AHC: Swap the fortunes of Eastern and Western Europe

Well destroy it earlier or screw the people living there harder. Increase the size and power of the peasant revolts?
Bacaudae were quite mickmicking the imperial institution, maybe electing emperors of their own (while the point is still quite debated). Late Roman institutions and structures were simply too rooted down to vanish like that.

Have the church hierarchy break down? Earlier *Vikings? Worse Magyars?
Well Saxons were IOTL earlier Vikings, with very similar patterns when it come to raids and establishment.
As for the church breaking down, see the former point : they represented a huge part of Late Roman institutions, especially in the cities that formed the bulk of administrative and fiscal ground even after WRE fall. You'd need something really really huge to crush these institutions, probably huge enough that it would affect ERE as well.

If you can develop the Rus more then Constantinople is in an excellent position for trade.
Rus development was quite tied to the Arabo-Islamic conquest. Byzantines weren't that interested on the region (meaning almost not) before Arabo-Persians traders develloped the Volga road to bypass Christian realms.
An ERE-wank will probably butterfly much of Rus' as we know it.
 
And if I interpret Quran, I could definitely interpret it as being a "terrorist religion"; or if I interpret Aztec religion I could definitely interpret it as a savage and bloody satanic cult; etc.

Good thing that we have historical facts to debunk the "well, I can see it this way".

I don't think you understand my point. I'm not saying Catholicism is "ev0l anti-science". I'm saying that almost any religion can become conservative and rooted in the past given the right set of events. I use conservative Islam as an example because it's one many people know.
 
I don't think you understand my point. I'm not saying Catholicism is "ev0l anti-science".

Your point was quite clear : And throughout the Medeival Ages, Catholicism was fairly anti-science. And for good reason, this benefited the church.

Except if it's a case of bad wording (but you'd agree that it'd be extremly confusing and spectacular in this regard), it pretty much means : Catholicism was Anti-Science.

I'm saying that almost any religion can become conservative and rooted in the past given the right set of events. I use conservative Islam as an example because it's one many people know.
The big problem making this comparison is the anachronism and the sheer overgeneralisation on the relation between Islamism (as a modern anti-westernisation movement) and scientific fields.

Not only modern Conservative Islamism isn't "anti-science" : Iran is actively trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, and (quoting the Armenian Genocide) "Iran's scientific progress is reported to be the fastest in the world". That's not exactly a secular state we're talking about (and we could talk about other states dominated by conservative Islamism in a similar fashion)

Of course, you'll bring on the Afghani exemple. Fair enough. But as a part of the contemporary Islamism, it's far more a struggle against what is percieved as western (particularly obvious with Boko Haram, up to its name) mixed with conspirationism (as with vaccinations campaign reaction).

Considering their nature, as semi-guerrilla and war bands, it's extremly hard to take as a generalized stance their own when they lack the infrastructure ,etatic or economic, to have an actual scientific superstructure.

That's for the second point : even assuming there's some ground for it, it would be quite irrelevant.

I'd stress again that we're talking about a reaction against a western ideology, in a mix of post-colonialism (reaction to european cultural imperialism) and religious identity in need of reaffirmation in a diverse society (not exactly the only occurence, while the most mediatized).

These factors, obviously, didn't really existed in a medieval context whatever in Christiendom or Arabo-Islamic world. Even the struggle on mutza'ilism in the XIIIth century have to be understood as a political struggle on a theological stance on originalism (a bit like Investiture Controversy was at least as much a political struggle), while Zaydits (Yemen, Morroco, Tabaristan) while quite similar weren't that repressed because they were further from centers of power.

Religions aren't some form of eternal tought structure, but obviously depend on their background. In medieval times, you simply didn't had an "anti-science" school or structured tendency because it wasn't identified as a clear threat.
What was, and it was pointed out by other members, was the question of what dominated in the scientific methodology and suprastructure : theology (that was considered as much an human science than say sociology today , using quite a lot logical structuration) did.
It's why religious centers tended to harbour scientific centers (monasteries and cathedral schools/universities in western Europe; madrasas and librairies/Houses of Knowledge or Wisdom).

The reactions were against secularisation or revrse of this model in a period where religion not only formed social identity but political identity as well (and more or less seen as a lese-majesty aura around).

