Turning Points that Failed to Turn

[crazy canuck]

I think what BB was getting at was the turning away from such ventures rather than expanding on them.  That was one of those pivotal historical decisions.  Imagine the impact on the trading States of Europe and the Muslims if the Chinese became long distance traders who traded directly with the markets seeking their goods rather than using Muslim and European middlemen.

But the Chinese Empire being involved in sustained long distance trade was never in the cards.  That wasn't the purpose or concept behind Zheng's expeditions and it would have required a radical ideological shift.

You are correct that long distance trade was not the purpose of his voyage.  But you not really addressing the main point which was ending such expeditions completely rather than expanding on them - which may well have had the radical shift  - the turning point.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

[The Minsky Moment]

You are correct that long distance trade was not the purpose of his voyage.  But you not really addressing the main point which was ending such expeditions completely rather than expanding on them - which may well have had the radical shift  - the turning point.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

OK but there are a couple problems.  First, in order to be interesting the turning points have to have a minimum level of plausibility to prevent Timmy Tipover.  Second, if the relevant turning point is long-term engagement of China in long-distance trade with Europe and the Middle East, then the Zheng He voyages are at best orthogonal to that and arguably running counter to such a development; so the "turning point" would be not be expanding on those voyages but rather a hypothetical ideological and cultural shift that would have bypassed them altogether.

[The Minsky Moment]

The failure to follow through on the scientific and empirical investigations of classical Greek culture would be a good example of what the OP seeks.  Except like all these other examples, there are good reasons it didn't happen and it is hard to imagine things coming out very differently.

[Tamas]

Italians and French not resisting the Mongols? Why not?

About half of Hungary's population was wiped out, yet the real strongholds held out. And I am quite convinced Western Europe was ahead in fortification efforts.

Our king drew the conclusions himself, and his massive fortification program played a big part in making future mongol raids insignificant.

[Ideologue]

I think that is a tremendous turning point...imagine if European diseases made it to the new world in a brief encounter such as this. The Americas could have been wiped out and recovered before the Europeans were in a position to colonize. It is one of those possibilities that makes me doubt the Jared Diamond school of thinking that tends toward a certain amount of predestination.

I was talking about this the other day.  Once Euros arrive in the New World, millions are going to be wiped out by smallpox.  This is basically unavoidable, prior to the advent of the smallpox vaccine.  I tried to imagine any alternative to this--if there is a plausible or moral way to deal with the problem, i.e. how would a modern, less ignorant and more compassionate society would handle encountering a completely isolated human grounp for the first time.  A continental quarantine?

[Sheilbh]

From German history: the liberal revolution of 1848 fizzled out after Prussia's king rejected the German crown.

That's a very interesting one.  There's a few in 1848.

[crazy canuck]

You are correct that long distance trade was not the purpose of his voyage.  But you not really addressing the main point which was ending such expeditions completely rather than expanding on them - which may well have had the radical shift  - the turning point.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

OK but there are a couple problems.  First, in order to be interesting the turning points have to have a minimum level of plausibility to prevent Timmy Tipover.  Second, if the relevant turning point is long-term engagement of China in long-distance trade with Europe and the Middle East, then the Zheng He voyages are at best orthogonal to that and arguably running counter to such a development; so the "turning point" would be not be expanding on those voyages but rather a hypothetical ideological and cultural shift that would have bypassed them altogether.

Why do you say Zheng He was sent out?

[Malthus]

You are correct that long distance trade was not the purpose of his voyage.  But you not really addressing the main point which was ending such expeditions completely rather than expanding on them - which may well have had the radical shift  - the turning point.  You know, the thing this thread is about.

OK but there are a couple problems.  First, in order to be interesting the turning points have to have a minimum level of plausibility to prevent Timmy Tipover.  Second, if the relevant turning point is long-term engagement of China in long-distance trade with Europe and the Middle East, then the Zheng He voyages are at best orthogonal to that and arguably running counter to such a development; so the "turning point" would be not be expanding on those voyages but rather a hypothetical ideological and cultural shift that would have bypassed them altogether.

Why do you say Zheng He was sent out?

