70 replies to this topic

[Hohmann]

Which historian? This seem to be a theory that is circulating in the 60s-80s. I don't believe any serious scholars in recent years buy such a claim.

I need to speak with some length over the subject (unfortunately, i am in short of time and will elaborate it further later)...
whether there can be little doubt about the extent of integration between Europe and the middle east comparing to that with China...India and China is a subject subject that can raise many questions...

One of my sources are Prof Wang Gungwu, who is a professor at the National University of Singapore and Chairman of East Asian Institute...
He observes that China and India were isolated from each other for years. It was largely considered a saintly spiritual place by the Chinese. China, in fact, did not have much to do with India. Yes, there was trade but largely with the Indian Muslims — mostly Tamil Muslims. China did not really know much of India.

Prof Wang Gungwu further elaborates the reasons why China adobted an isolationism stace... "Behind this strong opposition to a western construct of a liberal, democratic political system, was China’s history which saw the country ravaged by a series of invasions in which it lost a lot of its civilization heritage. Aware of how the Mongols, Central Asians and then Western onslaughts had weakened it before, China is interpreting itself as a modern nation-state against a seemingly anarchic international arena and the challenge to preserve its inherited political systems and heritage even as it wants to enrich its people and strengthen itself"

His thoughts were expressed to the Indian express.

Have a nice day.

[Hohmann]

Although i agree with you that the myth of an isolated China that refused all contacts with foreigners is a myth...

[Hohmann]

Please look at this: http://news.scotsman...a39s.6168665.jp

It is a very interesting article that corroborate your claims nonetheless, as i said, i dont dispute that China complete isolation is a myth...

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

One of my sources are Prof Wang Gungwu, who is a professor at the National University of Singapore and Chairman of East Asian Institute...
He observes that China and India were isolated from each other for years. It was largely considered a saintly spiritual place by the Chinese. China, in fact, did not have much to do with India. Yes, there was trade but largely with the Indian Muslims — mostly Tamil Muslims. China did not really know much of India.

Prof Wang Gungwu further elaborates the reasons why China adobted an isolationism stace... "Behind this strong opposition to a western construct of a liberal, democratic political system, was China’s history which saw the country ravaged by a series of invasions in which it lost a lot of its civilization heritage. Aware of how the Mongols, Central Asians and then Western onslaughts had weakened it before, China is interpreting itself as a modern nation-state against a seemingly anarchic international arena and the challenge to preserve its inherited political systems and heritage even as it wants to enrich its people and strengthen itself"

I've looked over his profile. He is a professor of modern Chinese diaspora, which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and thats ancient China's isolation. Saying China and India are "isolated from each other for years" is very vague and the same could be said of Europe which knew very little about India; so little that Christopher Columbus thought he reached the region when he really discovered America. In fact China knew far more about India than Europe did since Chinese traveling accounts are some of the most important sources we have of ancient India. Thanks to the Buddhist connection, China also preserved a great deal of Indian writing in translation. So if you want to show how China is more isolated than Europe, you need to do better than that.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 09 January 2011 - 12:56 PM.

[Hohmann]

I've looked over his profile. He is a professor of modern Chinese diaspora, which really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and thats ancient China's isolation. Saying China and India are "isolated from each other for years" is very vague and the same could be said of Europe which knew very little about India; so little that Christopher Columbus thought he reached the region when he really discovered America. In fact China knew far more about India than Europe did since Chinese traveling accounts are some of the most important sources we have of ancient India. Thanks to the Buddhist connection, China also preserved a great deal of Indian writing in translation. So if you want to show how China is more isolated than Europe, you need to do better than that.

Alexander did battle in India so the the Seleucid empire; in the middle ages the arab muslims conquered good part of India...
For further info read the book Hellenism in Ancient India by GAURANGA NATH BANERJEE MUNSHI RAM MANOHAR LAL.

