Critique of India

[l.m.fosse at easteur-orient.uio.no]

>Lars Fosse writes:
>
>>As far as invations are concerned, unlike India we have been lucky. The
>>Arabs didn't quite get us (they got Spain for some centuries), the Mongols
>>didn't get us (though little merit of our own, we were just plain lucky)
>>and the Turks didn't get us (although it was a close call). It seems that
>>in history, you need a bit of luck.

L. S. Cousins writes:

>I don't think this works. Either you treat Europe as a whole or you compare
>Western Europe with Eastern India and/or Southern India.

Point taken. Actually, the definition of Europe is a bit of a problem,
since it has changed with the centuries. Europe stretching from the
Atlantic to the Urals is a quite modern concept. What I had in mind was the
"core" of Europe, that is those parts that have been considered part of the
continent for many centuries, that is again the Northern shores of the
Mediterranean and the parts stretching towards the North Sea in the North
and the Catholic or Protestant countries in Central Europe (also a somewhat
fuzzy term). That Eastern Europe belongs to "Europe" is a pretty modern
concept, in fact a British historian visiting Oslo some time ago told about
an unpleasant encounter in the British Foreigh Office where an official
told him that "we do not consider Bosnia part of Europe". But LSC is right:
We must compare regions of India with regions of Europe.

>In the first case various invaders conquered large parts of Europe - some
>you indicated e.g. the Turks who ruled about half of Europe, I suppose (at
>their peak). Some were briefer e.g. the Mongols or the Huns. Some came to
>stay e.g. the Germanic peoples. Arguably even the Latins or the Slavs are
>remnants of earlier waves of invaders.

Whether the Turks ruled half of Europe is a matter of how you define
Europe. The Mongols never ruled Europe, although they devastated large
parts of Hungary, Poland and ajoining regions. Europe (no matter how you
define it) was saved by the bell: The great Khan died, and his sons had to
return to Karakorum to decide who was to succeed him. They never came back.

>
>Certainly, there was as much internecine war in Europe as in India on average.

Definitely, and it might have brought the European states down. Few kings
understood the significance of the Mongols, and only the king of France
tried to create an alliance against them. Without success.

>I suspect that the difference in economic levels comes about between the
>15th and 17th centuries and is more to do with conquest of the Americas and
>European seizure of trade routes previously under Arab, etc. control. There
>seems no reason to suppose that mediaeval Europe was economically better
>off than India at the same time.

I think E. M.Jones (see former bibliographic reference) would disagree to
this. Europe was, according to him, marginally better off for a number of
reasons (among these: fewer natural catastrophes). I have not got the time
to repeat his argument, but read the book. It is quite interesting and
thought-provoking.

Best regards,

Lars Martin Fosse



Lars Martin Fosse
Research Fellow
Department of East European
and Oriental Studies
P. O. Box 1030, Blindern
N-0315 OSLO Norway

Tel: +47 22 85 68 48
Fax: +47 22 85 41 40

E-mail: l.m.fosse at easteur-orient.uio.no