CH: Screw Europe after Roman and Byzantine

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by scholar

That's not the point I was making, this is in OTL that I am referencing the Manilla-Acapulco Pacific Galleon trade and comparing it to a preexisting trade inside of Japan in a similar timeframe.

No where did I say Japan was colonizing pits of six continents, filling the vacuum of the Europeans.

My point is, if you want to have Japan being compared to Europeans, we need to compare it to overseas trade in general - not pick the Manilla Galleon as if it represented the bulk of Spanish commerce.

Japan having something equivalent to the Manilla Galleon alone is proof of how limited overseas commerce was, not of the policies against overseas trade being full of holes.

Not what I said. There has always been a strong correlation between GDP growth alongside population growth in comparison to total taxes before spending. The fact that I already provided something for GDP growth and we know that the Ottoman Population grew means I don't have to do any more on this.

You're the one following Kennedy when he said that Ottoman Imperialism, unlike Europeans, provided no economic benefit. Especially when those Europeans killed off tens of millions of natives by plague and slave labor, but I assume that's the model of economic progress because once they were all dead the colonials and the slaves could begin making cash crops. Doesn't matter that Ottoman international trade also existed and that their crop productions rose steadily, even quickly, especially in regards to cotton which I provided a link for already.

I don't think the word "progress" is relevant so much as "profit". Millions of small scale farmers and cotton production < the riches of gold and silver in the Americas, or enormous spice trade.

And Ottoman international trade existing doesn't mean that Ottoman conquest is proving profitable by comparison to the empires built by Europeans in this era.

That's an entirely different context from what you provided earlier.

Quote:

"Ottoman imperialism, unlike that of the Spanish, Dutch, and Englsih later, did not bring much in the way of economic benefit."

The "compared to other nations" is very much in there from the start.

Regardless, with the acquisition of Christian Balkan territories and wars with the powers beyond those borders it became safer, and easier, to transport goods from there south within the same empire. The economic link states that the Ottoman Economy is driven by internal factors because its massive size and diverse productions allows it to meet nearly all its needs that way. Cotton produced in one area is shipped off to others and traded in turn for local goods. The same is true for its other goods.

Meeting its needs does not mean imperial riches.

And... are you arguing that Western European Imperialism benefited the economies of the areas they colonized? I'll reference one little benefit. The Mesoamerican civilization centered around the Aztec and neighboring regions was 17 million according to that book I linked a while ago, and before their death toll even stopped its free fall it had fallen to 1.3 million. The Inca were a vast and powerful empire from Ecuador to Chile, the largest and occasionally referred to as the greatest known precolombian American Empire. Most of them died too, most of the cultures the Inca conquered and influenced died off, only a few large groups that were relatively isolated survived. Or do we wish to talk about the benefits of Africa? The economic system which was relatively stable before Europeans became dependent upon the Europeans and the consequences for this were disastrous with massive demographic problems as well as societal collapses.

I hope this isn't what's being provided by Kennedy, because if it were I would strongly suggest you find a different historian to use as a base for your argument.

Again, the (lack of) benefits to the natives don't have anything to do with the point that the Spanish etc. empires were considerably more lucrative than the Ottoman Empire.

Because the argument is that the Ottoman state didn't benefit very much from its conquests, not that the quality of life in the empire (for either new subjects or newly conquered peoples) was poor.

You're confusing desire for Chinese Silk and desire for Byzantine Silk. The Mediterranean were already producing silks in high quantities and anyone with wealth could afford to get them from Christians without middlemen, or much middlemen.

I'm pointing out that there wouldn't be Byzantine silk if there wasn't an interest in silk.

The volume before the one I referenced, or half a dozen articles I could quickly mention. But, for convenience, Wikipedia.

Okay, let me try to rework this.

Why didn't Scandinavia become Muslim? Why didn't Germany? Why didn't the British Isles? The answer is simple: Islam's spread was stopped/countered in Iberia and France, in Southern Italy and Sicily, and in the Balkans. Because of this Islamic influence didn't spread into areas beyond those border zones where the people had no interest in it, or were "appalled" with it. Other parts of Europe didn't have the chance to seriously or significantly entertain the notion of becoming anything other than Christian, or remaining as such, throughout the rise of Islam.

It is similar with luxury goods originating a continent away that needs to travel through a hundred middlemen. If there's no profit in it, and the powers blocking the way to the rest of Europe don't want any, then the importation of the good and any hope of its spread beyond them dies. Sure a few merchant ships from around Europe are in the Mediterranean, but its not going to create that desire as it would be the upper classes, not the merchants, that were the first to create that push.

No, it is not even remotely similar with luxury goods. If the powers "blocking the way to Europe" don't want any, that doesn't matter. Because they're not "blocking" the way to Europe, they're simply there as terrain to cross.

