Yes. But that doesn't make coal a necessary thing for steam engines and thus Britain's abundance of coal anything more than a "so what would anyone do with one?".
Yeah but the issue here is not whether you can build a steam engine using wood as fuel but whether you need to adopt it en mass. Trying to understand why steam engine was adopted is more important than how do you build one.
There are plenty of other reasons to use steam engines than pumps, so I don't think that means very much.Without a need to mine deep into the ground for coal, there is less need to build a steam engine water pump.
Certainly. But it was adopted far beyond coal mines.
There are plenty of other reasons to use steam engines than pumps, so I don't think that means very much.
So we go back to wood burners (although China seems to have no problem supplying them with coal) as feasible.
More important than why do you adopt them, is why build them in the first place? Certainly you can find applications after you've built them, but where does the idea come from?
So why is it that only Britain industrialized? What factors are needed to get Song China into the right state to industrialize?Yeah. For instance, many other European nations simply relied on water and wind as energy source.
If they needed fuel, they can simply use wood as it was less troublesome to obtain coal. As Britain have relatively easy access to coal, and lack of sufficient wood compared to other European states, they were essentially "forced" to adopt the steam engine.
Industrialisation did not begin in Germany, Italy nor Spain even though those places share many similar attributes with the British economic model. If those nations did not industrialise, then why should Song China industrialise as well?
In fact, many European countries only really begin to industrialise in the 19th century.
More important than why do you adopt them, is why build them in the first place? Certainly you can find applications after you've built them, but where does the idea come from?
Yes, but we're speaking about the song here.We can ask that for anywhere (as in, not just the Song), though.
The idea that if you heat water you can produce steam is easy, but steam => power I'm not sure on.
Yes, but we're speaking about the song here.
I think that you might first have a steam-powered waterwheel equivalent, before getting an actual piston engine.
There are plenty of other reasons to use steam engines than pumps, so I don't think that means very much.
So we go back to wood burners (although China seems to have no problem supplying them with coal) as feasible.
Well for example many of the early cottage industry looms required a lot of manpower, to the point where to increase production they had teams of two that operated 10-20 looms in parallel . Of course get a proper steam engine in and it could easily do the jobs of 20 men. All of this of course relies on the condition of labor shortage ,high living standards, and easy energy.
So why is it that only Britain industrialized? What factors are needed to get Song China into the right state to industrialize?
My point is, there's no particular reason why the Song would be shorter of applications than any other society with a desire to increase production of goods faster than population.
Britain had a nearly continuous expanding economy in the late 18th into mid 19th century, at least in this regard. It had markets all over the place that it could deluge with anything it could make (not just much exploited India). Do the Song have any such? Or any interest in acquiring such that would motivate seeking ways to increase productivity per capita?
It's actually not that hard to stop the Mongols if the circumstances favor it: all that's needed is for the Khan to die and just enough heirs to survive that a bloody power struggle breaks out. And then for the power struggle break the unity of the Mongolian tribes (which happened OTL).Unless they devise a means to stop the Mongols, much of this Song technology might be lost when the barbarians cross the river. The Chinese already could mass produce crossbows and other weapons (they invented interchangeable parts) without what we would call industrial factories. Who knows what the Khan would do with industrial technology; probably not a whole lot.
Yes. But that doesn't make coal a necessary thing for steam engines and thus Britain's abundance of coal anything more than a "so what would anyone do with one?".
The Song did start to "trade" with the SE Asian region, but the Chinese has a long history of disenfranchising the merchant class. Trade was not a major concern of most Chinese dynasties, and China has a long history of restricting their people from travelling beyond "China proper". I don't think the Chinese really adopted the mindset that they need to expand into as many foreign market as possible.
The problem is first getting coal mines: China's best are in Jurchen Jin territory at this time.The first steam engines were grossly inefficient, and were used to pump water out of mines. How, and would, steam engines develop in China? The problem China's coal miners had wa that China's coal mines are too dry.
