CH: Screw Europe after Roman and Byzantine

For a given definition of "work", yes. But if you want something equivalent to Europe's power and riches, look at OTL England, not OTL Russia (as European examples of "laissez-faire" vs. "state heavy industrialization").

Purely "state heavy types of industrialization" are going to be more limited and narrow, with consequences accordingly.

You don't just need merchants and trade, you need a mercantile class which isn't just there to be plundered for ready capital - whether "plundered" is blatant seizure of wealth or subtle in the form of custom duties and other taxes that render commerce relatively undesirable due to the risks - smuggling alone works to a point for individual wealth but not for economic development.

The problem with this is how such a class could arise, which I'd argue can be helped through the state.

Additionally, that is only the developmental we saw in OTL. Why does this have to be the case in an ATL? Are there not other developmental models possible, that just never got to see the light of day?
 
The problem with this is how such a class could arise, which I'd argue can be helped through the state.

How can such a class be helped through the state?

I'm all ears.

Additionally, that is only the developmental we saw in OTL. Why does this have to be the case in an ATL? Are there not other developmental models possible, that just never got to see the light of day?
Because other methods failed to work OTL. Other models did see the light of day.

It's not like no one ever tried state sponsored industrialization. It's not like no one ever tried to have a highly regulated economy and society. It's not like no one ever tried simply borrowing more advanced equipment and techniques without any social changes to go along with them.

To name the three things that come to mind - all of those were tried, and I can point you at the history books for how and why.

Trying to do the same in an ATL and expecting different results because its an ATL is more like repeating a failed experiment than getting a fresh throw of the dice.
 
How can such a class be helped through the state?

I'm all ears.

Subsidies, and other injections of state resources for one.

Because other methods failed to work OTL. Other models did see the light of day.

It's not like no one ever tried state sponsored industrialization. It's not like no one ever tried to have a highly regulated economy and society. It's not like no one ever tried simply borrowing more advanced equipment and techniques without any social changes to go along with them.

To name the three things that come to mind - all of those were tried, and I can point you at the history books for how and why.

Trying to do the same in an ATL and expecting different results because its an ATL is more like repeating a failed experiment than getting a fresh throw of the dice.

Japan, South Korea, and pretty much all the Asian Tigers would like some words with you. All involved heavily regulated economies, and all massively industrialized BECAUSE of the state, not despite it, helping the economy.

So no, history isn't clear cut with this.

If you're talking about further in the past, then you move into the realms of,

A. Mercantilism, which heavily involves the state, and which is what Europe really practiced, or,

B. Capitalism, much less lassieze-faire, didn't exist as a system until the 1700s, at the earliest. Before hand, the necessary institutions for it, which also required the state to establish, didn't exist.
 
Subsidies, and other injections of state resources for one.

Which will produce what the state funds and not much else.

Japan, South Korea, and pretty much all the Asian Tigers would like some words with you. All involved heavily regulated economies, and all massively industrialized BECAUSE of the state, not despite it, helping the economy.

So no, history isn't clear cut with this.
See above. If the state pours lots of money into X - say - steel production - you can increase that. But that doesn't do much good at increasing the economy OUTSIDE of that.

Also, I would give a great deal to know how much of the money those countries used to start this came from outside (on the national level), which is not an option in 1204 or 1504.

A. Mercantilism, which heavily involves the state, and which is what Europe really practiced, or,

The cod trade (to name one example) was the result of merchants and fishermen, not kings.

The wealth generated by trade was a result of the policies of the traders, not the princes, to put it another way.

If Europe was truly mercantilist to the fullest extent, the economy would have collapsed as everyone wanted to export and no one wanted to import - but the whole basis of the economic surge upwards was the mix of import and export that produced (overall) an upward spiral.

B. Capitalism, much less lassieze-faire, didn't exist as a system until the 1700s, at the earliest. Before hand, the necessary institutions for it, which also required the state to establish, didn't exist.
Name one institution that required the state to establish it.
 
Last edited:
Which will produce what the state funds and not much else.

See above. If the state pours lots of money into X - say - steel production - you can increase that. But that doesn't do much good at increasing the economy OUTSIDE of that.

Also, I would give a great deal to know how much of the money those countries used to start this came from outside (on the national level), which is not an option in 1204 or 1504.

To be fair, these are later developmental models, however my point is, it's simply ridiculous to claim that free market capitalism is the only developmental model that is success, when that has been proven wrong, repeatedly, in recent decades.

