As a young historian, I think this is just absolutely fascinating: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11981666
While the ancient Chinese didn’t have modern day canning technology, the fact that they could seal and preserve something and have it last for two and a half millennium really speaks to what society could have been like that far back.
Anyhow - enjoy!
it is amazing to look back on history and to realize how much smarter early civilizations were compared to modern day…
The Chinese always amaze me. I can’t help thinking, what would have happened if the Chinese civilization had developed in Europe, and the European in China. I suspect that the Chinese would have been able to make a much better use of Europe’s insane coastline and a centralized Chinese Empire would never have come into being.
I suspect that the Chinese would have been able to make a much better use of Europe’s insane coastline and a centralized Chinese Empire would never have come into being.
Why is that?
One unified “Chinese” Europe vs. a whole bunch of constantly warring (historically) states. I’m making an assumption that this was the intended point, but I could be wrong. If I guessed right, I’d argue that although China is one country, it is hardly homogenous as a people - check this out to see my point. I never knew regional differences in China made such a difference.
If my inference was incorrect, my apologies (but you should still read the NYT article - another nail in the coffin for state involvement in a society).
Why is that?
I just find them quite resourceful. And Europe, geographically speaking, has a huge coastline (relative to its area), which implies very low transportation, hence trade, costs. That means that wealth was always easier to amass in Europe, and that the industrial revolution ‘had’ to be in Europe.
So, I’ve the impression that if China had had the same huge coastline, perhaps a unified Chinese empire would never have emerged. But again, just an impression.
Also from the Chinese:
One unified “Chinese” Europe vs. a whole bunch of constantly warring (historically) states. I’m making an assumption that this was the intended point, but I could be wrong. If I guessed right, I’d argue that although China is one country, it is hardly homogenous as a people - check this out to see my point. I never knew regional differences in China made such a difference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/world/asia/12beijing.html
If my inference was incorrect, my apologies (but you should still read the NYT article - another nail in the coffin for state involvement in a society).
I just meant ‘European’ China in a geographical sense: China with a huge coastline relative to area.
I feel that that could have prevented the emergence of a central empire in China, and without one empire but many competing states, China could have remained the most developed part of the world until now. The industrial revolution could have happened much sooner, and colonial empires too would have been Chinese. But we’ll never know.
I feel that that could have prevented the emergence of a central empire in China, and without one empire but many competing states, China could have remained the most developed part of the world until now
While I do think you are right that the European coastline is an important aspect of European success and decentralization; did not both China and India go through very long periods of decentralized periods? Similarly do you not think that the coastline of China and India would have there own advantages?
I think Western Europe being on the fringe of civilization the longest, and the most protected from wars, barbarian invasions, plagues, as well as being in a more “navally” prone position, are all major factors for it’s more recent success. If anything, I would suggest it is it’s semi-barbaric and semi isolated status that helped the West the most in the long run (with a stress on the word “semi”).
Who had “decentralized states” longer Western Europe, China, or India?
Who had “decentralized states” longer Western Europe, China, or India?
Hm, interesting point. Well, I believe china and India where decentralized ‘longer’, yet the size of such units in the east was still quite large, wile in Europe and Japan feudalism was almost anarchic.
A Chinese province or Indian state nowadays would still be larger than the largest European country. So China and India where ’decentralized’ only in a relative term, but they where never feudalistic. Now, if we ask why both Europe and Japan became feudalistic, that is something else. But yet again, I find it a surprising fact that both Europe and Japan had long coastlines relative to their area.
Now, if we ask why both Europe and Japan became feudalistic, that is something else.
Yeah, I think that was sort of the point I was making. The fact that they were more isolated, came up from barbarous/ semi barbarous backgrounds, less tempting to invade (as compared to Byzantium, Persia, etc), among just a few things that could be brought up.
So China and India where ’decentralized’ only in a relative term,
My knowledge of history east of the Ganges is not so good so I may be making some major mistakes here:
But why didn’t China or India produce a “Phoenicia” or “Greece” type of culture? There was enough population, enough coastline, and enough profitable area to be colonized and exploited by sea correct?. I just see no inherent geographical reason for this. I certainly do not see any lack of technological innovation, or motivational hindrence to this.
I assume you’re using the Roman version of history by identifying Western Europe as being on the fringe of “civilization.” To them the people of Western Europe were the barbarians.
The Hallstaat culture of the Bronze age (1200 BCE to 475 BCE) had manufacturing capabilities some claim similar to Ford’s assembly lines in the early 20th century. They also had extensive trade throughout most of Europe.
I too think that the industriousness of ancient cultures aren’t fully appreciated. Of course there’s probably a lot of evidence to their capability that has been lost over time. Look at this discovery as being just a glimpse into what they were like and what they may have been capable of. How many Ludwig von Mises or Murray Rothbards have been lost during this span?
The industrial revolution could have happened much sooner, and colonial empires too would have been Chinese. But we’ll never know.
I would even kind of sort of disagree with this. I think there were “chances” to hit the “industrial revolution” sooner than it happened in Near Eastern/Greco-Roman cultures. Things just happened to not “click” at the right place at the right time. That is to say that while something such as very primitive mechanical contraptions and steam power may have existed, it wasn’t put to any “good” use.
