Probability of European Dominance

What is the probability of European dominance starting from 5000BC?

  • 15% or less

    Votes: 34 21.4%
  • 16% to 30%

    Votes: 40 25.2%
  • 31% to 45%

    Votes: 22 13.8%
  • 46% to 60%

    Votes: 35 22.0%
  • 61% or greater

    Votes: 28 17.6%

  • Total voters
    159
While the Philippines itself might be "an inconsequential archipelago", its conquest was not. You are talking about lands halfway around the world but literally in China's backyard. That's huge I think.

Imagine for example China conquered Cyprus or Corsica!

After 1500AD, Europeans positioned themselves as being able to credibly threaten any non-European nation while being safe from being threatened by them in Europe. Only Europeans and quasi-Europeans such as Ottomans could threaten other Europeans.

Psychologically, this was a major turning point. Because from that point on, Europeans actually could see that they had reached superiority to non- Europeans in their reach and ability to project power.

No.

Yes, my country is a symbol of European dominance. For all that that has lasted for 400 or so years, if you include the USA.

But no, we were basically the ass-end of the Spanish Empire and the periphery of the Chinese and Indian spheres of influence. Our region is more the Balkans to the Austrians and Ottomans and Russians than anything. And had Koxinga lived longer, perhaps we would see a maritime Celestial Empire of the South spread across the Malay archipelago instead. Or if a few lucky things happen, and Bolkiah's sons build a new and Muslim empire on these islands I call home.

This Spanish conquest only happened due to the Christian desire to push out the infidels made large, mixed with the desire to trade with China and lucky events that saw the fall of two empires (instead of simply vassalage which could be thrown off).

None of this would have happened if, say, Islam is butterflied away, or if Christianity is. None of this would have happened if, say, Egypt found itself an expansionist monotheistic faith and found itself less broken by the collapse of its neighbors, leading to other faiths and other nations. Or if Indochina's river civilizations started early, overtaking the north and east, founding a civilization which could spread from Madagascar to the Andes.

There are countless possibilities and paths, and though geography makes some possibilities somewhat more likely, it does not mean anything when time and chance happen to all. Especially when we only have one point of reference, which obviously favors Eurocentrism for good or for ill.

PS - And if OTL shows the norm of Eurocentric TLs, then it's almost certainly for ill. :p:p:p
 
Philippines is China's backyard?WTF?The truth is,China doesn't give a flying f#$k(sorry,can't help but use it here) about the rest of the world.Christian-Eurocentrism is strong in this forum.You simply aren't looking things from the Chinese perspective,but through European perspective only.The thing is,the Chinese simply regarded exploration and overseas conquest as unnecessary expenses.
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Philippines is China's backyard?WTF?The truth is,China doesn't give a flying f#$k(sorry,can't help but use it here) around the rest of the world.Christian-Eurocentrism is strong in this forum.You simply aren't looking things from the Chinese perspective,but through European perspective only.The thing is,the Chinese simply regarded exploration and overseas conquest as unnecessary expenses.

That might be an issue due to language to be honest - English forums will have an english-speaking bias, because the majority of the membership will be from the 'West'. No matter how hard you try to do otherwise.

But in this case, based on the concept of European strategy, yes, the Philippines IS Chinas backyard. No need to get angry about it. If we're looking at domination, as you said, China wasn't interested in European-style dominance (I don't think it is exclusively European, but I'm running with it). Which means both of you are right. If China WAS interested in that way (as some might suggest of Modern China) then

The Philippines is in Chinas backyard, from both a European Geopolitical point of view and an impartial logistical point of view. Being able to deploy there, from Spain, as a simply logistical point of view, is impressive. As said, it is akin to China being able to deploy troops in and control Morocco!
 
China and India had the largest economies because they had the largest populations. Currently

1.3 billion Chinese generate a GDP of 10 trillion
1.2 billion Indians a GDP of 2 trillion

500 million Europeans (EU) generate a GDP of 18 Trillion
320 million Americans generate a GDP of 17 Trillion

So tell me how exactly are India and China the economic centres of the world if their combined population of 2.5 billion produces less GDP than 500 million Europeans or 320 million Americans??

Let me change my position, we're not currently in the "Asian Century"... Probably, in about 50 years China and India will have again 50% of the world's GDP like in 1600s.

Also, GDP per capita doesn't mean anything by itself. Is Norway almost twice as important as Germany in Europe? On the other hand, nominal GDP surely means economic magnetism, specially in a globalized world where you can easily ship your product to every corner of the world.

I'm not saying that GDP per capita is unimportant, though. It only needs to analysed in a context.

While the Philippines itself might be "an inconsequential archipelago", its conquest was not. You are talking about lands halfway around the world but literally in China's backyard. That's huge I think.

