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

Lord_of_Gauda · Apr 24, 2011

Thessalonian said:
Perhaps you did not see my link. Silver production in ancient Greece was innovative and predated any other. The first excavations in the silver mines of Lavrio began in 3000 BC, and the first silver artefacts are almost as old.

Does not even begin to compare with the industrial and technological knowledge to weld and cast rust-proof iron pillars.
Further, the oldest silver production is from Turkey.

Wrong. The laws of Draco were written in around 600 BC, and the same goes for the first texts of Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras etc. who lived and produced knowledge since 600 BC.

And similar stuff were written/composed in ancient China and India at such a date or earlier.

The Greek alphabet is definitely the most complete, usable and easy alphabet to use than any Oriental, since Homer's time (750 BC).

Singularly your opinion, not shared by any linguist i know of and is without reason. Sanskritic based languages and Hangul are far more morphologically and phoenetically consistent than ANY european script.
For example, You have no scriptic basis in differentiating 'anus' and 'anthem', while their languages do.

What do you mean by originals are lacking? Are you kidding? Have you got any idea how many hundreds of tablets from 1400-1300 BC with readable texts survive and still are unearthed, every now and then?

1. No Greek text from 1400 BCE is 'readable'
2. The works of science and philosophy has older original texts from the east than from Greece. That is a fact. The oldest surviving manuscript recording the sulba sutras are from 200 BCE- ie, the ACTUAL manuscript. The oldest Greek manuscript of any of the Greek scholars of the classical age does not survive from before 1100s CE.

You and Dr. Angus Maddison have been refuted by other respected scholars that our Brazilian friend has brought on the table....

False. Our 'brazilian friend' has singularly resisted from defending his perspective, as evidenced by his lack of response to my questions and analysis of his ideas. Further, there is no refutal of Angus maddison's data presented on this website at any given point.

The Imperial · Apr 24, 2011

The Greek alphabet is definitely the most complete, usable and easy alphabet to use than any Oriental, since Homer's time (750 BC).

Evidence? Source? Proof?

Even Greek Linear B system is readable since 1500 BC, while Indic readable scripts do not date before 500-400 BC.

So what does that mean?

The Rig Veda with the so-called astronomical knowledge was not written down in any readable text before Brahmi was introduced (400-300 BC), therefore it is debatable that it was all preserved since 1500 BC. Much was added later!

There is still no clear date on when Brahmi was introduced. You say 400-300 BC? Some say 1500 BC..... Plus the Vedas are religious texts, and changes are not acceptable. The Vedas were passed down without much interference.

You and Dr. Angus Maddison have been refuted by other respected scholars that our Brazilian friend has brought on the table....

Other scholars = the other team in the debate. Any neutral statement on Maddisson's figures?

Thessalonian · Apr 24, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
Does not even begin to compare with the industrial and technological knowledge to weld and cast rust-proof iron pillars.
Further, the oldest silver production is from Turkey.

And similar stuff were written/composed in ancient China and India at such a date or earlier.

Singularly your opinion, not shared by any linguist i know of and is without reason. Sanskritic based languages and Hangul are far more morphologically and phoenetically consistent than ANY european script.
For example, You have no scriptic basis in differentiating 'anus' and 'anthem', while their languages do.

1. No Greek text from 1400 BCE is 'readable'
2. The works of science and philosophy has older original texts from the east than from Greece. That is a fact. The oldest surviving manuscript recording the sulba sutras are from 200 BCE- ie, the ACTUAL manuscript. The oldest Greek manuscript of any of the Greek scholars of the classical age does not survive from before 1100s CE.

False. Our 'brazilian friend' has singularly resisted from defending his perspective, as evidenced by his lack of response to my questions and analysis of his ideas. Further, there is no refutal of Angus maddison's data presented on this website at any given point.

You are wrong as usual.

1) Source? The largest and most important production of silver was in Greece, from 3000 BC and onwards. I gave you sources... Oh, and Turkey was a Greek colony since pre-Mycenaean times.

2) Source? Which Chinese and Indian texts were composed back then?

Sacred-Texts: Hinduism

Rigveda (Hindu literature) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.oration.com/~mm9n/articles/dev/02%20Date%20of%20Vedas.htm

Rig Veda: 1200-900 BC

Br?hm? script - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Rig Vedas, Mahabbarata etc. were all written down after 400-300 BC.
Oral traditions don't count OR Homeric epics were composed since the Mycenean time too (1600-1100 BC) but were just not written down, until much later. What matters is when it is written down, not when you speculate that it was composed.

3) source? which linguists say those things about Indian superiority?

4) Our Brazilian friend used serious sources that you should accept. He got tired of responding to you because you seem to deny reality which is based upon serious archaeological findings. That's very odd of course..

