AHC: Earliest Industrial Revolution

[John Fredrick Parker]

What I'm asking is two fold: first, what is the biggest pre-requisite for the industrial revolution or anything like it in another TL -- is it a preceding economic and/or commercial revolution? Financial markets? Modern use of science? "Protestant work ethic"? Simple urbanization? (And no just saying "all of the above" or "a combination" -- I'm looking for a leading pre-requisite.)

Second, how soon could this pre-requisite plausibly have happened (any preferred location is fine), and, given that, when is the earliest an industrial revolution could plausibly have happened?

 

[archaeogeek]

What I'm asking is two fold: first, what is the biggest pre-requisite for the industrial revolution or anything like it in another TL -- is it a preceding economic and/or commercial revolution? Financial markets? Modern use of science? "Protestant work ethic"? Simple urbanization? (And no just saying "all of the above" or "a combination" -- I'm looking for a leading pre-requisite.)

Second, how soon could this pre-requisite plausibly have happened (any preferred location is fine), and, given that, when is the earliest an industrial revolution could plausibly have happened?

Urbanization, Markets, Social Institutions, along with the combination of resources: the earliest phases of industrialization were right on top of coal fields and could to a degree lead to localized economic boosts even lacking some of the above.

Protestant Work Ethic is the absolute last thing needed and I can't believe this Weberian bullshit keeps getting trotted out... The French were not protestant that I know of, neither is most of Belgium. Political stability helps tremendously, as does not being a warzone.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Urbanization, Markets, Social Institutions, along with the combination of resources...

OK -- seeing as earlier periods of history and other parts of the world saw urbanization, and resources are kind of before history -- pick a place and time with the needed fuel and urban centers -- would you say markets or social institutions are more important to the (or an) industrial revolution?

Given that, how much sooner could the necessary market/institutions plausibly arisen? Then, given that, how much sooner could the industrial revolution have happened?

 

[archaeogeek]

OK -- seeing as earlier periods of history and other parts of the world saw urbanization, and resources are kind of before history -- pick a place and time with the needed fuel and urban centers -- would you say markets or social institutions are more important to the (or an) industrial revolution?

Given that, how much sooner could the necessary market/institutions plausibly arisen? Then, given that, how much sooner could the industrial revolution have happened?

Brabant-Flanders-Artois, the Welsh Marches, Bohemia, Bengal, Lorraine. That's the coal fields I can think of right away. Not sure for the social institutions but they could likely have had early industrialization if the techniques had been available. That's also where the agricultural revolution hit first.

 

[Fibis]

The first prerequisite is for a boost in food production so there is an excess labour pool

Secondary stable non-totalitarian government with the rule of law

Thirdly a capital raising institution

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Of those three, which would you say is most important?

Then, how early could they plausibly have arisen, etc?

 

[archaeogeek]

Of those three, which would you say is most important?

Then, how early could they plausibly have arisen, etc?

The third has existed since the middle ages, the second could have existed around then, the first only started in the 17th century and even then it wouldn't spread very far out of Belgium before the 18th

 

[Yelnoc]

1. Coal

2. The Harappan Society of Ancient India was already technologically advanced enough to have plumbing, sewers, and city planning (large urban centers). The two major cities, Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, were also relatively close to coal deposits (Mohenjo Daro was even directly linked by a river). Compare these two maps.

The Harappans also had a primitive form of coinage; gold discs with holes in the center through which they were strung together. Those, combined with human ingenuity, are the makings of the "financial markets" you mention.

The scientific method is a bit tougher, but it is not impossible to believe it might not have been an indigenous development after the above began to be felt.


I know that probably seems like a bit of a stretch, but it is by no means impossible. If you want an early timeperiod that is absolutely possible, there is always the Romans.

 

[archaeogeek]

1. Coal

2. The Harappan Society of Ancient India was already technologically advanced enough to have plumbing, sewers, and city planning (large urban centers). The two major cities, Harappa and Mohenjo Daro, were also relatively close to coal deposits (Mohenjo Daro was even directly linked by a river). Compare these two maps.