Imagine for example the implications and consequences if, say, China conquered Cyprus or Corsica!

Again, let me put it in European terms to see if you get it. Given the proportions, during the Middle Ages, Venice and Genoa had the same control on the Mediterranean Sea that the European merchantilistic powers had over all the oceans during the Age of Discoveries.

Europe was the world's middlemen, fair enough, but the bulk of the world's GDP remained somewhere else. Just look at the graphic.

European economic predominance only started when they changed the labour dynamics with the Industrial Revolution, what made them more productive than anyone else in the globe. But that's the 1820's not 1500! Before the 1800 they were just merchants bullying the big ecnomies, just like the Italian city-states during the Middle Ages.

To continue my analogy, Venice also had numerous colonies in the Ottomans/Byzantines backyard. And the Venetians probably thought they controlled Ottoman economy... It's just a matter of magnitude, man. Europeans before the Industrial Revolution simply couldn't have the same demographics/production that the Chinese and Indians had, and that's pretty much the reason why they made interoceanic ships and went there!

After 1500AD, Europeans positioned themselves as being able to credibly threaten any non-European nation while being safe from being threatened by them in Europe. Only Europeans and quasi-Europeans such as Ottomans could threaten other Europeans.

Is there an economic reason to cross oceans and threaten 1500 Europe? Just give me one.

What is a "quasi-european"? I'm curious enough.

Psychologically, this was a major turning point. Because from that point on, Europeans actually could see that they had reached superiority to non- Europeans in their reach and ability to project power. And they maintained that superiority ever since.

Psychologically!? What does it even means? Can you point out your sources, please?
 
L
What is "dominance" anyway? Economic power? The projection of that power (soft/hard)? Integration of markets? Overseas empires? Is there a safe way to quantify that European dominance over the world or is it mere shortsighted Eurocentrism?

Analysing only economic power (the only meaningful measurable power IMHO) the European dominance only started with the Industrial Revolution and ended with the Great Wars. After that, we had an American century and now things are coming back to the "normal": The world's economic centres are now China and India.

1024px-1_AD_to_2008_AD_trends_in_%25_GDP_contribution_by_major_economies_of_the_world.png


What I see here is people measuring "dominance" in terms of overseas empire, capacity of expanding and integrating markets - which is only one of the many facets of actual dominance... Just think of Medieaval Europe: which one is more 'powerful', France or Venice? the HRE or Genoa?

Thus, as I see, we only need to change the location of the Industrial Revolution to avoid European dominance. The European merchantilist powers would be the world's Venice and Genoa and China would be the world's France or HRE.

First of all that graph is soooooo inaccurate


1 There is no sudden loss of gdp despite of mongol conquest in China? Even when 1/2 of northern china urban population died?

2 India has more gdp than the Han dynasty??? What?????

3 Rome and Han China has almost equal population and tech. Why does China has 2 time Rome's gdp? And why would India be upthere.. 10% clear of china? Wtf?

4 Apparently, Fall of Rome has nothing to do with Europe.. Its already on its decline.. Even when Rome reach its peak in the early 100 europe keeps declining.. Wtf

5 middleeast dont go booom in the early 8th century. Despite they just stop being some random nomads.

6 what about Japan,Southeast Asia,Russia,Africa? Where are them?
 
L

First of all that graph is soooooo inaccurate


1 There is no sudden loss of gdp despite of mongol conquest in China? Even when 1/2 of northern china urban population died?

2 India has more gdp than the Han dynasty??? What?????

3 Rome and Han China has almost equal population and tech. Why does China has 2 time Rome's gdp? And why would India be upthere.. 10% clear of china? Wtf?

4 Apparently, Fall of Rome has nothing to do with Europe.. Its already on its decline.. Even when Rome reach its peak in the early 100 europe keeps declining.. Wtf

5 middleeast dont go booom in the early 8th century. Despite they just stop being some random nomads.

6 what about Japan,Southeast Asia,Russia,Africa? Where are them?
The graph takes an average increase or decrease of GDP in five centuries.So while there may be drastic population decrease due to the Mongols,there's also drastic population increase under early Ming rule.But it is suspicious that the economically superpower Song Dynasty is actually inferior to the ever cash strapped Ming Dynasty.
 
Last edited:
I think that once Europe really started to colonize and exploit the Americas, European dominance or at least preeminence was assured. The windfall of two continents worth of resources that could also serve as pressure release valves for Europe gave it an advantage no other continent had. Let's say Europe doesn't discover the Americas, it probably becomes like India. Densely populated with many different types of kingdoms.

As an aside, if OTL was a timeline on this board, the writer would be lambasted for writing a blatant and implausible Euro-wank. Just goes to show that reality is indeed unrealistic.
 
