Why has Europe been the most important continent since 1200 AD?
This is to bypass geographic determinism since India and China were very similar.
Well I'd argue because of rivalries.
The Mandate of Heaven in China for example makes it pretty easy to lay claim on the entire land whereas no such thing existed for Europe even though numerous nations lay claim to the Roman Empire.
And to further the rivalry the geographical situation are favourable for a few big nations instead of one gigantic one. The Alps, Rhine and the Channel beeing natural borders.
>And to further the rivalry the geographical situation are favourable for a few big nations instead of one gigantic one. The Alps, Rhine and the Channel beeing natural borders.
Nonsensical, China has the Yellow river and the Yangtzee river as well as several mountain ranges and a desert to the West, North and North east.
The Rhine pales in comparison.
Relatively varied climate and geography led to the creation of many smaller states with many different ideas, and over time the ideas got shared and the best ones moved on.
Large empires may do great things for their time, but if they dont continue expanding or decentralize the fuck out of their government, then there arent a whole lot of different and new ideas
Because the confluence of Judeo-Christian concepts of an individual covenant with god, Germanic notions of freedom, and Greco-Roman systems of representative government led to a legal system that was extremely effective at producing technological and economic development.
Also, China and the Middle East got raped by Mongols, enabling the states of Western Europe to gobble up global hegemony during the Age of Exploration
Completely backwards. There is no correlation of Christianity and international dominance nor was Europe democratic until the 19th century which, by that point, was already the rulers of the earth due to industrialization
The Netherlands had a Republican system of government very early.
I mean, so did the Italian city-states, but they usually faded into oligarchy.
It isn't a coincidence that the Industrial Revolution happened in England, after the Glorious Revolution provided the most business-friendly legal environment on the planet, and it isn't a coincidence that the countries that ended up getting ahead in the colonialism game were the ones that created corporations to exploit resources effectively.
Hence why Eastern Europe was and is unmitigated shit compared to Western Europe.
It's simple, the discovery of the new trade routes and the New World followed by colonialism is what gave Europe the advantage.
And geographical determinism played a huge part in it. The Portuguese were the most interested in sending explorers in order to find new land for the nobles, since their own country was getting a little bit too crowded for such purposes. This and the fact that Portugal was the most Western European country geographically, it makes a lot of sense as to why they initiated the Great Explorations.
Ironically, China was close to getting ahead of Europe on the discovery race but they sabotaged their own efforts. The Mandarin elite simply didn't like the admiral who had exploratory ambitions and did their best so that he doesn't get support or funding for his expeditions roughly 30 years before Columbus found the New World. Things would have been completely different if the Chinese got there first.
The rest of it is built on this foundation.
>This is to bypass geographic determinism since India and China were very similar.
How so? Europe has lots of peninsulas and islands, where there are so many in China and India. That makes it harder for a single power to dominate and stifle creativity and innovation.
Pretty much this.
Europeans couldn't hope to bring their order to other similarly civilized places in the Old World, and discovering new continents brimming with resources and slave labor, controlled by relatively less technologycally advanced peoples, gave them the edge they needed over China et al. to go for world domination.
Because they were both comparably geographically large compared to Europe, and in China's case had an established pseudo-centralized government that caused them to focus on stability in their own borders. They made some god-tier tech advances, but never really felt the need to improve on them because there was no pressure.
In terms of advances in shit like metallurgy, Rome and Medieval Europe had the right resources, political climate, and geographic proximity to make it advantageous and practical to keep pushing forward with it at a steady pace.
You can't overlook the significance of Europe's relatively small size here. If a new technique or advancement was discovered, it was far more likely to be replicated on a wide scale simply because Europe was small enough to allow news of it to reach everyone.
Europe's size is also significant politically in that you had many different peoples concentrated into a really small area which led to fierce competition for land and resources, which would eventually lead to all the exploration.
Not entirely true, but again the same holds true for Europe, the majority of the population lives on the European plain.
A strong central authority can work occasionally, and if China as a whole had always been pro science and thought and constantly attempted to improve their pre-industry and had developed humanism, then they would of out done europe and developed some sort of industrial revolution before europe.
However due to the decision of a few rulers over the years and the occasional civil war/warring states periods, they couldnt keep consistent growth, as where europe (and the middle east) had alternating periods of scientific advancements, allowing for a slightly slower, yet consistent growth in science
Or maybe im just talking out of my ass
It's not actually Europe, it's Western Europe.
The first reason is that the West is the only civilisation that's actually still alive. The East/Islam reached its final form a thousand years ago, China and India almost 2000 years ago, and stopped internal growth since. The West was only born as a civilisation in the 10th century and still hasn't completed its history. This alone gives it a huge advantage since it started off with all the knowledge of previous civilisations, which are no longer capable of improving on that knowledge while the West is.
Then there is something else that makes the West unique, which is the Scientific Revolution. This happened thanks to the invention of Scientific Method, which developed as a result of Catholic philosophy.
I would completely disagree that europe was the most important continent from 1200, China was far more developed in politics, culture and science.
Europe only really began to dominate with the enlightenment and industrial revolution.
The industrial revolution started in England due to large deposits of shallow lying coal that could easily be gathered.
This led to steam power and europe's radically increasing state power that came from enlightenment thinkers. These thinkers also created the philosophies and theories that lead us to begin colonising the rest of the world, whereas china had no such philosophical developments, leading to an introverted and traditionalist empire.
>The vast majority of the Chinese population lies on the eastern coast away from most of the mountains and desert.
