AHC: Non-European dominated world

[spoonzandforkz]

Of course, as we all know Europe has been the “center” of the world for the past 200 or so years. What would it take for another region to dominate the world like Europe did? Establishing colonies, inventing the Scientific Method, starting the Industrial Revolution and an ATL Enlightenment etc etc.


The challenge is for atleast 200 years (in OTL, 1750-1950) of dominance of a non-European region by the world.

Preferably with a POD not earlier than 600 AD.

 

[Albert.Nik]

Very difficult to say. My hunch would be Greeks and Anatolians in the Middle East. Persians were mostly Nomadic like so Anatolians would still have an edge. So we would still have a European race who speaks a Centum language dominating the World in that case.

 

[EnvarKadri]

Very difficult to say. My hunch would be Greeks and Anatolians in the Middle East. Persians were mostly Nomadic like so Anatolians would still have an edge. So we would still have a European race who speaks a Centum language dominating the World in that case.

Whats with your obsetion with ancient greece, the iranians and the aryans? Also how would the greeks count as not european? And how would them, of all western powers, become the neuralgical center of a globally connected world, against the demographical weight of places like india or china? India can be easily divided against itself, but not china, or at least not for long, and certainly not the greeks or the persians. The have not the resources or numbers or the geography to develope the tools that allowed the western europeans to pull it off. It was a long process with many chapters that required various goods hands, luck, and many good decitions at the right moment or the victory of the right group at the right moment.

 

[Albert.Nik]

Whats with your obsetion with ancient greece, the iranians and the aryans? Also how would the greeks count as not european? And how would them, of all western powers, become the neuralgical center of a globally connected world, against the demographical weight of places like india or china? India can be easily divided against itself, but not china, or at least not for long, and certainly not the greeks or the persians. The have not the resources or numbers or the geography to develope the tools that allowed the western europeans to pull it off. It was a long process with many chapters that required various goods hands, luck, and many good decitions at the right moment or the victory of the right group at the right moment.

Anatolians are not Greeks. They are of the European race speaking a separate Centum language family of Anatolian. They were the first to split off the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Iranians were of mostly steppe culture and hence Nomadic initially. But you could easily see an Iranian or Indo-Aryan dominated world too. Anatolians lived in Asia not Europe. For that matter,would a Kushan dominated superpower be an European power because they were Tocharians?

 

[Modern Imperialism]

The United States is the sole superpower in the world now so we are technically living in a non European dominated world now. But to answer your question, I could see Japan and China becoming colonial powers and having a industrial revolution. Japan becomes a empire like Britain and dominates the seas. Japan could colonize much of pacific which includes Americas, Australia, New Zealand, and Hawaii, and Southeast Asian Islands. China becomes more like the Russian Empire. They colonize Siberia, Central Asia, and most of everything east of the Urals and north of Persia. Siam or a Chinese puppet state ruled by the local Chinese minority elites creates a Austrian like empire in Southeast Asia.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

In terms of economic development it's got to be China, but the Islamic world traditionally had the better science by far (the best science in the world, in fact, prior to the sixteenth century).

 

[Modern Imperialism]

In terms of economic development it's got to be China, but the Islamic world traditionally had the better science by far (the best science in the world, in fact, prior to the sixteenth century).

A lot of their science came from classical Rome, Greece, and trade with China. Islamic success is greatly due to them preserving past knowledge and gaining other technology through trade. Europe was very backwards after the fall of Rome until the renaissance and China was sent backwards by the destruction of the Mongols invasion. This is one of the reasons Islamic world did better in that era compared to the Far East and Europe.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

A lot of their science came from classical Rome, Greece, and trade with China. Islamic success is greatly due to them preserving past knowledge and gaining other technology through trade. Europe was very backwards after the fall of Rome until the renaissance and China was sent backwards by the destruction of the Mongols invasion. This is one of the reasons Islamic world did better in that era compared to the Far East and Europe.

The Islamic world suffered just as much from the Mongols as China, and the Islamic world didn't just "preserve past knowledge and gain other technology through trade," they innovated. In any case, even before the Mongols, the Islamic world was more ahead in its scientific knowledge (especially in its integration of discoveries from different fields, i.e. there wasn't a situation like in China where a large part of the educated class still believed that the Earth was flat).

 

[Albert.Nik]

Europe and Levant have the best climates in vast regions and in all this,especially Anatolia is the junction. A unique advantage. Not too hot and not too cold. This helped Europe.
If Indo-European Anatolians had settled Levant along with Anatolia,they would get an excellent edge to dominate the World. Iran and India were still empty then as Anatolians were the first Indo-Europeans to migrate to better pastures and still became a good number in their settled regions too and that makes them somewhat special. They could have started some colonies to the East and as the Indo-Iranians joined,they could also be moved into these colonies. Fascinating Indo-European timeline!

