CH: Screw Europe after Roman and Byzantine

[Killer300]

Specifically, here are my requirements,

1. Europe may never have any other empires after the Roman and Byzantine that hold territory outside of Europe. So, no British Empire, no Spanish Empire, no French Empire, and no Russian Empire. Now, this doesn't count empires based outside of Europe, which the Ottomans might count as, but that's it.

2. Following with this, no country i n Europe can ever project power out of Europe until the year 1900. Even then, it can't do so through direct territory acquisition, and can't be on the level of a superpower.

That's it. I'm curious because a world without Europe as the pinnacle of influence on it would be... interesting, to say the least.

Additionally, this is the most stubborn continent in human history, in this regard. The Black Plague, after all, didn't prevent Europe from holding the majority of superpowers, and pretty much all the hyper powers, in history. It took two World Wars to knock Western Europe from this role, and the Cold War to knock the Soviet Union from it.
Even with this, the world's current superpower owes much of that status to its European heritage, and isn't anywhere near as powerful as the British Empire at its height, relatively speaking.

Finally, to this day, the continent still holds the majority of the world's Great Powers, and still holds much of the world's most powerful economies(relatively speaking.)

[Elfwine]

Doing it "after the Byzantines" - assuming for discussion's sake you mean after 1453 - is essentially ASB.

A weaker Europe than OTL? Definitely possible. No empires holding land outside Europe? Not possible.

Hell, Portugal is already possibly qualifying, depending on where you classify Madeira and the Azores as of 1453.

I'm not sure it's possible with an earlier POD, but by 1453, Eurpe is not going to be kept down to such an extent.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Doing it "after the Byzantines" - assuming for discussion's sake you mean after 1453 - is essentially ASB.

A weaker Europe than OTL? Definitely possible. No empires holding land outside Europe? Not possible.

Hell, Portugal is already possibly qualifying, depending on where you classify Madeira and the Azores as of 1453.

I'm not sure it's possible with an earlier POD, but by 1453, Eurpe is not going to be kept down to such an extent.

Umm, why? Additionally, I probably shouldn't have said after the Byzantine, but also during it.

If we take that into consideration, what if an earlier fall of the Byzantine Empire results in a general screw for Europe?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Umm, why? Additionally, I probably shouldn't have said after the Byzantine, but also during it.

If we take that into consideration, what if an earlier fall of the Byzantine Empire results in a general screw for Europe?

It's not so much when the empire falls in regards to a Euro-screw as that Europe is going to be almost impossible to completely suppress in terms of imperialism unless the Dark Ages are really, really dark.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

It's not so much when the empire falls in regards to a Euro-screw as that Europe is going to be almost impossible to completely suppress in terms of imperialism unless the Dark Ages are really, really dark.

Again, why? Technology? Asia wasn't exactly behind in that regard, if China, or for that matter, advanced parts of the Middle East are anything to judge by.

So why?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Again, why? Technology? Asia wasn't exactly behind in that regard, if China, or for that matter, advanced parts of the Middle East are anything to judge by.

So why?

'
Technology. Social development - both level and kind. Economics. Diversity of polities making it difficult to monopolize power.

I could go on for pages.

It's not that Europe is destined to be "the" mover and shaker, it's that it's pretty hard to eliminate it from the list -of- "movers and shakers" without a total, complete, screw.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

'
Technology. Social development - both level and kind. Economics. Diversity of polities making it difficult to monopolize power.

I could go on for pages.

It's not that Europe is destined to be "the" mover and shaker, it's that it's pretty hard to eliminate it from the list -of- "movers and shakers" without a total, complete, screw.

There are numerous problems with this.

1. Feudalism, a very backwards type of social development, dominated Europe for a bit during this period. That isn't diversity of polities, unless you just mean countries period, however Asia has that. Economics? I'd hardly call Feudalism efficient economics.

2. China has many of these advantages. It has a much more efficient government structure than Feudalism, with elements of meritocracy around this time I think, and also has massive technological development.

