Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ggamer]

I suppose Europe retains a lot of knowledge, so technology doesn't take about 200-ish years to reboot in Europe after the European dark ages are done with

(is that about right? 700ish - 900ish, then 900 - 1100 to get rough technological parity with the late roman empire. is that right?)

Do you hear that? That's the sound of /r/badhistory screaming.

braj it's been a while, ok?

[mainiac]

... so, one of the more obvious prompts for alt-history: The Library of Alexandria doesn't burn down. None of the information within is lost.

What happens?

Not a lot.  The Library was more then a building and it was much declined from it's heyday when it burned.

[RedKing]

My favorite what-if has always been if the Roman Empire (during one of its golden periods, either under Augustus, Hadrian, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius) had made full contact with the Han Empire (one of China's "Golden Ages")?

They knew of each other through Parthian traders and travelers, and sent envoys but neither envoy party made it to the other side.

[LordSlowpoke]

this basically means that persia was conquered by either romans or the chinese

if it was the chinese, it means that the emperor casually forgot the "fuck the rest of the world, we have everything we want in china" doctrine and is pretty much going to wreck things

if it were the romans, no idea

but trade would pretty greatly benefit both the empires, no doubt

[FearfulJesuit]

Presumably you'd have some sort of technological exchange. Looking at a relevant Wiki article, the most likely exchanges are paper and decent steel from the Han to Rome, and better engineering tech both ways.

It's hard to imagine a whole lot coming out of it, I think. Arguably, Rome's decline started in the late Republic; Roman cities were drains on the rest of the empire rather than centers of innovation, and it became a rentier state. It might have been able to stave off the Germanic invasions for a while longer with steel weapons- the Han never fell to external invasion, but rather gave way to a succession of smaller, shorter-lived dynasties for a couple centuries until the Tang period.

I think a more interesting point of diversion is one in which the elite of Mecca succeed in offing Muhammed before Islam gets off the ground. Byzantium came very close to re-establishing the old Roman empire under Justinian, and Persia might have had a bit of a rebirth, too. (A major reason why the Arabs were able to take over most of the Middle East with astonishing speed was that Persia and Byzantium insisted on wasting their national coffers on pointless wars with each other).

It's difficult to imagine China taking over Persia- Persia is just way too far. I vaguely remember reading at some point- RedKing may be able to correct me on this- about a Tang-era campaign to modern Sinkiang and central Asia that completely depleted the empire's once-massive funds because 90% of supplies were eaten by the supply lines. Byzantium has a much better shot at Persia since its armies don't have to walk over hundreds of miles of wasteland to get there, but it would probably still be a net minus to the empire. (Maybe...I really don't know. The Achaemenids were pretty successful, and bigger than the Romans, although there had to have been a good deal of internal decay by the 4th century or Alexander would have had a much harder time).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My favorite what-if has always been if the Roman Empire (during one of its golden periods, either under Augustus, Hadrian, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius) had made full contact with the Han Empire (one of China's "Golden Ages")?

They knew of each other through Parthian traders and travelers, and sent envoys but neither envoy party made it to the other side.

What, no love for Song industrial takeoff?

[FearfulJesuit]

My favorite what-if has always been if the Roman Empire (during one of its golden periods, either under Augustus, Hadrian, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius) had made full contact with the Han Empire (one of China's "Golden Ages")?

They knew of each other through Parthian traders and travelers, and sent envoys but neither envoy party made it to the other side.

What, no love for Song industrial takeoff?

The problem with classical China is that, to my knowledge, it never had any concept of the joint-stock corporation, which is sort of a prerequisite for private parties undertaking massive projects on the sort of scale that the state would otherwise have to do.

Otherwise, the ingredients are pretty much all there: both the printing press (including movable type, although due to the limitations of the Chinese writing system, it never really conferred much of an advantage over woodblock) and the banknote are medieval Chinese inventions. Fractional reserve banking as Westerners understood it never really took off, though, for the same reason it never took off in Rome: loans and finance were mostly run by rich families.

