Why didn't certain powers like the Ming/Quing Chinese or Ottomans ever attempt either colonization, exploration, proselytizing, or actual trade/exploitation of t he New World?
I've heard much concerning the Chinese and their relative incompetence for sailing, but the Ottomans? They controlled most of the eastern Mediterranean and were allied with the Berbers of North Africa: surely, they could have mounted a small enterprise to the New World once the knowledge of its existence and of the route to take there had been discovered by the Europeans?
Hell, it's the discovery of the New World that was the largest factor that caused the Ottomans to enter their decline. They lost all their marketing power. Who needs oriental spices when you have all the gold, silver, chocolate, exotic spices, and soon-to-be culinary delicacies like turkey and potatoes from the Americas?
And the Chinese, as well: sure, they traded with the Spanish Philippines, but why not establish their own outposts and bypass the Spanish middle-men? 'Greatest Nation under Heaven' sure sounds like an oxymoron when the 'inferior peoples' (i.e. Spanish) you resent can cross the Pacific and reach the silver of Peru and the gold of Mexico but you yourself can't sail anywhere past the Sea of Japan.
>>868195
Easy.
Why?
Remember that the Brits had to make the Chinese adicct to opium to have something to trade other than silver.
>>868204
That was much later, though. I'm talking about the 15th/16th century when European control of the Americas was barely being consolidated and parts of the place were still un-mapped and unexplored.
>>868195
>They lost all their marketing power. Who needs oriental spices when you have all the gold, silver, chocolate, exotic spices, and soon-to-be culinary delicacies like turkey and potatoes from the Americas
>Ottomans declined due to lack of turkey
>>868195
>I've heard much concerning the Chinese and their relative incompetence for sailing
>The only entity in East Asia that plies the routes from that region in the world to ports in the Yemen
You know all those overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia? They're not there because the European colonial powers brought them there. They're descendants of maritime trading clans who settled abroad to act as trading posts for their folks back home. Have a foot at the door so to speak. Not to mention during the Monsoon Storm season, act as home away from home when the ships have to tie down for months on end due to pacific storms.
They did that even when the Ming & Qing Emperors banned sea-trade in certain decades of their history.
>>868301
That's still not very impressive, considering such sailing is one where the vessels cling closely to land rather than entering the stretch of vast sea but not much else, as in the case of crossing the Pacific of Atlantic.
>>868307
>That's still not very impressive
>considering such sailing is one where the vessels cling closely
>Utilized the compass- initially a religious device- to enable sailing without looking at the coast due to all the goddamned pirates in Malaya/Moluccas.
They have not the reason to cross the pacific other than to visit Filipino tribes and see what they have for sale.
Besides, if the Altantic was as big as the Pacific, European explorers wouldve turned tail
>>868319
>if the Altantic was as big as the Pacific, European explorers wouldve turned tail
But the Europeans were the ones to cross the Pacific. The Spanish conquered the Philippines and had a regular trade-route from Manila to Acapulco, the famous 'Manila galleons', as early as 1565. They also had other routes from the Pacific coast of the Americas (other Mexican ports, some in Central America, and Peru and Chile) to the Philippines, Japan, and the Dutch East Indies.
So no, you're quite wrong. It's the Chinese who turned tail, never bothering to go out beyond the Japanese archipelago.
>they have not the reason to cross the pacific
To find the Americas and cash in on resources that even the Chinks would find exotic? Even when the fact that the Americas existed became known to the Chinese, they never attempted to mount any attempt to capitalize on it.
>>868319
Internet chink defense force, is that you?
>>868347
>But the Europeans were the ones to cross the Pacific.
Because the Atlantic Crossing was a resounding success.
>So no, you're quite wrong. It's the Chinese who turned tail
They never actually bothered to begin with. I was talking of the European perspective that despite the fact that learned men do know that the earth was round, the fact that it could mean an endless ocean wouldve been enough to make European sailors chicken out and turn back before they run out of food. But luckily America isn't that far
>To find the Americas and cash in on resources that even the Chinks would find exotic?
There's already a "le exotic locale" place in the Philippines. And you know what they did? Just traded with the locals. Oh it was taken over by the Spanish? EVEN BETTER! Not only do these cunts pay in traditional Filipino products like pearls, exotic seafood, tortoise shells, and the like, now they pay in silver and we can get their strange American-grown products for a few of our own strange products!
Anyway you're now taking the argument to "why" not "how." anymore. The "why" is that China already had a bigass Empire rich with a variety of natural resources.
Not to mention with foreigners willing to pay top buck for their shit. So there's no need to create captive protected markets as well overseas. The state at least, but Individual Chinese Clans set up shop to act as middlemen for folks back home. That's the furthest Chinese ever bothered with a colonial program.
I mean hell, 1500's and 1600's Spain had a sprawling colonial Empire but it wasn't as rich as the Chinese/Mughal ones. Bankrupted by the 1700's even.
