What if a Parallel Industrial Revolution?

srinivasansharma

What if the world witnessed two parralel Industrial revolutions?
What if they are complimentary or contradictory to each other?
Where would be the second one happened?
What if both happened outside Britain?

My candidates,
1.Mexico aka New Spain.
2.India.(United Moghul or Maratha)
3.China.
4.Russian Empire.
5.France or Prussia.
6.Portugese Brazil.
7.Dutch South Africa
 

Max Sinister

Banned
One prerequisition for an industrial revolution: Coal and iron. Not necessarily, theoretically you could import them too, but they help VERY much.
 

Fabilius

Although not as exciting possibilities, your best bets are France or Prussia.

In other places you need a lot of early changes. In the thread of: "What helped Europe most in getting so powerful?" Noone seemed to be able to come up with a good explanation of why China didn´t develop into an industrial society.

Dutch South Africa is interesting because of the raw materials, and the trading position they hold. A bigger population with some cities before 19th century might allowe them to build a more industrialised communities, but you´ll need a real population boom.

How will that happen?

As for India, I don´t know much, but I think you´ll have to change the society a lot. That is disband the caste system so that you´d have the class mobility industrialisation needs.
 

Agentdark

India is an interesting case, and yeah, I agree you need to remove the caste system.

China I think the problem was alot of Xenophobia and just not liking change in General.
 

MarkA

Why did the Industrial Revolution happen in Britain? No simplistic explanations just like they had coal and iron ( this is not a criticism of Max I know he meant something more than that I am referring to other theories). Answer that question and you will have your answer why it did not happen somewhere else and how it could happen somewhere else.
 

Tyr

The industrial revolution happened in Britain because we had the agricultural revolution before it and were a free country open to buisness and all that.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Leej said:
The industrial revolution happened in Britain because we had the agricultural revolution before it and were a free country open to buisness and all that.
Click to expand...

Like the Netherlands?

Actually, some sort of Dutch superstate, encompassing parts of the Rhineland, Belgium, or Westfalen, might launch it before Britain did.

Although I'm not sure you can have two independent Industrial Revolutions in Western Europe.
 

Tyr

Faeelin said:
Like the Netherlands?

Actually, some sort of Dutch superstate, encompassing parts of the Rhineland, Belgium, or Westfalen, might launch it before Britain did.

Although I'm not sure you can have two independent Industrial Revolutions in Western Europe.
Click to expand...
Belgium is a possibility.
The problem is though it was not a free nation and had the napoleonic wars fought on top of it.
 

Faeelin

Banned
Leej said:
Belgium is a possibility.
The problem is though it was not a free nation and had the napoleonic wars fought on top of it.
Click to expand...

What is this freedom you refer to, anyway? Certainly not freedom of religion, or a democratically elected government.
 

Wozza

Faeelin said:
What is this freedom you refer to, anyway? Certainly not freedom of religion, or a democratically elected government.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights
rule of law
real equality before the law
property rights
greater role for civil society than the state than in other European polities
complete freedom of worship, although not fully comparable freedoms
freedom of the press
right to bear arms
 

Faeelin

Banned
Wozza said:
The Bill of Rights
rule of law
real equality before the law
property rights
greater role for civil society than the state than in other European polities
complete freedom of worship, although not fully comparable freedoms
freedom of the press
right to bear arms
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't think all of those are necessary. How does me owning a gun speed up the Industrial Revolution?

Property rights, sure; but were those not respected in your typical eighteenth century western european state?
 

Wozza

Faeelin said:
Property rights, sure; but were those not respected in your typical eighteenth century western european state?
Click to expand...

There is a reason that the gun point was bottom of the list!:p

Not to the same degree I expect - although I imagine you will cite the Netherlands as a good counter-example to Britain.
France was always more statist, with far more bourgeoisie/aristocracy class conflict than in Britain, and general royal capriciousness.
Germany was always more statist because there were 300 states and one of them was always just round the corner.

