Silk Road myth

[caldrail]

http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/5635-trade-and-more/page__p__52931__hl__%2Bindian+%2Bocean__fromsearch__1#entry52931

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Sure, so I take it you guys aren't aware of the arguments against the overland route existing? I'll have to read up on it again, but I heard something along the lines that there's no evidence for the red routes on the map above used for trading between Europe and China.

 

I would like to see those arguments.

Nonsense, Marco Polo rode a horse to China and back. Roman Legionnaires appear to have ended up in China after their capture at the battle of Carrhae. When the Mongols reached eastern Europe they were asking for the location of Rome. Rome was aware of China and China was aware of Rome.

 

Certainly sea routes were preferable they were much quicker but people will still have used the land routes.

 

During the american gold rush most people sensibly came by ship. Either crossing overland at Panama or across Nicaragua up river by ship and crossing overland a distance of 10 miles on the Vanderbildt route. Or circumnavigating South America by sail ship. None the less many people came overland some pushing their belongings in wheel barrows. These people were no more advanced than the people of the old world in ancient times.

 

If we didn't have the records of the overland journeys but only the ship travels some might conclude that passage over the Rockies, Sierra Nevadas, and the great desert would make an overland passage impossible. But since I am here because an irish-american ancestor came overland from Iowa and married another one of my ancestors a german-american who took the Nicaragua route from New York I think that is good evidence of the land route. The land route to California was across land that was savage this would not have been the case for those crossing between asia and europe. The gold rush route sprang up over night, the spice route had many thousands of years to develop.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

I've just re-checked my sources...

 

"But the fact remains that the existince of the 'Silk Road' is not based on a single shred of historical or material evidence. There was never any such 'road' or even a route in the organisational sense, there was no free movement of goods between China and the West until the Mongol Empire in the Middle Ages."

 

"It was not until 1938 that a book was first published entitled The Silk Road, by Sven Hedin"

"Another of the same title was published in 1966"

 

Some other points mentioned:

*There was a internal overland route inside the Parthian empire and there was a separate route between India and Bactria and other, but there was never any trans-Asian connections for trading.

*All Silk (not the main commodity traded from China) reached Europe indirectly via India and maritime routes rather than overland through Iran.

*China did not receive roman coins in exchange for Silk, but would have received Indian commodities.

*Romans thought Silk came from India

*Romans never met any Chinese at trading stations in the middle east.

*If anyone did reach China from Europe then it wasn't through any organised overland trade.

You are arguing semantics. The "overland routes" to california were ad hoc and followed many variants, there were no roads. The statement that "Romans never met Chinese at trading stations" is based on what? What we don't know? Records that have reached us from Rome are far from comprehensive. We are still making discoveries every day. If a Roman merchant or tax collector met a chinese how would he differentiate one from all the other foreigners he met? People today who have no excuse confuse Asians and Africans and Europeans. They confuse Sikh with Muslim, or even Armenians with Muslims. I was called "English dog" by a drunk in France. People here confuse Australians with English, Scots and Irish. I have seen latin americans get angry with armenians for refusing to speak spanish they find it hard to believe when I tell them they are from asia and don't speak spanish they are not being rude. And who can tell a canadian from and american? Merchants don't care where you are from just that you pay. If a market exists merchants will find a way to exploit it.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus

[Artimi]

.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2011 by Artimi

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Removed by TP as not on topic.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus

[Viggen]

...so people that see and open a thread about the silk road have to read about Llamas and Canadians, so everyone here, either stick to the topic or open another one..

 

regards

viggen

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Sorry I got carried away.

[caldrail]

Nonsense, Marco Polo rode a horse to China and back.

He travelled there and back certainly but his exact route is not recorded.

 

Roman Legionnaires appear to have ended up in China after their capture at the battle of Carrhae. When the Mongols reached eastern Europe they were asking for the location of Rome. Rome was aware of China and China was aware of Rome.

Those Romans reached China as slaves, though this has yet to be proven. As such they wouldn't necessarily have been taken there directly but traded eastward by a number of routes.

 

Certainly sea routes were preferable they were much quicker but people will still have used the land routes.

We know that greek ships were trading in the Idian Ocean and it's thought some of them reached Cambodia. There's no confirmation that western vessels of that era actually reached Chinese shores. As for the land routes, these were a series of short journeys by local merchants, not caravans setting out to reach the east. However, the Roman Empire was reached by chinese travellers more than once and note that in the campaign of the late nineties, the chinese expeditionary forces under Pan Ch'ao were persuaded by the PArthians not to confront or parley with Trajans legions who had reached the Caspian Sea at the same time. Both armies were as close as two days march from each other and the last thing the Parthians wanted was east and west coming to some agreement - it would spell the end of the lucrative tolls imposed on land trade across their territory.

