European Reactions to Competition

[The Sandman]

I just started reading the Guns of the Tawantinsuya timeline, and it made me wonder what the reaction to something similar might have been in Europe. In OTL, the Europeans didn't really have any serious competition in the world, with exception of the Ottomans, for several centuries. This undoubtedly helped to fuel a sense of cultural and racial superiority. How might things have changed, though, if one of the various native groups in the Americas, Africa, or Asia been able to successfully hold off European conquest? What effects would this have had on European thought? Or would it simply have encouraged the Europeans to try harder to obliterate the opposition?

 

[Peter Cowan]

Native cultures often did resist sucessfully - Ethiopa is a good example with its defeat of the italians at Adowa. The Spanish also came badly unstuck in Morocco at various times from the 1500s onwards culminating in a speactacular defeat in the 1920s.

Japan, probably a special case, also maintained its unique culture by expelling all the foreigners. By the time it became open to Western influence, it was able to modernise on its own terms and compete against the European powers.

Even the British Empire had problems - the conquest of India would have been impossible without local support. Even then control of many areas on the NW frontier was tenuous in the extreme and Afghanistan was never conquered. One sideline of this was the "martial race" idea - certain Indian groupings, often those that given the Empire a tough fight, were used to form the basis of the Indian Army and these were seen as superior to the run of the mill native.

It was a similar story in Africa, especially West Africa - the British preferred to work through local chiefs, albeit after winning a war, rather than impose a direct rule.

 

[carlton_bach]

There's a difference between successful resistance and effective competition. The reistance of people like the Araucanos, the Ethiopians or the Pushtun created a sense of grudging respect and even admiration while the Japanese, Chinese and Ottomans were usually accepted as lesser civilisations, but civilised peoples. This really fit in nicely with the developing European worldview of a gradation of peoples with themselves at the top.

If there had been a real competitor - a nation with the technology, resources and policies to colonise overseas and encroach on European markets - I'm sure it would have been treated very differently. Interestingly, until the waning years of the 18th century the Chinese were pretty much regarded as equals. European intellectuals took an active interest in Chinese society and philosophy, not as students of ethnology or antiquarians, but as admirers and emulators. The state of the 'Grand Turk' had lost this status in the course of the 17th century. It's certainly not inconceivable for either - or another - to fill this role, and I'm sure the Europeans would have come to terms with it fairly quickly, psychologically speaking. How long did it take for the Russians and Japanese, respectively, to be accepted among the great powers?

 

[Arachnid]

Well the Russians got recognition as a great poer after Poltava. The Japanese got it after Pearl Harbour.

 

[Flocculencio]

The Japanese got it after Pearl Harbour.

After the Russo-Japanese War, I'd think.

 

[MrP]

After the Russo-Japanese War, I'd think.

Although some people still refused to believe that anyone Japanese could fly. Racially incapable, of course.

 

[Arachnid]

They got recognised as a regional power who could take on a decript, corrupt mess of a state. Not as Great power like UK, US or Germany.

 

[stevep]

There's a difference between successful resistance and effective competition. The reistance of people like the Araucanos, the Ethiopians or the Pushtun created a sense of grudging respect and even admiration while the Japanese, Chinese and Ottomans were usually accepted as lesser civilisations, but civilised peoples. This really fit in nicely with the developing European worldview of a gradation of peoples with themselves at the top.

If there had been a real competitor - a nation with the technology, resources and policies to colonise overseas and encroach on European markets - I'm sure it would have been treated very differently. Interestingly, until the waning years of the 18th century the Chinese were pretty much regarded as equals. European intellectuals took an active interest in Chinese society and philosophy, not as students of ethnology or antiquarians, but as admirers and emulators. The state of the 'Grand Turk' had lost this status in the course of the 17th century. It's certainly not inconceivable for either - or another - to fill this role, and I'm sure the Europeans would have come to terms with it fairly quickly, psychologically speaking. How long did it take for the Russians and Japanese, respectively, to be accepted among the great powers?