5) No Greek text from 1400 BC is readable? Really? You are not interested in archaeology then. Ancient Tablet Found: Oldest Readable Writing in Europe

There are many tablets like this from 1400-1300 BC. They tell us all about ancient Mycenean civilization.

6) 200 BC vs 1400 BC readable texts? No comparison there.

Thessalonian · Apr 24, 2011

imperialmen said:
Evidence? Source? Proof?

So what does that mean?

There is still no clear date on when Brahmi was introduced. You say 400-300 BC? Some say 1500 BC..... Plus the Vedas are religious texts, and changes are not acceptable. The Vedas were passed down without much interference.

Other scholars = the other team in the debate. Any neutral statement on Maddisson's figures?

No, we know very well that one of the oldest readable Indian texts are the edicts of Ashoka ( around 250 BC).

In 1500 BC there is no script to read.

Sacred-Texts: Hinduism

Rigveda (Hindu literature) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

http://www.oration.com/~mm9n/articles/dev/02%20Date%20of%20Vedas.htm

Rig Veda: 1200-900 BC

Br?hm? script - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Thessalonian · Apr 24, 2011

imperialmen said:
Evidence? Source? Proof?

The Greek alphabet is a set of twenty-four letters that has been used to write the Greek language since the 8th century BC.[2] It is still in use today. It is the first and oldest alphabet in the narrow sense that it notes each vowel and consonant with a separate symbol.[3] The letters were also used to represent Greek numerals, beginning in the 2nd century BC.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_alphabet]Greek alphabet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

OakRidge · Apr 24, 2011

I just finished

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/China-Marches-West-Conquest-Central/dp/0674057430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1303662681&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: China Marches West: The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia (9780674057432): Peter C. Perdue: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51gZlqs51TL.@@AMEPARAM@@51gZlqs51TL[/ame]

and Perdue argued that one of the reasons why an industrial revolution did not occur in China was the fact coal deposits in China were located far from the population centers of the empire. One of the reasons he gave for Chinese not developing the steam engine was that mines in China suffered from excess gas pockets instead of excess water like in Britain.

Lord_of_Gauda · Apr 24, 2011

Thessalonian said:
You are wrong as usual.

1) Source? The largest and most important production of silver was in Greece, from 3000 BC and onwards. I gave you sources... Oh, and Turkey was a Greek colony since pre-Mycenaean times.

And Turkey was hittite and Hattian before the Greeks. As i said, the silver mining techniques are no comparisons for metallurgy of the Iron pillar of Meharauli,which as i noted earlier, sees no parallel in Greek or Roman civilization: nothing that complex or technologically sophisticated has been discovered relating to Greek or Roman world- or anything pre mid 1800s for that matter.

2) Source? Which Chinese and Indian texts were composed back then?

Rig Veda, the Sulba Sutras, most of the Puranas are from 600 BCE vicinity.

Rig Vedas, Mahabbarata etc. were all written down after 400-300 BC.
Oral traditions don't count OR Homeric epics were composed since the Mycenean time too (1600-1100 BC) but were just not written down, until much later. What matters is when it is written down, not when you speculate that it was composed.

The 'written down' part of Rig Veda and infact, most Vedas is from the 1000 BCE-600 BCE period.

3) source? which linguists say those things about Indian superiority?

Almost all linguists agree that Sanskritic language and Hangul are the most phonetic alphabets in the world and their morphology is far more consistent. I just gave you an example too: in your script, you have no differentiation of 'anus' and 'anger', two different sounds of 'a', there is no difference between 'go' and 'do', whereas in Sanskritic script and Hangul, there is such a difference.

4) Our Brazilian friend used serious sources that you should accept. He got tired of responding to you because you seem to deny reality which is based upon serious archaeological findings. That's very odd of course..

False, he did not address many of my points, period. As such, one of the posts he failed to respond to, was my analysis of his so-called 'serious' archaeological finding, which is completely out of context. My source, Dr. Maddison, is the most established and prevalent source in academia regarding ancient economies. As such, i don't need to substantiate anything.

The Greek alphabet is a set of twenty-four letters that has been used to write the Greek language since the 8th century BC.[2] It is still in use today. It is the first and oldest alphabet in the narrow sense that it notes each vowel and consonant with a separate symbol.[3] The letters were also used to represent Greek numerals, beginning in the 2nd century BC.

It does not note 'each' vowel and consonant- it notes some vowels and consonants, since the Greek alphabet, like all western alphabets, are incomplete. We do not have seperate vowel signs for 'a' as in 'anger' or 'a' as in '...', 'o' as in 'do' or 'o' as in 'go'. The only complete set of alphabetic writing system are sanskrit based and hangul.

