AH Expedition to Europe

[ZayoTVRadio]

From what I have seen, Europe was always richer than the rest of the world since Ancient Greece, as can be seen in the relatively high GDP per capita*, realistic art, architecture, philosophy and weaponry, among other great achievements, of the Roman Empire. Despite this, some users who I have interacted with claim that Europe is not worth conquering for, and I paraphrase "some steel and coal". Clearly, if Europe was to ascend to such heights, it had some resources unique to it.

But even if one were to entertain the notion that Europe was poor and undesirable to any would-be conqueror, it would be likely that Europe would try to scour the world for resources like IOTL. Could it be possible that, from anywhere between 1-1800 CE, a non-Western polity outside of Europe or the Mediterranean launch a decisive and successful expedition against a Western power, including the torching of a major capital city and/or destruction of a major fort? Less emphasis should be put on political intrigue or other such technicalities, and the Western power must not have a noticeable disadvantage, such as a general collapse. The Eastern Power may use Western troops, equipment and methodology in the expedition, but must be able to reach a stage where they can conduct everything with a great level of independence from Western advisors, suppliers, superiors or any other direct influence. Swarm tactics and other crude and obvious advantages are forbidden.

As always, "Western" here refers to countries in Hellenic or Christian Europe, including potential predecessors in cases such as the once-Pagan Baltic States, or potential successors such as colonies, both current and former.

*Admittedly from the unreliable Maddison, though he is the only historian that provides data for comparison, even if he may prove to be an example of why such a thing cannot be fairly done.

EDIT: Inclusion of political intrigue and the like, though with a reduced emphasis.

EDIT #2: Some Western influence in the expedition is allowed.

PS: "Never Considered" means that an expedition to Europe is never considered, regardless of whether or not the Eastern polity has an ability to launch one.

 

[Help]

Do the Mongols count, or at least the Umayyads?

 

[ZayoTVRadio]

Do the Mongols count, or at least the Umayyads?

Both are allowed, especially when Arabia is dubiously "Mediterranean"...

...Mongols: I am not sure about the strength of Hungary Poland, the Romans, or any Balkan State, but I feel that they would moreso be minor powers in comparison to the polities of Western Europe.

...Umayyads: The Visigoths apparently were collapsing when the Arabs arrived. Constantinople?

 

[Help]

Both are allowed, especially when Arabia is dubiously "Mediterranean"...

...Mongols: I am not sure about the strength of Hungary Poland, the Romans, or any Balkan State, but I feel that they would moreso be minor powers in comparison to the polities of Western Europe.

...Umayyads: The Visigoths apparently were collapsing when the Arabs arrived. Constantinople?

Byzantium sounds good with the Ottomans and Umayyads(except that it was worn down after war the first time), though I didn't know the Visigoths were collapsing then.. For the Mongols I was counting the Rus as a European power.

 

[ZayoTVRadio]

Byzantium sounds good with the Ottomans and Umayyads(except that it was worn down after war the first time), though I didn't know the Visigoths were collapsing then.. For the Mongols I was counting the Rus as a European power.

A quick cursory read tells of a small minority ruling class of Visigoths in the kingdom that was already in the process of fracturing by the conquest, with an increasing inability for succession or maintaining power.

Ottomans...Turkish background, contributing to their arguably non-Mediterranean nature (though this would change with time). Constantinople was at the time still a formidable fortress, yet the Romans by that time were no longer of significant power. Vienna does have a chance of being seized by the Turks at the very least. I am not sure about the competence of the Ottomans, who struggled against minor Balkan powers and were defeated numerous times by Spain, however. Some of their major victories I have read about appear to indicate a numerical strength for the Turks, which is not what I am aiming for, as the Westerners never needed such to win against foreign powers.

How strong was the Rus?

 

[Help]

How strong was Rus?

It was apparently in declline/splintering then, though the Mongols would still have a shot if it was stronger, I think.

 

[ZayoTVRadio]

It was apparently in declline/splintering then, though the Mongols would still have a shot if it was stronger, I think.

If so, the Rus most likely fails to qualify as a major power in Europe. I am more interested in European polities such as France, England, or even the HRE, among others.

 

[Help]

If so, the Rus most likely fails to qualify as a major power in Europe. I am more interested in European polities such as France, England, or even the HRE, among others.