....No. That's just nowadays.
Back then the vast majority lived in the Interior.
After 1200 AD the West was the best at many things, but it wasn't exactly miles ahead of East Asia or the Middle East. It was, however, more dynamic than anywhere else. It was also about that time that Greco-Roman learning started declining in the Islamic world, while at the same time the university system was growing in Europe. These universities were independent entities not just tied to a ruler or religious institution as in Islam, giving them an advantage. I agree that the West was probably the 'greatest' civilization after 1200, but it wasn't until the 15th century that they really shot ahead with the Renaissance.
Huge economic growth and urbanisation in places like Italy, the invention of the printing press, renewed interest in Classical learning and an intellectual revolution all made the West greater than anything else the world had ever seen. What really gave the West an edge though was it's position, which left it as the only major Eurasian civilization cut off from the Indian Ocean trade, providing a strong incentive to explore the seas which didn't exist in places like Persia or India. This lead to Western domination of the world's oceans, and the lack of political unity meant that there were many competitors for power and no single authority that might hold expansion back, as in China.
Basically, Europe's dominance came about because a number of geographical, institutional, cultural, political, and historical factors came together there in a combination that didn't exist elsewhere. Things might have ended up differently if India and the West switched locations, if the Chinese writing system was more appropriate for widespread printing, or if the Muslims had developed a better university system. You can't just pin it all on one factor.
They had a large centralised system of bureaucracy far before any european monarchies could lay claim to. The advanced bureaucracy of the european nation state developed very late in comparison.
Similarly they had encoded laws in paper that were passed through the land and a very competent and relatively humane judicial system.
In terms of technology chinese clock work far surpassed even the best European technology in the field. In fact it even became popular for european kings to buy imported chinese clockwork for how advanced and intricate it was.
Even creating an accurate astronomical clock in the 11th century.
European kings could afford clocks, doesn't mean they have a superior system of governance.
I don't really understand how you came to that conclusion, even african dictators have private jets and gold SUVS.
Not really. Roman Bureaucracy wasn't as elaborate. It had a senate which pooled on all the fucking "departments" together, a military command that is by appointment, and basically a governorship system that ran on "which private entity can collect taxes in that province better??"
Meanwhile the Chinese Court had a Ministerial system similar to modern Government Cabinets & Branches.
The roman empire was not a european empire.
It was a Mediterranean empire, most of the peoples of Rome actually living in the middle east and north africa.
Nor was greek governance particularly advanced, they were a slave society and while they invented a form of proto-democracy, it was ultimately a small democatic oligarchy.
And I don't now any small efficient states developing before the 1700's in Europe.
Europe is sort of the triangular tip of Eurasia where everything gets shoved and forced into a focal point.
Nah the real reason is the discovery of the Americas.
Every notice how the three leading countries all had large colonies and wealth from the new world?
>The roman empire was not a european empire.
except it was, it is also a Mediterranean empire since part of europe is around the mediterranean
>Nor was greek governance particularly advanced, they were a slave society
having slaves doesn't make it less advanced, i would say more so since they found a way to get cheap labor
>Hence why Eastern Europe was and is unmitigated shit compared to Western Europe.
No that's because of communism and the allies fucking it over. Hungary got fucked over in WW1 with the Trianon treaty. Then after WW2, they got fucked over by the soviets and were occupied by them for 50 years.
Eastern europes present state doesn't have anything to do with the fucking ottomans. It has to do with the USSR keking them for 50 years. Pic related didn't help either.
They are interesting and have great historical significance.
But we don't need to perpetuate these myths about the classical world.
Myths of the superiority of the classical era is what perpetuated the dark ages, it was only with the discovery of the new world, where so many of the "core" greek texts revered alongside the bible were completely wrong.
When people became disillusioned with these myths we began to see these great advancements in science stemming from the renaissance. Prime example being Galileo's telescope.
I think you're confusing cause and effect.
As early as the 1300s, serfdom was declining in Western Europe, while actually increasing in Eastern Europe.
That's the foundation of the divergent fates of Western and Eastern Europe.
Certainly, communism didn't help, but it isn't that surprising that a totalitarian system of government would take hold in a place that had been run by absolute monarchy since the time of the khans.
It really wasn't european though.
The vast majority of their empires land and citizens lay outside of what would now be considered europe.
It was a eurasian empire and again it is just a myth that people have used to create identity.
>They created a system that was exceptional at promoting conquering new lands and spreading roman influence
Most Roman conquests were left to stew as "allies" for a couple of centuries, marinating in Roman Hegemony for centuries that it ceases to become independent.
Romans had no "Office of the East Indies" or any offices dedicated in assimilating conquered. It was mostly the job of the army to maintain a Hegemony until it slowly becomes Roman.
Late BC's m8. Republic.
To be fair, Pic related was also inevitable. You can't hold together a state that multinational in modern times. And I would also I would argue that a lot of the states in Eastern Europe weren't fucked by communism specifically, but things before it. Poland was literally not a country anymore due to events Pre- World War One, so Eastern Europe already got fucked somewhat.
>but it isn't that surprising that a totalitarian system of government would take hold in a place that had been run by absolute monarchy since the time of the khans.
by this dumb logic france, germany, and literally every European country before 1900 should be communist
Hungary didn't want to become communist, the USSR literally rolled in there with their army and said "this is ours now"
Why nobody decided to stop it I don't know. The west certainly wouldn't let big bad USSR annex Austrai, but Hungary? LMAO WHO GIVES A SHIT FUCK EASTERN EUROPE
>Things would have been completely different if the Chinese got there first.
