Adam Smith's Lament, A wealthier Europe?

I've been hooked on podcasts lately, and I've taken the opportunity to listen to an audio version of Wealth of Nations. Early on, Adam Smith points out that the trade with Asia is more profitable than trade with the Americas (ceteris paribus), because the Europeans didn't go around destroying the pre-existing civilizations in the process of exploring the area (mainly, he's lamenting the destruction of the Aztec and Incan Empires, thinking that the less developed tribes are not as suitable for trade relations). However, trade with the Americas ends up being more profitable on a case by case basis, because Asian trade tends to be controlled by national monopolies (the various East India companies). Of course, he views both these situations as a generally bad thing, being concerned as he is with the whole idea of freedom of trade and how it benefits everyone.

So, how might we see a scenario in which both:
- European civilization does not totally consume American civilization
- Asian trade with Europe is not totally monopolized

The first, to me, seems relatively easy. If there's some isolated contact with the Eurasian crop packages, livestock and diseases, prior to major European interest in the Americas, then the American civilizations will be much better off. Say, the hypothetical Malian expeditions to America are successful, at least in so far as they introduce to the Americas the requisites (smallpox, Eurasian cereals, cattle, horses, pigs, etc.) in the early 14th century. By the time the Europeans cross the Atlantic a nearly 2 centuries later, the locals will have had an opportunity to recover from the initial plagues, and build up more durable civilizations.

I'm drawing a blank on how to prevent the trade monopolies, though.
 
I've been hooked on podcasts lately, and I've taken the opportunity to listen to an audio version of Wealth of Nations. Early on, Adam Smith points out that the trade with Asia is more profitable than trade with the Americas (ceteris paribus), because the Europeans didn't go around destroying the pre-existing civilizations in the process of exploring the area (mainly, he's lamenting the destruction of the Aztec and Incan Empires, thinking that the less developed tribes are not as suitable for trade relations). However, trade with the Americas ends up being more profitable on a case by case basis, because Asian trade tends to be controlled by national monopolies (the various East India companies). Of course, he views both these situations as a generally bad thing, being concerned as he is with the whole idea of freedom of trade and how it benefits everyone.

So, how might we see a scenario in which both:
- European civilization does not totally consume American civilization
- Asian trade with Europe is not totally monopolized

The first, to me, seems relatively easy. If there's some isolated contact with the Eurasian crop packages, livestock and diseases, prior to major European interest in the Americas, then the American civilizations will be much better off. Say, the hypothetical Malian expeditions to America are successful, at least in so far as they introduce to the Americas the requisites (smallpox, Eurasian cereals, cattle, horses, pigs, etc.) in the early 14th century. By the time the Europeans cross the Atlantic a nearly 2 centuries later, the locals will have had an opportunity to recover from the initial plagues, and build up more durable civilizations.

I'm drawing a blank on how to prevent the trade monopolies, though.
you'd have to prevent mercantilism. Don't know how that'd happen, though.
 
you'd have to prevent mercantilism. Don't know how that'd happen, though.

Unless you were to have some major changes to political and economic theory in Europe and Asia I don't think you could. The trade monopolies weren't just about making money, they were also about making sure that goods and wealth didn't flow into your neighbor. The rising tide of free markets may lift all boats but it doesn't help when your major concern is sinking your neighbors.

- European civilization does not totally consume American civilization

This one is much easier and doesn't really even require as much change as you speculated. The Spanish sent incredibly talented, lucky, and well equipped people to the Americas while the Aztecs and Incas did everything wrong. Cortez and Pizarro should have been dead a hundred times over. The Inca emperor even planned to kill Pizarro and most of his men to learn the secrets of their tools and horses but Pizarro struck first.

Had either of their expeditions failed it would have been at least several years before another group explored that particular area again. An Inca empire with a decade to prepare and armed with horses and the basics of iron working could have withstood Spain easily even with the plagues.
 
the east india companies pre-dated smith with more than a century.

don't know about the others but both the dutch VOC and WIC were semi-government. So it is part about trade, part about a countries interest.
 

katchen

Banned
Atahualpa kills Pizarro

Unless you were to have some major changes to political and economic theory in Europe and Asia I don't think you could. The trade monopolies weren't just about making money, they were also about making sure that goods and wealth didn't flow into your neighbor. The rising tide of free markets may lift all boats but it doesn't help when your major concern is sinking your neighbors.

- European civilization does not totally consume American civilization

This one is much easier and doesn't really even require as much change as you speculated. The Spanish sent incredibly talented, lucky, and well equipped people to the Americas while the Aztecs and Incas did everything wrong. Cortez and Pizarro should have been dead a hundred times over. The Inca emperor even planned to kill Pizarro and most of his men to learn the secrets of their tools and horses but Pizarro struck first.

