Why didn't the industrial revolution take place in Asia??

Once again you failed to prove anything.

1) You have not shown how indian weapons were stronger than Greek. You try to impress me without proving anything. You even use climatological factors to give more excuses for possible fallacies that you suggest.

2) Regarding astronomy, any intelligent person can really evaluate how much Indian astronomy offered compared to Greek, based upon sources. Some of them are here.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_astronomy]Greek astronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] and prove that actually if one had to be influenced, that would be Indians, not Greeks. Together with astrology, the Indians learnt about astronomy, and were curious about how on Earth could the Yavanas calculate the perimeter of Earth, while they could not even guess!!!

Rig Vedas are still not quoted by you.... Why is that? Is is because those religious texts don't say much about astronomy? All those ideas about celestial bodies existed before the Greek alphabet was there to record them. The Rig Vedas do not explicitly state that the Earth is a sphere either. This is what the Greeks did.

Aryabhatta dates back to 500 BC, which is after Thales, Anaximander and many others lived.


3) The Industrial revolution has nothing to do with what happened 3000 years ago.
The Industrial revolution is a very specific era, and discussing about Indus Valley Civilization only derails this thread even more.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism"]Atomism[/ame] can be traced back to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece"]ancient Greece[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India"]ancient India[/ame].[2] Greek atomism dates back to 440 BC, as what might be indicated by the book De Rerum Natura (The Nature of Things)[3] written by the Roman [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretius"]Lucretius[/ame][4] in 50 BC. In the book was found ideas traced back to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus"]Democritus[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucippus"]Leucippus[/ame], who declared that atoms were the most indivisible part of matter. This coincided with a similar declaration by [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_philosophy"]Indian[/ame] philosopher [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanada"]Kanada[/ame] in his [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisheshika"]Vaisheshika[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutra"]sutras[/ame] around the same time period.[2] In much the same fashion he discussed the existence of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas"]gases[/ame]. What Kanada declared by sutra, Democritus declared by philosophical musing. Both suffered from a lack of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism"]empirical[/ame] data. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chemistry]History of chemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Slayertplsko said:

This is a question that I can't answer myself. I have always wondered why, concerning that Christian Europe was a waaay behind Muslim world and Eastern Asia for most of history, why did then the IR take place HERE, instead of THERE, and how is it possible that Europe ''conquered'' the whole world??

Click to expand...

First, Christian Europe wasn't way behind the rest of the world. That's a myth propagated by politically correct historical revisionism.

The world of the 10-11th centuries was a very poor and backward world overall, not just Christian Europe. It is true that China and the Arabs were a bit better off, but not much, since the Crusades, for example, proved that the "primitive" Christians were able to penetrate deeply into the Arab world. One has to understand that military power and economic/social development are deeply interconneted, and that the inability of the Arabs to expulse the Christians showed that Europe was already a major "player" in the world.

By the 14th and 15th century, Christian Europe had emerged as the most developed region of the world. Specially North Italy, the land of Leonardo da Vinci, had an urbanization rate estimated at 25%, a very high urbanization rate for any pre industrial civilization. Usually pre industrial civilizations had urbanization rates of 3-5%, the city states of north Italy were 7 to 5 times more urbanized than other civilizations at the time.

While the west was less advanced than the rest of the world from the 7th to the 12th centuries, by the time the European civilization recovered, during the high middle ages, urbanization and the development of cities, manufacturing and trade greatly increased the degree of civilizational development of Europe. It is no accident that the Europeans discovered America.

By the 16-17th centuries Europe had clearly emerged as the central core of the world, and the Netherlands in particular, had emerged as the most advanced economy before the Industrial Revolution. The Dutch invented the stock exchange and this development enabled a more efficient allocation of the factors of production. Many other market institutions were invented and developed by the Dutch. Such as an advanced banking system.

As result real wages in the Netherlands in terms of wheat were 3-4 times greater than in India and China, very poor countries at that time. However, the Netherlands never developed a fast process of economic growth such as the so called industrial revolution. I think that the main reason for that is the fact that Netherlands had 2 million inhabitants in the 17th century, while UK during the Industrial Revolution had 15 million. A larger population enabled the development of more technologies, that speed up economic growth.

The technological, social and economic superiority of the west relative to the rest of the world is not recent. The ancient greeks were the most advanced civilization of their day, by the time of Alexander the average greek house had 240 square meters (based on a sample of 300 houses excavated from many different ruins) (source: Economic Growth in Ancient Greece, Ian Morris), also, they invented Democracy, the Rule of Law and other institutions that formed the basis of the modern world.