We don't really know. For the most part, native chinese dynasties were not big on expanding outside of what they considered to be rightfully chinese. Outside of that, it was mostly a matter of subjugating vassal states for control of trade routes or security. All in all, chinese intervention in the Americas would've not been as intrusive as spanish or portuguese one. The portuguese and specially the spaniards had a completely different philosophy based around expanding catholicism everywhere, by sword if necessary.
But Germany and France hadn't had serfdom since the 1790s, and absolute monarchy had only existed for a hundred years or so in France, and never in Germany.
It probably also helps that they were exposed to industrialization much earlier than Russia was.
>Why nobody decided to stop it I don't know.
I'm not saying you can't have 2 different large ethnic groups in a state. I'm just saying it's hard to hold 4 different ones that all have large percentages of the population and specific regions where they live. Immigration is a little less simple, as the Arabs are fairly equally spread.
>These thinkers also created the philosophies and theories that lead us to begin colonising the rest of the world
What about the fact that the americas were already colonized and lost before the industrial revolution was even a thing? And not lost before enlightment was a thing, but almost.
OK I might sound like a high school faggot for this but flowofhistory is a nice site that has a section about this that I think is nice for skimming, it were many many reasons why it happened that are still being debated today so you're not gonna find your answer in one 4chan post
It might not give you an indept insight but it is nice and accesable, unlike the myriad great history books you're never gonna read anyway
Sorry if this doesn't satisfy your needs
>The Mandarin elite simply didn't like the admiral who had exploratory ambitions and did their best so that he doesn't get support or funding for his expeditions roughly 30 years before Columbus found the New World. Things would have been completely different if the Chinese got there first
Zheng He's Expeditions was less of a exploratory voyage and more of a show of force. China -who long relied on the Silk Route- realized that there's a second route to them: the Spice Route from Yemen/Ethiopia to China. And subsequently equipped a fleet of floating palace-ships to showcase China off to maritime states along the way.
The exploration bit was this: "Hey, find out where this route ends."
And those Mandarins who disliked the expeditions had a good reason: the independent Mongols -who were declining by this point- got their shit back together, reunified under the Four Oirats Alliance and Ming China needs to gear up to fight them...again.
Which meant no more expensive expeditions.
their origin was european?
Europe didn't even exist as an idea.
Not to mention the romans actually only influenced a relatively small group of countries in terms of language naturally. Romance languages make up only a portion of european languages, and it's influence on English is due to the normans, not the romans.
And despite the small influences on culture in certain romance countries, the majority of European culture evolved in the barbarian lands the romans considered to be the real "other".
The HRE modelling itself on the roman empire is not the same thing has having genuine continuity.
And their own conception of it had no continuity with the modern idea of europe. They supported a roman empire, in a time before continental or national identity.
It's pure anachronism to claim the romans had a view on "europe" as a cultural area, it was a geographic area they viewed as greatly divided by differing cultures.
Industrial revolution helped them maintain their superiority, the modern age only widened the gap and allowed european nations to maintain their colonies.
But the colonisation was purely influenced by the enlightenment, one of the greatest figures of which is christopher columbus. The guy who quite literally drew up the plans for the international slave trade. His journey embodied enlightenment values, challenging greek ideas of world geography and using rationality to create theories on economy and trade, albiet with slaves.
>The Mandarin elite simply didn't like the admiral who had exploratory ambitions and did their best so that he doesn't get support or funding for his expeditions roughly 30 years before Columbus found the New World.
Zheng he was travelling along already established trade routes. He wasnt exploring in the slightest.
It would be like claiming Polo was on the verge of discovering America because he was exploring.
The New World was literally an "infinite money" cheat the rest of the world didn't have.
You can talk about comparative culturalism and muh master-race till you're blue in the face. The driving factor of tangible change has always been the availability of capital for practical implementation. Better weapons don't forge themselves, Bigger armies don't raise themselves, and technological advances can't revolutionize a society until someone ponys up the cash to put them into large scale use.
Plus you can see a "wave of inflation" moving from Portugal and Spain across Europe and into the East as colonization of the Americas picked up steam. An influx of gold and silver into the Old World trade network calibrated for centuries wrecked entire economies while giving European leaders a ton of cash to buy all the things they wanted even as their rivals became unable to afford the cost of staying competitive.
Id move that to around 1500. Stay calm /pol/ but Europe wasnt even that far ahead of Africa in 1200. The Mali Empire qould have wiped the floor with medieval England seeing as both had armoured cavalry but one was the richest country in the world and the size of the whole of Western Europe. Now its the turn of reddit to stay calm, I am seeing evidence that it wasnt entierly the European invaders that caused Africa to go to shit, a lot of the large African kingdoms fell apart due to political instability before the Europeans turned up. In Japan it was the opposite, they happened to form a unified empire just as the Europeans turned up. Therefore Europe got dominant because they happened to turn up everywhere when there was some instability going on. In places that stayed unified like Japan and Ethiopia they were never colonized.
Bullshit. As late as 1492 they were desperately looking for trade routes to Asia, because Asia was where all the stuff worth having was.
Eurofags didn't really take a lead until the conquest of the Americas.
And governing provinces
Or managing bureaus
Or being a genius in law & order enforcement
Or being an expert at recruiting & delegating officials.
Not everyone has to go through the military to get promoted in other systems.