The cod trade (to name one example) was the result of merchants and fishermen, not kings.

Mercantilism does not involve state control or direction of the economy of the sort your proposal does.

So, massive tariffs, and imperialism to gain resources for the economy, to name two examples, aren't state direction or control of the economy?

This isn't even getting into things like the East India Trading Company, which itself has a lot to do with the UK's rise to power, and later on, things like the American Revolution.

Name one institution that required the state to establish it.

Banks. Why? Who enforces the currency? Not the bank, the state has to. This applies to every other industry. If the state doesn't enforce it, its useless, and yes, this is required.
 
To be fair, these are later developmental models, however my point is, it's simply ridiculous to claim that free market capitalism is the only developmental model that is success, when that has been proven wrong, repeatedly, in recent decades.

Again: How much of the money for those comes from the US - aka a foreign country (And a free market one at that) - pouring money into those countries?

I'm hardly an enthusiastic admirer of the free market, but forcing market forces out of whack because of state policy is not a good idea, even if state investment on top of other development very much can be.

So, massive tariffs, and imperialism to gain resources for the economy, to name two examples, aren't state direction or control of the economy?

This isn't even getting into things like the East India Trading Company, which itself has a lot to do with the UK's rise to power, and later on, things like the American Revolution.
The economy is still the product of market forces, not of state set prices and such.

And John Company is very much an example of traders producing wealth for princes, not the other way around.


Banks. Why? Who enforces the currency? Not the bank, the state has to. This applies to every other industry. If the state doesn't enforce it, its useless, and yes, this is required.
Banks have been around since before the 18th century, and their role in providing loans is not dependent on the state setting things up.

As for the "enforcing the currency" . . . this is in the day and age in which any merchant worth his salt juggled florins in one hand and Spanish dollars in the other and the only question was whether or not the sovereign was debasing his coins.

So I'm at a loss for what kind of enforcement you're thinking the state was doing here.
 
Again: How much of the money for those comes from the US - aka a foreign country (And a free market one at that) - pouring money into those countries?

I'm hardly an enthusiastic admirer of the free market, but forcing market forces out of whack because of state policy is not a good idea, even if state investment on top of other development very much can be.

Okay, thanks for the latter, you've re-assured me of some things, so lets continue.

For how it was financed, eh, while it was the US, this isn't needed by their economic model. The reason they needed it, in the case of Japan at least, I don't know about SK, is because Japan was too devastated by World War 2.

However, countries like Indonesia? From what I know, they did it on their own money, and yes, it was heavily state driven economics. Same, for that matter, goes for Singapore, which is heavily state capitalist.

In a sense, all the Asian Tigers did it off foreign money, because many were export based, but if that's using foreign money, no country on Earth has ever developed off its own internal resources, market or state based.

The economy is still the product of market forces, not of state set prices and such.

But it is a product of a state set environment, where the markets are intentionally shielded from outside competition so that they can internally develop.

And John Company is very much an example of traders producing wealth for princes, not the other way around.

Except, the company was frequently dependent on the British state, whether that was money to finance its constant expansion, or the military to give it access to resources.

Banks have been around since before the 18th century, and their role in providing loans is not dependent on the state.

Except again, who enforces their contracts? Unless banks are hiring private muscle, they'll require the state.

As for the "enforcing the currency" . . . this is in the day and age in which any merchant worth his salt juggled florins in one hand and Spanish dollars in the other and the only question was whether or not the sovereign was debasing his coins.

Which was inefficient as all heck. There's a reason the US having hundreds to thousands of different currencies at first caused significant problems, to say the least.

My point? Even where things were lassieze-faire, it doesn't mean it was even something to emulate. Competing currencies, within a state, rarely works, if ever, because it causes inefficiencies from the lack of a unified currency.


Over all though, you're using a rather different definition of lassieze-faire, compared to most.
 
Okay, thanks for the latter, you've re-assured me of some things, so lets continue.

For how it was financed, eh, while it was the US, this isn't needed by their economic model. The reason they needed it, in the case of Japan at least, I don't know about SK, is because Japan was too devastated by World War 2.

The problem is that it makes it a situation where Japan's growth is artificially aided from the outside, as distinct from having to be dependent on its own resources. Why it was given isn't the point so much as that it was there - if Japan can rely on American cash to rebuild from WWII, Japan can use all its own money to build beyond that instead of suffering what most hard hit countries face. That's not a sign that the economic system works, that's a sign of what happens when you get to keep the profits and someone else covers the costs.

