How fast to develop modern tech given mid-1600s start?

To that end, increase global trade. Dig the Suez canal early.

The original Suez Canal was dug during the Pharonic Period of Ancient Egypt. Keep it going for fifteen hundred to two thousand years and you're in business.

Regards,
John Braungart
 

Deleted member 67076

Improve the wealth of the world alongside improving the world's trade networks. More wealth gives more resources for innovation and trade allows for ideas to spread quickly.

But critically alongside these two things, cripple slavery. Cheap labor breeds stagnation and was one of the reasons Rome didn't really innovate for most of its history.

Given that we are post 1600, perhaps avoiding the British colonization of India? India horribly stagnated under the British.

Additionally, perhaps a greater economic liberalization in the Spanish colonies following the war of Spanish Succession?

The Bourbons moved in that direction with their reforms under Carlos III, but doing so earlier would leave much of Latin America in a much stronger and wealthier position, which would allow more people to focus on innovation.
 
Improve the wealth of the world alongside improving the world's trade networks. More wealth gives more resources for innovation and trade allows for ideas to spread quickly.

But critically alongside these two things, cripple slavery. Cheap labor breeds stagnation and was one of the reasons Rome didn't really innovate for most of its history.

Given that we are post 1600, perhaps avoiding the British colonization of India? India horribly stagnated under the British.

Additionally, perhaps a greater economic liberalization in the Spanish colonies following the war of Spanish Succession?

The Bourbons moved in that direction with their reforms under Carlos III, but doing so earlier would leave much of Latin America in a much stronger and wealthier position, which would allow more people to focus on innovation.

It's pretty stunning if you look at the economic and demographic results of British colonisation in India. It's one step above what the slave trade did to Africa. But I guess we'll assume that post-1600, modern tech will inevitably be developed by the West.

Helping the Spanish Empire not be a complete mess would definitely help. If Spain had developed their colonies more, Latin America might've been able to be a very productive part of the world economically and intellectually from early on.

Actually, the Byzantines were the most advanced nation in the Mediterranean, and making tons of innovations. List from this post by /r/AskHistorians user Ambarenya:
[snip]

At one point they were, no doubt, but by the 13th century it was blatantly obvious they were living on borrowed time. Basically like the 5th century Western Roman Empire. I'm pretty sure the Byzantines themselves didn't even have access to a lot of that by that time--like I know the late Byzantine Empire didn't know how to use Greek fire anymore or otherwise simply didn't bother making any more of it.
 
At one point they were, no doubt, but by the 13th century it was blatantly obvious they were living on borrowed time. Basically like the 5th century Western Roman Empire. I'm pretty sure the Byzantines themselves didn't even have access to a lot of that by that time--like I know the late Byzantine Empire didn't know how to use Greek fire anymore or otherwise simply didn't bother making any more of it.

"Advanced" is not the same thing as "militarily powerful" though, and even the Palaiologan empire was a center of philosophy and science. Hundreds of Greek scholars contributed to the Renaissance. In fact the Renaissance probably would not have happened at all without preserved Byzantine knowledge.
 
Actually, the Byzantines were the most advanced nation in the Mediterranean, and making tons of innovations. List from this post by /r/AskHistorians user Ambarenya:

To be sure, they developed plenty over their ~millennium of existence. However, I would argue that they were no more innovative than the Arabs next door and that both societies' technological innovation was founded primarily on their healthy economies, somethimg that contemporary Europe tended to lack.
 
Last edited:
Couple of random ideas -

Perhaps get the industrial revolution going a little earlier in Europe, in the late 17th or early 18th century rather than the later 18th century. I'm not sure if any country in Europe had enough surplus capital or the right kind of mindset among its moneyed classes to do this much earlier than OTL, though.

Have different developments in China and/or India so that one or both of these countries begins to industrialize shortly after Europe, or even at the same time. This would mean that a much larger share of them world's population would be living in an industrialized society, and there would be more opportunities for new inventions and ideas.
 
The original Suez Canal was dug during the Pharonic Period of Ancient Egypt. Keep it going for fifteen hundred to two thousand years and you're in business.

Regards,
John Braungart

The problem with the Canal of the Pharaohs is that it was a canal for river traffic. By its nzture, it did not accomodate the larger ships out there.
 

Deleted member 67076

It's pretty stunning if you look at the economic and demographic results of British colonisation in India. It's one step above what the slave trade did to Africa. But I guess we'll assume that post-1600, modern tech will inevitably be developed by the West.
Its possible that Europe remains the epicenter of innovation, at least for a few decades, but the idea is to by the time industrialization kicks in there are more global areas that join in on the revolution and thus the world is much more economically developed as a whole, leading to further innovations that would otherwise not have happened.
 
Its possible that Europe remains the epicenter of innovation, at least for a few decades, but the idea is to by the time industrialization kicks in there are more global areas that join in on the revolution and thus the world is much more economically developed as a whole, leading to further innovations that would otherwise not have happened.

Yeah, I think it's a possibility that parts of the rest of the world could have kept pace somewhat with Europe, at the very least Ottoman levels of development and strength. Bengal, China, Korea, Persia, Egypt are all possibilities.
 
To develop tech faster requires more population and economic activity.

Some ideas:

*A lesser African slave trade - the slave trade devastated Africa. When the Portuguese first found Kongo, the kingdom was richer and more developed than Portugal itself (then one of the more developed European countries).