Austria was relevant in Europe but not to the world. The big 3 obviously included Britain. Spain opened the way to the Americas, but mostly Britain and France prospered from it after Spain got keked. This is not the only reason Europe was the most successful but one bigger reasons.
They were still desperately looking for trade routes into Asia after that, because they had nothing to spend all their shiny new gold on at home.
Hell, the geopolitics of the 15-19th centuries usually revolved around securing the Oriental markets in one form or another.
This is not completely true, their conquests pacified and stabilized a lot of Asia enabling intercontinental trade. That they were simply destructive monsters is partly untrue. That title goes to the Huns who made it as far as France.
China and India are far, far older than any civilization of note in Europe, and their civilzations have a kind of continuity that isn't really found anywhere else. The downside is things became rather static after a while and their social structures kind of ossified, it wasn't so much Europe advancing at a rapid pace as everyone else falling behind.
And so was ruining the middle east, which it has never recovered from. They destroyed all the centers of learning and brought the final end to the Islamic age. In some ways the Mongols caused the rise of Europe.
There are varying ideas on when it began.
He is a very early enlightenment thinker, and played a massive role in it as well.
He certainly isn't typical of European thinkers in the dark ages.
>, and their civilzations have a kind of continuity that isn't really found anywhere else.
That isn't true. Lack of study makes it seem more continuous but the truth is they've changed over and over again. In the same way you could say Europe has been continuous despite changing rulers and borders.
>destroying the Middle East and China
The origin of dynasties is only important for the alliances that can bring. Even when they are called "Casa de Austria", if we have to give the spanish habsburgs a nationality that would be "burgundian". Charles V wasn't more austrian than he was spaniard, and his son Philip was raised by the portuguese. By the way, his brother Ferdinand who continued the austrian branch was raised in Spain.
Fuck, Habsburg is not even in Austria.
>The only positive things they did were unintentional.
Mongols invited and competed over european customers by offering gifts, security, alternate routes etc.
Building the silk road was an intentional an sustained effort. It was only when they converted to islam that things started to fall apart.
Europa describes a geographical area in a roman context.
They didn't consider themselves european, the influenced 6 european languages and there was nothing you could call european culture.
Europe is a cultural idea that was constructed over a great deal of time and in historical terms relatively recently.
This idea just used the roman word as enlightenment thinkers created their identity around a myth of historical continuity with the roman empire.
to put it simply, you are spooked as fuck
The way I see it, it's positive, because it allowed European cultures to dominate the planet, and European cultures were significantly better suited towards the task of modern governance.
The Roman state(s) changed borders, lands and dynasties, but only some seriously deluded Italian romantics consider that Roman civilization is still alive. Few people deny that Chinese civilization never died.
I'm not so sure about the Middle East, but the Mongols modeled themselves after Chinese statecraft in China, calling themselves the Yuan Dynasty. They gave tax incentives to all institutions of religion, of which Islam made the greatest advances in terms of conversion. Confucian doctrine thrived under the Yuan. I don't think the Mongols made too much of an impact on Chinese advancement, to the point that they were far behind Europe.
> European cultures were significantly better suited towards the task of modern governance.
Circular logic, "modern governance" exists in the form it does because post 1400's Europe dominated the planet and thus formulated the most prevalent and effective forms of governance.
Of course you would be best at the thing you created
This isn't an indictment of Europe, I quite like "modern governance" but still you can't can't say being great at the game you made the rules for is surprising
No, it meant non-greek. Then romans adopted the word to mean not-civilized/not-romanized (basically the same). Being a barbarian had negative connotations even with the greeks, and it went worst with the romans.
Actually it developed from a joke about the non roman peoples.
There a probably contradictory theories, but I heard they did it because they thought the non-romans sounded like sheep to them. Baa-baa-rians.
>African Carthaginians invade Europe
>Gauls side with them agains their fellow European Romans
>Asian Huns invade Europe
>Germanics join the Huns against their fellow European Romans
No such thing as European unity, its all a modern social construct. All that united this continent was Christianity and even that didnt stop the French from supporting the Ottomans against Austria. Yes the French were more than happy to see Islamic Turkish rule in Germany if that meant getting rid of the Habsburgs.
The mongols made the middle east become a shitfest of altaic (mostly turkic) rulers fighting each other all day every day and ruining life for everyone. Though it's not like it was so different before that.
Altaic peoples are cool to study but in general they are shit for civilization tb h
Romans did have grades of "barbarism" though
The North Africans, Middle Easterners, and Persians may have been "barbarians" to Romans. But they were still considered civilized rivals. Carthage was so reviled because it could compete with Rome and thus was "civilized" if not to the same extent as the Romans themselves or the Greeks. Same with old Persia and Egypt.
The Franks and the Germanics however, were by Roman estimation not only barbarians but savages
Europe isn't a continent like India is, it's not divided from Asia by any techtonic plates. It's just an Asian peninsula, like Korea or Arabia.
