Only if whatever that disease was was carried.
And OTL England relied heavily on food imports (after 1700 or something?) anyhow, so having to increase those for purposes of short term famine relief wouldn't be crippling even temporally.
CH: Screw Europe after Roman and Byzantine
- Thread starter Killer300
- Start date
Only if whatever that disease was was carried.
And OTL England relied heavily on food imports (after 1700 or something?) anyhow, so having to increase those for purposes of short term famine relief wouldn't be crippling even temporally.
With the latter... interesting. Okay, I see being import reliant isn't as crippling as I thought in regards to food.
One thing that would be an interesting England-not-so-successful . . .
Have Northumbria do better than OTL, including how it extended into what became southern Scotland.
It won't necessarily be an equal to the southern polity, but it might be formidable enough to mean what said southern polity is is weaker than OTL.
Have Northumbria do better than OTL, including how it extended into what became southern Scotland.
It won't necessarily be an equal to the southern polity, but it might be formidable enough to mean what said southern polity is is weaker than OTL.
That brings up an interesting possibility.
Namely, what if the UK wasn't able to unite? That would certainly kill its more imperial ambitions.
But okay, so far, here's my list of things to do.
1. Strengthen India enough so it isn't a pushover.
2. Kill off guys like Cortez
3. Strengthen different parts of Europe.
That should help limit Europe just a bit.
Namely, what if the UK wasn't able to unite? That would certainly kill its more imperial ambitions.
But okay, so far, here's my list of things to do.
1. Strengthen India enough so it isn't a pushover.
2. Kill off guys like Cortez
3. Strengthen different parts of Europe.
That should help limit Europe just a bit.
Czar Kaizer
Banned
The idea that Europe is destined to surpass the rest of the world is, to be frank, racist euro centric bullshit.
First in terms of economic systems during the middle ages Europe was arguably a lot more backward economically then both the Islamic world and Song china, for example in song china chinese peasants actually owned their own land which is a lot more conducive to a capitalist economy then say a few land owners keeping peasants as virtual slaves. The Indian ocean trade was the most globalized trading network in the entire world.
The most ridiculous idea is that somehow Europe was more culturally advanced then the rest of the world, most supporters of this idea point to protestant ideals and how much more hard working they were then darker people with funny religions, I mean that idea is so dated and is based on racist 19th century ideas.
The truth is that it is impossible to pinpoint the reason for Europe's dominance, at different stages in world history different regions in the world have been more dominant than others, to be honest European hegemony has lasted less than three hundred years.
In order to stop the growth of Europe all you would probably have to do is prevent the Islamic conquest of Spain, without the influence of the Islamic world you would probably retard the development of Europe.
First in terms of economic systems during the middle ages Europe was arguably a lot more backward economically then both the Islamic world and Song china, for example in song china chinese peasants actually owned their own land which is a lot more conducive to a capitalist economy then say a few land owners keeping peasants as virtual slaves. The Indian ocean trade was the most globalized trading network in the entire world.
The most ridiculous idea is that somehow Europe was more culturally advanced then the rest of the world, most supporters of this idea point to protestant ideals and how much more hard working they were then darker people with funny religions, I mean that idea is so dated and is based on racist 19th century ideas.
The truth is that it is impossible to pinpoint the reason for Europe's dominance, at different stages in world history different regions in the world have been more dominant than others, to be honest European hegemony has lasted less than three hundred years.
In order to stop the growth of Europe all you would probably have to do is prevent the Islamic conquest of Spain, without the influence of the Islamic world you would probably retard the development of Europe.
Muslims, conquer Europe, bring no science, then Mongols attack, wipe out everything.
Again, Islam was not always the conservative thing it was for sciences and techs.
Having considered this for a while, and I've come to the conclusion that screwing all of Western Europe (barring something like a massive ecological disaster) is so improbable that it borders on ASB.
I'd say that the best way to actually achieve an accross-the-board Euroscrew is having no Roman imperialist expansionism at all. Possibly to the point of there being no Rome to do so. That would set back the various nations and proto-nations of Europe back at least a good two to three centuries, if not more.
I'd say that the best way to actually achieve an accross-the-board Euroscrew is having no Roman imperialist expansionism at all. Possibly to the point of there being no Rome to do so. That would set back the various nations and proto-nations of Europe back at least a good two to three centuries, if not more.
