In the year 1000 A.D. an unbiased world observer would never have picked Europe as the region that would dominate the globe. Probably they would pick China with its massive population or fabulously wealthy India. The Islamic Caliphate would have looked past its sell-by date but would have beaten Europe by a mile.
In 1500 A.D. it would have been a closer match, but Columbus' small flotilla and the individual exploration ships sent by Prince Henry the Navigator to feel their way down the African coast compared very poorly with the huge Chinese treasure fleets that sailed all the way to Mogidishu. Our unbiased observer would still have thought that Europe was the underdog.
Two centuries later and the sun never set on the British Empire. How on earth did something this unlikely happen?
This is one of the biggest questions in the field of history. The event is called the Great Divergence and in history it's a real thing. Why did the Industrial Revolution happen first in Europe, and in Britain before anywhere in Europe? It seems so unlikely as to be incredible.
In this day and age - and particularly on Columbus Day - it is frowned upon to ask these questions. The Powers That Be tell us that Europe got rich by stealing indigenous people's wealth, conveniently ignoring the many other non-European powers that were much more brutal at doing that than the Europeans were. The Mongol Empire in 1300 would have had poll position for World Domination, as would the earlier Abbasid caliphate. If all it takes for World Domination is to steal other people's stuff, what was it about Europe that was different?
After all, China invented gunpowder. Why did Europe perfect it? Why did little England perfect the sailing Ship-of-the-Line? Why did the Divergence start and why there?
Today I offer two books for interested readers that explain this. One of these could never be published today, and the author would never get tenure today. Fortunately (if that's the right word) David Landes is safely dead and doesn't have to worry about The Usual Suspects getting him denied tenure.
Landes was a big deal in Economic History, authoring the section on the Industrial Revolution in the Cambridge Economic History. Late in his career, perhaps 30 years ago, he wrote The Wealth And Poverty of Nations, an economic history whose title was unashamedly stolen from Adam Smith. Landes insisted that social systems were key, and that some societies allowed progress towards a Great Divergence while other societies stifled attempts towards that progress.
In other words, if your society doesn't support the right efforts it doesn't matter how much of other people's wealth you steal; you're going nowhere. We see this in the history of Spain which became fabulously wealthy by stealing New World wealth but squandered it, ending up at the bottom of European power rankings. You could say exactly the same thing about the Mongol empire, or the Caliphate.
Landes' arguments in the book are considered double-plus ungood by the woke crowd, so you might want to pick up a used copy from Amazon. The chapter on Argentina is particularly interesting in this age of President Milei. Interestingly, Milei was an Economist, and may have read Landes' book.
A second recommendation is less controversal with the woke crowd but is joined at the hip with the Great Divergence. The political cycle world wide has been the emergence of an empire, the collapse of the empire, and the rise of a successor empire. We see this in China, in India, in Mesoamerica.
But not in Europe. Europe only had one great empire, Rome. When it fell, it was not replaced. Walter Scheidel wrote a book exploring why this unusual circumstance happened, Escape From Rome. Using Landes' analytical framework, the Roman Empire did not encourage the types of behaviors that could have led to an Industrial Revolution, because those behaviors were seen by the Authorities as subversive to the state. But when Rome fell, there were unusual circumstances in Europe that prevented a new empire from rising in its place. Then competition between the poor emerging states set Europe on a very different path from the rest of the world. Basically, Europe escaped from Empire while the rest of the world didn't.
Both of these books are relevant on this Columbus Day. We are offered a litany of European sins (which quite frankly are mostly true but are hardly unique to Europe). All politics is local, so the Woke brigade must needs tear down Western Civilization by means fair or foul.
But facts are stubborn things, and the Great Divergence is a fact. Another fact is that the sun really did not set on the British Empire. Understanding "why" is always more important than knowing "what" - but that understanding starts with the "what" and Landes' and Scheidel's books are your entry point to this.
Because it's a fact that Columbus did discover the New World. It's a fact that the New World did not discover the old. It's a fact that the great Chinese treasure fleets were suddenly gone like they had never been, and that Vasco da Gama opened India to Europe, and not India sailing trading ships up the river Thames.
Facts are stubborn things. Things happen for a reason. History will tell us, if we listen.
12 comments:
Remarkably concise.
