History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedTrade/supply routes in Southeastern Asia

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Trade/supply routes in Southeastern Asia
    Posted: 13-Mar-2007 at 17:11
Heh, I don't think I posted any in this forum section...Embarrassed
 
History of the Southeastern Asia is my weakest subject, which I plan to improve upon. (Don't have any friends from that regions...Ouch)
 
Anyways, it seems that geography of Southeastern Asia seems really great for the rise of strong civilization. Excellent means of transportation (Lots of water) and full of unique raw materials. Farmland should be pretty good in these regions, since it's around equator.
 
I guess what I am trying to get is this... were there any significant civilizations emerged in Southeast Asia other than India? Why were their influnece over the world limited? Enlighten me, if you can.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
New User View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 218
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote New User Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2007 at 01:07
This may be a good start or at least a start...
 
 
hope it helps
 
 
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2007 at 18:03
Indeed. Thanks New User.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
cahaya View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
The Auror

Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 1263
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cahaya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2007 at 17:12
check this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Southeast_Asia
 
Originally posted by pekau pekau wrote:

Why were their influence over the world limited?
 
In my opinion because of their knowledge ... all empires.. or kingdoms... able to expand their territory with their knowledge... SE Asia kingdom didnt have the capacity to travel all around the world as europeans and other great empires had done before... the tech was not as advance as wht other civilization had. No great intellect....
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Mar-2007 at 23:05
chaya, I couldn't disagree more.

SE Asia in my opinion was crushed between China (specially China) and India plus the pressure of the Muslim world. Somewhat the curse of the late comers. Besides, a week state system can be explained by the absence of necessity between rulers and merchants.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 00:16
Exactly, people from Indonesia were able enough sailors to colonize Madagascar, at the other end of the Indian Ocean. This is almost like colonizing America! I remember reading that they actually followed the currents out in the open ocean rather than following the coasts of Asia and Africa.
 
I think that the problem with South-East Asia is that the difficulties in imposing a strong central authority (due to the terrain, the water, and the distances involved), meant that South-East Asia was not a better alternative to the Central Asian routes in the commerce between the two largest markets in the world, China on one side and India and the Middle East (and by extention Europe) on the other. So it never took advantage of the massive wealth generated by trade the way the Middel East did.
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
cahaya View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
The Auror

Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 1263
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cahaya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 16:17
Oh oh.. u two disagree with me.. sorry dont knw much about history.. but..
i still believe on wht i said.
 
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

cahaya, I couldn't disagree more.
SE Asia in my opinion was crushed between China (specially China) and India plus the pressure of the Muslim world. Somewhat the curse of the late comers.

I agree with u that when southeast asia empires were trying to make their own history.. the civilization of India and China over- shadowed the influence of SE Asian empires. Because these two domains were having more power, influence and resources and better knowledge. But how China and India  & Muslim world (started from middleEast) able to achieved that? What bring them to foreign land? Not just by luck. They had the knowledge. The civilization started earlier in these places compared to SEA so they are having much knowledge in many ways. Trading.. Art of War, Philosophy .. whtever knowledge they need to conquer others.

Quote
Besides, a weak state system can be explained by the absence of necessity between rulers and merchants.

A weak state system? I give an example.. the Malacca Sultanate Administrative System.
http://planet.time.net.my/CentralMarket/melaka101/admin.htm

I believe.. it can not be considered as a weak or unstructured administration. Still SEA can nott have greater influence than India or China in the World history.

From the early 1400s until the Portuguese seized it in 1511, Malacca flourished as a major trade emporium, linking the western and eastern segments of the ecumenical trade sphere. Malacca prospered as a trading port in the 1400s partly because of its advantageous geographical location. It also flourished, however, because doing business there was relatively inexpensive. As in other Far Eastern trade centres, commercial transactions in Malacca were anchored in the Chinese tribute system. Whereas the Chinese in Canton exacted tribute payments valued at 30 percent of a trader's goods, however, the Malaccan sultan asked for less than 6 percent of incoming merchandise in tribute. The income he derived from this tribute was, nonetheless, substantial. The sultan, who maintained a sizeable merchant fleet of his own, also prospered from his own trading enterprises. (http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/oldwrld/merchants/malacca.html)


Originally posted by Decebal Decebal wrote:


I think that the problem with South-East Asia is that the difficulties in imposing a strong central authority (due to the terrain, the water, and the distances involved), meant that South-East Asia was not a better alternative to the Central Asian routes in the commerce between the two largest markets in the world, China on one side and India and the Middle East (and by extention Europe) on the other. So it never took advantage of the massive wealth generated by trade the way the Middel East did.

SEA located in middle of the spice route trough the Strait of Malacca. How strategic the place could be.. but still it gave the less influence compare to other civilization. Why? Even this was the main reason why European colonization started in SEA.

Originally posted by Wiki Wiki wrote:


The first dominant power to arise In the archipelago was Srivijaya in Sumatra. From the fifth century CE, the capital, Palembang, became a major seaport and functioned as an entrepot on the Spice Route between India and China.

http://asiapacificuniverse.com/pkm/spiceroutes.htm

Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Mar-2007 at 22:44
cahaya,

I believe there are two ways of understanding the efficiency of a state. Study it per se or compare it with other in front of similar situation and specially external shock.