To say Europe was the most important continent since 1200 AD is inaccurate for that reason, and for another. Europe's preeminence began much later in history. In fact, 500 years later than the date you mentioned. In 1200, Europe was very much still in the Dark ages, running on an technologies and economic systems inferior to Roman standards. Art at this point was much less naturalistic, and only in the late renaissance did it reach the realism that marked the spring of the European cultures. At this point, Europeans were still copying mathematical and philosophical texts and navigation from the Arabs in order to circumvent the very iron curtain that the empires of Islam presented. Just as during the Colonial and Industrial eras, where manufactured goods were traded from Europe to the rest of the world and raw materials to Europe, Europe paid its specie and raw materials to the Arabs, silk road traders, and Indian Ocean cargo ships for Eastern manufactured goods such as linens, silks, tea, porcelain, and texts. Advanced technologies such as the printing presses (which had existed in China since around 600), gunpowder cannons (invented in China around 1100), Arabic numerals (actually Hindi numerals, received by Europeans around 1200), the concept of zero, lost geometric and arithmetic concepts (of the ancient Greeks, preserved by the Arabs) percolated through borders into Europe. It took another 200-400 years for these ideas to arrive in Northern Europe. So around 1200 AD, Europe was basically a third world region, with very little advancements in any field. Only Spain and the port cities of Italy experienced cultural enlightenment, and that was due to Arab proximity.
It was too late for the middle east though. The Mongols destroyed all the centers of learning and knowledge, and they cemented the view that the past knew better than the future, which was the ideological war going on at the time in the Islamic world. Science vs knowledge of the elders. The latter won and persisted until the modern era.
These events literally all happened before regional or national identity was even a thing. National identity and large scale identity based around shared myths of history and culture are a product of the 17th century.
Romans felt allegiance to the empire, but were a very multicultural society that didn't not even claim to have a semblance of a shared culture. They all simply benefited from being in the empire.
The barbarians also simply had material benefits from participating in those conflicts.
The idea that they did it because of a shared european identity is preposterous and anachronistic.
>The Franks and the Germanics however, were by Roman estimation not only barbarians but savages
This one being the key. Being a barbarian was never good or neutral, it was objectively bad and made you a worst person. But it didn't mean you were primitive or savage, that's more modern.
I don't know much about those eastern people, but China chose to be secluded and I really don't know about India. Europe was made of a bunch of decentralised states that were breathing down each other's neck that had incentives to get to the lucrative India trade once the Ottomans were controlling a huge part of the near east.
Ever since the founding of the Chinese Empire, the Chinese Dynasties were more like Presidential Administrations than completely different civilizations. Hell, even the 2 foreign ones got Sinified.
The Continuity of Imperial China had 4 Concepts going for it.
- There is an Empire called Zhongguo (Middle State). When dynasties rule over China, their dynastic name doesn't replace the country. Nobody walked around saying he was a "Ming-ian" or something. He'd say he was a subject of Zhongguo.
- Claim of rule over Zhongguo via claiming of Mandate of Heaven
- Having a meritocratic bureaucratic governing framework. Added later on by loyalty to the Confucian principles.
-Having rule of China proper (i.e. China minus Inner Mongolia, Manchuria, Tibet, and Xinjiang)
Every dynasty Post-Han did this. Including the two foreign ones.
Furthermore when Imperial China divides into warring dynasties, its not an ethnic or national division. It's competing dynasties at war over rule of China. There is no peaceful existence between these guys, its an all out king of the hill deathmatch. The Mandate of Heaven -an unwritten cultural rule- dictates that only cunts who can make china rich/stable/defended from foreigners can rule China. If a dynasty fails at that, it is the sacred right of the people to replace that dynasty with anyone who can claim the Mandate.
By claiming, it simply means winning the interdynastic wars and making China stable again.
So Chinese rebellions either 1) erupted and were put down (ergo have no Mandate) or 2) erupted, managed to claim a chunk of Chinese territory, and rebel leaders ergo has a good shot at the Mandate of Heaven
I agree with most of that, but I am not convinced on the
>not even claim to have a semblance of a shared culture
as that was pretty much the point of spreading things like art, architecture, and philosophy. Granted, I take it as more of a projecting rule thing than a shared culture thing, but Rome was open to those who pledged themselves to her, was it not?
we have hade a shit tonne of war, millions of minor and major conflicts have taken place in europe
war creates industry
war creates organization
war creates empires
war creates innovation
war destorys so it can be rebuilt better
its only in the past 100 years that war has become a truly unfavorable thing
its only in the past 100 years that collateral damage have become a term
our technology outgrew war but we dident
Except because India was separated for most of it's history, with only two native empires getting close to have all the subcontinent ages ago. India is closer to Europe than China in that aspect, and probably with even more internal differences. Fuck, India is a stranger term and their own word "Bharat" is a made up name from an ancient legend, like calling Europe Camelot.
When Marco Polo traveled the world in the 13th century, he marveled at the great wealth and intellectual accomplishments of foreign empires, but especially that of China.
1405. Zheng He launched his treasure fleet, sailing across the Indian Ocean to the cultural capitals of the world in India, South Asia, Africa, etc. There were 62 treasure ships (130 meters long) and 192 smaller ships, manned by tens of thousands of people. Even today, it is one of the largest naval expeditions ever launched. A couple decades later, Korea developed and employed the first iron clad warships against Japan, demolishing the enemy army. They were not steam powered explosive shell equipped iron clads used in the Civil war, but clad in iron armor nonetheless and equipped with arquebuses and advanced weaponry for the time. It was also around this time that Pax Mongolica had begun to reach its expiration, so the focus on trade shifted from the steppes of central Asia towards the Indian Ocean, and nations around the world adopted stronger Naval programs. However, due to internal disputes and Northern invasions, the Chinese abruptly ended the voyages and burned the fleet, ending China's naval dominance for the next half millenium.
