3 ms·

You know a lot about this and you're not wrong, but I think trade and exploration would have been very different without the Reformation, which created intracta

You know a lot about this and you're not wrong, but I think trade and exploration would have been very different without the Reformation, which created intractable competition among European elites. The standing elites, initially, bought into mercantilism and wanted to steal resources: especially gold, silver, and people (slaves). They had no interest in building new societies or challenging old ways of doing things. There's a lot of bad to be said about the Puritan Pilgrims, but they did have that ambition, leading to a pattern culminating in experimentation with rational government. (Pirates and the American Indian federations also provided some inspiration.) The Reformation provided an incentive for more nations-- poorer, Protestant ones far from the Mediterranean-- to get involved in (costly, dangerous) exploration in the 16th and 17th centuries. Being unable to compete with the existing powers (especially Spain) directly, they often got into industries (e.g. cotton) that had less short-term yield but more durability. Sea trade itself wasn't that interesting, or even new. Sailing was millennia old already. It was the desire for social and economic experimentation that made that era interesting. This isn't to white-wash that time or say that the experimentation mentality was purely virtuous. There was an incredible amount of ugliness involved (genocide, religious persecution, slavery) in the process. I do think, however, that there was a much faster rate of overall, eventual progress on account of the competition between two halves of the European elite.

oinksoft 14y ago
Your interpretation of renaissance history remains revisionist. England was perfectly able to compete with Spain, etc. particularly following the Spanish Armada. Note that Spain had been crumbling from within for a long time. Only at that point could the English settle in the Americas. Further, the English were every bit as interested in raping the Americas for gold as the Spaniards and Italians ... I have studied Virginia history at length, and the first colonists to Virginia were interested in very little apart from establishing a base so as to extract precious metals from the continent. Only when this proved impossible, and poor Englishmen realized how much opportunity the New World offered, did goals begin to change. I omit discussion of the Pilgrims because your original thesis was specifically about elites, claiming that their competition (specifically, when strongly divided) spurred innovation more than anything else, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a time in history where an oppressed people were not fleeing. It's an error to say that this was a novelty of the Protestant Reformation. Sea trade was in itself interesting. Yes, Europeans had been sailing for some time, but apart from the Vikings, nobody had sailed across great expanses the way the Europeans did in the age of discovery. Improvements in navigation and cartography enabled the new travels. In any case, what you seemed to interpret as a cage match between European rulers, divided by religion, was actually the rise of nationalism. As power was consolidated so as to combat the Arabs in Europe, which along with the Crusades broke the stranglehold the Arabs had on trade, the Europeans could dream of greater endeavors.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  The British empire was perfectly able to compete with Spain, etc. particularly following the Spanish Armada. The defeat of the Armada was more than a hundred years into the so-called "Age of Exploration". Northern Europe started from behind, but caught up and eventually surpassed the South, at least from a North American vantage point. Further, the British were every bit as interested in raping the Americas for gold as the Spaniards and Italians ... Sure. There's a tendency (especially in the U.S.) to simplify and say that the Northern Europeans wanted "to settle and live in religious harmony" (hogwash) and that the Southern European explorers wanted to loot. It's a lot more complicated than that, as you know. Assessing virtue to one side or the other is ridiculous. It's impossible to know for sure, but I think that religious leaders on both sides of the divide (not that "Protestants" were a united group) wanted to validate themselves. The Catholic Church, fearing a loss of power in Europe, sent people overseas to expand and validate Catholicism. This might have made people behave better on a social or economic justice front (religious charity). It might have made them worse (aggressive conquest and cultural genocide). It's hard to tell. From a modern vantage point, it was all very ugly, but most of history is that way. I tend to think, however, that the Reformation started (or, at least, accelerated) conversations about comparative society, religion, and government.
  - oinksoft 14y ago
    If you twist your glasses enough, you can make history into whatever you wish it to be. That's why it's called revisionism. In your case, you are going overboard to show that Protestantism was the driving force behind much of the renaissance (which started well over a century prior the Reformation) and later, the enlightenment, all to support what I find to be a flawed theory on power dynamics. The only argument that will find any support in the sources is that enlightenment-era political and philosophical thought was in some way made possible by a split in the Church. But Descartes and others were highly influential and have little relationship with this. Religious schism had little to no bearing on the sudden development of trade and exploration in the renaissance, both of which opened the New World. And if there was a watershed moment that enabled what would follow, it was clearly the discovery of the Americas, not what Luther had to say. I don't know who you think you are fooling by typing walls of text that subtly, and later overtly, alter your original thesis. I often see these long threads end with "oh, we really agree!" and ASCII smiley faces. Abusing history to support some jaded idea you have about the startup scene earns no sympathy from me.