It wasn't unexpected that the industrial revolution happened in the West rather than in any other place. One more interesting possibility would be: Why the industrial revolution didn't develop in Ancient Rome?

I have a possible answer to that: first, Rome was an empire based on plunder, not production: the Roman Empire lived of the corpse of conquered lands. The City of Rome itself produced nothing, only consumed millions of tons of goods produced in the exploited provinces. When they ran out of lands to conquer the Roman empire started to decline, irreversibly. The great classical civilization of the Hellenes was consumed in the process. The Romans had a negative attitude towards invention and some technological innovations were punished by death. They weren't a civilization that had the cultural institutions required for the Industrial revolution, specially the respect for the entrepreneur, the inventor and inventing-entrepreneur.

Lord_of_Gauda said:

Heh. The obsession with steel is simple: Industrial revolution is basically, the first steam engine ( mechanically generated power that is not 'tied' to a nature source, such as water-wheel, windmills, etc but can be constructed anywhere). To have a functional steam engine, you need steel of high enough quality (only wootz steel-also known as 'damascus steel' qualifies from the ancient era) to survive the repetetive pressure and heat constraints put to it. For eg, you cannot really have a bronze steam engine without making it ridiculously bulky because bronze will buckle and change shape with pressure much easier than steel. Therefore, no steel = no industrial revolution.

Click to expand...

Technology wasn't the fundamental nature of the industrial revolution, as it is not the fundamental nature of anything, technology is the PRODUCT of the industrial revolution, not the cause. The so called "industrial revolution" was simply a process of fast economic growth and urbanization. Economic growth and urbanization existed before the industrial revolution, the difference was the speed of the process, in 100 years, from 1780 to 1880, UK went from a country of 25% rate of urbanization to 75%. A radical process of urbanization never seem before.

The industrial revolution never represented a shift in the nature of the economic and social world in terms of nature, but only a change in terms of speed: after the industrial revolution the speed of economic development increased greatly and it continues to increase. But economic develpoment existed before and the world before the IR was also a very complex and heterogeneous world. Some question the relevance of the term "industrial revolution" as it wasn't anything like a revolution but only an imperceptible process at the time that had severe consequences only generations later.

What is the cause of the industrial revolution? The combination of several institutions, both cultural and legal institutions. Such as: the rule of law, adequate protection of private property rights, enforcement of contracts, openness to innovation, culture of respect for the entrepreneurs and innovators, a developed financial system with banks and stock exchanges, political openness to the implementation of institutional change.

What civilization developed such institutions? The western civilization, from it's Hellenic origins to the modern age.

And no other.

About India: While I am not a specialist in India, according to literary and archaeological sources, India (and China) had average wages of 1 gram of silver per day in the 16-17th centuries, while Europe had average wages of 5-6 grams of silver, and the Netherlands had average wages of 10 grams of silver per day. In terms of wheat the difference was smaller, although still great, in the Netherlands in the mid17th century wages were 14kg of wheat per day, in India (and China) they were at subsistence level of 3-4 kg per day. These wages don't point out an advanced level of economic development, quite to the contrary. (note: I am a graduate student of economics).

On Ancient Greek Civilization

The ancient Greeks were one of the most advanced civilizations that existed before modern times. According to modern research the ancient Greeks had developed a quite wealthy civilization: http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/ober/051001.pdf

The ancient classical civilization had a process of growth and decline quite impressive in scope, as the process of growth started in with the beginning of civilization and go on to the peak of ancient development, in the year 1, and started to decline thereafter, until the 8th and 9th centuries, when the west started to recover and return to their former greatness by the 18th century. According to this graph the world production of lead followed a very definite path given by my account (this estimate was produced from the archaeological evidence of ice cores in Greenland):


source: "Greeland Ice Evidence of Hemispheric Lead Pollution Two Millennia Ago by Greek and Roman Civilizations", Science, vol. 265, n. 5180, pages 1841-1843.

One can question the quality of Roman and Greek metallurgy, one cannot question the VOLUME of OUTPUT that they produced, greater than any civilization before the 19th century! The Roman Empire in the first century produced 80,000 tons of lead and 15,000 tons of bronze per year, according to archaeological sources.

The number of shipwrecks found in the mediterranean sea also point out the rise and decline of the great classical civilization:

Also, greater than in any other time in pre modern history.

