Qing/Manchu-China's status.

Post-Opium Wars Qing Dynasty China remained an empire, albeit a weak empire.  Internal corruption, opium addiction, and economic destruction contributed to the losses of this war.  Despite claiming victory over Qing/Manchu Dynasty-China, the only thing the British Empire controlled was trade.  Central to Qing-China's economy is trade, yet the control wasn't as tight as the British Empire thought it was.

Burbank and Cooper never stated outright nor made implications about Qing-Dynasty China's status as a colony of the British Empire.  Trade fell to the British, but only part of it went to them.  After the First Opium War (c. 1839) and perhaps before that, Chinese merchants fled to Hong Kong as a safe haven against complete domination of British Imperial policy.

Between the aftermath of the First and Second Opium Wars, British "colonizers" settled in Hong Kong as well.  They allowed residence to the Chinese merchants under the pretenses of segregated living areas.  This allowed the merchants to conduct business and accumulate wealth.

Now, if the British denied any right for Chinese merchants to reside in Hong Kong, the economy might still as well fall to British control.  However, because the British couldn't possibly gain foothold of every part of Qing-China, trade posts undetected by British patrols go unnoticed because of central fixation on harbor ports.

Chinese merchants gained the advantage of continuing their businesses over in Hong Kong, despite circumstances.  Would it be much safer to deem Qing-China then as an outpost of the British Empire, rather than a colony?  A colony establishes a settlement of the peoples dominant over the opposing country's empire or rule.  This includes complete control over politics, rule, and economy.  Opposition to British rule lasted for a while and resentment against British-rule almost fades away by the Cultural Revolution, in some aspects.

Burbank and Cooper also mentioned that Chinese political activity, with British intervention, went on. Sometimes in the absence of British presence, political activity still fell to the Qing-Chinese, as in the case of the decisions of the Boxer Rebellion.  Upon the crushing defeat of the Boxer Rebellion, Hong Kong-based merchants relied on trade to retain their part in the economy of China.

The American Way v. the Russian Way

 

In the 1860s the U.S. and Russia each finalized their emancipation. Despite taking the next step towards equality and freedom their paths were on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. While reading I was curious to learn of how Russia dealt with their emancipated the serfs as compared to how America dealt with the end of slavery. American history is clear, we all learned at a young age the steps that were taken after emancipation, the rules, regulations, and stipulations made to not only prohibit African Americans from healthy development but also to prohibit Native Americans, Mexicans, and women. Since the time period and circumstances of Russia are exceptionally comparable, but how did Russia differ?

Land was the most fundamental aspect of Russian society, “The goal, as throughout much of Russian history, was to match up land and people in productive ways, on terms that pleased the ruler” (Burbank and Cooper, 281). The emancipation of the surfs was displeasing to the nobles and peasants alike in Russia; unlike the U.S. it did not involve a civil war or very much violence to invoke the new policy. Serfs were granted the same rights as peasants granting them administrative and judicial rights as well house hold plots and allotments of land to be held and managed collectively. Overall Russia handled the emancipation of the serfs much more gracefully and thoughtfully compared to America. They even compensated former masters for the debt they had accumulated due to the end of serfdom. The ex-serfs were even given a nearly fifty year deadline to repay the state for the land they acquired after emancipation. Russia seemed to take every step to ensure that all lived comfortably after such a large demographic change that affected their entire society, but why? Why did the Russians go to such great lengths for “undeserving” serfs?

Russia’s autocratic system was favorable to their “Reform from above” system allowing elites to have almost complete control of the system and do as they pleased, America’s republican system would not have allowed this. Another factor that prohibited a smooth American transformation was the constitution, in order for major changes occur it had to be approved by many and then amended officially before it could be put into effect. Russians used the impermanent allocation of rights and resources. The largest barrier was race. The multiplicity of people was not a problem in Russia and since there was not dominant race there was no issue with Slav serfs. We clearly cannot say the same for America who did not provide the same freedoms and safe havens to slave descendants until sadly, the 1960s.

 Race simply changed the entire dynamic for both countries. Russia did not wish to form a separation between the “dominant” race as opposed to the lesser one, probably because they truly did have a lesser race. They had for a long time appreciated and welcomed racial diversity, America had yet to get over that hurdle thus causing the civil war and inequality for non-Anglo-Saxon peoples.  Russia and America began the road to freedom around the same time but sadly arrived at the finish line of equality in two different centuries.