So let's see southern France regards silk as a Bad Thing. More silk for the rest of France to purchase.

That's frankly a bizarre statement since anyone reading up on the economic impact of the Mongol Empire would clearly show that it made the silk road safe for travelers, and that after the reduction of the Caliphate and the lack of a strong unified China the silk road had all but disappeared with different tribes and groups, such as the Turks, capitalizing on what they could and raiding everything else. The trade that flourished in this time was mostly maritime trade in the Indian Ocean, not the silk road.

To quote W. B. Bartlett (The Mongols: From Genghis Khan to Tamerlane):

"The assimilation of China into the Mongol empire helped to create the illusion of what was known as the 'Pax Mongolica', a visage of stability and cohesion, sometimes referred to by historians, but hard to identity in reality. The 'Pax' was supposedly something equivalent to the stability that Rome introduced tot he world when its empire was at its zenith. IT was said that travelers could cross the length and breadth of the Mongol empire without being molested: a classic folktale found all over the world to justify the reign of many a dictator - similar tales have been told of Vlad the Impaler, the medieval Romanian prince, for example.

The briefest review of the evidence will show that no such thing ever existed. The Mongols were always at war, sometimes against rebellious subjects, increasingly against other Mongols. If this were so, how could there be peace and stability? The reality was that at times there may have been security, at other times - with the Mongols increasingly divided and fighting each other - there was not."

My bold.

So yes, the impact of the Mongols has been greatly exaggerated. Did influences from the east come west in the time of the Mongols? Sure. But less because of a great Mongol Empire drawing together East and West and more because the Mongols brought some things west with them.

There's no more gold after West Africa, at least no more easily attainable gold. The harsh and strong currents of the south, and the seemingly endless mass of land, coupled with a lack of need to reach the Indian Ocean more or less means that while they could easily head south to get gold (and ivory), they would lack the incentive to go further. If you want fur from Novgorod you don't travel to Yakutia for the hell of it.

"lack of need"? What lack of need? When did Iberia (assuming we go with United Iberia as one coulda-been) gain control over the middle men between Egypt and Italy?

Through Muslim powers in North Africa, but true the Portuguese and the Spaniards would be aware of this trade.

Which was well after 1204, which makes it more preventable or delayable.

Or it might happen earlier.

Actually, given the sheer expense and the initial failures of the first Portuguese expeditions, a centered empire around Castile rather than Portugal could easily get distracted, or if Portugal is at war with Castile then it would have few funds to sponsor what most considered fools errands.

A centered empire around Castile would still have an interest in direct access to the gold, a Portugal at war with Castile might put it on hold for a time, but would if anything want more to find more gold to pay for those wars.

But you didn't say 'weren't that much better', you said that they were at best even with them which implies that many of them were worse. That's just not true. Not in 1204, and not even in 1700 with the Ottomans. The proof for that is in the Balkans.

At best even yes. There is no Muslim tech advantage (in this regard) or greater states than can be found in Europe.

And if you're insistent on 1204 as our date, I remind you that Osman won't even be born - barring butterflies getting in the way - for another half century.

So the Ottomans, while an example of a nonEuropean power rival to the European powers, are likely not to exist. And someone taking their place just as well is as unlikely as having an exact equivalent to Prince Henry, maybe more.

Why are you fixated on Syria? The Ottoman relationship with territories in western North Africa without controlling a land link to them is certainly similar, or even greater, in terms of distance.

Because that would be an example of the equivalent to the Burgundian Netherlands inheritance. The Ottoman's had a pretty loose relationship with North Africa - not personal rule and direct control.

Rome only got weaker because circumstances shifted in the opposite direction. Success is not an ever continuous stream that is predestined to occur. Europe was, at several occasions, in danger of falling apart and regressing both in some areas and sometimes regionally, and on three occasions continentally after 1204. Europe was simply blessed in that they were able to pull themselves together, but just because they did doesn't mean that it is almost impossible to conceive of that they may not have.

No, but there was no event that made it likely to fall apart and regress like you're proposing on a Europe-wide scale. Not the Black Plague, not the Mongol invasion, and not the Ottomans (to name three things I can think of, not sure what you have in mind).

It's not about destiny, it's about the fact that the circumstances that fed it are difficult to disrupt so badly as to mean Europe is merely a boil on the arse of Eurasia.

This has resonance with one of my previous points when I said that other parts of the world had potential, you weren't convinced. The potential for greatness exists multiple times nearly everywhere in the globe, it just needs the right factors to favor it coming about. The events that led to Europe dominating the entire world were not predestined to occur in 1204, nor would it be unfeasible for Europe to decline right before what would have been its semi-continuous rise.

