What if a Parallel Industrial Revolution?

[Faeelin]

Also a often under estimated factor in the reformation happening in Britain - we were protestant.

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.

But Lombardy had a large middle class; and Belgium, the 2nd nation to industrialize, was Catholic.

In any case, if we want a parallel industrial revolution, somewhere else in Europe seems like the wrong place to look.

 

[Tyr]

But Lombardy had a large middle class; and Belgium, the 2nd nation to industrialize, was Catholic.

In any case, if we want a parallel industrial revolution, somewhere else in Europe seems like the wrong place to look.

Belgiums industrialisation was in large part due to how much trade it had with Britain.
Whether it could have done it entirely left to itself (disregarding it wouldn't be there if left to itself)...

Nowhere else in the world was developed enough to have a industrial revolution except Europe though. The Americas still had way too low population levels and were still really just Europe jr., asia was as it always had been and the idea of them suddenly leaping frogging Europe all on their own...

 

[Faeelin]

Belgiums industrialisation was in large part due to how much trade it had with Britain.
Whether it could have done it entirely left to itself (disregarding it wouldn't be there if left to itself)...

Belgian industrialization started during period of Napoleonic rule, when trade with England was cut off.

My views on Asia are, of course, known.

 

[Tyr]

Belgian industrialization started during period of Napoleonic rule, when trade with England was cut off.

There was no such event. Even during the Napoleonic wars private citizen's relations with the continent remained quite good in many parts.
I'd imagine some of their buisness could have developed in response to the sporadic trade with Britain too.

My views on Asia are, of course, known.

Not really. What? It isn't about European oppression and all that is it...

 

[Faeelin]

There was no such event. Even during the Napoleonic wars private citizen's relations with the continent remained quite good in many parts.

The Continental System, and Napoleon's embargo on British trade, had huge effects; I'd have to find the numbers, but trade with the continent fell to something like a third of what it was; and during this period, Belgian industry boomed, replacing British goods in Europe.

Let's not forget how much Britain owes to the continent, too; its financial systems are heavily based on those of the Dutch Republic.

Not really. What? It isn't about European oppression and all that is it...

No, I just take issue with the view that Asia was a monotholic unchanging entity for centuries.

 

[stevep]

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.

Lee

The continental position and resulting military commitment was probably the major factor in the relative Dutch decline. After all they were nearly conquered by Louis XIV in the 1680's and had to flood a lot of land to prevent it. They simply had to pay so much to maintain military forces to help fight off the French.

However there were a couple of other factors in their naval decline. The waters around the region are pretty shallow so as the size of ships increased the Dutch struggled to build ships that large because they simply didn't have the depth of water in their home waters.

Also in the Anglo-Dutch wars in the 17th century Britain came out on top more due to geographic position more than anything else. While the battles were relatively even the fact we lay right across the Dutch supply lines made it relatively easy to strangle Dutch trade. Even their North Sea fisheries suffered. Since trade was a major source of wealth at the time their ability to wage war was reduced.

Steve

 

[Valdemar II]

A solution to the Netherlands problems could be an union with another Power. Even a small one like Denmark or one of the German States

 

[stevep]

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!

Wooza

The Navigation Acts were actually crucial to British economic development. Without them Britain could not compete with the established Dutch carriers.

Otherwise I would generally agree with your statements as Britain had a less centralised structure of power, allowing more options to be tried. Frequently other nations, especially France, tended to made significant advances but this often died away when central government lost interest or cut support for other reasons, like a financial crisis.

Apart from the last section of course. While the hiring of German mercenaries many have helped keep some of the smaller German nations more viable German absolutionism came largely from Prussian militarism.

Steve

 

[MrP]

So I was wondering of Mr P meant something quite specific.

I'm getting into a terrible habit of quoting things I distinctly remember but subsequently cannot source, aren't I?

