Why didn't Europe ever unify like China or India did?

>They are like a Iapan was to feudal China.
That doesn't make any sense. Japan wasn't even a thing when China was feudal.

>I would say the Steppe people of the North provided a good enough threat.
The thing is, barely any of the Steppeniggers north of China ever attacked China when it was stronk and united. This is quite unlike Rome when even during the height of the Empire, you had bad wars with Easterners.

Hell, I can only count 3 times a Steppe Nomad entity attacked a unified China: the Xiongnu Invasion, the Jurchen Invasion, and the Dzungars. Of them, the Xiongnu were dismantled when the Han Emperors marched into their Empire and destroyed it, the Dzungars were breathtakingly Genocided by the Qing, and the only reason the Jurchens succeeded was because they were up against Song China, who was so paranoid with its military that it hobbled its own defense.

Thanks to Mongol meymeys, people don't seem to realize how weak the nomads truly were.

>Why didn't Europe ever unify like China or India did?

>That.
>One country like China and India today.
Meanwhile, in the EU.
>MUH VERY SPESHUL NATION WAAAAAAH GET THE FUCK OUT BRUSSELS!!!!!!!!!!

It was.

But the Eternal G*rmanic ruined it with their tribalism and "rights."

I understand that people can overestimate the Steppe tribes but you are not giving enough credit. Many northern dynasties during the period of disunity were essentially steppe tribes conquering China. Also, the Xioingu were a huge military rival for a hundred years. Not to mention the various tribes that harrased the Tang. Also, the Khitans were very successful against the Chinese. Also, the Manchus were semi nomadic.

They are trying with the EU, but as usual Anglos are causing division. And russia wanting to weaken a united europe is propping up right wing movements to break away from the EU. In short blame the anglos and russia. Theyre also the reason Napoleon failed to unite europe.

>Wasn't India also divided heavily by culture?
yes, that's why it took a technologically superior empire to conquer and put institutions in place over a period of centuries before india had a chance of being a single state

The romans destroyed themselves with cuckstranity and decadence

Be like EU or be ransacked for 200 years hmmm tough choice

I'm not saying it's the better choice, or that a unified indian state is even preferable

The EU would be fine if it was both an actual political union AND wasn't run by treasonous open borders globalists.

>yes, that's why it took a technologically superior empire to conquer and put institutions in place over a period of centuries before india had a chance of being a single state
And even then we're only united because we had an image of a state to base off from centuries ago. There were many pan-india empires over the centuries but most of them were pretty shit.

And UK wasn't that technologically superior. It was more our fault for not working out our differences and getting our shit together.

It seems like most pan Indian empires with a couple exceptions are really northern Indian empires.

The Xiongnu was far from an open and shut case considering its founder, Modu Shanyu, punched through nascent Han China and almost took over the place, if it wasn't for his steppenigger instincts kicking in and accepting a Chinese princess and huge payoff, convinced in his Steppe-Politics mind that he is the ruler of China since he made them to pay him tribute.

It was only this stupid respite that China rallied under several brilliant emperors and spelled out the Xiongnu confederacies' doom.

Yeah, the only pan-Indian empire I could think off the top of my head are the Maratha's.

I read a long article one time about how it was much easier to come down from the North then it was from the South. So this is probably why they cared more about sea exploits than land grabs.

* south indian pan-Indian empire

>And UK wasn't that technologically superior. It was more our fault for not working out our differences and getting our shit together.
I've heard this before and it seems incredibly far-fetched to me. If you're willing to try to convince me otherwise I'm interested in hearing it, but from where I'm standing right now it seems far-fetched.

I'm not just in talking about military technology, either. Flintlock muskets, vastly superior shipbuilding and navigational technology and astronomy, the printing press, a relatively modern banking system, calculus, more sophisticated tactics and military organization. Britain was a constitutional monarchy and on the cusp of the industrial revolution.

Don't think that I'm taking the /pol/ line that the British conquered India because Indians are racially inferior or anything. For centuries India was more advanced than Britain was. And yes, I understand that the British conquered much of India by exploiting rivalries and infighting. But I don't understand how you can look at Britain and India at that time and not conclude that the British were vastly ahead, socially, technologically, scientifically AND militarily.

Brits did have a massive leap ahead of India from the industrial revolution in lots of things. They had superior ammunition and cannons and leaders. But their level of training was similar.
The Duke of Wellington noted that while the current generals were pretty incompetent compared to past ones, the base troops were pretty solid. Source if you don't believe me:
books.google.com.au/books?id=xatMrooibacC&pg=PA85&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

What allowed the British to regain control were the Maratha's decimating the Mysorean army after the first Mysorean-Anglo war, allowing them to allowing them to easily defeat a weakened Mysorean army in the second Mysore-Anglo war. I think from then on they had control of Bengal (the richest part of India back then). And then it was basically
>Use the resources of Bengal to recruit and drill a massive army of sepoys
>Conquer other Indian states one by one with said sepoys
>Repeat and repeat until the sub-continent falls

They were ahead on a lot of things, I admit that, but what allowed them to take control is a divide between technological/scientific superiority and the divide and conquer method.