That was the background for the relationship of religious and scientific sphere : too importantly inter-mixed up to the aforementioned secularisation of political bureaucracies that you could have the ground for a staunch "anti-science" movement.
 
Your point was quite clear : And throughout the Medeival Ages, Catholicism was fairly anti-science. And for good reason, this benefited the church.

Except if it's a case of bad wording (but you'd agree that it'd be extremly confusing and spectacular in this regard), it pretty much means : Catholicism was Anti-Science.


The big problem making this comparison is the anachronism and the sheer overgeneralisation on the relation between Islamism (as a modern anti-westernisation movement) and scientific fields.

Not only modern Conservative Islamism isn't "anti-science" : Iran is actively trying to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, and (quoting the Armenian Genocide) "Iran's scientific progress is reported to be the fastest in the world". That's not exactly a secular state we're talking about (and we could talk about other states dominated by conservative Islamism in a similar fashion)

Of course, you'll bring on the Afghani exemple. Fair enough. But as a part of the contemporary Islamism, it's far more a struggle against what is percieved as western (particularly obvious with Boko Haram, up to its name) mixed with conspirationism (as with vaccinations campaign reaction).

Considering their nature, as semi-guerrilla and war bands, it's extremly hard to take as a generalized stance their own when they lack the infrastructure ,etatic or economic, to have an actual scientific superstructure.

That's for the second point : even assuming there's some ground for it, it would be quite irrelevant.

I'd stress again that we're talking about a reaction against a western ideology, in a mix of post-colonialism (reaction to european cultural imperialism) and religious identity in need of reaffirmation in a diverse society (not exactly the only occurence, while the most mediatized).

These factors, obviously, didn't really existed in a medieval context whatever in Christiendom or Arabo-Islamic world. Even the struggle on mutza'ilism in the XIIIth century have to be understood as a political struggle on a theological stance on originalism (a bit like Investiture Controversy was at least as much a political struggle), while Zaydits (Yemen, Morroco, Tabaristan) while quite similar weren't that repressed because they were further from centers of power.

Religions aren't some form of eternal tought structure, but obviously depend on their background. In medieval times, you simply didn't had an "anti-science" school or structured tendency because it wasn't identified as a clear threat.
What was, and it was pointed out by other members, was the question of what dominated in the scientific methodology and suprastructure : theology (that was considered as much an human science than say sociology today , using quite a lot logical structuration) did.
It's why religious centers tended to harbour scientific centers (monasteries and cathedral schools/universities in western Europe; madrasas and librairies/Houses of Knowledge or Wisdom).

The reactions were against secularisation or revrse of this model in a period where religion not only formed social identity but political identity as well (and more or less seen as a lese-majesty aura around).

That was the background for the relationship of religious and scientific sphere : too importantly inter-mixed up to the aforementioned secularisation of political bureaucracies that you could have the ground for a staunch "anti-science" movement.

The mistake I made in my conclusion was to overgeneralize, because I was talking in such broad strokes. The words I typed were not exactly what I meant, and the fault there is mine. What you have stated is 100% true, and I hope I didn't give off the belief that I doubted, well, basic historical facts.

Let me clarify what I mean: Any society, given the right internal and external conditions, can turn in on itself and stagnate technologically. There is no reason for us to believe that the west and Catholicism is immune to this; therefore given the right set of circumstances, then what is perceived of as "Western" (probably called Christian in this case) values can turn reactionary and anti-modernization (anti-science is a terrible way to put it). Again, I'm speaking in very general terms here, without going too much into the details.

In this scenario, industrialization could be resisted as heretical, contrary to "Christian/Western values", etc. I hope this is clearer.
 
It is kind of odd to speak of "science" any earlier than the 17th century. Or more accurately the "science v.s. religion" thing is a product, variously, of the Enlightenment, the upheaval of the 19th century (Evolutionary theory etc.) And the "culture wars" of modern America. The Catholic Church was a major source for intellectuals- from Bacon to Mandel. Note many universities- and their equivalents in the Muslim World- had explicitly religious origins.

