Originally posted by Palynka Yes, it's junk. It's true that "most" of the population was in agriculture. But the economic output of agriculture was almost irrelevant when compared with the economic output of trade.
You may argue all you want, but the fact is that world trade created several empires. If you want to call this empires "agrarian", go ahead. But you'd be completely missing their main characteristic.
Of course! And those empires all collapsed eventually. What I'm focusing on is what I'm persuaded is the primary reason for their demise, not the conditions of their expansion.
Anyhow -- what's your response to the OP? Different trade networks? I could live with that.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Naturally I lean towards this explanation ...
"More recent historians have questioned political and cultural explanations and have put greater focus on economic causes. Mark Elvin's [b]high level equilibrium trap is one well-known example of this line of thought. It argues that the Chinese population was large enough, workers cheap enough, and [ ...[text shortened]... a.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China#Scientific_and_technological_stagnation[/b]
I don't fully agree with this view but I need some time to properly expose my reasoning.
But as a tidbit I can tell you that I see economic causes as one more factor and not the factor.
Originally posted by adam warlock I don't fully agree with this view but I need some time to properly expose my reasoning.
But as a tidbit I can tell you that I see economic causes as one more factor and not [b]the factor.[/b]
You're angling at the most difficult thing to pinpoint ever! Quick, have this thread transferred to spirituality at once! It could be retitled 'Why were the Greeks so nosy?'
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage You're angling at the most difficult thing to pinpoint ever! Quick, have this thread transferred to spirituality at once! It could be retitled 'Why were the Greeks so nosy?'
As I said previously: "I hate to pinpoint this things", but I can provided a partial argument of things I find relevant to the subject matter. 😉
I don't hope find the truth of this matter in a chess forum but I certainly hope to have my mind expanded after some lively discussion.
Originally posted by adam warlock As I said previously: "I hate to pinpoint this things", but I can provided a partial argument of things I find relevant to the subject matter. 😉
I don't hope find the truth of this matter in a chess forum but I certainly hope to have my mind expanded after some lively discussion.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Of course! And those empires all collapsed eventually. What I'm focusing on is what I'm persuaded is the primary reason for their demise, not the conditions of their expansion.
Anyhow -- what's your response to the OP? Different trade networks? I could live with that.
I'd just say that Africa (in general) got the short stick in the last 500 years of history.
I'd describe the basic gist of it like this: The rise of Europe, led to slavery, colonialism, etc. Then, more recently, the fall of European influence and decolonization coincided with the cold war struggle for world influence. So what should have been an opportunity to move on, saw many countries being used as pawns in a larger chess game and falling into civil war.
Of course I'm bundling up a lot of different countries in one basket, but that's what the OP asked me to do.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Of course! And those empires all collapsed eventually. What I'm focusing on is what I'm persuaded is the primary reason for their demise, not the conditions of their expansion.
Anyhow -- what's your response to the OP? Different trade networks? I could live with that.
BdN: First let's clear up why Europe suddenly shot ahead technologically, after being comparatively backward for a millenium.
BdN: What I'm focusing on is what I'm persuaded is the primary reason for their demise, not the conditions of their expansion.
Originally posted by Palynka BdN: First let's clear up why Europe suddenly shot ahead technologically, after being comparatively backward for a millenium.
Can't you just read between the lines!!!!
BdN: What I'm focusing on is what I'm persuaded is the primary reason for their demise, not the conditions of their expansion.
So the answer to the first one is 'trade'? OK. Why didn't other trading countries, like the Ottomans, also get the technology spurt?
The second one, well, obviously then my concern with 'agrarian economies' was to do with their demise. The discussion had moved somewhere else!
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage So the answer to the first one is 'trade'? OK. Why didn't other trading countries, like the Ottomans, also get the technology spurt?
The second one, well, obviously then my concern with 'agrarian economies' was to do with their demise. The discussion had moved somewhere else!
Why are you so grumpy?
Trade requires control over trade routes. Trade over sea revolutionized this because it required much smaller armies (in terms of number of soldiers) to control maritime trade routes. One could trade from Lisbon to Shanghai without having a military hold in all the countries between them or being heavily taxed for transit. It was not only faster, it was more sustainable.
