What held the Natives back?

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

Oh noes, I killed the thread

At least you explained the issue with Indian (as in the subcontinent) state building.

It doesn't seem to help that India is so darn big. When a "vassal king" is ruling an area the size of France or something . . .

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

At least you explained the issue with Indian (as in the subcontinent) state building.

It doesn't seem to help that India is so darn big. When a "vassal king" is ruling an area the size of France or something . . .

Yup- Hyderabad is the prime example. A "Nizam" ruling what was, as you say, a state pretty much the size of France. Add to that the massive variety of languages, cultures and religions. This was actually why it was generally easier to let the groundwork be done by vassals so long as the central government got its cut on a regular basis.

However, without the perfect storm of a destabilised subcontinent coinciding with European arrival in force I think that we can clearly see the beginnings of state cohesion and development, notably in Bengal, Travancore and Hyderabad itself.

[eliphas8]

Why didnt they atleast break it up into smaller states? That seems like the much better choice long run.

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

Why didnt they atleast break it up into smaller states? That seems like the much better choice long run.

Who? The Mughals?

It's not as if they had the benefit of hindsight. It made logical sense at the time to run the Telegu speaking lands of the Deccan as a unit and it worked out so long as central control lasted.

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

Who? The Mughals?

It's not as if they had the benefit of hindsight. It made logical sense at the time to run the Telegu speaking lands of the Deccan as a unit and it worked out so long as central control lasted.

I mean from the very beginning, it just seems more logical to split up your vassals into small digestible bits who would need a lot more co-ordination between themselves to rebel than if they where left just as powerful as before.

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

I mean from the very beginning, it just seems more logical to split up your vassals into small digestible bits who would need a lot more co-ordination between themselves to rebel than if they where left just as powerful as before.

But these didn't start out as vassals- this was where a large province was entrusted to a selected Viceroy. The problem was that since this viceroy has free reign to do what he would within his territory, once central control lapsed he was pretty much free to set himself up on his own.

[Elfwine]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

But these didn't start out as vassals- this was where a large province was entrusted to a selected Viceroy. The problem was that since this viceroy has free reign to do what he would within his territory, once central control lapsed he was pretty much free to set himself up on his own.

So if I understand the process right:

Powerful Emperor appoints Loyal Lieutenant to be a Viceroy over Newly Conquered Land. Since Loyal Lieutenant is reliable, Powerful Emperor gives him a wide area to oversee, as someone has to do it and he trusts Loyal Lieutenant.

Over time, central control weakens, and descendants of Loyal Lieutenant start having dreams of being their own master.

[eliphas8]

My god we are off topic.

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by Elfwine

So if I understand the process right:

Powerful Emperor appoints Loyal Lieutenant to be a Viceroy over Newly Conquered Land. Since Loyal Lieutenant is reliable, Powerful Emperor gives him a wide area to oversee, as someone has to do it and he trusts Loyal Lieutenant.

Over time, central control weakens, and descendants of Loyal Lieutenant start having dreams of being their own master.

Yup- it's like a slow motion version of Alexander and the Diadochi.

It's notable that even after effective independence from Mughal rule that the Nizams of Hyderabad still maintained the legal fiction that they ruled in the name of the Padishah. Coins were minted with the Emperor's seal and Friday prayers in the mosques were conducted in the name of the Padishah not the Nizam. Besides that however the Nizams basically did whatever they wanted within their own territory.

South India in the 17th and 18th centuries is actually an extremely fascinating place which is often overlooked. On the one hand you have Hyderabad, a classic Indian "vassal" kingdom, then you have Mysore, a Hindu vassal kingdom and Travancore, a relatively new kingdom rapidly engaging in a process of state-building (by expanding aggressively against all the other statelets in Kerala) and even managing to take back trade rights from an European power. If the Europeans hadn't turned up when they did South India might well have been a veritable laboratory of nations.

[HellHound01]

Originally Posted by black angel

native blood, sure but the Inca and the Aztecs are all dead now, native groups in South America tend to live in out of the way places, or semi-nomadic themselves, major city makers did poorly, also "primitive" is at best an outdated term and at worst euro-centric racist, which was my point "advanced" and "primitive" nations are terms (and thoughts) that were cooked up in the 1890s, there's no such thing, only different, if it works for one group of people where they are than whatever

I disagree, while it is racist to believe Europeans had a monopoly on technological advances (in fact Asia had them beat for a long time), they very obviously advanced further then the rest of the world from around the late 1400s on.

In comparison to the European Civilizations, the Natives of the America's were in deed primitive technologically.

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by HellHound01

I disagree, while it is racist to believe Europeans had a monopoly on technological advances (in fact Asia had them beat for a long time), they very obviously advanced further then the rest of the world from around the late 1400s on.

The late 1400s is a bit early- the tipping point where Asia was concerned was really the 18th C. Before that Europeans had the incentive to explore but not the force to directly challenge the major Asian powers- that's why you see such a vast difference between Dutch and Portuguese colonial ventures of the 15th, 16th and 17th C which essentially sought to set up trading rights and only directly fought minor local powers; and the British and French in the 18th C directly playing power games in Asian politics.

[HellHound01]

Originally Posted by Flocculencio

The late 1400s is a bit early- the tipping point where Asia was concerned was really the 18th C. Before that Europeans had the incentive to explore but not the force to directly challenge the major Asian powers- that's why you see such a vast difference between Dutch and Portuguese colonial ventures of the 15th, 16th and 17th C which essentially sought to set up trading rights and only directly fought minor local powers; and the British and French in the 18th C directly playing power games in Asian politics.