This isn't even getting into the Middle East, and the success of many Muslim countries around this period.

[Zuvarq]

Originally Posted by Killer300

1. Feudalism, a very backwards type of social development

Fuelled the development of tough fortifications and many types of weapons. Also, feudalism was fading away in 1453 as states began to centralize.

[Tobit]

Originally Posted by Killer300

There are numerous problems with this.

1. Feudalism, a very backwards type of social development, dominated Europe for a bit during this period. That isn't diversity of polities, unless you just mean countries period, however Asia has that. Economics? I'd hardly call Feudalism efficient economics.

2. China has many of these advantages. It has a much more efficient government structure than Feudalism, with elements of meritocracy around this time I think, and also has massive technological development.

This isn't even getting into the Middle East, and the success of many Muslim countries around this period.

Actually the Feudalistic period is defined as a diversity of polities (A polity is a state or one of its subordinate civil authorities, such as a province, prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district.)

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Zuvarq

Fuelled the development of tough fortifications and many types of weapons. Also, feudalism was fading away in 1453 as states began to centralize.

It also fueled massive repression, and was insanely inefficient because of power being both too centralized and decentralized. At once.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Tobit

Actually the Feudalistic period is defined as a diversity of polities (A polity is a state or one of its subordinate civil authorities, such as a province, prefecture, county, municipality, city, or district.)

If you mean that, then Asia has that too.

My point with all of this? None of the advantages Europe has so far been shown to have are unique to it, with the Middle East and China also having many of them. Both, after all, were more technologically advanced than Europe in many areas, with Japan, for example, having more advanced fortification than Europe during its medieval Shogun period.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Killer300

There are numerous problems with this.

1. Feudalism, a very backwards type of social development, dominated Europe for a bit during this period. That isn't diversity of polities, unless you just mean countries period, however Asia has that. Economics? I'd hardly call Feudalism efficient economics.

2. China has many of these advantages. It has a much more efficient government structure than Feudalism, with elements of meritocracy around this time I think, and also has massive technological development.

This isn't even getting into the Middle East, and the success of many Muslim countries around this period.

Their are numerous problems with your lack of understanding of the situation.

Asia does not - outside India, which you need one of the board's experts to comment on intelligently - have a situation of multiple, competing and interacting polities the way Europe does. Europe's states are fiercely competitive with each other, China and Japan (for instance), not so much.

China having many advantages isn't relevant in the slightest to whether or not Europe having the advantages it had is enough to "hold land outside of Europe" and "project power outside of Europe".

You want to avoid those things, you need a way to have Europe look like a marginally better off version of the Years of Rice and Salt.

Having Europe do less well than OTL is easy, especially if polities like those in India do better than OTL. But Europe has too much economic interest and ability to act on that interest in trade and commerce and development and so forth to be kept out of the world at large entirely.

And it's not something you can change by adjusting a given set of kings or popes or anything like that, because any area Genoa doesn't try to exploit, Venice probably will, or France and England, etc.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Their are numerous problems with your lack of understanding of the situation.

Asia does not - outside India, which you need one of the board's experts to comment on intelligently - have a situation of multiple, competing and interacting polities the way Europe does. Europe's states are fiercely competitive with each other, China and Japan (for instance), not so much.

China having many advantages isn't relevant in the slightest to whether or not Europe having the advantages it had is enough to "hold land outside of Europe" and "project power outside of Europe".

You want to avoid those things, you need a way to have Europe look like a marginally better off version of the Years of Rice and Salt.

Having Europe do less well than OTL is easy, especially if polities like those in India do better than OTL. But Europe has too much economic interest and ability to act on that interest in trade and commerce and development and so forth to be kept out of the world at large entirely.

And it's not something you can change by adjusting a given set of kings or popes or anything like that, because any area Genoa doesn't try to exploit, Venice probably will, or France and England, etc.

