Did East Asia or India experience massive de-population, de-urbanization...

>Did they lose the knowledge of plumbing?
Evidently

India lost tens of millions of people during the religion of peace invasions.

Wut nigga Confucius predated the Han dynasty

But even so, art, literature, and architecture flourished and the greatest works of which in India were created during the period of Muslim rule. Not to justfy kebabs or anything, but that's not what I'm talking about.

>Did they lose the knowledge of plumbing? Is archaeology (specifically shipwrecks, indicating volume of trade) more sparse? Are records more sparse? Did technological and cultural progress go backwards and did cities that were once populated by millions fell down to a few thousand?

Architecture, yes, art and literature not really. Most intellectual works of note were composed prior to the muslim invasions.

>Did they lose the knowledge of plumbing? Is archaeology (specifically shipwrecks, indicating volume of trade) more sparse? Are records more sparse? Did technological and cultural progress go backwards and did cities that were once populated by millions fell down to a few thousand?
Actually, yes.

Oh, sorry. I got confused, I mistaked the Han for the Zhou for a moment. But still, what I'm talking about is more than just widespread death and famine and war, I'm talking about something much more important than that, the loss of learning and urbanized states, the Dark Ages, the Bronze Age collapse, they were cataclysmic events caused by a myriad in factors that resulted in technological and commercial reverse for their regions. I doubt the Yellow Turban Rebellion could have been as cataclysmic as that.

You know that's not true, Mughal tapestries remain some of the greatest and my icnonic pieces of Indian artwork. Do you see this? This is one of the arches on the Taj Mahal, built by Shah Jahan. The flower images are actually made out of semi-precious stones. The Lapiz luzuli was imported from Afghanistan. The Mughals used architects and artists from Persia and the Ottoman Empire as well as India itself, and again, Mughal art remains the greatest, most abundant, and most luxurious/splendid art in India today. The Delhi Sultanate and the Mughals in absolutely no way equal the destruction wrought during the beginning of the Dark Ages and the Bronze Age collapse, period.

More Mughal art. Also, the traditions and styles of these artists were created and sponsored by the Mughal court, and the descendants of these artists still operate today using the same methods, just like how craftsmen in Agra, India, are still using the same floral designs, semi-precious stones, and methods in creating tables/boxes/coasters/stands/other crafted goods that the Mughals used in creating the images on the Taj Mahal.

>You know that's not true,
Which part?

Yeah the Taj Mahal is really pretty, I concede that Mughal architecture was prettier than Hindu architecture.

Now let's compare the mathematical contributions of the Vedics and of the Mughals.

>The Delhi Sultanate and the Mughals in absolutely no way equal the destruction wrought during the beginning of the Dark Ages and the Bronze Age collapse, period.
Actually yes, especially the Delhi sultanate.

You sound like a butthurt paki.

Well to be honest we can't really know what a lot of Hindu architecture looked like since it was all razed to the ground.

Not a butthurt paki at all, just saying that literacy/artwork/urbanization/trade was in absolutely no way impeded by Muslim invasions into India in anyway. In fact, it helped it by connecting it with the Muslim world, the same Muslim world that allowed Turkish and Persian architects to create the great works of the Mughals today. Sure, did a lot of people die? Yes, there are countless events in history where large swathes of people are killed off, but there are very few examples of such de-urbanization, economic simplifcation, ruralization, and illiteracy wrought by the Dark ages and the Bronze age collapse, are you trying to tell me that the Delhi Sultanate turned India from an urbanized, highly literate civilization to a ruralized sub-continent with practically no trade, no literacy even among the nobility, and cities that don't even number above 10,000 people in the whole sub-continent? When the whole entire population are either peasants, bandits, soldiers or noblemen?

Pic related is Qutab Minar built in Delhi during the 1200s.

>But even so, art, literature, and architecture flourished and the greatest works of which in India were created during the period of Muslim rule.
No not really, most of the greatest mathematical and scientific progress along with cultural and literature and linguistic achievement were all pre-islamic, the destruction caused by the turko-islamic invasions between 12th and 14th centuries (like the destruction of Nalanda) and the Khiliji and Delhi Sultanate stance on the Kuffar non believers utterly ruined these achievements and it wasnt until the 15th and 16th century under the mughal cultural renaissance that the so called 'period of muslim rule' that you mentioned as your examples.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

pic also related is a segment of a Mosque built during the Lodi period in a park in Delhi called the Lodi garden, behind it is an identically designed mausoleum. On the right side of the mosque above where the picture is taken are arches with fabulous arab prayers and inscriptions carved on them.

