3 ms·

"Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India, it took a really long time for the British to compete with Indian goods

"Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India, it took a really long time for the British to compete with Indian goods in spite of all the mercantilism. Revolution like Renaissance is often suggestive of a sudden explosion of new ideas, but in reality it requires an active transfer of knowledge or takes a really long time to establish. Successful colonisation can be attributed to the political unity brought about by the church, very much the same way Islam allowed the various Arab tribes to bring down the mighty Persian empire.

barry-cotter 5y ago
The Arabs brought down the Persian Empire because they and the Eastern Romans had just spent 30 years at war before Muhammad led them out. Peace of exhaustion is not the best place to be in when a genius warlord shows up.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  Similarly the Europeans showed up around the same time when the Islamic rule was in decline and the Maratha Empire & Sikh Empire had pretty much ended the Mughals. For quite sometime the East India company was working as a mercenary making deals with smaller kingdoms, the concentration of wealth from exports to Europe did give them the resources to initially run trading ports and eventually become the force behind the famed puppet rajas, often children. The Europeans rarely engaged in direct conflict until much later when they had amassed enormous power.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> "Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India That's oddly specific. What starting date do you put on the Industrial Revolution, and why do you pick that exact starting date? I would have described the Industrial Revolution as a gradual process, building up over a century or so. What basis is there for picking one specific year and saying "that's the start"?
- naruvimama 5y ago
  That is the the official year, the coincidence is too compelling. The French had a separate ministry for espionage. Columbus set out precisely to find a trade route to India and Vasco da Gama eventually managed by circumnavigating Africa with the precise intent of finding a route to India to import goods into Europe. Similar to renaissance, the sudden explosion of enlightenment or industrialisation did not happen, there was significant transfer of knowledge, materials and skills from very likely India. And like with renaissance, this is often covered up. I do not see why there is a need to deny that today, it has happened through out history and is quite suspicious that something happened independently.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > That is the the official year "Official"? Official by whose definition? Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says "... in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840", and "The precise start and end of the Industrial Revolution is still debated among historians, as is the pace of economic and social changes." So where do you get this "official" year? > the coincidence is too compelling. Because Britain setting up trading ports in India was the only possibly relevant thing that happened in the previous N years? Did India teach Britain how to make steam engines? How to make factories? No and no. > The French had a separate ministry for espionage. How is this relevant to the conversation? > Similar to renaissance, the sudden explosion of enlightenment or industrialisation did not happen, there was significant transfer of knowledge, materials and skills from very likely India. There was a transfer of at least knowledge, but a lot of it came from the Arabs, by way of the Eastern Roman Empire. When Constantinople fell to the Arabs, a lot of that knowledge went west. Some of that knowledge may have originated in India, but it certainly wasn't direct. You seem to be trying desperately to make the Industrial Revolution be all about India. You seem to be trying to squeeze actual history into your view, but it does not fit all that well.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  > You seem to be trying desperately to make the Industrial Revolution be all about India. No, I am just saying if Europeans were desperately looking for a trade route to India specifically. Specifically for the purpose of importing manufactured goods. When Europeans like the French had "ministry for espionage", which must definitely be a thing in the other Europeans especially for their arch rivals. If the bulk of the knowledge had already been transmitted by the arabs, there would not be a need for the Europeans to be in India. If you are denying that a significant amount of knowledge and skills had not been transmitted given the above, I guess you are the one in denial. Anyway my point is that pretending that India was a non-entity before British colonisation and it was somehow British benevolence that created/built "India" is utter BS, if anything it was the other way around. > You seem to be trying to squeeze actual history into your view, but it does not fit all that well. No, history has been written by the Europeans, wrt. their colonies. Given strong evidence to the contrary, I guess we need to reexamine the idea of Industrial revolution devoid of significant Indian contribution both direct and indirect.

barry-cotter 5y ago

The Arabs brought down the Persian Empire because they and the Eastern Romans had just spent 30 years at war before Muhammad led them out. Peace of exhaustion is not the best place to be in when a genius warlord shows up.

naruvimama 5y ago
Similarly the Europeans showed up around the same time when the Islamic rule was in decline and the Maratha Empire & Sikh Empire had pretty much ended the Mughals. For quite sometime the East India company was working as a mercenary making deals with smaller kingdoms, the concentration of wealth from exports to Europe did give them the resources to initially run trading ports and eventually become the force behind the famed puppet rajas, often children. The Europeans rarely engaged in direct conflict until much later when they had amassed enormous power.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

> "Industrial revolution" started 4 years after the British setup trading ports in India That's oddly specific. What starting date do you put on the Industrial Revolution, and why do you pick that exact starting date? I would have described the Industrial Revolution as a gradual process, building up over a century or so. What basis is there for picking one specific year and saying "that's the start"?

naruvimama 5y ago
That is the the official year, the coincidence is too compelling. The French had a separate ministry for espionage. Columbus set out precisely to find a trade route to India and Vasco da Gama eventually managed by circumnavigating Africa with the precise intent of finding a route to India to import goods into Europe. Similar to renaissance, the sudden explosion of enlightenment or industrialisation did not happen, there was significant transfer of knowledge, materials and skills from very likely India. And like with renaissance, this is often covered up. I do not see why there is a need to deny that today, it has happened through out history and is quite suspicious that something happened independently.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > That is the the official year "Official"? Official by whose definition? Wikipedia (yeah, I know) says "... in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840", and "The precise start and end of the Industrial Revolution is still debated among historians, as is the pace of economic and social changes." So where do you get this "official" year? > the coincidence is too compelling. Because Britain setting up trading ports in India was the only possibly relevant thing that happened in the previous N years? Did India teach Britain how to make steam engines? How to make factories? No and no. > The French had a separate ministry for espionage. How is this relevant to the conversation? > Similar to renaissance, the sudden explosion of enlightenment or industrialisation did not happen, there was significant transfer of knowledge, materials and skills from very likely India. There was a transfer of at least knowledge, but a lot of it came from the Arabs, by way of the Eastern Roman Empire. When Constantinople fell to the Arabs, a lot of that knowledge went west. Some of that knowledge may have originated in India, but it certainly wasn't direct. You seem to be trying desperately to make the Industrial Revolution be all about India. You seem to be trying to squeeze actual history into your view, but it does not fit all that well.
naruvimama 5y ago
> You seem to be trying desperately to make the Industrial Revolution be all about India. No, I am just saying if Europeans were desperately looking for a trade route to India specifically. Specifically for the purpose of importing manufactured goods. When Europeans like the French had "ministry for espionage", which must definitely be a thing in the other Europeans especially for their arch rivals. If the bulk of the knowledge had already been transmitted by the arabs, there would not be a need for the Europeans to be in India. If you are denying that a significant amount of knowledge and skills had not been transmitted given the above, I guess you are the one in denial. Anyway my point is that pretending that India was a non-entity before British colonisation and it was somehow British benevolence that created/built "India" is utter BS, if anything it was the other way around. > You seem to be trying to squeeze actual history into your view, but it does not fit all that well. No, history has been written by the Europeans, wrt. their colonies. Given strong evidence to the contrary, I guess we need to reexamine the idea of Industrial revolution devoid of significant Indian contribution both direct and indirect.