Main content
Course: World History Project AP® > Unit 3
Lesson 2: 3.1—Empires Expand- READ: A Sublime Empire – Ottoman Rule on Land and Sea
- READ: Mawläy 'Abd al-Mälik – Graphic Biography
- READ: The Safavid Empire
- READ: China Under Ming and Qing Rule
- READ: Qing Shih – Graphic Biography
- READ: From Muscovy to the Russian Empire
- BEFORE YOU WATCH: The Omani Empire
- WATCH: The Omani Empire
- READ: South Asia 1450–1750
- READ: Khanzada Begum – Graphic Biography
- READ: Europe – Exception or Variety?
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
READ: Europe – Exception or Variety?
Google ClassroomEurope, as a region of Eurasia, seems developmentally like an exception to the rule, at least in comparison to the Ottoman Empire, China, and other parts of this vast landmass. Or is that just the story we got used to?
The article below uses “Three Close Reads”. If you want to learn more about this strategy, click here.
First read: preview and skimming for gist
Before you read the article, you should skim it first. The skim should be very quick and give you the gist (general idea) of what the article is about. You should be looking at the title, author, headings, pictures, and opening sentences of paragraphs for the gist.
Second read: key ideas and understanding content
Now that you’ve skimmed the article, you should preview the questions you will be answering. These questions will help you get a better understanding of the concepts and arguments that are presented in the article. Keep in mind that when you read the article, it is a good idea to write down any vocab you see in the article that is unfamiliar to you.
By the end of the second close read, you should be able to answer the following questions:
- How do the size of Europe and Asia compare?
- Did Europe ever fully come together as a single large land-based empire? How do the Habsburgs compare to the Asian empires of this early modern period?
- How did the rise of Protestantism challenge Habsburg domination of Europe?
- In this early modern period (1450–1750) was Europe alone as a maritime or sea-faring region?
- How did the end of the early modern period shape the story we are challenging here about European uniqueness?
Third read: evaluating and corroborating
Finally, here are some questions that will help you focus on why this article matters and how it connects to other content you’ve studied.
At the end of the third read, you should be able to respond to these questions:
- To what extent does this article help to explain continuity and change within the various belief systems during the period from 1450 to 1750?
- Why does it matter whether Europe was an “exception” or “unique” in Eurasia during this period? Why is this debate important for understanding this era in world history?
- Why do you think the idea of European exceptionalism or uniqueness developed, and what can we learn from it? Do you think this type of exceptionalism might also exist in the schoolbook histories of other regions like Turkey (formerly the Ottoman) and China (formerly the Qing)?
Now that you know what to look for, it’s time to read! Remember to return to these questions once you’ve finished reading.
Europe: Exception or Variety?
By Trevor Getz
Europe, as a region of Eurasia, seems developmentally like an exception to the rule, at least in comparison to the Ottoman Empire, China, and other parts of this vast landmass. Or is that just the story we got used to?
Europe exceptionalism
A lot of the history we encounter is written in the language of East vs. West. For a long time, European and American historians presented history as if there were big differences between what they call “Western” civilization and “Eastern,” or sometimes “Oriental” civilization. This way of writing about history was partly a product of attitudes that developed during the Cold War, when the world seemed divided into two sides. One side was capitalist with parliamentary-style democracies, while the other was socialist or communist with one-party states. It affected the way we talk about this earlier period of history—from 1450 to 1750—when Asia (East) seems to be developing land-based empires and Europe (West) seems to be turning to maritime trade and then empire. But were these two sides of the same Eurasian landmass really as different as they seemed? Or was this a view of the early modern world that overlooked the similarities between Europe and other parts of Eurasia?
The shape of Europe, 1450-1750
Having already studied the large, land-based empires that took up most of the geographic space of Eurasia and North Africa, now we can try to answer these questions by looking at Europe, in comparison. Remember that compared to Asia, Europe is pretty small. In fact, Europe is only about as large as China, while the whole Asia is about four and a half times the that size.
In the early modern period (c. 1450–1750), Europe was never unified into a single, massive, land-based empire like those in the central regions of Asia. But that doesn’t mean nobody tried. Actually, two of the empires we have already discussed occupied large parts of Europe. The Ottoman Empire held large portions of the Balkan Peninsula in the south-east for most of this period, while Russia pushed into Ukraine and the Baltic states in the late seventeenth century.
But the largest empire entirely within Europe during this period was ruled by the Habsburg monarchy, whose empire was formed mainly by marriage. An important family within the German-speaking nobility of the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburgs were the Dukes of Austria in the fifteenth century. In 1477, Joan of Aragon-Castile—an heiress of Spain, parts of Italy, and later Spain’s colonies in the Americas—married a Habsburg, adding significantly to that dynasty. Another set of Habsburg weddings brought them Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland-Lithuania in 1515.