 

During the american gold rush most people sensibly came by ship. Either crossing overland at Panama or across Nicaragua up river by ship and crossing overland a distance of 10 miles on the Vanderbildt route. Or circumnavigating South America by sail ship. None the less many people came overland some pushing their belongings in wheel barrows. These people were no more advanced than the people of the old world in ancient times.

Not entirely true. We are talking about 19th century adventurers and settlers here.

 

the spice route had many thousands of years to develop.

No, it didn't. China was attracted to idea of trade with Rome by way of rumour of a mighty empire in the west (Indeed, the objective of Pan Ch'ao's expedition was to conquer Rome before he was recalled to deal with security closer to home). Therefore only with the existence of Rome's power did the chinese seriously consider travelling that far. That doesn't discount chains of local trade existing anyway of course but the 'road' to China was only open for 100-150 years before warfare closed it forever, making se travel far more desirable.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

!. We can assume he didn't go by ship? Three years is about right for horse and foot but a little slow by sea.

2. The argument then is not that there was no trade overland by a "silk route" but that there was no continuos route or road? Who thought there was?

3. I see that when you use more ancient sources we seem to converge. I liked your comments. Good stuff.

4. Many if not most of the americans coming overland were illiterate ( I know this from direct personal research.) hence not as knowledgeable as many Patricians of Rome.

5. The last is my unclear statement. What I was attempting to say in my humble way was that the lands between Rome and China had been occupied for thousands of years and that people living in those lands had contact and trade with their neighbors so that if someone cared to and had sufficient inducements he could have travelled the distance overland. I have no problem with the bucket brigade concept. But if goods could travel from kingdom to kingdom what would stop a person from doing the same?

Edited October 3, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus

[caldrail]

5. The last is my unclear statement. What I was attempting to say in my humble way was that the lands between Rome and China had been occupied for thousands of years and that people living in those lands had contact and trade with their neighbors so that if someone cared to and had sufficient inducements he could have travelled the distance overland. I have no problem with the bucket brigade concept. But if goods could travel from kingdom to kingdom what would stop a person from doing the same?

Distance and security.

 

China and Rome don't seem toom faraway to us. We could travel between either destination in a day without any problem whatsoever. In Roman times, that was one heck of an exopedition. Especially since there was no record of what lay between, nor any clear indication of the respionse you would get from the locals when you arrived. Certainly it would be unlikely that you could carry enough to survive on during the journey so there really was an element of expedition involved.

 

However, the explorers seem to be chinese. More than once they travelled west and touched the boundaries of the Roman middle east. On one occaision in ad96 an army was sent to conquer Rome though it never actually reached Roman territory. It is nonetheless extraordinary that an army could march that far in ancient times.

 

But goods? I wouldn't say it was travelling from kingdom to kingdom - that's a more conbtemporary way of looking at it. Rather it was travelling from market to market, passed on by traders purely for business rather than any intent to send the stuff all the way around the european-asian landmass. Although the chinese did open negotiations for trade with the Romans, this was never a feature of commercial life to any extent and the short life of the Silk Road mitigated against it, and since sea travel was by far better for long distance trade we see goods crossing the Indian ocean each way, with greek ships reaching India, Sri Lanka, and possibly even Cambodia. The odd thing though is that whilst the chinese were known to be adventurous sailors (they explored the pacific and may well have landed on the american continent) I have never come across any information about how far chinese vessels ventured westward. Certainly they came overland, but whwere's the accounts of visits in africa, egypt, or arabia?

 

We now need to discuss security. The problem with the Silk Road was that it crossed harsh and barbaric lands in both Roman and Chinese estimations. The insecurity of the Tarim Basin was the reason the road closed, and relations between the factions between China and Rome were not entirely stable at that time. Part of the difficulty of travelling such distances is the possibility of violence, theft, disease, or accident. Even today we can guess at the difficulties travellers must have faced by considering such a journey ourselves, though in fairness bureaucracy and regulation were not such a large feature of life in ancient times.

 

That people lived in the territories between Rome and China isn't contested, although we must recognise that the density of populations in the wilderness areas was very sparse indeed, and that few trade centres have been identified. Further we must recognise that the culture of peoples varied and the potential for encountering nomads was more due to circumstance than expectation.