oinksoft 14y ago

Your interpretation of renaissance history remains revisionist. England was perfectly able to compete with Spain, etc. particularly following the Spanish Armada. Note that Spain had been crumbling from within for a long time. Only at that point could the English settle in the Americas. Further, the English were every bit as interested in raping the Americas for gold as the Spaniards and Italians ... I have studied Virginia history at length, and the first colonists to Virginia were interested in very little apart from establishing a base so as to extract precious metals from the continent. Only when this proved impossible, and poor Englishmen realized how much opportunity the New World offered, did goals begin to change. I omit discussion of the Pilgrims because your original thesis was specifically about elites, claiming that their competition (specifically, when strongly divided) spurred innovation more than anything else, and you'd be hard-pressed to find a time in history where an oppressed people were not fleeing. It's an error to say that this was a novelty of the Protestant Reformation. Sea trade was in itself interesting. Yes, Europeans had been sailing for some time, but apart from the Vikings, nobody had sailed across great expanses the way the Europeans did in the age of discovery. Improvements in navigation and cartography enabled the new travels. In any case, what you seemed to interpret as a cage match between European rulers, divided by religion, was actually the rise of nationalism. As power was consolidated so as to combat the Arabs in Europe, which along with the Crusades broke the stranglehold the Arabs had on trade, the Europeans could dream of greater endeavors.

michaelochurch 14y ago
The British empire was perfectly able to compete with Spain, etc. particularly following the Spanish Armada. The defeat of the Armada was more than a hundred years into the so-called "Age of Exploration". Northern Europe started from behind, but caught up and eventually surpassed the South, at least from a North American vantage point. Further, the British were every bit as interested in raping the Americas for gold as the Spaniards and Italians ... Sure. There's a tendency (especially in the U.S.) to simplify and say that the Northern Europeans wanted "to settle and live in religious harmony" (hogwash) and that the Southern European explorers wanted to loot. It's a lot more complicated than that, as you know. Assessing virtue to one side or the other is ridiculous. It's impossible to know for sure, but I think that religious leaders on both sides of the divide (not that "Protestants" were a united group) wanted to validate themselves. The Catholic Church, fearing a loss of power in Europe, sent people overseas to expand and validate Catholicism. This might have made people behave better on a social or economic justice front (religious charity). It might have made them worse (aggressive conquest and cultural genocide). It's hard to tell. From a modern vantage point, it was all very ugly, but most of history is that way. I tend to think, however, that the Reformation started (or, at least, accelerated) conversations about comparative society, religion, and government.
- oinksoft 14y ago
  If you twist your glasses enough, you can make history into whatever you wish it to be. That's why it's called revisionism. In your case, you are going overboard to show that Protestantism was the driving force behind much of the renaissance (which started well over a century prior the Reformation) and later, the enlightenment, all to support what I find to be a flawed theory on power dynamics. The only argument that will find any support in the sources is that enlightenment-era political and philosophical thought was in some way made possible by a split in the Church. But Descartes and others were highly influential and have little relationship with this. Religious schism had little to no bearing on the sudden development of trade and exploration in the renaissance, both of which opened the New World. And if there was a watershed moment that enabled what would follow, it was clearly the discovery of the Americas, not what Luther had to say. I don't know who you think you are fooling by typing walls of text that subtly, and later overtly, alter your original thesis. I often see these long threads end with "oh, we really agree!" and ASCII smiley faces. Abusing history to support some jaded idea you have about the startup scene earns no sympathy from me.