Thus the Habsburg Emperor Charles V (r. 1519–1556) inherited much of Europe and large, profitable parts of the Americas. But he soon found it impossible to rule this much scattered, fractured territory and people speaking so many languages. So in 1555, the empire was split into two parts—one centered in Spain and another in Austria. The Austrian half dealt mostly with the Ottoman Empire and other states in Eastern and Southern Europe, whether in conflict or in trade. The Spanish half, on the other hand, began to look north and west—and especially to its new colonies in the Americas.
The Habsburg Empire was, in many ways, quite similar to the large land-based empires we have already discussed. It, too, developed a new style of bureaucracy and tried to make use of new technology—including the printing press—to keep together a large territory. Its rulers also relied on gunpowder weaponry to enforce their power. Furthermore, they developed an alliance with a state religion—in this case Catholicism—and struggled with the question of whether to try to suppress non-Catholic minority populations or win them over and convert them.
These issues culminated in the Thirty Years’ War as Emperor Ferdinand II tried to crush Protestant religious minorities and dissidents. Protestantism, as the name suggests, had begun largely as a protest against perceived problems in the Catholic Church. One perceived problem was corruption, since important religious positions and forgiveness for sins were being sold by the church, rather than given. Another problem was the fact that religious services and the Bible itself were only in Latin, which most people did not speak. Many kings and nobles also thought the Church and its leader, the Pope, was intervening too much in their ability to rule their countries. Finally, these protests embraced a vision of a simpler, more personal type of Christianity. The spread of the printing press increased literacy and helped spread these ideas widely.
The resulting Protestant movement began in the sixteenth century first as an attempt to reform the Church, and came to be known as the Reformation. But the eventual result was a number of separate, new Protestant faiths. Much of the Protestant Reformation took the form of popular protest, but some rulers also embraced Protestantism as a way to reduce the Pope’s power and gain more control over their countries. In and around Habsburg territory, local authorities also saw it as a way to reduce the power of the Emperor, who was aligned with the (still Catholic) Church.
The 30 years of war that followed was part of a wider conflict between European states in this period. These were wars in which religious conflict was only one factor. Rivalries between monarchs and conflict over territory also mattered. It did not end in a decisive victory for one side. Rather, the wars resulted in greater religious diversity, and a weakened Habsburg Empire. The European map now had many small or mid-sized states like France, Britain, Sweden, and the Netherlands.
The periphery model
So was Europe unique in Eurasia because it had lots of small states? Actually, there were several other somewhat similar regions in this period. Southeast Asia, for example, included many small and medium-sized states both in the highlands and scattered across its many islands. These states included Vietnam, Assam, Champa, Palembang, Chiang Mai, Banjarmasin, and more than a dozen others. Ming and Qing dynasty China tried to occupy several of these states but was defeated by local resistance and geography. Similarly, the southern part of the South Asian peninsula, while often battling the Mughal Empire, featured a wide range of states including Vijayanagara, for a long time its largest.
All of these regions were on the periphery of the large Eurasian landmass. The states of these regions all took part in the general trends of the period, but local conditions—or large neighboring empires—limited their ability to expand.
So what happens when you have limitations on one side and an ocean on the other? Well, you may not know as much about the famous seafarers of South and Southeast Asia, Morocco, and Arabia, as you do about the Dutch, British, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. After all, those European states were the ones that would end up successfully reaching the Americas and building large overseas empires. Nevertheless, these more eastern regions were all oceanic societies. When European explorers like Vasco da Gama made their way into the Indian Ocean, for example, they found highly sophisticated oceanic trading systems featuring ships from all over Asia and East Africa. It was the periphery societies that were most successful in building these ships and running these trade routes, just like the Europeans. Indeed, in the centuries to come Europe’s long-distance traders would ally with merchants and often take on sailors from these regions.
Conclusions
As we know, Europeans eventually ended up dominating the oceanic trade routes in the Indian Ocean and turning many of these other periphery regions into colonies. However, we shouldn’t think of that outcome as inevitable. Nor can we easily distinguish Europe as the “exception” because they didn’t form a single, large empire. What we can say is that several regions of Eurasia and Africa used a model that was different from that of the large, land-based empires. These regions had many small or mid-sized states. They were also largely on the edges of the Eurasian landmass. As a result, their societies tended to focus on long-distance trade more than regional empire-building.
Admittedly, this is not an argument that all historians agree with, but those of us who support it believe there is sufficient evidence of these similarities to support this model.
Author Bio
Trevor Getz is a professor of African and world history at San Francisco State University. He has been the author or editor of 11 books, including the award-winning graphic history Abina and the Important Men, and has coproduced several prize-winning documentaries. Trevor is also the author of A Primer for Teaching African History, which explores questions about how we should teach the history of Africa in high school and university classes.