I think the problem is that European strength was based on its diversity and heterogeneousity. With either the Ottoman or Chinese states they are so greatly tied to centralised power and the dominance of the political/military establishment that seeing the sort of cultural vigour and development that existed in Europe is difficult. Especially since, once they realised they were being outdistanced by the west the general attitude was 'we must have unity and centralised power' which compounded the problem.


Steve

 

[Faeelin]

Especially since, once they realised they were being outdistanced by the west the general attitude was 'we must have unity and centralised power' which compounded the problem.

Well, the "let's fight amongst ourselves and ally with the Europeans" didn't work out too well for the Indians (of both sorts), did it?

For that matter, it worked for Japan.

With either the Ottoman or Chinese states they are so greatly tied to centralised power and the dominance of the political/military establishment that seeing the sort of cultural vigour and development that existed in Europe is difficult

AAAH!

No, seriously, this is pretty inaccurate. Some parts of Chinese history were more vigorous than others; and some parts of European were less vigorous.

It's weird; we don't go around praising the cultural benefits that the sack of Madgeburg brought to central Germany, yet it's taken automatically that Centralized Rule precludes innovation and development.

 

[Arachnid]

You should read "Why the West has Won" by Victor Davis Hanson.

Basically he puts it down to democracy+free market beats autocracy+planned economy every time.

 

[Faeelin]

You should read "Why the Wes has Won" by Victor Davis Hanson.

Basically he puts it down to democracy+free market beats autocracy+planned economy every time.

If it's anything like his other book, Carnage and Culture, it's probably wrong whenever facts conflict with what the author chooses to believe.

(Searches for his post from a while ago).

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=19782&highlight=franks

 

[carlton_bach]

You should read "Why the West has Won" by Victor Davis Hanson.

Basically he puts it down to democracy+free market beats autocracy+planned economy every time.

I have very little respect left for Hanson. Frankly, as a big picture theoretician, he is a great Graecist. Well, I guess his new crop of book pays better than his (very good) studies of Ancient Greek warfare, but if you don't know who the professionals at Cannae were, you have no business making general observations on history.

 

[Peter Cowan]

Thinking about it, are we sure the West (Europe, America etc) has won? Could we not be in a period of temporary ascendancy and heading for a fall.

There are many possible "opponents" both in economic terms and otherwise. China and India are becoming developed economies with somewhat differing views to what westerners consider to be fundamental rights. South America seems to be veering towards a socialist anti-USA agenda and there is also the threat of a militant Islam - as events in Iran and Iraq show, democracy does not necessarily mean a pro-western viewpoint (admittedly their version of democracy isn't quite what we recognise). Squabbles between the EU and USA (and both sides have their faults) isn't helping. Neither is the almost suicidal way western consumers will buy cheap goods from these countries while ignoring the labour conditions and environmental policies of these countries. I've noticed that people will always tell pollsters that they disapprove of child labour, starvation wages, poor working practices and heavily pollutiing factories but then go out and buy the cheap clothes etc that these places make.

 

[stevep]

Well, the "let's fight amongst ourselves and ally with the Europeans" didn't work out too well for the Indians (of both sorts), did it?

For that matter, it worked for Japan.

AAAH!

No, seriously, this is pretty inaccurate. Some parts of Chinese history were more vigorous than others; and some parts of European were less vigorous.

It's weird; we don't go around praising the cultural benefits that the sack of Madgeburg brought to central Germany, yet it's taken automatically that Centralized Rule precludes innovation and development.

Perhaps I was being too simplistic but I think as a general rule of thumb it can apply. There are exceptions to every rule and you can have things go too far. Your example of Madgeburg and the 30 Years war in general applies there.

There were periods when China had spectacular economic and technological development but generally the central bureaucracy and support of land based economies won out. Similarly, before the Shongunate in Japan the country went through a prolonged period of civil war. This in part was responsible for the policies of the Shongunate and the stagnation that followed. It has been suggested that if things had gone slightly differently Japan could have had a kind of technological breakthrough. They were developing very efficient guns and other such technology and the suggestion was that by the 18thC they could have been taking the Philippines from Spain.