However, countries like Indonesia? From what I know, they did it on their own money, and yes, it was heavily state driven economics. Same, for that matter, goes for Singapore, which is heavily state capitalist.

In a sense, all the Asian Tigers did it off foreign money, because many were export based, but if that's using foreign money, no country on Earth has ever developed off its own internal resources, market or state based.
For purposes of this, foreign money probably can be called "money given by one state to another for development - either rebuilding or investment".

Investment in the sense of the US investing in X country, not US corporations or US individuals investing in something within X Country (such as what happened in late 19th century Russia).

But it is a product of a state set environment, where the markets are intentionally shielded from outside competition so that they can internally develop.
No more than if for instance foreign products were say, a dollar a ton more expense for some other reason. Foreign products being barred outright didn't work very well.

Except, the company was frequently dependent on the British state, whether that was money to finance its constant expansion, or the military to give it access to resources.
And yet the BEIC maintained an army out of its own pocket, for instance, not the tax payer's.

Except again, who enforces their contracts? Unless banks are hiring private muscle, they'll require the state.
Now we're just getting ridiculous. See my last comment.

Which was inefficient as all heck. There's a reason the US having hundreds to thousands of different currencies at first caused significant problems, to say the least.
That is not the same, however, as trading without any pretense towards a standard currency being in place - Dutch traders are trading without it slowing them down in the slightest that they have to convert between one currency and another.

The problem is less exchange and more having a Pennsylvania dollar not be worth the paper it's printed on in South Carolina than Pennsylvania dollars themselves.

My point? Even where things were lassieze-faire, it doesn't mean it was even something to emulate. Competing currencies, within a state, rarely works, if ever, because it causes inefficiencies from the lack of a unified currency.


Over all though, you're using a rather different definition of lassieze-faire, compared to most.
Over all, you're using a definition of "state involvement" where the state not being involved would require anarchy, so the distinction between "involved" and "not" is made into "any involvement is just as involved as total state control".

I'm using the definition which fits what the quote by Kennedy said - yes, it is 'rudimentary", but it doesn't need to be more than that for purposes of the statement he made and that I'm stating has been borne out.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that it makes it a situation where Japan's growth is artificially aided from the outside, as distinct from having to be dependent on its own resources. Why it was given isn't the point so much as that it was there - if Japan can rely on American cash to rebuild from WWII, Japan can use all its own money to build beyond that instead of suffering what most hard hit countries face. That's not a sign that the economic system works, that's a sign of what happens when you get to keep the profits and someone else covers the costs.

Except other countries get aid, and aren't able to take advantage of it to grow to anywhere near those heights. Economic aid doesn't, in of itself, insure a successful economy, one still needs economic investments.

For purposes of this, foreign money probably can be called "money given by one state to another for development - either rebuilding or investment".

Investment in the sense of the US investing in X country, not US corporations or US individuals investing in something within X Country (such as what happened in late 19th century Russia).

Then all the Asian Tigers built much more from their own resources than foreign countries, showing the success of their economics.

No more than if for instance foreign products were say, a dollar a ton more expense for some other reason. Foreign products being barred outright didn't work very well.

Umm, that matters a lot. If a product from, for the sake of argument, Portugal costs twice as much as a domestic, one will choose the latter, shaping the economy. Hence, the state is guiding the economy.

And yet the BEIC maintained an army out of its own pocket, for instance, not the tax payer's.

So? That army couldn't have pacified India, and additionally, couldn't have intervened in the American colonies, the latter of which matters because of that whole Tea incident.

Now we're just getting ridiculous. See my last comment.

Not really, because many societies didn't develop the necessary legal structure to do develop Capitalism, something many forget about the development of the economic system.

That is not the same, however, as trading without any pretense towards a standard currency being in place - Dutch traders are trading without it slowing them down in the slightest that they have to convert between one currency and another.

Hold on, these are multiple countries, correct? Because I realize we're now talking about different things.

The problem is less exchange and more having a Pennsylvania dollar not be worth the paper it's printed on in South Carolina than Pennsylvania dollars themselves.

Which goes back to my point. The state has to enforce the value of a currency, and yes, this isn't a given.

Over all, you're using a definition of "state involvement" where the state not being involved would require anarchy, so the distinction between "involved" and "not" is made into "any involvement is just as involved as total state control".

I'm using the definition which fits what the quote by Kennedy said - yes, it is 'rudimentary", but it doesn't need to be more than that for purposes of the statement he made.