Those, I doubt. The Mongols probably wouldn't win against the HRE(terrain, the right kind of defenses, and crusades would be launched), and France was only in danger during the Umayyad battle(for the Kingdom of Francia), which I think was more a raid. I think Francia losing would be unlikely. Maybe the Abbasid conquest of Sicily from Byzantium?

 

[ZayoTVRadio]

Those, I doubt. The Mongols probably wouldn't win against the HRE(terrain, the right kind of defenses, and crusades would be launched), and France was only in danger during the Umayyad battle(for the Kingdom of Francia), which I think was more a raid. I think Francia losing would be unlikely. Maybe the Abbasid conquest of Sicily from Byzantium?

Seems intriguing.

 

[Gwyain]

Ottomans...Turkish background, contributing to their arguably non-Mediterranean nature (though this would change with time). Constantinople was at the time still a formidable fortress, yet the Romans by that time were no longer of significant power. Vienna does have a chance of being seized by the Turks at the very least.

What the hell is "Mediterranean nature?" The Turks had been living in Anatolia and the Middle East in general for several hundred years by the time of the conquest of Constantinople.

I am not sure about the competence of the Ottomans, who struggled against minor Balkan powers and were defeated numerous times by Spain, however. Some of their major victories I have read about appear to indicate a numerical strength for the Turks, which is not what I am aiming for, as the Westerners never needed such to win against foreign powers.

Military competence? The Ottomans created what was at the time one of the best armies in the world. They were one of the first professional armies since the Roman Empire, and their military structure and discipline are renowned and were rightly feared during the Ottoman Golden Age. They "struggled against minor Balkan powers" because the real world isn't a fucking video game. You can reframe that argument as: "the Romans struggled against minor German powers," or "the Chinese struggled against minor nomadic powers," and so on. Its a garbage argument because unlike what you see depicted in video games, the actual specifics of a campaign matter.

Honestly, the entire premise of this thread is premised on a bunch of Eurocentric garbage. Europe is not the centre of the world, and nor has it ever been. Were parts of it wealthy at times, yeah, but the only way you can say "Europe was always wealthy" is by cherry picking specific areas and saying all of Europe was this great. Guess what though? You can do that literally anywhere, but Eurocentrism likes to lump Europe as a whole together and separate everywhere else (but only when its convenient, otherwise the reverse is true).

From what I have seen, Europe was always richer than the rest of the world since Ancient Greece, as can be seen in the relatively high GDP per capita*, realistic art, architecture, philosophy and weaponry, among other great achievements, of the Roman Empire.

Right, because no where else on the planet has had accomplishments in art, architecture, philosophy, or weaponry... 🙄

Clearly, if Europe was to ascend to such heights, it had some resources unique to it.

Europe's ascendancy was driven by a host of complicated factors that were far from inevitable, in no small part due to the fact that they faced a great deal of scarcity. Hell the Roman Empire that you're vaunting in this post consistently lost (or couldn't win rather) against Persia, the very type of power you're asking about!

 

[ZayoTVRadio]

Snip

"Mediterranean Nature"...now that I think about it, that is a strange term. I aimed to exclude Mediterranean polities as potential candidates against European polities due to close proximity and long naval tradition of the region.

The Ottomans at their height never seemed to be able to reach Iberia, France, or the British Isles in any significant capacity besides pirating, yet at their own heights of power during the Industrial Age, the European Powers frequently threatened Ottoman territories such as Egypt, Thrace and Anatolia, though Ottoman power was did decline significantly during that time. Romans made incursions on German lands, and held fluctuating but notable influence on certain areas. Such lands were also not perceived as being valuable by the Romans. The Chinese also managed to do such against the nomads to their North, who were quite sophisticated and powerful, and, being nomadic, had a shifting powerbase that the sedentary Chinese Empire found difficult to fully secure. And so on. I can provide examples if you would like some.

Incomes of Western polities may have declined under exceptional circumstances, but generally reached heights that non-Western polities would never achieve.

What I have always wondered is, however unique, stylish and sophisticated Chinese art could be, did any Chinese artist before modern times have the ability to independently develop a realistic style similar (it can differ somewhat) to that of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. A good artist has the ability to experiment with and appreciate numerous art styles. They may have had no reason to do so, but did they have the ability to if they ever wanted to? That is the reason why I have even made this thread.

