AHC: Complete Reversal

Have the Eastern World (Anatolia and everything East of it) become the dominant but declining world powers and have the Western World be the rising underdog that would ultimately eclipse the East.

In short, its like reversing China and the United States' position today: one stagnant superpower and one potential superpower


You may use ANY combination of PoDs to make this plausible

I am aware that the East, for centuries, dominated the world.

Bonus Points:
Asian AND European Americas
Have an Indian or Chinese EU (if you choose to balkanize those countries)
No communism
Keeping Islam in the Arabian peninsula.
 
There is no Eastern World except in the imagination of Westerners, so...

It would be make far more sense if you said "reverse East Asia and Europe" (for example).
I would not say it doesn´t exist but is kinda odd to "reverse" it when it is too big compared to the Western world.

Also he talked about "India EU" so he didn´t limit the scope to East Asia(also I doubt that South Korea and Japan are those rising power he was talking about anyway).
 
Last edited:
I'm legitimately interested why you think so.
Things like definitions exist in minds, so I really don´t follow you dismissing this particular one by saying that.
Anyway the Eastern World is defined by what is not more than what is and it is not Western, meaning they weren´t part of the general diplomatic, religious, economical and cultural connection between European and later American countries. Of course is not a black and white distinctions but I don´t demand such things to make a definition valid.
 
Anyway the Eastern World is defined by what is not more than what is and it is not Western, meaning they weren´t part of the general diplomatic, religious, economical and cultural connection between European and later American countries.
Precisely, so "the East" is not a comparable concept to the West. You'd agree with that, right?

I'm saying that the East is one of the least historically valid units that exists, being generally defined as "not Western" as you said and existing solely in Western and Western-influenced thought. Alien observers in 1750 would be befuddled by the concept of an "East," while they might very well come up with the concept of a West.

So the West has more of an objective existence than the East because it is in itself a Western concept, because it is defined by what it is than what it is not, etc.
 
Precisely, so "the East" is not a comparable concept to the West. You'd agree with that, right?

I'm saying that the East is one of the least historically valid units that exists, being generally defined as "not Western" as you said and existing solely in Western and Western-influenced thought. Alien observers in 1750 would be befuddled by the concept of an "East," while they might very well come up with the concept of a West.

So the West has more of an objective existence than the East because it is in itself a Western concept, because it is defined by what it is than what it is not, etc.
Yes.

Fair enough.
 
But would you say that there is a higher degree of mutual cultural influence between the abrahamic religions on the one hand and the dharmic religion on the other hand? (In the latter case, the influence seems to have gone India->China and far less in the opposite direction)
 
But would you say that there is a higher degree of mutual cultural influence between the abrahamic religions on the one hand and the dharmic religion on the other hand? (In the latter case, the influence seems to have gone India->China and far less in the opposite direction)
That doesn't really work out WRT the utility of "Eastern world," because in Europe or America the Middle East is almost always considered part of the East.

But as to your question, I'd say no. India has been influenced much more by Middle Eastern (and Persianate, in particular) civilization than by East Asia.
 
Complete reversal would ignore the real economic motives for the rise of the Occident vis-a-vis the Dar al-Islam/Iranosphere, Indosphere, and Sinosphere.

China was rich enough to not need to explore. When dealing with the huge Pacific, that lack of economic incentive is going to retard any push there might be by elites to go send men into what is literally the unknown.

Europe had a number of things going for it. For one, proximity to the New World -- and all the attendant benefits of the minerals, lands, and epidemic slaughter thereof. Secondly, the Iberians who spearheaded all this had built off of Muslim technology and had further innovated on ship design and navigation. Thirdly, they had the economic incentives to explore.

Europe, via the Dar al-Islam, had had access to goods from farther East, but had never had great access to the markets of Asia. Middlemen hiked up prices, and Western Europe was far away from the Eastern Mediterranean. This resource-penury was enough to motivate men like Prince Henry the Navigator to send multiple expeditions into the Atlantic void to try and find trade routes to Asia. It cannot be overstated what a gamble this was -- they had little idea of what lay ahead, and expeditions cost both money and, in case of failure, experienced sailors and explorers.

The Indian Ocean and Sinosphere networks didn't need exploration to the West -- they had all the trade they needed already, within one wider network. From slaves and ivory to spices and anything else, the wider East African-Indian-Chinese economic network was well-supplied. It's not as if the Occident had anything to offer anyway, other than slaves for the Muslim states to kidnap.

I do think a butterflying of Islam would change a lot of this -- but only insofar as the Christians might have better access to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean via the Byzantines. Without Islam, of course, Europe proper would be even farther behind tech-wise, even more of a backwater than they were IOTL. (My theory is that Islam's collection of European and Indian knowledge, and improvements on that knowledge, provided the foundation for Europe's later flurry of scientific and material advancements. It's no mistake that the Iberians were the first great explorers)
 
I do think a butterflying of Islam would change a lot of this -- but only insofar as the Christians might have better access to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean via the Byzantines. Without Islam, of course, Europe proper would be even farther behind tech-wise, even more of a backwater than they were IOTL. (My theory is that Islam's collection of European and Indian knowledge, and improvements on that knowledge, provided the foundation for Europe's later flurry of scientific and material advancements. It's no mistake that the Iberians were the first great explorers)

I don't think no Islam would necessarily make Europe backward. All the trade links between Europe and the Near East/North Africa would still exist and probably be stronger without the religious differences (although the issue of heresy is a problem). And a stable Persian Empire or Turkic conquerers like an ATL Seljuk could easily keep the contacts between India and the Mediterranean area going, particularly if the Persian Empire embraces Christianity, which I've seen compelling evidence that that could have been a possibility. It is likely to make Northern Europe weaker, though.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Have the Eastern World (Anatolia and everything East of it) become the dominant but declining world powers and have the Western World be the rising underdog that would ultimately eclipse the East.

isn't this OTL 14-17th century ?

India, China, and Ottoman is declining world power while European Empire still in its infancy.
 
Top