Relations between China and the Europe-middle east-India axis were commercial where there was technological transfer but nothing to the extent of the middle east (especially) with India.

---
As for Columbus this is not a good example... when he departed to India, he thought he could get to India from the other way (which is not wrong); He really didnt knew about America.

Edited by Hohmann, 09 January 2011 - 08:28 PM.

[Gan]

Actually, for a lot of people, both historians and non-historians, the biggest indicator of how isolated or close different societies are with one another, are the languages. I'm aware there are some controversies with studying languages but it's not too bad compared to other areas of study (such as the movement of genetic history or cultural history, like linking ancient legends with modern politics, etc. ).

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Alexander did battle in India so the the Seleucid empire; in the middle ages the arab muslims conquered good part of India...
For further info read the book Hellenism in Ancient India by GAURANGA NATH BANERJEE MUNSHI RAM MANOHAR LAL.

Relations between China and the Europe-middle east-India axis were commercial where there was technological transfer but nothing to the extent of the middle east (especially) with India.

---
As for Columbus this is not a good example... when he departed to India, he thought he could get to India from the other way (which is not wrong); He really didnt knew about America.

You still haven't answered how Europe is less isolated than China from India, Alexander the Great's Hellenistic empire only had greater relations with India from the late 4th century-late 2nd century BCE, or a short span of 200 years. However, after the Greco-Bactrian kingdoms were largely destroyed by the Yuezhi in the 2nd century BC, and after Zhang Qian set out to India, China had a far closer contact with India than Europe did. So it seems other than 200 years out of the past 2500 years, Europe did not have greater contact with India in any form compared to China, while for the majority of the middle ages, Europe is rather cut off from India, while Sino-Indian exchange was at one of its Golden periods.

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 09 January 2011 - 10:39 PM.

[moobie]

I know it's impolite to butt in to a discussion, but I would argue that China was relatively isolated- relatively being the key word. Broadly speaking, Europe, Anatolia, North Africa, Iran and India have been part of a "network" of sorts for trading ideas and goods for millennia (Sumer, Minoans, Harappa, Elam, Egypt). China on the other hand was linked to these other civilizations through nomads, who took China's practical inventions and innovations and transferred them Westward but brought little to nothing back in exchange, as they didn't have the structure needed to spread math or science or philosophy (a lack of a script being one of the main issues). The only thing that China learned from the nomads was arguably chariot-warfare many thousands of years ago, and that is debatable.

Rome benefited from trade and at times conquest of rich nations and civilizations, China merely suffered nomadic invasions, and the few sedentary neighbors she had were generally geographically poor (natural resources, farmland). It's inevitable that, with variously 60-70% of the world's population (China only taking a 15-25% share off the top of my head), that one civilization from the Europe/ME/Iran/India complex would emerge as preeminent (with all the wealth and accomplishment that is inherent to such a position) is not much of a surprise.

If China were instead thronged by sedentary nations she could easily assimilate or destroy, she would have benefited immensely.

Edited by moobie, 11 June 2011 - 03:48 PM.

[mohistManiac]

I know it's impolite to butt in to a discussion, but I would argue that China was relatively isolated- relatively being the key word. Broadly speaking, Europe, Anatolia, North Africa, Iran and India have been part of a "network" of sorts for trading ideas and goods for millennia (Sumer, Minoans, Harappa, Elam, Egypt). China on the other hand was linked to these other civilizations through nomads, who took China's practical inventions and innovations and transferred them Westward but brought little to nothing back in exchange, as they didn't have the structure needed to spread math or science or philosophy (a lack of a script being one of the main issues). The only thing that China learned from the nomads was arguably chariot-warfare many thousands of years ago, and that is debatable.

Rome benefited from trade and at times conquest of rich nations and civilizations, China merely suffered nomadic invasions, and the few sedentary neighbors she had were generally geographically poor (natural resources, farmland). It's inevitable that, with variously 60-70% of the world's population (China only taking a 15-25% share off the top of my head), that one civilization from the Europe/ME/Iran/India complex would emerge as preeminent (with all the wealth and accomplishment that is inherent to such a position) is not much of a surprise.