 

[Arkenfolm]

The problem with including North Africa (not counting Egypt) is that it basically was Europe in 600 AD. Just have Mauretania or a united North African empire based in Carthage repel the Arabs and establish independence from Byzantium, and they can follow the path of Iberia very easily. In addition to North America itself (serving as the United States equivalent, spreading across the continent with huge population, resources, and cultural output), they could have South Africa or Brazil as that. Or all three even.

Mauretania might be best as the most "non-European" since it could end up speaking a Berber language with a 600 AD POD. Considering the sea routes and their potential goals (at some point they could want to bypass the trans-Saharan trade by going a coastal route), it isn't impossible for Mauretania to grab Brazil, South Africa (which has a lot of coal for industrialisation of coal-poor Mauretania proper), and Australia, and possibly much more, creating a bunch of Berber-speaking settler colonies (although Brazil and South Africa will be mixed-race societies, but could get a lot of immigration as well). So here it's very possible to have 600-1 billion people speaking a Berber language natively with Berber as required to learn as English is (or at worst, as important as Spanish globally).

 

[Albert.Nik]

Even Middle East had a lot of European influence and dominance. Coming to India,India has been cut small due to Mongol,Turkic and Islamic invasions. For India to lead,all these must be reversed and local orthodoxy contained. That would mean a lot of Iranic and Tocharians would be a part or might even be in just majority. So would that European populated India still be considered Un European in that timeline? We don't consider North America and Russia as non European. So why would this be an exception? Same exactly with Iran. Coming to East Asia,they didn't spread to diverse regions to develop into a dominant civilization. If they expanded into West initially to dominate,European peoples would come into and dominate the empire as a half. So would you consider that Non European? It all lies in Geology of the Earth. And that timeline would be ASB.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Even Middle East had a lot of European influence and dominance. Coming to India,India has been cut small due to Mongol,Turkic and Islamic invasions. For India to lead,all these must be reversed and local orthodoxy contained. That would mean a lot of Iranic and Tocharians would be a part or might even be in just majority. So would that European populated India still be considered Un European in that timeline? We don't consider North America and Russia as non European. So why would this be an exception? Same exactly with Iran. Coming to East Asia,they didn't spread to diverse regions to develop into a dominant civilization. If they expanded into West initially to dominate,European peoples would come into and dominate the empire as a half. So would you consider that Non European? It all lies in Geology of the Earth. And that timeline would be ASB.

It absolutely would not be called "European". Some people don't consider North America outside of the US and Canada culturally European, at least not Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean, because they have much more Native American and African influences. Even then, Mexico and the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean is a lot more European than the Middle East or any other part of the world. Siberia is completely European because the vast majority of people there are Russians, who are culturally European.

Indo-European people have little to do with the concept of being "European", other than being the language of European culture. The Iliad and the Aeneid are critical works of European heritage while no one considers the Shahnameh or Mahabharata the same (as they are critical works of non-European cultures). Hungarians, Basques, and Finns are far more European than Persians, North Indians, or Bengalis and this is because of culture.

In any divergent timeline, the concept of "Europe" is likely to simply be a geographic term only.

 

[Willmatron]

I can imagine a China coming out of isolationism or a Muslim Empire becoming dominate but it won't be anything like what we have now. I can't imagine a world without Europe moving pass steam engines in technology.

 

[catconqueror]

In terms of economic development it's got to be China, but the Islamic world traditionally had the better science by far (the best science in the world, in fact, prior to the sixteenth century).

I dont think this is true , didn't the the center of Islamic Science : Bagdad (which was already declining) got sacked in the 13th century?

I thought the Europeans got roughly equivalent in the middle ages and eventually surprass the muslims in science during the renaissance(you know with da vinci and others)

On the other hand, considering the stuff china makes (gunpowder,paper and more), middle east only have technological parity with china during its golden age, and europe only surpasses china on the 18th century .


Again, this is the General consensus i know , i dont have source or anything, feel free to proof me wrong.

 

[Albert.Nik]

@metalinvader665 I think we are looking through the lens of OTL. Now for example,let's take the Kushan Empire. Kushan Empire was established by the Tocharians and some Scythians and Sogdians who all formed a large confederation but was mostly Tocharian B as the language is names Kuchen and hence Kushan. Kuchen is from the Tocharian city called Kuche. Tocharians were identical to todays Central and Northern European people and spoke a Centum Language along with Anatolians(another extinct Indo-European family). Kushans were mostly a Nomadic empire initially. Kushans were the biggest empire in India in terms of the regions diversities covered. From Turfan to almost Eastern India. Suppose they were more settled after the Empire and the empire flourishes,you would see a large segment of the population of the European race. Should they be considered non European just because of their religion(Buddhism/Hinduism/Zoroastrianism/Iranian religions)? Even a flourishing and a strong Persian Empire would present a similar condition. Coming to Asia,if they expanded their sphere of influence into the West in absense of Turkic or Mongol threat,they would become eventually Indo-European dominated as one half of the Empire. Now would you consider these people non European? I am sure you won't call Anatolians as Non Europeans if they dominated Middle East. For an India dominating the World stage,even if it is Indo-Aryan ruled instead of Tocharian or Iranian or Greek ruled,it would need to change its culture a bit and become somewhat like the Roman Empire and then expand into the North where vast European peoples would come in and join and eventually a population would look something like the Southern or Eastern Europeans in a just majority or majority number. Would this empire be non European? Same as India for China.