It would be very infeasible for Europe to decline because there's nothing to do that to Europe that doesn't require stampeding over any problems with whatever one is proposing. It is considerably easier to wreck the areas near the steppe with "the Mongols can do it" - sure, the Mongols probably have the power if they try to wreck Europe for a time, but any such scenario would never be attempted.

Could you avoid the events where Europe became THE dominant power center? Easily! That took not merely Europe prospering and growing stronger but lucky breaks and men able to exploit them.

Could you avoid Europe being "a" power center? Almost equally likely as South Africa spawn an empire that would threaten Egypt.

[scholar]

Could you avoid Europe being "a" power center? Almost equally likely as South Africa spawn an empire that would threaten Egypt.

I think I wasted at least six hours of my life.

I never said anything about preventing Europe from becoming a power center. Not once. I had, in fact, said that Europe could be made wealthier and still avoid them conquering land outside of the 'Eurosphere'. Since you seem to have that impression, and you've reduced my argument to a Draka reference of absurdity, I'm going to bow out. I wish you posted this as the first line of your post because then I could have avoided explaining the Il Khanate-Yuan Dynasty relationship after the fall of the Mongol Empire as well as nearly 2000 words in other responses.

Ciao Elfwine.

[Krall]

I'm skipping over a lot of the discussion in the thread, so I'm not sure if this has been brought up already, but a theory I have about why Europe was catapulted to power so suddenly and massively is that it's because it was so divided and weak.

Look at it this way - China was once the most powerful country in the world without any shadow of a doubt. This was because it had everything; China didn't need trade when it could produce everything itself! Whilst India was no where near as united, low wages and high population in India meant that they could produce things which required labour-intensive production in huge amounts very cheaply.

The Industrial Revolution in Britain was mainly driven by a desire to compete with Indian textile production. Britain had a tiny population and high wages in comparison - producers wanted production to be less labour-intensive, which requires machines.

In short, those who have it good don't want to change anything - those who have it bad try to get any edge they can.

My suggestion? Unite Europe. Make the population higher, and advance technology enough that they have everything they need without trading with the outside world. Then, make China and India suffer a few plagues, and break them up into smaller countries (especially China - maybe they get a load of "barbarian" invasions of their own from Mongolia and Central Asia, which then settle down and turn into distinct ethnicities, like the Germanic peoples did?). This creates a world where Europe wants for nought, like China did in OTL, and Asia wants what they have. Europe will stagnate, whilst Indian and Chinese nations look for any edge they can get - they'll stumble across machinery soon enough, and figure out that it can help them out-produce those dastardly Europeans!

It's just the "uniting Europe" and "breaking up China" bits that are a problem. Any ideas?

[Emperor Julian]

Originally Posted by Krall

It's just the "uniting Europe" and "breaking up China" bits that are a problem. Any ideas?

Breaking up China seems easy, they broke up several times OTL (after the falls of the Zhou, Han, and Tang) where 2,3, or a lot of kingdoms arose.

I can't think of any way to unite Europe without a POD in the Roman days though.

[nlspeed]

What Krall posted was what I was going to post as well.

But yeah, uniting Europe, well, if you've read 'Guns, Germs & Steel', that's basically impossible.

I've seen someone suggesting weakening (or maybe even removing) Rome (I've skipped through the discussion), but I'd say that will only strenghten Europe. Or, at least, not noticeably weaken it.

I think the Gauls and all had roads and such of their own; they weren't primitive barbarians or anything, not by a long shot. They'd 'evolve' a bit slower than if there had been a Rome, sure. But they won't 'devolve' after Rome would have fallen.

They'd be even more competitive than our Europe, I guess, because they're smaller and not really allied. Sure, Vercingetorix brought some tribes together, but that was only for that battle; after that, they'd go back to fighting against theirselves.

So we have a more divided Europe. That could be a bad thing - Europe really had the perfect balance between 'small, weak, squabbling city states' and 'huge, decadent, stagnant empires'.

I'd say it'd be a good thing for Europe though, eventually - and therefore a bad thing for this scenario.

So how do we keep Europe weak? Well, we don't. I really see no way to do this.

Keeping China stronger should be possible though. But what would that achieve? China isn't going to freeze to death via the Bering Strait, nor is it going to sail through the Pacific towards America. This isn't a Civilization game.

If the whole of Asia was more competitive (India / China / Japan and anything inbetween) - and I have no idea how that'd happen, because why would India be interested in what Japan is doing - I suppose they could end up in Australia. But America, I don't see it.

So Europe will reach America first. And, well, that's the end?

Making Africa stronger, wouldn't that make Europe stronger as well? Africa won't be powerful enough to really harm Europe (oh, sure, southern Spain and Italy, but not northern Germany or such). It'd unify Europe though (drive out the Muslims), I guess, but I'd also guess that, after accomplishing this (and being stronger than in OTL, because this Africa, somehow, was stronger as well), they'd go back to whatever it is they did OTL, so that still leads to a powerful Europe.

