• Frank [he/him, he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I've long felt cheated that I was taught European history and not Chinese history. When you look at it with a bit more knowledge it's so clear that Europe was a cultural and economic backwater until more or less when the Spanish found silver in the Americas. Everything cool was happening in Bagdad and China.

    • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Showing my bias, but the development of Greek culture and later the Roman empire is still impressive. Rome was comparable to China in cultural impact and material wealth. I would argue Greece is more middle eastern than European, and the way we show Rome as European ignores the African and near Eastern influences on the empire.

      • dinklesplein [any, he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        aegyptus and anatolia were the richest provinces of the roman empire bar italia and africa was one of the richest per capita, its european provinces were generally backwaters save like hispania.

        • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yeah. There's a reason the eastern half if the empire persisted for another 1000 years after the western half fell.

    • hexaflexagonbear [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I like Patrick Wyman's thesis that capitalism could only be invented in a backwater like Europe. Why would the Ottoman empire need an elaborate financing system? They're solvent from taxing trade already.

      • ProfessorAdonisCnut [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        It's the dark ages between 'the fall of the Roman Empire' and the Renaissance, but not in a way that makes the rest of the world even more important in comparison. Until colonialism the rest of the world is just where things come from sometimes, mostly exotic trade goods and invading hordes from the East that have no history outside that invasion.