With the Mongols out of the way, Europeans slowly recovered from the thousand year long dark ages, and recovered their Roman and Greek tradition in the Sciences and Arts. Coupled with the post-feudal egalitarian society brought on by the black death and competition brought upon between numerous nation-states, Europe could set out to explore the world and colonize America. There, they found immense caches of gold, silver and natural resources. However, even during the 15th and 16th centuries, European powers were sending their silver to China for its tea, a trend that continued until the turn of the 19th century. Once Britain captured India, the jewel of its empire, it could at last rival China,
You're just moving the goal posts in my opinion.
I could just as easily say England has been a continuous nation since Alfred the Great because it's always been called England since then.
Grasping as straws man.
I rather see it as europe modelling itself on a cultural memory of the roman empire, rather than their being a direct cultural evolution.
And while you could pledge yourself to rome, there wasn't the cultural commitment of a modern identity, you could join but retain your own culture as long as you were loyal to the empire itself. It is more a form of civic imperialism.
>made up name from an ancient legend
>not a common uniting factor.
so you mean they had a common common heritage culturally?
Or how did someone like Adi Shankaracharya establish his 4 monasteries in the different corners of India when it was not under unified control?
every non petty ruler always put the name of Maharaja Chakravartin as part of their title, and considered themselves as the legitimate rulers of the subcontinent.
not to mention the common origin of most northern, eastern and western/southwestern indian language comes from sanskrit.
Calling Moscow the Third Rome or Bulgaria the heirs to the Roman Empire will only make people snicker, especially since even gradeschoolers know that Rome (the civilization, not the city) is dead.
Calling the Ming state "China" doesn't elicit any particular reaction, because it's taken for granted.
Continent has nothing to do with tectonic plates. Arabia is not a continent. Philipines is not a continent. Cocos is not a continent. Juan de Fuca is not a continent.
Continent is a word invented and developed by europeans and therefore eurocentric. Defined by what is european and what is not, and the different kinds of not-europeans, with a more or less geographical base.
Not really. India is the creation of Mughal-Maratha-British Raj periods. Basically India spent a long-ass time united under those three they went "hey, lets be 1 country, lel."
For much of history however, there was no such thing as "India." India actually resembled Europe in that it is a bit of a continent wherein you have a collection culturally similar yet disimilar states with their own languages (and even ethnicities). Like Europe, there was that one state that rises up and creates an empire. But in the name of its state & people, not of India. (i.e. the Gupta Dynasty is the rule of the Prayaga Kingdom of Northern India over the other Indian Kingdoms).
Further compounded by the invasion of Muslims and the conversion of some states into Islam & Perso-Islamic traditions.
In comparison, the Chinese do agree that they may have different languages, or even different races, but they have one Empire: Zhongguo
The only time China resembled India in political history & organization was BEFORE the Chinese Empire: during the Zhou Kingdom & the Warring States which was similar to the Holy Roman Empire. Or Indian States in this regard. The Chinese during that period weren't one country, and were actually on their way to creating separate nations of culturally similar people called "Huaxia."
People identified themselves with their state and considered it a separate people. A Huaxia man will call himself "Man of Zhao" or "Man of Chu."
But then the Qin Shi Huangdi just had to ruin it by conquering all of them and dragging them kicking and screaming into one country: Zhonnguo. Founding Imperial China.
>Europa describes a geographical area in a roman context.
correct, and they knew they lived in that geographical area and knew they were european compared to those who werent
their culture was european as it originated and developed in europe
>I could just as easily say England has been a continuous nation since Alfred the Great because it's always been called England since then.
I am actually of the opinion that the Kingdom of England sure is continuous, but you Britkeks have to ruin it with UK. Congrats.
With the manufacturing capabilities and manpower of the Indian subcontinent (which was, at the time, the main source of cloth products), Britain began to subvert the power of continental European nations and then that of the world. The serendipitous discovery of shallow coal deposits and the rotary engine allowed for maximum usage of the New World and India's natural resources and recenter the world's manufacturing centers to the island. It is around this time in the 19th century that Europe begins to surpass the GDP's of China and India. Once the other European nations and Western offshoots hopped on the industrialization bandwagon, Europe's world dominance (which would have seemed preposterous in 1200, let alone 1700), was assured. Of course, in the 1600s and 1700s, significant cultural and scientific innovations had taken place in Europe, despite its piddly economic power. Muskets. Calculus. Rococo and Baroque Art (the peak of Western visual expression, before the decline of its artistic culture due to Post Modern art). In other parts of the world, rudimentary differential equations and integrals had existed, but they were never systemized and categorized to the degree that Leibniz and Newton did. Natural gas pipelines had existed in China since 500 BC, but they had never thought to mechanize or industrialize like the Europeans had.
The rise of Europe can be seen as one of the largest upsets in history, similar to Japan beating South Africa in rugby.
However, in the 21st century (about 2-3 centuries after the rise of Europe), the world is experiencing another balancing as manufacturing centers shift to old economic powers. Inevitably, empires reach the age of decadence and decline 200-300 years after their inception (see Glubb Pasha). Rising costs of living, privatization of people's benefits, decreasing standard of living, the increasing hedonism of the collective conscious, and the deterioration of visually oriented talents
You seem to be pretty well-read about china. Do you care to explain what's going on that coast and why the chinese don't had it?
The core regions are only the very south of europe and north africa, the rest was expanded upon through time.
And as said previously the romans did not have a shared culture, it was a greatly multicultural society. Empires are not homogeneous ethnic and cultural areas.
And latin is only the root of a handful of european languages, sure some of the most prolific. But slavic, germanic and finno-urgic languages were not influenced by roman in any truly significant ways.