I just can't see it happen. But, bear in mind, I know next to nothing.

[Krall]

Originally Posted by Emperor Julian

Breaking up China seems easy, they broke up several times OTL (after the falls of the Zhou, Han, and Tang) where 2,3, or a lot of kingdoms arose.

The problem is that those break-ups weren't permanent - the Roman Empire broke apart several times too, but it was only permanent when the newly-formed countries stopped thinking of themselves as Roman, and their leaders stopped thinking that they need to reform the Roman empire under their rule. If China is conquered by a mass migration of Central Asian/Siberian/Mongolian then they could form new ethnicities, new nations with leaders who don't want to make themselves the new Emperor of China.

It's not China that needs to be broken up, but the institution of the Empire and the idea that the people who live there are primarily Chinese.

Originally Posted by Emperor Julian

I can't think of any way to unite Europe without a POD in the Roman days though.

Hmm, what about a resurgent Frankish Kingdom? Or a Byzantine Empire that manages to hold onto and expand on its holdings in 555AD?

[Krall]

There are two parts of nlspeed's post that gave me ideas:

Originally Posted by nlspeed

If the whole of Asia was more competitive (India / China / Japan and anything inbetween) - and I have no idea how that'd happen, because why would India be interested in what Japan is doing - I suppose they could end up in Australia. But America, I don't see it.

Japan is probably a good candidate for an industrial revolution. It's similar to Britain in a lot of ways, it's small and unproductive compared to other Asian countries, and it's a country distinct from any other major empire. If you can push up the average wage for workers in Japan, decrease the population (both of those could be achieved with a plague or a large war, as they're roughly the same thing), and increase their reliance on trade with places like China and India, I can see the Japanese using a lot of Chinese inventions to industrialise and gain an edge.

Originally Posted by nlspeed

It'd unify Europe though (drive out the Muslims), I guess, but I'd also guess that, after accomplishing this (and being stronger than in OTL, because this Africa, somehow, was stronger as well), they'd go back to whatever it is they did OTL, so that still leads to a powerful Europe.

This part noted the idea that a stronger opponent could unify Europe. History has shown that nothing unites people like a common enemy - Russia only united under Muscovy because of the Mongols - so if we could create a powerful, foreign presence in Europe that forced the various different countries to ally with one, powerful country at their head, then they might unify afterwards with this powerful country at the core. Then we have a united Europe, which would stagnate, and Asia could industrialise to compete with.

Perhaps a greater Caliphate, that manages to capture and hold more of Europe? When the Mongols invaded the Russian principalities they made them their vassals, with Muscovy having the right to collect taxes from the other principalities - if the Caliphate did something similar in Europe, then their "preferred vassal" might become powerful enough to unite the other Christian European countries around it, push out the Caliphate, and create a long-lasting united Europe. An Orthodox Byzantium conquering much of Catholic Europe might have the same effect.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by scholar

I think I wasted at least six hours of my life.

I never said anything about preventing Europe from becoming a power center. Not once. I had, in fact, said that Europe could be made wealthier and still avoid them conquering land outside of the 'Eurosphere'. Since you seem to have that impression, and you've reduced my argument to a Draka reference of absurdity, I'm going to bow out. I wish you posted this as the first line of your post because then I could have avoided explaining the Il Khanate-Yuan Dynasty relationship after the fall of the Mongol Empire as well as nearly 2000 words in other responses.

Ciao Elfwine.

Draka reference? I know about as much about the Draka as I do about quantum mechanics - I picked South Africa as an underdeveloped area, that's it.

And your position seems to have been that somehow its easy to weaken Europe significantly, which I disagree with - not just not doing as well as OTL but trying to keep it from competing or doing much of anything outside its borders.

Edit: Reposting quote:

"In retrospect, one can see that Europe was accelerating both commercially and technologically by the late fifteenth century, but perhaps the fairest general statement would be that each fo the great centers around that time was at a roughly similar stage of development, some more advanced in one area, but less in others. Technologically, and therefore militarily, The Ottoman Empire, China under the Ming dynasty; a little later northern India under the Moguls, and the European states system with it's Muscovite offshoot were all far superior to the scattered societies of Africa, America, and Oceania. While this does imply that Europe in 1500 was one of the most important cultural power centers, it was not at all obvious that it would one day emerge at the very top."


And since my position since post 6: http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...45&postcount=6 has been based around the idea that Europe being one of the competitors for world power is almost inevitable, but that it being as strong as OTL is not the case. . .

Well, I'm sorry you missed that post.


