AHC: Islamic Industrial Revolution

[Socrates]

If the Ottomans were to say, shrink their empire in order to make it more efficient, they may have to let Greece stay independent since holding them down would have been a lot of hassle. As for North Africa, why not just hold the Mamluk Sultanate as a vassal state while pretending to give Egypt some sort of nominal independence?

I would argue that being a vassal state is probably the worst thing that could happen to help an industrial revolution. The overlord has absolutely no interest in development, but is capable of draining out all the money all the same. And can intervene militarily if he doesn't get it.

 

[Falecius]

I would argue that being a vassal state is probably the worst thing that could happen to help an industrial revolution. The overlord has absolutely no interest in development, but is capable of draining out all the money all the same. And can intervene militarily if he doesn't get it.

I'd agree with this in general. However, historical modernization of Egypt happened when it was technically a vassal state of the Ottomans. This may have been a factor in the ultimate failure of the project, but I'd argue Western colonialism holds a bigger responsibility. Fancy military adventures upstream the Nile weren't the brightest of the ideas too.

 

[Faeelin]

Aside from Britain's geography, the social aspects of their society were just as important. Their limited monarchy and Pope-less church allowed for the rapid growth of the middle class and expansion of education.

Why is a Popeless church required? I mean, the second place to industrialize in Europe was Belgium.

Obviously a few timelines over the Burgundy Empire holds Europe in thrall with its chokehold on a belt of territory form Northeastern France to the Ruhr, its dark satanic mills turning out the tools of Europe's gunpowder empire...

Anyway, if anyone could recommend some books on Ming/Qing commerce and merchant financing, I would appreciate it.

 

[Delvestius]

The Millet System was about managing religious minorities. What you are referring too, I think, was the Timar.

Yessir, that is correct.. I always get those mixed up

Hijaz was lightly controlled at best, but was very important for religious reasons and cannot be dispensed with. North Africa west of Egypt can be left alone I suppose, with a right POD, and possibly Hungary as well. Hungary was a big drain for the Ottomans.

I agree with this, though I don't see why Serbia, Croatia, Romania etc. are any more important, other than "if we have it, our enemies don't," particularly Austria and Russia, but that can be remedied with a sort of "independence protection decree" such as the Monroe doctrine.

EDIT: Quite important indeed if we're still running it on the Timer system, though.

The problem with Iran is double:
a) It's VERY prone to be a battlefield. Too large and mountainous for easy centralized control, too close to the Eurasian nomads sources. Not impossible, requires a lot of luck (even more than my Andalus I think).
b) The disruption the Mongols brough.
Avoid that, say the Khwarezmshahs manage to achieve almost Ottoman-like levels of stability and centralization and develop gunpowder early so to fend off the nomads long term. They have a chance.

A Khwarezm industrialization would be very interesting, but they would need to be powerful enough to defend to the last from both Russia and the Ottomans, who might of turned their heads eastward if they ever considered Persia a real threat.

They have been a bloody battlefield. Even if they weren't never successfully invaded in historical times (AFAIK) the attempted Mongol invasions brought a lot of disruption that ultimately led to the breakdown of central authority and ultimately the Sengoku mess.
It has been raised before in this thread the point that the lower population of Britain relative to Japan was somewhat an advantage for Britain, which I see quite likely.
Japan has less arable land with a denser population. However, if the Kamakura shogunate goes on, maybe you'd interesting developments.

In any TL regarding Japanese industrialization, Japan would have to be open to Western influence when it comes and get on board with a lot of the economic and scientific thinking, or perhaps if they get on the right track early enough, fuse their own ideas and theories to it.

Why is a Popeless church required? I mean, the second place to industrialize in Europe was Belgium.

I originally had this, but I realized that it wasn't a very strong argument. I think what I was getting at was that Britain was able to avoid a lot of the social and political strife caused by religion because of it's (relatively) liberal/homogeneous views on the topic. While France and Germany were torn apart by various religious wars and civil uprisings, England was able to avoid this for the most part, partially because it was an island, and partially because it had a relatively relaxed religious policy, as well as some other factors.

Didn't know that about Belgium though, that's an interesting fact! In what regards is industrialism assessed in that analysis?

 

[Falecius]

A Khwarezm industrialization would be very interesting, but they would need to be powerful enough to defend to the last from both Russia and the Ottomans, who might of turned their heads eastward if they ever considered Persia a real threat.