The problem is first getting coal mines: China's best are in Jurchen Jin territory at this time.
And the remaining coal mines in the south aren't producing the best quality coal either.
The issue is many states found it easier to use water/wind to power their "engines" and mills. Just because we can see in retrospect many reason why people should use a steam engine doesn't necessary mean the people in the past will be able to do so.
So, OTL in Britain, people saw that as a practical use. That does not make it the only possible use or place.What we do know is that the Newcomen engine was built and adopted for the sake of pumping water out of coal mines. Before that, people were not able to see any practical use for adopting a steam engine. This is an important fact we must not ignore in this discussion.
No. It is not much fairer (see below).Perhaps it is much fairer to ask why did the UK chose to find ways to increase the quantity of goods being produced rather than the quality of goods being produced?
The Dutch did industrialize - just not in the 17th century. And when did this become about choosing quantity OVER quality?The Dutch chose to increase the quality of their goods for export, and they did not industrialise.
We should not assume that the desire to chose quantity over quality was the common goal of all economies in the past. This is a very modern mindset that came about in the aftermath of the industrial revolution.
Faeelin said:The first steam engines were grossly inefficient, and were used to pump water out of mines. How, and would, steam engines develop in China? The problem China's coal miners had was that China's coal mines are too dry.
Quote:
Britain had a nearly continuous expanding economy in the late 18th into mid 19th century, at least in this regard. It had markets all over the place that it could deluge with anything it could make (not just much exploited India). Do the Song have any such? Or any interest in acquiring such that would motivate seeking ways to increase productivity per capita?
Need I point out how quickly use of steam spread after it was developed? People in the past were quite able to see reasons, or we'd be talking about "What if this crackpot's idea to use steam was adopted?" as a what if.
So, OTL in Britain, people saw that as a practical use. That does not make it the only possible use or place.
Obviously people are not going to think of things the way we do now with over two centuries of history of steam, but underestimating what people could see of use leaves me wondering how we're supposed to make sense of that history in the first place.
Industrialization lets you produce goods in quantity, it does not require tradeoff in quality.
The first steam engines were a step above the alternatives. And repeating what they were used for first OTL is a poor way to look at what they could be viably used for.
So how many uses do we need to list?
Well, you could try and argue that, if the Song dynasty does somehow survive into the early 14th century in some form, there would be a huge motivation for seeking ways to increase productivity per capita- namely, the outbreak of the Black Death. With their technological prowess to draw upon, having fewer farmers to tend the fields may well drive the development of steam engines, initially for agriculture, but being extended to transportation as IOTL; and the Black Death did in Western Europe IOTL, could also provide the perfect basis for the creation of a colonial mindset, with increased social mobility making it far easier for serfs and peasants to carve new estates of their own through expansion. Not to mention that, with the Black Death emating outward from the heart of Song China, the colonists would carry it along with them, offering an advantage to any Song colonial efforts in this era comparable to those enjoyed by the Europeans in the New World- creating those new markets for their products.
Well, you could try and argue that, if the Song dynasty does somehow survive into the early 14th century in some form, there would be a huge motivation for seeking ways to increase productivity per capita- namely, the outbreak of the Black Death.
Actually, the big coal mines in China are located in mostly deforested Northern China, while the wood resources are in Southern China. Due to distance involved in transporting things from south to north, I could see how using northern coal for iron would be beneficial. If Song China retains control of north China, I could see the proto-industrialization of Song China continue. But if we're talking about after 1127, the impetus for industrialization should actually be driven by the Jin in the north.Which brings us back to the question. Why do China need to replace wood with coal in the first place?
The reason why the British spent so much effort into mining for coal is because the British isle was not a heavily forested region at that time.
Yet steam engine was invented before the 17th century. Yet no one else adopted them en mass before the British.
Sure, but all we can say is the only historical evidence we have suggest steam engine was adopted for the sake of pumping water from the coal mines first.
What evidence do you have to suggest that steam engine could be adopted before the mining industry see the use of it to pump water out of the mines?