Industrial Revolution and Colonization of New World in...

Peter the Great got his "rapid progression" by "borrowing" technology and ideas from the Dutch Republic, England, the German states etc. France under Louis XIV didn't really have much scientific or technological progress under his reign in my opinion (especially when compared to other European countiries of the time), when I think of him the first thing I always think of is the infinite hordes of Frenchman that he spammed against the rest of Europe. :p


I see. Wow didn't know that. Thank you for teaching me somthing new.:)
 
United Europe will retard the Industrial Revolution because of lack of political diversity. New World colonization may delay or not happening at all because of stability in Europe done by lack of political division. Instead, China will industrialize and Europe will be a backward nation.
 
United Europe will retard the Industrial Revolution because of lack of political diversity. New World colonization may delay or not happening at all because of stability in Europe done by lack of political division. Instead, China will industrialize and Europe will be a backward nation.

As long as they become Protestant Christians they'll industrialize just fine.
 
As long as they become Protestant Christians they'll industrialize just fine.

Well, played, sir.

For the irony-impaired:

China was no less united than this supposed European state and for most of OTL history was much more advanced. India and the Muslim world had larger and more unitary states until the near modern era - in land and often in population. That's exactly the same period they were more advanced and innovative than their European counterparts. Why do we assume that unification means reduced technological progress, when for 2,000 of the past 2,500 years the opposite was true?

Europe needing disunity, needing democracy, needing Christianity or Protestantism - these are clichés. That doesn't mean there's no truth behind any of them. It does mean that this discussion's been mostly on the superficial side.

Broadly speaking, Europe is excellently set up for industrialization. The disease environment is good; making urban habitation more practical. It has some of the most accessible coal deposits in the world. Water routes for trade reach almost every corner of the continent - in England you simply can't get very far from the sea.
 
Last edited:
I see. Wow didn't know that. Thank you for teaching me somthing new.:)


Good Sweet Christ... :(

You didn't know that after becoming czar Peter the Great traveled incognito for nearly two years across Europe and even worked in a Dutch shipyard for a period all the while collecting the "western" ideas and technologies he'd bring back home but you still felt comfortable using him as an example of progress in an absolute state? The mind truly boggles...

Is there anything else you know next to nothing about that you want to comment on?
 
China and Rome could have had the potential, except Rome had oodles of cheap slaves, and China had even more hands. Maybe some sort of plague (like The Plague) hitting the land and depopulating it. That would create a labor shortage, and would drive the demand for labor saving machines. I can't say so for certain for the Romans, but the Han valued efficiency. Not to mention already had all sort of inventions, including the use of methane as a fuel. So I'd bet on China being industrialized before Rome.
 
Good Sweet Christ... :(

You didn't know that after becoming czar Peter the Great traveled incognito for nearly two years across Europe and even worked in a Dutch shipyard for a period all the while collecting the "western" ideas and technologies he'd bring back home but you still felt comfortable using him as an example of progress in an absolute state? The mind truly boggles...

Is there anything else you know next to nothing about that you want to comment on?

Come on, tolerance.
 
Peter the Great got his "rapid progression" by "borrowing" technology and ideas from the Dutch Republic, England, the German states etc. France under Louis XIV didn't really have much scientific or technological progress under his reign in my opinion (especially when compared to other European countiries of the time), when I think of him the first thing I always think of is the infinite hordes of Frenchman that he spammed against the rest of Europe. :p

Good Sweet Christ... :(

You didn't know that after becoming czar Peter the Great traveled incognito for nearly two years across Europe and even worked in a Dutch shipyard for a period all the while collecting the "western" ideas and technologies he'd bring back home but you still felt comfortable using him as an example of progress in an absolute state? The mind truly boggles...
What I know that stuff. I know a he'll of a lot oft of Russia. Like his wars against Sweden and modernizing Russia. Listen

Is there anything else you know next to nothing about that you want to comment on?
listen I know all about Peter. I know he tookWestern Ideas. I'm not an idiot. Listen I may have misinterpreted what you said. But yes he got his techniques from the West but he expanded Russia. Destroying Sweden and making Poland his bitch Yeah I know all that stuff. I just misinterpreted what you said. :)
 
China and Rome could have had the potential, except Rome had oodles of cheap slaves, and China had even more hands. Maybe some sort of plague (like The Plague) hitting the land and depopulating it. That would create a labor shortage, and would drive the demand for labor saving machines. I can't say so for certain for the Romans, but the Han valued efficiency. Not to mention already had all sort of inventions, including the use of methane as a fuel. So I'd bet on China being industrialized before Rome.

But Europe industrialized after it's population had begun to rapidly expand. I don't think it was "too many people" so much as "too little commerce per person" that was the problem.
 
China and Rome could have had the potential, except Rome had oodles of cheap slaves, and China had even more hands. Maybe some sort of plague (like The Plague) hitting the land and depopulating it. That would create a labor shortage, and would drive the demand for labor saving machines. I can't say so for certain for the Romans, but the Han valued efficiency. Not to mention already had all sort of inventions, including the use of methane as a fuel. So I'd bet on China being industrialized before Rome.

The plague did hit China. It also hit Justinian's Byzantium.

And meanwhile, Song China's population boomed while it engaged in rapid technological innovation (just like Britain's population did during the industrial revolution).
 