Krall: The problem is that there's no way to monopolize the sinews of power, and thus dominate Europe. The Ottomans OTL were the kind of threat one would think would at least consolidate Mitteleuropa, but they did no such thing.

Meanwhile, threats like Louis XIV would lead to temporary alliances, but not "we must all form one empire".

I can't see the Byzantines or the Caliphate doing much more here, and I say this as a proud Byzantine fan and an Islamophile.

[scholar]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Draka reference? I know about as much about the Draka as I do about quantum mechanics - the term is based on Kennedy's statement here:

"In retrospect, one can see that Europe was acclerating both commercially and technologically by the late fifteenth century, but perhaps the fairest general statement would be that each fo the great centers around that time was at a roughly similar stage of development, some moer advanced in one area, but less in otehrs. Technologically, and therefore militarily, The OTtoman Empire, China under the Ming dynasty; a little later northern India under the Moguls, and the European states system with it's Muscovite offshoot were all far superior to the scattered societies of Africa, America, and Oceania. While this does imply that Europe in 1500 was one of the most important cultural power centers, it was not at all obvious that it would one day emerge at the very top."

Underlined.

Rewind 300 years and Europe wasn't roughly equal to them, it was slightly inferior or vastly inferior.

Further, the places where it was roughly on par with didn't end up conquering lands outside of their zones apart from a few rare occurrences, so if you're placing them at an even level with them in 1500, making it possible that other powers would have advanced instead of Europe, we find that with 1204 that the entire situation where Europe was expanding outside of the Eurosphere was avoidable with the right factors. That's a direct implication of that quote.

---

This is A-H.com, and you've been a member for a few years, if you don't know that Draka was a state that originated in South Africa and would conquer to Egypt (before later conquests) then you should probably look around a bit more.

Well, I'm sorry you missed that post.

I didn't respond to that post, I responded to an entirely different one, one which made different points. When I argued against that (not even arguing against it, merely adding exceptions) I wasn't expecting that I would spend the next three days arguing against something I didn't respond to.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by scholar

Rewind 300 years and Europe wasn't roughly equal to them, it was slightly inferior or vastly inferior.

Rewind 300 years and I defy you to show a Muslim country which is significantly more powerful than anywhere in (Christian) Europe.

Or technologically in general. Sanitation and literacy, sure, probably not hard. But Europe has already done a lot of borrowing and catching up.

China I'm no expert on, so I would be willing to believe that its still #1 by a long way (although I presume this applies more to the Song than the Jinn). But Europe is not some primitive, unsophisticated area which any reasonably interested adventurer from elsewhere could conquer, either.

Further, the places where it was roughly on par with didn't end up conquering lands outside of their zones apart from a few rare occurrences, so if you're placing them at an even level with them in 1500, making it possible that other powers would have advanced instead of Europe, we find that with 1204 that the entire situation where Europe was expanding outside of the Eurosphere was avoidable with the right factors. That's a direct implication of that quote.

We find that OTL is avoidable. We do not find that Europe expanding outside the Eurosphere AT ALL is avoidable with any factors.

And it was possible - well, subject to the reasons why not - for them to advance and expand OTL. Nothing forbade the Muslim world from advancing because it was "Europe's turn, so you can't play" (not to put words in your mouth, just explaining my point).

This is A-H.com, and you've been a member for a few years, if you don't know that Draka was a state that originated in South Africa and would conquer to Egypt (before later conquests) then you should probably look around a bit more.

Oh definitely. But I am serious (and sorry if it came off as willfillfully insulting) about not getting it.

I didn't respond to that post, I responded to an entirely different one, one which made different points. When I argued against that (not even arguing against it, merely adding exceptions) I wasn't expecting that I would spend the next three days arguing against something I didn't respond to.

Well, the point is that my position in all my posts has been based on what I said in that post - that while you can weaken individual states, and avoid European states doing as spectacularly as OTL - meeting the challenge here is almost impossible without Europhobic ASBs.

[Krall]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Krall: The problem is that there's no way to monopolize the sinews of power, and thus dominate Europe. The Ottomans OTL were the kind of threat one would think would at least consolidate Mitteleuropa, but they did no such thing.

Meanwhile, threats like Louis XIV would lead to temporary alliances, but not "we must all form one empire".

Well, why not? What obstacles are there to a country dominating Europe?

Enemies like the Ottomans were significant, but they weren't feared and hated as much as the Mongols were. If the whole of Europe was faced with an enemy as destructive and powerful as the Mongols (heck, maybe even the Mongols themselves), and this enemy managed to conquer most of them, leaving whatever they couldn't reach as vassal states, I think most of them could be convinced to put their differences aside and think of themselves less as "German", "French", or "English", but as "Europeans, i.e. not Mongols".

Originally Posted by Elfwine

I can't see the Byzantines or the Caliphate doing much more here, and I say this as a proud Byzantine fan and an Islamophile.