"They may have had no reason to do so, but did they have the ability to if they ever wanted to?"

The Dome of the Rock has significant Roman influence, though it may have been an indigenous effort.

I am a little lacking in philosophy, but I have heard that "Science", in its modern form, which has made a significant impact on the planet, for better or worse, had its origins in Greek philosophy and possibly even Christianity. Not anything else.

Song gunpowder did prove to be a fearsome weapon, but I am not sure if it impeded the Mongols much; their fortresses were greater obstacles. The Ming also lost battles with the Jurchens while using gunpowder weaponry.

The Arsacid Empire...did repulse Roman invasions. They are not really "the very type of power I am asking about", though they do seem slightly promising.

The Sassanian Empire did make significant gains against a weakened Roman Empire that had lost its Western territories...

 

[Gwyain]

The Ottomans at their height never seemed to be able to reach Iberia, France, or the British Isles in any significant capacity besides pirating, yet at their own heights of power during the Industrial Age, the European Powers frequently threatened Ottoman territories such as Egypt, Thrace and Anatolia, though Ottoman power was did decline significantly during that time.

So because the Ottomans never conquered Europe in its entirety they're somehow not a power? You then go on to compare what industrialized great powers fighting against the sick man of Europe did. 19th century Britain or France vs the Ottomans is not remotely comparable to 16th century Ottomans vs anyone else. The technological and industrial disparity in the 19th century are massive. If you had asked about why Europe started to outpace the rest of the world we'd have a much more interesting discussion than "Europe is teh bestest, nd always wusss!"

Romans made incursions on German lands, and held fluctuating but notable influence on certain areas. Such lands were also not perceived as being valuable by the Romans. The Chinese also managed to do such against the nomads to their North, who were quite sophisticated and powerful, and, being nomadic, had a shifting powerbase that the sedentary Chinese Empire found difficult to fully secure. And so on. I can provide examples if you would like some.

You're entirely missing the point of that comparison. Rome failed to conquer Germania, China failed to take the steppes, the Ottomans did conquer the Balkans. You're initial statement is about how the "non European Turks had such a hard time with the Balkans," the reality is they actually took them, unlike the classical examples I gave.

Incomes of Western polities may have declined under exceptional circumstances, but generally reached heights that non-Western polities would never achieve.

In the Industrial Age! You're literally picking the point in time where Europe was better off than anywhere and assuming that because Europe was so great then that it must have been superior the rest of history - it wasn't. For a huge chunk of time Europe was a relative backwater. It was poor and it was shitty. China for much of that same time period was enjoying a golden age. India had its own ups and downs, and the same can be said of anywhere.

What I have always wondered is, however unique, stylish and sophisticated Chinese art could be, did any Chinese artist before modern times have the ability to independently develop a realistic style similar (it can differ somewhat) to that of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. A good artist has the ability to experiment with and appreciate numerous art styles.

You seem to be under the very false impression that Chinese art is monolithic and static. It was not. It evolved over centuries and took hundreds of different forms throughout its time, just as European art did, and just as art did anywhere else in the world. Furthermore, what in the world do you mean by "realistic art?"

The Dome of the Rock has significant Roman influence, though it may have been an indigenous effort.

And Roman art was in turn patterned on its predecessors, European and otherwise. But if you'd like some examples of amazing feats of architecture that originated outside of Europe, here you go. Honestly though, if you don't seem to understand that architectural and artistic achievement happened outside of Europe then I'm really not sure how to help you.

I am a little lacking in philosophy, but I have heard that "Science", in its modern form, which has made a significant impact on the planet, for better or worse, had its origins in Greek philosophy and possibly even Christianity. Not anything else.

Right, because European minds are so superior to everyone else that critical thought and the scientific method never occurred anywhere else in the world. 🙄

Song gunpowder did prove to be a fearsome weapon, but I am not sure if it impeded the Mongols much; their fortresses were greater obstacles. The Ming also lost battles with the Jurchens while using gunpowder weaponry.

The Arsacid Empire...did repulse Roman invasions. They are not really "the very type of power I am asking about", though they do seem slightly promising.

