12857 réponses à ce sujet

[tklivory]

*Sigh* tis the Western microscope writ large...

Well, if you want to talk about sheer impact on the world based on pure population numbers, I think both Ashoka and the various Chinese Dynasties have had a bigger influence simply because more people were born under their bailiwick and in those regions than elsewhere.

However, if you want to talk about effin' up the world for pretty much everyone in the long run, the Roman Empire provided the nucleus for what would become the Byzantine Empire, Constantine and his shenanigans, the whole Crusade business, and the eventual emergence of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, so.... I *blame* the Romans and study them, but I can't say I *like* them in any way, shape, or form.  If they hadn't happened to be the ones in power when the followers of Jeshua of Nazareth needed well-cared for roads, clear lines of communication and regional stability to begin what would become, in some ways, one of the most tyrannical Empires of all, I don't think we would be discussing them quite as much as we do now.

Also: if the Chinese Empire had been less isolationist and had pushed beyond China the way Spain and Portugal did when *they* had the technology, we'd likely be debating the influence of the Hsia Dynasty in Mandarin right now.

Now, don't get me wrong: they're important.  They're just not quite the foundation of all Modern Civilization that some historians in the West seem to believe that they are...


------


(and that, my friends, is how you troll Costin. Give me mah billy goats! I hunger!)

Modifié par tklivory, 05 décembre 2011 - 02:50 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

It's not really western centric, though the dominance of the West in the past 2 centuries axiomatically leads back to Rome's influence on their political institutions.

Rome had an influence on the Mediterranean world as well, both in terms of institutions and later on vis-a-vis Christianity. Though I contest the notion that Rome was only influential because of Christianity. It would have remained an important Empire with or without it.

In terms of influence over several regions and continents, and several (rather different) peoples, the Roman Empire was more influential than all the Chinese dynasties that I know of. Sure if they were less isolationist, history might have taken a different turn. But they were not.

And I agree that they are not the foundation for all civilization, nor are the Greeks. I argue that the Islamic Caliphates contributed more in certain fields, and influenced several regions vastly more than Rome or equally so.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2011 - 03:02 .

[tklivory]

I didn't mean they were *only* influential because of Christianity. Regionally (Mediterranean, northern Africa, and Europe) they were extremely influential. I merely argue that in terms of global impact (for all continents) is was their role as the gestational region of Christianity that would eventually be their overarching legacy and their embarrassment.

But I do believe that the depth of their influence is a bit overrated. And that we outside of China tend to discount Chinese historical influence because it was mostly transparent to the West (much the same way that India didn't record or remember Alexander's 'invasion' into Indian territory) and far outside what is normally discussed in standard historical journals and circles pretty much everywhere except China.

Certainly in terms of science and mathematics, the Caliphates had them beat (and, to a large extent, certain types of literature). Again, they tend to be sadly unknown in the West, too. I mean, how many Westerners have even *heard* of Sijilmasa? *sigh*

Modifié par tklivory, 05 décembre 2011 - 03:08 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Them influencing Europe, who in turn was the dominant force in the world for 2 centuries or so with an immense global impact, is indirect influence at least. Perhaps their most obvious legacy is Christianity, but I don't think it's the only one.

I agree that Chinese history is very under-studied (well all non-Western history tens to be understudied in the west), except in China of course. But as a non-Westerner, I cannot think of any significant Chinese influence on my people and region of origin (but vice versa is true, we had some impact on them), nor can I think of any major influence on a global level (inventions excluded). For the lack of a better term, their influence seems to be more localized (and by that, I mean restricted to the region and not only the country). Of course I am not talking about the contemporary world.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2011 - 03:19 .

[tklivory]

Oh, yeah, not the only one (as you stated, their governmental structure and writings were very significant), but it is their largest one.

Re: Chinese influence. That's why I describe the effect as 'transparent'. Who was it that Columbus was looking for and why? When Wang Mang pulled all currency out of China, and suddenly China couldn't trade with the outside world because money was a scarcity, how long did it take for Rome to feel the effects of that mysterpeared gold and goods on the Silk Road (hint, not long!), though Rome didn't record the source of that economic disruption? How much did China's deliberate policy choice to be isolationist rather than expansionist leave a vacuum that other Empires (Western and Islamic) then proceeded to fill? One does not notice emptiness, but the emptiness was nevertheless present. I mean, when the US pursued isolationism in the early parts of the Great War, that deliberate lack of action certainly had a distinct impact on the course of that war, even though the 'action' was all in the European theater.