Do you mean you can't see them gaining more power than they had in OTL, or do you mean that you don't think they'll be able to present enough of a threat to unite Europe?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Krall

Well, why not? What obstacles are there to a country dominating Europe?

In brief - "[A] number of competing political entities, most of which possessed or were able to buy the military means to preserve their independence."

That's been true since before 1204 and will remain true after 1900.

Which political entities we're talking about shift all over the place, but that Europe is made up of "a number of competing political entities" has been true since the authority of the Roman Emperor of the West became nominal.

Enemies like the Ottomans were significant, but they weren't feared and hated as much as the Mongols were. If the whole of Europe was faced with an enemy as destructive and powerful as the Mongols (heck, maybe even the Mongols themselves), and this enemy managed to conquer most of them, leaving whatever they couldn't reach as vassal states, I think most of them could be convinced to put their differences aside and think of themselves less as "German", "French", or "English", but as "Europeans, i.e. not Mongols".

This explains why when Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu asked for help against the Mongols, the Muslim world rallied behind the banners of the Khwarezm-Shahs.

. . . or maybe Jalal-ad Din died in a ditch in Kurdistan because it didn't.

It's not even a matter of being "German" or "French" or "English" but:

Duke Frederick II: "Hey, Bela, gimme some of your western territories."
King Bela IV of Hungary: "What?! I'm being attacked by the Mongols and you want me to give up part of my kingdom to you?"
Duke Frederick: "That's right."
King Bela: "You're a dick, you know that?"
Duke Frederick: "A dick who is stronger than you. Now gimme."

Do you mean you can't see them gaining more power than they had in OTL, or do you mean that you don't think they'll be able to present enough of a threat to unite Europe?

The latter.

[Krall]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

In brief - "[A] number of competing political entities, most of which possessed or were able to buy the military means to preserve their independence."

That would mostly be removed by a common enemy, in that the idea is that there is one remaining state that is able to reliably subdue all the others and absorb them in the aftermath of their common enemy's downfall, similar to Muscovy in Russia.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

This explains why when Jalal ad-Din Mingburnu asked for help against the Mongols, the Muslim world rallied behind the banners of the Khwarezm-Shahs.

. . . or maybe Jalal-ad Din died in a ditch in Kurdistan because it didn't.

It's not even a matter of being "German" or "French" or "English" but:

Duke Frederick II: "Hey, Bela, gimme some of your western territories."
King Bela IV of Hungary: "What?! I'm being attacked by the Mongols and you want me to give up part of my kingdom to you?"
Duke Frederick: "That's right."
King Bela: "You're a dick, you know that?"
Duke Frederick: "A dick who is stronger than you. Now gimme."

Uniting several countries into one empire during the initial fight against the common enemy wasn't what I had in mind. Instead the common enemy smashes most of the powers in the region, and those that are left conquer those regions after the common enemy's downfall.

I'm not expecting Europe to go "The Muslims conquered France. Welp, better unite as one country, I guess" - I'm proposing that if enough of Europe is significantly damaged in terms of population and culture by a common enemy, then the remnants might unite/be united under the strongest remaining country who would be able to conquer the remaining territories and create a lasting, stable, stagnant, pan-European empire.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

The latter.

Well, why not? The Caliphate especially commanded vast armies that were at least the equal of Christian Europe's. If they could win the Battle of Tours in 732 they could dominate France, and then expand their influence and territory further.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Krall

That would mostly be removed by a common enemy, in that the idea is that there is one remaining state that is able to reliably subdue all the others and absorb them in the aftermath of their common enemy's downfall, similar to Muscovy in Russia.

Which would require a radically different position of the competing political entities in Europe than has ever existed - and as the maps below show, is likely to exist with the POD in question.

Uniting several countries into one empire during the initial fight against the common enemy wasn't what I had in mind. Instead the common enemy smashes most of the powers in the region, and those that are left conquer those regions after the common enemy's downfall.

I'm not expecting Europe to go "The Muslims conquered France. Welp, better unite as one country, I guess" - I'm proposing that if enough of Europe is significantly damaged in terms of population and culture by a common enemy, then the remnants might unite/be united under the strongest remaining country who would be able to conquer the remaining territories and create a lasting, stable, stagnant, pan-European empire.

Take a look at this map (if we're going with the Caliphate):

http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/shpha53.htm

This is two generations later OTL: http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/shpha54_55.htm

http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/muhamm14.htm

and the last is AD 900.

Not a situation favoring Russia or England like unification (England loosely fitting the "common enemy smashes most of the powers, and the others unite" - but that was with the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms being similar to begin with), or maintaining lasting empire able to be stable or stagnant.