And my point is, frequently these things either,

A. Aren't a given as they appear or,

B. Are things like tariffs which can immensely shape the economy, and in many ways, guide its development.
 
Killer300;6792811 Except other countries get aid said:
The kind of aid we're looking at is effectively economic investments, meaning that Japanese corporations benefit from any funds given by the Japanese government AND by any aid from the US (and others?).

It's like claiming to be taller because you're walking on stilts.

Then all the Asian Tigers built much more from their own resources than foreign countries, showing the success of their economics.
I don't know enough on the Asian Tigers to say very much, but if you do, I'd appreciate something more informative.

Umm, that matters a lot. If a product from, for the sake of argument, Portugal costs twice as much as a domestic, one will choose the latter, shaping the economy. Hence, the state is guiding the economy.
And yet it took until - for instance - US steam engines were worth buying for US railroads to stop buying from Britain.

Despite tariffs and despite other reasons for British locomotives being more costly that are irrelevant to this discussion.

So? That army couldn't have pacified India, and additionally, couldn't have intervened in the American colonies, the latter of which matters because of that whole Tea incident.
It couldn't have pacified India according to who now?

And the Tea incident is relevant because what now?

Not really, because many societies didn't develop the necessary legal structure to do develop Capitalism, something many forget about the development of the economic system.
Yes really. Many societies didn't have the necessary legal structure not because the state was not involved enough but because the state was involved too much.

Hold on, these are multiple countries, correct? Because I realize we're now talking about different things.
Right. Multiple countries trading back forth and sideways, which played far more a role in Europe's economic growth than attempts at limiting that by tariffs could influence.

Which goes back to my point. The state has to enforce the value of a currency, and yes, this isn't a given.
It's pretty reliable in the day and age in which gold and silver coins are as valuable as the gold and silver in them, as opposed to with money that is worth (say) $5 because we trust that it can buy approximately $5 worth of goods - trust being the key word.

A pound of gold is a pound of gold whether it comes in Spanish currency or Dutch.

And my point is, frequently these things either,

A. Aren't a given as they appear or,

B. Are things like tariffs which can immensely shape the economy, and in many ways, guide its development.
A: Which you have to resort to examples in situations so unlike anything in eight hundred years ago as to make me wonder whether you're even trying to compare like to like.

B: See my comment on European trade.


I'm not arguing against government intervention at all (not in the least) , but if the - for instance - iron industry depends on the state for its survival, you have problems that an iron industry that is profitable by its own success (rather than just having the state carry the bill) and its own pursuit of markets won't have.

Thus Europe surging forward and China being in relative decline in the early modern period (relative being an important word here).

History shows that attempting overly tight control or overly limited independence of the economic forces in society is unhealthy. We can argue all day on state intervention's role in a healthy economy, but the economy being dependent on or limited by state policy is a blow against having something like the OTL "European miracle".
 
Last edited:
Okay, this is getting nowhere. I need to go do some research on some things, and really, this entire thread is pointless now, because I already have the PODs I need for this, but additionally, I can't do anything with it anyway because I can tell I don't know enough of the time period.
 
Judging from the last post, this one is probably useless, but I just wanted to state some viewpoints that haven't been presented before.

Okay, this has lead me to something.

China? Needs to be balkanized, but in a way that allows all the states to get stronger from it.

That, or NO isolationism. Take your pick.

See below.

East Asia, however, does have peace and a lack of competition between the states. China dominated the area and most powers kowtowed for protection, trade, and expansion. There's a bit of controversy about how nominal this relationship was and how impactful it was, but it had clear and lasting influence.

But this doesn't even begin to touch internal factors. China is beyond rabidly fiercely competitive with itself should the state ever break apart. There's a form of pseudonationalism that would keep the country together at all costs, and would compete with the other factions as often as possible to attain this. If a stable warring relationship between different parts of China can be established (warring states, Three Kingdoms, northern and southern dynastic periods, etc.) and maintained then you would probably find a flourishing of technological and military advancement similar to that of Europe. China in a time when Europe was constantly at war with itself was largely peaceful with only several brief times of serious conflict, a relatively swift dynastic change, and fighting against a foe that was not nearly as competitive (steppe peoples).

I can see about 2-5 states in China Proper maintaining a rough balance of power for at least several centuries if they were militarily on a similar level, but I can't imagine it being balkanized and remaining so for more than three centuries. This was probably because of the nature of Chinese characters, which forced outsiders to learn a complex writing system if they wanted to communicate with or rule over a portion of China Proper. This also meant that foreigners were easily assimilated, as the writing system was closely tied to culture. In other words, barring the absence of other writing systems introduced through the nomadic invasions from the north through the Sixteen Kingdoms Period, it would be extremely difficult to permanently break up China's general cultural norms into smaller regional ones.

