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.
