Challenge: Globalized World by 1600s?

How could we have an 1800s style world by say the 1650s? By this is mean diplomacy between countries such as china and japan trading almost equally with the European powers and even forming their own spheres of influence and maybe in japans case an empire?

Maybe Zang He's expiditions turn out differently if China can become more capitalist in the century before and thus trying to find markets to trade to in Africa and Arabia (and maybe trying to go around the cape i'm not sure if they would though); then perhaps in a few decades they come into contact with the Portuguese and maybe a war over the cape?

An Iberian crusade aided by the budding maritime powers in the north could lead to the pacific being explored much earlier and prevent Europe from eclipsing Asia militarily.

I'm not sure if this would work but the general idea is that the world shrinks much sooner and China and Japan remain great powers throughout the 1600 and 1700s with the ability to play the great game and even trading with countries in Europe equally unlike how the Portuguese, English and Dutch traded with them.
 
Hellenistic monarchies are more successful, the Hellenistic civilization develops onwards eventually dominating the Mediterranean world. We don't have the stagnation of late Roman Empire and future collapse of the Dark Ages. Thus Europe is more advanced a few centuries earlier and so successful exploration can begin earlier too.

Far-fetched - yes, but quite reasonable if we consider some minor but very important triggers that led to the creation of globalized world.
 
Hellenistic monarchies are more successful, the Hellenistic civilization develops onwards eventually dominating the Mediterranean world. We don't have the stagnation of late Roman Empire and future collapse of the Dark Ages. Thus Europe is more advanced a few centuries earlier and so successful exploration can begin earlier too.

Far-fetched - yes, but quite reasonable if we consider some minor but very important triggers that led to the creation of globalized world.

Essentially this is similar to what I was going to say.
 
Hellenistic monarchies are more successful, the Hellenistic civilization develops onwards eventually dominating the Mediterranean world. We don't have the stagnation of late Roman Empire and future collapse of the Dark Ages. Thus Europe is more advanced a few centuries earlier and so successful exploration can begin earlier too.

Far-fetched - yes, but quite reasonable if we consider some minor but very important triggers that led to the creation of globalized world.
How does this in particular help anything? Hellenistic civilization wasn't productive for its entire existance, and stagnation and collapse led to the rise of the Macedonian Empire, as well as the fall of Greece to the Romans, so they definitely weren't immune to collapse either. Moreover, Hellenistic civilization, if it expands to this extent, might become centralized, and in that case, if it eliminates all major rivals, as well as infighting, we could see a civilization even more proned to stagnation than the Romans ever were.

Not saying that Hellinistic civilization couldn't have produced such a thing, but I don't think that they break the basic model of rise and advancement, peace and prosperity, and stagnation and collapse that seem to be followed by most civilizations throughout history, so we need more than just surviving Helenistic civilization=faster advancement in every way. That just isn't realistic.
 
How does this in particular help anything? Hellenistic civilization wasn't productive for its entire existance, and stagnation and collapse led to the rise of the Macedonian Empire, as well as the fall of Greece to the Romans, so they definitely weren't immune to collapse either. Moreover, Hellenistic civilization, if it expands to this extent, might become centralized, and in that case, if it eliminates all major rivals, as well as infighting, we could see a civilization even more proned to stagnation than the Romans ever were.

Not saying that Hellinistic civilization couldn't have produced such a thing, but I don't think that they break the basic model of rise and advancement, peace and prosperity, and stagnation and collapse that seem to be followed by most civilizations throughout history, so we need more than just surviving Helenistic civilization=faster advancement in every way. That just isn't realistic.

I agree- imo, same thing could be accomplished by Roman Empire (under certain conditions).

Hellens had huge amount of time to develop. I think it was about 1000 years before Romans came. Only thing they did was establishing ton of colonies. Nice way to preserve their culture, but hardly fruitful in terms of technology.

On the other hand if Rome/Greeks would be more successful (in development terms), we could have globalized world around 1000 AD... Under certain circumstances though.

Finally- one could argue that Roman Empire was globalized. Apart from spanning across 3 continents they had contact with 2 other major player at this time: Persia and China.
 
