I think this post presents a plausible explanation for why Europe colonised the world. I think my problem is that there are numerous other explanations with a great deal of supporting literature and argumentation and I don’t see much if any engagement with the alternative explanations in this post. In other words, I feel this post is trying to convince me of a certain answer without acknowledging the existence of other answers.
A few more specific thoughts:
Your model of why Europe wins:
Europe could choose when to fight by virtue of having long range ships = fights China.India at the most opportune times
Industrialisation ⇒ geographically separated empire ⇒ more industrialisation due to labour shortages and cheap raw resources
Christopher columbus = discovery of the new world = colonisation begins
I think there are a few problems with this model. First, long range ships and being able to devote enough resources to fight and win wars half way around the world are stupendous technological feats other civilizations were not capable of. I think you need an explanation for why Europe was first able to do these things while China/Arab states were not.
Secondly, the idea that a colonial empire speeds up industrialisation may or may not be true but a few things don’t line up:
European states without empires also industrialised rapidly
Britain started industrialising well before it had a substantial empire. in 1740, the “empire” was basically some parts of the US and Canada with negligible economic output compared to the mainland.
Finally, the idea that Columbus was necessary for colonisation to happen is something I’m skeptical of. Yes no discovery of America = no colonization of America but I don’t quite see why European colonization of other parts of the world was contingent on columbus.
Also, a few other popular explanations of why Europe pulled ahead:
Many competing states with a natural geography full of barriers stopping any single empire from forming and dominating = more competition/experimentation = more progress
Property rights and a strong trader/merchant class with a large degree of influence on government vs religious+millitary rule in the arab world. (Note this doesn’t apply to all of europe, more to the UK and netherlands. Doesn’t explain the success of other European nations)
Unique geographic features such as minimal natural disasters, large amounts of arable land, good climate, lots of large animals and good crops ⇒ higher pop density ⇒ more innovation and growth
European christianity being in a better state, somewhat de to the reformation, and that having ripple effects throughout society in terms of norms etc...
Other explanations include things like the superiority of the Aryan race and the divine right of kings. There are too many bad explanations to refute. In my personal experience, it’s more productive to only engage with explanations I think actually make sense.
You make good point about how “European states [including Britain] without empires also industrialised rapidly”. I think this has to do with their proximity to the centers of power of European empires.
I do agree that the European powers still would have set up trading posts in the Indian Ocean if it wasn’t for America. I think the discovery of America was like pouring gasoline on a fire that’s just getting started. Was it necessary? Maybe not. But technology is a race and I think the American colonies helped European power a lot.
You list four popular explanations (not including mine). Which ones do you think are true and why?
Many competing states with a natural geography full of barriers stopping any single empire from forming and dominating = more competition/experimentation = more progress
I think this theory explains the rapid advancement of European weapons technology and the consolidation of European nation-states. It also explains the advancement of weapons technology in China prior to the consolidation of Ming power.
Property rights and a strong trader/merchant class with a large degree of influence on government vs religious+millitary rule in the arab world. (Note this doesn’t apply to all of europe, more to the UK and netherlands. Doesn’t explain the success of other European nations) [sic]
It’s an interesting theory. This certainly helps explain the lack of commercial development in Japan. (Though commercial and technological development still happened (albeit slowly) in Japan despite the Tokugawa Shogunate’s best efforts.) I am skeptical there has ever been a strong trader/merchant class without a large degree of influence on government because wealthy merchants can often buy their way into the lower aristocracy.
The European invention of limited liability companies is especially interesting, not least because of how it sets Europe apart from the Muslim world. But Muslims have invented many imaginative workarounds to escape their religious restrictions. I don’t think they’d suddenly draw the line at corporate financial structures.
Unique geographic features such as minimal natural disasters, large amounts of arable land, good climate, lots of large animals and good crops ⇒ higher pop density ⇒ more innovation and growth
I think this theory is backwards. Europe had fewer natural disasters but its population density is way lower even today. Europe’s urbanization rate was below China’s until 1800. This is an explanation of why China had better innovation and economic growth for most of history.
European christianity [sic] being in a better state, somewhat de to the reformation, and that having ripple effects throughout society in terms of norms etc...
I am very skeptical of this theory. Christianity and Islam are (compared to Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism) almost indistinguishable from each other. A schism within Christianity is hair that has been split twice.
You can add Black Death to the list. Popular theory is that disease killed so many people (around 1⁄3 of Europe’s population) that few remaining workers could negotiate higher salaries which made work-saving innovations more desirable and planted the seeds of industrial development.