Some Things Never Change

           Colonial empires looked very different than the past greats. England in the nineteenth century looked very different than Rome or Mongolia. There were fewer states in control of more of the world and these states were richer. More than the growing land and state piggy banks, empires grew more imaginative. Empires were expanding in new ways that only the advancements of the nineteenth century could have allowed.

            Elites were confident in their superiority and their states capacity to dominate all opposing forces. Europe embodied the “right” way of life for the backward colonies. The colonies provided the opportunity for powerful European countries to demonstrate administrative control and professional bureaucracies. Creating a colony allowed states to choose who represented them in the new world. Racially segregated towns and cities were not uncommon, and many prospered. As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. France, Great Britain, Belgium, and Portugal sought imperial power within Europe itself. Germany began expanding their territory in Europe itself, and eventually moved overseas. Britain had colonies across oceans, in their homeland, and was simultaneously fighting wars against Russia, Austria, The Ottomans, and the Chinese.

            With such diversified interests, some countries struggled to maintain their manifold investments. Encouraging the maturing of concepts such as race and national pride became essential to maintain a healthy positive social atmosphere. National pride encouraged citizens to brave the ocean and volunteer to be a part of new colonies. Race kept the colonies separated, preventing colonists from merging their talents and working together, thus sharing the wealth between nations. Many hands might make light the work, but most countries would prefer to keep all the money for themselves. With the seemingly limitless social, religious, military, and political potential gifted by the age of enlightenment, the reformation, and the renaissance, colonial expansion had the perfect combination of preexisting natural resources and land and volunteer adventurists who sought fame, wealth, and personal freedom in the new world.

            After the harsh beginning years, more often than not colonies proved to be worth the effort. They provided goods such as beaver pelts, spices, timber, seeds, cotton, and sometimes labor. Once the potential was realized, European states were clamoring for new lands. It was a race for land, wealth, prestige, and the ability to rightfully claim the title of world’s greatest empire. A title like that is attractive to empires of any century. Some things never change. 

The Key is ____?

A lot of Cooper and Burbank’s tenth chapter highlight race and the divisions that it caused in the empires of the nineteenth century.

Britain was heavily involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and even had slaves within their own empire. The mention of William Wilberforce reminds me of the 2006 film Amazing Grace. Fortunately, because of abolitionists and protests of the slaves themselves, the slave trade was outlawed in 1807 and slaves within the British Empire became illegal in 1833. France’s abolishment, according to Cooper and Burbank, was not as quick. Napoleon restored slavery in 1802 and it “took a…revolutionary situation,” an antislavery movement, and a rebellion in the French Caribbean to achieve emancipation. Next, the ‘more-invested’ Spanish empire, greatly benefitted from slave labor and their colonies faced civil wars in the 1860 and 80s; abolition wasn’t accomplished fully until 1890. Certainly, the mindset of empires was changing from territorial acquisition, to aggressive exploitation of inhabitants.

Even further, Cooper and Burbank take time to talk about the ventures of up and coming Japan, the Ottomans, and British India. Most notable, Britain hugely exploited the Indians. In the nineteenth century they viewed even the Indian elites and their culture harsher than before. They pushed English language, institutions, and Protestant or Catholic missionaries.

The next area of racism seen in this century is even given a name—“The Scramble for Africa.” Within 20 years, much of Africa was colonized by Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal. The Africans were viewed as barbaric, outposts which “provided an imperial presence and a piece of the trading action at low cost to the state” were positioned within the territory, and their chiefs could be dismissed by a white official; their land was overtaken.

Obviously, racial discrimination was prevalent in the nineteenth century. Even the United States began invading Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and trying to take control. Thankfully, finally, changes were made and emancipation was established in each of the areas, although the process was faster for some and slower for others.

In their conclusion, Cooper and Burbank state that “The nineteenth century is often seen as the time…when race came to be a key, if not the key, division among humankind." 

Would you say this is the case after reading their chapter? 

What are the other, if any, “key” divisions involved?

Conquerers, From Soldiers to Polititians

In the Napoleon reading, it was discussed that the nature of creating an Empire was changing, that people would no longer accept empire, that they were no longer ignorant to the oppression that was brought about by empires. As a result of this Empire builders had to find different ways to create empires, Napoleon used more force, occupying and controlling everything that he could handle, though as we saw this did not last long at all. It is because of the decline in the ability to use military as empire building tools that we see the rise of "Engineers and Doctors" (Pg. 287) according to Burbank and Cooper as the new catalysts to colonialism.