More problematic is the initial question itself. You assume that there is a distinct "western Europe" and "eastern Europe" and that tue former is dominant relative to the latter- by what metric and at what period? Both ideas are too caught up in the Cold War discourse to be of relevance in earlier periods. Russia, Hungary, Poland-Lithuania, the Hapsburgs, Prussia, Sweden, and the ERE/Ottomans were all arguably eastern European great powers at one point or another.
Ask instead what would create an east-west european divide, and cause the eastern part to be economically, culturally, and/or politically hegemonic relative to the west?

The Byzzies seem the best option. A stronger PLC or Jagellonian Empire would be powerful, maybe France powerful, but does that qualify? A resurgent ERE, controlling Greece, the Balkans, Anatolia and the Caucusus, and various designs on Egypt, southern Italy and the Levant would be a preeminent world power.

The question of the New World also needs to be answered- whether you go with something like the Horse and the Jaguar or anything else, or even OTL, will determine whether Western Europe can reach the height of influence that it did. More important is if you can keep any one European power from dominating India- quite feasible actually.
 
It is kind of odd to speak of "science" any earlier than the 17th century. Or more accurately the "science v.s. religion" thing is a product, variously, of the Enlightenment, the upheaval of the 19th century (Evolutionary theory etc.)

So much this. I wish I could have said this at the beginning. Science v.s religion wasn't a thing until the Enlightenment, and by then society could evolve to be against "science" because of this.
 

Delvestius

Banned
I think you dramatically underestimate the degree of cooperations and symbiose between nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples from one hand and state entities. A bit like breeders and farmers never went on an endless struggle; the opposition was far more diluted (to say nothing of mutual acculturation).

It doesn't mean that these Scythians entities wouldn't know such crisis, but...that was the lot of a good part of Mediterranean and Middle-East entities. At worst, the newcomers will fit in the shoes of the previous landowners rather than "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women"-mode.

I feel this was the case in the High Middle ages.. In the Early Middle Ages, you had control fo the region quickly pass from nomad group to group... Pechenegs, then Avars, then Magyars... Any Eastern states that arise with an early P.O.D would likely not survive nomadic invasion, unless the power of Europe is situated in Byzantium.
 
In the Early Middle Ages, you had control fo the region quickly pass from nomad group to group... Pechenegs, then Avars, then Magyars...
Not really : what changed was who ruled the confederation, but peoples themselves generally remained relativly stable.
For instance, Avars ruled on a series of slavic peoples whom presence in peripherical regions wasn't really challenged during the centuries of Avar hegemony.

Doesn't mean you didn't have populations moving or simply identity shifts, but they generally concerned a group of peoples whom lead could change but not that much their compositions (see Kabars among Magyars)

Another exemple, with Pechenegs that kept their cohesion face to Cumans and Bulgars.

It was less a complete replacement than a more smooth change of rulership over an established ground population (don't get me wrong, not a superficial ruler people, mix existed) you can see (for exemple) with Vallachians.

I'd point, furthermore, that these khaganates were established in territories with few or none statist structures, at least comparable to what existed in Romania at the same time.
The establishment of non-seminomadic/nomadic Scythians entities, and the creation of such infrastructures would have most probably an incidence (as, aformentioned, "fitting right in the shoes" as Bulgars did IOTL in the Balkans)
 

Delvestius

Banned
.
The establishment of non-seminomadic/nomadic Scythians entities, and the creation of such infrastructures would have most probably an incidence (as, aformentioned, "fitting right in the shoes" as Bulgars did IOTL in the Balkans)

Any way you slice it this still isn't a good system for Eastern Europe. Constant changes in rulers, population demographic and peace paradigm won't make the region less volatile/give it a better chance just because the Scythians began settling down around the Black Sea; They probably would have if they though it was a beneficial idea, which it was't. The many Turkic invasions of the Balkans made this evident. I'm not saying the invasion of every Khagan was completely destructive but you just have a very hard time creating a powerful empire in the area if the next best one keeps getting capped by a Turk.

And let's not even begin to talk about the Mongols.
 
Constant changes in rulers, population demographic and peace paradigm won't make the region less volatile/give it a better chance just because the Scythians began settling down around the Black Sea
They did settle around the Black Sea. Just because they adopted a pastoral way of life doesn't mean that there weren't established territories on this regard.