[KnightofPhoenix]

But lack of action can rarely if ever produce as much impact as being active. China always had an impact and a big wieght on the global economy long before the modern period, but I'd argue that it was more indirect than direct. China was certainly not aware it was influencing the global economy that much and it was never their agenda (at the time). Like you said, it was for domestic reasons.

My readings of Chinese narratives and attitudes in the past reveals a remarkable amount of blindness and self-centeredness that actually surpasses the West. As you know I am sure, China thought itself to be the center of the world. Before the Opium War, British envoys gave the emperor a gift in the name of the Queen of England, and the emperor took this as a sign of submission. This is remarkable blindness in that they were seemingly completely unaware that Britain was much more powerful than they were, until they got a slap in the face (though I'd argue that Japan's slap on their face is what woke them up).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2011 - 03:39 .

[tklivory]

In this case, I look at it from the vacuum perspective, and it is very much a what if, but it is true that China had the technology for global domination (ships, troops, &c) centuries before any other major power. It's fun to speculate, and certainly some wonderful alt history fics have explored it. I just like to keep it in mind, because then I try to look at current affairs with the same eye: who would step in the US wasn't so arrogant? Leads to very weird thoughts on an idle night...

And yes, the Chinese were, in general *far* more internalized and apathetic of the world around them (except for recently, when they are beginning to truly engage the world around them). Their compass was even the opposite of ours in ancient times.

[Costin_Razvan]

I just like to keep it in mind, because then I try to look at current affairs with the same eye: who would step in the US wasn't so arrogant? Leads to very weird thoughts on an idle night...

China, because they sure as hell are smart, at least for now. Who knows in a 100 years. I wouldn't like to live in mainland China but I wouldn't mind Beijing or Singapore.

Who else is there really? The EU, not likely.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 05 décembre 2011 - 04:08 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

They might have had the technology and manpower for expansion. But I don't think they had the mindset for it or the culture. Empire building requires cultural projection as well.

I don't think there was a country other than the USA that could have assumed global hegemony after the decline of British hegemony. And while American hegemony is clearly declining, I do not see an alternative hegemon appearing any time soon. We are more headed towards a multi-polar system. Which are usually very unstable.

EDIT: China is rising as a major power, but I do not see it assuming the position of global hegemon in the short future. They still have a long way to go, in all fields.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2011 - 04:09 .

[Costin_Razvan]

We are more headed towards a multi-polar system. Which usually are very unstable.

You mean BRICS?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

We are more headed towards a multi-polar system. Which usually are very unstable.

You mean BRICS?

With EU. Yes, I think they will overcome their current crisis. The USA I think will remain a major power for quite some time and they have key resources at their disposal (well Canada, but same thing).
Turkey is on the rise and their influence in the Middle East is rising.

So EU, USA, BRICs and maybe Turkey with the MidEast (the least likely).

[Costin_Razvan]

EDIT: China is rising as a major power, but I do not see it assuming the position of global hegemon in the short future. They still have a long way to go, in all fields.

The Chinese rose up to where they are today in three decades. Give them two more and I suspect they will come to rival the USA, at which point ( or even earlier on ) there will be a war between them and the USA.

As for the USA. I do not think it will remain a major power for that long if it continues down the road it is on today, with no competent leader for a over a decade there. At the end however it definitively will remain a power, but not a major one. Kinda how the British are right now.

[KnightofPhoenix]

China's currency is no where near as key as the dollar or the euro, indeed the Chinese economy is still dependent on the RMB being artificially low. Their financial sector still requires a lot of work. And their naval and global strike capacities are still pathetic compared to the US (it is only now that they have an aircraft carrier). That's not mentioning the state of their civil society and their cultural output (still very localized).

Sure, in 2 decades, they can rival a declining US. That will not make them a global hegemon however.