One of the examples here is when it comes to the European colonization of China. China was a well developed nation at the time with resources that  the Europeans wanted, but because they were well developed the Europeans could not just invade and occupy as they had previously done when creating colonial empires. Instead they colonized China with war and politics. The Europeans still used war with the Chinese, just not occupation as had been seen in previous empires, the British and Chinese had a series of wars known as the Opium wars. When the British came out on top of these conflicts rather than attempting to occupy China, they instead enacted their own rules within china, such as trade rights, specific ports for the Europeans to trade in, and they couldn't not occupy anything, so they took Hong Kong. The most important aspect here though was the political rules that were placed into effect. The most important notion here is "After its defeat in the opium wars, China had to trade on others' terms" (Burbank and Cooper, pg. 297). The Europeans though they did not have to occupy all of China had managed to completely take control of its global trade market.

Now many could argue that this is not colonialism but instead just politics at work, as Britain did not actually occupy China. And thus this question is posed, did Britain turn China into a colony, or was it just politics?

Building Mythos out of the Empires

Eastern and Western empires vary in their degree of reign.  Western empires seem more crueler than Eastern empires because many affiliate Western empires to successful colonization across the globe, and the inhumane treatment subjugated towards natives.  Western empires successfully conquered overseas territory and conquered the indigenous populations with cruelty.  Domestically, people living under the domestic empire enjoyed better living.  Despite the lack of colonies, Eastern empires excelled Western empires, in terms of reform policy.

Western empires fought and competed against each other during the 15th to 17th-centuries for territorial expansion.  Eastern empires fought within and against each other around the same time as the Western empires did.  Eastern empires focused on domestically securing peace within their territories and stability.  At the same time, feudal lords and emperors in the East plotted military campaigns to conquer land overseas.

Between 1463-AD to 1573-AD of Japan, the period known as the Sengoku Jidai dominated the land. Feudalism governed the ways of the people.  Daimyo stood as the governors of the land.  They dictated their laws as they branched out to establish a stable empire after famine and earthquakes disrupted Japanese economy.  Europe saw the Renassaince, the Protestant Reformation, and the colonization of the Americas around that time.

Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a daimyo from the lower class, ruled Japan after the assassination of the previous daimyo, Oda Nobunaga.  Not surprisingly, his name had no origins of samurai-class distinction or achievement-class.  He started his life from the obscure peasant class and moved up eventually as a vassal, then general to Oda Nobunaga.  He established the end of the Sengoku Jidai and unified Japan.  His tenure as daimyo and unifer brough significant change to Japan by instating a heirarchy class system that defined Japan up until the Meiji Reformation.

The general consensus suggests Sengoku Jidai Japan best be on par with the periodic transition of the rest of the world and define a line drawn between the divine-religious interpretation and the human realm.  What makes the Sengoku Jidai so significant stems from the nature of the period itself.  The name translates to the 'Warring States Era'.  At this time, most expect Japan too far isolated to engage in trade, or have time for ethnocentric spirituality.

It became the opposite as brilliance, art, and culture flourished.  With addition of encountering the Portuguese earlier, Japan grew into a nation soon unified by the deified-daimyo in history.  If the Portuguese arrived any later, can it possibly jeopardize the timing of Japan's establishment and unification process?  What if the Spanish first arrived instead of the Portuguese? 

The Problems with Building an Empire

           The changing culture, political structure, and social framework of the eighteenth century enabled the common man to imagine a non-empire; a single people sovereign over a single territory. Empire was the stage not the victim of revolution. As society changed, so did the view of empires. In cities like London and Paris with a strong wealthy upper class, the proletariat formed new political concepts spurned by monarchial regimes and their concept that “rights” came strictly from a monarch. Political thinkers of the time argued that the right to rule came form the people and a monarchs authority emanated directly from his subjects.

            As the concept of natural rights developed, the question of citizenship surfaced. Would citizenship only be granted to those naturally born in the country in question? Would it be national, only for people of a single linguistic, cultural, and territorial area? Or could citizenship be imperial and embrace the diverse people who populated the state?

            The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries fathered revolutions that fueled the spark of change. The Franco-Haitian Revolution started as a squabble over Caribbean colonies and swiftly grew into the French questioning empire as well as their ability and right to govern people not their own. The Spanish encountered similar internal struggles when their colonies began causing a political ruckus. Turns out local peoples don’t appreciate a foreign government decimating regional rule for the sake of expanding empire. England had problems with the pesky American colonies that were peopled by naturally born English citizens, but no longer wished to be ruled by the empire.