You keep making assertions but providing no argumentation or evidence.
such as construction, art and manufacturing throes of empire. And just as the Roman empire succumbed to barbarian and provincial immigration, many Western countries are plagued with the influx of foreign people. At the time, America and Japan are in their ages of decadence, Europe its age of decline, and China its age of commerce.
According to the British general Glubb, empire follows a 200-300 year cycle (10 generations) as follows:
>long time united under the brits
>of those, the british barely had ANY control of the interior until later company officials went out and started acquiring clay.
>mauryan empire was longer than that and had a larger cultural impact
>empire was sitting pretty holding large chunks of afghanistan and northern India. By the time the empire reached it's max size it was ded
>literally taking over from where the mughals left
I'm not talking about neoclassical architecture or examples before that, but those who built in the Roman style and took on Roman customs at the time. It was far easier to convince Romans you were with them if you quacked like them. After the descent started, sure, plenty of that carried through, but I don't see that as the reason for it being there in the first place. It was there due to the purposeful spread of ideology.
I'm by no means implying the earlier stuff that was said ITT about Rome seeing itself as European. Rome was far to self centered for that, but I think a lot of Europeans saw themselves as Roman.
>then why was every honorific title of every sizable native Indian empire that of the ruler of the Aryans?
...Raja? Which is simply word for King? Also what Aryans? There was no massive Aryan Empire in India, those guys invaded in split groups and established their Kingdoms. Like Germanic Invaders of Rome.
>every sizable native Indian empire that of the ruler of the Aryans?
Not really. For one thing India doesn't have 1 language.
Also the word for Emperor in Indian is "Maharaja" meaning "Great King." A bigger King so to speak who has, under him, the conquered Rajs.
And Muslim Sultans came to the scene.
Also some Indian states were semi-democratic in that they were collections of Kings who elected a king among them. Yet another way someone could be "Maharaja."
Also Jesus, just look at Modern India. It's actually a UNITED STATES of the Indian subcontinent. Whose States are based roughly on some of the actual borders of Old Indian Kingdoms.
>Continent is a word invented and developed by europeans and therefore eurocentric. Defined by what is european and what is not, and the different kinds of not-europeans, with a more or less geographical base.
Yes that is true, but in geology continents are defined rather strictly in terms of tectonic plates, and if the political definition of continent is rooted at all in that base, then it most also be rooted in part to the plates.
>The core regions are only the very south of europe and north africa, the rest was expanded upon through time.
the core regions change throughout the roman empire, but typically italy
european empire in origin and conquered outside of europe later
>And latin is only the root of a handful of european languages
latin itself is a european language, doesnt matter how many languages are derived from latin
>You keep making assertions but providing no argumentation or evidence.
you haven't done anything different, just look at your own post
Yue People. Southeast Asiany looking people. Han Dynasty eventually took em when it sicced the Sun Family at them.
The Han-Yue interbreeding is the ancestor of the Modern Hong Kong & Cantonese Chink.
>Calling Moscow the Third Rome or Bulgaria the heirs to the Roman Empire will only make people snicker
It certainly won't stop then. Constantinople was supposed to be the second Rome, and its citizens Roman despite the fact that they were all Greek. Moscow has a different approach, it wants to be the center of Orthodoxy, making it literally a second Constantinople. While people accepted that Byzantium was an offshoot of the Roman Empire, Orthodoxy shuns the idea of a Catholic-like leadership.
>This is to bypass geographic determinism since India and China were very similar.
On the contrary,. Europe was best posditioned to dominate global trade once the Age Of Sail turned up. China was technologically superior for a time, but were poorly positioned to reach Africa/America with much regularity, not to mention their insular culture. India was boxed in and had no hope of much trade influence further than the Indian Ocean.
Nobody mentions mo'fuking Genghis?
Western Europe didn't get hit by the Mongols the way Eastern Europe, Arabian, India or China did.
...and getting BTFO by China and Japan because of it.
I'm talking to you Portugal.
I've argued points using admittedly anecdotal evidence, but I still argued a point.
You have just repeatedly claimed there is a clear and direct continuity.
>latin itself is a european language
The term european as you are using has a shit load of cultural laden meaning, it implies a great deal more than simply it is from this continent.
And if you look at the history of latin it's core influence was greek, whose core influence was Egyptian.
And you have provided absolutely no argument to say they have a shared culture that could be called typically european. Empire is not indicative of a shared culture at all, in fact empires are characterised by spreading across cultural boundaries.
the entire title was Maharajadhiraj Aryavarta
and samrat chakravartin
And aryan in this case refers to the people of the subcontinent.
Aryavarta always referred to the subcontinent as a whole, even though the term Jambudvipa was far more common in literature.
which considered themselves as the sultans of hind, again, a unified geographical area.
>it is actually a united states
that explains why the states themselves split regularly because of democratic movements and demands for better representation in the upper house of the indian parliament.
>but I still argued a point.
yes, by repeatedly making empty claims
> it implies a great deal more than simply it is from this continent.
only in your mind
>And if you look at the history of latin it's core influence was greek
yet they remain distinct european languages
>just look at Modern India. It's actually a UNITED STATES of the Indian subcontinent. Whose States are based roughly on some of the actual borders of Old Indian Kingdoms.
Pretty much this, and some of these "states" are still vying for autonomy.
In "India" (i.e. the modern states of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) you never self-identify ethnically as "Indian" or "Pakistani". Its always Punjabi, Sindhi, Gujrathi, Rajput, etc.