If the US secures resources and have a more competent foreign policy, they can certainly remain a major power. They have the capacity, they just need a sound political direction. Which I think they will likely get sooner or later, they are not stupid. I should hope at least, for their sake.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2011 - 05:06 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Cultural hegemony will belong to the US and/or the West for a very long time now. It's mostly due to the english language and well the internet.

Econimc Hegemony on the other hand, yes I think they will have it in two decades. Military wise...eh that remains to be seen. But when it will come down to Taiwan, and it will come down to Taiwan, I'm placing my money on the Asian team.

 Which I think they will likely get sooner or later, they are not stupid. I should hope at least, for their sake.

They have no good leadership, not with the bullcrap that goes to even get elected as president of the USA.

P.S. Haven't seen you on Skype for a while now? That busy?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 05 décembre 2011 - 05:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I wouldn't go as far as economic hegemony in 2 decades. They still lag behind in key areas, their currency is still weak and their financial sector needs a lot of work, and competitors are on the rise. Now will they become the most powerful economy? That's almost inevitable, but that does not necessarily translate into global economic hegemony.

China can easily take Taiwan, I have little doubt of that and the US can do little to stop it. But in terms of how far China can strike, it's still very limited.

I am of the opinion that the real US leadership resides in people other than presidents. Perhaps these institutions might do something. Or they might not, hard to tell.

Yea, very busy. Studies, work and personal life and all that. But doing well.

In the meantime, a little tribute to Rome.

[Costin_Razvan]

Every nation on Earth depends on various degrees of China for goods as it stands, and that dependency will only increase in the coming years as I see it. Yes they have problems in that while others depend on them so do they depend on others.

Still with 3 trillions in reserves they are off to a good start.

Military wise....Aircraft Carriers are incredibly overrated. Oh they might give off a great image on the news, but they are massive targets, and using air fueling or ground based airfields is MUCH better.

As for Rome, this song is the best tribute for them: www.youtube.com/watch

As for US leadership. It's in the hands of businessmen, the 1% if I may. They don't care about the country but neither will they actively seek to destroy it.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 05 décembre 2011 - 06:40 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

China has no military bases worldwide and I question the efficiency of air-fueling, should they decide to hit targets in Europe. Tankers are easy targets as well. Not to mention that they will find a hard time re-arming in mid air. Not saying that they are militarily weak mind you, just that their global strike capacities are still limited when compared to the US.

But yea, China has solid foundations, and they could become global hegemon. But that I think would take several decades. But I could be wrong. Afterall just a few days ago we discover that China has 3000 nukes and not the estimated 400.

Don't really like that song, prefer Fundamentum.

[Costin_Razvan]

Afterall just a few days ago we discover that China has 3000 nukes and not the estimated 400.

My reaction to that was kinda like my reaction to finding out Sarkozy and Merkel want to change the EU, as in: Wait, what?! Though it's a wild guess as I see it, still I think the number is higher.

Have to say Sarkozy is an idiot but the idea is a sound one from my PoV in regards to the EU.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 05 décembre 2011 - 07:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I have to say, I commend HBO's Rome for making me feel a shred of pity on Marc Antony and Cleopatra, despite portraying them as foolish horny children for the most part (which historically is not what they were entirely. They just had to deal with someone much more intelligent than they were).

So far, it's the only incarnation of the two that made me feel sorry for them a bit. The movie Cleopatra certainly did not.

EDIT: then again, I might be going soft....why did I shave my goatee.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 décembre 2011 - 09:21 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Rome on HBO is too ****ing historically inaccurate for my tastes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

It is, but it's fun and has some good characters imo. Over-dramatized for sure, but with some interesting character development.

[Costin_Razvan]

MY MONEY is on 20 years from now most people will be saying, "Remember whe everyone thought China was finally going to become a world power?"

They got where they are today in 30 years, hell the real drive began just one decade ago for real.

Don't underestimate them.

[Addai]

Hanz54321 wrote...

The notion that the Roman Empire was nothing special is borderline trolling.

I mean c'mon - most of Western Society is still modelled after the Roman Empire today. That's two millenia plus a couple centuries.

You're just trying to ef with Costin, right?

People give them credit for everything.  Most of western society is not modeled after them, and their influence was bad as well as good.