 

            Empires are tricky. There are questions of nationality, individual rights, land, and resources, not to mention the right to rule. Imperial rule, ruling empires, monarchial rule; ruling is hard work. Changing political framework and shifting cultural norms help alter social views of empires and change the expectations for rulers, but it does little to truly change the structure. Some things take time to change. Sure the Mongols built an empire in less than half the time it took the Romans, but changing the definition of empire is just a wee bit harder than conquering people groups. Who knew! 

What changed?

Although it only lasted for twenty-five years, Napoleon Bonaparte’s French Empire was strong during its existence and utilized many of the same governing principles from prior empires. Like many former imperial leaders, Napoleon “cast himself,” according to Parsons, as the ruler. With great military success and persuading words, Napoleon promised to “restore Italy to its former glory.” Yet, in the midst of doing so, he crowned himself king.

This seems to be a reoccurring problem within imperial powers; one leader emerges as a capable militant or administrator and, not long after, is sitting on the throne, ruling over subjects. Some unique points about Napoleon’s rule however, were his specific goals of ralliement and amalgame.

Oddly enough, the definition of Napoleon’s ralliement is just how it sounds. A major goal was to ‘rally’ his imperial subjects. “The goal was for “revolutionaries and the men of the ancient regime to work together for the glory of France under Napoleonic rule.” From urban nobles, wealthy landowners, and former radicals, to men of talent with jobs and social honors, Napoleon needed to recruit elites to help maintain his empire. But this was a difficult task. In theory, the elites would be loyal to Napoleon and his regime, as well as provide financial assistance and resources for his rule. But just as there were problems in earlier empires, Napoleon struggled to acquire loyalty. Still, Napoleon’s goal to ‘bridge the gap,’ might have proved valuable if his empire had lasted longer. This bridging of the gap is evident his Napoleon’s amalgame. Using conscription, to mix revolutionary armies and French troops, Napoleon created a large army. He even “promoted amalgame by establishing prestigious secondary schools to train their sons for state service.”

And although these two shining aspects of Napoleon’s regime could be support for Parsons’ underlining argument, in this chapter, Parsons states that “Napoleon’s empire did not last long enough to give these experiments in social engineering a chance to…produce a loyal imperial citizenry.” It seems as if Parsons does not have as much evidence as usual for the ‘wrongness’ of Napoleon’s empire.

So what changed? Was Napoleon’s empire not as brutal as previous ones? Why did it only last for twenty-five years if it utilized many of the same principles and tactics? “Napoleon was no revolutionary,” but then why was his empire so different?

The Changing State of Empire Construction

With the rise of the Napoleonic Empire of France in Europe during the early 1800's Parsons describes that the way that leaders go about constructing Empires has changed as a result of Napoleon. The most important notion here is that people are more resistant to empires.

Parsons states, "This model lost its viability when common people came to see empires as foreign and thus illegitimate." (Pg. 235) The model that he is talking about here is when Empires win a serries battle and thus create an empire, sometimes not even traveling to these new lands or engaging with the population that they have just conquered. This can be seen in Rome, during the Punic Wars, the Romans had major defeats at Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae, and yet they won the war and constructed an empire because they won the battle of Zama, as well as some other battles. They did not occupy the populate, or commit a full fledged invasion of the Carthaginian state, but instead won a series battle and came to an agreement with the losing nation as to exchange of lands. The people in turn would have accepted the transition and life continues as normal.

With Napoleon things become different. He was not going to conquer European countries by winning a battle and then having the people and government give lands over to him as the victor. No he was going to have to invade the country and occupy everything in order for him to force them to follow him. Instead of people submitting to Napoleon Parson states "Napoleon's attempt to rule local communities directly sparked a powerful and popular anti-French backlash throughout the continent. This resistance was not yet national, for most Europeans at this time still identified themselves on the basis of local or communal loyalties. Nevertheless, the common experience of resisting the invasive French Empire helped build larger identities that were the raw material of European Nationalism." (Pg. 234) The people of Europe resisted the invasion of France because they saw it as illegitimate and oppressive, as a result of this Napoleon had to change the scope of how empires are constructed, he had to occupy the entire state and population to force them to be part of his empire, a vast contrast from past empires. Is this true? Did Napoleon change the growth of Empires, forcing them to be more invasive and controlling of the population, as a result of the peoples new-found distaste for empire and national identity?