I think you need an explanation for why Europe was first able to do these things while China/Arab states were not.
I think I did address this point. While not “halfway around the world”, China did “devote enough resources to fight and win wars half way around the world” first. The Portuguese exploratory voyages started at the end of the 15th century. The much bigger Ming treasure voyages started in the beginning of the 15th century.
I think this post presents a plausible explanation for why Europe colonised the world. I think my problem is that there are numerous other explanations with a great deal of supporting literature and argumentation and I don’t see much if any engagement with the alternative explanations in this post. In other words, I feel this post is trying to convince me of a certain answer without acknowledging the existence of other answers.
A few more specific thoughts:
Your model of why Europe wins:
Europe could choose when to fight by virtue of having long range ships = fights China.India at the most opportune times
Industrialisation ⇒ geographically separated empire ⇒ more industrialisation due to labour shortages and cheap raw resources
Christopher columbus = discovery of the new world = colonisation begins
I think there are a few problems with this model. First, long range ships and being able to devote enough resources to fight and win wars half way around the world are stupendous technological feats other civilizations were not capable of. I think you need an explanation for why Europe was first able to do these things while China/Arab states were not.
Secondly, the idea that a colonial empire speeds up industrialisation may or may not be true but a few things don’t line up:
European states without empires also industrialised rapidly
Britain started industrialising well before it had a substantial empire. in 1740, the “empire” was basically some parts of the US and Canada with negligible economic output compared to the mainland.
Finally, the idea that Columbus was necessary for colonisation to happen is something I’m skeptical of. Yes no discovery of America = no colonization of America but I don’t quite see why European colonization of other parts of the world was contingent on columbus.
Also, a few other popular explanations of why Europe pulled ahead:
Many competing states with a natural geography full of barriers stopping any single empire from forming and dominating = more competition/experimentation = more progress
Property rights and a strong trader/merchant class with a large degree of influence on government vs religious+millitary rule in the arab world. (Note this doesn’t apply to all of europe, more to the UK and netherlands. Doesn’t explain the success of other European nations)
Unique geographic features such as minimal natural disasters, large amounts of arable land, good climate, lots of large animals and good crops ⇒ higher pop density ⇒ more innovation and growth
European christianity being in a better state, somewhat de to the reformation, and that having ripple effects throughout society in terms of norms etc...
Other explanations include things like the superiority of the Aryan race and the divine right of kings. There are too many bad explanations to refute. In my personal experience, it’s more productive to only engage with explanations I think actually make sense.
You make good point about how “European states [including Britain] without empires also industrialised rapidly”. I think this has to do with their proximity to the centers of power of European empires.
I do agree that the European powers still would have set up trading posts in the Indian Ocean if it wasn’t for America. I think the discovery of America was like pouring gasoline on a fire that’s just getting started. Was it necessary? Maybe not. But technology is a race and I think the American colonies helped European power a lot.
You list four popular explanations (not including mine). Which ones do you think are true and why?
I think this theory explains the rapid advancement of European weapons technology and the consolidation of European nation-states. It also explains the advancement of weapons technology in China prior to the consolidation of Ming power.
It’s an interesting theory. This certainly helps explain the lack of commercial development in Japan. (Though commercial and technological development still happened (albeit slowly) in Japan despite the Tokugawa Shogunate’s best efforts.) I am skeptical there has ever been a strong trader/merchant class without a large degree of influence on government because wealthy merchants can often buy their way into the lower aristocracy.
The European invention of limited liability companies is especially interesting, not least because of how it sets Europe apart from the Muslim world. But Muslims have invented many imaginative workarounds to escape their religious restrictions. I don’t think they’d suddenly draw the line at corporate financial structures.
I think this theory is backwards. Europe had fewer natural disasters but its population density is way lower even today. Europe’s urbanization rate was below China’s until 1800. This is an explanation of why China had better innovation and economic growth for most of history.
I am very skeptical of this theory. Christianity and Islam are (compared to Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism) almost indistinguishable from each other. A schism within Christianity is hair that has been split twice.
You can add Black Death to the list. Popular theory is that disease killed so many people (around 1⁄3 of Europe’s population) that few remaining workers could negotiate higher salaries which made work-saving innovations more desirable and planted the seeds of industrial development.
I think I did address this point. While not “halfway around the world”, China did “devote enough resources to fight and win wars
half wayaround the world” first. The Portuguese exploratory voyages started at the end of the 15th century. The much bigger Ming treasure voyages started in the beginning of the 15th century.