>Not a butthurt paki at all, just saying that literacy/artwork/urbanization/trade was in absolutely no way impeded by Muslim invasions into India in anyway
Then you're stating falsehoods, as India definitely suffered from the islamic invasions.

A few pretty buildings don't make up for the kind of destruction indian society suffered.

We won't really know what Indian (especially northern indian and the greek remnants of Bactria) society looked like before the Muslim invasions because so much was destroyed by the peaceful invaders. But for sure we know that a lot of buddhist universities/libraries were burned and a lot of cities were sacked.

I'm not an expert by any means, I think it would be interesting to have the perspective of someone who knows something about the subject.

I can't help but think you're a muslim for your nonchalant attitude towards the massacre of millions of indians and your praise of islamic buildings.

Bullshit, we have more Hindu works of art and architecture in India than we have Muslim works due to the fact that they were there longer and natively.

>we
I thought you weren't a paki?

Anyways, show me the great Hindu temples of Afghanistan.

There is a whole Hindu city preserved in India called Hampi, which is a fabulous display of native Hindu art and architecture on an urban level.

>I thought you weren't a paki?
>we
>in india
If I was a Paki why would I apply the term "we" when referring to India? Anyways, I was referring to the term "we" as in the archaeological/historical community

>A few pretty buildings don't make up for the kind of destruction indian society suffered.
The monuments, military forts, palaces, mosques and mausoleums built by the Mughals is very considerable. I also visited in India a Jain Temple built in the 1600s during Akbar's reign right across from the Red Fort in Chandni Chowk in Delhi. In fact, Jains were so beloved by the Mughals that the Mughals treasury has Jain inscriptions and symbolism in them due to the fact that it was the Jains who handled the Mughal treasury. In fact, a Jain guru named Hiravijaya was apart of Akbar's court and advised him.

>We won't really know what Indian (especially northern indian and the greek remnants of Bactria) society looked like before the Muslim invasions because so much was destroyed by the peaceful invaders. But for sure we know that a lot of buddhist universities/libraries were burned and a lot of cities were sacked.
>I can't help but think you're a muslim for your nonchalant attitude towards the massacre of millions of indians and your praise of islamic buildings.
Because the fact that millions were salughtered by the Muslims invading Afganistan/Persia/India/Egypt/Palestine/Spain/Anatolia does not have anything to do with the stated question in the OP. Even though Persia and Afghanistan and Anatolia and Palestine and Egypt and India and Tunisia and Morrocco and Spain and Portugal were invaded by the Muslims and millions were killed, and even when countless artifacts and knowledge was destroyed, this did not lead to cities being no longer present, plumbing being gone, technology going into a stand-still.

The fact that Babur destroyed Degumbara Jain statues carved into a cliff-face in Rajahstan as he invaded India, or that Jahangir destroyed idols and mocked the Hindus when he measured the so called "bottomless" lake, or that Aurangzeb went to the holy city of Varanasi and destroyed every single Hindu temple there do not prove the point that India went through a technological and cultural transformation that could be compared with the fall of the Roman Empire or the Bronze Age collapse. Yes, knowledge and prosperity and religious idols and inscriptions were destroyed, but they were supplanted with new trade contacts, new religious institutions/buildings, new knowledge, new everything. Just because the Ottomans destroyed countless works of Orthodox Christian art as they marauded through Anatolia does not mean that the Ottoman Empire was no longer-urbanized/wealthy because of it in the centuries to follow. Just because the Arabs invaded and destroyed thousands of years of Persian Zoroastrian history in Iran does not mean that Persia went on to become a backwards mountain region devoid of any intellectual or scientific merit. Just because the Arabs invaded Egypt and destroyed thousands of years of Christian/Egyptian artwork and idols and churches and temples did not make Egypt a poor, scientifically and technologically devoid place.
BUT.
When the Visigoths invaded Spain, when the Lombards and Ostrogoths invaded Italy, when the Franks invaded France, when the Saxons invaded Britain. Cities began to fall, the population of Rome fell down to a few thousand, literacy even among the nobles was nowhere to be found, and Europe became nothing but a collection of farms, villages, and stone forts. EVEN IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE, which was the (relatively) untouched remnant of Rome, there were no more cities on the caliber of ancient Rome, no more philosophers, no more writers, no more art on the caliber of Rome. Something happened that transcended all of these invasions.

