6 ms·

Alexander the Great started his conquest around 335 bce and made it all the way from Greece, across Persia, and into India. Trade increased, and new greek settl

Alexander the Great started his conquest around 335 bce and made it all the way from Greece, across Persia, and into India. Trade increased, and new greek settlements were set up along the way. There was a big exchange of ideas and culture, including Buddhism being introduced to the West. I think that the exact lineage of a lot of the ideas introduced then has been lost, and it's no longer possible to trace them with great fidelity. But I also think that Indial religion, including Buddhism, has had a great impact on early Western civilization.

lostlogin 4y ago
The later history of The British East India Company left me disappointed and angry and what was destroyed and lost in India. I think it was the below book. Key passage from the review “Company officials engaged in a systematic orgy of asset-stripping Bengal, contributing to one of Bengal’s worst famines, killing millions. Rather than organise effective tax or famine relief, as was common among Indian rulers, the Company maintained its tax harvesting to sustain a high share price.” Ultimately their pillaging and destruction damaged the company. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2020/01/14/book-review-the-anarchy-the-relentless-rise-of-the-east-india-company-by-william-dalrymple/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2020/01/14/book-rev...
- nextos 4y ago
  At the start of British colonization in India, India's GDP was ~30% of the world's GDP. This had dropped to 2% by Independence of India in 1947... I think pillaging is an understatement. It was a systematic transfer of wealth, probably like no other.
  - _dain_ 4y ago
    i think the industrial revolution happening in the intervening period might have had a little something to do with that (and don't give me the "bengal was about to industrialize!!!" crap)
    - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
      I wonder how long it will take for your comment to attract a Teddy K zealot to the replies.
    - nsenifty 4y ago
      Industrial revolution was funded by the colonies, both in providing resources and the market for the finished goods. For instance, the British starved the local textile industry in Bengal (which had accounted to 30% of global textile market) by exporting the raw cotton back home and dumping the products in India.
      - 988747 4y ago
        [dead]
      - stametseater 4y ago
        The industrial revolution by in large funded itself. It was the result of the discovery of synergies between several technologies, such as transporting massive amounts of coal using water pumped out of coal mines using pumps powered by that coal. The more coal you dig, the more coal you can dig. Cheap coal in cities means you can have bigger factories in cities and more people living in cities to work in those factories, which made cheap goods that in turn supported even more people living in cities. Cycles such as this generated an immense amount of wealth and it would have taken over the world whether or not Europe was also doing colonialism stuff at the same time. If Europe had been limited to buying cotton at fair market values without colonizing people at the same time, that would not have stopped the industrial revolution. Colonialism was not a necessary prerequisite for industrialization.
        JoeAltmaier 4y ago
        But due to the free market, anybody trying to generate and sell cotton who was NOT using colonialism to make it cheap, was a loser. The industrial revolution hyped up the exploitation machinery to a new fever pitch. It became necessary, to compete.
  - DiscourseFan 4y ago
    Well yes and no, that 30% was during a high-point of the Mughal empire and before the widespread development of industrial capitalism. Its certainly the case that Indian society may have turned out differently if not for the British, but maybe not for the better, it was a society descending into factionalism and civil strife as that empire collapsed, the British simply stepped in and took over primarily to secure their trade interests, because they couldn't trust the local kings and warlords to do so anymore. In doing so, and then later establishing a government, they introduced modern medicine, education, roads, the rail network, and other critical infrastructure, as well as industrial capitalism. This is not to excuse the British, but perhaps India would've been better off without them, perhaps not, the alternative, if there wasn't a single government, could've been a patchwork of dysfunctional extractavist states, like what you see in Africa. It may have been possible for a large south asian society to organize itself in an egalitarian fashion, but unless some miracle happened they would've been overrun by foreign capitalists, who had far more power than any other class in history, because South Asia is incredibly labor and resource rich, and at the time the only parts of the world that had even developed industrial capitalism were in the "west", Europe and the US, not to mention the only place that avoided that fate, Japan--the latter being moreso an exception that proves the rule (and which, after all, turned fascist during WW2).
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      > British simply stepped in and took over primarily to secure their trade interests That skips over the rape, murder and utter destruction quite tidily. The British were not there to help and I don’t think that could be a valid argument at any stretch.
      - DiscourseFan 4y ago
        Nobody trying to exploit others is "there to help", I only pointed out that the British were not particularly worse than any other colonial power, and it would've only been by some miracle that a superior alternative could've occurred. Morality is only a thin veneer over power, I was only asking if all the Indians today who work and communicate on these computers would rather be living in underdeveloped agrarian societies, like what you see in much of Africa.
gen220 4y ago
Diodorous stated that Alexander intended to inter-migrate the people of his conquered empire, to facilitate cultural exchange and unity between the Asian and European peoples who were by then his de facto subjects. [1] Interesting to imagine what that counterfactual world might have looked like. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Last_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Last_plans
- progmetaldev 4y ago
  It's an interesting thought experiment to think of where we might be culturally and intellectually had there been an actual exchange of thought, without rulers taking advantage of people for profit. We can say the same thing even now, but back then it seems like those ideas are what built the foundation of our modern world. If that exchange had been allowed to flourish, we might be a much more civilized world.
fatneckbeard 4y ago
I think there is a lot we can still learn, but the areas where the artifacts exist have succumbed to geo-political conflict between the great powers that surround them. Such as Afghanistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc.
- progmetaldev 4y ago
  Even in the current era we have groups such as the Taliban and ISIS destroying cultural artifacts and knowledge. One can only hope there is still knowledge contained somewhere safe that we might uncover and be able to share.

