Earliest plausible Industrial Revolution?

[MerryPrankster]

I can imagine this being accomplished THROUGH religious orders rather than in spite of them. For instance, suppose that a Christian sect appears in the 4th century that emphasized acquisition and entrepenurial use of resources to feed the poor. As part of the manastic teaching, science & economics become integrated into religious teaching. The Church also provides capital for businesses to start-up both within the confines of the Church as well as for parishiners. As the Vikings start invading mainland Europe, and while everyone else presses toward a feudal system, the countries that have adapted this flavor of Christianity will develop weapons and systems to defeat the Viking invaders. Early crossbows and development of "mines" and projectiles will help drive mathematics & science as well as mechanics.

There were medieval monastic orders who built lots of windmills and other machines. They had an article about them in the Wall Street Journal some years ago.

The start-up capital for businesses could be viewed as a way of helping the poor. Jesus's position on generosity taken to a level above personal giving.

 

[Leo Caesius]

The start-up capital for businesses could be viewed as a way of helping the poor. Jesus's position on generosity taken to a level above personal giving.

I'm not sure why the church would get into the business of providing capital to merchants. Wasn't that the job of the moneylenders? I think we all remember what happened to them.

At any rate, we're talking about a quantum leap of about a millennium of economic theories before we get to the gospel of supply-side Jesus. We need to invent some kind of Medieval Marx before we even begin to develop these kinds of sophistic(ated) economic beliefs. Probably a medieval Darwin as well, to have the social aspects that lie behind latter-day Republican economic doctrines. They didn't evolve in a vacuum, you know. The idea of trickle-down economics, in particular, is rather recent.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I'm not sure why the church would get into the business of providing capital to merchants. Wasn't that the job of the moneylenders? I think we all remember what happened to them.

At any rate, we're talking about a quantum leap of about a millennium of economic theories before we get to the gospel of supply-side Jesus. We need to invent some kind of Medieval Marx before we even begin to develop these kinds of sophistic(ated) economic beliefs. Probably a medieval Darwin as well, to have the social aspects that lie behind latter-day Republican economic doctrines. They didn't evolve in a vacuum, you know. The idea of trickle-down economics, in particular, is rather recent.

The money-changers (not money-lenders; these were currency converters) got thrown out of the Temple for indulging in fraud and borderline-extortion--the sin of greed. For my idea, the Church would get into that sort of thing with good intentions (at least at first), to help the poor by providing them jobs and profits from ventures would be put into charitable projects such as soup kitchen, help for invalids, etc.

Of course, it's very easy for corruption to set in in such an operation, so in some ways it was probably best for the Church NOT to go that road.

A POD could be that usury is never considered sinful for Christians, but it's regulated to prevent abuses. I think a lot of stuff can spring from that.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Negotium perambulans in tenebris

The Renaissance Humanists placed a high priority on otium (leisure, and spiritual endeavors such as artistry) against negotium (business, and other worldly demands). Without a Renaissance, perhaps negotium would have prevailed in the end, and we would be left with a humanity more dedicated to the worldly advancement of itself - drab, perhaps, certainly more ugly and "worldly" in the worst possible sense of the word, but more economically advanced than ours. A world that places a low priority on aesthetics and otium in general will be much more advanced in other regards than ours.

Ultimately the problem lies in those otherworldly religious movements, born of the Hellenistic cultural ferment, which preach a rejection of the world in favor of a higher realm - Christianity among them. If you do away with these, I see no reason why technological and economic advancement would not advance at a faster rate.

 

[Leo Caesius]

The money-changers (not money-lenders; these were currency converters) got thrown out of the Temple for indulging in fraud and borderline-extortion--the sin of greed.

Yes, of course. But my objections still stand. A church that thrust itself whole-heartedly into such temporal endeavors would require a 180 degree turn in theology. Legitimizing usury is a huge step and not one to be taken lightly. I mean, it would be easier to justify same-sex unions in the medieval church.

You'll probably argue that the church (or at least certain monastic orders) did engage in such business activities (witness the Templars) but this sort of thing always occurred on the very margins of legitimacy (at least as far as the Church was concerned) and was always controversial (again, witness the Templars). If the Templars had survived, this sort of economic activity (banking, investment of capital, etc.) may have been given a huge boost - but that's a whole different TL in and of itself.

 

[Paul Spring]

The Renaissance Humanists placed a high priority on otium (leisure, and spiritual endeavors such as artistry) against negotium (business, and other worldly demands). Without a Renaissance, perhaps negotium would have prevailed in the end, and we would be left with a humanity more dedicated to the worldly advancement of itself - drab, perhaps, certainly more ugly and "worldly" in the worst possible sense of the word, but more economically advanced than ours. A world that places a low priority on aesthetics and otium in general will be much more advanced in other regards than ours.