For one, this is the prevention of holding power outside of Europe.

Besides that, numerous polities actually could work for this goal... if they fought each other so much that they can't expand. But, who knows how one can do that unfortunately.

EDIT: Also, sorry for my tangents with Asia.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Killer300

For one, this is the prevention of holding power outside of Europe.

Besides that, numerous polities actually could work for this goal... if they fought each other so much that they can't expand. But, who knows how one can do that unfortunately.

EDIT: Also, sorry for my tangents with Asia.

And again, preventing any European powers from doing so is extremely unlikely to the point of practically if not actually ASB.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

And again, preventing any European powers from doing so is extremely unlikely to the point of practically if not actually ASB.

Okay, it looks like we need to look at this more in depth.

For one, I find it noticeable that many of these countries came from Western Europe, being Spain, Portugal, UK, and so on.

Is there a way to screw Western Europe specifically?

Besides that, this brings up a question.

Why did the Black Plague not prevent Europe from having multiple countries with overseas territory?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Killer300

Okay, it looks like we need to look at this more in depth.

For one, I find it noticeable that many of these countries came from Western Europe, being Spain, Portugal, UK, and so on.

Is there a way to screw Western Europe specifically?

Besides that, this brings up a question.

Why did the Black Plague not prevent Europe from having multiple countries with overseas territory?

Because Europe's population mostly survived and grew back?

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

It's not so much when the empire falls in regards to a Euro-screw as that Europe is going to be almost impossible to completely suppress in terms of imperialism unless the Dark Ages are really, really dark.

Actually Floc gave a very good description for what could happen if Feudalism isnt nipped in the butt by showing what happened under the Indian Feudal system, A period of instability where power is mainly divided between many weak duchies and counties being preyed upon by an outside empire is a very good way to keep Europe weak longterm. Hell not even all of Europe needs to be weak here, just the parts geographically well suited for imperialism (you could very well have a strong Poland Lithuania and other inland states). I dont know what a good POD here would be (possibly rather than its rather peaceful breakup a brutal war of succession breaks out in the Carolingian empire due to far more sons who would get far smaller lands between them and want it all followed by a much more intense viking age that manages to make a feudal system even less conducive to state formation). Basically European statecraft needs to Indianify.

[jotabe1789]

If what you want is to restrict Europe inside of Europe the same way IOTL China stood inside China... China didn't do that because of incapability. It was willful isolation. After the cartographic expeditions that took them around the pacific ocean, the empire decided to go back and shut themselves in their frontiers, which where the only civilized world.

Ironically, feudalism is very meritocratic: if you are good at killing/manipulating, you raise up socially. It was when you relied only on pacific methods that you were restricted to your birth conditions.

In any case, if you want to do it, the way it would make more sense to me is to anticipate the onset of the Little Ice Age from 1600 to 1400 (this only would work if the LIA was a natural event, and not produced as a result of human interactions).

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

Actually Floc gave a very good description for what could happen if Feudalism isnt nipped in the butt by showing what happened under the Indian Feudal system, A period of instability where power is mainly divided between many weak duchies and counties being preyed upon by an outside empire is a very good way to keep Europe weak longterm. Hell not even all of Europe needs to be weak here, just the parts geographically well suited for imperialism (you could very well have a strong Poland Lithuania and other inland states). I dont know what a good POD here would be (possibly rather than its rather peaceful breakup a brutal war of succession breaks out in the Carolingian empire due to far more sons who would get far smaller lands between them and want it all followed by a much more intense viking age that manages to make a feudal system even less conducive to state formation). Basically European statecraft needs to Indianify.

Except that the situation in India is not like the situation in Europe to begin with.

European statecraft Indianifying needs the situation in Europe to be like India in the first place.

[Killer300]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

Except that the situation in India is not like the situation in Europe to begin with.

European statecraft Indianifying needs the situation in Europe to be like India in the first place.

I thought you said you didn't know what India's situation was though?