And this is the Middle East after the collapse of the "common enemy":

http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/muhamm29.htm

Well, why not? The Caliphate especially commanded vast armies that were at least the equal of Christian Europe's. If they could win the Battle of Tours in 732 they could dominate France, and then expand their influence and territory further.

You need to ask someone else on Tours, but the Muslim armies are running out of steam at this point.

[Krall]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Which would require a radically different position of the competing political entities in Europe than has ever existed - and as the maps below show, is likely to exist with the POD in question.

Take a look at this map (if we're going with the Caliphate):

http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/shpha53.htm

This is two generations later OTL: http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/shpha54_55.htm

http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/muhamm14.htm

and the last is AD 900.

Not a situation favoring Russia or England like unification (England loosely fitting the "common enemy smashes most of the powers, and the others unite" - but that was with the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms being similar to begin with), or maintaining lasting empire able to be stable or stagnant.

And this is the Middle East after the collapse of the "common enemy":

http://rbedrosian.com/Maps/muhamm29.htm

It's strange you say that, yet in your first two maps most of the more populated areas of Europe are collected in one country - the Kingdom of the Franks. If the Caliphate could invade and conquer, say, Italy and the Balkans, then I think that'd convince the Franks and whatever Christians remained to stick together.

Originally Posted by Elfwine

You need to ask someone else on Tours, but the Muslim armies are running out of steam at this point.

What does that even mean? That their arms were outdated? That their tactical doctrine had become stagnant? That they lacked any great generals? That their logistical infrastructure was coming apart?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Krall

It's strange you say that, yet in your first two maps most of the more populated areas of Europe are collected in one country - the Kingdom of the Franks. If the Caliphate could invade and conquer, say, Italy and the Balkans, then I think that'd convince the Franks and whatever Christians remained to stick together.

I wouldn't. The Franks still have succession being gavelkind (and no, there is no reason this will be easily or abruptly changed), the English kingdoms aren't even united with each other, and in general there's very little giving any reason for them to stand together in more than - at most - a short term "we stop them here or they'll conquer us all" alliance - and of course if Martel loses badly at Tours, forget about the Frankish state being united.

And this still leaves the numerous nonChristian areas outside this kingdom or the Caliphate.

Most of Europe, in fact, outside that area.

What does that even mean? That their arms were outdated? That their tactical doctrine had become stagnant? That they lacked any great generals? That their logistical infrastructure was coming apart?

Just what it says - they don't have the force to keep conquering.

Arms, tactics, generalship, are all fine - logistics are a problem but not in that sense - but ten thousand Muslims conquering Gaul is going to be a hard prospect at best even if Martel and his army are butchered like sheep (unlikely, but let's throw it out as "What if everything went right at Tours?")

I'm sure you could - if somehow the Caliphate manages the conquests you suggested - have a Europe that doesn't look like OTL's very much at all - but it wouldn't be the stable, stagnant, and stale place you're looking for.

Something worth pointing out - Martel has the power of kingship but isn't actually king, and his sons are untested (and possibly not even adults yet). If he dies here, the power belongs to either the nominal king of the Franks Theodoric IV - and probably in practice to the strongest surviving noble.

http://www.j-paine.org/merovingian.html#450-751

[Kooluk Swordsman]

Originally Posted by Czar Kaizer

The idea that Europe is destined to surpass the rest of the world is, to be frank, racist euro centric bullshit.

[...]

The truth is that it is impossible to pinpoint the reason for Europe's dominance, at different stages in world history different regions in the world have been more dominant than others, to be honest European hegemony has lasted less than three hundred years.

[...]

I'm inclined to agree with this. Ellipses are mine, I removed the parts I didn't agree with. Why are some of you assuming that Europe is destined to rule parts of the world, weak or not? European world domination was largely luck. I mean, in the places they supposedly dominated, such as:

Technology

Asia and the Middle East was ahead of (Western) Europe technologically for most of the time after the Fall of Rome. A nice POD to keep these areas ahead of Europe is to stop the tech stagnation in these areas.

Resources

China had so much more resources than any European state until the Spanish Empire (and even then). Hell, African Empires had more resources than most Western European nations had, and also had the political and economic power to extract and use them. POD of removing or reducing the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade would do a lot to increase the power of the African polities and keep Europe out of large chunks of the continent.

Economic Systems Beneficial to Expansion

Africa, the Middle East, and SE Asian states had this in excess. Africa's trade system in particular was highly developed.

Competition

The only places this didn't exist was China and Antarctica. I mean, seriously? Arguing that competition out of Europe was less complex is idiotic, dismissive, and downright demeaning.

Frankly, Europe's conquest of the world was due to a perfect storm of events. All historical events are due to precise causes, and to argue that Europe would still conquer most of the world even if those causes are heavily altered is insane.

