East Asia, South Asia, or North Africa industrializes first. Who has the resources advantage?

Deleted member 97083

In as scenario where Britain/Europe isn't the first to industrialize, and
  1. East Asia (probably southern China) industrialized first, or
  2. South Asia (probably Bengal) industrialized first, or
  3. North Africa and the Middle East (probably Egypt or Mesopotamia) industrialized first
Which parts of those subcontinents/continents would have the industrial advantage in terms of early resources? (Coal, iron, petroleum, aluminum, etc.)

This may not be the same as the amount of those resources they produce now, since more easily accessible, surface deposits of those resources would be most important in the early industrial era.

IOTL, Britain industrialized before the other parts of Europe, then Belgium, then Germany and France. With Germany advancing fast despite its late beginning. Britain and Germany in particular had a large advantage in coal, iron, and other resources important in the early industrial era. Russian Empire and Soviet Union caught up later on due to abundance of petroleum and rare metals, as well as high population.

If the industrial revolution occurred in another continent or region, then, who in this region is most likely to industrialize first? Who industrializes second? What part of the continent is the "late bloomer" who industrializes later and ends up becoming superpower?

For example, let's imagine that Song China has an industrial revolution. As production intensifies, what other regions of East Asia and South Asia are going to be first to adapt the increases in production?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
China itself probably has the advantage, since it has larger sources of coal than in North Africa, and better quality coal than in South Asia. Looking at a map of global coal deposits helps to see which regions have the advantage.

World-Map-of-Coal-Deposits.png
 
China itself probably has the advantage, since it has larger sources of coal than in North Africa, and better quality coal than in South Asia. Looking at a map of global coal deposits helps to see which regions have the advantage.

World-Map-of-Coal-Deposits.png

Who says industrialisation has to be coal based? The Middle East had oil bursting out the ground.
 
The problem with China is that the largest coal deposits are in poorly-accessible areas, such as upriver from areas with white water and/or waterfalls.

That's not to say that there aren't any accessible sources of coal, mind.

It also depends on how big the individual states are. A state that covers the entirety of northern India would have access to a lot more resources than a state the size of, say, Bangladesh.
 

Deleted member 97083

Who says industrialisation has to be coal based? The Middle East had oil bursting out the ground.
Crude oil is a mixture of long chain and small chain hydrocarbons, which are only useful when used separately. So it has to be refined to make extracting it worthwhile. However, the technology for refining wasn't available or economical until the industrial revolution based on coal was already underway in the 19th century.
 
Crude oil is a mixture of long chain and small chain hydrocarbons, which are only useful when used separately. So it has to be refined to make extracting it worthwhile. However, the technology for refining wasn't available or economical until the industrial revolution based on coal was already underway in the 19th century.

Do you have a source for that? It would seriously surprise me if there wasn't a single crude oil mix in the Middle East that could be burnt directly.

In addition, you also have gas reserves at the top of most oil wells, which can definitely be directly burnt for energy (though obviously transportation becomes an issue there).
 

Deleted member 97083

Do you have a source for that? It would seriously surprise me if there wasn't a single crude oil mix in the Middle East that could be burnt directly.

In addition, you also have gas reserves at the top of most oil wells, which can definitely be directly burnt for energy (though obviously transportation becomes an issue there).
There are/were many crude oil mixes in the Middle East that could be burnt directly. However, being able to burn doesn't necessarily make it an efficient or reliably burning fuel.

Crude oil is not very useful until it has been processed at an oil refinery. The process of refining involves separating the hydrocarbons into fractions or batches using a technique called fractional distillation. Each fraction separates as they have different boiling points. The smallest molecules contained in the crude oil have lower boiling points and so move to the top of the tower. Larger molecules will remain lower down the tower as they have higher boiling points.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c/materials_choices/crude_oil_usesrev2.shtml

Some forms of oil refining were known before the 19th century, but the first use of oil as actual fuel and the construction of the first modern oil refinery begins in the 1850s. Even then, for a number of years, refined oil was mainly in the form of kerosene used for lighting and cooking rather than energy production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_industry#Modern_history
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are we considering the underlying economic (labor cost and mass demand/market viability, among others) and political (Stability, infastructure, a political culture that will properly treat free enterprise or set up a proper state capitalist system, ect.) in this or just resource availability?
 

