3 ms·

Bullshit. Truly, what nonsense. Europe spent centuries stagnating under the rules of multiple fiefdoms in constant attrition against each other for power, wealt

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.

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.