Britain is almost the exception in avoiding Enlightened Absolutism, and that must have brought some benefits.
 

Wozza

Max Sinister said:
Freedom of economy could indeed help... how free was Britain in that way, compared to other states?
Click to expand...

More, but still restrictive on some standards - e.g. the Navigation Acts.

But generally Britain has a less pervasive, and perhaps more importantly, more decentralised government.

Counties in Britain, and the City of London were self-governing, run by the local elites. Britain was far slower in forming a central state bureaucracy and accompanying army.

Ironically Britain can be blamed for German absolutism - hiring all those mercernaries allowed various small princes to afford standing armies and establish an abolutist culture!
 
MrP

MrP

Banned
Perhaps aptly for once, I recall that a reason for the supercession of the Dutch Navy was that they lacked Britain's coal resources to produce ever higher quality equipment. A Dutch superstate that controlled substantial coal reserves would avoid this to a degree. Though Holland's other problem - the need to maintain an army - would remain.
 

Wozza

MrP said:
Perhaps aptly for once, I recall that a reason for the supercession of the Dutch Navy was that they lacked Britain's coal resources to produce ever higher quality equipment. A Dutch superstate that controlled substantial coal reserves would avoid this to a degree. Though Holland's other problem - the need to maintain an army - would remain.
Click to expand...

Mr P, you have stumped me, what does coal have to do with naval power?

Didn't the British make use of captured Dutch and French ships because they were better?
 

Tyr

Also a often under estimated factor in the reformation happening in Britain - we were protestant.
Sure there is the protestant work ethic and all that which...is somewhat iffy. Yes it may help make a few more productive citizens but certainly not society as a whole.
The main factor though was the dissolution of the monastaries and the resulting spread of power to the middle classes: that is the period where England really got started down its path to greatness.


As I've mentioned the problem with the Dutch is they are stuck on the mainland. They can't concentrate on the navy to the extent of England and shoudl they muck up one war then they aren't just getting a city or two burned by enemy fleets like England but their entire country and all that progress is ravaged.
Also- the Netherlands doesn't have the resources of Britain. Flanders maybe but that had other problems. But the Netherlands..Really small and poor resource wise next to England. Even wood for making ships- the Netherlands didn't have that much in the way of old forests next to England.
 

JLCook

Coal is what you burn in steam engines

Wozza said:
Mr P, you have stumped me, what does coal have to do with naval power?

Didn't the British make use of captured Dutch and French ships because they were better?
Click to expand...

Prior to the end of the age of sail, coal was less important but coal would still be the fuel of choice even for James Watt's steam pumping engines.. Steam engines made possible the later factories that comprised the industrial revolution---factories responsible for making the military hardware used in navies.

Finally, after 1820 or so, steam engines began to show up in ships. Coal is definately the fuel of choice here, the ships themselves were still made of wood and were highly combustable, so burning wood and having a lot of flaming sparks spew out the smokestack wasn't thought of as being a good idea. Coal is also a more concentrated fuel and has more btus per pound than does wood. A ton of coal would power a ship further than a ton of wood would.

Once ships became all metal and were powered primarily by steam engines, having coal was an absolute necessity.
 

Wozza

JLCook said:
Prior to the end of the age of sail, coal was less important but coal would still be the fuel of choice even for James Watt's steam pumping engines.. Steam engines made possible the later factories that comprised the industrial revolution---factories responsible for making the military hardware used in navies.
Click to expand...

Wow! You really can read your ladybird books.:rolleyes:

Re-read the releant posts - the discussion is about the 18th century, definitely the age of sail. Very few items in ships at this time would have been made under steam power, and Britain did not have a technological advantage, and as I have indicated, sometimes seemed to be less technically advanced. So I was wondering of Mr P meant something quite specific.

Still, thank you, coal in steam engines, whatever next? that black goo in the desert in aeroplanes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top