Hope that answers your question

Industirial revolution happened AFTER IEC had India. Calculus was also developed after that, and even then there are manuscripts found in south India which indicate the use of calculus before Newton and Leibnitz. Shipbuilding and navigation doesnt matter on land, and even then some southern kingdoms had good navigation and astronomical technology, southern hindu kingdoms were spread on to phillipenes, cambodia, indonesia for more than thousand years ago. Rockets and gunpowdered were used heavily in mughal wars, and even by marathas, google 'Mysorean Rockets'. Although European military organisations and tactics were superior to those found in India. Indian forces were usually surprised by how british forces kept formation even after taking heavy damage.
The way IEC conquered India was similar to how English conquered Ireland. They pitted local leaders against each other. They often formed alliances with losers of the king's races, like brothers of kings, and made them pseudo rulers under them. They also bought a HUGE amount of indian soldiers, and deployed them tactically, like pitting hindu soldiers against muslim kingdoms etc. India was in prime position of being taken advantage of in the 16th and 17th century, and thats exactly when the European powers such as portugal and ultimately IEC showed up.

The fuck is this map

"India" didn't exist until the 1800's.

>Industirial revolution happened AFTER IEC had India.
Reread my post - I did say "on the cusp." Though really, the industrial revolution in Britain began in the mid 1700s and lasted until the early-mid 19th century. The beginning of the industrial revolution was concurrent with the British East India Company's conquest of India.

>Calculus was also developed after that
Uh ... nope. Sorry, dude. Nope.

>even then there are manuscripts found in south India which indicate the use of calculus
Yes, for every major invention there are people who'll claim "We've found evidence the Chinese/Indians/Babylonians/Arabs did it first!" I'm not even necessarily saying that's wrong - maybe calculus WAS invented in India first, I don't know enough to have an opinion either way - but it certainly didn't see the spectacular adoption in India that it did in Europe.

As for shipbuilding, navigation, and astronomy, of course I'm well aware that India and SE Asia had many accomplishments in those areas. I'm not trying to take the position that they were all illiterate monkeys. But I don't think by any reasonable metric you could conclude that the British weren't leaps and bounds ahead of them in the 16th century.

>They pitted local leaders against each other.
I do believe I acknowledged this in my post.

This is a reasonable post. And to be clear I wasn't trying to say that Britain could have conquered India through technology alone - just that "the UK wasn't that technologically superior" is an odd claim.

They did under the banner called Christianity, a terrible idea destined to fail as history has shown.

it took me all morning fuck you cunt

the map adequetly explains why usa as a proxy to UK has engaged in the history of its conflicts that it has, in particular post wwii, it all makes perfectly logical geopolitical sense, spain south, france east, russia far east, only options were the insurgencies against asia and middle east.

i double tripple dog shit dare ur un/lit/ ass to read brzez's grand chessboard

takeoverworld.info/Grand_Chessboard.pdf

losers

who will fall first israel or nth korea??

Colonies?

Pretty obvious, desu.

I thought so as well, but it's inaccurate to the point that I don't even know where to begin.

tell me what language the infrastructures walls hear

fucking newfag

I guess I am a newfag for not understanding this inane shit

Why? India unified after European rule, it's only thanks to the Brits that India is a single state.
China was unified only because the fucking Hu (or what's the name of the biggest ethnical group in that shithole is) were the fucking 90% of the population of that part of the world, that's why chinks have a hive-like mindset, meanwhile Europeans and their descendants can think independently.

>multiple posts along the lines of "we could have unified, if not for the eternal "

There's your answer, OP. Deep distrust or even hate between groups of Europeans, that they only feel safe expressing on an anonymous, Bangladeshi glass-blowing forum.

You got the order of causation wrong. China did not unify because there were all these Han living there. There all these Han living there, in areas far away from traditional Han homelands, because China was united for so long. Kind of like over centuries of Roman rule you got Romans living in Britain.

>2/3 are blaming Anglos
>other blames Germanics
>Anglos are Germanics
WOW I wonder who is behind this post...

>no date
Nice map, retard.
But if you're talking about the Iberian Empire, then it must be between 1580-1640. But that British Empire looks straight out of the 1890s or something.

Also, I guess Portuguese Africa never existed?

Because we weren't conquered by steppe niggers.

It's funny because the Portugese and Dutch tried the same thing that the British did, it's just that the Brits were successful in it.
>but it certainly didn't see the spectacular adoption in India that it did in Europe.

There were a group of people called in the past called the "Kerala School" which identified the "infinite series", which was one of the basic components of calculus around the year 1350. I think this was about 250 or so years before Newton.
I'm not trying to get into a dick measuring contest of course (these aren't my achievements) but Islamic invasions really messed up the place good (the Muslim world itself is still recovering from Mongol siege of Baghhdad).

> But I don't think by any reasonable metric you could conclude that the British weren't leaps and bounds ahead of them in the 16th century.
Some kingdoms were ahead of other European nations in navy warfare. The Dutch were booted out by the Travancore and the Calicut fought the Portugese for a century before falling. But you're right about the British being ahead of the Indian kingdoms in all three then.