What I'm recalling is a TV programme on BBC2 in which one of the talking heads pointed out that coal is necessary for heating iron to higher levels and thus removing more impurities, so Dutch equipment eventually became sub-par.

Ah, maybe this is useful:

Iron was scarce and costly, and production was falling off because England's forests could not supply enough charcoal for smelting the ore. The problem was that mineral coal was useless for iron smelting so the industry desperately needed wood. However, in regions where wood was scarce but coal abundant Iron masters had long been experimenting with coal as a fuel for smelting. Finally the Darby family in the early 18th century, after three generations of effort, succeeded with coal that had been transformed into coke. However, the severity of shortages differed significantly from region to region and areas with abundant wood or peat the transition to coal was slow. But the knowledge how to make coke spread slowly but surely and soon the production of iron rose because of the abundant availability of the new fuel in many localities, especially Northern England and the Midlands. Coke is a clean fuel that produces superior iron and therefore over time wood was replaced by Iron and coal as the chief construction material and major energy source. This process was reinforced when the railways, also depending on coal, could transport the fuel all over the country making the production of iron independent of the location.The coal revolution in England made it the first country to leave the wood era, and enter the true iron age.

Yeah, that must've been what I half-remembered.

 

[Alcuin]

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

The xenophobia wouldn't be a problem in China since it was overwhelmingly Han Chinese so it wouldn't need foreigners to encourage an industrial revolution.

As for the dislike of change. This was true of the last dynasty before Sun Yat Sen's revolution, but not true of the Mongol Dynasty that ruled from the early 13th to late 15th centuries. If the Mongol dynasty had continued even ten years, Vasco da Gama would have run into the Chinese Fleet that was exploring East Africa... and perhaps that would have led the Chinese to "discover" Europe. It's certainly not difficult to imagine an industrial revolution if THAT China had continued. (It was even less xenophobic, the leader of its exploration fleet was a Sinkiangese Moslem).

 

[Alcuin]

Two industrial revolutions

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?

Okay, if you want two contradictory industrial revolutions, I'm assuming that only one of them is on the British model. (Steampower, Iron and Steel, railroads etc,)

For the British one you need...

1) Availability of coal and iron ore (raw materials)
2) Changes in agricultural practice (forcing population to migrate to cities)
3) easy transport by rivers or canals.
4) availability of markets.

One place this might be possible is in the area between Prague and Krakow, where there are the Iron mines of Bohemia, the Silesian Coalfields, access to the markets of Moscow, Warsaw, Vienna and beyond via the Danube, Oder etc.

What other kind of industrial revolution might be possible though.

We need a source of power, a need for standardisation, a large market and skilled craftsmen.

I'm going to imagine an industrial revolution based not on metals but on ceramics. I'll not be using coal either but wood for heating and waterwheels for power. The major raw materials needed are sand and lead (for glass and for glazes) and clay or kaolin for pottery.

Perhaps we'll also, just for fun, imagine early biotechnology, domesticating plants and animals on a previously unheard of scale. I'm imagining an area rich in biodiversity, with lead (and probably silver) and sand available and with huge waterfalls to provide hydro-power.

How about the edge of the Guyana highlands in Guyana, Surinam and Venezuela?

 

[DuQuense]

You are fogetting the Effects of Mercantilism, even napoleans Continital system was just a new form of Mercantilism.
To get a industrial revolution [not just coping Englands] starting elsewhere you need a area that embraces Trade as the sign of Wealth.

This makes Mongol China one of your best bets.

 

[Codeman]

with a far enough back POD russia could spark the Industrial Revolution

 

[Max Sinister]

@Codeman: Or an independent Ukraine.

@Alcuin: Under the Mongols, China wasn't xenophobic, but another bad thing: The Mongols were on top, some Muslim people and occasionally Europeans helped them govern, the Koreans and North Chinese were the middle class, and the South chinese were suppressed. Still, the idea of Mongol China discovering the way to Europe would be interesting...