On the Industrial Revolution...

maverick

Banned
I've been wondering about the Revolution, you know, the first one which took place in Britain in the 1700s...

For instance...was it unavoidable?

Did it depend on the political situation? would a surviving Stuart Dynasty or a Republic of England surviving past the 1660s butterfly the Industrial Revolution away?

And could it have happened elsewhere, such as Spain or France, had the circumstances been different?
 

Ofaloaf

I think that an Industrial revolution is still nigh-inevitable with a mid-17th century POD. Not only are foundations for the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution (Newton, Leibniz, steam engines are already being tinkered with a little bit on the Continent) still in place, but a lot of the political and economic framework for booming industry in Britain is there. Enough so, in my opinion, that Stuart abolutist tendencies or Republican dickishness can't overwhelm it.

For the industrial revolution to begin elsewhere, I'd argue that it have to occur in a less politically- and economically-controlled place than Spain or France. A small railroad was built in France in the 1700s, but only at the behest of the King and used only for pleasure. Take power away from the monarchy and have more private interests run major businesses without much interference, and I'd figure an Industrial Revolution would be much more likely to develop on the Continent.
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
I think Prussia, France and Austria (beside UK of course) would be the most likely countries to develop a IR. Austria as the most likely thanks to the removal of internal custom borders (except in Tyrol) and the ownership of Bohemia, Prussia is also in strong position thanks to their focus on growth and ownership of Silesia. France is a weaker position because of the political chaos, but even here I could see it happen if the king reformed the internal customs barriers and focused more on growth.
 

Matthais Corvinus

Ofaloaf said:
I think that an Industrial revolution is still nigh-inevitable with a mid-17th century POD. Not only are foundations for the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution (Newton, Leibniz, steam engines are already being tinkered with a little bit on the Continent) still in place, but a lot of the political and economic framework for booming industry in Britain is there. Enough so, in my opinion, that Stuart abolutist tendencies or Republican dickishness can't overwhelm it.

For the industrial revolution to begin elsewhere, I'd argue that it have to occur in a less politically- and economically-controlled place than Spain or France. A small railroad was built in France in the 1700s, but only at the behest of the King and used only for pleasure. Take power away from the monarchy and have more private interests run major businesses with much interference, and I'd figure an Industrial Revolution would be much more likely to develop on the Continent.
Click to expand...

Different Protestant Reformation- perhaps the WI is Charles V does not inherit the Spanish throne and its dependencies- Charles V uses Luther to justify Erasmusian "reforms" (ie, an Imperial powergrab)- other states move toward royal control of church property- Huguenot France?
 

jkay

Didn't have to happen first where and when it did

Yeah, the Industrial Revolution was inevitable. But it certainly didn't have to happen first where and when it did.

I'm working on an ATL that IMHO might've moved it elsewhere and advanced it over 1000 years. If you changed things to have a SMART king stomp hard on it early, then the UK is just another absolute monarchy, like the multitude on the Continent, except with fewer people and thus poorer and slower.
 

Faeelin

Ofaloaf said:
I think that an Industrial revolution is still nigh-inevitable with a mid-17th century POD. Not only are foundations for the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution (Newton, Leibniz, steam engines are already being tinkered with a little bit on the Continent) still in place, but a lot of the political and economic framework for booming industry in Britain is there.
Click to expand...

I dunno. Imagine a Britain ravaged by warfare, or one without the profits of the EIC. It's a bit harder to see it taking off, no? Austria and Prussia are nonstarters; where was the Prussian stock exchange, or the Bank of Austria?

And given that the continent was already approaching the cusop of a major environmental/economic crisis...
 

Xenos

Britain is an island and needed a huge navy for self-defence. The construction and upkeep of a huge navy requires metal tools, and plenty of them. These are made in furnaces which require metal and coal. Metal and coal are dug from the ground. To mine them in sufficient quantities, pumps are required to keep the mines from flooding and prevent suffocation of the miners. The requirement for powerful pumps causes the development of steam engines which are then employed for a variety of uses, but notably in textile mills. The navy creates and defends overseas markets for manufactured goods. The navy expands, overseas markets expand, and so does production in order to meet demand and maintain the fleet.
So, it was the fact the requirement for a large navy, and also abundant coal in Britain, which made the industrial revolution inevitable. But it could just as easily have happened in France, if there was a more advanced financial system and a more influential middle class to finance the whole thing.
 