I think that once Europe really started to colonize and exploit the Americas, European dominance or at least preeminence was assured. The windfall of two continents worth of resources that could also serve as pressure release valves for Europe gave it an advantage no other continent had. Let's say Europe doesn't discover the Americas, it probably becomes like India. Densely populated with many different types of kingdoms.

Non sequitur. According to Maddison's research, European GDP per capita only started to diverge during the 1800's. Furthermore, Spain and Portugal had most of the American resources and the nation that did revolutionize labour - Britain - lost most of its American territory shortly before the Industrial Revolution.

In short, 1500's Europeans weren't more productive than any other civilization, but more interconnected. See the difference. Mexican silver went to Spain to buy wine, to the Netherlands to buy clothes, but also went to China and India to buy tea and spices.
 
The idea that Europe was predistined at 5000 BC to rule the world is crazy to me, thats so early anything could happen. I give them a 25% chance, India a 25% chance, China a 25% chance and somewhere else that we currently wouldn't think of a 25% chance.

Like everything in history, Europe's rise in insanely lucky. A small city-state group creating an incredible amount of knowledge that would be used to further research and technology growth for thousands of years. (which I believe could have happend an any city state in the world, I've never been convinced theirs a reason only Greece developed the way it did.)

A tiny city state rises to become one of the largest Empires in the world in the space of only 300 years, followed by an equally swift collapse and a lost of almost everything that made it unique for almost a thousand years (and yes I'm generalizing)

This was followed by a rediscovery of many of the old idea and the discovery of an entire half of the planet that they had to themselves. Which lead them to conquer much of the world in the face of other powers going through times of stagnation.

At 5000 BC there were no civilization, towns were just starting to form, and yet from that time, Europe is somehow preordained to conquer the world. Greek philosophy, which I consider the first step to European dominance wont be around for another 4500 years and could easily be wiped off the map by any number of things. Yes Europe is closer to America and has an advantige in finding it, but that wont matter for another 6,000 years, and in 6,000 years, I could easily see either China, Japan, Southeast Asia, or the West Coast of Africa develop ships to find it first. Even with an earlier date, say 2000 BC or 1000 BC theirs no guarantee it will happen, likelier, yes, but in no way guaranteed.
 
I don't think we've properly identified the tools of imperial dominance that allowed European states to become world powers, so it's hard to form a conclusive argument without knowing what's being argued.

Europe's key advantages up to the 18th century were bastioned star forts and the broadside warship, and its key advantages (steamships, better artillery, infantry based around massing firepower in linear formation) in the Opium Wars derived from steam power and the consistency of warfare in the European sphere of influence. When they fought the Qing in the 19th Century, they hadn't faced a serious military threat in decades, if not a century. The relative peace of 18th century East Asia is really unprecedented in Chinese history, and it's definitely not something you can count on in every timeline.

So then, what are the roots of the bastioned artillery fortress, the broadside warship, and linear tactics? Europe developed superior fortifications because the obsolescence of their previous designs (castles using vertical defense principles, which would shatter under cannonade in short order) allowed them to build new fortifications from the ground up, whereas Chinese walls remained basically indestructible until the 19th century, so there was no reason to adopt new fortification techniques.

Broadsided warships arose as a result of colonial competition between European states; before there was widespread competition for colonies, the Europeans carved out respectable empires in the Americas without putting much towards arming their ships, and the future exportation of European warfare to colonial spheres of influence is itself a result of the new fortification techniques developed on the continent, which made decisive warfare at home next to impossible.

Linear infantry tactics don't require much technological sophistication past the musket; what matters there is a rational-bureaucratic state that can provide a consistent fiscal steam to support constant drilling of soldiers, and the need to maximize firepower or face defeat. China in the 18th century certainly had the former (with certain idiosyncrasies arising from the need to keep a foreign elite in power, as well as a highly conservative model that didn't expand the machinery of the state in response to population growth), but the enemies the Qing faced were either rebels, nomadic tribes, pirates, or far smaller South East Asian states that didn't pose an existential threat to the empire. So while European wars were constantly getting more and more intense during the 18th century, culminating in the Napoleonic wars, there was no reason for the Chinese under Manchu rule to revolutionize their infantry tactics. If China had been divided into two large states at the time, engaged in warfare with the same frequency as European states, whichever adopted flintlocks and bayonets would be able to mass greater firepower in battle and press a great advantage.

The steam power that was essential for European dominance in the 19th century came as a result of a long series of intellectual and scientific development, stretching back thousands of years. If Europeans hadn't adopted a religion like Catholicism that proposes a rational, consistent world order such that scientific experimentation is a worthwhile intellectual endeavor, then you won't see the rise of people like Boyle and Newton, whose theories about gasses, the atmosphere, projectile motion, and so on directly paved the way for steam power (impossible in a society that doesn't understand atmospheric pressure) and greatly improved artillery.
 
Top