DBWI: Urbanized Western Europe, Rural Eastern Europe?

Deleted member 97083

Ever since the days of the Greeks, those who named Europe and Asia, the eastern Mediterranean has always been more developed than the western Mediterranean. This persisted through the days of the Roman Empire.

When the moldboard plow made the heavier, cooler soils of Sarmatia as productive as the light, warm soils of the Mediterranean, it was only a matter of time before Eastern Europe became the urbanized center of power that it became, like the Fertile Crescent or China for the birth of civilization.

Historians debate why the Slavic empires became the economic and political center of the developed world. Some argue that it was the cultural, scientific and architectural legacy of Rhomania as well as contacts with the Caliphate, Persia, and also China through the Silk Road. Others say the inclusive nature of early Slavic chiefdoms led to the quick increases in population and development of the land.

Others argue that geographic determinism played a role. The wide open spaces for farming, green lush forests providing timber, strategic trading points of the Black Sea. Not to mention the location of Eastern Europe, forming a crossroads between the mineral rich western and Central Europe, and the technologically rich East Asia.

Western Europe of course, has always been a backwater compared to Mediterranean and Eastern civilizations. The West remained tribal warring states until conquered by the Romans, and then became tribal warring states again after the fall of the West. If it weren't for the abundant natural resources of Gaul, Germania, and Britannia, they might never have industrialized, even at the slow, delayed rate they did in our world.

All that being said, how could Western Europe become economically advanced like Eastern Europe? Not just in the industrial era, but even for several centuries beforehand?
 
Hmm, if you wanted to equalize things between East and West, I would suggest a devastating nomad invasion or two to knock down the Slavic empires, similar to what happened in Cathay and Persia. Not sure what would boost Western Europe specifically, though.
 

Deleted member 97083

Hmm, if you wanted to equalize things between East and West, I would suggest a devastating nomad invasion or two to knock down the Slavic empires, similar to what happened in Cathay and Persia. Not sure what would boost Western Europe specifically, though.
True--the Tokharoi invasion was quite devastating to Persia.
 
I read a book on this that advanced an eccentric, but still plausible argument. The book argued that the key to the development of civilization in Sarmatia was the effectiveness of the Chinese government in controlling and eventually absorbing the nomads north of the Great Wall.

The Chinese developed an effective policy of alternating between policing nomads who were not ready to receive Chinese civilization, and welcoming them those who were, either resettling the latter into China itself or using them as border guards. Gradually the Great Wall became more of a historical artifact as the Chinese expanded northwards. They actually had a harder time with the independent tribes in the more mountainous south.

The great Eurasian steppe, of course, extends right through Sarmatia on its western end. If the nomads in the East are able to maintain independence from China and not be tools of Chinese policy, there was nothing preventing them from rolling right into the western part of the Steppe and prevent the development of settled civilizations there. We focus on the Chinese success as the key to the development of China as the dominant world power, but by controlling the nomads it had beneficial consequences for the other civilizations controlling the steppe.

Western Europe had some potential if left alone. Eastern Rhomania kept the the lands to the south in dependence, and Sarmatia was always ready to slap down any power that emerged in Western Europe. The West Europeans did establish settlements in the Western Hemisphere, remember, but they were easily dominated by the older Chinese settlements there.
 
Isn't the Republic of Aqtaine considered western european? They were THE trading nation during the late colonization era with their fast ships. I know they are part of the muslim world but they are still in western europe.
 
Western Europe after Rome fell needed to coalesce into more permanent and centralised nation states if they were going to make use of their own resorces. In a way, it was a lot like Nippon at this time, just without the Samurai-dominated heirarchy. I don't want to pull out Great Man history, but some warlord, who is able to gain control over a good portion of Western Europe, and then come to a stable agreement with the warlords under him (i.e. you pay me taxes, I protect your authority on your land, and everybody under me agrees to not constantly try to kill each other for whatever reason), then the stability needed for trade, commerce, urban growth and large-scale agriculture would've been possible. I don't know where this would happen, though, Gaul was chewed up by the Muslims, Britannia was carved up by the Norse, and as it has been said, Germania was always exposed from the East to attack. But, then again, Greece beat Persia, crazier things have happened on history.
 