It might not look like it now, but I despise Islam, I am an American living on the West coast, I have went to two Trump rallies and recently went to the Mike Pence townhall in my town a few days ago. I despise Islam for what they did to the civilizations around them, but what about Rome's destruction of the library of Alexandria or their mass slaughter and enslavement of the Celtic and Germanic and Iberian peoples? What about the Mongols slaughtering hundreds of millions of people? The Chinese? The Japanese Empire? The British Empire? All of these cultures, civilizations, and peoples invaded and destroyed others, but just because Rome practically committed genocide does not mean we cannot marvel and even emulate their works of art, literature, philosophy and architecture. So too must we look at the Muslims in the same light. If we as historians are to cast cultures and empires in terrible, bias-inducing lights because they killed millions, then we would have no way of appreciating the historical beauty of these civilizations or empires. Can we not marvel at Spanish Missions built in the New World? Can we not marvel at Roman Villa's and baths in Britain? Can we not marvel at beautiful Andalusian gardens in Spain? Can we not marvel at giant, awe inducing palaces in Rome or Baghdad? Can we not marvel at the works of the Mughals because of what they did to the Hindus? Can we not marvel at the technological and economic innovations of Nazi Germany? Everybody is killing each other and constructing great works and monuments on top of their bones. If we focused solely on those bones, then history as a good thing is all but done. Instead, history is now a tally-board for counting wrongs against other cultures. It's the fact that whites today are blamed for the actions of whites 500 or 200 years ago that we have this suicidal cult of multiculturalism, it's because of the "score keeping" that we're doing that gets ethnic groups and historians in all kinds of messes.

Now like I said I'm no expert on Indian history.

That being said...

>When the Visigoths invaded Spain, when the Lombards and Ostrogoths invaded Italy, when the Franks invaded France, when the Saxons invaded Britain. Cities began to fall, the population of Rome fell down to a few thousand, literacy even among the nobles was nowhere to be found, and Europe became nothing but a collection of farms, villages, and stone forts. EVEN IN THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE, which was the (relatively) untouched remnant of Rome, there were no more cities on the caliber of ancient Rome, no more philosophers, no more writers, no more art on the caliber of Rome. Something happened that transcended all of these invasions.
That is utter tripe. The Byzantine probably produced in a single year - in terms of intellectual achievements - what the Ottomans produced in their entire history. Byzantium at its peak during the middle ages dwarfed anything in the Islamic world.

The idea that Charlemagne's empire was made up some illiterate hicks does not also hold up. You quite clearly possess a pro-muslim, anti-rest of the world bias.

So let me ask you again, for the sake of clearing up any prejudice you might hold, are you a muslim, yes or no?

Bringing Islam drives this board crazy lol

Anyone gonna bother posting sources or is it just gonna be people saying bullshit and hoping the reader doesn't fact check so that person believes them?

The thing with the British, for instance, is that British culture was superior. Wherever the British went, civilization and prosperity on a higher level than what had existed before followed.

I mean just compare the Islamic conquest of India with the British conquest of India.

You can marvel at pretty buildings all you want, but pretty buildings do not make up for destruction. You must have a pretty limited intelligence if you judge the worth of a civilization/culture by the beauty of its buildings.

And yeah, the mongols were nigger tier.

>The Byzantine probably produced in a single year - in terms of intellectual achievements - what the Ottomans produced in their entire history.
I would say the contributions are a 60/40 type of deal, which the Byzantines getting the 60. I marvel at the Orthodox paintings and idols and churches built during their reign, but the works of art, especially created during Suleiman's reign are also extremely impressive. But art aside, Byzantium god continually raped from the 1000s onward, so much so that they wanted help from the Pope, which opened up a new pandora's box that weakened them even more due to the looting and destruction wrought by the Latins, especially during the 4th Crusade. The Byzantine Empire in the Medieval ages (1066-1453) was on a near constant spiral of civil war and foreign war.

>So let me ask you again, for the sake of clearing up any prejudice you might hold, are you a muslim, yes or no?
> I am an American living on the West coast, I have went to two Trump rallies and recently went to the Mike Pence townhall in my town a few days ago.
I have no problem with Islam in Islamic countries, but those are my politics at the very moment. Even though I view the Islamic invasions of a myriad of different countries including India as morally wrong, this does not mean that I cannot appreciate their works.

>Wherever the British went, civilization and prosperity on a higher level than what had existed before followed.

So destroying the Indian loom industry, starving millions of self employed clothing merchants and making India pay for its own exports is prosperity?