For instance the Aztecs had a complex and aparently efficient state. Still 500 Spaniards with three guns and thirty horses managed to destroy it. The same goes for the SEA. When the Portuguese and the Dutch arrived, the locals soon understood that they'd rather get rid of them but they never managed to. On the contrary, in India and specially in China, the Europeans needed to wait till 1750-1800 before being able to impose their will over the Asian rulers.

So SEA states were stronger than the Aztecs but weaker than China. And of course considering their position China mattered more.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 00:45
Hello everybody.  Im new  here Smile
 
 
Originally posted by Decebal Decebal wrote:

Exactly, people from Indonesia were able enough sailors to colonize Madagascar, at the other end of the Indian Ocean. This is almost like colonizing America! I remember reading that they actually followed the currents out in the open ocean rather than following the coasts of Asia and Africa.
 

They also seemed to have established a basis at Aden, Yemen ( see prof . L.N. Shaffer , Maritime SE Asia to 1500 ) .

Regarding Madagascar : Most likely they used both routes to reach Madagascar. Apart from settling there ( 200-400 AD according to most scholars ) they contuined to sail to Africa. In the 900's the Arabs records ( the wonders of India ) mentions that people from Zabag ( Java-Sumatra ) were often raiding the east Africa coast ( for slaves and iron ). 

 

 



Edited by Sander - 17-Apr-2007 at 13:07
Back to Top
cahaya View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
The Auror

Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: Malaysia
Status: Offline
Points: 1263
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cahaya Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 15:27
hey guys.. here is a question.. what are the criterias for a great empire? anyone knw?
 
 
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 20:54
easy! a great empire is … er… big?

Let me ask, why are you asking?
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 22:28
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

cahaya,
...
For instance the Aztecs had a complex and aparently efficient state. Still 500 Spaniards with three guns and thirty horses managed to destroy it.
...
 
 
That's must be a joke LOL.
 
Do you really believe there were only 500 hundred Spaniards the guys that attacked the Aztecs? The Native allies of Spaniards were 20 times more numerous. The Aztecs were defeated because they had subjugated and humilliated so many in the Mexican central valley that the Spaniards found lots of people willing to fight against the common foe.
 
I don't know why that myth of the 500 Spanish supermen is so persistent in the collective mind.
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 23-Mar-2007 at 22:28
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Status: Offline
Points: 3344
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pekau Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2007 at 14:30
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

cahaya,
...
For instance the Aztecs had a complex and aparently efficient state. Still 500 Spaniards with three guns and thirty horses managed to destroy it.
...
 
 
That's must be a joke LOL.
 
Do you really believe there were only 500 hundred Spaniards the guys that attacked the Aztecs? The Native allies of Spaniards were 20 times more numerous. The Aztecs were defeated because they had subjugated and humilliated so many in the Mexican central valley that the Spaniards found lots of people willing to fight against the common foe.
 
I don't know why that myth of the 500 Spanish supermen is so persistent in the collective mind.
 
 
 
Pinguin is correct. We discussed this already somewhere... oh well. It's impossible for army of 500 to beat tens of thousands of Azetics. I don't care if Spanish had machineguns... it's just not possible.
 
Basically, Spanish armies attracted some native tribes' attention... and Spanish just let the natives to fight civil wars and allow the diseases to kill them and make a organized attack on their capital and elimination their leadership.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Mar-2007 at 02:09

I m surprised to  read some belittling comments about SEA states here. Confused Maybe because this section is not so alive. Anyways, its one of my favourite holiday destinations (Thailand , Bali etc btw ) and I did some reading on their ancient history.

First, SEA is a region that consists(ed) of many states , each with own history.  Their strenght and achievements of them  variated from times to times.
 
As is wellknown, there were vital states and empires there . And as most of us know, some of these states created some of the worlds greatest monuments.
 
For example ancient temple city of Angkor ( AD 1100 ) If I not mistaken, still the largest templecomplex in the world.
 
DazzlingClap
 
Quote Originally posted by Decebal

I  think that the problem with South-East Asia is that the difficulties in imposing a strong central authority (due to the terrain, the water, and the distances involved), meant that South-East Asia was not a better alternative to the Central Asian routes in the commerce between the two largest markets in the world, China on one side and India and the Middle East (and by extention Europe) on the other. So it never took advantage of the massive wealth generated by trade the way the Middel East did.
   Question Question
 
All standard works on maritime trade in SEA discuss how ancient tradingpolities like Srivijaya,Indonesia and others profited extremely well from trade.
  (see for example Kenneth hall , maritime trade and state development in SEA, 1983 university Hawaii )
 
some ancient records will tell you the same :
 
 In the 1100's the  Chinese wrote that next to Arabs ( Tachin)  , Java and Srivijaya , ( San Foshi ) were the wealthiest among the countriies that traded in valuable goods.
 