Although, I will say that the OP can be satisfied if instead of making Europe weaker, you make the rest of the world stronger, which again, shouldn't be too much of a struggle.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Kooluk Swordsman

I'm inclined to agree with this. Ellipses are mine, I removed the parts I didn't agree with. Why are some of you assuming that Europe is destined to rule parts of the world, weak or not? European world domination was largely luck. I mean, in the places they supposedly dominated, such as:

Technology

Asia and the Middle East was ahead of (Western) Europe technologically for most of the time after the Fall of Rome. A nice POD to keep these areas ahead of Europe is to stop the tech stagnation in these areas.

Which does nothing to stop European technological advancement - including but not limited to borrowing from the Middle East.

Resources

China had so much more resources than any European state until the Spanish Empire (and even then). Hell, African Empires had more resources than most Western European nations had, and also had the political and economic power to extract and use them. POD of removing or reducing the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade would do a lot to increase the power of the African polities and keep Europe out of large chunks of the continent.

More resources in what sense? In the context of this discussion, I'd - for the country I'm going to see dominate - trade a diamond mine for forests of ship building timber any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Economic Systems Beneficial to Expansion

Africa, the Middle East, and SE Asian states had this in excess. Africa's trade system in particular was highly developed.

"highly developed" does not mean 'favorable to expansion". Something like the North Atlantic cod is far more important to Europe here than all the silk and porcelain in China.

Competition

The only places this didn't exist was China and Antarctica. I mean, seriously? Arguing that competition out of Europe was less complex is idiotic, dismissive, and downright demeaning.

Arguing that competition in the Middle East is comparable to the Netherlands vs. the Spanish vs. the English vs. the French would require the political situation being like that. It's not dismissive to point out that the situation in Europe
http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1500/index.html is different than the situation in the Middle East.

Frankly, Europe's conquest of the world was due to a perfect storm of events. All historical events are due to precise causes, and to argue that Europe would still conquer most of the world even if those causes are heavily altered is insane.

Although, I will say that the OP can be satisfied if instead of making Europe weaker, you make the rest of the world stronger, which again, shouldn't be too much of a struggle.

A perfect storm? Only in the sense that unlike everywhere else, the full mix of ingredients to create what became world power only occurred there.

And derailing that is a vastly difficult project. Doesn't mean Europe is destined to conquer the world - far from it - but the rest of the world needs something similar to Europe's mix of "economic laissze-faire, political and military pluralism, and intellectual liberty - however rudimentary each factor was compared to later ages - which had been in constant interaction to produce the 'European miracle'." to have equivalent effects.

And eliminating that mix from Europe would be a staggering project. It's not enough to remove Prince Henry the Navigator or Christopher Columbus, you have to change the societies (plural intentional) that spawned them.

The issue isn't whether or not European states were - for instance - superior technologically in every aspect in say 1204 (which seems to be our POD), but whether Europe will advance and continue to advance at a rate at which it will equal or exceed the other power centers.

Borrowing, copying, and otherwise taking technological ideas from elsewhere is not hard enough for any possible Middle Eastern (as Europe's geographic neighbor and the area outside Europe I know best) development to be something Europe is completely oblivious to. Nor, without any leader in any position to impose something where "infidel" ideas are rejected across the continent, is there any way to stop some Europeans from seeing those ideas and trying to emulate them.

And as long as much of Africa, the Americas, and Oceania are as far behind the power centers of the world, that some level of empire building will occur is predictable.

Maybe the Aztecs don't fall to the Spanish. Fine. That's doable. And colonizing North America is hard, yes.

But neither are an absolute bar on European exploitation of the New World.

[Killer300]

Except economic lassieze-faire isn't necessarily needed to economically develop. Perhaps a state heavy type of industrialization could work too, especially seeing as how in OTL, this is how countries in Asia would eventually successfully do so.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Except economic lassieze-faire isn't necessarily needed to economically develop. Perhaps a state heavy type of industrialization could work too, especially seeing as how in OTL, this is how countries in Asia would eventually successfully do so.

For a given definition of "work", yes. But if you want something equivalent to Europe's power and riches, look at OTL England, not OTL Russia (as European examples of "laissez-faire" vs. "state heavy industrialization").

Purely "state heavy types of industrialization" are going to be more limited and narrow, with consequences accordingly.

You don't just need merchants and trade, you need a mercantile class which isn't just there to be plundered for ready capital - whether "plundered" is blatant seizure of wealth or subtle in the form of custom duties and other taxes that render commerce relatively undesirable due to the risks - smuggling alone works to a point for individual wealth but not for economic development.

I cannot insist loudly enough that I'm not saying OTL was inevitable - just that OTL like developments at all render a Euroscrew far more difficult than how the Mongols ransack Iran and Iraq hurt the Middle East.