England without Industrialism....

[Smaug]

I have a paper to write. I'd be interested to here possible POD's, and long term effects. I'm thinking that the Dutch blow up, in a colonial way.

I'm thinking that Holland, the Rhur(?), Northern Italy and Silesia all become the big economic players. Thanks in advance, any feedback is much appreciated.

[Michael B]

Industrialisation depends on a number of factors. Three of the more significant are a supply of energy, a lack of internal chaos and a society condusive to making money.

1) The energy supply is required to run the mills and factories. Britain used first water and then coal. The next two countries to industrialise were the USA and Germany (Prussia). They had indigneous supplies of coal.
2) The lack of internal chaos is necessary because people aren't going to invest in mills and factories if outside armies or inside rebels continuously smash them up.
3) If making money is a no no, then people will invest their time in other pursuits, eg building pyramids or cathedrals or Confucianistic studies.

For Britain not to industrialise, you need chaos and/or a non-money making culture. Given the difficulty of invading England, civil war looks the best option.

The problems that the Dutch has with being the first to industrialise are 1) much of their terriotory gets invaded by French and German armies and 2) they don't have much (any?) supplies of coal. Whilst you can run mills and factories off water power, steam engines are more flexible in location. Assuming that it can get started, a Dutch industrial revolution is going to be more limited that the British one on OTL.

The problems the Dutch have are mirrored in Northern Italy, but read Austrian instead of German.

That leaves Germany. Assuming that they can do the steam engine development that the British did and you can reduce the chaos factor (ie no Napoleon), you are looking at industrialisation starting in the early nineteenth century, well after Britian started.

Of couse a non-industrialised Britain couldn't afford to fight and win a war against Napoleon. In that case you are leaving large swarves of Europe (including your target areas) under the control of a kleptomaniac tyrant. No condusive for industrialisation.

Finally, the Yankees of New England. Whilst they have thrown out most of the natives they can mine the local coal to power mills and factories in peace. As for making money, that tends to be seen as a virtue there.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Of couse a non-industrialised Britain couldn't afford to fight and win a war against Napoleon. In that case you are leaving large swarves of Europe (including your target areas) under the control of a kleptomaniac tyrant. No condusive for industrialisation.

"The years 1800 to 1810 were effectively a kind of takeoff of the INdustrial Revolution in France.... by 1810, French industrial production was 50 percent over what it had been in the 1790s, and if it was still nothing like the level of British production (nor growing at its rate), it was yet an accomplishment that should not go unnoted-and suggests a more accurate view than the one that sees Napoleon as "uneconomic". (Napoleon: a Political Life by Steven Englund).

Really, I'm surprised people are counting out France. Even in OTL, its industrial growth in the 18th century was second only to Britain. Without them, they might well become the forefront of the industrial revolution.

Finally, the Yankees of New England. Whilst they have thrown out most of the natives they can mine the local coal to power mills and factories in peace. As for making money, that tends to be seen as a virtue there.

I agree that New England's a good place to look, but I think the revolution would start with waterpower in New England, as it did in OTL.

[King Gorilla]

While the netherlands were perpetually invaded by the french delaying both their industrialization and causing them to lose much of their earlier finacial dominence to England, they would have access to plenty of coal and iron if they maintained control of Belgium. A larger netherlands coupled with a much less warlike france should fairly easily give rise to the conditions necessary for industrialization and would rapidly spread it down the rhine.

[Smaug]

Thanks for the reply's guys. The thing about this paper is that there doesn't have to even be an "England". I've been playing around with a few options. Alfred loses to the Vikings, A Scottish victory in one of the constant Wars.

I'm also leaving out the option that things might have taken a different path in North America. I'm assuming that if I screw up England really good, they probably won't be quite the colonial power they are in OTL.

At any rate, thanks again, in advance, for any reply's.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Really, I'm surprised people are counting out France. Even in OTL, its industrial growth in the 18th century was second only to Britain. Without them, they might well become the forefront of the industrial revolution.

The reason why I didn't count France or for that matter Belgium was that the 1) agricultural part of their economy was less than that of the USA and Prussia and 2) they didn't produces o much cutting edge technology, both had and soft.