The Harappans also had a primitive form of coinage; gold discs with holes in the center through which they were strung together. Those, combined with human ingenuity, are the makings of the "financial markets" you mention.

The scientific method is a bit tougher, but it is not impossible to believe it might not have been an indigenous development after the above began to be felt.


I know that probably seems like a bit of a stretch, but it is by no means impossible. If you want an early timeperiod that is absolutely possible, there is always the Romans.

You need an economy where manpower costs more than mechanization.

 

[Yelnoc]

You need an economy where manpower costs more than mechanization.

So you have to come up with the gadgets first, correct?

 

[Typo]

Song China could do it if you can keep the Jurchens and the Mongols away for a while

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Thanks to Yelnoc...

 

[Mr Qwerty]

So you have to come up with the gadgets first, correct?

I think the ability to make precise mechanisims (IOTL clockworks) is a prerequisite.

 

[corditeman]

Depends on your definition of industrialisation...

... Sorry, folks, that slipped out of the nit-picking thread...

The Romans were hide-bound by slavery and so were the Greeks. Both had an excess of population. I have a feeling that the Renaissance (the source of many industrial ideas) was a post-Black Death matter, with the living inheriting the wealth of the dead - and a servant shortage problem. Basically, in much of Europe you had to pay servants or do without. That makes progress more inevitable - a more efficient ship needs fewer crew and carries a larger load further. Such mechanisation as bag-hoists in windmills eases the carrying-problem. And so on.

Industrialisation in Europe (the big developer) really depended on a source of energy. That's why the first Industrial Revolution in Scotland and the English Pennines involved water-wheels, for everything. Weaving, spinning, cloth-fulling, blast furnace bellows powering, meal-grinding and paper-making, all depended on water-power. Steam power was an offshoot of mine-drainage and mine-transport, but it moved inevitably to the sources of energy, the coalfields.

James Burke wrote a book 'Connections' that I would recommend - it points out how many things were interdependent and why one factor cannot be the deciding one in industrial development and civilisation. A cake needs more than one ingredient, even if flour is the main one.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

Well put, Cordite...

As the History of Technology field points out, it's a mix of factors rather than just one or two. Coal and gears do you no good towards this if you lack the thermodynamic understanding and public acceptance to make efficient use of steam as more than a toy (OTL that knowledge came out of Scotch Whiskey production, of all things). Surplus food and an urbanized population does you little good towards this if it's far easier and cheaper for the Emperor to just put the excess to work making cloth by hand (see China, India, Rome). A wealthy, educated merchant class does you no good towards this if they're much more likely to get filthy rich hauling silk from the orient (see the Caliphate).

Think of it more as a Perfect Storm scenario: you have an excess population driven out of the fields by a revolution in farming methods, a huge and growing worldwide demand for time-consuming-by-hand consumer goods like textiles, an economic revolution that allows accurate accounting of total-value-added cost/labor/time/materials, a large wealthy and independent middle class, existing trade and transport infastructure (canals, roads), new and revolutionary breakthroughs in the fields of thermodynamics and mechanization and metallurgy, revolutionary changes in mining technology, standardized measures, cheap printing and recording of knowledge, public education, and acceptance that advanced learning is actually useful for practical day-to-day concerns. And others I'm overlooking, I'm sure.

Many many many nations and empires in history had SOME of these going at any given time, but only ONE had them ALL: Britain. In order to facilitate an IR at an earlier time you need drastic social, economic, and technical changes in several areas. You can't just plop a steam engine down in front of Caesar and have Roman factories going in a generation.


So I'm sorry, John, but the answer really is "All of The Above" in the truest, most exclusive sense. You need ALL of these factors to generate a true IR with society-changing implications. Having a few can create changes in some areas, but won't a revolution make.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Coal and gears do you no good towards this if you lack the thermodynamic understanding and public acceptance to make efficient use of steam as more than a toy (OTL that knowledge came out of Scotch Whiskey production, of all things).

I think that's one of the "givens" when talking about the IR -- that it requires a discovery that it's possible. I think it's understood we're talking about the stuff you need before...