Peter the Great

Peter the Great, was well great. He survived murderous rampage between the clans of his father's (Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich) two wives. And at a young age of twenty-four he became he sole Tsar. When Peter was young he lived outside of Moscow where he grew to find an interest in "western" ideas and technology. Finding a specific interest in military strategy, mathematics and boat sailing. As Tsar he made a few trips into Europe , one where he disguised himself to apprentice to a shipbuilder in Holland.

His interesest in Europe lead him in his goal to have Russia "catch up" with the rest of the world. This involved many different changes to the Russian life.

His military ideas were extremely ambitious, reforms lead to annual recruiting from every twenty families. Peter ultimately achieved his goal, he successfully defeated the Swedes and secured Russia's Baltic ports. And after battling the Ottomans, Peter built a Roman Arch in Moscow with the translation of Casear's motto "I came, I saw, I conquered" written across.

Peter did many other great things beside win wars. He replaced the boyar duma with a senate which was able to proclaim his as the Emperor. He founded the Academy of Science as well as printing Russia's first ever newspaper. He used the "Table of Ranks" to classify state services, and reorganized the administration into colleges, a practice he learned will in Europe.

Peter the Great was great for Russia. He was able to further their power to move them up in a fast changing world. He accepted the ideas from a western world and adapted them to create a better country for his people. Peter the Great lives up to his name.

It's Good to Rule

It’s good to be a prince. Power, prestige, the family jewels, seems like a good job to me. The Daniilovichi princes of Moscow inherited family lands, married exotic princesses, and had power. Of course, there were problems too. The muscovite princes had the makings of an empire in their grasp. By carefully choosing marriage alliances they had formed strong bonds with the right allies and were in a strong position politically. The grand princes were not only competing with foreign countries, but were competing amongst themselves for supremacy. Unlike the ottomans that arrange their control to inhibit nobility from coming to power, Russia produced nobility that was both involved in the imperial project and contingent on the autocrat. They allowed their ruling families to truly have control and manipulate the state for the best interest of the whole.

    In China family order dictated who would rule. During the Qiny dynasty, Emperor Kangxi inferred the right to choose his successor as the most capable of his heirs. This new found competition for the crown kept princes alert and concentrated. Suddenly it wasn’t enough to simply be born the oldest, or even second; you had to be the best ruler, best according to the son of heaven, imperial god, the Emperor. Sounds stressful to me. Maybe it wasn’t so great to be a prince.

    Regardless of where a prince ruled, or whether an heir was born or chosen, being a prince would have been hard work. Russia or China, both would have their problems and both states nobility would suffer as modernity altered the nobility’s abilities. It sounds like it would be fun to be a prince, to lead troops into battle, wear fancy clothes and have your head printed on a coin. But it reality royalty were responsible for dictating a nations politics of difference, where the imperial intersections lay, manifesting religious piety and devotion, and in short taking care of an entire nation. Peter the Great. Tzar of Russia altered the churches power during his reign and many of his people resented the change. Wasn’t he just doing what he thought best? During the Ming dynasty China adopted a anti-foreigner policy that didn’t last and proved mainly to set China back technologically for generations. Wasn’t the emperor only trying to protect his people and cultural identity? Maybe being a prince would be more than I want, and certainly more than I can handle. While the job sounds like fun, I think I’ll stick to being a student, a bit less glamorous, and just a wee bit simpler. All thought, a shiny crown? That’s quite an incentive…

"Ivan the Terrible"

Russia as an empire did not emerge until the 16^th century, quite late as compared to other Eurasian regions. It initially broke away from the Mongols and therefore was heavily influenced by the Mongol way of empire but other influences stemmed from the Turk and Byzantine empires. The Moscovite empire had 3 pillars, the first and most important being the Tsar, next the land grant system for elites, and the church. Ivan, “The Terrible” was the first official Tsar of Russia. At the tender age of 3 he was declared the Grand Prince of Moscow due to his father’s death. Until his mother’s passing when Ivan was only 8 years old, she was the leader of the territory. Still too young to govern a society Ivan had to watch as his throne was ran by a group of nobles otherwise known as regents who were bidding for supreme power. Ivan grew up with no true companionship and was often mistreated by the regents. Many have stated that his treatment towards nobles and his unruly hostility towards them stemmed from his childhood.

At the young age of 16 Ivan became Russia’s first Tsar. Initially Ivan was an innovative leader focused on reforming and strengthening Russia as an empire. Russia flourished; he centralized the government, created a new law code, promoted and extended Russian trade, and built an elite military. At a young age Ivan’s goal was to rule as many people and as much territory as possible, so his campaigns to extend the empire came as no surprise. Under his leadership the Russian military was transformed, there overtaking of Syria completely changes Russian society.