The Arab Al Masudi in 943 Muruj adh-Dhahab tells  :
 
"In the sea of Champa ( South China Sea) is the empire of Maharaja, the king of the islands, who rules over an empire without limit and has innumerable troops. Even the most rapid vessels could not complete in two years a tour round the isles which are under his possesssion. The territories of this king produce all sorts of spices and aromatics, and no other sovereign of the world gets as much wealth from the soil."
 
These records are only additional to what we already know: Several states became extremely rich by trade in their heydays.
 
Quote Maharbbal : SE Asia in my opinion was crushed between China (specially China) and India plus the pressure of the Muslim world. Somewhat the curse of the late comers. Besides, a week state system can be explained by the absence of necessity between rulers and merchants.
Question
Is this a suggestion that  SEA states had all weak "state systems"?
What makes  you think there was little interaction between rulers and merchants?
 
 


Edited by Sander - 25-Mar-2007 at 09:06
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 16:11

With regards to SE Asia, you should not forget its greatest achievement: the conquist of Madagascar, located half world away.

Pinguin

Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Status: Offline
Points: 965
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 17:58
The forgotten SE Asian state of Toungoo became the most powerful country in the whole of Asia for a brief spell.
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 01:50
The Burmese history  aint so wellknown . 
 
But  in  the 1700-1800's  conquered Siam, crushed 4 chinese invasions, conquered Assam in India etc.
 
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

With regards to SE Asia, you should not forget its greatest achievement: the conquist of Madagascar, located half world away.
 
amazing sailors


Edited by Sander - 17-Apr-2007 at 13:06
Back to Top
Decebal View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Digital Prometheus

Joined: 20-May-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1793
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Decebal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 16:46
Originally posted by Paul Paul wrote:

The forgotten SE Asian state of Toungoo became the most powerful country in the whole of Asia for a brief spell.
 
I don't know, Paul. The Toungoo dynasty was certainly the most powerful in South-East Asia during its heyday, but the whole of Asia? Was it more powerful than Ming China, the Moghuls, the Ottomans or the Safavids? Don't think so!
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi

Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Webmaster
Webmaster
Avatar
AE Magazine Coordinator

Joined: 23-Oct-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3294
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 00:16
I am in agreeance with you Decebal, while the Toungoo Dynasty was certainly a significant power at its zenith, it was would have been no match for the hegemony of Ming Dynasty China, the Mughals or Ottomans (as you said).

With the onset of European exploration and establishment in South East Asia, trade in Toungoo flourished. The Portuguese control of Melaka increased sea trade in the Bay of Bengal and in Toungoo waters. Later on, British and Dutch traders propagated sea trade for Toungoo. They reached their economic and territorial height under King Baiyinung (sp?). While he did a lot for the kingdom, taking it to the fullest extent, Toungoo was never at the level of the superpowers like the Ottomans and Ming Chinese - of the day.

Here is a map showing trade routes of Toungoo as a part of the Southwest Silk Road from late 13th - 19th Century AD


And a map of trade around Asia in the late Middle Ages, including "Taungu". (Large size)
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/asia_mediaeval_commerce.jpg

Maps source: http://slipperybannanapeel.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html

- Knights -

Back to Top
Sander View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 20-Mar-2007
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sander Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-May-2007 at 23:35
Toungoo was powerful but calling it Asia 's most powerful state seems too strong.
 
On the other hand , claims that Ming was such an Asian superpower are strong as well. Maybe sino centric articles created this picture because for the most part, Ming China had only to deal with inside/ or neigbouring nomadic tribes/tribal states and were even conquered by the Manchus, a relatively small nomadic tribe.
 
China vis a vis SEA.
The claims that Ming (or even post Ming ) was militairy stronger than SEA states  are problematic. 
 
For  the last 1100 years China was nearly always defeated when attacking much smaller SEA states ( with state i mean atleast > 100.000 people so not some large village ).
 
The only short militairy " succes" against a genuine SEA state, worth mentioning, was in 1407 . But to be honest, even that one resulted within 20 years in a massive defeat for Chinese. Lets find out :
 
In 1407 Ming China invaded Vietnam(Dai Viet) , a small state compared to China. At this point Ming can be said to have some advantage over SEA states due to fire arms technology, so it managed to occuppy it . This was shortlived because after some time, the Vietnamese were getting more firearms as well . In 1427 they defeated the chinese armies ( some 80.000 chinese dead , rest taken prisoner , disarmed and sent back )
 
In the next centuries , Chinese tried again several times but were always repelled/ defeated ( example 1700 's during Tay Son ) In fact, after seeing how China was conquered by small nomadic tribe, the Manchus , Dai Viet was making large preparations to incorporate China. Whether it would 've happened will be a guess because the next Vietnamese ruler let go on that  but at least it shows that China in some SEAN eyes was not exactly seen as militairy superior at all.
 
Other campaings against SEA states were lost as well.  As mentioned,  the Burmese  crushed all chinese invsions in the 1700's ( China actually attacked when  Burma was already at war with Siam ) .


Edited by Sander - 25-May-2007 at 00:07
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.062 seconds.