Theory I heard - ostensibly to look for an absconding "pretender" to the throne (the former emperor); really, to bring back ambassadors from foreign parts to kowtow to the (usurping) emperor, to boost his legitimacy and to extend China's "tributary system".

Chinese foreign trade was always at this time couched within the terminology of "tribute". Foreigners brought ambassadors, acknowledged the Chinese emperor as the lord of all humanity, and brought rich goods as "tribute". In return, the emperor, out of the goodness of his heart, gave "gifts" (which somehow miraculously were of equal value as the "tribute").

It was (much later) European unwillingness to go along with this system that originally caused much trouble, under the later Ch'ing.   

[Valmy]

That's a very interesting one.  There's a few in 1848.

Yeah like an Austrian led Western Slavic Confederation.

[crazy canuck]

@ Malthus,

That is my understanding as well, which is why I am a bit curious as to why JR thinks that it would be impossible for the Chinese to have expanded such a notion to trading with Europe, in the sense that the Chinese understood the concept.

[Malthus]

Huh, this is interesting. Apparently there is at least some evidence that a Chinese Junk did indeed attempt to round Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Mauro_map

The description of Africa is reasonably accurate.[5] Fra Mauro puts the following inscription by the southern tip of Africa, which he names the "Cape of Diab", describing the exploration by a ship from the East around 1420:[3][4]

"Around 1420 a ship, or junk, from India crossed the Sea of India towards the Island of Men and the Island of Women, off Cape Diab, between the Green Islands and the shadows. It sailed for 40 days in a south-westerly direction without ever finding anything other than wind and water. According to these people themselves, the ship went some 2,000 miles ahead until - once favourable conditions came to an end - it turned round and sailed back to Cape Diab in 70 days".

"The ships called junks (lit. "Zonchi") that navigate these seas carry four masts or more, some of which can be raised or lowered, and have 40 to 60 cabins for the merchants and only one tiller. They can navigate without a compass, because they have an astrologer, who stands on the side and, with an astrolabe in hand, gives orders to the navigator". (Text from the Fra Mauro map, 09-P25.)

Fra Mauro explained that he obtained the information from "a trustworthy source", who traveled with the expedition, possibly the Venetian explorer Niccolò da Conti who happened to be in Calicut, India at the time the expedition left:

"What is more, I have spoken with a person worthy of trust, who says that he sailed in an Indian ship caught in the fury of a tempest for 40 days out in the Sea of India, beyond the Cape of Soffala and the Green Islands towards west-southwest; and according to the astrologers who act as their guides, they had advanced almost 2,000 miles. Thus one can believe and confirm what is said by both these and those, and that they had therefore sailed 4,000 miles".

Some of the islands named in the area of the southern tip of Africa bear Arabian and Indian names: Nebila ("celebration" or "beautiful" in Arabic), and Mangla ("fortunate" in Sanskrit.) These are normally identified as aforementioned "Islands of Men and Women". According to an old Arabian legend as retold by Marco Polo, one of these islands was populated exclusively by men and the other was populated exclusively by women, and the two would only meet for conjugal relations once a year. Their location was not certain and the location proposed by Fra Mauro is but one of multiple possibilities: Marco Polo himself located them in the neighborhood of Socotra, and other medieval cartographers offered locations in Southeast Asia, near Singapore or in the Philippines. It is generally thought that the islands are mythical.[6]

Fra Mauro also comments that the account of this expedition, together with the relation by Strabo of the travels of Eudoxus of Cyzicus from Arabia to Gibraltar through the southern Ocean in Antiquity, led him to believe that the Indian Ocean was not a closed sea and that Africa could be circumnavigated by her southern end (Text from Fra Mauro map, 11,G2). This knowledge, together with the map depiction of the African continent, probably encouraged the Portuguese to intensify their effort to round the tip of Africa.

[CountDeMoney]

My birth.   

Think of it this way: you don't yet know what "momentous, long-range consequences" your death will have. 

[Martim Silva]

I've been reading about the dark ages lately, and in particular the Norse. I've always been a bit fascinated by the tale of Vinland; some Vikings reach the Americas, trade with natives, build a small settlement (hell, a child is born), and...

... they get repeatedly attacked by the locals, who heavily outnumber them and make life impossible. And there isn't an obvious source of gold there to attract tons of scandinavians/royal interest to the area.

