A Brief History of the Clashes Between the West and the East

A Brief History of the Clashes Between the East and the West

1. The Greco-Persian Wars
The Greco-Persian Wars were a series of conflicts between the Achaemenid Empire and Greek city-states that started in 499 BC and lasted until 449 BC. The Achaemenid Empire was eventually conquered by Alexander The Great in 330BC.

2. The wars between Sasanid Persian Empire and the Byzantine Empire
Because neither side had the capacity to overwhelm the other side, the wars lasted more than 400 years, left both sides exhausted, opened the door for the Arabic invasion.

3. The Arabic invasion of the Ibérian Peninsula and the Reconquista
711~1492, the Islamic invasions and occupations, the Christians resistance and Reconquista. one of the longest clashes in world's history.

4. The Mongolian Invasion

5. The Ottoman Empire's Conquest in Europe
The Ottoman conquered from Balkan to Caucasia, put much of Europe under its thumb. for the West, the victory in the Second Vienna Siege in 1683 was the turning point.

6. The European Colonization in the East

From Huntington's "Clashes of Civilizations" to Allison's "Thucydides Trap", people tend to see the current clash between China and America from the historic perspective. here I've tried to give a very brief historic review on the issue.

just noticed that this is my first thread in more than eight years.

Ironic, China historically considered "West" as Muslim and Hindu and Roman civilizations. (See 'Journey to the West') and now CHINA is grouped together with the Muslims and Hindus in contrast to Christian West.

"East" encompassing Muslim World, Hindustan, and Chinese civilization, while "West" is just Christian civilization.

It's not very informative grouping because of the vast diversity within "East". Might as well say: "Europe" vs "non-Europe", but that heavily discounts internal European wars that was highly prevalent. You can exploit internal nationalism within Europe/West, they fight each other for thousands of years.

Phead128 said:

Ironic, China historically considered "West" as Muslim and Hindu and Roman civilizations. (See 'Journey to the West') and now CHINA is grouped together with the Muslims and Hindus in contrast to Christian West.

"East" encompassing Muslim World, Hindustan, and Chinese civilization, while "West" is just Christian civilization.

It's not very informative grouping because of the vast diversity within "East". Might as well say: "Europe" vs "non-Europe", but that heavily discounts internal European wars that was highly prevalent. You can exploit internal nationalism within Europe/West, they fight each other for thousands of years.

Click to expand...

Huntington's definition of the West is: Greek, Roman, Christianity, it's basically European.

the "real" West is even reluctant to recognize much of eastern Europe as part of the West.

The East carries the same meaning as in the middle East, far East.

Greek/Roman civilization fight amongst themselves as much as they fight against non- Greek/Roman civilization.

Huntington wrote the book at the time of EU/NATO unity post-Cold War. He has an incentive to exaggerate inter-civilizational conflict and ignore the centuries of constant war among "West" states.

What I'm trying to say is, China should exploit the barbarians against the barbarians, the "West" is not as monolithic as they portray themselves as.

Phead128 said:

Greek/Roman civilization fight amongst themselves as much as they fight against non- Greek/Roman civilization.

Huntington wrote the book at the time of EU/NATO unity post-Cold War. He has an incentive to exaggerate inter-civilizational conflict and ignore the centuries of constant war among "West" states.

What I'm trying to say is, China should exploit the barbarians against the barbarians, the "West" is not as monolithic as they portray themselves as.

Click to expand...

agree.

the clash between China and America is not about ideology, not about religion, it's probably not even about race. like most of the 19th century intra-West clashes, it's about interest and hegemony.

When it becomes clear how much the US has fallen (maybe after Taiwan gets reunified), I think we start seeing the 'west' implode into infighting.

We do also in fact already see both the US cannabilizing its own allies (aus nuclear sub deal, but also trade with China), as well as frictions within the west (especially EU, as there is wealth disparity between the countries, and also fighting over control between the bigger EU states).

Michaelsinodef said:

When it becomes clear how much the US has fallen (maybe after Taiwan gets reunified), I think we start seeing the 'west' implode into infighting.

We do also in fact already see both the US cannabilizing its own allies (aus nuclear sub deal, but also trade with China), as well as frictions within the west (especially EU, as there is wealth disparity between the countries, and also fighting over control between the bigger EU states).

Click to expand...

"seeing the West implode into infighting" is very much wishful thinking, just like Napoleon III before the start of the Franco-Prussian war, who was hoping the German States would turn against Prussia. today the West states have largely sticked together around America, even though it is not an ironclad alliance. misread, misjudge this could lead to fatal mistake.

You can't expect any country with a permanent US troop deployment to be independent. US troops never left Germany.
This is why I don't put much hope in South Korea or Japan either. Even if South Korea is sending mixed signals they still have the US boot firmly on their necks. If anything the UK leaving the EU and the current German election results only reinforced the US choke hold on Europe. Not that US political leaders wanted the UK to leave since it complicates their foreign policy. But the UK leaving the EU makes the possibility of Europe having its own viable defense policy all that harder.

gelgoog said:

You can't expect any country with a permanent US troop deployment to be independent. US troops never left Germany.
This is why I don't put much hope in South Korea or Japan either. Even if South Korea is sending mixed signals they still have the US boot firmly on their necks. If anything the UK leaving the EU and the current German election results only reinforced the US choke hold on Europe. Not that US political leaders wanted the UK to leave since it complicates their foreign policy. But the UK leaving the EU makes the possibility of Europe having its own viable defense policy all that harder.

Click to expand...

The independence of a nation depends on its leader. De Gaulle expelled all NATO troops from French territory.

UK leaving EU actually makes an independent EU defense policy a lot easier.