> And China was never very ambitious beyond its own borders.

True, but very informative, as China's borders have grown and shrunk and grown again quite a bit over the centuries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=zdHkY3XYHKA

Yes, but it's not exactly the same as the Western habit of maintaining colonies and puppet governments for a far-flung empire. China has done nothing analogous to, say, Britain's occupation of India.

What about Mediterranean bronze age though? There you have a trade based civilisation that AFAIK was far ahead of its Asian counterparts, possibly with the exception of the Indus Valley civilization. Also, I think that Rome was about on the same level as Han dynasty China, whether you look at trade, military, administration, technology etc. - it doesn't seem right to call one the center of civilization and the other a backwater.

I'm actually wanting to do a bit more investigation into the Bronze Age stuff. Long, long ago, I read Buckminster Fuller arguing that the Bronze Age could not have been centered in the Middle East (as we usually assume), because there's simply no significant tin deposits there. The only place in the world where copper and tin occur naturally together is in Thailand. And bronze is important because bronze fittings are essential for any seafaring ships larger/more complex than Polynesian pontoons. The only major tin deposits near Babylon are in the British Isles... and how do you get there?

I need to fact-check that, though. If Fuller is right, it really is a huge twist on the story of early global trade.

Sounds like a great read! I'll add it to the to-read list!