakening grip of the Catholic Church

The main difference between Europe and other country in that Age was that Europe was divided in relative small nations, not a big Empire. This permitted to have more chance to be supported for a Discovery or an invention.

Right, right. But they had a powerful, oppressive force: the Church. They would also burn you as soon as you affirm planetary motion doesn't come from god, that earth is not the center of the universe, or anything that slightly contradicts their vision of the world. But not before torturing you until you accept everything you said was a lie... As you can see, there was a lot of innovation going on, Europe was totally a fertile ground for scientific discovery :^)

Philosophy changed that, and you might want to take a look at where that philosophy came from, who translated it and when.

But you have to consider that those are the same philosophies wide adopted from the church itself.

In that Age there was so many processes in the name of Plato or Aristoteles...

Saint Thomas Aquinas is credited as being one of the most influential scholastic philosophers of that time. He studied under Saint Albertus Magnus, that based his work mostly on annotated Latin translations of Aristotle obtained from Toledo.

But It is not a kind of phylosophy the Key of the modern age, but It is the possibility to reject any dotrine.

Except that religion was very hard to oppose since the foundation of religion are the dogmas of faith.

Who is denying that others had their own civilizations, cultures and inventions?

That was not my point. My point is criticizing the revisionism surrounding the origins of the Renaissance and creating a more realistic measure of merit around the central figures of it.

If you haven't done so yet, read a PHP dissertation or a scientific paper. You'll notice dozens or hundreds or citations--recognizing other people's earlier contributions. The same with Da Vinci etc., they didn't reinvent the wheel but...

uhm, where in those books cars, tanks and bikes with building schematics? or instruction on how correct for perspective paintings? not gonna go and read all of them to check, so interested in pointers.

Understanding perspective requires understanding geometry and optics. Euclid was one of the first in creating a working framework for this in his work Optics. Euclid's work was introduced in Europe during the Latin translations of the 12th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_translations_of_the_12th...