>This is a reasonable post. And to be clear I wasn't trying to say that Britain could have conquered India through technology alone - just that "the UK wasn't that technologically superior" is an odd claim.
I misinterpreted what you were saying. This isn't the first time that I've argued on Veeky Forums about bows and arrows not being in fashion in the sub-continent for a long time and I went on a complete different tangent.

>it's only thanks to the Brits that India is a single state.
Not really. Like it's been said, the image of a united India was always there. If it never was then there wouldn't be a unified India even now and people would rather go for the states that existed prior i.e : """Khalistan"""

By that logic the Balkans would still be in one place

>and the Calicut fought the Portugese for a century before falling.
What? Calicut never fell. The Portugese gave up and stuck to Goa.

It's on it's way now.

literally retarded

...

Because we're not at that stage of history yet. It will happen during the 21st century just as predicted.

...

That is unironically one possibility.

The value systems that seem to me to be serious contenders nowadays for uniting the West are:
- American Republicanism
- French Republicanism
- Catholic revival
- Islam

>Poland part of Eurabia but not Austria
Hmm....

What about socialism?

>MUH VERY SPESHUL NATION WAAAAAAH GET THE FUCK OUT BRUSSELS!!!!!!!!!!
And there is literally nothing wrong with this

>Catholic revival
Oh please let it happen

Where is portuguese africa, british possessions around yemen etc, the dutch colonies and spanish africa?

Baghdad was a shithole when the Mongols sacked it. Huge swathes of the city were abandoned and the city library itself was of no significant historical consequence.

This was a good thread. We don't talk enough about India.

>And nothing of value was lost.

fix'd
I was mostly talking of the nationalists within the continent.

You guys have never been fully into the EU. I literally couldn't understand why you withdrawing is a big fucking thing considering how pussyfooting you guys were at the very start.

Bangladesh didn't even have glass blowing you autist

>*inherits half of europe *
>*splits his empire in 2*
Nothing personal unionists

Socialism seemed like a strong possibility until not long ago, but now it seems to be very much dead.

Not him but:
Actually india would probably still be united because of Britain regardless of previous pan-indianism because indian nationalism became a strong idea mostly due to opposition to the British. And there were attempts to balkanize india after the end of British rule, but the Indian government, united due to britain annexing all indian states, used force to prevent secession.
Maybe India would've brcome united st some point in timr, but it was divided by different cultures and languages, and Pan-indianism only ever occured when a nation was in a position to conquer the whole of india.

>I literally couldn't understand why you withdrawing is a big fucking thing
because there aren't main net contributors in the union, and the loss of any major economy member is bound to be felt.

>scandinavia is english
>netherlands are english
>no netherlands colonies tho
>no english egypt nor east asia
>no french middle east nor east asia
>phillipines english instead of half iberian half english (american)
>no spanish africa (including northern morocco), no portuguese, no macau, no east timor
>cuba not iberian
>can't even get belize right
>no former ussr states like kazakhstan in russia but ukraine and bielorussia for some reason
This map sucks.

except it's innacurate

it wasn't going to last anyway and he knew it

>Actually india would probably still be united because of Britain regardless of previous pan-indianism because indian nationalism became a strong idea mostly due to opposition to the British.
That's more due to discovering foreign thinkers, mainly Voltaire & Rousseau.
>And there were attempts to balkanize india after the end of British rule, but the Indian government, united due to britain annexing all indian states, used force to prevent secession.
I feel like we could have done this ourselves, but I do recognise the importance of a central indian government !
>Maybe India would've brcome united st some point in timr, but it was divided by different cultures and languages,
It still is a bit desu. If somebody tells you that their parents wouldn't mind if they married a person from a different caste/ethnicity they'd probably be lying. I'd like nothing more if we were properly united. I know this board complains about whining a lot, but the caste system was used to weaken an already weakened sub continent. It had much more presence than, than in the lax maratha or Sikh cultures.
>and Pan-indianism only ever occured when a nation was in a position to conquer the whole of india.
Most pan-indian empires were formed up the basis of "reforming the akhand bharat" that was made a few millennia ago. Maurya (the guy who made this ) united the subcontinent to unite the ten kingdoms descended from the vedics:
>"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."
This was from 1800 BC. This was invoked last when Augrenzab was going ape shit on Hindus between the Rajputs and various kingdoms.

My English isnt good so I hope I'm understanding you.

* but the Brits used the caste system was used to weaken

* Maurya (the guy who made this # ) purposely united the subcontinent

This, should have said Phoenician.

>Rome

The European man is too fiercely independent to submit to a unified government unlike the ant-like subservient Chinese.

Kek. The Brits used the institutions that were in place already in India.

Indians just get pissy at the Brits and not the Muslims who killed 400 million hindus over the course of 800 years because the Brits has the gul not to reside in India

no, due to all the different cultures in the region and none of them ever having complete dominance over all of the others
China unified because the Han Chinese conquered the fuck out of the rest of the people in the region.
India actually is culturally diverse, there are significant ethnic groups in both the north and the south, but barely anyone outside of India gives a shit.

It's happening now.