The high degree of economic, social, political develpoment of the ancients wouldn't be possible without the mediterranean sea. Before the invention of the railroad in the 1830's the only way to transport bulk commodities across large distances was by ship no the place in the world favored sea transport more than the mediterranean sea, therefore the first civilizations to develop advanced commercial practices emerged in the mediterranean sea, like the Greeks and the Phoenicians. This was an geographical advantage that other civilizations didn't have and before the industrial revolution the only way to have an advanced civilization was through sea trade, because it enabled a high degree of division of labor.

In terms of technology the Greeks also had developed the most complex mechanisms before modern times, like the antikythera mechanism:

It was produced around 100 BCE, at roughly the time of the peak of ancient classical civilization. Clearly, the work of a very advanced society. No other civilization produced such complex machines until the modern European civilization.

Lord_of_Gauda said:

By longetivity, Nanda dynasty weponry is of significantly higher quality than Alexandrine weaponry, once the climatological factors are normalized (India- humid, therefore, far more conductive to rust forming than the drylands of Arabia/Greece).
The other factors are things like Young's modulus, laminate and granular structure, etc. Instead of making a statement like you just did, about things you know very little about, you would do your credibility a heck of a lot of good by asking questions. Instead, you choose to demonstrate you know zero about the topic (eg: metallurgy) and still pass a judgement about the superiority of your nationality. Ie, classic, categoric, nationalistic irridentism and propaganda.



Two words were used in Sanskrit : Jyotishyavidyanam and Swargavigyanam.
'vigyanam' is the root word for 'science' in Sanskrit and is seen in modified forms in most Indian languages today. 'Swarga' means 'heavens'.
'Jyotishya' is a term, that is interchangably used with astronomy and astrology in ancient times- today, it is strictly to do with astrology, as 'jyotishya', strictly speaking, means 'divined'. Also, 'vidyanam' means 'knowledge/info' in sanskrit. As such, the word categorically associated with the Yavanas is 'Jyotishyavidyanam' while works such as Aryabhatiya & Surya Siddhanta categorically uses the word 'Swargavigyanam'.
Therefore, the idea that Indian astronomy is 'based' on Greek one, is highly disputable. Certainly, Indian texts give earlier evidence than Greek texts as far as heliocentric model & stars being sun-like objects (Rig Veda, older than any surviving Greek work) and the concept of tides being influenced by the moon is first discussed in the Aryabhatiya, while i fail to see any mention whatsoever of it in Greek scholarship. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Indians borrowed anything more than perhaps knowledge of the northern-most constellations and astronomy charts (owing to Indians not venturing to latitudes as north as the Baltics, like the Greeks may've done or atleast, gotten from interacting with traders from there).

But the idea that Indian astrology is based on Greek one, is highly conclusive.

Click to expand...

I would like to add that 'Jyotishya' even today means hocus-pocus..... magic..... It does not come anywhere near to actual science or maths or astronomy. 'Jyotishya' means 'seeing the future' too, which surely means predicting future by astrology.

Guaporense said:

It was produced around 100 BCE, at roughly the time of the peak of ancient classical civilization. Clearly, the work of a very advanced society. No other civilization produced such complex machines until the modern European civilization.

Click to expand...

Greeks are also vital part of east. While it is obvious, It is impossible to make east and west comparission on Greeks.

Both western and Islamic civilization are based on Greek science, philosopy... geometry, math...etc..

Greeks don't only represent western civilization.

Guaporense said:

What is the cause of the industrial revolution? The combination of several institutions, both cultural and legal institutions. Such as: the rule of law, adequate protection of private property rights, enforcement of contracts, openness to innovation, culture of respect for the entrepreneurs and innovators, a developed financial system with banks and stock exchanges, political openness to the implementation of institutional change.

What civilization developed such institutions? The western civilization, from it's Hellenic origins to the modern age.

Click to expand...

I agree- though 'hellenic origins' is neither accurate, nor has anything to do with property laws and rule of law in the reneissance period.

About India: While I am not a specialist in India, according to literary and archaeological sources, India (and China) had average wages of 1 gram of silver per day in the 16-17th centuries, while Europe had average wages of 5-6 grams of silver, and the Netherlands had average wages of 10 grams of silver per day. In terms of wheat the difference was smaller, although still great, in the Netherlands in the mid17th century wages were 14kg of wheat per day, in India (and China) they were at subsistence level of 3-4 kg per day. These wages don't point out an advanced level of economic development, quite to the contrary. (note: I am a graduate student of economics).

Click to expand...

The silver value i find hard to believe- before the discovery of Potosi, 60% of silver in the world was in the hands of the Chinese: This has been proven by isotopic dating of silver from that era.