To expound on my answer, my gripe with the muslim invasions (of India or elsewhere) is not that they killed a lot of people. I mean Alexander's invasions also killed a lot of people. My gripe with the muslims (and with, for instance, the mongols) is that they destroyed superior civilizations and replaced them with inferior civilizations. And that I cannot reconcile myself with.

I know it's pointless to speculate with "what if's", but I'm deeply convinced that the middle east would be in much better shape today if it were still greek-speaking and Jesus worshipping. I think it's tragic that a country of the historical importance of Egypt is now reduced to being a shitheap.

I thought you didn't care about millions dying as long as pretty buildings were built? The British built some pretty nice buildings.

Anyways, funny how you just went far-left in this post. Why the anti-Brit bias?

>The thing with the British, for instance, is that British culture was superior. Wherever the British went, civilization and prosperity on a higher level than what had existed before followed.
Lel, i agree that in some ways they were forced into "advancing" but don't act like it was the desire of the British rather than just stealing wealth, and don't make out like it didn't happen on the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

>I mean just compare the Islamic conquest of India with the British conquest of India.
You do realise the Mughals were like the height of Indian civilisation right? They rivaled the English for sure until the 1700s, Europe only jumped ahead in the 1700s.

Yeah, but for most of the beginning of British rule over India, it wasn't the British government that ruled, it was the British East India Company. They basically ruled India, a fucking corporation ruled a sub-continent, their sole aim was extracting wealth from it and exporting it to England and ONLY England, except in the case of Opium, which the exported to China so that they could get more Tea, because the Tea grown in India wasn't even enough, but the cotton grown there was plenty enough. This system of resource-extraction continued on to the 1800's and 1900's, the British practice of taking cotton grown in India and transporting it to Britain, having the cotton products manufactured in Britain, and then promptly exporting that SAME COTTON back to India and selling it at a higher price than what it would take to make the cotton products in India itself was why everybody despised the eternal anglo so much, the British government destroyed Indian industry and supplanted it with British industry, meant to fuel the British, because they were, you know, a British colony. This meant that India had a very expansive rural/raw resource extraction economy but virtually no infrastructure in the form of manufacturing and loom.

Also, that user wasn't me.

But alas suffering is a part of existence people die and wonders lost. As a hindu I have felt a great regret and loss when I see or read about the destruction and ruin of the temples and the people. It still happens in many places IN India itself so what is the solution? Destroy Islam? I can gladly take a sword I a gun and slay many in a genocidal war against Muslims, let's assume by some chance I survive to see Mecca burn(Mahadev willing) I don't think I can live a normal life after that knowingly having killed innocents.

>Anyways, funny how you just went far-left in this post. Why the anti-Brit bias?

That user was not me, I am the OP you have been arguing with since the beginning of this thread, but the user you just replied to was not me.

>Lel, i agree that in some ways they were forced into "advancing" but don't act like it was the desire of the British rather than just stealing wealth, and don't make out like it didn't happen on the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
The British Raj was run at a loss, so if it was Britain's goal to steal India's wealth they sure did a poor job. As for the hundreds of thousands of deaths, the population of India actually increased under the British. It declined by 80 million during the few centuries of muslim rule. So I'd say that the Brits win with this one.

>You do realise the Mughals were like the height of Indian civilisation right?
No, I'd say Gupta India was the height of Indian civilization. Sure, they had uglier buildings, but pretty buildings aren't everything, user.

>They rivaled the English for sure until the 1700s
In no way whatsoever.

Hey man I am another guy not the guy replying originally

Again with the leftist bias. The "muh ebil corporation" shtick. I'll never understand why lefties rate genocidal warlords higher than the Brits.

I'm going to bed.

By the way, India's cotton manufacturing industry collapsed because of cheap British exports which were made possible thanks to the industrial revolution. India's economy would've collapsed even if it hadn't been colonized.

I'd also claim that the Brits invested slightly more in infrastructure than the fucking Mughals...

Is this a quote?

I mean I'm curious what you think was the "sole aim" of Mahmud of Ghazni's raids.... Tourism perhaps?

>the population of India actually increased under the British. It declined by 80 million during the few centuries of muslim rule

It increased under Muslim rule as well, rising from 75 million to 110 million between the 11th and 16th centuries. In fact India's population was stagnant before the 11th century, staying relatively the same for a thousand years. You seem to be repeating a common number being thrown about by anti-Muslim sources online without understanding what that number means, or how suspect it is compared to modern Western population estimates like Maddison.