lostlogin 4y ago

The later history of The British East India Company left me disappointed and angry and what was destroyed and lost in India. I think it was the below book. Key passage from the review “Company officials engaged in a systematic orgy of asset-stripping Bengal, contributing to one of Bengal’s worst famines, killing millions. Rather than organise effective tax or famine relief, as was common among Indian rulers, the Company maintained its tax harvesting to sustain a high share price.” Ultimately their pillaging and destruction damaged the company. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2020/01/14/book-review-the-anarchy-the-relentless-rise-of-the-east-india-company-by-william-dalrymple/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2020/01/14/book-rev...

nextos 4y ago
At the start of British colonization in India, India's GDP was ~30% of the world's GDP. This had dropped to 2% by Independence of India in 1947... I think pillaging is an understatement. It was a systematic transfer of wealth, probably like no other.
- _dain_ 4y ago
  i think the industrial revolution happening in the intervening period might have had a little something to do with that (and don't give me the "bengal was about to industrialize!!!" crap)
  - BeFlatXIII 4y ago
    I wonder how long it will take for your comment to attract a Teddy K zealot to the replies.
  - nsenifty 4y ago
    Industrial revolution was funded by the colonies, both in providing resources and the market for the finished goods. For instance, the British starved the local textile industry in Bengal (which had accounted to 30% of global textile market) by exporting the raw cotton back home and dumping the products in India.
    - 988747 4y ago
      [dead]
    - stametseater 4y ago
      The industrial revolution by in large funded itself. It was the result of the discovery of synergies between several technologies, such as transporting massive amounts of coal using water pumped out of coal mines using pumps powered by that coal. The more coal you dig, the more coal you can dig. Cheap coal in cities means you can have bigger factories in cities and more people living in cities to work in those factories, which made cheap goods that in turn supported even more people living in cities. Cycles such as this generated an immense amount of wealth and it would have taken over the world whether or not Europe was also doing colonialism stuff at the same time. If Europe had been limited to buying cotton at fair market values without colonizing people at the same time, that would not have stopped the industrial revolution. Colonialism was not a necessary prerequisite for industrialization.
      - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
        But due to the free market, anybody trying to generate and sell cotton who was NOT using colonialism to make it cheap, was a loser. The industrial revolution hyped up the exploitation machinery to a new fever pitch. It became necessary, to compete.
- DiscourseFan 4y ago
  Well yes and no, that 30% was during a high-point of the Mughal empire and before the widespread development of industrial capitalism. Its certainly the case that Indian society may have turned out differently if not for the British, but maybe not for the better, it was a society descending into factionalism and civil strife as that empire collapsed, the British simply stepped in and took over primarily to secure their trade interests, because they couldn't trust the local kings and warlords to do so anymore. In doing so, and then later establishing a government, they introduced modern medicine, education, roads, the rail network, and other critical infrastructure, as well as industrial capitalism. This is not to excuse the British, but perhaps India would've been better off without them, perhaps not, the alternative, if there wasn't a single government, could've been a patchwork of dysfunctional extractavist states, like what you see in Africa. It may have been possible for a large south asian society to organize itself in an egalitarian fashion, but unless some miracle happened they would've been overrun by foreign capitalists, who had far more power than any other class in history, because South Asia is incredibly labor and resource rich, and at the time the only parts of the world that had even developed industrial capitalism were in the "west", Europe and the US, not to mention the only place that avoided that fate, Japan--the latter being moreso an exception that proves the rule (and which, after all, turned fascist during WW2).
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    > British simply stepped in and took over primarily to secure their trade interests That skips over the rape, murder and utter destruction quite tidily. The British were not there to help and I don’t think that could be a valid argument at any stretch.
    - DiscourseFan 4y ago
      Nobody trying to exploit others is "there to help", I only pointed out that the British were not particularly worse than any other colonial power, and it would've only been by some miracle that a superior alternative could've occurred. Morality is only a thin veneer over power, I was only asking if all the Indians today who work and communicate on these computers would rather be living in underdeveloped agrarian societies, like what you see in much of Africa.

gen220 4y ago

Diodorous stated that Alexander intended to inter-migrate the people of his conquered empire, to facilitate cultural exchange and unity between the Asian and European peoples who were by then his de facto subjects. [1] Interesting to imagine what that counterfactual world might have looked like. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Last_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#Last_plans

progmetaldev 4y ago
It's an interesting thought experiment to think of where we might be culturally and intellectually had there been an actual exchange of thought, without rulers taking advantage of people for profit. We can say the same thing even now, but back then it seems like those ideas are what built the foundation of our modern world. If that exchange had been allowed to flourish, we might be a much more civilized world.

fatneckbeard 4y ago

I think there is a lot we can still learn, but the areas where the artifacts exist have succumbed to geo-political conflict between the great powers that surround them. Such as Afghanistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc.

progmetaldev 4y ago
Even in the current era we have groups such as the Taliban and ISIS destroying cultural artifacts and knowledge. One can only hope there is still knowledge contained somewhere safe that we might uncover and be able to share.