4 ms·

At any point prior to roughly 1800, China was almost certainly the most advanced society on Earth. Statistics on historical world population are sketchy at bes

by douche 11y ago

At any point prior to roughly 1800, China was almost certainly the most advanced society on Earth. Statistics on historical world population are sketchy at best, but generally, you could pencil in between one-third and half of all humanity owing allegiance to whoever controlled the Yellow River. What's a little bizarre is how a relatively poor, thinly-peopled section of western Europe managed to attain such an outsized portion of power on the world stage in the first place. I've read any number of different theories on how and why this occurred, but I haven't yet pieced them together into something that really hangs together. Nevertheless, it happened... With regards to Carthage, power was almost entirely concentrated in the hands of the ex-Phoenician elites, so its not inaccurate to consider them a colonial Mediterranean culture, not appreciably different in kind from Syracuse, Massalia (Marseilles), or the Chersonese. It might be a stretch, but there could be some comparisons made between Carthaginian control of Iberia and Numidia with the British Raj. Egypt is attached by all geographic, economic and cultural ties to the Middle East and Mediterranean, and always has been, aside from technically residing in the continent of Africa.

meric 11y ago
If you can classify a people who've lived in Africa for a thousand years as "ex-Phoenician", who came from Syria[1] and Lebanon, you can classify them as "ex-Egyptians" who earlier originated from Egypt from 3000BC[2], then you might as well call them "ex-East Africans", from another few thousand years before, who were really, in the end "ex-Central Africans" from another few thousand years before that. Central Africa[3] => East Africa => Egypt => Syria & Lebanon, Levant => North Africa. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language#/media/File:Expansion_of_Afroasiatic.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language#/media/... Britain and Germany achieved outsized power as a poor people in Europe, but you forget Spanish already built a empire spanning between two continents in the 1500's. Before Spain (and the Ottomans), Mongolia was the dominant power, with China and Rome before that. I'm sure you know the Romans came from a small village. China too was borne of two small tribes[4]. Before Rome, it was Greece, and before Greece, it was Cathage, before Carthage, it was Egypt. It goes on and on, and on and on, and everyone has had or will have their turn in being a dominant power of the world[5]. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Emperor#Early_years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Emperor#Early_years [5] Fate of Empire - Sir John Grubb http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/...
Retric 11y ago
China was far less developed in 1800 than Europe so you probably want to push things back a few hundred years. In terms of ocean going navigation they where significantly behind Europe starting around 1400. Of note, they sent few trade ships to Europe compared to European trading with China. Europe had significantly more mathematical innovation. Culturally it's hard to quantify, but while China had long had a printing press there alphabet made mass production of books significantly harder. So, by the 1600's Europe had far more books. Things like nutrition and lifestyle are extremely hard to quantify. But, militarily Europe had significantly more advanced fortifications circa 1500's.
- douche 11y ago
  That's not really correct. Around about the close of the Qianlong Emperor's reign, China was possibly the most prosperous it had been, at least since the golden age of the Song dynasty. There was something on here not too long ago about the industrial revolution in Britain that went into this in some detail[1] - standards of living were a fair amount higher, per-capita, than in Western Europe at the same time. There is very little that China would, or ever did, want to import from Europe. This was a major historical problem for Western traders in the China market - outside of bullion, and furs, to some extent, they had a real hard time finding products that they could successfully trade. It's not as though China was bereft of the capabilities of fielding a large, powerful fleet - the Zheng He expeditions in the Ming dynasty were quite impressive, even if the accounts are somewhat exaggerated, and some of the biggest naval battles in history have been fought on Chinese lakes and rivers. But historically, the government was always facing serious threats from the interior of Asia, whereas coastal threats were generally little more than pirates. This has some knock-on effects - less incentive to study astronomy and geometry, when you aren't using them to sail ships around the world, different approaches to fortification - the Great Wall was more of a Ming thing, whereas the Qing, as an outsider foreign dynasty, tended towards assimilation of Mongols and other dangerous nomads into the ruling elite and the banners instead. [1] http://www.csun.edu/~jaa7021/hist531/Goldstone%20-%20Efflorescences%20and%20Economic%20Growth.pdf# http://www.csun.edu/~jaa7021/hist531/Goldstone%20-%20Efflore...
  - 11y ago

by douche 11y ago

meric 11y ago

If you can classify a people who've lived in Africa for a thousand years as "ex-Phoenician", who came from Syria[1] and Lebanon, you can classify them as "ex-Egyptians" who earlier originated from Egypt from 3000BC[2], then you might as well call them "ex-East Africans", from another few thousand years before, who were really, in the end "ex-Central Africans" from another few thousand years before that. Central Africa[3] => East Africa => Egypt => Syria & Lebanon, Levant => North Africa. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenicia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language#/media/File:Expansion_of_Afroasiatic.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language#/media/... Britain and Germany achieved outsized power as a poor people in Europe, but you forget Spanish already built a empire spanning between two continents in the 1500's. Before Spain (and the Ottomans), Mongolia was the dominant power, with China and Rome before that. I'm sure you know the Romans came from a small village. China too was borne of two small tribes[4]. Before Rome, it was Greece, and before Greece, it was Cathage, before Carthage, it was Egypt. It goes on and on, and on and on, and everyone has had or will have their turn in being a dominant power of the world[5]. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Emperor#Early_years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Emperor#Early_years [5] Fate of Empire - Sir John Grubb http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/...

Retric 11y ago

China was far less developed in 1800 than Europe so you probably want to push things back a few hundred years. In terms of ocean going navigation they where significantly behind Europe starting around 1400. Of note, they sent few trade ships to Europe compared to European trading with China. Europe had significantly more mathematical innovation. Culturally it's hard to quantify, but while China had long had a printing press there alphabet made mass production of books significantly harder. So, by the 1600's Europe had far more books. Things like nutrition and lifestyle are extremely hard to quantify. But, militarily Europe had significantly more advanced fortifications circa 1500's.

douche 11y ago
That's not really correct. Around about the close of the Qianlong Emperor's reign, China was possibly the most prosperous it had been, at least since the golden age of the Song dynasty. There was something on here not too long ago about the industrial revolution in Britain that went into this in some detail[1] - standards of living were a fair amount higher, per-capita, than in Western Europe at the same time. There is very little that China would, or ever did, want to import from Europe. This was a major historical problem for Western traders in the China market - outside of bullion, and furs, to some extent, they had a real hard time finding products that they could successfully trade. It's not as though China was bereft of the capabilities of fielding a large, powerful fleet - the Zheng He expeditions in the Ming dynasty were quite impressive, even if the accounts are somewhat exaggerated, and some of the biggest naval battles in history have been fought on Chinese lakes and rivers. But historically, the government was always facing serious threats from the interior of Asia, whereas coastal threats were generally little more than pirates. This has some knock-on effects - less incentive to study astronomy and geometry, when you aren't using them to sail ships around the world, different approaches to fortification - the Great Wall was more of a Ming thing, whereas the Qing, as an outsider foreign dynasty, tended towards assimilation of Mongols and other dangerous nomads into the ruling elite and the banners instead. [1] http://www.csun.edu/~jaa7021/hist531/Goldstone%20-%20Efflorescences%20and%20Economic%20Growth.pdf# http://www.csun.edu/~jaa7021/hist531/Goldstone%20-%20Efflore...
- 11y ago