DISSIDENT

Banned
If its the Roman Empire staying intact, for example by a longer lasting Ostrogothic successor state or a more successful Byzantium in the 500s and 600s, I think you would get a situation not conducive to industrial revolution as we think of it, with rapid development of steam power, manufacturing and industrial mass production and attendant social dislocations.

Technology might still advance, but here and there and probably stifled by the Church for longer. If all Europe is united under one empire, the Church will stay the supreme religious authority.

The New World would be found eventually, but probably later. There might be unorganized settlements founded by fishermen on the East coast that start out as seasonal camps but become permanent, and interbreed with the natives to form hybrid states outside Imperial rule.

Carolingians might be a bit different. Not totally sure how that would work, as I think Frankish custom was the division between heirs and they were Franks and the division was what made it less effective and coherent than it could have been.
 
When did the Church actually stifle technological development?

They tried to outlaw crossbows and it utterly failed.

In fact, the church played a major role in developing lands for agriculture, ironworking, and other fields.
 
Carolingians might be a bit different. Not totally sure how that would work, as I think Frankish custom was the division between heirs and they were Franks and the division was what made it less effective and coherent than it could have been.

Well, then let's say we have two ATLs with two different PODs:
1. Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, etc, successfully conquered Germania, Cimbria, Bohemia, and Dacia up to Vistula-Carpathians-Dniester line and fully romanized it.
2. Charlemagne successfully enacted some reforms to Frankish customs about "realm-division for the heirs" system.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I think it depend on what Empire, which unify Europe, to how it develop. I have a hard time see the Roman Empire industrialise or begin exploring thanks to it centre in the mediterranean. A Frankish unified Europe would on the other hand be a lot different, the use of the Atlantic as a important trade network would spur ship development, through colonisation of the new world will likely just be a semi-accidental starting in the north and later. Industrial I think it may develop faster, one thing which spured the industrial development of the north was the use of coal as fuel source, this was a result deforestation. But warfare and population loss often resulted in the forest getting time to recover. It's no accident that relative peaceful Britain rather than the wartorn and depopulated Germany was the pioneer in the development of coal mining. Of course such a IR are going to be quite different with it lack of institutions of OTL like stock exchanges and banks.
 
I think it depend on what Empire, which unify Europe, to how it develop. I have a hard time see the Roman Empire industrialise or begin exploring thanks to it centre in the mediterranean.

I agree that the Roman Empire in, say, 100 AD won't industrialize. But just as the Han empire was centered on the Yellow River and the Song Empire was centered on the Yangzi, I could see the Empire's focus of gravity shift northward.

Of course such a IR are going to be quite different with it lack of institutions of OTL like stock exchanges and banks.

Are these that unlikely? The Romans had something rmearkably similar to the joint stock company; it was used to finance the bids by publicani to acquire tax revenues.

From an old post of mine:

Hmm. On the other hand, the Principate and late Republic had the publicani, which are about as close to corporations as the world was going to get for centuries. "The existence of the societas publicanorum did not - to a large extent - depend on the individuals involved; a representative could act 'for the company;' ownership was fungible, traded in the form of shares and separated from the control of the company."

"We also learn that the shares were traded. In his second speech against Verres (1,55,143), Cicero implies the transferability of shares, when he quotes an exceptional restriction: Qui de L. Marcio M. Perperna censoribus redemerit... socium non admittito neve partem dato neve redimito, i.e. anyone who had been leasing under the censors L. Marcius and M. Perperna was not admitted to the current lease, neither as a partner, nor as a shareholder, nor should he be allowed to buy any shares later. His quote and the context of the case reveal that shares were often traded between participes after the contract had been assigned to a societas publicanorum.

What makes the partes look even more like modern shares - and is additional evidence parties were not just loans with variable interest rate, as proposed by Duff45 - is the mention of variable "stock prices." In P. Vat 12,29 Cicero speaks of partes illo tempore carissimae, of 'shares that had a very high price at that time.' He implies that the value of the shares depends upon the success of the enterprise and was as such subject to fluctuations, just like today's stock market. In fact, the "stock-market jargon" in this and similar quotes have led some scholars to believe that a "stock-market life" existed in Rome.'
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I agree that the Roman Empire in, say, 100 AD won't industrialize. But just as the Han empire was centered on the Yellow River and the Song Empire was centered on the Yangzi, I could see the Empire's focus of gravity shift northward.

The problem are that without the loss of North Africa and the growing piracy, it make much more sense to keep the focus farther south. Where it easier to trade, more urbanised and richer, the shift north for post Roman civilisation was born of necessarity not economical realities. But if it shift north, the thing I wrote for the Franks make sense for the Romans too.

Are these that unlikely? The Romans had something rmearkably similar to the joint stock company; it was used to finance the bids by publicani to acquire tax revenues.

Interesting, that would mean that the have many of necessary financial structures to fully use a industrialisation. Through I personal would find a industrialisation, where monasties, clerical orders and noble familes was the major actors, rather than burghers and proto-corporations interesting. We do see elements of it in late medieval early modern north east Germany, where knights begin to outcompete burghers, by setting up rural breweries and other production unit usual controlled by guilds, de facto creating their own factory towns and ports.
 
Top