tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4965395778439498965.post1333244181698261834..comments2024-01-02T09:19:24.322-08:00Comments on The Late Enlightenment: Europe as China: Why Didn't It Happen This Way?Michael Catonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01017910055699348111noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4965395778439498965.post-37927268375704511162016-03-26T10:37:59.614-07:002016-03-26T10:37:59.614-07:00Glad you enjoyed it! I agree although I think the...Glad you enjoyed it! I agree although I think the geography part of the answer is more important than the closest strong-state competitors. Either way the central point stands, that a large flat fertile plain with easy river transport, plus Himalayas blocking the nearest states is a recipe for early unification of the area. I did have trouble coming up with a parallel to the "kamikaze" failed invasions that kept the Yuan out of Japan. In many parts of this, Japan is obviously England, but if the Norse were the Mongols, how hard would it have been for them to conquer Britain because a) it's closer to Europe than Japan to Asia, b) much has been made of Yuan-Mongol naval inexpertise playing a role in the failed conquest (the Yuan failed again in Indonesia) so I wanted a parallel blind spot in Norse warfare and c) the Norse did conquer much of Britain for a while in the real world.<br /><br />You raise a good point about the Danube, which prompts the question, to what extent did that help the Ottomans control southeastern Europe?Michael Catonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01017910055699348111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4965395778439498965.post-35251683085685933492016-03-23T18:49:31.344-07:002016-03-23T18:49:31.344-07:00Geography? Luck? Here's a stab at it. China...Geography? Luck? Here's a stab at it. China doesn't have Alps right in the middle, making it easier to unify the continent. They have two big river systems, the Huang Ho and Yangtse, right? And if you unify one, you have an empire that can overpower smaller states. In Europe you have multiple river systems, but none seems to unify a large enough area to naturally dominate, with the exception of the Danube, and nobody's ever made a Danubian empire (why?). The only pan European empire was based on control of the Mediterranean, a giant sea lane.<br /><br /> Also, China never really faced strong imperial competitors in the neighborhood, the way Europe faced the Middle East. If Europe had a barrier to the southeast, perhaps the Romans would have kept on going. They had to fight the Germans, the steppe barbarians, AND the Persians, whereas China only had to fight the steppe barbarians and the local southern people it conquered. <br /><br />I love the historical similarities - soldiers revolting at the Indus, pleasure domes of Hamburg, etc. I think an East Asian writer might have made more of the fact that there was a Hunnish population in Europe, if the Xiong-nu actually conquered China, since the Huns were the Xiong-nu (right?). That would be like a Germanic population in China. Also, I think if the Norse were powerful enough to take India, with its tropical diseases and vast, distant territory, they could have taken the Maghreb. Most of the population of libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt live on coastal plains or on the Nile, easily accessible to the Norse. The remaining desert population is small enough to ignore. I think there are more populated inland areas in Morocco, so I can't really comment on Morocco.<br /><br />Very fun post!eofarabiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16999737394483602783noreply@blogger.com