Had either of their expeditions failed it would have been at least several years before another group explored that particular area again. An Inca empire with a decade to prepare and armed with horses and the basics of iron working could have withstood Spain easily even with the plagues.
Now that DOES make for an interesting POD. Say, Atahualpa manages to kill Pizarro. The Incas get horses and bits and bridles, which are easy to figure out. What other Spanish technology can they get off the Pizarro expedition that will enable them to withstand the next invasion?
Atahualpa will have to be very lucky or have had spies watching the Spanish from the word go to be able to refrain from killing the one or more blacksmiths in Pizarro's party. And that's what the Incas will need to be able to get into iron working immediately. Otherwise it's a few years of trial and error for Inca goldsmiths to learn how to work iron.:(
Then there's the question of whether the Incas can take Pizarro's ship at Tumbes. And if so, where do they sail it. And can they return safely?
 
Now that DOES make for an interesting POD. Say, Atahualpa manages to kill Pizarro. The Incas get horses and bits and bridles, which are easy to figure out. What other Spanish technology can they get off the Pizarro expedition that will enable them to withstand the next invasion?
Atahualpa will have to be very lucky or have had spies watching the Spanish from the word go to be able to refrain from killing the one or more blacksmiths in Pizarro's party. And that's what the Incas will need to be able to get into iron working immediately. Otherwise it's a few years of trial and error for Inca goldsmiths to learn how to work iron.:(
Then there's the question of whether the Incas can take Pizarro's ship at Tumbes. And if so, where do they sail it. And can they return safely?

The Inca already had the basics of metal working including copper and bronze and and entire empire's worth of miners and metallurgists. With the centralized way that the Inca empire was structured a highly organized program of research would have been very likely. With samples and a few helpful hints from the Spanish prisoners the Inca would have been well on their way. I agree that it would still have taken years but Pizarro's death has given them that breathing room.

For their next encounter they don't need to match the Spanish militarily as the Inca army would outnumber any force Spain could possibly get to Peru. The Spanish armor and horses are what gave them their advantage. The death of Pizarro gives them horses. Iron would allow them to switch from war clubs which were virtually useless against the conquistadors' armor to an ax or iron tipped spear. The Spanish also had crossbows, guns, and small cannon. The gunpowder is out of the Inca's league and copying the crossbow is unlikely since the Inca didn't use bow and arrows (although they did know about them through mercenaries they would recruit in the Amazon).

Another major advantage for Pizarro was that he showed up in the middle of a civil war. Assuming it takes only a very generous five years for another expedition to arrive the situation is going to be very different. The Spanish will be facing a unified government with a small but growing number of horses and possibly iron weapons. At the very least they'll have an understanding of the Spanish capabilities. Since the Inca have more gold, silver, and excellent textiles than they know what to do with, the Spanish merchants are going to be more than willing to trade cheap iron tools for gold. If the Inca can last past their first encounter with Europeans I think they have a very good chance of surviving. They'll still be centuries behind Europe technologically but their remoteness, large population, and centralized government will help greatly.
 
The Other Time
By Dean Ing and Mack Reynolds
Is a fun ISOT novel where the Aztecs survive handily. It could ALMOST work with the right Aztec leader and no asbs.
 
Any ideas at all on how we might see an anti-mercantalist Europe?

The only idea I keep coming up with is a united Europe, since there really wouldn't be all that much for them to protect their trade from. But, that does seem to be the solution for most every thorny AH problem.
 
This is a bit delayed, and although this response doesn't directly address the OP, the points are still somewhat relevant.

Adam Smith commented on social conditions at the time through hindsight, and because his theories weren't particularly consolidated, he also ignored other important factors, many of which became evident afterward. Trade with other countries was certainly limited by monopolies, but the colonies' internal development was also a major factor. Although earlier figures tend to be vague due to sparse records, economists in the Colonization Experiment correlated conditions from 1500 with current ones, and recent levels of GDP were negatively correlated with urbanization levels in 1500 within colonies that had significant populations. This trend did not hold for countries that were never colonized, nor for conditions between 1000-1500. In addition, regions that had relatively low populations in the past (US, Canada, etc), ended up having higher GDP than their colonial counterparts that had higher population densities in 1500 (Mexico, India, etc). The main cause for these trends seems to center on the fact that when the colonizers first settled relatively uninhabited regions, they needed to create consolidated institutions that focused more on property rights in order to encourage land development, while the reverse was true for densely populated regions due to the fact that they ignored the existing political institutions in order to exploit resources and increase profits. As a result, this led to a reversal of fortune in which colonies with higher populations and resources eventually developed worse institutions, suggesting that colonization led to worse outcomes.

In other words, colonization seemed to significantly affect the countries involved by reversing conditions in the long run.
 
Top