India has never truly been "unified". All various strong regimes have been able to do is make all these people work together
>And you have provided absolutely no argument to say they have a shared culture that could be called typically european
shared with who? romans had a culture and that culture was european by having emerged in europe
What are you on, Aryavarta was never used for the whole of India in ancient times. It refered ot a very specific part of it.
The other title refers to an universal world ruler, something romans and persians also used.
No, i argued the point using what i've read.
All of these comments said the exact same thing.
And pretty much and social scientist worth his salt knows that linguistics carry cultural baggage.
Again it only influenced a minority of European languages.
It was a fucking empire, which are characterised as administration over multiple cultural groups.
You think what is now algeria shared a culture with the northern roman towns?
That is fucking stupid. And you really don't have any valid points.
I'm sure you'll convince yourself you have won this, but you are just a spooked idiot. Open a few books that weren't written by right wing nutjobs.
Any way i'm off to bed, you pleb.
the cholas and cheras used term too, and associated themselves with that part of the subcontinent.
The cholas even have the legend that they feasted the two armies before the battle of the mahabharata.
The vijaynagara empire was the only empire that used a different title for their kings and that was because of the whole remove kebab thing they had going on.
This is a really complex issue so I think I'm going to focus on China alone, although there are still many reasons why India wasn't the same as Europe.
For China, they really had no expansionary plans or need. They could have expanded a very long time ago when they were trading all throughout southeast Asia and along the coast of Africa. It is alleged that they even discovered Australia (It's not that unbelievable considering how advanced their ships were and how far they travelled).
The main problems that I recognize with why China was surpassed by the west are to do with the historically unique situation that China was in firstly China as a society that was constantly evolving throughout it's history was essentially unrivaled, sure there were Indians/Persians and many incarnations of various Mongol/Scythians/Jeong warring nomads but they never had the same type of European great powers competing they were always the most advanced and covetted in their region. Because of this they also never really relied on trade all that much, sure - their goods reached the Roman Empire via the silk road but they never received anything in return that they NEEDED and for as long as the Chinese remember the bigger their territory is the harder it is to defend it.
Another big issue with Chinese history is that there are many big players within China, there is a lot of instability (not saying that this didn't happen everywhere else) but due to the instability the entire region gets taken in different directions each time. For instance Zhang He (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_He) was an exploratory mariner who led many expeditions on very advanced craft (the difference between spanish/portugese ships and the chinese ships is extremely significant with the latter being FAR more advanced). However, when the current emporer who supported his voyages died the successor cancelled all voyages.
Population Density (Europe had a huge population relative to most of the world, even as late as 1900 Europe had 1/4 of the world population) urbanization levels, resources, and a tradition of competition allowing states to constantly improve their administrative and military capacity to best their neighbors.
All of these are self reinforcing systems.
>Likely ended up hurting china more
Not really. Tamao was actually the trade concession granted by the Ming Emperor to trade with the Dutch. A common Chinese practice is to put Trading posts on small Islands so foreigners cant set foot on China Proper. Japs did the same thing. But then Portugal just had to act like niggers and engage in slave trade of Asians and some piracy. So Chinks removed them from Tamao by consecutively defeating the dutch in two battles. (Battle of Tamao and then at Xicaowan)
Also those two battles benefitted China as they were able to capture Breech Loading Cannons from Portuguese ships. They were impressed by these so-called "Folanqi" Cannon (From the arabic "Ferenggi" meaning "Frankish" anyone from Western Europe_)
Furthermore It hurt Portugal as Portugal is about to lose Indonesia to the dutch. Ergo being completely removed from Asia. In addition, the Ming then gave a standing legal order to kill anyone Portuguese in Chinese soil, forcing Portuguese traders off the Chinese market.
You know how the Portuguese got Macao? They begged for it in 1550's and since they haven been good boys -even helping the Ming Navy out against Pirates- the Ming Emperor granted them Macao island as a trading post
I think that the rest of the world were stuck within the tribal, feudal or nomadic lifestyles whilst Europe was undergoing the renaissance. I think that the urbanized city states such as Genoa and Venice etc. really helped proto-capitalism evolve.
They were ferocious tribal warriors well entrenched in the Jungly terrain of Southern China. The Sun Family built their wealth and career conquering the place sometime in the 100's BC or later.
>romans had a culture and that culture was european by having emerged in europe
Sure you can say that, but then you try to expand that compartmentalization with other boxes and it all falls apart
>Rome is in Europe, and so Roman culture is European
>Ireland is also in Europe, Celtic culture is European
>Lebanon is not in Europe, Lebanese culture is not European
This leads to the implication that the "European" (Roman, Celtic) cultures are more similar to each other than the "Non-European" (Lebanese) one. Which doesn't hold when you consider all the shared historical and cultural forces Rome and Lebanon have had over the centuries: Grecian influence via Hellenism for the near east and by Roman conquest and assimilation for Rome, trade relations, historical antagonism towards Persia, etc. That neither share with the Celts
To label Rome as "European" and throw it into a box with the rest of Europe does a disservice to how much Rome and Greece had in common with and influenced places that today we consider non-European and non-Western
>since 1200 AD
There's two main factors that made yurop relevant:
- Developed sea trade (yurop has a lot of coast so it was a necessity) that enabled them to discover and conquer an entire continent, which led to a mad influx of dosh
- the industrial revolutions.
The later is more or less the main reason we are were we are.