It's hard. Wealth comes from mines and such but also trade. Western Europe is at the end of the continent, they have no one to trade with!

Compare that with Poland, trading northern furs for silk road stuff well into the XVIIITH Century.

The West cannot match that
 
To be fair to Western Europe, my own region of Nusantara was also a backwater in comparison to the glowing civilizations of Zhongguo in the north and Bharat in the west. But we developed swiftly enough with the rise of the Cai dynasty in the south, the establishment of the Duchy of Ma-i, and the discovery of the New World. With the trade from the lands of the Tawantinsuyu and the Mexica, our region and its various sea kingdoms blossomed and boomed with industry.
 
Western Europe should have followed Constantinople just as Eastern Europe has done, smartly. But no, they had to choose the glorified bishop of Rome.
 
Western Europe should have followed Constantinople just as Eastern Europe has done, smartly. But no, they had to choose the glorified bishop of Rome.

Yes, we silly Westerlings should have just bowed down to the East, of course. The East that despite repeatedly invading and devastating the West with what amounted to bloody campaigns that were nigh-on extermination. Yes, we "silly Westerlings" repeatedly managed to throw the yoke of Constantinople off.

Maybe if the Rhomans have left us alone and traded with us like they did the East we would have had the manpower to urbanise. Instead we get this propagandist nonsense that it was all our fault. We'd either be spending our time providing resources as tribute to the East, or independent and trying to fix all the damage they did to our homes. No wonder we took so long to industrialise, every time we built new factories the East came and invaded.

Why do you think that London dominates Westerling politics? Northumbria was the only place in the West that the Rhomans couldn't come and sack! No wonder Newcastle decided it was worth colonising Great Albion! (OOC: New World). (I do love how everyone seems to have forgotten that WE had coal steam engines well in advance of the East).

OOC : I am playing the role of Westerling Nationalist (Imagine a Western Monocultural Movement) that largely blames the East for its problems. Whether true, or convenient scapegoat.
 

Deleted member 97083

Yes, we silly Westerlings should have just bowed down to the East, of course. The East that despite repeatedly invading and devastating the West with what amounted to bloody campaigns that were nigh-on extermination. Yes, we "silly Westerlings" repeatedly managed to throw the yoke of Constantinople off.
Right. Continue blaming the Empire for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Vladislav II tried to civilize Gaul like Caesar did. Even lost his life at the hands of traitorous foederatoi. You don't see Rhomans, Bulgars, or Sarmatians complaining about that brutal Western treachery. Yet time and time again, we see Westerns complaining about an invasion that was completely welcomed by the Frankish tribal leadership.

Maybe if the Rhomans have left us alone and traded with us like they did the East we would have had the manpower to urbanise. Instead we get this propagandist nonsense that it was all our fault. We'd either be spending our time providing resources as tribute to the East, or independent and trying to fix all the damage they did to our homes. No wonder we took so long to industrialise, every time we built new factories the East came and invaded.
The Rhomans tried to leave the West alone. Every single act of Rhoman 'imperialism' in Gaul, Germania, and Bretania was in direct response to Western aggression or to protect the Constantinopolitan trade routes.

"Every time we built new factories the East came and invaded." When exactly did the West build new factories without Eastern help? Northumbria would have no industry at all, and no railroads without Nikola Dejanovic and Odysseas Polymylos.

Why do you think that London dominates Westerling politics? Northumbria was the only place in the West that the Rhomans couldn't come and sack! No wonder Newcastle decided it was worth colonising Great Albion! (OOC: New World). (I do love how everyone seems to have forgotten that WE had coal steam engines well in advance of the East).
Why do I think that London dominates Westerling politics? I don't know, maybe because it was an overseas protectorate of the Kingdom of Egypt for 70 years and received direct investment from the Mamluk sultan? Of course London became a developed economy. Meanwhile other Bretanoi cities were too focused on "culling witchcraft".

The fact that a Northumbrian scientist was the first to invent coal steam engines doesn't mean anything in the long run. The backwards Heptarchy outlawed them, as well as eastern trade, and fell behind the Slavic empires and Zhongguo in short order.

Even if industry were allowed to flourish in Bretania from day one, it would have been too little, too late. The East already had well-developed water-powered industry, the prototype steam engine, and coal power was just a few years around the corner.