Surplus food and an urbanized population does you little good towards this if it's far easier and cheaper for the Emperor to just put the excess to work making cloth by hand (see China, India, Rome). A wealthy, educated merchant class does you no good towards this if they're much more likely to get filthy rich hauling silk from the orient (see the Caliphate).

So you're saying -- IIUC -- is not only does an industrial society need a economy developed to a certain point (in terms of urbanization, commerce, etc), that economy has to, in turn, need industry?

 

[Geekhis Khan]

So you're saying -- IIUC -- is not only does an industrial society need a economy developed to a certain point (in terms of urbanization, commerce, etc), that economy has to, in turn, need industry?

Yes, and more, at least in terms of getting an industrialized society with the social and self-perpetuating technological changes that come with a true IR. OTL it was driven by the demand of textiles in a merchantilist world economy and based heavily on the educated, wealthy middle class. And the fact that the cost of the mechanization was far less than just hiring a bunch of displaced people to man hand looms.

China offers the counterpoint: Urbanized? Yes. Industrial machinery and mechanization? Yes. Population? Yes. Developed printing and info storage? Yes. Advanced accounting and monetary practices? Yes. Wealthy, independent Middle Class? Not quite, and subject to the whims of the central State bureaucracy. Comercial-driven economy? No. Cost of mechanization less than cost of hand labor? Not even close.

As a result, China developed some spectacularly sophisticated mechanization, water wheels, foundries, heat-driven power sources, metallurgy...but these never became more than isolated areas of light industry custom-made for a unique need and used with no real economic or social impact on the nation or even local area. When it came to making money it was far more profitable to set up sweatshops to crank out silk robes than try to mechanize the process.

It's analogous to why the Spanish galleons changed the course of history while the treasure fleets of Zheng He are merely a historical curiosity.

You might theoretically have a "Steam China" ATL, but these inventions would be most likely the purview of the Imperial Government and probably unique, limited uses rather than something mass-market or self-sustaining. Technological advancement would be glacial and periodic rather than OTL's exponential self-sustaining growth. It'd be socio-culturally and economically closer to Han China than OTL Victorian England. The big difference is here the emperor rides around in a slow, custom-built gilded steam charriot to show all his divine power. No street cars for the masses: the people can damned well walk.

 

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

It should also be noted that both the Han dynasty had developed an intricate and highly advanced system of steel metallurgy, using large scale industrial use of hydraulics, an advanced form of the Bessemer process, and an extremely high degree of standardization (accomplished through a rigorous bureaucracy) to produce high quality steel. as early as 300 BCE.

Thus, I put forward China as a candidate for an early industrial revolution.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

China offers the counterpoint: Urbanized? Yes. Industrial machinery and mechanization? Yes. Population? Yes. Developed printing and info storage? Yes. Advanced accounting and monetary practices? Yes. Wealthy, independent Middle Class? Not quite, and subject to the whims of the central State bureaucracy. Commercial-driven economy? No. Cost of mechanization less than cost of hand labor? Not even close.

As a result, China developed some spectacularly sophisticated mechanization, water wheels, foundries, heat-driven power sources, metallurgy...but these never became more than isolated areas of light industry custom-made for a unique need and used with no real economic or social impact on the nation or even local area. When it came to making money it was far more profitable to set up sweatshops to crank out silk robes than try to mechanize the process.

It seems those three no's -- a wealthy, independent middle class, a commercial-driven economy, and the cost of mechanization being less than cost of hand labor -- can be consolidated. The first two can be summed up as "capitalism", "modern economy", or what have you, while the latter is more or less dependent on the other two pre-requisites (and others, naturally).

If this seems an acceptable summary, that would be an answer to the first question.

Taking China -- or another East Asian nation if you rather -- as an example, the OP question is now: how could this country undergo the necessary economic revolution no later than Europe did OTL? (Under the assumption that the time from economic to industrial revolution is similar.)

 

[Zuvarq]

The Black Death led to the emergence of the middle class because wealthy landowners had to pay the surviving workers more, there was a surplus in consumer goods, and luxury crops could be grown.

To get capitalism, you need a group of non-noble people to get rich enough to rival a noble in power.

So you need a plague to happen not in the middle of the Dark Ages, but later, and then for society to recover after that.