If China were instead thronged by sedentary nations she could easily assimilate or destroy, she would have benefited immensely.

The isolation is marked especially with regards to Rome since that was the heart of the western world for much of the ancient past but symmetrically speaking the western world wherever its political seat might have been would have also seen relative isolation from the far reaching influences of the east and of China as well. The reason why we say the far east was not as isolated as people might think is because the places that occupy this space could be seen as constituting a world unto themselves which would have included the nomadic cultures. While many of these cultures may not have developed writing until either through assimilation or through local developments and transformations much later than China's earliest developments their influence shouldn't be downplayed as much cultural knowledge does not need to be transferred in the form of codified texts but could easily have transmitted through religious movements, art market, tributary relations etc. Take for instance the Tang dynasty monk Xuanzhang who wanted to go westwards and return with a complete work of Buddhist sutras simply because China lacked a complete Buddhist understanding without a complete text. Nevertheless the art and religious movement had already been assimilated to the culture of China as the predominant relgion of the east.

[FlavivsIgnotvs]

If China were instead thronged by sedentary nations she could easily assimilate or destroy, she would have benefited immensely.

Or she would have been destroyed or assimilated herself, becoming one with Nineveh and Tyre. Perhaps one should ask the Neo-Assyrians, or the Egyptians, or the Kushites, or the Hittites, or the Byzantines…

There was nothing ‘easy’ about the formation of the Roman Empire, nor about holding it together, or defending it. There were practical limits to Roman expansion (as there are to any empire) and as a result the Empire never dominated the settled lands of western Eurasia completely. If they did, the post-Roman world would have been, well, more Roman, and we would be having this discussion in some Romance tongue (French? ) , rather than a merely heavily (directly and indirectly) Romanized Germanic one.

They were lucky in their timing, however, with western Eurasia already being fairly developed, but politically fragmented, with the Hellenistic monarchies (and remaining city-states) exhausting each other in interminable wars, and the emerging Celtic, Iberian, Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian polities still being relatively underdeveloped. No later empire-builder was that lucky…but even then, it was an uphill struggle much of the time.

The timeperiod and the presence of the Mediterranean were enablers; but somebody still has to realise the possibilities, and no empire comes free: ‘Fortuna favet fortibus’.

[ThunderzonXT]

Or she would have been destroyed or assimilated herself, becoming one with Nineveh and Tyre. Perhaps one should ask the Neo-Assyrians, or the Egyptians, or the Kushites, or the Hittites, or the Byzantines…

There was nothing 'easy' about the formation of the Roman Empire, nor about holding it together, or defending it. There were practical limits to Roman expansion (as there are to any empire) and as a result the Empire never dominated the settled lands of western Eurasia completely. If they did, the post-Roman world would have been, well, more Roman, and we would be having this discussion in some Romance tongue (French? ) , rather than a merely heavily (directly and indirectly) Romanized Germanic one.

They were lucky in their timing, however, with western Eurasia already being fairly developed, but politically fragmented, with the Hellenistic monarchies (and remaining city-states) exhausting each other in interminable wars, and the emerging Celtic, Iberian, Thracian, Dacian and Illyrian polities still being relatively underdeveloped. No later empire-builder was that lucky…but even then, it was an uphill struggle much of the time.

The timeperiod and the presence of the Mediterranean were enablers; but somebody still has to realise the possibilities, and no empire comes free: 'Fortuna favet fortibus'.

Don't flatter the Roman Empire, their strategies and tactics will never be able to deal with how nomads fight, and their adaptation skills are suprisingly slow for them to get so big, they're never famous for making enemies fighting their own conditions, they never understand grand strategy, they just manage to defeat barbarians.