Further, 'wheat standard' is highly flawed when applied to China and India: These two countries produce significant amount of rice and except for modern day America, these two nations have no parallels in last 3000 years of human history where wheat has enjoyed less than near-monopoly of grain crops (typically between 80-90% by volume of all grains produced in Europe and middle-east for the last 3000 years has been wheat, not so for China and India).
Therefore, taking a wheat standard is fundamentally flawed when it comes to China and India, since you are automatically discarding 40-50% of their grain production by bulk.

Regardless, varying level of wages does not reflect the presence or absence of advanced economic concepts such as corporations, trade guilds and such.

The ancient classical civilization had a process of growth and decline quite impressive in scope, as the process of growth started in with the beginning of civilization and go on to the peak of ancient development, in the year 1, and started to decline thereafter, until the 8th and 9th centuries, when the west started to recover and return to their former greatness by the 18th century.

Click to expand...

'return' is incorrect- from late 1600s onwards, we've been to unchartered territorries: where the western world has been at the apex of human civilization at almost every aspect of human development and technology. Previous to that, we've not been in such a situation: The Greeks were not the richest of their time, except for a very breif period following the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire and the consolidation of Mauryan Empire ( a period of perhaps 30-40 years), the Romans were not the technologically most advanced of their time (though they were architecturally the most advanced of their time) and cannot be the richest, since not only did India out-produce Roman empire in purely agricultural terms, Roman sources are on record saying Roman gold was lost to India at alarming levels, via trade. This signifies that not only did India accumulate significant amounts of Gold,their industrial capacity was at a greater scope than Rome, since a trade imbalance usually implies greater industrial capacity from one source and greater outflow of cash from the other.

One can question the quality of Roman and Greek metallurgy, one cannot question the VOLUME of OUTPUT that they produced, greater than any civilization before the 19th century! The Roman Empire in the first century produced 80,000 tons of lead and 15,000 tons of bronze per year, according to archaeological sources.

Click to expand...

Source ? Besides, largely irrelevant: romans produced extensive amounts of lead to make piping- the Chinese and the Indians used bamboo instead. There is no basis in linking such things as 'lead production' to actual levels of social affluence.

The high degree of economic, social, political develpoment of the ancients wouldn't be possible without the mediterranean sea. Before the invention of the railroad in the 1830's the only way to transport bulk commodities across large distances was by ship no the place in the world favored sea transport more than the mediterranean sea, therefore the first civilizations to develop advanced commercial practices emerged in the mediterranean sea, like the Greeks and the Phoenicians. This was an geographical advantage that other civilizations didn't have and before the industrial revolution the only way to have an advanced civilization was through sea trade, because it enabled a high degree of division of labor

Click to expand...

Quite incorrect, since the rivers of northern India provide exactly the same transportational and logistical advantages the mediterranean provided at a latter stage. I shall remind you that the first civilization to adopt concepts of mass production, standardized weights and design techniques and extensive maritime trade were the Indus Valley civilization. Indeed, a basic understanding of subcontinental geography shows that virtually every point (except the rajasthan region) in the northern subcontinent, stretching from the mouth of the Indus to the mouths of the Ganges can be reached by large sea-worthy vessels. Beyond geography, the mauryan-era text, Arthashastra, is the oldest & most comprehensive account on the establishment and regulations of trade & transportational guilds, indicating that the political and administrative structures of such entities in India were at a significantly higher level than the Greek world.

In terms of technology the Greeks also had developed the most complex mechanisms before modern times, like the antikythera mechanism:
..
.

It was produced around 100 BCE, at roughly the time of the peak of ancient classical civilization. Clearly, the work of a very advanced society. No other civilization produced such complex machines until the modern European civilization.

Click to expand...

Actually, from an engineering perspective, the astrolabes produced during the Islamic chaliphate are a higher degree of complexity than the Antykathera, not to mention, the clocktower of Su-song.

The craftsmanship of the antykethera is impressive but not overwhelming- gearing of bronze pieces is time-intensive but hardly anywhere close to the skill-intensive exercise as flint knapping. Not to mention, such devices were almost singularly prototypes and 'one of a kind' things, with virtually no use ascribed to it outside of entertainment or circus.

Btw, in terms of 'ancient classical civilization', when applied to the world at large (and not from a fundamentally euro-centric bias), its economic, technological and scientific peak is the Gupta Empire period of mid 350s CE to approx. 480 CE.

I am shocked!

The Antikethyra mechanism was made for entertainment or circus?