Deleted member 97083

Are we considering the underlying economic (labor cost and mass demand/market viability, among others) and political (Stability, infastructure, a political culture that will properly treat free enterprise or set up a proper state capitalist system, ect.) in this or just resource availability?
Mostly just resource availability, but any thoughts on the political and organizational prerequisites of an early industrialization are also welcome.
 

Deleted member 94708

The problem with China is that the largest coal deposits are in poorly-accessible areas, such as upriver from areas with white water and/or waterfalls.

That's not to say that there aren't any accessible sources of coal, mind.

It also depends on how big the individual states are. A state that covers the entirety of northern India would have access to a lot more resources than a state the size of, say, Bangladesh.

Regarding China, you have to remember that pre-industrial China had the most advanced system of internal improvements to facilitate logistics and agriculture of any pre-industrial state bar the Netherlands, which is clearly not an apples-to-apples comparison.

I see no reason why the coal deposits of Shaanxi would not be exploited in Northern China, and there are local deposits throughout the country.

I think the clear answer, of these three options, is China.
 
There are/were many crude oil mixes in the Middle East that could be burnt directly. However, being able to burn doesn't necessarily make it an efficient or reliably burning fuel.

Crude oil is not very useful until it has been processed at an oil refinery. The process of refining involves separating the hydrocarbons into fractions or batches using a technique called fractional distillation. Each fraction separates as they have different boiling points. The smallest molecules contained in the crude oil have lower boiling points and so move to the top of the tower. Larger molecules will remain lower down the tower as they have higher boiling points.

I actually do fractional distillation in the lab, and I think the technique could conceivably be invented much much earlier than it was historically, just because it's a really simple apparatus. It's not a problem of getting people to build fractionating columns earlier IMO, it's more a problem of getting the theory of distillation to the point that people realize to build fractionating columns.
 
There are/were many crude oil mixes in the Middle East that could be burnt directly. However, being able to burn doesn't necessarily make it an efficient or reliably burning fuel.

Crude oil is not very useful until it has been processed at an oil refinery. The process of refining involves separating the hydrocarbons into fractions or batches using a technique called fractional distillation. Each fraction separates as they have different boiling points. The smallest molecules contained in the crude oil have lower boiling points and so move to the top of the tower. Larger molecules will remain lower down the tower as they have higher boiling points.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/21c/materials_choices/crude_oil_usesrev2.shtml

Some forms of oil refining were known before the 19th century, but the first use of oil as actual fuel and the construction of the first modern oil refinery begins in the 1850s. Even then, for a number of years, refined oil was mainly in the form of kerosene used for lighting and cooking rather than energy production.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_petroleum_industry#Modern_history

I’ve been curious about this for a while. Kerosene was first refined by Al-Razi in the 9th century. Was his process scalable and couldn’t keosene be used as a steam engine fuel? Lighting cooking and home heating are good starting points to further develop petroleum. Of course the Middle East wasn’t the only place with oil coming out of the ground. Indonesia and Romania comes to mind.
 
0/10 it would be Aboriginal Australia
In terms of resource availability, that's actually spot on. Australia has excellent reserves of coal, iron ore and timber (in so far as the latter is useful) in locations to support industrialisation.

That would require a reasonably early POD, though.
 
In terms of resource availability, that's actually spot on. Australia has excellent reserves of coal, iron ore and timber (in so far as the latter is useful) in locations to support industrialisation.

That would require a reasonably early POD, though.
Draft animals and domesticatible animals no doubt.
 
I’ve been curious about this for a while. Kerosene was first refined by Al-Razi in the 9th century. Was his process scalable and couldn’t keosene be used as a steam engine fuel? Lighting cooking and home heating are good starting points to further develop petroleum. Of course the Middle East wasn’t the only place with oil coming out of the ground. Indonesia and Romania comes to mind.
Well, the world is poor in reliable light, the middle east could monopolize kerosene lamps
 
Top