Nikolai S. Rozov wrote:
>
> I don't reject the role of fortunate navigating conditions, dumb luck etc for Europeans as Jim Blaut and Mike Shupp argue: . . .
> But we must also take into account such complex factor as the
> documented existance of a special project of world invasion and
> division combined with intensive geographical studies and
> purposeful transoceanic expeditions.
> I mean here Papa's bulla of the division of ALL non- Christian
> lands to be discovered in future between Portugal and Spain,
I don't see this as terribly important; it strikes me as the Pope's
attempt to reduce squabbling betwen the Spanish and the Portuguese
by giving each an exclusive area to investigate/develop-- but it
was an ad hoc response to new circumstances created by Columbus
and de Gama and Magellan, etc., not a real statement of European
policy. There's precious little evidence other European states took
the division very seriously.
> and geographical 'clubs' in Europe that looked
> after results of each expedition very carefully, corrected maps,
> that were used in further expeditions.
> We know that Chinese emperators were sure to rule all Under-Sky,
> and about their one (or two? but not many) grand expeditions in the
> Indian Ocean,
About a dozen, if memory serves. However, I've the impression that
these were aimed less at Discovery per se and more at impressing
neighboring states with Chinese magnificence. The Emperor sent
gifts to other monarchs, and received gifts in return, which might
be claimed in China as an acknowledgement of Chinese hegemony,
but was unaccompanied by any regular form of tribute. The mandarins
who eventually shut the effort down as uneconomical probably had
a valid point.
> We know of global ambitions of Rome, Alexander, Chingis-Chan
> and Tamerlane. We know of magnificent land and oceanic expansion
> of Arabs (also supported by intensive map-creating and geography).
>
> But when and where did take place another case of such triplet:
> 'legal' division of the whole globe, permanent global-geographical
> studies, and systematic far-distance expeditions, directed namely
> for discover and grab new lands?
> Such another case (besides the European one) can be really a
> serious argument contra unique character of European expansion,
> but where is it?
Nowhere, of course, if you're to insist on that "division of the
whole globe." That simply wasn't possible until it was established
that the earth _was_ a globe. On the other hand, the Mongols
after the death of Jenghiz Khan divided the world as they knew it
between 3 or 4 groups, "explored" extensively with their armies,
and conquered much of it. The Mongols also received a fair number
of ambassadors and other emissaries who would have provided them
with geographical knowledge; whether there was a systematic effort
to gain information useful for world conquest, I don't know. (It
doesn't strike me their knowledge of local circumstances was
especially great in the case of Japan, for example. They simply
launched a pair of invasion fleets and trusted to large numbers,
with terrible results.)
Any Mongol specialists out there? For that mater, is anyone able
to summarize Japanese expansionism into Korea in this 14-17th
Century period; what factors led to it, and what brought it to
an end? How did it compare to European expansion?
-- Mike Shupp Graduate Student Department of Anthropology California State University, Northridge ms44278@csun1.csun.edu http://www.csun.edu/~ms44278/