And if part of that reason is due to a reliance on a “slave based economy” (which I do not know how much I agree with that anymore), the Chinese may have been just as guilty of that hampering effect (that is a guess, I honestly have no idea how much the Chinese relied on slaves compared to any other civilization).
But why didn’t China or India produce a “Phoenicia” or “Greece” type of culture? There was enough population, enough coastline, and enough profitable area to be colonized and exploited by sea correct?.
That simple enough: there where no city-states in either China or India. The ‘warring states’ could have been considered each as an empire by European standards. Neither China not India where ever really decentralized enough to have strong political competition. They appear to have been decentralized only because nowadays they have been aggregated into even larger states.
Hence local rulers had no incentive to gives their subjects some breathing room.
I just see no inherent geographical reason for this.
Again, i have no theory for this, but I suspect the low trading cost allowed by coastlines might have made city-states viable in Europe but not in China.
Again, i have no theory for this, but I suspect the low trading cost allowed by coastlines might have made city-states viable in Europe but not in China.
I’m reading David Boaz’s book: Libertarianism - A Primer, and his argument is that in Europe, there existed the competing struggle between the Church and State, which prevented an “absolute power” from developing, and therefore enabled the rise of autonomous institutions in the forms of markets, guilds, universities, cities, and even religious toleration.
I don’t know if anything of this sort existed in China or India. If their governing structures were a synthesis of religion and state, perhaps that is a valid explanation. It wasn’t the differences in the people themselves, but a difference in the authority of the leading institutions.
there existed the competing struggle between the Church and State
These types of theories don’t work., at least not to a significant “deal breaking” degree. This sort of theory is sort of a “tunnel vision” Western bias look at things, that won’t make much sense with much scrutiny.
Thinking along these lines still falls in these “grand theories” in the Enlightenment tradition like the Whigs, Marxists, etc.
This sort of theory is sort of a “tunnel vision” Western bias look at things, that won’t make much sense with much scrutiny.
So scrutinize it then! Saying this is a biased view without substantiating anything doesn’t help me understand your point any better 
Sorry:
Why pick some arbitrary thing like “religion”, why not artists, the “miller’s guild” or some other cultural function that “competes”? Also, how easy do you think it is to get a decentdeterministic narrative of a social phenomeon like religion?
There is no way to get a correlation=causation with religion. Just look at the histores of the Zoroastrians in Persia, they ran the gamut from Secular, semi-theocratic, in competition with the state, and in competition with other heresies, etc and nothing worth noting came out of it. The ancient world (pre Christain) world shows nothing in itself to concern oneself with church and state. Be they Carthaginians/Phoenicians who have some Baal as there chief god and live in decentralized city-states vs Centralized Assyrian Kings who establish their own gods, no cares or gives a damn, despite all the competing religions. None of these religions seemed to be enforced, there was no theocracy, and yet we get a plethora of results and governments.
Likewise when the King of England cast out the Catholics and proclaimed himself head of Church, which country became the most free, rich, and stable? Also, how much competition of Church and State are we talking about when we look at Spain, France, or the Crusades at various points in time? Compared to what and for how long a period? I am afraid narratives on the Catholic Church being some major force of liberty or oppression can not be made. It is just in Western self proclaimed “Enlightenment” Tradition to be looking at these things as something that matters, when it does not.
More important things to concern oneself with are the much more “mundane” and material thingssuch as trade routes, migrations, plagues, geography, ones relation with court and armies, population, where barbarians were and why they targeted who they did, and the growth of cities and the bourgoise class. At the very least, doesn’t that sound a bit more like an intuitively plausible narrative?
To be overly concerned with things like Feudalism, Kings, Protestantism, and Catholocism is missing the mark.
Note: The West did two other things that helped it rise, it was able to concretely identify materialism and her social by-product, markets; the two most important things to ever be defined and recognized by humans. This materialism is also synonomus with the West’s tradition of non-cogntion to gibberish and the disregard of radical (cosmological) skepticism. It is unfortunate that those who recognized and used materialism the best (Heraclitus, Democritus, Hobbes, Stirner, Schumpeter, Mises, Nietzsche, The British, etc) are usually undermined, disparaged, and villified. I have a hunch this is done so people can make their little social signaling pet narratives about non-cognitive things (such as socialism) and “controlling” insanely complex social phenomena via simplistic narratives to try and get an advantage on something (ex: I love/hate Catholics or Jews, the inevitability of Socialism, America is the Chosen Land, etc)
MAJOR EDITS MADE
The West did two other things that helped it rise, it was able to concretely identify materialism and her social by-product, markets;
Why do you suppose that the west was able to identify these two idea while other areas of the world were unable to?
when you watch the series ancient aliens on the history channel…it isn’t a mystery. they had help.
how in the world would an ancient civilization carve the tops off of mountains in south america?
we would probably have extreme trouble doing that now with all of our technology…if it all
Why in the world would ancient people waste their resources to carve the top off a mountain? and build an airstrip on top?!
How in the world would ancient people carve perfect lines and tiny precise holes in giant blocks of diorite? (second hardest material)
Experts say they would have trouble doing that now with precise diamond head cutters.
there are many more questions…