6 ms·

The reason europe succeeded, was mostly internal competition. A million thiefdoms, preying up one another (mostly in germany, italy and the balcans) with some e

The reason europe succeeded, was mostly internal competition. A million thiefdoms, preying up one another (mostly in germany, italy and the balcans) with some economic save heavens (great britain, the netherlands) this was basically a free market of rulers. If a ruler did not cut it, the micro-nation would fall behind and be gobbled up. If a ruler was against a invention, you would pack up, move into the town behind the next hill were some upstart youngster would welcome the new things - because he had a expansion planned. So fierce competition and wars destroy entrenched interests and landlords of stagnating stability (church, guilds, etc.). To push inventions, one need - in a civilized manner, recreate those conditions.

helloworld11 4y ago
Bullshit. Truly, what nonsense. Europe spent centuries stagnating under the rules of multiple fiefdoms in constant attrition against each other for power, wealth, territory and so forth. Many other parts of the world did likewise for long stretches of time and in both cases, only moderate technical advancement that happened very, very slowly. It was only when certain very specific conditions of government stability, property protection, legal transparency and basic respect for individual and human rights helped certain states become prosperous. This was further helped by these states accumulating enough capital under conditions of prolonged internal peace to invest in aspects of wealth-facilitating public infrastructure. What you claim is the diametric opposite of basic reality. Asia during much of the middle ages at times fulfilled conditions of state stability, but it often did not coincide with certain other systemic requirements for widespread markets to develop. Instead, the stability was of an autocratic and arbitrary type that facilitated stagnant top-down paternalism.
- socialdemocrat 4y ago
  There was stagnation after the fall of the Roman Empire while new states and systems were trying to establish itself. However the later medieval period was full of innovation. It was far more active in using machinery than Roman Empire and China: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-european-mill-revolution https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-european-mill-revolu... Medieval Europe significantly advanced glass making, invented spectacles and lenses, laying the groundwork for telescopes and microscopes: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/glass-the-substance-of-science https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/glass-the-substance-of-s... Medieval Europe pioneered mechanical clocks which was a pretty big deal: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-missing-chinese-mechanical-clocks https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-missing-chinese-mech... Medieval Europe also advanced gunpowder weapons more rapidly than in China, and already had evolved technology around plate armor and crossbows far beyond anything the Romans did: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/why-did-europe-and-not-china-dominate https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/why-did-europe-and-not-c... The idea that no innovation happened in medieval Europe is severely overstated. I think it stems from the fact that medieval Europe had less production of literature, science and arts than Rome and Greece. Yet in terms of practical inventions, medieval Europe, did a lot more.
  - helloworld11 4y ago
    I never said that Europe didn't advance during the early and later middle ages, only that it advanced slowly compared to what happened when the industrial revolution occurred. Its arrival heavily correlates with many of the factors I described in my comment above for greater wealth and development. I don't think it's a coincidence that the industrial revolution started in the UK, one of the most peaceful and stable of states in the world at the time. Though of course, there are other factors that im missing which influenced the development of modern markets.
    - socialdemocrat 4y ago
      I probably didn't understand you original point well, and I not sure I understand it still. The point was that competition between states spurred innovation. But of course if all those states are constantly on the verge of collapse then I agree not much will happen. I would argue that in the later medieval period most European states had achieved a lot of stability which helped prosperity grow. Yet in relative terms, I would say Europe was still embroiled in a lot more wars than China even during the industrial revolution. Think of the 7-years war, Napoleonic wars, American war of independence. Why the industrial revolution happened in Britain is of course a big topic onto itself. I have argued before that it could in fact ONLY have happened in Britain due to the geography, resources and climate of Britain: https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/why-england-industrialized-first-d09bc797cf7f https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/why-england-industri... 