On the other hand Japan was not totally united by a long measure in the period after the 1868 restoration. This included both groups wanting to try and pretend they could restore the isolation and ignore the outside world and various others struggling for power.

You might have argued that if the catholic church or one particular political group or kingdom had gained predominance in west/central Europe it also might have stagnated.

Steve

 

[Faeelin]

Perhaps I was being too simplistic but I think as a general rule of thumb it can apply. There are exceptions to every rule and you can have things go too far. Your example of Madgeburg and the 30 Years war in general applies there.

Perhaps Renaissance Italy is a better example?

Or France, during the Hundred years War?

The US was united, compared to Europe, for much of the 19th century. Yet it advanced just as fast in terms of technology, and in some ways faster. Why?

There were periods when China had spectacular economic and technological development but generally the central bureaucracy and support of land based economies won out.

True; and there were periods when Europe had spectacular economic development but it was then crashed by a mercenary with a sword.

Let's turn this around. Aside from in the art of learning how to blow stuff up, what European innovations were spurred by a divided Europe?

 

[Smaug]

After the Russo-Japanese War, I'd think.

I concur...In 40 odd years, they went from a marginally third world state, to an asian power. It speaks volumes on thier desire to be a part of modern nations. They decided to change things......and they did it, right or wrong.

 

[Wozza]

Although some people still refused to believe that anyone Japanese could fly. Racially incapable, of course.

The Japanese have wings?


I think this is a quote from the Times shortly before the fall of Singapore

"The Japanese do not make good pilots, they have no sense of balance as a result of being carried on their mothers' backs as children."

 

[stevep]

Perhaps Renaissance Italy is a better example?

Or France, during the Hundred years War?

The US was united, compared to Europe, for much of the 19th century. Yet it advanced just as fast in terms of technology, and in some ways faster. Why?

True; and there were periods when Europe had spectacular economic development but it was then crashed by a mercenary with a sword.

Let's turn this around. Aside from in the art of learning how to blow stuff up, what European innovations were spurred by a divided Europe?

The US was able to advance in raw terms at a similar speed to Europe but it was to a large degree part of the European system. They maintained that unity by a brutal and costly civil war as well as conflicts with weaker neighbours. At least some of the correspondents on other threads on the ACW have suggested that the war and the tension generated by the imposed union hindered US development.

The various conflicts in Europe caused much bloodshed and suffering, as well as spurring developments, both in ideas and structure as well as population. However have you considered if one of those mercenaries had united Europe? My point is that while the bloodshed might not have altered much the rate of technical and social changes would have been greatly declined.

The big advantage Europe had compared to its chief rivals was IMO its organisation rather than its actual technical edge - at least in the early days. For instance in India and later Turkey and China attempts were made to implement reforms, including military ones. However they lacked the social basis they had in the west, and the ability to make those reforms integral because they were imposed from above by command economies.

Steve

 

[The Sandman]

In that case, why didn't you see enormous societal and technological change in China during any of the occasions when it disintegrated into multiple warring kingdoms?

For that matter, why didn't India go the same way Europe did; it was also a land with a large number of feuding princedoms when the Europeans showed up and conquered it?

It seems to me that what really promotes change is competition without active warfare; active warfare tends to kill a lot of the people and destroy a lot of the economic base that you would need in order to advance.

 

[Faeelin]

The various conflicts in Europe caused much bloodshed and suffering, as well as spurring developments, both in ideas and structure as well as population. However have you considered if one of those mercenaries had united Europe? My point is that while the bloodshed might not have altered much the rate of technical and social changes would have been greatly declined.

That's your argument; but what's your evidence?

How is England's development hindered if it's part of an empire that rules Europe as well?

How does the fact that Europe is divided help develop better waterwheels?

The big advantage Europe had compared to its chief rivals was IMO its organisation rather than its actual technical edge - at least in the early days.

And what was its organizational edge, specifically?

For instance in India and later Turkey and China attempts were made to implement reforms, including military ones.

Umm. I find it very hard to believe that Russia, circa 1700, was more advanced than China.