I've also heard the theory that China, a large and rich country with no major competitors nearby, never felt the need to innovate to get ahead, while the states of Europe were locked in a perpetual arms race that drove innovation and exploration. As is often the case in history, a combination of all of these is probably true.

[RedKing]

Presumably you'd have some sort of technological exchange. Looking at a relevant Wiki article, the most likely exchanges are paper and decent steel from the Han to Rome, and better engineering tech both ways.

It's hard to imagine a whole lot coming out of it, I think. Arguably, Rome's decline started in the late Republic; Roman cities were drains on the rest of the empire rather than centers of innovation, and it became a rentier state. It might have been able to stave off the Germanic invasions for a while longer with steel weapons- the Han never fell to external invasion, but rather gave way to a succession of smaller, shorter-lived dynasties for a couple centuries until the Tang period.

I think a more interesting point of diversion is one in which the elite of Mecca succeed in offing Muhammed before Islam gets off the ground. Byzantium came very close to re-establishing the old Roman empire under Justinian, and Persia might have had a bit of a rebirth, too. (A major reason why the Arabs were able to take over most of the Middle East with astonishing speed was that Persia and Byzantium insisted on wasting their national coffers on pointless wars with each other).

It's difficult to imagine China taking over Persia- Persia is just way too far. I vaguely remember reading at some point- RedKing may be able to correct me on this- about a Tang-era campaign to modern Sinkiang and central Asia that completely depleted the empire's once-massive funds because 90% of supplies were eaten by the supply lines. Byzantium has a much better shot at Persia since its armies don't have to walk over hundreds of miles of wasteland to get there, but it would probably still be a net minus to the empire. (Maybe...I really don't know. The Achaemenids were pretty successful, and bigger than the Romans, although there had to have been a good deal of internal decay by the 4th century or Alexander would have had a much harder time).

Yeah, for the most part Imperial China didn't bother greatly with Central Asia because there was shit-all there. The Han did carve out a corridor through Xiongnu lands, to keep the Silk Road open because the trade made it a worthwhile venture. They did this mostly through tributary states, taking a particular clan that was less hostile and setting them up as the local "king" acting on behalf of the Emperor. As long as they kept their neighbors at bay and the spice flowed, they kept their place. If they didn't, they'd be replaced with another clan.

Of course, whenever there was dynastic turbulence, those client states lost their support and usually got ripped to pieces by their neighbors.

There were a couple of major Tang expeditions in the latter 600's, but I'm not aware of them having a major fiscal impact. The An Lushan rebellion 100 years later was a much bigger cause of dynastic failure.

In general, wars fought in Central Asia relied on local tribes combined with a core of Imperial troops as the center of the army. But even the expeditions to Xinjiang were only concerned with keeping the trade routes open, not with territorial control.

[WealthyRadish]

Song Chinese invested their funds in joint stock companies and in multiple sailing vessels at a time when monetary gain was assured from the vigorous overseas trade and indigenous trade along the Grand Canal and Yangzi River.[13]

I dunno, wikipedia says they had corporations, if that means anything.

My guess for why Europe eventually snowballed was that they had sufficiently advanced predecessors (enough access to the works of the Romans and ancient Greeks) to get a decent starting position, while also having to aggressively overcome a trade disadvantage. Always fighting each other in stupid wars and competing over who can get favorable access to the limited luxuries coming in from the east (while lacking in much worth trading, and barely keeping the peasants from starving half the time during a period of sudden climate change) encouraged rulers to seek whatever edge they can get over their neighbors, while in China they were stable and rich enough that technological progress (while beneficial when it happened) wasn't as necessary. If it weren't for Rome though, the Germanic tribes probably wouldn't have the baseline advancement necessary for trade and competition to amount to anything.

Just speculation, but hey, thread.

[RedKing]

Song Chinese invested their funds in joint stock companies and in multiple sailing vessels at a time when monetary gain was assured from the vigorous overseas trade and indigenous trade along the Grand Canal and Yangzi River.[13]

I dunno, wikipedia says they had corporations, if that means anything.