In terms of general trade, the continuously devastating wokou raids from Japan, and possibly other countries, forced the Ming to ban overseas trade altogether. Zheng He's expeditions also convinced the government that generally speaking, there was nothing substantial outside of China that it could profit from, so they decided to refocus their efforts in confronting the nomads in Mongolia and Manchuria. Unless these factors can be butterflied away, it would be extremely difficult for China to look outward between 1350-1650 in terms of economic trade. Later, the Qing was focused on subjugating or vassalizing states to the north and south, instead of aiming for trade overseas, so their outlook would have to be greatly altered in order for maritime trade to flourish.

The Japanese, however, had a very good show of how East Asia can be just as productive, or more so, than the West. Not talking about Meiji, imperialism, or an economic miracle, we have the Sengoku Era there. In this time period Japanese took up European arms and weapons and began reproducing them on a massive industrial scale in larger numbers and better quality than powers in Europe. That says a great deal of the competitive spirit inside of the East.

Your last sentence summarized China and Japan, but not Korea. I'll provide detailed criticism below.

Hard statistics? Haven't touched one in years, but a quick look through wikipedia has a few details.

In the space of a few decades the various Daimyo of Japan went from importing a few hundred arquebus and reproducing them in small quantities to arming one quarter of a force of 160,000 with the firearms during the invasion of Korea. Such required massive expansion of the production of firearms which dwarfed several European nations, and "possibly overtook every European country in absolute numbers produced."

Google books might be a useful tool to look up further information if you want the exact statistics.

Yes, but Korea managed to fight back with around the same number of troops, if you combine the independent individual armies put together in response to the invasion. Because Korea had resisted numerous military incursions from outsiders for hundreds of years, and generally succeeding, with the possible exception of agreeing to become a Mongol vassal, it would have been extremely unreasonable for the people to merely sit on their hands after the Japanese landed. Due to resistance in numerous villages/cities often operating independently of the government, not to mention the navy, some technological advancements, such as the hwacha, and token support (in terms of manpower) from the Ming, Japan was forced to abandon Korea altogether after eight years.

It's also extremely telling that Korea reverted back to its Confucian method of thought after the war, even though that was the main reason why the army had become decentralized, causing the Japanese to sweep though the peninsula within a year, and that Japan generally pursued a policy of isolationism for more than two centuries until it was opened up by the West. Of course, both states eventually resumed trade with each other and other ones, but the trade volume never reached a point comparable to that of the Europeans. In other words, generally speaking, because the states in East Asia were content with the resources they possessed and the trade that they conducted, there was no particular reason for them to look further outward, either economically or militarily.

However, you're wish can be granted. Champa and what would become Vietnam were in fierce rivalries with one another, constantly competing for the favor of China in support for invasions or defense against invasions of the other.

Burma-Thailand also had their own rivalries and warfare.

Multiple polities competing and interacting with one another, Southeast Asia is a very diverse place and is the meeting place between the Chinese influence of the far east and the various Indian influences of the sub-continent. The introduction of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam sparked a hundred wars (yes, Buddhists were big military factions in the southeast). The Khmer are famous for a few great temples and innovations, such as the Angkor Wat.

Yes, but the issue is that SE Asia was surrounded by other influential states, namely those in India to the west, and China to the north. The former was consistently divided among various entities, but as the maritime ones were able to conduct widespread trade, the assumption still stands. While it might be possible for traders to go further west in order to obtain more resources, the reality is that the states were generally content with maintaining a general tributary status/cultural influence from India and China, so it would require numerous butterflies for them to look further on a similar level as the Europeans did.

If you look at Japanese History the notion that the Japanese Competitive Spirit died with the Edo Era, or the Edo Era marking the true extent of the competitive spirit, seems pretty silly. Once the Edo Era stops we see one of the most aggressively competitive nations outside of Europe and as time would go on they would become the second largest industrial power in the world for a time and remaining one of the great economic powers of the age.

I don't think anyone has made the supposition that Japan colonized most of two continents, and having dotted three others while being safely positioned as a major power in its own continent only neglecting the great frozen one to the south that wasn't fully discovered until its economic prominence had waned.

Japan, however, had potential. A potential that is as limited as the times and the collective actions of mankind.