The Sassanian Empire did make significant gains against a weakened Roman Empire that had lost its Western territories...

You're cherry picking so god damn much here. "The Sassanian Empire did make significant gains against a weakened Roman Empire that had lost its Western territories..." Its not like the British made significant gains in India against the weakened Mughals... Or the Spanish conquest of the Inca in the midst of disease and civil war... That's literally how conquest works, the best time to do it is when you're opposition is weakened. You can't deflect one claim of it and then not acknowledge it when the same thing is used by Europeans.

That's the problem with Eurocentrism - and your post is dripping with it - it picks and chooses in order to prove the point that Eurocentrists have already decided is true.

 

[ZayoTVRadio]

SNIPPITY SNIP

The Ottomans never made any significant incursion into any major power in Western Europe, that is what I am saying. It would be a greater achievement if the Ottomans could do so, because Britain could do so to the Mediterranean sized Indian subcontinent in about three centuries, give or take a decade or so.

I had failed to communicate this, because my historical knowledge is not great, but I am sure that the Balkans were more valuable to the Ottomans than Germania or the Steppes were to the Roman or Chinese Empires respectively.

Western Europe already reached heights that all non-Western polities would never reach about a century or so before the Industrial Revolution, and regions were already surging ahead as far back as the Crusades, if not earlier. There is no data on Tang China, estimated or conclusive, so that is virtually a non-example, besides a few relatively paltry artifacts (I find the library of Chinese art around the time to be quite small).

An example of realistic Roman art, even before the Renaissance! Realistic body proportions (though sizes are slightly exaggerated), detailed shadows, shading and lighting (all three are part of coloring, of course), good representation of texture (robes and the like) and so on. European paintings beyond Antiquity also experiment with 3D perspective and 3D objects further, among other improvements to color and the like. Still-life paintings are a good example of this. Some of the things I have listed also apply to Roman and Greek sculptures, such as one where the curving of skin is fantastically represented, a true testament to the skill and talent of Western artists throughout history.

I am slightly familiar with architecture from the New World, it is quite impressive, and while it may not necessarily reach the likes of such art as Gothic architecture, given the limited resources the peoples there had, it is quite an achievement. Regardless, the largest constructs still follow a blocky pyramid-like structure, and are not that varied. That is Mesoamerica, Inca architecture is not as complex.

I am not sure that most, if any, historians with credibility will ever point to the scientific method appearing before Modern Europe (>1500 CE), though some key components of it must have existed in the mot advanced of non-Western civilizations. "Critical thinking" alone does not necessarily lead to the scientific method. Also, *independently occurring, by the way.

Europeans would have ultimately overcome the Mughals, like they did Great Qing, and the Inca. The latter two could not have done the same to the Europeans, especially in the case of the Inca. Some Indian powers could have potentially repulsed the British, provided a European power or more hold their hand and give them everything, which is not within the scope of my question. Also, Britain was smaller and less populous than the Mughals.

 

[Zincvit]

Britain could do so to the Mediterranean sized Indian subcontinent in about three centuries, give or take a decade or so.

The British can only holds India with the cooperation of local leaders, only with the "divide and rule" policy can they hold control over the entire subcontinet. And the Balkans are the main powerbase of the Ottomans during the mid to late period of their empire, not only that European powers always ganging up on them, I'd say the conquest of the Balkans is definitely an achivement of the Ottomans.
Only after the subjugation of the Americas, can Western Europe able to overcome the Eastern Powers (only barely). But with you admitting that your historical knowledge is not great, I'm not sure you can make a definitive conclusion that Western Europe is inherently "superior" to other parts of the world.
But I must thank the Europeans for giving us the weapons we can fight and defeat them.
The Mughals only can holds Northern India , only during Aurangzeb did they control the entire subcontinet, and the decline began from here. It shows that British conquest is not a conquest through military means.

 

[Zincvit]

And the scientific method though pioneered by Greeks had already begun in the Islamic world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Ibn_al-Haytham

 

[Dominic]

What a strange thread! Europe sat 'at the top' for all of about 300 years before pissing it away in 30. It is difficult for outside powers to conquer Europe for the simple fact that it is a very long way away and has some formidable geographic defences. Unless you want to take a very early PoD that allows India or China to replicate the relatively brief period of technological ascendency that allowed Europe to conquer most of the rest of the world what you need is for one of the early Caliphates to capture Constantinople and then the rest of the Mediterranean basin. I don't think Northern Europe could be easily conquered in that time though for logistical reasons.

