What is it with Asia and harems? From China to India to the Middle

>>2315656
>What is it with Pre-colombian America and harems?
>What is it with African cultures and harems?
>What is it with pagan Europe and polygamy

>what purpose did it serve
it didn't, they merely did it because they could. Yet more wasteful spending of public money on themselves to show off their wealth and power, no different from building an unbelievably opulent palace like Versailles.

>why didn't it happen in europe
because Christianity is literally no fun allowed: the religion, blame all the sex negativity and body negativity in Luke

File: im_alan_partridge[1].jpg (305KB, 800x1212px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 800x1212px

>>2315656

File: Hongwu Emperor Data.jpg (238KB, 276x2419px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 276x2419px

>>2315656
1) To ensure your super Important Imperial dynasty over a centralized Empire wont die out and fall into succession wars.
2) Culture. Rich non-royal plebs did the same thing.
3) Multiple Children = Multiple solid, familial based alliances can be carried out.
4) Hordes of directly loyal supporters. If you, a man, impregnate liek 50 girls, you'd prolly have 50 sons each, who'd do the same harem thing as you, and you have around a hundred grandchildren. A small army by any accounting.

Although the system fucking backfired for Turkics/Mongols. Inheritance among Steppeniggers = dividing the Cattle/Horse Herds of the Father's wealth to his sons. When they got settled Empires, they were fuck-confused as to what to divide, so succession wars were frequent. Some solved this by having an council to elect their Khan, while some solved this by murdering the other Brothers upon Ascendancy. Which the Ottomans did for a short while until they learned primogeniture.

Europe had virtually the same under the Roman Emperors but thanks to Christfaggotry, that disappeared. Even then you had Late-Roman/Byzantine Emperors keeping large numbers of concubines, and Catholic Western Europ monarchs were rife with mistresses.

>>2315663
>polygamy and harems are the same

cultural relativism everyone

>>2315656

Because Europe was more urbanized and the middle east has always been the most anti feminist region in the world

>>2315663

Clearly the mideast had much more harems than those places

>>2315663
The pagan Greeks and Romans were monogamous

isn't it just a show of power + a good way of making political ties?

oh yeah and it was pretty common in for christian nobles to have concubines as well, they where just a little bit more secret becouse technicaly it was illigal.

>>2315774
they did have constant orgies though

>>2315656
You're approaching it with a Euro-centric mindset. The more appropriate question is why harems and concubines were not common in Europe.