Also "constant changes in rulers"? That's hardly a semi-nomadic thing, and eastern khaganates or confederations didn't proven being hugely unstable : entities lasting centuries were quite the norm on this regard.
I mean, if you think that it changed every new moon, you're quite wrong.

They probably would have if they though it was a beneficial idea, which it was't.
Less disruptive Greek Homeric Age, with Sea Peoples having an harder time taking on Hittits if at all and with a post-Mycenian Greece still able to serve as a commercial hub and relay in Eastern Mediterranean could do the trick.

A maintainain (and eventually develloping) demography in these regions would probably have the same outcome than IOTL, but earlier : meaning Black Sea turned into a granary and incitative for local entities to jump in the bandwagon.

but you just have a very hard time creating a powerful empire in the area if the next best one keeps getting capped by a Turk.
It would been relevant if Turks were a thing on European High Antiquity or if the khaganates fall because of new invasions.
Unfortunatly, they weren't at this point (and wouldn't be until a millenium later), and the fall of medieval khaganate much often answer to inner troubles (as for Avars, unability to really take on Danube : it's to be noted that it survived its failure roughly 2 centuries. At best, it's a really long decline) rather than Nomads! magically appearing to plunder and destroy (giving that traces of destruction in Eastern Europe are at best limited, with much more evidences of absorbtion, it possibly doesn't help either).

And let's not even begin to talk about the Mongols.
On the contrary, let's talk about it : Mongols, as other steppe peoples, adopted quickly the local way of life and when confronted to an agricultural and sedentary entity far far more often adopted it than "destroy for the evulz"
 

Delvestius

Banned

I think you overestimate the amount of nomads that become sedentary once they capture a sedentary civilization. Sure many will settle and marry but the crux of early Turkish power wasn't "hey, let's adopt these sedentary peoples' way of life" rather than "let's ride around this country and take tribute monies from these sedentary peoples". Now what you describe was eventually the case in Seljuk Anatolia, Ghaznavid Persia and Mamluke Egypt, but all of these places were established empires with wealthy settlements and social structures that would be easy and beneficial to adopt. A sedentary Scythia would have to be pretty impressive in the form of resources and manpower to convince Turkish tribes to abandon their transience, which was their advantage.
 
Sure many will settle and marry but the crux of early Turkish power wasn't "hey, let's adopt these sedentary peoples' way of life" rather than "let's ride around this country and take tribute monies from these sedentary peoples".
I call the Avar, Bulgar, Khazar and Magyar situations as exemples of the contrary.
Of course, when I said "absorbate the local way of life" I didn't want to point a situation were nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples are "convinced" to convert themselves. That's a pretty ridiculous assumption.
It's more of a case of a ruler class, being dependent on a sedentary people and being unable to really take on more territories and forced to focus on inner matters. It's pretty much what happened to Bulgar for instance.

A sedentary Scythia would have to be pretty impressive in the form of resources and manpower to convince Turkish tribes to abandon their transience, which was their advantage.

Doesn't have to be : Greuthingi (that were a mix of Geati, Germanic and Sarmatian) replaced pretty easily the romano-pontic rulers in the region.

Or Khazar expansion and sedentarisation over some centers, while Early Slavic and other khaganates were far from "pretty impressive".
 
Very difficut statistically speaking.
Perhaps Novgorod unies RUS?
Perhaps no Serfdom?t
Higher Literacy(How I dont know. The byzantines had high literacy so perhaps knowledge could spread to PLc and Russia?
Urbanization(How to get the farmers to move into cities)
Wages(How to get higher wages for russian and polish and lithuanian and balkan workers)
Neccessity??
Deforestation(Somehow?)
Strong centrl govt

There are a ton of structural issues that need to be resoved and even then Westenr europe was bound to dominate by 1700. Britain had the impetus to industrialize because it ran out of wood and coal was plentiful.

russia was suited for the second industrial revolution so perhaps by the 1880s onwards it could dominate the world. Maybe not have Decembrists fail or have Alex I be more reform minded? Still issue of serfdom and literacy though.


As for Byzantium: Justinians byzantium was arguably the worlds most powerful economy based on pure stats given revenues and gdp per capita
 
Top