The Antikythera mechanism (pronounced [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English"]/ˌæntɨkɨˈθɪərə/[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediaronunciation_respelling_key"]ANT-i-ki-THEER-ə[/ame] or pronounced [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English"]/ˌæntɨˈkɪθərə/[/ame] [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediaronunciation_respelling_key"]ANT-i-KITH-ə-rə[/ame]) is an ancient [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer"]mechanical computer[/ame][1][2] designed to calculate [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy"]astronomical[/ame] positions. It was recovered in 1900–01 from the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_wreck"]Antikythera wreck[/ame].[3] Its significance and complexity were not understood until decades later. Its time of construction is now estimated between 150 and 100 [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE"]BCE[/ame].[4] The degree of mechanical sophistication is comparable to a 19th century Swiss clock.[5] Technological artifacts of similar complexity and workmanship did not reappear until the 14th century, when mechanical [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_clock"]astronomical clocks[/ame] were built in Europe.[6]
Jacques-Yves Cousteau visited the wreck for the last time in 1978,[7] but found no additional remains of the Antikythera mechanism. Professor Michael Edmunds of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff_University"]Cardiff University[/ame] who led the most recent study of the mechanism said: "This device is just extraordinary, the only thing of its kind. The design is beautiful, the astronomy is exactly right. The way the mechanics are designed just makes your jaw drop. Whoever has done this has done it extremely carefully ... in terms of historic and scarcity value, I have to regard this mechanism as being more valuable than the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa"]Mona Lisa[/ame]."[8][9]


The device is remarkable for the level of miniaturization and for the complexity of its parts, which is comparable to that of 19th century clocks. It has over 30 gears, although Michael Wright (see below) has suggested as many as 72 gears, with teeth formed through [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilateral_triangle"]equilateral triangles[/ame]. When a date was entered via a crank (now lost), the mechanism calculated the position of the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun"]Sun[/ame], [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon"]Moon[/ame], or other astronomical information such as the location of other planets. Since the purpose was to position astronomical bodies with respect to the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_sphere"]celestial sphere[/ame], with reference to the observer's position on the surface of the Earth, the device was based on the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model"]geocentric model[/ame].

On 30 November 2006, the science journal Nature published a new reconstruction of the mechanism by the Antikythera Mechanism Research Project, based on the high resolution X-ray tomography described above.[51] This work doubled the amount of readable text, corrected prior transcriptions, and provided a new translation. The inscriptions led to a dating of the mechanism to around 100 [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BCE"]BCE[/ame]. It is evident that they contain a manual with an astronomical, mechanical and geographical section. The name [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispania"]HISPANIA[/ame] (ΙΣΠΑΝΙΑ, Spain in Greek) in these texts is the oldest reference to the Iberian Peninsula under this form, as opposed to [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Peninsula"]Iberia[/ame].
The new discoveries confirm that the mechanism is an astronomical analog calculator or [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery"]orrery[/ame] used to predict the positions of celestial bodies. This work proposes that the mechanism possessed 37 gears, of which 30 survive, and was used for prediction of the position of the Sun and the Moon. Based on the inscriptions, which mention the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stationary_points"]stationary points[/ame] of the planets, the authors speculate that planetary motions may also have been indicated.
On the front face were graduations for the solar scale and the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac"]zodiac[/ame] together with pointers that indicated the position of the Sun, the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon"]Moon[/ame], the lunar phase, and possibly the planetary motions.
On the back, two spiral scales (made of half-circles with two centers) with sliding pointers indicated the state of two further important astronomical cycles: the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_cycle"]Saros cycle[/ame], the period of approximately 18 years separating the return of the Sun, Moon and Earth to the same relative positions and the more accurate [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exeligmos"]exeligmos[/ame] cycle of 54 years and one day (essential in eclipse prediction, see [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_cycle"]Eclipse cycle[/ame]). It also contains another spiral scale for the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonic_cycle"]Metonic cycle[/ame] (19 years, equal to 235 lunar months) and the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callippic_cycle"]Callippic cycle[/ame] with a period of 1016 lunar orbits in approximately 76 years.
The Moon mechanism, using an ingenious [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gear_train"]train of gears[/ame], two of them linked with a slightly offset axis and pin in a slot, shows the position and phase of the Moon during the month. The velocity of the Moon varies according to the theory of Hipparchus, and to a good approximation follows Kepler's second law for the angular velocity, being faster near the perigee and slower at the apogee.
On 31 July 2008, a paper providing further details about the mechanism was published in Nature (Nature Vol 454, Issue 7204, July 31, 2008).[52] In this paper, among other revelations, it is demonstrated that the mechanism also contained a dial divided into four parts, and demonstrated a four-year cycle through four segments of one year each, which is thought to be a means of describing which of the games (such as the ancient Olympics) that took place in two and four-year cycles were to take place in any given year.