Look, history isn't some positivist/one-size-fits-all narrative akin to a video-game "tech tree." Some countries needed colonies, some didn't, and the reasons for doing so is more complex than "they couldn't do it."
>>868195
The answer to your question is actually hidden in your post.
The primary motivating factor for the discovery and colonization of the New World was that the old world trade routes were controlled by Muslims and Italians, shutting the western Euro's out of a lot of trade. Since they already had control of the trade routes and the revenue from it, the Muslims had no need to go out and try and find new lands to exploit, and by the time everyone realized how profitable the new world could be it was already too late and the Muslims were now shut out.
As for China, they never had any particular reason to go out searching for new lands. Not only were their empires usually large and problematic to manage already, and being at the fountain head of the silk and spice trade of the orient it's not like they needed land to produce luxury goods like the western Europeans.
>>868405
>The "why" is that China already had a bigass Empire rich with a variety of natural resources.
Why do people always seem to forget that China explored the shit out of its surrounding when it had the funds and internal stability to do so? The problem is just that China did not have the means to undertake exploration or colonization efforts while being under constant assault from within (the han while the barbarians ruled) and without (the barbarians when the han ruled).
>>868405
>>868347
Oh and I should add: why they didn't Chicken out of the pacific?
1) Atlantic crossing's resounding success.
2) They know there's an end to the Pacific already already thanks to Muslim traders talking with Porgucunts. Also this guy
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_of_Malacca
Who was a slave taken from Southeast Asia by Muslims, had a whirlwind tour of the globe by Portuguese slaver, ending up on the Employ of Magellan.
So compared to the Atlantic Crossing: the Pacific one wasn't a shot in the dark.
>>868430
Barking at the wrong tree m8. That is what I meant when I said "they had a bigass Empire."
Having bigass Empires comes with bigass problems.
The irony with that though is Eurobean Empires are all dead (by their own doing, no less), while China got its shit back together after 2 centuries of horrid balkanization.
>>868447
The Chinese Empire is dead, idiot.
>>868456
Sure the Empire is.
But not the Chinese """"nation state""""" follows the borders of the Empire. Same case with Russia.
I'm making that statement from Imperial Studies based on Juergen Osterhammel's definition of "Empire." Since mainstream history goes Maritime Empire > Traditional Land Empires. But It's funny how progressivist historians call Maritime Empires as stable & modern and contiguous land Empires backwards & traditionalists when much of Maritime Empires suffered numerous revolts from peripheries and lost these within two centuries while Traditional Land Empires more or less retained their holdings despite numerous dramatic uphealavs.
>>868447
>Having bigass Empires comes with bigass problems.
Oh I thought you were one of those morons who go about the "we're top dog so we'll just stagnate" myth. Nevermind then.
Also not seeing the irony (yet) since it's not even a century since the death of the euro empires, the main power is an euro "successor state", and China was fucking shit for 180 of the 200 years you're talking about, and even now they're more big than strong.
>>868243
>>868484
>The main power is an euro "successor state"
It is a Western state, but not European. Neither is it a successor state: it was a separatist movement.
Their not being European is important: in the Centers & Peripheries discourse, you could say that Europe is currently being asshurt by the fact that it is now a periphery of what is now the Center of the Western World (USA) ever since the Postwar years began.
Hence the famous saying by Hastings Ismay, that NATO's purpose is to "Keep Americans In (Europe), Russians Out, and Germans Down."
Besides: the USA is fucking interesting. It is both a Traditional Land Empire and a Maritime Empire. We haven't seen its like in history at all. Fuck Soviets, they can't into Naval Supremacy. And the British Empire was largely maritime. Meanwhile the USA is a Naval "Empire" with the backing of an extensive large inland Empire.
The fun part is just it's 200 years old. So shit is going to be exciting.
>>868527
The US is really not a maritime empire. It's just a land empire bigger enough than its rivals that its navy still is hegemonic. Rome and China had comparably reputable navies, while being undeniably land based too.
I mean think about it, nowadays you could even argue that the american air force is more important to their force projection than their navy, and their forward air bases are more important to them than their foreign sea ports.
>>868544
Roman and Chinese navies are pretty brown water. Hell the existence of the Chinese Navy wasn't to "Conquer foreign nigs & pirates" but "Defend our trade/coasts from foreign nigs & pirates."
It isn't to the level of Amerigan globetrotting navy.
>>868557
>Roman and Chinese navies are pretty brown water.
Only because the tech to go blue water didn't exist when they were hegemons. The romans in particular went well out of their way to wrck foreign navies (Carthage, Egypt, atlantic gauls) and make troop landings on the way to conquer new provinces. (Africa, Britannia, etc). You're quite overstating the activity of the US navy here IMO. They never went full "Britainnia rules the waves", not even close. Their navy was always all gunboat diplomacy with minor countries. Hell even the biggest war it took part in was pretty much a showdown with a much much smaller nation, and it showed more the industrial capabilities of the US than it did its naval spirit.