*Avoid the mysterious population collapse of the Middle East in the 1700s. For reasons that aren't entirely clear, Persia and the Ottoman Empire went through economic and population collapse and India's population growth and economic growth stalled. No-one is quite sure what happened. The most plausible theory I've read is that it was cholera making its way to Europe. Still, India, Persia and the Ottomans had, up to that point, been innovating at the same rate as Europe. After whatever it is that happened happened, all three began to fall behind Europe.

*An earlier end to the Little Ice Age. A gentle warming trend starting in the mid 1600s would overall improve the carrying capacity of the planet.

*One thing I've wondered about is what might happen if quinoa became popular earlier on. It is a very hardy plant and the grains are quite nutritious. It might revolution cold climate and mountain agriculture.

fasquardon
 
When the Portuguese first found Kongo, the kingdom was richer and more developed than Portugal itself (then one of the more developed European countries).
Uhh, source? I don't think Thorton ever says this. And while development is hard to measure, there's first common sense (Kongo was not part of the Eurasio-African world that Portugal, or for an African example the Swahili, were). And for more objective measures
  • P was literate, K was not
  • P had twice the population of K (P had one million, K had half a million per "Demography and History in the Kingdom of Kongo")
  • P had gunpowder, K did not
  • P had far better ships than K
  • M'banza Kongo was smaller than Lisbon (in 1491 it's compared to Evora, not Lisbon; even by 1600 the metropolitan area had only 50,000 people).
  • K might have been more centralized, but that's more a testimony to population distribution (the high population densities around M'banza Kongo compared to the rest of the country) than development. The provincial capital M'banza Sonyo had less than 20,000 people even in 1600.
Of course, half a million people in a heavily centralized kingdom is still impressive for an equatorial and malaria-ridden region. But Portugal was indisputably more developed.

Still, India, Persia and the Ottomans had, up to that point, been innovating at the same rate as Europe.
Disputing this too. Even before the 18th century the OE and Persia were not populated enough to be as economically developed as Northwestern Europe. Even in 1600 the Ottomans had a fourth of the population of China in 1200 AD and India was noticeably economically underdeveloped compared to, for example, Tokugawa Japan. Really East Asia is much easier to develop than India or especially the Middle East.
 
Frankly I think its very much a naive mindset to think widespread technology advancement can be achieved by devoting resources to science as if the real world is a strategy game.

What made the industrial revolution so special was the explosion of technology advancement and its commercialisation on a widespread basis. This was unprecedented in human history. Even after it happened in Britain it took decades for other countries to repeat it, and in several cases that was just adopting existing technologies rather than innovating at the frontier. You can only really repeat it by getting the unique mixture of circumstances that happened in Britain, most notably a limited government that won't expropriate profits from the private sector.
 
Uhh, source? I don't think Thorton ever says this. And while development is hard to measure, there's first common sense (Kongo was not part of the Eurasio-African world that Portugal, or for an African example the Swahili, were). And for more objective measures

Well, it was a web page on the Kongo kingdom, so it may not have been a good source. According to the page, the perception of Kongo being richer was based on the testimony of early Portuguese explorers. The reason was apparently the cloth industry in the region (which produced cloth that was traded over a large area of Africa, though how large wasn't mentioned).

Disputing this too. Even before the 18th century the OE and Persia were not populated enough to be as economically developed as Northwestern Europe. Even in 1600 the Ottomans had a fourth of the population of China in 1200 AD and India was noticeably economically underdeveloped compared to, for example, Tokugawa Japan. Really East Asia is much easier to develop than India or especially the Middle East.

Tokugawa Japan was perhaps one of the most developed places on the earth though. Most places were underdeveloped in comparison to it.

The OE and Persia were definitely different from Northwest Europe and certainly the population density was lower overall. However, they led in most areas of military technology (including naval technology for the Ottomans). Some aspects of agriculture were more advanced, some less. Most urban technology was more advanced.

However, they were notably behind in mechanized technology and in deploying labour saving devices.

As for India, India and China followed very similar trajectories up until the end of the 17th Century (and even then, up until the British took over completely in the 19th Century, one could argue that India was on a better path in some ways). And certainly I have yet to find any modern histories of India that have claimed that India was, overall, behind Europe technologically in this period (though, naturally, they were behind in some areas).

fasquardon
 
The reason was apparently the cloth industry in the region
Kongolese cloth was traded, yes - traded by the Europeans because the Kongolese had no capacity to sail in blue water. Other areas of Africa also had developed textile industries (eg Benin) but clearly textiles are not the sole marker of a country's development.

they led in most areas of military technology
My point is that the OE and Persia were not nearly as economically as developed as India, or China, or NW Europe, and economic development matters more than military technology when it comes to the development of general technologies. I also find it doubtful whether the OE was really "leading" in war by the mid-17th century, as stated in the OP.

As for India, India and China followed very similar trajectories up until the end of the 17th Century
Ming China was indisputably more developed than the Mughals, as seen from city size (Lahore and Delhi were the biggest Mughal cities and probably had about 400k people in 1700; I can name three cities just in the lower Yangzi that had as many or more people, including one that probably exceeded a million inhabitants and may even have had two million) to urbanization (Ming Chinese urbanization rates exceeded 10%, Mughal ones most likely did not) to population distribution (even in the 18th century much of Bengal was forested and peasants could flee into them - I heavily doubt this was an option in Ming Jiangnan)
 
Top