[Melvadius]

However, the explorers seem to be chinese. More than once they travelled west and touched the boundaries of the Roman middle east. On one occaision in ad96 an army was sent to conquer Rome though it never actually reached Roman territory. It is nonetheless extraordinary that an army could march that far in ancient times.

 

From my memory of the sources the 'army' was not specifically sent for conquest rather it was an exploration 'in force' which was apparently turned back by the 'Persians' claiming that Rome lay another two years travel away but it does point up the fact that most of our 'detailed' knowledge of the overland explorations in this period comes from Chinese rather than Roman sources.

 

The obvious exception is the 'theft' of silk worms from China apparently undertaken by a couple of monks in the Byzantine period reported here on UNRV.

[Tribunicus Potestus]

I don't see that there is any disagreement here. Is it fair to say that there was on-going trade between the east and west and that it's extent like much of ancient history has been lost and is therefore up for conjecture? That the use of the term silk-route is really a generalized direction of travel east to west and west to east? That there were difficulties to passage but none that are insuperable such that they would make it impossible? That knowledge of the east existed in the west and knowledge of the west likewise existed in the east?

[Tribunicus Potestus]

I would submit as a hypothetical based on my knowledge of Merchants and their desire to maximize their profits that a least a few attempts would have been made to find a direct route that would bypass the middle men i.e. India and Persia. Whether by sea or land at least a few would have tried to see if it was feasible. Even in our present age businesses often do things that governments are unaware of and that rarely make it to desks of historians. Even if our records of the ancients were not just the tip-of-the-iceberg which they are, many such events would not have reached us. Had Marco Polo not published his book we would not have learned of his travels. Merchants trying to bypass their middlemen especially when it was proven to be not worth the effort would have kept mum so as not to poison the well.

 

Also why would they wish to discourage their competitors from wasting money on such an expedition if they already knew it to be cost prohibitive? Better if after you have wasted your own money on such an expedition to let your competitor waste his own money. You would also not wish to advertise your discovery that such a venture turned out to be unprofitable so as not to appear foolish for having tried it.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus

[Tribunicus Potestus]

For a people who could compel others to taste their food for fear of poison, sending them on scary expeditions would not seem a problem. I do not suggest that they had to undertake it themselves proxies are just as good. When the Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa it was on orders from the pharaoh Necho II it was not something they did on a whim.

 

The overland route to California was also a journey of great danger and uncertainty and was littered with the dead who failed, the route like the "silk road" was also loosely defined. It required months of brutal travel and could not succeed unless you caught the "window" just right. Too soon and no grazing for the animals, too late and and the snows closed the passes and you ended up like the "Donner party" who were forced to resort to cannibalism. The sea route had its own dangers with many perishing from disease acquired in Panama or robbed and killed by bandits in Panama. These well known risks did not prevent many thousands from trying. Even people from Europe, South America and China joined in the rush. This was not in the "cross in a day" age but in the mid nineteenth century. California was a land unknown to those who came and full of mystery and the intervening distances roved by "wild and fierce savages" cut by forbidding mountain ranges and desert but they came nonetheless. The impetus was the same as that for the "silk road" the desire for wealth i.e. gold.

 

Furthermore many people have made journeys into the dangerous unknown. There are the Voortrekers of african fame, the polynesians of Tahiti, and the unfortunate Cherokee indians of the "Trail of Tears" who also travelled to new lands through wilderness and great hardships. So people have done it, can do it, and will do it.

Edited October 6, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus

[Tribunicus Potestus]

The Silk Route - Market to market or a continuous traversing of distances by perhaps a relay team of sorts?

 

The problem I have of a solely market to market model is this. A market to market model would imply that in order for silk or opium or any other product to arrive in the west that vast amounts of the product arrived first in India. Of that product only what surpassed local demand would then trickle on to Persia. Then and only then would a superfluous amount of that fraction which had arrived from India now a much smaller fraction that could not be consumed locally make its way west. Sort of like an outlet store model transferring to another outlet store model.

 

This would lead to reduced prices not exorbitant pricing. Is that what happened? It's economics 101.

 

Comparison:

 

In the outlet to outlet to outlet to... Each buyer would be aware he was buying surplus goods and would negotiate a mark down. This is not something invented by modern commerce it is natural.

 

In the relay team model such as how illicit drugs come to market, each group purchases the goods marks it up and sells it to the next. The price then reflects this series of mark ups.

 

 

Not only does the market-to-market model push prices continually downward it leads to a very unsteady market as only an unbroken series of surpluses provide goods at the far end. Any market on the way that is not saturated means the goods go no farther.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Tribunicus Potestus