Analytical Engine

Xenos said:
Britain is an island and needed a huge navy for self-defence. The construction and upkeep of a huge navy requires metal tools, and plenty of them. These are made in furnaces which require metal and coal. Metal and coal are dug from the ground. To mine them in sufficient quantities, pumps are required to keep the mines from flooding and prevent suffocation of the miners. The requirement for powerful pumps causes the development of steam engines which are then employed for a variety of uses, but notably in textile mills. The navy creates and defends overseas markets for manufactured goods. The navy expands, overseas markets expand, and so does production in order to meet demand and maintain the fleet.
So, it was the fact the requirement for a large navy, and also abundant coal in Britain, which made the industrial revolution inevitable. But it could just as easily have happened in France, if there was a more advanced financial system and a more influential middle class to finance the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Heck, it could have happened in Spain had things gone a bit better for them...
 

Xenos

Well, you learn something new every day. But I wonder if the Spanish coal was as accessable as Lancashire coal in the 17/18th century.
Some coal deposits are only expoitable with modern technology. In fact, Britain has only used less than 10% of it's own reserves.
 

Matthais Corvinus

The victory of Parliament during the English Civil War and the formal enfranchisement of the non-noble land-owning class (House of Commons) were the two really big advantages that England had over other states. And the ability for the above to happen with minimum foreign interference, due to the English Channel.
 

Faeelin

Xenos said:
Well, you learn something new every day. But I wonder if the Spanish coal was as accessable as Lancashire coal in the 17/18th century.
Some coal deposits are only expoitable with modern technology. In fact, Britain has only used less than 10% of it's own reserves.
Click to expand...

And the other thing is transportation. Spain doesn't have the riverine transport system that Britain did.
 

Xenos

That's true. Also, central Spain is covered in mountains and plateaus, so canals would be out of the question. I suppose England's flatness (for want of a better word) and compact size made the canal network hugely successful as a nationwide transport system.
This leads me to wonder whether a slighly larger Netherlands which extended into the Ruhr Valley might have been another possible cradle of the 'Industrial Revoltuion'. Like England, the terrain is ideal for canals, there is a massive shipbuilding industry, and the Dutch already had advanced financial systems and a wealthy and powerful middle-class to finance the whole thing. But unless the Dutch could dig up coal in their own territory, they would be heavily reliant on a foreign power to fuel their industrial growth.
 

karl2025

If you cut out the 30 years war, the Germanies could industralize. Their major problem was that there were armies rampaging through the area so not only was infrastructure being destroyed, but nobody was taking up the financial burden of building it because it would be destroyed the next time an army came through.

If the Netherlands could stay unified and get a break from being at war with France and England and Spain, they could have a real shot.
 

Faeelin

Xenos said:
That's true. Also, central Spain is covered in mountains and plateaus, so canals would be out of the question. I suppose England's flatness (for want of a better word) and compact size made the canal network hugely successful as a nationwide transport system.
This leads me to wonder whether a slighly larger Netherlands which extended into the Ruhr Valley might have been another possible cradle of the 'Industrial Revoltuion'. Like England, the terrain is ideal for canals, there is a massive shipbuilding industry, and the Dutch already had advanced financial systems and a wealthy and powerful middle-class to finance the whole thing. But unless the Dutch could dig up coal in their own territory, they would be heavily reliant on a foreign power to fuel their industrial growth.
Click to expand...

I agree; it'd be an industrial power house, provided French armies don't trash the place every thirty years.
 
Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf

One thing I've been reading is that the wars of the 1790s helped to massively industrialise places like Birmingham and Manchester

Hmmm, I had a point when I began to post this, but appear to have forgotten it !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Fulcrumvale

Even with the apparently capitalism-retarding structure of the Ancien Regime in France, the French Economy was growing at a rate roughly equal to that of England throughout the early-to-mid eighteenth century, especially in proto-industrial areas like textiles and international trade. What eventually killed it was first the French Navy’s repeated inability to protect French shipping throughout the second half of the eighteenth century, then (and most importantly) the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars, which distorted the French economy horrifically.

If you can butterfly those away somehow, there’s a pretty good shot of France industrializing along with (though perhaps not as quickly as) Britain.
 

Xenos

Unfortunately France had to be both a Continental power and a maritime one, whearas Great Britain, and to some degree, the Dutch, could afford to invest more resources into her navy because a large standing army was not necessary. This problem was emphasized in the Napoleonic War when the Grande Armee consumed most of France' resources, allowing Napoleon to dominate the Continent. But this policy also made France vunerable at sea. Not only was Napoleon prvented from landing any troops on the the British mainland, he was also subjected to a total blockade by the Royal Navy.
Navies, in those times, also consumed far more materials than armies, so maintaining a large navy had a bigger effect on the growth of industry than a large army would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top