[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism]Antikythera mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Slayertplsko said:

This is a question that I can't answer myself. I have always wondered why, concerning that Christian Europe was a waaay behind Muslim world and Eastern Asia for most of history, why did then the IR take place HERE, instead of THERE, and how is it possible that Europe ''conquered'' the whole world??

Click to expand...

IMHO this is the wrong question.

The social and economic phenomenon regularly called the Industrial Revolution was first and foremost a British phenomenon, in fact almost entirely confined to the UK for decades.

Ergo, a far better question would be why it happened first specifically in the UK of the late XVIII century and not in any other nation all around this planet (naturally including even other western European nations).

sylla1 said:

IMHO this is the wrong question.

The social and economic phenomenon regularly called the Industrial Revolution was first and foremost a British phenomenon, in fact almost entirely confined to the UK for decades.

Ergo, a far better question would be why it happened first specifically in the UK of the late XVIII century and not in any other nation all around this planet (naturally including even other western European nations).

Click to expand...

Indeed, I agree with this post. And that happens rarely, sylla1 !

Thessalonian said:

Indeed, I agree with this post. And that happens rarely, sylla1 !

Click to expand...

There is still some hope there, huh ?

Efendi said:

Greeks are also vital part of east. While it is obvious, It is impossible to make east and west comparission on Greeks.

Both western and Islamic civilization are based on Greek science, philosopy... geometry, math...etc..

Greeks don't only represent western civilization.

Click to expand...

It is pointless to try to convince lord of gauda that another civilization is superior in any way to the Indians

It is also interesting that China, for example, had an urbanization rate of 17.6% in 1980, while Roman Italy had an estimated urbanization rate of 30%. The Roman Empire had a lower level of urbanization, around 15%.

Ancient Greece also had an estimated urbanization rate of 30%.

India today has an urbanization rate of 29% and is a rapidly industrializing country, 30 years ago their rate of urbanization was ~15%.

This type of data suggests that Ancient Greece and the most developed parts of the Roman Empire were more economically developed than China and India in the 1980's!

Also the life expectancy of China and India in 1900 were only 24 years. Ancient Greece had higher life expectancy, by the 4th century BCE according to archaeological remains the average life expectancy was around 35-40 years old.

Therefore, if one tries to defend the idea that ancient and medieval India was more developed than Greece and Rome, one has to claim that India was more developed in the past than in the 20th century. I think that is quite forced.

Thessalonian said:

I am shocked!

The Antikethyra mechanism was made for entertainment or circus?

The Antikythera mechanism (pronounced /ˌæntɨkɨˈθɪərə/ ANT-i-ki-THEER-ə or pronounced /ˌæntɨˈkɪθərə/ ANT-i-KITH-ə-rə) is an ancient mechanical computer[1][2] designed to calculate astronomical positions. It was recovered in 1900–01 from the Antikythera wreck.[3] Its significance and complexity were not understood until decades later. ......

Click to expand...

Okay, after a whole page of how it worked and what it did, my point is simple- what was its purpose ? what was it used for ? Navigation ? hardly- you do not need precise location of constellations and stars to navigate, especially when you do not understand the concept of longitude (ancient Greeks did not know of the concept). So what is its purpose ? the answer is purely speculative- some consider it a circus piece, some,an amusement piece, some, simply for astrological hocus-pocus stuff.

Besides, as i said before, i consider flint-knapping as a far bigger challenge than making gears out of a metal alloy, all of which existed in those times and before, only not on such a small scale.

We have a tendency to overrate bulk of the stuff we find from Greece and the antykethera mechanism is a perfect example of it- what is hailed as a 'wonderous thing' is neither a very complicated thing to make (gears out of metal casting is easy), nor very useful.

Guaporense said:

It is also interesting that China, for example, had an urbanization rate of 17.6% in 1980, while Roman Italy had an estimated urbanization rate of 30%. The Roman Empire had a lower level of urbanization, around 15%.

Ancient Greece also had an estimated urbanization rate of 30%.

India today has an urbanization rate of 29% and is a rapidly industrializing country, 30 years ago their rate of urbanization was ~15%.

This type of data suggests that Ancient Greece and the most developed parts of the Roman Empire were more economically developed than China and India in the 1980's!

Click to expand...