Paul Kennedy gives the following figures of Per Capita Levls of Insudtrialization (The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, pg 190)

1750 1800 1830 1860 1880 1900
United Kingdom 10 16 25 64 87 100
France 9 9 12 20 28 39
German States 8 8 9 15 25 52
United States 4 9 14 21 38 69

The UK is obviously top dog and the USA is certainly showing promise. Yes, France looks good compare with the German States, but it at the time was under one government whilst Germany as it came to be was still fragmentated. If you eliminated the agrarian states and kept just Prussia, I would expect it to be ahead. If people don't mind, I'll agree to disagree on France and industrialisation

Originally Posted by King Gorilla

While the netherlands were perpetually invaded by the french delaying both their industrialization and causing them to lose much of their earlier finacial dominence to England, they would have access to plenty of coal and iron if they maintained control of Belgium. A larger netherlands coupled with a much less warlike france should fairly easily give rise to the conditions necessary for industrialization and would rapidly spread it down the rhine.

One advantage that the British had over the Netherlands was that it had 8 to 9 times the population. As the USA showed when it industrialised, there are advantages in bigger markets.

In addition, the Netherlands has got to at least prevent control of the Rhine if not take it over.. To do that it has to have peace between France and the Holy Roman Empire between the Rhine Valley was the stumping ground of these two and they continuously fought wars along it.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Michael B

The reason why I didn't count France or for that matter Belgium was that the 1) agricultural part of their economy was less than that of the USA and Prussia and 2) they didn't produces o much cutting edge technology, both had and soft.

Paul Kennedy gives the following figures of Per Capita Levls of Insudtrialization (The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, pg 190)

Weird. Because check out these numbers regarding industry in various nations.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/indrevtabs1.html

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Michael B

The reason why I didn't count France or for that matter Belgium was that the 1) agricultural part of their economy was less than that of the USA and Prussia and 2) they didn't produces o much cutting edge technology, both had and soft.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your last part. Are you saying that because France and Belgium were less dependent on agriculture, they were less industrialized? And what did you mean by saying both had and soft. Do you mean both had it soft?

If so, how did France and Belgium have it "soft" compared to Britain?

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I'm sorry, I don't understand your last part. Are you saying that because France and Belgium were less dependent on agriculture, they were less industrialized? And what did you mean by saying both had and soft. Do you mean both had it soft?

If so, how did France and Belgium have it "soft" compared to Britain?

1) Should have read the posting a lot closer than I had. I meant that the industrial part of their economy was smaller not their agricultural part.

2) Soft technology is things like how you organise your industry and processes, eg the American idea of the interchangeable part in contrast to the British idea of fitting components together by filing etc so each finished item is unique even if it is virtually the same as its siblings.
Hard technology is mills, steam engines, railroads, etc.

[Smaug]

I'm considering a possible POD, that involves England having become some sort of client state before the Industrial Revolution.

Any Ideas on who may have defeated/ married into the Royal line? The obvious choices are France, Spain, and Prussia. I suppose I could just deny them the existance of either coal or iron, but I'd rather just find something that stunts thier development, rather than casting them aside.

Another option would be a continuance of the Norse peoples, that kept the island from being politically united, and allowed the safe development of, and investment in the technologies involved.

Thanks again in advance for any help

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Smaug

I'm considering a possible POD, that involves England having become some sort of client state before the Industrial Revolution.

Any Ideas on who may have defeated/ married into the Royal line? The obvious choices are France, Spain, and Prussia.

France would be a good option. If Charles II had a legitimate son who on the Anglo-Catholic end of the Church of England, you wouldn't get the Glorious Revolution that occured due to James II. The Henry of Navarre principle that a Protestant Holy Communion is worth a throne would maintain him and his heirs on the throne. You would thus not get William of Orange and the Hannovarians being Kings of England as on OTL.

The reason for Charles III (?) being monarch is that the Stuarts were very friendly with France. Given the War with the Dutch in Charles II's reign a heavier defeat could drive England further into French hands.

[Smaug]

I still fear that unless I drastically change history, ala, deny England the raw materials it inherently has, I have to have it conquered at an earlier date.

I've played around with the Luddism deal, but I don't think that thats enough, without some sort of agricultural famine type of thing. That might drive the people back to the land, and farming.

If I have to go to an earlier POD I will, but its a 1500's and after class. I'd rather have something feasible....just sayin..Damn, I thought my Persian/ Greeks never meeting paper was hard

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Smaug

I still fear that unless I drastically change history, ala, deny England the raw materials it inherently has, I have to have it conquered at an earlier date.

You don't need it conquered, just have the wealth that was spent on OTL on investment on the Industrial Revolution on another area.

Possibility 1: Taking my previous posting on a continuing Stuart monarchy, if the Dutch War with England was ruinously expensive as well as humiliating to the English people as a whole and not just the monarchy, Parlement could vote higher taxes to pay for wars in support of the French against the Dutch. A big Royal Navy is an obvious option here.