I used the late 1400s generally.

Hell, some of the guns and cannon made in India around the 1600s were better then the ones made in Europe.

Buts its very clear that the Europeans pulled ahead of the rest of the world at an astounding rate following the discovery of the New World.

[Flocculencio]

Originally Posted by HellHound01

I used the late 1400s generally.

Hell, some of the guns and cannon made in India around the 1600s were better then the ones made in Europe.

Buts its very clear that the Europeans pulled ahead of the rest of the world at an astounding rate following the discovery of the New World.

Yup the influx of resources and the societal and structural changes that allowed Europe to project power in a way that no civilisation had done before were grounded in the voyages of the Age of Discovery.

[Gannt the chartist]

which is an answer to the question at least as regards non european technologically advanced societies.

Around the Age of Discovery artillery/fortification race went bigger gun/bigger wall in many places leading to some monster sized fortifications and monster sized artillery to knock them down. artillery cast on site with a big low velocity projectile.

Netherlands (and north Italy) the high water table prevents very heavy fortifications as they sink and leads to the rapid development of low rise earth/brick geometric forts which require a higher velocity projectile to damage. a bigger gun does not work a higher velocity one does.

Thats also a smaller, lighter piece of artillery which is mobile between sites and if mounted shipboard changes the equation between broadside armed ship and other types.

There are other implications but from a purely military point of view it leads to the rise, and sustaining, of the operational art in Europe and a soldier as opposed to warrior culture based on professional military engineering and then officer corps and cheap easily raised armies.

You can see this in the interaction between the Hapsburg and Ottoman armies in the late 17th early 18th century and the eventual eclipse of the Ottomans (works with the Russians too)

[Sven]

Originally Posted by hairysamarian

Exactly. Modern Humans in the "Old World" had 200,000 years (or so) of uninterrupted occupation during which to discover the technologies, resources and social systems that go into large-scale civilization. New Worlders would have gotten there had they not been interrupted; they were already well on their way.

This comparison, of course, breaks down when you throw sub-Saharan Africa into the mix. Obviously, humans were there longer than they were anywhere else, and technological development there did not progress on anything like the same curve as in Europe and Asia.

So, what made X more advanced than Y? It's hard to say: there are always environmental differences, and there are always historical contingencies, and it's hard to assign a consistent, definitive role to any particular influence that can package all global patterns of technological/societal development into a neat, overarching theory.

Do we know enough about how the world works to predict what is likely to happen if we reset time and let the whole of human history play out again from the beginning? I doubt it: any predictions we made based on what we think we know now would have such a large margin error that a coin-flipping methodology might yield similarly successful predictions.

[TaylorS]

Some observations:

The Americas has few animals capable of domestication, and none of them can pull a plow. This makes farming more difficult.

Corn did not take off as the basis for full-blown grain agriculture before around 200BC, before that it was mostly grown for it's stalks, which were used to make an alcoholic beverage. Before 200BC New World agriculture was mainly based on non-grain plants like squash, beans, cassava, and potatoes, which perish quickly and can't be stored in the same way grains can.

[hairysamarian]

Originally Posted by Sven

This comparison, of course, breaks down when you throw sub-Saharan Africa into the mix. Obviously, humans were there longer than they were anywhere else, and technological development there did not progress on anything like the same curve as in Europe and Asia.

In other words, "progress" (defined however you like) took a great deal of time? I think that's what I was saying. The North American cultures didn't get that. As for early Sub-Saharan people developing slowly, well; part of my point was that "Old World" cultures had long experience interacting with other cultures (sharing ideas, tech, etc). Can't interact with people who aren't there yet and for which interaction the tech doesn't exist yet anyways.

If I didn't make the part I just bolded clear enough before, allow me to do so now.

[Dave Howery]

Originally Posted by Sven

This comparison, of course, breaks down when you throw sub-Saharan Africa into the mix. Obviously, humans were there longer than they were anywhere else, and technological development there did not progress on anything like the same curve as in Europe and Asia.

while I don't want to consider "Guns, Germs, and Steel" as 100% never-failing accurate, Diamond does have a point in that the Fertile Crescent gathered together the wild ancestors of wheat, barley, cattle, pigs, and sheep, all in one handy place, combined with rivers for irrigation. Humans left Africa and almost instantly ran into the FC, where all these goodies in the making were waiting for them. So humans had a loooooong time to work with them and develop them. Sub-Saharan Africa, OTOH, has fewer domesticated plants and no large domesticated animals IIRC, so it's hardly surprising that it never went far in tech development. And the natives of the New World had it just about as bad, having plants that were harder to domesticate and breed up to a useful size, and no animals larger than the llama to work with. Plus the late start they got, arriving about 20,000 years ago (although that's debated a lot). So, the argument that humans had longer in the Old World to develop is about 50% right (the other 50% being that they had more domesticates to work with)...

[Malta Shah]

All in all it comes to the disease issue. The North American Woodlands and Amazonia for example supported large population centers and complex social development. Contact with the Europeans in the American Northeast alone caused depopulation and social collapse to the Mississippi. Though, to be fair the North American societies did have disease outbreaks and population crashes prior to European involvement, which scholars believe is why the language map of North America is so hodge podge. Language groups become isolated as new people move into the area over and over.

[Socrates]

Originally Posted by Sven

This comparison, of course, breaks down when you throw sub-Saharan Africa into the mix. Obviously, humans were there longer than they were anywhere else, and technological development there did not progress on anything like the same curve as in Europe and Asia.

I think the environmental situation of tropical Africa is a pretty clear case of the environment holding back development. From the diseases to the soil quality.