A completely ridiculous extrapolation: how suitable is the Greek countryside to having rural communities in the first place ? Urban density in Greece and Turkey are quite high- for the simple reason that their landscape is predominantly craggy hills, narrow valleys and numerous isthimuses, thus giving the area a natural tendency to urbanize, since rural communities in such geographic constraints will naturally coalesce.

Further, urbanization does not equal economic development- a city does not necessarily have a higher standard of living on the average compared to rural areas and this fact is easily confirmed by comparing living standards on average for London in the 19th century and contrasting it with the hinterlands.

Also the life expectancy of China and India in 1900 were only 24 years. Ancient Greece had higher life expectancy, by the 4th century BCE according to archaeological remains the average life expectancy was around 35-40 years old.

Click to expand...

Life expectancy of virtually all the classical civilizations were roughly 40-45 years, India and China included. Further, can you provide some data on the '24 years' average life expectancy ? Because that data looks highly suspicious and most probably erroneously includes child mortality rates (which is typically excluded from life expectancy data).

Therefore, if one tries to defend the idea that ancient and medieval India was more developed than Greece and Rome, one has to claim that India was more developed in the past than in the 20th century. I think that is quite forced.

Click to expand...

Indian history easily evidences itself as far more developed in the first millenium CE than in the second millenium CE: This is evidenced by Roman-Indian trade relations (which were completely skewed in favour of India FYI- Rome imported a plethora of raw materials and finished products from India, India imported virtually nothing except select luxuries and a lot of gold), Indian architecture of 1st millenium CE as well as literary evidence: India was the first place in the world to have modern standards of universities- complete with libraries, teaching quarters,student dorms, registrars, etc. Not just one or two, but almost a dozen of them- far preceeding universities in the western world and far eclipsing on sheer educational scope that of Library of Alexandria.
But more than half a millenium of genocides, total destruction and economic syphoning due to Islamic invasions has taken quite a toll on its civilization- from which it is barely beginning to recover now.

sylla1 said:

IMHO this is the wrong question.

The social and economic phenomenon regularly called the Industrial Revolution was first and foremost a British phenomenon, in fact almost entirely confined to the UK for decades.

Click to expand...

Sort of, by 1800 the rate of urbanization of UK was around 30-35%, comparable to Ancient Greece, Roman Italy and 17th century Netherlands. There was nothing really exceptional in the British economic growth in the 18th century, Athens and its neighbors in the 5th century BCE experienced similar growth, as the Dutch republic in the 17th century experienced similar growth.

The 19th century that was really special, and in the 19th century Europe and the US industrialized, not only UK. I think that the explosive growth in the 19th and 20th centuries is due to the fact that more people than ever became integrated in global economy. By the early 19th century there were 200 million people in Europe, a large proportion able to read and write,so never before so many technological innovations could be created.

Ancient Greece had only 8-10 million people, according to the estimated of Mogens Herman Hansen. Not enough people to produce many technological innovations. The Roman Empire had a large population, but their autocratic state forbade innovation. While today billions participate in the global economy, as result we never had so great global economic growth as we have right now.

Ergo, a far better question would be why it happened first specifically in the UK of the late XVIII century and not in any other nation all around this planet (naturally including even other western European nations).

Click to expand...

UK had the most developed financial system of any european nation. The only country that had a developed financial system was the Netherlands. France's financial system in the 18th century was worse than the Roman (according to Peter Temin, Financial Intermediation in the Roman Empire).

Guaporense said:

Sort of, by 1800 the rate of urbanization of UK was around 30-35%, comparable to Ancient Greece, Roman Italy and 17th century Netherlands. There was nothing really exceptional in the British economic growth in the 18th century, Athens and its neighbors in the 5th century BCE experienced similar growth, as the Dutch republic in the 17th century experienced similar growth.

The 19th century that was really special, and in the 19th century Europe and the US industrialized, not only UK. I think that the explosive growth in the 19th and 20th centuries is due to the fact that more people than ever became integrated in global economy. By the early 19th century there were 200 million people in Europe, a large proportion able to read and write,so never before so many technological innovations could be created.

Ancient Greece had only 8-10 million people, according to the estimated of Mogens Herman Hansen. Not enough people to produce many technological innovations. The Roman Empire had a large population, but their autocratic state forbade innovation. While today billions participate in the global economy, as result we never had so great global economic growth as we have right now.



UK had the most developed financial system of any european nation. The only country that had a developed financial system was the Netherlands. France's financial system in the 18th century was worse than the Roman (according to Peter Temin, Financial Intermediation in the Roman Empire).

Click to expand...

