3 ms·

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

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.

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.