I think that is a tremendous turning point...imagine if European diseases made it to the new world in a brief encounter such as this.

The diseases that decimated the Americas in the XVIth century came from Iberians of the period, who had been exposed to the severe disease period that started in the XIVth century (especially with the black plague).

Inhabitants of early XIth century Scandinavia not only had not experienced any of those diseases (which were centuries into the future), had lived past the epidemics that that ravaged Europe into the VIIIth century and also came from an area that was exceptionally healthy for the time [there is a reason why Scandinavia experienced a population boom in this period].

So no, there is no chance of diseases ravaging the Americas at the time - Viking settlement of Vinland took plane on a healthy period and geographical area of European history.

Unstoppable Mongol armies massacre in turn each European army sent against them and occupy Hungary; nothing stands in their way...

...except for the fact that, in order to operate effectively, Mongol armies need vast spaces to feed their hordes of ponies (a Mongol horsemen used up to six ponies during a campaign), and those ended at the Hungarian Alfold.

That means the Mongol army range is restricted to about 1-2 weeks march from Hungary. More than that, their mounts start to starve and they risk becoming dismounted after a battle or two - a death sentence to them.

The chances of a Mongol conquest of Europe were precisely 0%, due to logistical constraints.

(this is also why they couldn't get Egypt - their pasture grounds stopped at the Mesopotamian plains. Holding Palestine was already a serious problem).

A commonly mentioned one would be the closing of China to outside exploration after Zeng He.

The Chinese explorations were detailed - the Imperial Court simply decided Africa wasn't worth it; remember, Europeans wanted to get to Asia to get access to Indian spices; China already had access to those. Europe created holdings in Africa [which were only truly developed in the XIXth century] simply because it was in the way.

By itself, Africa was not economically a good idea to get in the XVth century. Hence the Chinese decision not to waste resources with it. New resources would change that by the early XXIst century.

From German history: the liberal revolution of 1848 fizzled out after Prussia's king rejected the German crown.

An aristocrat could never accept; if he had, Germany would have been attacked by everyone in Europe (which went against everything Bismarck believed in. He knew how to bring Germany about, and so he did).

Also, France had previously shown what happens with those revolutions - they cannot hold on their own and need a strong ruler. Napoleon ultimately failed because he had no legitimacy (he tried it by marrying into the Habsburgs). To succeed, one needed royal legitimacy, which was not attained through the People at the time - even the USA, fighting only against Britain, needed help from France on the ground, and of France, Spain and the Netherlands on the seas.

Bottom line, things happen for a reason.

Now, that's not to say small changes haven't happened for odd reasons:

One story tells that the Count of Soissons, leading a rebellion against Richelieu in 1641, severly defeated the royal army, taking minimal losses. Paris was open to him and the Cardinal was already packing up to flee. The strongest Kingdom of Europe was his for the taking.

But the count decided to survey the field of his brilliant victory. And to do that, he wanted to rise the visor of his helm. Which he did - with the barrel of the pistol he had in his hand... and which fired accidentaly.

He died on the spot, ending the rebellion. Richelieu couldn't even believe that he won.

Epic fail.

Later stories try to put the count murdered at the last hour by some unknown assassin, but that does not seem to have been the case.

Some people have no luck.

[The Minsky Moment]

@ Malthus,

That is my understanding as well, which is why I am a bit curious as to why JR thinks that it would be impossible for the Chinese to have expanded such a notion to trading with Europe, in the sense that the Chinese understood the concept.

Because the sense the Chinese understood the concept was categorically different from the way that Europeans (or indeed Arab traders) understood it.  The concept of "tribute" was not just some linguistic cover for face; it was an accurate description of what the Chinese understood themselves as doing. 

[Admiral Yi]

Also, France had previously shown what happens with those revolutions - they cannot hold on their own and need a strong ruler. Napoleon ultimately failed because he had no legitimacy (he tried it by marrying into the Habsburgs). To succeed, one needed royal legitimacy, which was not attained through the People at the time - even the USA, fighting only against Britain, needed help from France on the ground, and of France, Spain and the Netherlands on the seas.

The US needed help from other European countries because they lacked royal legitimacy? Am I reading this right?