What about Gaul? What about Germania, Scandinavia? These places would still be far behind the East.

OOC: Equally biased post from the TL's perspective
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right. Continue blaming the Empire for something that happened hundreds of years ago. Vladislav II tried to civilize Gaul like Caesar did. Even lost his life at the hands of traitorous foederatoi. You don't see Rhomans, Bulgars, or Sarmatians complaining about that brutal Western treachery. Yet time and time again, we see Westerns complaining about an invasion that was completely welcomed by the Frankish tribal leadership.

Easterling->Westerling dictionary "Brutal Western Treachery" -> "Not executing women and children on Rhoman orders". Such disgraceful behaviour *rolls eyes*.

Also, "Frankish Tribal Leadership" seemingly translates to "The third son of the previous Frankish King who had no right to rule but the Rhomans decided he was a useful puppet". Bah!

The Rhomans tried to leave the West alone. Every single act of Rhoman 'imperialism' in Gaul, Germania, and Bretania was in direct response to Western aggression or to protect the Constantinopolitan trade routes.
Oh, yes. Of course "Protecting trade" AKA - The West isn't allowed to trade with anyone in the Med. Or is the the Vercengetorix somehow an 'invasion'. Mamluk waters, with permission, under Frank colours, sunk by Romans at a time of supposed peace - which led to the Illyrian War.

"Every time we built new factories the East came and invaded." When exactly did the West build new factories without Eastern help? Northumbria would have no industry at all, and no railroads without Nikola Dejanovic and Odysseas Polymylos.

Oh, get off. Nikola Dejanovic was a second rate Eiffel and Polymylos literally took Stephensons engine sketches and registered them under his name in Constantinople. The Northumbrian Pit Rails were built 20 years before the Adrianople Experimental Line. If you wanted to be paternalistic, at least bother to honor Gregorios of Crete - damn fine man who helped provide resources for the University of Durham.

Why do I think that London dominates Westerling politics? I don't know, maybe because it was an overseas protectorate of the Kingdom of Egypt for 70 years and received direct investment from the Mamluk sultan? Of course London became a developed economy. Meanwhile other Bretanoi cities were too focused on "culling witchcraft".

Good God, that alliance wasn't a Protectorate, not every diplomatic arrangement takes place under your superiority complex. Two people can be allies on equal terms, even if one is wealthier. That 'direct investment' was a DOWRY after the daughter of Francis Drake (OOC: Forgive me for throwing every name under the sun here) was wed to him. Just because you didn't like us or the Mamluks doesn't mean the "Great Collusion" was ever a real thing. Ee by jove. Also, I'll remind you to not throw stones Mr. Slaughter at Chalcedon.

The fact that a Northumbrian scientist was the first to invent coal steam engines doesn't mean anything in the long run. The backwards Heptarchy outlawed them, as well as eastern trade, and fell behind the Slavic empires and Zhongguo in short order.

I don't know what history you've been reading, because that just isn't true. Unless you're mixing up the Raised Track Ordinance with a ban. The Pit Rails, whilst successful, weren't suitable for long trains because they hugged the ground, and were vulnerable to regular flooding. The Raised Track Ordinance made sure that the track wasn't going to flood due to rainfall - hence the slow pace of construction of the Spinal Track (Beautiful views of the Pennines on that route even to this day).

Even if industry were allowed to flourish in Bretania from day one, it would have been too little, too late. The East already had well-developed water-powered industry, the prototype steam engine, and coal power was just a few years around the corner.

What about Gaul? What about Germania, Scandinavia? These places would still be far behind the East.

OOC: Equally biased post from the TL's perspective

The point is that it wasn't JUST Britannia (at least spell it correctly, Latinphobe), you raided Frankish realms repeatedly, which combined with the Herculean Blockade means we couldn't trade with many people. The Franks and Germans were impoverished by raids, and unless it was a Roman Merchant we couldn't export goods to them! There is a reason we all celebrate the Victory at Lyon as a national holiday. 20,000 Romans vs 6,000 Franks, 1,000 Brits and 1,500 Germans - and you were trounced! The second stage of the Lombard War closed the worst chapter in Easterling oppression, and meant you HAD to let us trade freely in the Med.

OOC : Beautifully written sir, well done!
 
Top