The Syrian conquest introduced the strictly Orthodox Christian empire to foster Muslims, for the first time the empire had multiple religions. Despite the large amount of land and people who were already under Russian control, Ivan also brought the first new ethnicity to the empire as well. He was a great leader who elevated the young empire to new heights in a short period of time.

We are all familiar with the negative aspects of Ivan’s reign, his mistreatment of nobles and unjust executions, his random rants, and his unfortunate murder of his son and best option as heir to the throne. His death is thought to have been caused by poison from someone in his royal court, which is not surprising due to his often uncontrollable temper. Most are not aware that much of the early success that the Russian empire had was because of Ivan “the terrible” son of Ivan ‘the great”.

 http://russiapedia.rt.com/prominent-russians/the-ryurikovich-dynasty/ivan-iv-the-terrible/

 

Perhaps Alcohol Trumped Sex

One of the most interesting points from this week’s reading, for me, was covered on pages 186 through 188. In the section, authors Burbank and Cooper discuss a “familiar strategy to consolidate power,”—which they identify as—establishing a state religion.

At first, the Rus’ believed in many gods; they were polytheistic. Comparable to the Romans, they frequently brought in the various deities of other cultures and religions to make them their own. Then, the greatest Rus’ leader, Vladimir, started to like monotheism. And we can assume, converting from many gods to one god is a pretty significant, maybe even unusual, switch. According to “Russian chronicles,” out of the monotheistic religions, Vladimir decided on monogamous Christianity either because “reasons of state must have prevailed…or perhaps alcohol trumped sex.”

Afterwards, the people were baptized, and although the Slavic population continued in polytheism, this newly adopted Christianity transformed the ruling city of the Rus’ and their culture. Unfortunately, the section concludes that “religion was not enough to sustain empire-building by the Rus’,” but I think that the concept is a very interesting one.

Although the Roman empire began with in the same way—polytheistic turned monotheistic Christianity—did it really consolidate power in the way it was temporarily successful for the Rus’? Was that the reason behind declaring Christianity the imperial religion? I also wonder if it really happened the way the Russian chronicles state. Was Christianity the only option because Judaism was the religion of a defeated people and Islam outlawed alcohol?

For some reason I guess, as a practicing historian, I hope that there was more to it than that. Maybe in the long run, it doesn’t matter why Christianity was chosen over Judaism or Islam or even that the Rus’ switched from polytheism to monotheism. And looking at figures like King Henry VIII of England, who began the Church of England because of his desire to dissolve one of his many marriages, I guess it’s possible that a decision concerning religion could be made in such a way. But I’d like to think that there was more to Vladimir’s decision.  Where imperial decisions only made based on the imperial consequences? Was everything done for the benefit of the empire, with complete ignorance to morality?

Empire Size Constraints

It would appear to me, when looking at the extent at which empires expand, the most deciding factory is the size of the continent on which the empire is expanding on. The notion of continents as size constrains can be seen when looking at the vast size of the Russian, Chinese, and Mongolian empires in comparison to the European Empires.

Russia and China when expanding had vast areas of land in Asia over announce their control. One of the reason for this expansion very well would have been the lack of opposition. A reason though that there was a lack of opposition would have been the size of the continent, people in Asia found themselves much more spread out, than the close clustered people of Europe. The Empires of China and Russia when put together controlled around half of all of Asia, with some other states here and there filling up the rest of the space. Europe experienced similar situations like this, there had existed states that controlled large sections of Europe (I.e. Rome). But it is very rare for a country to have completely conquered Europe, with two really the only two examples being Napoleon and Hitler, but neither of these men were able to hold Europe for more than a few years. All of Europe as a single empire still would have paled in comparison to the size of the empires carved out by Russia and China. It appears that states have very difficult times conquering entire continents. As a result the size of states are relative to the continent on which they exist. Even today, there are 48 states in Asia, while there are 47 states in Europe. Even though Asia is over four times as large as Europe. This is because the states there on average are bigger because the continent itself is bigger. It is because of the continent being bigger that Russia and China were able to carve out massive Empires in Asia, with room to spare around them. These empires are bigger than anything that European nations could have dreamed of on the European continent, they had to go to other continents to compete, but very well may be similar to European empires at their height in comparison to percentage of the continent that is controlled by a single power.