That sounds kind of backwards to me.

I thought that many of the leading Renaissance patrons (the Medici probably being the best-known example) were successful merchants/businessmen themselves. Italy in the 15th century was the most economically developed area of Europe. The areas of Germany and the "Low countries" that was the center of the "Northern Renaissance" were close seconds to Italy. It seems like business success and patronage of the arts went hand-in-hand at that time.



Ultimately the problem lies in those otherworldly religious movements, born of the Hellenistic cultural ferment, which preach a rejection of the world in favor of a higher realm - Christianity among them. If you do away with these, I see no reason why technological and economic advancement would not advance at a faster rate.

If Christianity was such a tremendous obstacle to economic advance, then why did Europe come out of the Middle ages with a more sophisticated economy and better technology than it had even at the height of the Roman Empire?

 

[Leo Caesius]

Paul - I don't think it's backwards at all. Imagine if the wealthy patrons of Renaissance artists had invested their free resources in capital and infrastructure rather than statuary, cathedrals, and paintings. Imagine if Leonardo da Vinci were told in no uncertain terms that he should apply himself to negotium at the expense of more spiritual pursuits. What would he have come up with?

As I said, the world would be more drab without Leonardo's artwork, but imagine the advances he would have made in military technology or anatomy had he applied himself solely to these worldly pursuits!

At any rate, we're talking about a whole millennium between the final gasps of the decaying empire in the West and the beginning of the Renaissance. A thousand years does not sound like especially fast progress to me. Obviously Christianity was not the only obstacle to development, but I don't see how a focus on the afterlife would not be an obstacle to development in this world. Look at Egypt - nearly three millennia of civilization, with an enormous focus on the afterlife, and almost nothing changed. It's a conservative's dream!

 

[Hierophant]

Exactly what type of inventions are possible in Song China era? Is a primitive telegraph too much?

 

[Faeelin]

The Renaissance Humanists placed a high priority on otium (leisure, and spiritual endeavors such as artistry) against negotium (business, and other worldly demands). Without a Renaissance, perhaps negotium would have prevailed in the end, and we would be left with a humanity more dedicated to the worldly advancement of itself - drab, perhaps, certainly more ugly and "worldly" in the worst possible sense of the word, but more economically advanced than ours. A world that places a low priority on aesthetics and otium in general will be much more advanced in other regards than ours.

I gotta disagree immensely. As others have pointed out, it was the areas of the renaissance that were the birthplace of capitalism.

Ultimately the problem lies in those otherworldly religious movements, born of the Hellenistic cultural ferment, which preach a rejection of the world in favor of a higher realm - Christianity among them. If you do away with these, I see no reason why technological and economic advancement would not advance at a faster rate.

Of course, those systems were also responsible for the development of the idea of "natural law".

 

[Faeelin]

You'll probably argue that the church (or at least certain monastic orders) did engage in such business activities (witness the Templars) but this sort of thing always occurred on the very margins of legitimacy (at least as far as the Church was concerned) and was always controversial (again, witness the Templars). If the Templars had survived, this sort of economic activity (banking, investment of capital, etc.) may have been given a huge boost - but that's a whole different TL in and of itself.

Not necessarily. One argument, developed in the Renaissance, was interest was merely compensating a man for the loss he incurred by loaning you the money, since he himself could have invested it and developed a profit with it.

 

[DominusNovus]

Paul - I don't think it's backwards at all. Imagine if the wealthy patrons of Renaissance artists had invested their free resources in capital and infrastructure rather than statuary, cathedrals, and paintings. Imagine if Leonardo da Vinci were told in no uncertain terms that he should apply himself to negotium at the expense of more spiritual pursuits. What would he have come up with?

Sounds good to me. My idea of paradise.

 

[jclark]

I'll play both sides:

If Christianity was such a tremendous obstacle to economic advance, then why did Europe come out of the Middle ages with a more sophisticated economy and better technology than it had even at the height of the Roman Empire?

Well, there was tremendous strife in Europe...one that created alot of military competition. The Vikings pushed everyone into castles and fortresses. The result was a military based around feudal lords and serfs growing food and the elite providing protection to those serfs. Eventually, someone wanted to defeat those feudal lords and needed the means to knock down those walls. Thus enters the cannon. Likewise, the archer ended the reign of the knight. One might argue that it was not Christianity that pushed the IR in Europe but that it was the competition which made the environment for it.