The idea that India suffered depopulation, especially at a number larger than its actual population in the year 1000, is fantasy.

>In no way whatsoever.
Do you really think Europe was the leading nations pre 1700? Medieval Europe was a backwater compared to China, India and the ME

>Again with the leftist bias. The "muh ebil corporation" shtick.
A corporation's sole aim is the extraction of money at all costs, that is why there are laws that prevent corporations from, say, owning people, or dictating the behavior of the citizens. Think if Walmart suddenly ruled America, Walmart, as a money-making for-profit corporation would not care in the slightest about the population, it would care for maximizing its profits, and when you have control over a country and its people with those kinds of goals, it is very dangerous.

>India's economy would've collapsed even if it hadn't been colonized.
No it fucking wouldn't, because the only way England could get its hands on so much raw cotton was by controlling a land like India which produced it in spades. Even if they allied with the confederacy in the Civil war and the South Won, they still wouldn't have as much cheap cotton as they would if they controlled India and regulated it in a way that ensured all of the cotton produced there would go to England.

Raiding is different from conquering, when you raid something, you get in, take the resources, and get out. (Sound familiar?)
When you are conquering something like the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughals, you control that place now. You have an obligation and an incentive to make that place as prosperous as possible. That is why the Romans built roads and villas and baths in places like Gaul, Britain, Spain, Syria, and Egypt. They took care of the places they conquered and made them prosperous because they wanted to make their control over the region worth it.

The aim was actually self-promotion. Mahmud of Ghazni's raids were notable for the way he promoted them to the rest of the Islamic world, though there's little evidence he was anywhere near as successful or destructive as he claims to have been, mostly as a diplomatic move to guard against his northern neighbors he had basically escaped from by heading into Afghanistan and India.

>Do you really think Europe was the leading nations pre 1700?
Well obviously. Europe in the 17th century was already pretty modernized and literate. It's the century of Shakespeare of Cervantes.

I couldn't name a single Ottoman author from that period if my life depended on it.

Of course, based on the fact that your criteria for the worth of a civilization is the beauty of its buildings, we probably have different interpretations of what it means to be a "leading nation". It's true that militarily, Europe could not have conquered, say, China, because they lacked the manpower and had not yet enlarged the technological gulf separating them from the rest. But 1600s Europe was already much much much more civilized than the rest of the world by that time. And that's really my criteria of "leading nation": leading nation in the intellectual life.

Again, you are arguing WITH ANOTHER user, I AM THE user THAT VALUES BUILDINGS. We tried to tell you this before, but you did not seem to listen/reply/see our posts.

>A corporation's sole aim is the extraction of money at all costs
No, not at all costs. Leftists...

>No it fucking wouldn't, because the only way England could get its hands on so much raw cotton was by controlling a land like India which produced it in spades
There would've been other cotton sources. The southern USA became a major cotton producer. So did Egypt. India's decline might have been slower but it would have happened nonetheless. Medieval artisans can't compete against industry.

How many roads did the Delhi sultanate build? Got any examples?

>though there's little evidence he was anywhere near as successful or destructive as he claims to have been,
You seem to have really peculiar sources, which go against all consensus. West coast Trump supporter indeed.

Anyways, I'm on the west coast too, and as you fellow west coaster surely know, it's 2 a.m. and time for bed.

Well given that this is an anonymous board it's kind of hard to follow.

>You seem to have really peculiar sources, which go against all consensus. West coast Trump supporter indeed.
I'm not whoever you think I am, and that was my first post. I just wanted to answer your question. For further reading, check out Anooshahr's "Gazi Sultans" that goes into great detail about the background and influence of gazi literature.

>So is it safe to say that the technological and cultural progress of Chinese civilization never went through major reverses like Europe did? It was always on an either upward or stagnant course?
>Progress
Shit way to view things.

The Yellow Turban Rebellion did not happen alongside the bronze age collapse (1200s BC) nor the start of the Medieval Ages (400s-500s AD) you cunt.

>No, not at all costs. Leftists...
Yes, at all costs, are you fucking serious right now? It's conventional wisdom and basic economics that you have to be willing to take losses before you can gain profits. If your organization's goal is to MAKE MONEY, then that is the goal, and the losses you take will only be ideal if there can be profit derived from it. Sure, the process of harvesting and processing sugar was extremely dangerous and some slaves in the Caribbean died or got their hands amputated, but the end result was profitable, so there is no problem. If you give a company control over people, this is the kind of morality you will be faced with.