I can see where you're coming from, but militarily speaking, Japan's ultimate disaster in Korea illustrated how it was unable to expand outside of its borders before the late 19th century, and economically speaking, the state was generally content in terms of trade with East Asia and minimal trade with the West, mainly through the Dutch. In other words, given the general situation at the time, it would be extremely difficult for Japan to create more trading routes with SE Asia and the Americas, and possibly expand militarily outside of the islands before the mid-18th century, initially through Korea.
 
Really Europe in almost every post Roman era is surrounded by areas that are either far weaker than the major European powers of the time, or are already owned by a European based power. In the Dark ages, obviously the Byzantines were European based and controlling Asian (and at times African) land, as were the Vikings with North America, while in the high middle ages you have the Crusader states situation proving that Europe is already equipped to expand into Asia, while the reverse is obviously not true. The Ottomans are a muddy area in that they adopted a European capital and many European traits upon taking lands in Europe, but by the time they arrive Portugal is already colonizing Africa and Spain is just decades away from conquering half of two continents, and of course after that we have the British and French colonial empires and Russia. Between these times, I don't think that IOTL there was a time when Europe was weak enough to not dominate any of its neighbors on other continents.

What about, for example, the year 750 AD, for ekample? Muslmis were invading Suthern Europe, the Vikings were raiding Northern Europe, and Eastern Europe was still Pagan, mostly. Only if you count Byzanthium as Europe you had an European country in Anatolia, a part of Asia. But even then, Byzhantium was under constanct attack, and had the siege of Constantinople had succeded (if, for example, you had a traiteor within the wall, or a plague had hit the city), Byzanthium would have fallen, and Arab armiez might have gotten all the Southern Balcans...
 
This begs two questions.

1. Why did Asia almost never do the reverse, taking territory in Europe when it weakened? Yes, there are the Moors, but that was once. Europe took territory in Asia, by comparison, numerous times.
s.


It's not just once:

1) The Moors conquer Spani in 711, but dis so several time since then, till the XIII century: first they'd conquer the muslim kindoms, but then they pushed forward.

2) Muslim armies conquered Sicily and creete around the VIII/IX centuries AD.

3) The Ottomans pushed as far as vienna.

And this is not counting the numerous occasions where Assian "hords", from the Huns till the Mongols, invaded and conquered Eastern Europe.

I'd say that, from 400 AD till 1200, Europe was invaded far more times than the times it invaded. From 1200 till 1500, there was a tie, and only after 1500 did Europe started invading more times than what its neighbours invaded her. And even so they weren't very succesfull against their inmediate neighbours in Nosth Africa and Western Asia, let alone Inidia and China, till the XVIII century
 
This may sound weird and be completely wrong but...

What if the success of Europe is because they were Europeans?

What I mean is; Europeans fought with each other in Europe, for lands or whatever.

But the moment a foreign invader pops up, that is a threat to 'Europe', the European powers unite to drive this invader out. And then they go back to fighting amongst theirselves. Generally speaking.

I don't believe this happened in the Arabian world, or in east Asia? There, they were just different nation, with no overlying concept of 'us versus them'.

Do you get what I mean - and is what I'm saying true?
 
This may sound weird and be completely wrong but...

What if the success of Europe is because they were Europeans? lol that sounds racist

What I mean is; Europeans fought with each other in Europe, for lands or whatever.

But the moment a foreign invader pops up, that is a threat to 'Europe', the European powers unite to drive this invader out. And then they go back to fighting amongst theirselves. Generally speaking.

I don't believe this happened in the Arabian world, or in east Asia? There, they were just different nation, with no overlying concept of 'us versus them'.

Do you get what I mean - and is what I'm saying true?

There was a concept of Christendom, but only from the 1090s to 1680s.
 
Yeah that indeed sounds weird, as I said, but I didn't know how else to say it in a short sentence. Besides, I expanded upon it anyway.

Mhm, yeah, that may have to do with Christianity indeed. Well, I highly doubt Christianity lead to Europe's success, so...
 
I would strongly recommend reading The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

Kennedy's book is thirty years old by now, but in terms of the focus on ebbing and rising, I don't know of anything else that covers that process in general.

And understanding that will be a great help in this sort of timeline.
 
I would strongly recommend reading The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

Kennedy's book is thirty years old by now, but in terms of the focus on ebbing and rising, I don't know of anything else that covers that process in general.

And understanding that will be a great help in this sort of timeline.

Thank you, although I already know of the book. I'll see about reading it at some point.
 
Top