The gains from trade were multiplied and the opportunity gains shot up. Business opportunities led to advances in manufacture. Is this really surprising? If you think about it, most of the industrial revolution was advances in production techniques. It was a burst of engineering innovations, and these have mostly practical motivations.
Originally posted by Palynka Trade requires control over trade routes. Trade over sea revolutionized this because it required much smaller armies (in terms of number of soldiers) to control maritime trade routes. One could trade from Lisbon to Shanghai without having a military hold in all the countries between them or being heavily taxed for transit. It was not only faster, it was more sustainable.
To what extend do you think the geographical shape of Europe played a part? Clearly it has more coastline than most parts of the world and possibly more navigable rivers than many parts.
I believe China had large rivers and massive canal systems, and Egypt had the Nile both of which may have benefited the rise of civilizations in those areas. Transport becomes critical once a civilization gets over a certain size.
We could also look at whether it has more arable land, better weather etc etc.
Originally posted by twhitehead To what extend do you think the geographical shape of Europe played a part? Clearly it has more coastline than most parts of the world and possibly more navigable rivers than many parts.
I believe China had large rivers and massive canal systems, and Egypt had the Nile both of which may have benefited the rise of civilizations in those areas. Transport ...[text shortened]... certain size.
We could also look at whether it has more arable land, better weather etc etc.
Possibly, but I think it's hard to say. I tend more for historical reasons. Portugal's conquest of Ceuta was mainly to control the Mediterranean, but ended up being decisive in sparking an interest in sailing along the African coast... The conspiracy theory is also that the Vatican had been in possession of several maritime charts (with sources from the Vikings to the Phoenicians) and provided them to Portugal and Spain in exchange for financial and political support.
This issue has come up before for me, and the discussion eventually turned to the correlation between harshness of climate and industrialization.
It made sense to me at the time -- Food scarcity and environmental hazards (like extreme cold, lack of water) require more planning to overcome than living in a tropical climate. Therefore it would follow that cultures in harsher climate would tend to innovate to increase likelyhood of survival.
Originally posted by forkedknight This issue has come up before for me, and the discussion eventually turned to the correlation between harshness of climate and industrialization.
It made sense to me at the time -- Food scarcity and environmental hazards (like extreme cold, lack of water) require more planning to overcome than living in a tropical climate. Therefore it would follo ...[text shortened]... tures in harsher climate would tend to innovate to increase likelyhood of survival.
Thoughts?
This doesn’t correlate terribly well with where you see the greatest wealth and poverty in the world:
Examples:
Australia has a relatively unpredictable climate that is prone to drought and yet it is a relatively economically prosperous county.
Congo has tropical rain forests and thus has land that is potentially very suitable for food production and yet it is a relatively economically poor country.
Originally posted by forkedknight This issue has come up before for me, and the discussion eventually turned to the correlation between harshness of climate and industrialization.
It made sense to me at the time -- Food scarcity and environmental hazards (like extreme cold, lack of water) require more planning to overcome than living in a tropical climate. Therefore it would follo ...[text shortened]... tures in harsher climate would tend to innovate to increase likelyhood of survival.
Thoughts?
I doubt if it is as simple as that. Certainly not with regards to Europe in particular. There have been a number of very successful civilizations around the world and the majority have been in the tropics. Much of Europe lagged behind the middle east, Egypt and the far east until relatively recently.
I do think that certain things like the establishment of permanent residences might be more common in climates that experience a cold winter nevertheless permanent residences were not confined to cold climates in the past. I think that permanent residences are a key part of establishing a civilization and that agriculture and especially agriculture that does not depend on moving to new ground regularly is a key.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton This doesn’t correlate terribly well with where you see the greatest wealth and poverty in the world:
Examples:
Australia has a relatively unpredictable climate that is prone to drought and yet it is a relatively economically prosperous county.
Congo has tropical rain forests and thus has land that is potentially very suitable for food production and yet it is a relatively economically poor country.
What happened to Africa?
06 Feb '09 12:312 edits
Back to Top