OP asked about the Industrial Revolution, not the Great Divergence.
Troll post?
OP asked about the Industrial Revolution, not the Great Divergence.
So are we just going to ignore the Gupta Empire and Tughlaq Delhi Sultanate (both much larger and closer to the modern day than the Kushan Empire) in favour of pigeonholing Indo-Europeans dominating South Asia into yet another thread?By the time the British were getting a foothold,Mughals had been loosing relevance in India and the process was started by Aurangzeb. It's not possible for Mughals to do anything more by then but concede. Marathas on the other hand could conquer but holding them was a problem for them too. Before the British and the Mughals,Kushans were the last biggest unified Empire in India. India,due to its location,is a history dotted with empires of Immigrants since the Bronze age itself.
Plus, the Guptas and Delhi sultans (well, less sure about the Delhi sultans but Persian was still the prestige language) were both Indo-European speakers, something Albert.Nik apparently seems reluctant to admit.So are we just going to ignore the Gupta Empire and Tughlaq Delhi Sultanate (both much larger and closer to the modern day than the Kushan Empire) in favour of pigeonholing Indo-Europeans dominating South Asia into yet another thread?
No,Gupta Empire wasn't as large as the Kushan Empire for the most part. Even if they were,the expanse of the power didn't spread to that diverse territories. Kushans ruled from Turfan(the Easternmost Tocharian town) to Pataliputra deep inside the Gangetic plains.So are we just going to ignore the Gupta Empire and Tughlaq Delhi Sultanate (both much larger and closer to the modern day than the Kushan Empire) in favour of pigeonholing Indo-Europeans dominating South Asia into yet another thread?
Guptas,yes. They were Indo-European speakers and of the ruling class which had ancestries of Greek,Scythian,Iranic and Tocharian by then. Later ages,even some Huns also had came. Delhi Sultans were clearly Turkic initially but later Pashtuns dominated it. Pashtuns are a amalgamation of Kushans,Huns,Scythians,Bactrians,Sogdians,Persians,etc as per many sources. So they were IE you can say.Plus, the Guptas and Delhi sultans (well, less sure about the Delhi sultans but Persian was still the prestige language) were both Indo-European speakers, something Albert.Nik apparently seems reluctant to admit.
Britain's main export markets during the first wave of the industrial revolution was America and Europe, not Asia.
Asia's importance to Great Britain as a market grew significantly with the end of the Napoleonic wars, and that was after Britain's industrial dominance became absolute.
How so?
If you subscribe to them then sure.To Pomeranz and the Californians, one would not exist without the other.
The "California School" isn't widely accepted to my knowledge. The orthodox view is that the GD began in the 1500s if not the 1400s, and that it was a trend which preceded the Industrial Revolution.Troll post?
The "California School" isn't widely accepted to my knowledge. The orthodox view is that the GD began in the 1500s if not the 1400s, and that it was a trend which preceded the Industrial Revolution.
Is After Tamerlane an example of the California School?The "California School" isn't widely accepted to my knowledge. The orthodox view is that the GD began in the 1500s if not the 1400s, and that it was a trend which preceded the Industrial Revolution.
edit: admittedly it's not my area of expertise so I'm more than willing to be corrected.
I don't know, I haven't read it.Is After Tamerlane an example of the California School?
(It's basic argument is that Europe had no institutional advantages and lucked into empires)
Is After Tamerlane an example of the California School?
(It's basic argument is that Europe had no institutional advantages and lucked into empires)