4 ms·
100% completely ignores... why didn't China dominate? Have you even read the book? It's mentioned and he gives possible reasons for it, even though it isn't t
by mehwoot 8y ago
100% completely ignores... why didn't China dominate?
Have you even read the book? It's mentioned and he gives possible reasons for it, even though it isn't the focus of the book.
- javajosh 8y agoI read the book, a very long time ago, but my understanding is that China was never interested in expansion, culturally. China itself was a vast, insular monarchy for thousands of years, protected by the Himalayas to the west, an ocean to the east and south, and vast steppes to the north. The Chinese, culturally, were convinced of their innate superiority (like most cultures!) and only wanted to perfect their kingdom, not grow it. European culture, on the other hand, was not homogenous and the in-fighting between "white" nations forced each one to find advantage anywhere they could find it, including overseas, and the valuable raw-materials a globe-spanning empire can give the homeland. The technical difficulties of running large navies, building ships, lead to lots of engineering advances. So, I guess if China hadn't been unified, and had been more vulnerable, parts of it would also have been forced to seek advantage in trade, and history would have been a very different story.
- ForRealsies 8y agoNot a history major, but wasn't Northern China conquered by foreign invaders again and again? It was anything but pleasant.