And even that, this is giving a bit too much credit to Rome... We realised with time that the 'barbarians' like celts-gaults gave much actually to Europe - the opidium model of Rome by example came from them, as some roads credited before to Rome...
It would be a VERY different Europe, more chaotique, fragmented and all maybe, but it may not be a dark age continuating... Who know, maybe an analogue to Rome like the Samnites or NeoEtruscans or Greeks of Italy could rise by example, anyway, in given time... Or ironically, 'civilised' gauls.
If at all possible a united Europe might be detrimental to their expansion. Though it might require hurting some Arab fans a united Christian Europe might be more focused on crushing their Muslim rivals and look to the Near East and likely ignore what would look like fruitless ventures to the West at first, would likely keep a leash on their vassals (like England, Dutch, Spain, etc), might make a juicier target to any ATL Mongol equivalents to utterly obliterate and is more likely to focus on the inevitable rebellions that would emerge in such an ethnically fragmented nation.
Spain and Portugal seem easy to knock out with one blow by having the Muslims of Iberia being able to stop them from breaking away and taking their land.
Have a stronger Norse presence in Britain, divide England between a more Nordic Nortumbria and a Saxon Wessex, Norse rule can unite Scotland and Ireland which would further stifle British unity and keep the islands fighting amongst themselves.
This would also stop Scandinavia because the turbulence of the British Isles would still keep the Norse away and stop them gaining an easy path to Vinland and keep the Americas safe. Or it would keep the travelers small and give the natives the diseases and weapons but also the time to gain immunity and the ability to get metallurgy which would lead to Amerindian powers that would be more likely to hold off European or maybe even Asian colonists.
For the record I am an Anglophile and would normally never suggest this stuff but I am interested in this idea.
Last edited:
Not to mention it encourages European sailors to go farther for fishing ground... like the Great Banks of Newfoundland.
scholar
Banned
Or the middle east, or southeast asia, or the steppe.
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).
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.
Speaking for myself, I define the Middle East as more related to the Eurosphere than "Asia", and more to the point the Middle East's divisions are rather different than Europe's.
The steppe doesn't have organized nations, and southeast asia is far from an area I'm familiar with , so I bow to the knowledge of those who have studied it.
But if you can point to the kingdoms there being in the kind of crude arms race of early modern Europe, or something like that, I'd be all ears
Would love to see the source and statistics for this (underlined). I know that they reproduced them, but I don't know the details.
And the Tokugawa Shogunate being able and willing to stop that is extremely telling about Japan's competitive spirit actually leading anywhere useful here outside the Age of the Country At War.
I'm not saying Japan was poor and backward - far from it - but it was not (OTL) anywhere near something like OTL Spain in terms of empire-building, even if it had the population and technology.
scholar
Banned
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.
Different? Sure. However there were multiple competing and interacting polities in the region. The difference is that the Ottomans took over most of them, pioneered the drive of progress only to enter into a state of slowed progress and even regression while Europe continued to march forward. While geo-politics and some cultural differences should be keenly marked, there is very little to suggest that similar instances such as with Europe could not have occurred. Especially since we know Oman was a minor Arab power that was able to expand in and compete readily with Europeans even after they had arrived in India and dominated three continents.
organized nations? Depends on how you define organized or nations. They certainly were not sedentary civilizations at the time but they existed in a state of constant contact and warfare with sedentary civilizations around them, and in some notable cases founding great cities where they took the advancements of the world and adapted them for their own purposes. The Mongols were geniuses in warfare mainly because they took the genius of other peoples and adapted them to service their war machine. Arab Catapults brought Chinese cities to their knees using the infantry armies of sedentary civilization rather than the horses of the steppe. You can't underestimate them, especially since some of the most notable areas of steppe are in positions that can be readily adapted for agriculture or mining and refineries once the knowledge is attained (though it would be a pain adapting the people more so than the land).
early modern Europe? We're not talking about that. I believe we're referring to the time during the Byzantine Empire preventing Europe from getting to the point where it would have arms races to conquer the rest of the world.
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.
Extremely telling? Not even remotely.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima_(Japanese_matchlock)#cite_note-Perrin_p.25-9