The period of 1760 (after British Empire gaining the right of exchequer in Bengal and Madras) to 1850 (eve of 1st Indian war of Independence), the British empire shows the highest ever recorded gain in chancellery income, in the entire written history of humanity, for a period of 100 years- more gains than what most historians speculate achieved by Alexander's absorption of the Persian Empire, the richest empire on the planet at that time with the possible exception of the Nanda empire.

Lord_of_Gauda said:

A completely ridiculous extrapolation

Click to expand...

Not at all. Urbanization and development are closely related. That's because the degree of urbanization gives information about a whole range of other stuff, like agricultural productivity, the relative importance of manufacturing, services and trade compared to agriculture and mining.

how suitable is the Greek countryside to having rural communities in the first place ? Urban density in Greece and Turkey are quite high- for the simple reason that their landscape is predominantly craggy hills, narrow valleys and numerous isthimuses, thus giving the area a natural tendency to urbanize, since rural communities in such geographic constraints will naturally coalesce.

Click to expand...

Of course Ancient Greece had a natural tendency to urbanize: Ancient Greece had the ideal geography for the development of advanced civilization. Surrounded by sea and with hills, favoring the creating of many small city states that were connected though sea trade. So we had many competing states and the sea network required for cheap transportation. This geographical landscape produced the ideal conditions for civilizational development, therefore the Ancient Hellene civilization became the most prosperous.

Actually, the 30% estimate only applies to the cities over 5,000 inhabitants. About 70-80% of the Ancient Greek population lived in towns over 1,000, because city states had concentrated their population inside walls for defense. Many of these towns, the ones smaller than 5,000, were agricultural towns.

However, 30% lived in commercial and industrial towns, that means that this proportion of the population didn't need to produce food and were involved in manufacturing, services and trade. A very high proportion of the population for any pre modern civilization.

Further, urbanization does not equal economic development- a city does not necessarily have a higher standard of living on the average compared to rural areas and this fact is easily confirmed by comparing living standards on average for London in the 19th century and contrasting it with the hinterlands.

Click to expand...

Yes it does. UK in the 19h century was the first country ever to reach 50% mark of urbanization, it was the most advanced country in the world at the same time.

Today the most urbanized regions of the world have the highest rates of development. While African countries are the least urbanized in the world. China's spectacular development is show by the fact that their rate of urbanization increased from 17% in 1980 to 46% in 2008.

Urbanization and economic development have a near 1 correlation.

Life expectancy of virtually all the classical civilizations were roughly 40-45 years, India and China included.

Click to expand...

No, 40-45 years weren't reached until the second half of the 19th century. Life expectancy in the Roman Empire was around 25-30 years and the Roman Empire was far more advanced than India and China at the time. India and China probably had life expectancy of 20-25 years, maybe 17-19 years if you want to be hardcore.

Further, can you provide some data on the '24 years' average life expectancy ?

Click to expand...

Walther Sheildel provides this fact in his paper about Roman living standards. He makes the argument that if one takes urbanization as an index of develpment, Ancient Rome compares today with modern India, but he notes that modern india has life expectancy of 60 years while Ancient Rome had life expectancy of 20-30 years, more comparable to India and China in 1900, when both countries had life expectancy of 24 years.

Because that data looks highly suspicious and most probably erroneously includes child mortality rates (which is typically excluded from life expectancy data).

Click to expand...

It it the actual life expectancy data from China and India in 1900 CE. Also, Angus Maddison claimed to be the life expectancy of China in 1800 CE.

Indian history easily evidences itself as far more developed in the first millenium CE than in the second millenium CE: This is evidenced by Roman-Indian trade relations (which were completely skewed in favour of India FYI- Rome imported a plethora of raw materials and finished products from India, India imported virtually nothing except select luxuries and a lot of gold)

Click to expand...

Actually, the trade relations between Rome and India favoured Rome. If you can import goods with gold, you win. That means that you aren't producing anything useful while getting the useful stuff.

Trade relations between India and Rome were similar to trade relations between the US and Thailand: the US imports manufactures and exports dollars. Rome was the US, India was Thailand.

Indian architecture of 1st millenium CE as well as literary evidence: India was the first place in the world to have modern standards of universities- complete with libraries, teaching quarters,student dorms, registrars, etc. Not just one or two, but almost a dozen of them- far preceeding universities in the western world and far eclipsing on sheer educational scope that of Library of Alexandria.
But more than half a millenium of genocides, total destruction and economic syphoning due to Islamic invasions has taken quite a toll on its civilization- from which it is barely beginning to recover now.

Click to expand...

You can provide some direct sources for that claims? Because saying so wouldn't make it true.