Comments by "Persona" (@ArawnOfAnnwn) on "Why China Remained Poor for Centuries" video.

This is a much more recent phenomenon than the period the video is talking about. The Song dynasty for instance was an intellectual high point for China.
6
@agmuntianu They didn't thrive. Europe was a backwater for most of its history after Rome fell. Those wars did drain Europe. Europe took off after they found better opportunities elsewhere. Which happened after the discovery of new places, following the fall of Constantinople that forced them to look for new trade routes. And the discovery of the new world that followed from those voyages. In a way, the fall of the Byzantines was the catalyst for Europe.
4
It's worth noting WHY China opted for such stability - those two periods of high innovation on their graph were not empires, they were massive wars. China valued stability precisely because it knew just how terrible anarchy is. Indeed Europe experienced this too - Europe expended itself on internal wars for most of its history. Why did they reduce? Cos of the discovery of new places they could conquer instead, following the fall of Constantinople that forced them to look for new trade routes. And the discovery of the new world that followed from those voyages. In a way, the fall of the Byzantines was the catalyst for Europe.
4
@1wun1 Initial Chinese isolationism was a result of internal and external threats. Internally the emperor who sent Zheng He out on his famous voyages was a usurper. After he was overthrown the new emperor pushed to root out all of his support, including Zheng He. Externally China was traumatized by the former Yuan dynasty i.e. the Mongols, who had been overthrown but were still a threat from the north. So their focus was directed there rather than outward.
2
@gorilladisco9108 Initial Chinese isolationism was a result of internal and external threats. Internally the emperor who sent Zheng He out on his famous voyages was a usurper. After he was overthrown the new emperor pushed to root out all of his support, including Zheng He. Externally China was traumatized by the former Yuan dynasty i.e. the Mongols, who had been overthrown but were still a threat from the north. So their focus was directed there rather than outward.
2
@_B_B_B What you call 'competitors' were actually enemies. And all the wars that resulted didn't do Europe any good. It was a backwater for a millennium following the fall of Rome. It's worth noting WHY China opted for such stability - those two periods of high innovation on their graph were not empires, they were massive wars. They look good on that graph cos it only measures innovation, but they were terrible for people. China valued stability precisely because it knew just how terrible anarchy is. Indeed Europe experienced this too - Europe expended itself on internal wars for most of its history. Why did they reduce? Cos of the discovery of new places they could conquer instead, following the fall of Constantinople that forced them to look for new trade routes. As well as the discovery of the new world that followed from those voyages. In a way, the fall of the Byzantines was the catalyst for Europe. Oh and btw, China very much had serious enemies on its borders - they'd literally been ravaged and taken over by the Mongols. That was part of the reason for why China pulled back from the coasts - they were focused on ensuring the Mongols in the north never came back.
1
Easy to say, but it's worth noting WHY China opted for such stability - those two periods of high innovation on their graph were not empires, they were massive wars. China valued stability precisely because it knew just how terrible anarchy is. Indeed Europe experienced this too - Europe expended itself on internal wars for most of its history. Why did they reduce? Cos of the discovery of new places they could conquer instead, after the fall of Constantinople forced them to look for new trade routes. And the discovery of the new world that followed from those voyages. The fall of the Byzantines was the catalyst for Europe.
1
It's worth noting WHY China opted for such stability - those two periods of high innovation on their graph were not empires, they were massive wars. China valued stability precisely because it knew just how terrible anarchy is. Indeed Europe experienced this too - Europe expended itself on internal wars for most of its history. Why did they reduce? Cos of the discovery of new places they could conquer instead, following the fall of Constantinople that forced them to look for new trade routes. And the discovery of the new world that followed from those voyages. In a way, the fall of the Byzantines was the catalyst for Europe.
1
@michaelajustin3443 India was not outclassed by Europe. When Europeans first came to India, they had to bow down to the Mughal emperor, as well as the other Indian states. They already had guns and cannons and all the rest. So why did India fall? Ironically due to the opposite reason of China. Because of that infamous phrase - divide and conquer. Europe didn't fight all of India and win, they pitted kingdom after kingdom against each other, and offered their services as mercenary troops. They did lose as well, however the conquest of India wasn't done by the British crown, it was done by an entirely new kind of entity - the East India Company. Which came back from every setback cos of how enormously profitable it was. The Company wasn't seen as a political entity, but just traders and soldiers for hire. And, ironically, some of its later large investors were Indians themselves. The EIC made lots of money, used that to hire Indian soldiers, used those soldiers to fight strategic wars between Indian states in order to extract more favors, and even bribed their way to victory on several occasions. There was nothing grand about the British conquest of India. It wasn't even British, it was a private company carving up the region over decades of interference. Only after 1857 did the Crown take control of India.
1
@michaelajustin3443 India was not outclassed by Europe. When Europeans first came to India, they had to bow to the Mughal emperor, as well as other Indian states. They already had guns. So how was India taken over? Ironically due to the opposite reason of China i.e. because of divide and conquer. Europe didn't fight all of India, they pitted kingdom after kingdom against each other, and offered their services as mercenaries. They did lose as well, however the conquest of India wasn't done by the British crown, it was done by an entirely new kind of entity - the East India Company. Which came back from every setback cos of how enormously profitable it was. The Company wasn't seen as a political entity, but just traders and soldiers for hire. And, ironically, some of its later large investors were Indians themselves. The EIC made lots of money, used that to hire Indian soldiers, used those soldiers to fight strategic wars between Indian states in order to extract more favors, and even bribed their way to victory on several occasions. There was nothing grand about the British conquest. It wasn't even British, it was a private company carving up the region over decades of interference. Only after 1857 did the Crown take control.
1
@michaelajustin3443 India was not outclassed by Europe. When Europeans first came to India, they had to pay respect to the Mughal emperor, as well as other Indian states. They already had guns. So how was India taken over? Ironically due to the opposite reason of China i.e. because of divide and conquer. Europe didn't fight all of India, they pitted kingdom after kingdom against each other, and offered their services as mercenaries. They did lose as well, however the conquest of India wasn't done by the British crown, it was done by an entirely new kind of entity - the East India Company. Which came back from every setback cos of how enormously profitable it was. The Company wasn't seen as a political entity, but just traders and soldiers for hire. And, ironically, some of its later large investors were Indians themselves. The EIC made lots of money, used that to hire Indian soldiers, used those soldiers to fight strategic wars between Indian states in order to extract more favors, and even bribed their way to victory on several occasions. There was nothing grand about the British conquest. It wasn't even British, it was a private company carving up the region over decades of interference. Only after 1857 did the Crown take control.
1
@michaelajustin3443 India was not outclassed by Europe. When Europeans first came to India, they had to pay respect to the Mughal emperor, as well as other Indian states. They already had guns. So how was India taken over? Ironically due to the opposite reason of China i.e. because of divide and conquer. Europe didn't fight all of India, they pitted kingdom after kingdom against each other, and offered their services as mercenaries. They did lose as well, however the conquest of India wasn't done by the British crown, it was done by an entirely new kind of entity - the East India Company. Which came back from every setback cos of how enormously profitable it was. The Company wasn't seen as a political entity, but just traders and soldiers for hire. And, ironically, some of its later large investors were Indians themselves. The EIC made lots of money, used that to hire Indian soldiers, used those soldiers to fight strategic wars between Indian states in order to extract more favors, and even bribed their way to victory on several occasions. It was a private company carving up the region over decades of interference. Only after 1857 did the Crown take control - by then the conquest was done.
1