 

[Zincvit]

What a strange thread! Europe sat 'at the top' for all of about 300 years before pissing it away in 30. It is difficult for outside powers to conquer Europe for the simple fact that it is a very long way away and has some formidable geographic defences. Unless you want to take a very early PoD that allows India or China to replicate the relatively brief period of technological ascendency that allowed Europe to conquer most of the rest of the world what you need is for one of the early Caliphates to capture Constantinople and then the rest of the Mediterranean basin. I don't think Northern Europe could be easily conquered in that time though for logistical reasons.

To be honest, he is talking about an expedition to “Europe” (the continent) and OTL had shown that it is possible to do so.

 

[ZayoTVRadio]

SNIP

I'm certain that those local rulers mostly existed to provide manpower, among other resources, for the British to equip with British superiors, British arms and British military thought. And maybe a bit more before the Third Anglo-Maratha War.

The conquest, and holding, of the Balkans may be an achievement for the Ottomans, but it does not say much about the ability of the Ottomans to project power beyond, especially when taking into account OTL.

I have heard about the Islamic Golden Age and the various achievements surrounding it, but I had never heard of him before. Seems interesting.

And yes, the question does not necessarily involve total domination of all of Europe. Only a decisive and successful incursion by a non-Mediterranean non-Western power into a European power.

 

[Gwyain]

Western Europe already reached heights that all non-Western polities would never reach about a century or so before the Industrial Revolution, and regions were already surging ahead as far back as the Crusades, if not earlier.

Right, such as?

There is no data on Tang China, estimated or conclusive, so that is virtually a non-example, besides a few relatively paltry artifacts (I find the library of Chinese art around the time to be quite small).

No data on Tang China? What world do you live in? The Tang are one of the most studied periods in Chinese history with an immense body ofextant written and archaeological artifacts dating from it. If you had actually bothered to look at that Wikipedia page you would see a few glimpses of that fact, including examples of your vaunted "realistic art." Like I said earlier, Chinese art is not some monolithic entity like you seem to think it is. It is a living breathing art history that has evolved and changed just as much as European art and had a multitude of different movements throughout it.

Some of the things I have listed also apply to Roman and Greek sculptures, such as one where the curving of skin is fantastically represented, a true testament to the skill and talent of Western artists throughout history.

Oh look at that, sculpture work isn't unique to Europe. Who could have guessed? Oh look, massive Architectural complexes that rival Europe. Who knew?

Inca architecture is not as complex.

Right, because a road system that rivaled Rome's is easy and everyone else totally already had.

Europeans would have ultimately overcome the Mughals, like they did Great Qing, and the Inca. The latter two could not have done the same to the Europeans, especially in the case of the Inca. Some Indian powers could have potentially repulsed the British, provided a European power or more hold their hand and give them everything, which is not within the scope of my question. Also, Britain was smaller and less populous than the Mughals.

And here we get back to the issue at hand, you're a Eurocentrist who believes in historical deterministic bullshit. Europe was not predestined to rise into some universal power. Europe is not exceptional or special. Art, architecture, science, and philosophy are not unique phenomena that only occurred in Europe. You cannot compare results of industrialized powers back to the past. It does not work, nor does it make since to do so.

 

[Zincvit]

I'm certain that those local rulers mostly existed to provide manpower, among other resources, for the British to equip with British superiors, British arms and British military thought. And maybe a bit more before the Third Anglo-Maratha War.

The conquest, and holding, of the Balkans may be an achievement for the Ottomans, but it does not say much about the ability of the Ottomans to project power beyond, especially when taking into account OTL.

To be honest, the Britsh not only need manpower but also public perception and indigenous resources too. And you should not dismiss manpower for all their technological superiority, the British can't hold on the Indian subcontinent with only troops from the isles and from their other colonies too.
The Balkans are the only place where the Ottomans can realistically project power and still maintain direct control , the fact that they took control of most of the Carpathian basin ( though only for a short time) is a miracle in of itself.