A continued existence of a powerful Khwarezm butterflies away the Ottomans for sure, and possibly a unified Russia too. In a best case scenario, they could control a area stretching from southeastern Turkey to the Indus valley, and from the Aral Sea to Indian Ocean.
They'd be probably nominal Abbasid vassals, but in practice the Khwarezmshahi rulers would be the Caliphmakers.
I can see a lot of problems with the political stability of such an expanse, including obvious risks of fragmentation and the fact the most suitable area for starting industrialization could be Iraq, where they are boundd to have the most tenuous control.
Also, I don't know very much about their political model, but they are likely to be based on the Islamicized version of traditional ideas about the Persian royalty. The "Islamicized" part allows for such things as (more or less) rule of law, relatively independent judiciary, and rule by consensus and counsel, but at the root, there's still a streak of "I have the army, so my orders are law". It usually wasn't THAT bad, even in Pre-Islamic Persia, but nothing similar to limited government in the modern sense.
I would say that at the time the wasn't the NEED to limit the government that way, because its resources were limiting it.
But that's going off topic big, sorry.

 

[Falecius]

I originally had this, but I realized that it wasn't a very strong argument. I think what I was getting at was that Britain was able to avoid a lot of the social and political strife caused by religion because of it's (relatively) liberal/homogeneous views on the topic. While France and Germany were torn apart by various religious wars and civil uprisings, England was able to avoid this for the most part, partially because it was an island, and partially because it had a relatively relaxed religious policy, as well as some other factors.

Ahem.
Ok, it wasn't as destructive as the Thirty Years War, I admit.

 

[Delvestius]

Ahem.
Ok, it wasn't as destructive as the Thirty Years War, I admit.

Right, I'm not saying there was NO conflict, but there was surely less conflict with less casualties. While the English Civil War was practically a division of the Anglican Crown and the Calvinist Parliament, I would argue that the religious causes were significantly less overt/essential to the beginning of the conflict than the continental wars of faith.

Off the top of my head, regarding religious conflict in continental Europe, I can think of the French Civil War, German Civil War, France's "numbered" wars of the late sixteenth century, the Eighty Years War, the Thirty Years War and the Nine Years War, all of which were pretty ugly.

Not to mention, never in England did we have mass religious killings, such as St. Bartholomew's Day and the Ducth Massacres under the Spanish (not considering Ireland, of course).

 

[Falecius]

Not to mention, never in England did we have mass religious killings, such as St. Bartholomew's Day and the Ducth Massacres under the Spanish (not considering Ireland, of course).

Not in England AFAIK, but I though thing went pretty ugly in Scotland at some times.

 

[Delvestius]

Not in England AFAIK, but I though thing went pretty ugly in Scotland at some times.

Oh, I'm sure they did. At any rate, it was the English doing the massacring, and it wasn't English citizens being massacred.

Regarding your Khwarezm theory, my only concern is the lack of riverlands and urban centers. While the former is a fact of the matter and is just something they would have to get around somehow or another, what factors do you think could compel them to urbanize?

 

[Falecius]

Oh, I'm sure they did. At any rate, it was the English doing the massacring, and it wasn't English citizens being massacred.

Regarding your Khwarezm theory, my only concern is the lack of riverlands and urban centers. While the former is a fact of the matter and is just something they would have to get around somehow or another, what factors do you think could compel them to urbanize?

Well, they had Iran and Iraq. I don't think they'd be lacking urban centres.

 

[Delvestius]

Well, they had Iran and Iraq. I don't think they'd be lacking urban centres.

After the Mongols, I do. I think they'd have to have to have some sort of re-urbanizing catalyst per se if we want to see any form of eventual advanced industry. Think about it: Baghdad, Kandahar, Samarkland, all of their main cities were sacked and pillaged. They're not just going to spring back up overnight.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Well, they had Iran and Iraq. I don't think they'd be lacking urban centres.

After the Mongols, I do.

So no Mongols -- (particular aspect of the) problem solved.

 

[Faeelin]

Didn't know that about Belgium though, that's an interesting fact! In what regards is industrialism assessed in that analysis?

Coal mining, iron production, textiles...

http://books.google.com/books?id=z7...AGd0rG8Ag&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Falecius]

After the Mongols, I do. I think they'd have to have to have some sort of re-urbanizing catalyst per se if we want to see any form of eventual advanced industry. Think about it: Baghdad, Kandahar, Samarkland, all of their main cities were sacked and pillaged. They're not just going to spring back up overnight.

If it is after the Mongols, they's be screwed anyway. I was supposing that the POD was, or entailed, either no Mongols at all, or the Khwarezmians fending them off early and effectively.

EDIT: the Mongols were such a gamechanger, that having not them around in the Middle East would help any attempt at fulfilling the OP anyway.
Interestingly, Islamic sources were particularly interested in pointing out that they destroyed libraries.