Yes, of course. But my objections still stand. A church that thrust itself whole-heartedly into such temporal endeavors would require a 180 degree turn in theology.
Cheap food (as a result of AR) and machines to build housing (as a result of IR) are outcomes that are not out of alignment with the teaching of Jesus. A usary that makes it a point to tithe is not immoral and, provided that the Church requires that of the businessess that avail themselves of its resources, would be in alignment with its beliefs. I agree that such a system sets itself up for corruption and organization challenges. I personally belief that the IR is easier in a market economy rather than a command economy (which is essentially what we are talking about).

Hey! It's Supply-Side Jesus!
ROTFL

 

[Faeelin]

Sigh. One day, I'd like to do an islamic scientific revolution.

 

[Leo Caesius]

I gotta disagree immensely. As others have pointed out, it was the areas of the renaissance that were the birthplace of capitalism.

Of course, those systems were also responsible for the development of the idea of "natural law".

I think you guys are confusing cause and effect. Capitalism is not a product of the Renaissance; I would argue that without the capital and resources freed up by Italian mercantile exploits, the Renaissance would not have happened. I'd also like to make it clear that I don't think that the Renaissance is a necessary result of these exploits. I do believe that the capital and resources could have been invested otherwise, and would have, had it not been for the classical heritage of the region (and the aesthetic models it provided) and the emphasis provided on the afterlife and spiritualism in this world that provided the impetus for religious works of art, cathedrals, etc.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not arguing that the world would be a "better" place without some form of otherworldly Hellenistic / Late Antique religion like Christianity or Islam prevailing. I'm not denying the contributions these religions made to the social sphere. However, I do think it's going too far to argue that economic and technological advancement is directly attributable to these religions. Without them, you would not see such an emphasis on the afterlife/spiritual sphere, which undeniably detracts from worldly activities like negotium. I'm arguing that the technological/economic advances made in periods like the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution occurred in spite of this worldview, not because of it. I can't see how that's controversial.

 

[fortyseven]

You'll probably argue that the church (or at least certain monastic orders) did engage in such business activities (witness the Templars) but this sort of thing always occurred on the very margins of legitimacy (at least as far as the Church was concerned) and was always controversial (again, witness the Templars). If the Templars had survived, this sort of economic activity (banking, investment of capital, etc.) may have been given a huge boost - but that's a whole different TL in and of itself.

You wouldn't be referring to my Paladin timeline would you?

 

[NapoleonXIV]

What about freedom? (not to sound all Bushy-eyed about it )

Many of the perquisites you require, (not all, but I don't really think all are necessary, and which ones might vary; its more a matter of critical mass) were present, as you note, in Song China. And in the Pax Romana, many decades of Hellenism, Periclean Greece, possibly Mycenae and even some dynasties of Egypt.

What was lacking in the all those examples (save one) was the belief among the populace that government could not simply do anything it wanted, not morally anyway, and the idea that the people could, and even should, stop it if it did.

Real capitalism began in cities that either were, or functioned as, republics and where the govt was really very weak. It was next practiced best in the Republic of the Netherlands, which gave even the Merchant princes of Magna Cartaed England a run for their money until the Americans took over.

Spain, following the Roman model, came a cropper in the 1600's, not least because she plastered the gold she took from the New World on her Churches (and in her Army) instead of giving it to her merchants to reinvest.

After all, what good is it to be rich if the govt can take your money any time it wants? In Rome, power usually trumped wealth in the end so the two very quickly became truly one and the same thing. (we say they are too, but how rich is Colin Powell? ) Men of ambition became soldiers if they could and merchants only if they couldn't. Its a good deal more complicated than that, of course, since Rome also had to be able to live parasitically, but isn't that why the Empire got so big?

Why didn't it happen in Periclean Greece? I dunno, but time seems a possible factor. If only it had lasted a little longer.

 

[Leo Caesius]

As much as I'd like to assume that democracy (or, at least, freedom from authoritarianism) is a prerequisite for an economic revolution, lately the Asian Tigers have shown that this is not necessarily always the case. None of those countries are exactly what you'd call democratic, particularly China (which is the rising star in the region). Whether they could have done it on their own without emulating the west in many ways question. I've heard convincing arguments for both sides of the issue.

 

[The Lurker]

mebbe the Song/Mongols thing goes to support a contention that it's not always the machines and technology that matter, but the people who use what they have?

In theory, though, mebbe the CHinese could have fielded something like Peter the Great's army in 1400.....

 

[Hierophant]

Exactly what was Song China capable of inventing and producing? Is the telegraph or railrod plausible? How about an steampowered airship?

 

[Hendryk]

Exactly what was Song China capable of inventing and producing? Is the telegraph or railrod plausible? How about an steampowered airship?

I will have to look that up before I can answer your question. Meanwhile, I recommand the books by Joseph Needham; he has conducted extensive research on technological innovations in China, and is pretty much the definitive authority on the topic.
I'll get back to you on that.