Is there something to this?

220 - Abdication of the last Han Emperor, China is thrown into the chaotic Three Kingdoms, not ending for 60 years.
235 - Emperor Severus is murdered by disaffected soldiers, which leads directly to the Crisis of the Third Century, a fifty year period of plague, invasion, and Civil War

280 - The Jin Dynasty succeeds in re-uniting China proper
284 - Diocletian rises to the Roman Imperial throne, bringing an end to the Crisis

Over the course of the fourth century, the Jin dynasty slowly loses ground to invading barbarians and rival kingdoms in northern China, leading to the '16 Kingdoms' era. By 420 the Jin Dynasty, now limited to southern China, finally collapses into a succession of Southern Dynasties.

By the late fourth century, the Roman Empire's borders are becoming less and less secure, eventually leading to the Gothic victory at Adrianople and the establishment of the first client state on formerly Roman soil. Throughout the fifth century these client states would multiply in number until most of the Western Empire is ruled by Germans. In 476, the last Western Emperor is deposed and replaced by a German king.

In the late sixth century, through a combination of political intrigue and outright military force, the Sui dynasty manages to successfully reunite China.

In the early sixth century, Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian manages to successfully reincorporate Italia, North Africa, and part of Hispania into the Empire.

As China moves into the seventh century, increasing unrest and rebellion once more throws the Middle Kingdom into chaos.

Around the same time, nearly apocolyptic wars against Persia allow the Roman Empire to be blind-sided by the newly united Muslim Arabs, to whom they lose Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, as well as North Africa and Spain later on. Italy has already been mostly lost to encroaching Lombards and the Balkans to invading Slavs and Avars.

It seems odd that, for two empires on opposite ends of Eurasia, to share fortunes so closely. The ups and downs of the two always occur in the same half century, and usually occur within a decade or two of each other. I'd go further, because there are still some parallels all the way up to the Mongols, but it's less secure of a comparison when it's 'just' the Byzantine Empire, rather than the ERE.

There's definitely some variance, up to about half a century as I said, but it's almost uncanny how close they occur in the grand historical scheme of things. What possible reason could there be for this? Might international trade have been more important in the ancient world than has been thought? Might trade disruptions along the civilized belt of Eurasia causes things like the Roman hyperinflation that preceded (or caused) the Crisis of the Third Century? Might trade disruptions have set the scene for all the various military, political, and demographic crisises we see over the later history of Eurasia?
 
Irruptions of waves of horse nomads have effects on both ends of the plains between the Roman world and the Chinese - for instance it was nomads that pushed the Germans into Roman territory. The Mongols are another good example.

Also, large climate events and natual disasters can effect both - like the proposed supervolcanic eruption of the 6th c.

But also, in a period that long there are going to be a lot of coincidences as well. If we listed all the things that were not parallel in one column and those that were in another, the differences would be longer.
 
Well, I'm not looking for anything to try to match up, I'm specifically looking for major, macro-political events. Mostly just the rise and fall of dynasties or, in the case of the Romans, major civil wars.

Not that there HAS to be anything to this, it's just something funny I noticed a half hour ago and started browsing wiki for.
 
Well, I'm not looking for anything to try to match up, I'm specifically looking for major, macro-political events. Mostly just the rise and fall of dynasties or, in the case of the Romans, major civil wars.

Not that there HAS to be anything to this, it's just something funny I noticed a half hour ago and started browsing wiki for.

I think the nomads and natural catastrophes angles are your best bets. It makes sense for their to be linkages.

In the sixth c, both Chinese and Roman historians noted that the sun went dim for about 18 months and caused massive famines. The Chinese even heard the volcanic explosion to their South. That event cause civilizational collapses worldwide.

And events in China's neighborhood routinely caused waves that hit Europe in the nomad category - it doesn't take as long as you might think to get from China to Europe when you're a horse nomad.
 

ninebucks

Banned
Its probably got a lot to do with harvest yields, and how they can change depending on climactic factors, (the energy output of the sun, which changes century by century; whether the earth is orbiting closer to, or further away from the sun; whether there have been any major volcanic or tectonic events; etc).

Macro-trends in east and west Eurasia tend to converge because their civilisations tend to run their agriculture in very similar climates, and are thus liable to the same rewards and risks from an altering climate.

Also, there's the fact that urbanisation relies on surplus food production, so when harvest yields boom, so do the cities, but when the cities grow, new problems arise. Diseases spread a lot easier, resource distribution becomes more complex, and thus more vulnerable, and various competing political authorities arise. When these problems combine people flee to the country and civilisations decline.

So short answer, pre-industrial civilisations naturally rise as climates become more useful for agriculture, and then decline when they reach the tipping point where the positive feedback loops they were riding on become outweighed by negative feedback loops. Depending on how much this decline coincides with a climactic change that reduces agricultural output, the more severe the decline will be.
 
Top