>How many roads did the Delhi sultanate build? Got any examples?
We have no notable examples of the Delhi sultanate creating large road systems, but I doubt they needed to because the infrastructure was probably already there by the 1200's.

>You seem to have really peculiar sources, which go against all consensus. West coast Trump supporter indeed.
Again, I am not that user that you were replying to, I AM the West coast Trump supporter, you were replying to someone else.

>Shit way to view things.
But is it the wrong way?

So maybe it would be a good idea not to attack people based on the qualities of themselves that they revealed to you, but on the merits of their argument? That way you can avoid confusion as well as avoid looking like a fucking asshole.

Indians are shitting on streets as they are now, as they were 100 years, 500 years, 1000 years, and 2000 years ago.

Indians are subhumans. I once tried to get into Indian history by watching a lecture by some Indian professor and he admits himself that not much is known of indian history because Indians did write down or record much.

India was never really a great civilization after the destruction of the Indus Valley civilization.

Another point, the whole concept of caste systems in India developed most likely as a result of the white Aryan invasions of India where the white Aryans were the elites and the brown and black Indians were the untermenschen and slaves.

This resonates today in India whereby the lightest Indians are of the highest caste and the darkest Indians are of the lowest caste.

India has been shit, will always be shit and is shit. I have no positive opinion of India tbqh.

>I once tried to get into Indian history by watching a lecture by some Indian professor and he admits himself that not much is known of indian history because Indians did write down or record much.

>mfw exactly the same issue exists in early/middle medieval europe but you don't give a fuck because hurr shitskins

>bronze age collapse
Indus Valley civilization collapsed due to droughts that lasted hundreds of years. Later on the aryan migrants came to the area and repopulated it and brought new cultures. Chances are remnants of the old indus valley civilziation survived and mingled with the new aryan migrants.

Chinese bronze age is about Shang/Zhou dynasty. They declined in power but never really collapsed. The wars that took place after depopulated, yet still the civilization persisted and became stronger after due to the Qin unification and so on.

>Medieval period (5th - 15th century)
>India
India was already in its Golden Age by early 5th century. However after around 6th century, due to collapse of the Gupta Empire and the subsequent collapse of Harsha Empire, Northern India fragmented and stagnated a bit. There were still the Palas (east) and Cholas to the south and some others. However for the most part, North/Northwest India was ripe for takeover from the Muslims. The Muslims drove straight to the center of India and took control. The Muslim takeover period is the darkest India has ever seen probably. If there ever was a collapse, it would this be this. Mass de-population, destruction of property, forced conversions, looting, etc.

>china
China came to its greatest heights during medieval period and saw 3 golden ages during the period, the Tang, the Song and the Ming. The mongols depopulated many areas but it was mainly of military control, not ideological war of Muslim/India.

Except even then early medieval European history is more well known than almost all of Indian history.

*did not

>India
>Having any golden age

Shitting on dirt roads does not qualify a golden age. India was only ever a great civilization during the era of the Indus Valley civilization and even then it wasn't located in contemporary India.

indians losing the technology of plumbing is the funniest thing in history next to Abos forgetting how to start a fire.

>it's another blame historical Muslims for everything episode

I love these.

>loss of plumbing
They didn't lose it. Rather the lower class population grew innumerably and outgrew the existing plumbing facilities. Due to poverty and necessities, the toilet was one of the first things to go. Urbanization probably accelerated the process in keeping affordable toilet off the hands of the poor.

Not really. The politics of the period is known, much like for India.

In terms of primary sources, we have scarce records kept by the clergy. For example, barely any wills survive from the early carolingian period.

But you clearly don't know anything about that.

So pretty much India today. Good to know that India was always a shîthole.

Depopulation was very common at the provincial level. Many provinces at some point became basically empty as famine/military draft/ravaging armies left nothing in their wake.
But I don't think China ever suffered an outright societal collapse ever, only monstruous civil wars that left deserts.

5/10 bait, made me reply

You only say that because Yellow Scarves are probably the only thing you even know at all about Chinese history.

The rebellion proper was defeated in less than a year. While splinter groups continued to call themselves Yellow Scarves for decades afterwards it's doubtful any of them had any serious connection with the initial rebellion, and the warfare between the emerging warlords in the collapse of Han was far more important than any damage any Yellow Scarves group ever inflicted.

>346 KB JPG
Did East Asia or India experience massive de-population, de-urbanization, and technological simplification in a few hundred years on the levels of the beginning of the Medieval period in Europe or the Bronze Age collapse in the Middle East?

no total opposite