The European ascent started before Adam Smith and the rest of the Enlightenment figures were born. It accelerated over time but the beginnings as you note started about 1450-1500. So there is not easy answer in intellectual or actual history as to why. Perhaps it was just accident. The great Chinese treasure fleets were a victim on internal Ming politics. The Mongols fractured because the technology of the time couldn't exercise command and control over a vast land empire. The English (and French) had to contend with the North Atlantic so developed more seaworthy ships than powers in more benign climates. The question of why England and not France may be more susceptible to a philosophy of Rights. France actually developed much of the tech that enriched the Age of Empires right up to the 19th Century but always seemed to lose out to England and later to Germany and the US. Perhaps it is due to the fact that France also invented the centralized state. It was really Richelieu, Louis XIV and Robespierre that centralized everything before Mussolini or Stalin came along.
Richard, Scheidel argues that all the particulars you cite are downstream from the failure of a replacement empire to emerge. He even discusses Charlemagne and why the Frankish Empire didn't replace Rome, so that pushes things back to 800 A.D.
It's a very interesting book, discussing a very big issue.
I’m looking forward to reading both books.
I figured that England pushed as hard as it did because it creatively used up its second sons. Primogeniture meant that only the first would inherit everything and the rest of the brood better buckle down and find some way to get creatively wealthy on their own. It was a unique pattern with a wide open world and an ocean front.
It's been close to ten years since I read "1421: The Year China Discovered America" but I did find the author's premise and evidence compelling. PBS later did a hatchet job documentary and 'debunked' his theory. Well, it was PBS...
There is also speculation that Prince Henry, Columbus, et.al. knew there was something out there, from older maps. Not directly related, but no one has yet explained the Piri Reis map of Antarctica.
'1421' is available from the 'zon at https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061564893/
Reposted.
Au contraire. The Mongols were the last word empirical management of disparate peoples and cultures. You could have your own gods, pretty much your own leaders (with a few obvious key exceptions) and as long as the great Kahn got his cut… everything was hunky-dory. The Mongol Empire was poised to sweep into Europe and the only reason it didn’t was that Genghis died. The Euro invasion was temporarily put on hold as the generals and nobles raced back home where a pitched power struggle broke out and the empire broke apart. The mongols essentially shot themselves in the foot there was no line of succession.
Or at least - that’s the version of the story I have. Who knows, these days? There is so much historical revisionism out there now. I could be full a beans for all I know. It’s IS getting ridiculous. I can only laugh at the woke Crockumentaries that had the Vikings led by fat black women. The woke crowd in Japan invented a noble black samurai. Half the Spartans were girl boss fighters too!
😂👍
Just so everyone knows - I will be publishing a scholarly treatise on the REAL Columbus narrative on Friday. Your attendance is MANDATORY.
If you just look at New World Discovery it's probably simple proximity. England, Spain, Portugal...all on the western edge of Europe. The other potential maritime powers like the Dutch and to some extent the French had mostly shallow estuary harbors, and had to get past privateers. Not to say that other players couldn't have made the hop, the Vikings did it before Christophoro for instance, but there were obstacles in their path, and it was not collectively worth their while. England was also to some extent insulated from land invasion. That potential threat always saps the military and diplomatic efforts of a land power. Spain had just shaken off the Muslim invasion and was feeling their oats. For a long time afterwards, indeed right down to the present, Spain returned to the usual porous borders punching bag status. See Napoleonic Peninsular Wars. See news from the current day.
The lack of primogeniture is a definite cause of why the Frankish Empire fragmented. When the Roman Empire was working properly, they used adoption to get around this problem and they took it very seriously.
@GF. The succession crisis you mentioned actually happened at the death of Ogedei. There was a delay after the death of Chinggis but no real crisis as he had designated Ogedei. The invasion was done by the Golden Horde which was one of the proto-successor states. Batu Khan of the Golden Horde did not return to Mongolia but stayed in the Volga region. It took another succession crisis for the Mongols to de jure fragment but the seeds were already there. Lack of primogeniture was involved here as well.
Thanks, looks like I need to go find those and read them!
Culture matters in the end. Rome had some bright people, but tinkering with mechanical things and starting real science was not a cultural trait.
It seems in Europe, men of wealth and some leisure, took up science at their own expense out side of what was promoted by the resident monarchy, and made some real progress. But it was the 'cool thing to do.'
Post a Comment