3 ms·

What is the argument that you're trying to refute? I got more of a vibe from your comment. I feel like this is a great opportunity for the AskHistorians subredd

What is the argument that you're trying to refute? I got more of a vibe from your comment. I feel like this is a great opportunity for the AskHistorians subreddit. But I think generalizing to just Europe says something, though, rather than comparing countries to countries. And while I do agree there has likely been some exaggeration, I also think you may be underestimating the logistics of massive populations considering the time period (as well as just how early they had certain things, if you're ever near the Met in NY, check out their Chinese stuff and the dates next to them, though their collection is pretty small). The best hypotheses I've seen (which I can't find, it was in passing long ago somewhere), suggests European division fueled a lot of later innovation. War does seem to drive technology. When you're China back then, who are you really competing against? You've already finished the conquering and unification phase that individual European countries are still dreaming about. So why do you need guns? You're essentially Rome of East Asia (and Romans are no more, perhaps not a coincidence). Korea, Japan, and Vietnam are either vassals or non-threats. You've got silk, porcelain (which itself was pretty amazing compared to "European" alternatives), and tea to pass your time instead (and to trade with). You're already pretty huge for the time period, and managing a country of that size and technology level is already pretty challenging. Meanwhile, Europe is a perfect climate for border skirmishing and competition. When England came knocking on China's door in a more aggressive fashion, the Emperor at the time still had arrogant delusions about China's comparative might. And they paid for that. But the opium wars and WW2 were a wake up call. Also, glass. China never discovered glass, and glass unlocked all sorts of technologies. Edit: So the other way of looking at it is: The Han tribe did get ahead of their neighbors with all their fancy doodads early on, and perhaps that's why China is the size it is now. The Romans almost did it in their local sphere, and arguably England later, although by then technological spread was more uniform. If ancient Europe had been sitting next to ancient China, perhaps they'd be speaking Chinese now?

purplelobster 13y ago
It makes sense to compare China to Europe instead of single European countries because they can both be considered civilizations. The difference being that China has always been striving for unification (although throughout much of it's history has actually been divided or in civil war if you'd call it that). Had Qin Shi Huang not imposed cultural and economical uniformity perhaps China would be more like Europe today? My argument was mostly against popular literature presenting this world view where China just stumbled a little bit and where the rise of the west was almost accidental. I see this all over in "insight porn" type literature. This article sort of started out like that but my knee jerk reaction was wrong.
- scarmig 13y ago
  The concepts of both Europe and China are pretty problematic. The classical Greeks and Romans, for instance, would be utterly flummoxed if you called them Europeans. Their civilization was something much closer to what we might call the Mediterranean world. Even if you asked them about other civilizations they knew about or were competing with, they would have pointed out Persia long before places like Britain, Germany, or non-Mediterranean France, which are the North Atlantic nations that people are really talking about when they discuss the rise of Europe. And even today, the lived experiences of Greeks are much closer to the lived experiences of, say, Turks than they are to the typical Englishman. And the "cultural and economical uniformity" of China is easily overstated, and developing it was a long process of colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and state building. With hindsight its easy to project our current conception of China back several millenia, but we shouldn't mistake convenient teleologies spouted by the Chinese state as descriptive of the ethno-cultural state of people in that expansive geography two millenia ago.

purplelobster 13y ago

It makes sense to compare China to Europe instead of single European countries because they can both be considered civilizations. The difference being that China has always been striving for unification (although throughout much of it's history has actually been divided or in civil war if you'd call it that). Had Qin Shi Huang not imposed cultural and economical uniformity perhaps China would be more like Europe today? My argument was mostly against popular literature presenting this world view where China just stumbled a little bit and where the rise of the west was almost accidental. I see this all over in "insight porn" type literature. This article sort of started out like that but my knee jerk reaction was wrong.

scarmig 13y ago
The concepts of both Europe and China are pretty problematic. The classical Greeks and Romans, for instance, would be utterly flummoxed if you called them Europeans. Their civilization was something much closer to what we might call the Mediterranean world. Even if you asked them about other civilizations they knew about or were competing with, they would have pointed out Persia long before places like Britain, Germany, or non-Mediterranean France, which are the North Atlantic nations that people are really talking about when they discuss the rise of Europe. And even today, the lived experiences of Greeks are much closer to the lived experiences of, say, Turks than they are to the typical Englishman. And the "cultural and economical uniformity" of China is easily overstated, and developing it was a long process of colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and state building. With hindsight its easy to project our current conception of China back several millenia, but we shouldn't mistake convenient teleologies spouted by the Chinese state as descriptive of the ethno-cultural state of people in that expansive geography two millenia ago.