1. France and the Netherlands lacked the coal and iron. 2. Germany didn't have the right kind of coal, and no as ideal conditions to dig canals and utilize water power as Great Britain. If you sort of go over a checklist of needed prerequisites, you are pretty much left with Britain. Sure it could have happened elsewhere but then only after a number of other innovation had happened. At the technological level the world existing in in the mid 1700s, Britain was really the only candidate. Internal stability is of course always good, but Italy, Spain, France, Greece etc could not possibly have started an industrial revolution no matter how peaceful and stable they had been. They just lacked the resources, climate and geography to do so.
pjc50 4y ago
I'm really not rooting for restarting the Thirty Years War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War > The Thirty Years' War from 1618 to 1648 was one of the most destructive wars in European history, directly responsible for the death of an estimated 4.5 to 8 million soldiers and civilians, with some areas of present-day Germany experiencing population declines of over 50%
- socialdemocrat 4y ago
  That wasn't a constant thing though, and China despite being unified had far more bloody civil wars with more people dead. But sure Europe being fragmented did lead to more wars, which is bad. On the other hand those wars mean European military technology advanced quicker, and the existence of multiple political units meant that different ideas about religion, science and society was far more difficult to suppress than in a unified China. The price China paid for its unity was a far more oppressive regime. To keep such a huge empire from falling apart a lot more state power had to be exercised. At the time of the 30 years war the average Europe was generally a lot freer. One could say there was a tradeoff. Europe "accepted" more violence for more freedom. China "accepted" more peace for less freedom. What you prefer depends on your values and ideological beliefs.
jlkuester7 4y ago
Was your history book written by Ayn Rand? Sure competition and allowing things to fail can, under the right circumstances, generate great advancements. But given the context of human history, it seems that decentralized feudal societies caused about as many technological revolutions as communist societies...
- socialdemocrat 4y ago
  It is a bit of a stereotype that nothing happened in medieval Europe and Greeks and Romans did everything. That is nonsense. Medieval Europe saw a massive increase in the use of mills and machinery, that never occurred in the Roman Empire or China: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-european-mill-revolution https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-european-mill-revolu... The development of advanced plate armor, gunpowder weapons, mechanical clocks, medieval cathedrals, innovation within glass making, lenses, spectacles etc suggest medieval society was plenty capable on innovation. Both earlier Greek city states and later medieval Italian city states demonstrated a large amount of innovation. I would rather say that large monopolies outcompete smaller competing units in the short term but loose in the long term. We can see that in markets as well as in comparison between China and Europe. Fragmented Europe was at a disadvantage for several hundred years until that fragmentation started paying off.
- shipman05 4y ago
  Most history books endorse some version of this theory. It's not some libertarian revision, and it has absolutely nothing to do with communism (which didn't exist in any recognizable form anywhere in the world until the 19th Century and not in China until the 20th) There are two main downsides to centralization. 1) A single ruler means the whims of that ruler can have major impacts on the development of society. When the Ming abandoned their treasure fleets, there was no alternative power to step in and continue expanding maritime commerce. The emperor was so powerful that their monopoly on trade decided the course of history for the whole region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages 2) A unipolar power structure inherently seeks to maintain the status quo. When you have a dynasty that already has unquestioned authority within its borders while also having no plausible rivals outside them (at the time of the "great divergence" the Mongols had ceased to be a threat), ANY change leads to a loss of status and power for the ruling elite. Any commercial activity or technological advance was measured by whether it benefitted the emperor or hindered him. None of this is to say that there weren't substantial downsides to the decentralized mess of European politics. In earlier time periods, the centralized model helped China to be the richest region on earth while Europe was one of the poorest, but post-Renaissance, competition between European states drove innovation and pressured those states to expand or die. Both of which led to Portuguese ships sailing into Guangzhou in 1513 rather than Ming ships sailing into Lisbon.