My guess for why Europe eventually snowballed was that they had sufficiently advanced predecessors (enough access to the works of the Romans and ancient Greeks) to get a decent starting position, while also having to aggressively overcome a trade disadvantage. Always fighting each other in stupid wars and competing over who can get favorable access to the limited luxuries coming in from the east (while lacking in much worth trading, and barely keeping the peasants from starving half the time during a period of sudden climate change) encouraged rulers to seek whatever edge they can get over their neighbors, while in China they were stable and rich enough that technological progress (while beneficial when it happened) wasn't as necessary. If it weren't for Rome though, the Germanic tribes probably wouldn't have the baseline advancement necessary for trade and competition to amount to anything.

Just speculation, but hey, thread.

I thinka it has to do with China being so dominant that its only real threats were internal (or hordes of Central Asian marauders striking when a dynasty was weak). So there was a greater emphasis on maintaining order at the cost of advancement. Stagnation ensued.

In Europe, there were external threats galore for most states, so advancement and relative advantage took precedence over social stability. In theory then, a unified Europe would have had slower

If you've ever read Frank Herbert's The Dosadi Experiment, it's basically this theory cranked to 11. A planet which has been specifically created to encourage extreme competition between everyone, so that eventually they evolve into total badassery.

[Loud Whispers]

In Europe, there were external threats galore for most states, so advancement and relative advantage took precedence over social stability. In theory then, a unified Europe would have had slower

That explains why in Europe there WAS A FUCKING REVOLUTION EVERY DAY

[WealthyRadish]

I've always found it interesting that the nomads were so capable of wrecking everything, even while lacking many of the features we'd commonly associate with civilization.

Another thing I think Europe had in its favor (that I'm not sure if China had) was the theological tradition that developed out of Catholicism, roughly similar to the modern international scientific community. While all the nobles were creating states and fighting each other, the clergy could remain independent and continue publishing works and communicating with each other in a common language (again, inherited from Rome). It doesn't seem like much of a leap for those early universities and monasteries to go from just producing theological works to start pursuing basic math and semi-science, especially as more ancient texts come back into circulation. And then when things go far enough for it to become borderline heretical, bam, the reformation happens just in time.

[mainiac]

It's hard to imagine a whole lot coming out of it, I think. Arguably, Rome's decline started in the late Republic;

You can make an argument but it's a really weak argument given how little solid data we have.  We know that Rome had less commerce in the late empire than at the height but when you have fewer then 10 data points about stuff like the cost of transporting grain it's really hard to nail the date when the Mediterranean trade declined or what caused it.

[burningpet]

Wonder how the world woulda turned out if the Mongols never did their thing and demolished lots of the infrastructure in the middle east.

Europe might have continued to be in a sort of "trade quarantine" and dark ages for a bit longer. although, a lot of historians maintain that the islamic states were highly corrupted and mismanaged and were about to crumble on themselves anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Pirenne

My favorite what-if has always been if the Roman Empire (during one of its golden periods, either under Augustus, Hadrian, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius) had made full contact with the Han Empire (one of China's "Golden Ages")?

They knew of each other through Parthian traders and travelers, and sent envoys but neither envoy party made it to the other side.

What, no love for Song industrial takeoff?

The problem with classical China is that, to my knowledge, it never had any concept of the joint-stock corporation, which is sort of a prerequisite for private parties undertaking massive projects on the sort of scale that the state would otherwise have to do.

I've also heard the theory that China, a large and rich country with no major competitors nearby, never felt the need to innovate to get ahead, while the states of Europe were locked in a perpetual arms race that drove innovation and exploration. As is often the case in history, a combination of all of these is probably true.

That's pretty much the theory that Jared diamond maintain through "Guns, Germs and Steel". his example story was the chinese central decision to completely stop building ships and innovate in their designs.

If you've ever read Frank Herbert's The Dosadi Experiment, it's basically this theory cranked to 11. A planet which has been specifically created to encourage extreme competition between everyone, so that eventually they evolve into total badassery.

A fantastic read. he also explores this idea in the Dune series with two societies: the Fremen of Dune and the Sardaukar.

[FearfulJesuit]

Idea for an alternate history novel: the Norse colony on Vinland survives, and Cnut hangs onto England.

I have to run to class now, but maybe tonight I'll have better ideas...