Possibility 2: An opportunity to waste vast amounts of public money was blown just after the Great Fire of London. Had the powers that be got their act together, a planned city could have been built instead of people just getting on and doing it themselves. Millions of pounds could have be flushed down the toilet as well as the government getting heavily into debt.

Possibility 3: Tulipmania ruined the Dutch economy. A Southsea Bubble could have a greater impact on the English economy than it did.

One factor behind the Industrial Revolution was the availability of money for investment. Take away that money and you slow down if not completely halt it.

[Smaug]

Need some more thoughts and opinions. I'm playing with Richard hanging around a couple years longer, a crop failure, and some Uber- Luddism. I don't think I can wish England away, but I would like to stunt them a bit.

Maybe give the continent a chance to whittle on the overwhelming advantage that England had due to its obvious safety, organization, coal and Iron resouces, and free market economy, among the multitude of other reasons that they succeeded.

Thanks again in advance

[Smaug]

Ok, maybe I wrote the heading wrong....What I'm really looking for is a way to stunt or delay the rise of the English as an Industrial Power.

Its obvious that I can't wish them away, but I'm just really having a hard time of nailing it down to one or two, Individual/combo POD's that might give the rest of Europe a chance at keeping up.

I know this isn't terribly interesting, but it really is a crux in history. 20 or 30 years could have made a huge difference, in My opinion.

I'm not denying the obvious advantages that England had in being isolated, and having a stable government, and have no plans of making them a 3rd world nation. I just need some Ideas that might allow the rest of Europe a chance to even the later economic playing field.

[Faeelin]

In 1745, the Jacobin Scots sack London. Even if the Stuarts don't hold England, the resulting financial instability oughta set England back a few decades.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

In 1745, the Jacobin Scots sack London. Even if the Stuarts don't hold England, the resulting financial instability oughta set England back a few decades.

Absolutely. And you are right in that they don't need to hold England. Just send raiders south every five years or so. The chaos in the north is going to discourage any one building mills. Eventually, though England is going to send troops north to conquer the Scots once and for all and if it is like the previous attempt under Edwards I and II, it isn't going to be cheap. That's more money to be taxed from merchants and thus doesn't go on industrialisation.

[Smaug]

I thought this would be a topic I could run with, for what its worth, its for a paper at a very small junior college in the US.

I realise that I can't wipe out the way things happened, and only hoped to even the playing field to some way that will justify my paper.

I realise that i may have to come up with some combination of problems that might vex(for lack of a better term) the English economy.

All I can come up with at this time is

A. Crop failures
B. Luddism
C. Richard II hanging around a bit longer(not likely )
D.Scottish troubles
E. overseas troubles, IE, discontinuance of the opium trade, in that it was on of the major cash influxes for the Brits. What if they quit it, in exchange for more barter type, or, more exposure to Chinese markets that were rather self sufficient, and didn't care for most of the exports of the west.
F. What if China got wise, and swamped the West with silk? Might that not ruin Englands Textile economy?
G. A more annoying Ireland. With less crop failure, and more military success. What if the Protestants in Northern Ireland swamp England, and need social help.
H. A nice big fat new war, that might bleed England dry, and prevent a stronger than normal economy.


Anybody have any thoughts on a combination of these things or something else, that may make this plausible?

I have a ton of thoughts on the rest of the AH's Timeline, I just can't get the POD nailed down....

Thanks in advance for any help

Don't mean to beat this subject up, This should(?) be my last request on this, as its due soon, LOL.

[fhaessig]

I can't believe noone mentionned the most obvious possibilit to stop english industrialisation and remove excess wealth from that Nation.

A successfull french Revolution/Napoleon invasion should be enough to do it.

If the RN doesn't reform after the US independance war and goes down in quality ( of leadership at least ), an invasion is a possibility. Once french colums have landed in england in strangth and can be resupplied - even if only partially -, England is in a world of hurt and removing them won't be cheap. The cost and devastations should at least delay english industialisation a generation.

[Smaug]

Originally Posted by fhaessig

I can't believe noone mentionned the most obvious possibilit to stop english industrialisation and remove excess wealth from that Nation.

A successfull french Revolution/Napoleon invasion should be enough to do it.

If the RN doesn't reform after the US independance war and goes down in quality ( of leadership at least ), an invasion is a possibility. Once french colums have landed in england in strangth and can be resupplied - even if only partially -, England is in a world of hurt and removing them won't be cheap. The cost and devastations should at least delay english industialisation a generation.

I appreciate your response, but its a little bit too late. I need stuff from the mid to late 1700's. England was already an economic behemoth by the time Napolean came to power (IMO), otherwise he wouldn't have resented them so.