I think you have the critical pre-industrial productivity/surplus problem to face. You can't handwave away that there isn't much of a surplus produced per person, only trump through organization. It's either by size, say Rome (Egyptian Grain being the bit example) or by technology (square rigged ships and sophisticated finance capital). Likely other examples as well.

So where do we find the size, organization, and trade capacity? I know they're hated, but if you make the PoD the original plan of the Fourth Crusade? It y'all will recall, the original, post-Third Crusade idea, that I think Coer d'Leone among others had written was to capture Egypt first, to cut the Mameluke's numbers and support out of the equation. So make a bigger Fourth Crusade that feels they can go straight to Alexandria (and can pay their bills...).

Of course, if an original plan Fourth Crusade, that makes the PoD a Venetian Egypt, instead of a Venetian Aegean and Black Sea, and La Serrensissma is not that popular on these boards, but this could provide what's required (and here, they don't sack Byzantium! Learn to like them!). You're sitting a highly organized state with some pretty sophisticated financial tools on the southern east-west trade route. (Alexandria's prominence was because it had a number of the better overlands to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean than others).

But you have an organized state with the financial machinery for long distance trade, with direct control of the Egyptian side of a trade route to the East, starting ~1205. Combine that with the Venetian intensity, and you have a much more solid and less prone to disruption trade path from Venice all the way to India.

Far fetched, likely, but it's one of the ways to bring the bits together.
 
How does this in particular help anything? Hellenistic civilization wasn't productive for its entire existance, and stagnation and collapse led to the rise of the Macedonian Empire,

I think you are confusing classical Greece with the Hellenistic age.
 
Hellens had huge amount of time to develop. I think it was about 1000 years before Romans came. Only thing they did was establishing ton of colonies. Nice way to preserve their culture, but hardly fruitful in terms of technology.
Sigh. The HELLENISTIC Age, lasted from 323-30 BC. The Scientific Revolution in the Hellenistic Age, lasted from about 300-145 BC. It was arrested by the Roman conquests. I'd recommend Russo's book on it. "The Forgotten Revolution: Why Science Was Born In 300 BC and Why It Had To Be Reborn"

A lot of scientific knowledge that was discovered in the Hellenistic Age was lost during the time of Roman dominance. It was not to be regained until the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. Which is why most of the science "discovered" during the scientific revolution (laws of motion, heliocentrism, etc.) were first pointed out and discovered by the scientists of the hellenistic age.
 
Sigh. The HELLENISTIC Age, lasted from 323-30 BC. The Scientific Revolution in the Hellenistic Age, lasted from about 300-145 BC. It was arrested by the Roman conquests. I'd recommend Russo's book on it. "The Forgotten Revolution: Why Science Was Born In 300 BC and Why It Had To Be Reborn"

A lot of scientific knowledge that was discovered in the Hellenistic Age was lost during the time of Roman dominance. It was not to be regained until the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. Which is why most of the science "discovered" during the scientific revolution (laws of motion, heliocentrism, etc.) were first pointed out and discovered by the scientists of the hellenistic age.

Just keep in mind that Russo's book is not without its detractors and it depends to some extent on speculation and extrapolation from scant evidence.

The Hellenistic Age was productive of technological and scientific advance like few times before or since right up to early modernity, but it wasn't necessarily up to par with what people like Russo imagine it was.
 
Just keep in mind that Russo's book is not without its detractors and it depends to some extent on speculation and extrapolation from scant evidence.

The Hellenistic Age was productive of technological and scientific advance like few times before or since right up to early modernity, but it wasn't necessarily up to par with what people like Russo imagine it was.

It was certainly as scientifically advanced (in most things) as, say, 17th-18th century Europe. Technologically, no (though yes on many things), but the potential is there. It is the best chance I think to have a globalized society (at least with a European POD) by the 17th century, because after it you have the stagnation of the Roman Empire and then the middle ages.
 
It was certainly as scientifically advanced (in most things) as, say, 17th-18th century Europe. Technologically, no (though yes on many things), but the potential is there. It is the best chance I think to have a globalized society (at least with a European POD) by the 17th century, because after it you have the stagnation of the Roman Empire and then the middle ages.

I don't think the Hellenistic world had anywhere near as advanced as the 17th century's mathematics?
 
I don't think the Hellenistic world had anywhere near as advanced as the 17th century's mathematics?