 

[Albert.Nik]

The inevitability is that,for a nation to be dominant,it should be open firstly and hence strong. If it is open,it will be dominated by people who are connected easily which would be greater European peoples. So this would happen anyway. Just a geographical and a linguistic shift.

 

[Alternator]

China has the most potential to dominate, but there's also very little reason for them to do so; they failed to expand in OTL because why bother? They have access to just about everything they want anyway, and aren't going to run out of trade goods to siphon off silver and gold from other countries.

The Balkans/Anatolia/Middle East seems the best bet - ready access to everyone relevant for trade, motivated to expand by religion, internal divisions to encourage competition.

 

[Green Painting]

Islamdom has the science and the missionary zeal.
China, the population, fund and organization.
India is like China, but it’s separated into polities, making it more competitive.

 

[Arkenfolm]

@metalinvader665 I think we are looking through the lens of OTL. Now for example,let's take the Kushan Empire. Kushan Empire was established by the Tocharians and some Scythians and Sogdians who all formed a large confederation but was mostly Tocharian B as the language is names Kuchen and hence Kushan. Kuchen is from the Tocharian city called Kuche. Tocharians were identical to todays Central and Northern European people and spoke a Centum Language along with Anatolians(another extinct Indo-European family). Kushans were mostly a Nomadic empire initially. Kushans were the biggest empire in India in terms of the regions diversities covered. From Turfan to almost Eastern India. Suppose they were more settled after the Empire and the empire flourishes,you would see a large segment of the population of the European race. Should they be considered non European just because of their religion(Buddhism/Hinduism/Zoroastrianism/Iranian religions)? Even a flourishing and a strong Persian Empire would present a similar condition. Coming to Asia,if they expanded their sphere of influence into the West in absense of Turkic or Mongol threat,they would become eventually Indo-European dominated as one half of the Empire. Now would you consider these people non European? I am sure you won't call Anatolians as Non Europeans if they dominated Middle East. For an India dominating the World stage,even if it is Indo-Aryan ruled instead of Tocharian or Iranian or Greek ruled,it would need to change its culture a bit and become somewhat like the Roman Empire and then expand into the North where vast European peoples would come in and join and eventually a population would look something like the Southern or Eastern Europeans in a just majority or majority number. Would this empire be non European? Same as India for China.

Tocharians were mixed race people who formed part of a empire of diverse ethnic groups of which some could easily pass as white (but with slightly different genetic makeup). That does not make them in any sense European. The Buddhism they followed has nothing to do with European culture as we know it or as it could have been known. By conquering a region as large as India, they now have a ton of people who have just as little to do with European culture (being Hindu) and can't pass as European.

No, I probably would call Anatolians as non-European, assuming we aren't talking about the Hellenised remnants of the Anatolians like the Isaurians and such. IIRC their culture was always more similar to the Near East, although Greece itself was also influenced at point. If Anatolian culture (probably Lydian) developed its own identity and spread significantly through Europe and took the place of the Mediterranean influence at the core of Western civilisation, then maybe I'd change my mind. For that matter, I don't think there's a good argument to be made for the Ottoman Empire as a "European" empire (although modern day Turkey has a better argument), and even if they were a Persian-speaking state populated entirely by Persians (or some other Indo-European group), they still wouldn't be a European state. Not even if they were a Zoroastrian/Manichaean Persian empire in Anatolia and the Balkans, because Zoroastrianism is not European any more than Greek religion is Persian or Indian because of Hellenism. Could certain Zoroastrian communities in this empire be European? Sure, after all I don't think there's a good argument against the Albanians or Bosnians not being European because they're Muslim, and Judaism is pretty European at this point thanks to centuries of history. Christianity of course is as foreign as Judaism and Islam, but it's been so influenced by European culture over the years (i.e. since Ancient Rome) that it's one of the cores of European tradition.

Mixed-race European and South Asian people generally do not look like any Southern European race (unless their European parent is of that descent) nor look like Berbers for that matter.

Essentially, race =/= culture. If all of your customs originate in a foreign land which isn't Europe, then it's impossible to call it "European".

I can imagine a China coming out of isolationism or a Muslim Empire becoming dominate but it won't be anything like what we have now. I can't imagine a world without Europe moving pass steam engines in technology.

Why? Other parts of the world have the same problems that make a steam engine make sense.

 

[Socrates]

Islamdom has the science and the missionary zeal.
China, the population, fund and organization.
India is like China, but it’s separated into polities, making it more competitive.

It doesn't have the population base historically. And the population base it does have is overwhelmingly based in the East Indies, which are too distant to be included as a unified community with the Middle Eastern heartland.

Personally I think the best candidate for industrialisation is Japan. They could then drag up the rest of the region in East Asia l.