helloworld11 4y ago

Bullshit. Truly, what nonsense. Europe spent centuries stagnating under the rules of multiple fiefdoms in constant attrition against each other for power, wealth, territory and so forth. Many other parts of the world did likewise for long stretches of time and in both cases, only moderate technical advancement that happened very, very slowly. It was only when certain very specific conditions of government stability, property protection, legal transparency and basic respect for individual and human rights helped certain states become prosperous. This was further helped by these states accumulating enough capital under conditions of prolonged internal peace to invest in aspects of wealth-facilitating public infrastructure. What you claim is the diametric opposite of basic reality. Asia during much of the middle ages at times fulfilled conditions of state stability, but it often did not coincide with certain other systemic requirements for widespread markets to develop. Instead, the stability was of an autocratic and arbitrary type that facilitated stagnant top-down paternalism.

socialdemocrat 4y ago
There was stagnation after the fall of the Roman Empire while new states and systems were trying to establish itself. However the later medieval period was full of innovation. It was far more active in using machinery than Roman Empire and China: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-european-mill-revolution https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-european-mill-revolu... Medieval Europe significantly advanced glass making, invented spectacles and lenses, laying the groundwork for telescopes and microscopes: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/glass-the-substance-of-science https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/glass-the-substance-of-s... Medieval Europe pioneered mechanical clocks which was a pretty big deal: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-missing-chinese-mechanical-clocks https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-missing-chinese-mech... Medieval Europe also advanced gunpowder weapons more rapidly than in China, and already had evolved technology around plate armor and crossbows far beyond anything the Romans did: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/why-did-europe-and-not-china-dominate https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/why-did-europe-and-not-c... The idea that no innovation happened in medieval Europe is severely overstated. I think it stems from the fact that medieval Europe had less production of literature, science and arts than Rome and Greece. Yet in terms of practical inventions, medieval Europe, did a lot more.
- helloworld11 4y ago
  I never said that Europe didn't advance during the early and later middle ages, only that it advanced slowly compared to what happened when the industrial revolution occurred. Its arrival heavily correlates with many of the factors I described in my comment above for greater wealth and development. I don't think it's a coincidence that the industrial revolution started in the UK, one of the most peaceful and stable of states in the world at the time. Though of course, there are other factors that im missing which influenced the development of modern markets.
  - socialdemocrat 4y ago
    I probably didn't understand you original point well, and I not sure I understand it still. The point was that competition between states spurred innovation. But of course if all those states are constantly on the verge of collapse then I agree not much will happen. I would argue that in the later medieval period most European states had achieved a lot of stability which helped prosperity grow. Yet in relative terms, I would say Europe was still embroiled in a lot more wars than China even during the industrial revolution. Think of the 7-years war, Napoleonic wars, American war of independence. Why the industrial revolution happened in Britain is of course a big topic onto itself. I have argued before that it could in fact ONLY have happened in Britain due to the geography, resources and climate of Britain: https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/why-england-industrialized-first-d09bc797cf7f https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/why-england-industri... 1. France and the Netherlands lacked the coal and iron. 2. Germany didn't have the right kind of coal, and no as ideal conditions to dig canals and utilize water power as Great Britain. If you sort of go over a checklist of needed prerequisites, you are pretty much left with Britain. Sure it could have happened elsewhere but then only after a number of other innovation had happened. At the technological level the world existing in in the mid 1700s, Britain was really the only candidate. Internal stability is of course always good, but Italy, Spain, France, Greece etc could not possibly have started an industrial revolution no matter how peaceful and stable they had been. They just lacked the resources, climate and geography to do so.

pjc50 4y ago

I'm really not rooting for restarting the Thirty Years War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War > The Thirty Years' War from 1618 to 1648 was one of the most destructive wars in European history, directly responsible for the death of an estimated 4.5 to 8 million soldiers and civilians, with some areas of present-day Germany experiencing population declines of over 50%

socialdemocrat 4y ago
That wasn't a constant thing though, and China despite being unified had far more bloody civil wars with more people dead. But sure Europe being fragmented did lead to more wars, which is bad. On the other hand those wars mean European military technology advanced quicker, and the existence of multiple political units meant that different ideas about religion, science and society was far more difficult to suppress than in a unified China. The price China paid for its unity was a far more oppressive regime. To keep such a huge empire from falling apart a lot more state power had to be exercised. At the time of the 30 years war the average Europe was generally a lot freer. One could say there was a tradeoff. Europe "accepted" more violence for more freedom. China "accepted" more peace for less freedom. What you prefer depends on your values and ideological beliefs.

jlkuester7 4y ago

Was your history book written by Ayn Rand? Sure competition and allowing things to fail can, under the right circumstances, generate great advancements. But given the context of human history, it seems that decentralized feudal societies caused about as many technological revolutions as communist societies...

socialdemocrat 4y ago
It is a bit of a stereotype that nothing happened in medieval Europe and Greeks and Romans did everything. That is nonsense. Medieval Europe saw a massive increase in the use of mills and machinery, that never occurred in the Roman Empire or China: https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-european-mill-revolution https://erikexamines.substack.com/p/the-european-mill-revolu... The development of advanced plate armor, gunpowder weapons, mechanical clocks, medieval cathedrals, innovation within glass making, lenses, spectacles etc suggest medieval society was plenty capable on innovation. Both earlier Greek city states and later medieval Italian city states demonstrated a large amount of innovation. I would rather say that large monopolies outcompete smaller competing units in the short term but loose in the long term. We can see that in markets as well as in comparison between China and Europe. Fragmented Europe was at a disadvantage for several hundred years until that fragmentation started paying off.
shipman05 4y ago
Most history books endorse some version of this theory. It's not some libertarian revision, and it has absolutely nothing to do with communism (which didn't exist in any recognizable form anywhere in the world until the 19th Century and not in China until the 20th) There are two main downsides to centralization. 1) A single ruler means the whims of that ruler can have major impacts on the development of society. When the Ming abandoned their treasure fleets, there was no alternative power to step in and continue expanding maritime commerce. The emperor was so powerful that their monopoly on trade decided the course of history for the whole region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_treasure_voyages 2) A unipolar power structure inherently seeks to maintain the status quo. When you have a dynasty that already has unquestioned authority within its borders while also having no plausible rivals outside them (at the time of the "great divergence" the Mongols had ceased to be a threat), ANY change leads to a loss of status and power for the ruling elite. Any commercial activity or technological advance was measured by whether it benefitted the emperor or hindered him. None of this is to say that there weren't substantial downsides to the decentralized mess of European politics. In earlier time periods, the centralized model helped China to be the richest region on earth while Europe was one of the poorest, but post-Renaissance, competition between European states drove innovation and pressured those states to expand or die. Both of which led to Portuguese ships sailing into Guangzhou in 1513 rather than Ming ships sailing into Lisbon.