I don't think their logic or theory of science were as advanced, either.

I mean, no zero, a complete inability to believe in vacuums, a false understanding of motion, etc etc et al.

The Hellenistic world was extremely rich in knowledge and science for its time, but comparable to the 17th century?

Nah.
 
I think you are confusing classical Greece with the Hellenistic age.
He said Hellenistic civilization, not the Hellenistic age, and I am not saying that the Macedonian Empire was not a part of it, but it did arise from a period severely lacking in productivity in Greece.

Either way, there is nothing special that protects their civilization from every possible cause of stagnation, and I think that the blame placed on Roman society for loss of scientific momentum is misplaced. IOTL, advancement of science often followed the introduction of a new practical technology, and also tended to take place in large, densely populated regions. The Greeks weren't so especially productive with regards to practical technology when compared to their neighbors, and while they were fairly dense in population, they didn't extend to anything approaching the major European players of the 1700s in terms of a single culturally unified entity. These things in mind, it makes me incredibly sceptical of the idea that Helenistic civilization will avoid stagnation in perpetuity, or even for several centuries consecutively. I also disagree with the notion that the Greeks could rival 18th century Europe in any scientific studies.

Considering the numerous advancements China is responsible for, it might actually do well to have the Romans achieve a similarly perpetually unified state. Perhaps we could line it up so an epidemic on the scale of the black death hits he empire, and then the new world is discovered, much as in OTL, soon enough after the epidemic to allow the newly mobilized lower social classes to capitalize on the new land. Basically setting up something similar to the Renaissance, but earlier, and with a united western world to capitalize. Maybe not going to work, but I think it stands a chance anyways.
 
He said Hellenistic civilization, not the Hellenistic age, and I am not saying that the Macedonian Empire was not a part of it, but it did arise from a period severely lacking in productivity in Greece.

Yep. I know that Hellens/Greeks weren't rapidly advancing (in terms of technology) for 1000 years. But they easily had much enough time to start their "scientific revolution" earlier.

I guess that they could lead world to earlier globalization- as well as Carthage could by their oversea voyages. No guarantee they actually would (assuming they survive Punic wars) though.
 
What did the original Europeans need for globalization?

Good ships to get there first:
  • Galleys simply won't do and that's the most likely focus from any Mediterranean kingdom and therefore some presence by the ocean is needed. The original Portuguese Nau was invented to meet the needs of the discoveries of Henry the Navigator so some trade/military incentives are needed.
  • The significant advantage one needs to be global-spanning would be a gunpowder navy.
  • Rome however seemed to be a very poor inventor, most of their technology were adopted from neighbors and the conquered. In addition the presence of slaves made labor-saving innovation pointless.
  • The Hellenic cities were too small, too politically fractured, and too impractical in a good deal of their science. It's no coincidence that their "discoveries" slowed when they came under the domination of greater kingdoms , the competitiveness between city states died away. Similar to the Romans they also had a lot of slaves and suffered from a distaste of menial labor hence why so little innovation for all their "science". IMO the Greek style of abstract and untested science was quite useless outside of the mathematics.

Military advantage to generate profits, for this it helps to have:
  • Good metal, something that eluded the Romans and Greeks. In OTL coke, blast furances, the metallurgy, and all the other requirements took over centuries to become practical.
  • Capable military organization, no problems for Rome here

A strong centralized state is required to direct efforts and for that they need a strong tax system: Something Greece did not have and the Romans were weak in. The Roman tax code for most of its existence was very very inept and reforming it was something every level of government resisted. The biggest thing was for the Romans to separate military power from politics and for the Greeks to successfully scale city-state governments into larger polities.
 
What did the original Europeans need for globalization?

Good ships to get there first:
  • Galleys simply won't do and that's the most likely focus from any Mediterranean kingdom and therefore some presence by the ocean is needed. The original Portuguese Nau was invented to meet the needs of the discoveries of Henry the Navigator so some trade/military incentives are needed.



  • China had them (altogether with almost everything else) and it didn't help . Also, Romans never actually need anything better than galleys as they were ok for Mediterranean and other closed seas.



    We need something to prevent stagnation, inciting innovation and competitiveness- like otl Europe.
 
Top