15 ms·

> "Rome" is effectively used by the author as a placeholder for "ancient world." ... Rome is not particularly unique. That's an anglocentric notion. I'm not un

by Hayvok 4y ago

> "Rome" is effectively used by the author as a placeholder for "ancient world." ... Rome is not particularly unique. That's an anglocentric notion. I'm not understanding your criticism of the author choosing Rome. The authors' expertise is in this region of the world & the Romans in particular. Would you have been happier if he'd picked Han China? Would the conclusions have been any different? >> The author's point is that an Industrial Revolution requires a very precise set of conditions to occur. >>> This is the point I am pushing back against. I mean, how do you distinguish between a conditional requirement and a post fact anecdote? Just because it happened a certain way, doesn't mean that it had to happen that way. I didn't represent the authors point very well. He acknowledges in the article— "Now all of that said I want to reiterate that the industrial revolution only happened once in one place so may well could have happened somewhere else in a different way with different preconditions; we’ll never really know because our one industrial revolution spread over the whole globe before any other industrial revolutions happened." The only option we have is to look at all the other potentials that existed during the 1700s. Why didn't the IR trigger in Italy? Or Russia? Qing China had a lot of the same positive variables, including tech tree depth. So what was unique about Britain at that time? This is why historians zero in on things like coal, and textiles. But we can't know for sure because of the sample size of 1.

dalbasal 4y ago
Ok... I think I must have worded the first comment regrettably. I didn't mean to rebut the author's points, quibble or criticise even. He writes well, interesting and I like it. I am taking this as a discussion piece and going into the other possibility your quote eludes to. 1-v-1 comparison to Rome is interesting, so is widening the field to "antiquity" or even pondering the possibility of non-urban industrial revolution. I agree with your last points. I'm not even sure we have a sample size of 1. We're not even clear about what happened in 18th century England. Was it science? Engineering? Some set of specific inventions? Politics? "Financial machinery" perhaps, like the proliferation of trading paper like insurance notes, sovereign bonds, and stocks in early companies. On HN, science and engineering seem like the main ingredients, maybe trade. When I studied economics, you might be surprised to hear, they was taught as economic history. They thought the main ingredient was stock/bond/insurance trading. Politics, resources and trade in the second tier. Technology and science was 2nd tier, at best. They thought of technology as emergent given the right conditions.. derivative basically. I think a lot of Tories to this day are certain that Georgian politics, culture & tastes are what made England Great. To me though... I have a bias/preference/opinion is to start downstream as possible. I think the IR's "killer feature" was mass production. The steam engine always seemed like the better symbol for the IR. So do trains and other engines. The humble flying shuttle though? An automated loom is an industrial powerhouse. If I could go back in time and be some ancient King's investment advisor, I would be betting everything automated textile weaving. A water wheel would do me fine for power. We'd be the richest kingdom of any age, and I would finally be a guildmaster.

by Hayvok 4y ago

dalbasal 4y ago

Ok... I think I must have worded the first comment regrettably. I didn't mean to rebut the author's points, quibble or criticise even. He writes well, interesting and I like it. I am taking this as a discussion piece and going into the other possibility your quote eludes to. 1-v-1 comparison to Rome is interesting, so is widening the field to "antiquity" or even pondering the possibility of non-urban industrial revolution. I agree with your last points. I'm not even sure we have a sample size of 1. We're not even clear about what happened in 18th century England. Was it science? Engineering? Some set of specific inventions? Politics? "Financial machinery" perhaps, like the proliferation of trading paper like insurance notes, sovereign bonds, and stocks in early companies. On HN, science and engineering seem like the main ingredients, maybe trade. When I studied economics, you might be surprised to hear, they was taught as economic history. They thought the main ingredient was stock/bond/insurance trading. Politics, resources and trade in the second tier. Technology and science was 2nd tier, at best. They thought of technology as emergent given the right conditions.. derivative basically. I think a lot of Tories to this day are certain that Georgian politics, culture & tastes are what made England Great. To me though... I have a bias/preference/opinion is to start downstream as possible. I think the IR's "killer feature" was mass production. The steam engine always seemed like the better symbol for the IR. So do trains and other engines. The humble flying shuttle though? An automated loom is an industrial powerhouse. If I could go back in time and be some ancient King's investment advisor, I would be betting everything automated textile weaving. A water wheel would do me fine for power. We'd be the richest kingdom of any age, and I would finally be a guildmaster.