Thessalonian · Apr 24, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
And Turkey was hittite and Hattian before the Greeks. As i said, the silver mining techniques are no comparisons for metallurgy of the Iron pillar of Meharauli,which as i noted earlier, sees no parallel in Greek or Roman civilization: nothing that complex or technologically sophisticated has been discovered relating to Greek or Roman world- or anything pre mid 1800s for that matter.

Rig Veda, the Sulba Sutras, most of the Puranas are from 600 BCE vicinity.

The 'written down' part of Rig Veda and infact, most Vedas is from the 1000 BCE-600 BCE period.

Almost all linguists agree that Sanskritic language and Hangul are the most phonetic alphabets in the world and their morphology is far more consistent. I just gave you an example too: in your script, you have no differentiation of 'anus' and 'anger', two different sounds of 'a', there is no difference between 'go' and 'do', whereas in Sanskritic script and Hangul, there is such a difference.

False, he did not address many of my points, period. As such, one of the posts he failed to respond to, was my analysis of his so-called 'serious' archaeological finding, which is completely out of context. My source, Dr. Maddison, is the most established and prevalent source in academia regarding ancient economies. As such, i don't need to substantiate anything.

It does not note 'each' vowel and consonant- it notes some vowels and consonants, since the Greek alphabet, like all western alphabets, are incomplete. We do not have seperate vowel signs for 'a' as in 'anger' or 'a' as in '...', 'o' as in 'do' or 'o' as in 'go'. The only complete set of alphabetic writing system are sanskrit based and hangul.

1) The Iron Pillar was one example. I don't see thousands of them! ancient Greek metallurgy produced a significant amount of bronze, silver and other artefacts, so they don't come even close to comparison from a practical point of view.

2) Rig Veda etc. were all written down after 400 BC as all sources indicate.
I provided 6 links already, including Britannica.

3) No, Between 1500-600 BC the Vedas were preserved orally. Sanskrit was written in scripts that appeared after 500 BC. I already gave sources for that. They are indisputable, period.

4) Still no sources about Sanskrit being the most phonetic or anything else

5) In my script, which is much better/simpler/regular/usable than Sanskript by the way, A is always pronounced as A, it is not confusing anyone! E is always pronounced the same as well. Much simpler and better. If I want to say Anus then I will write E-I-N-A-Σ and everyone will be able to pronounce the word correctly, without anyone else telling him that this A is different from the other A. Ancient Greeks were far more practical, as it seems.

6) Wrong, our Brazilian friend is an economist and knows more about ancient economies than you do. If you don't stick to engineering and pretend to know everything I will remind you what you once told me: You are not an engineer so your opinion does not count. To each his own.

7) False, Sanskrit is not more complete, it is more complicated and thus less practical and less usable. The Greek language that the Greek alphabet serves, does not have sounds like thE or ... or nervOUs. I guess you fail once again, because you think that Greek or any other language has the same vowels as English, which of course is not the case....

The Greek alphabet is perfect for this language.

Lord_of_Gauda · Apr 24, 2011

Thessalonian said:
1) The Iron Pillar was one example. I don't see thousands of them! ancient Greek metallurgy produced a significant amount of bronze, silver and other artefacts, so they don't come even close to comparison from a practical point of view.

So did the Indians, Persians, Chinese, mesopotamians, Egyptians, celts, hittites, ie, practically everyone. What differentiates Indians from the rest is higher quality metallurgy (wootz steel is of higher quality than ANY steel produced anywhere in the world till damascus steel-which is identical to wootz steel) and something like the Iron pillar, far ahead of its time. It is quite definitive that the Indians were the masters of metallurgy of the ancient era.

2) Rig Veda etc. were all written down after 400 BC as all sources indicate.
I provided 6 links already, including Britannica.

None of those sources are conclusive. Infact, Rig veda is accepted to've been composed entirely by 1000 BCE, since 500 BCE is the period of Panini, the world's first grammarian and he changed archaic sanskrit to classical sanskrit, while the Rig Veda is in archaic sanskrit, therefore, predating Panini.

4) Still no sources about Sanskrit being the most phonetic or anything else

I just proved it to you that Sanskrit is more phoenetic than Greek- it has 70+ characters in its alphabet than 26, it has seperate characters for 'a' and 'aa' such as 'anus' and 'anvil'.

5) In my script, which is much better/simpler/regular/usable than Sanskript by the way, A is always pronounced as A, it is not confusing anyone! E is always pronounced the same as well. Much simpler and better. If I want to say Anus then I will write E-I-N-A-Σ and everyone will be able to pronounce the word correctly, without anyone else telling him that this A is different from the other A. Ancient Greeks were far more practical, as it seems.

False. First off, Sanskrit gammar is the most consistent grammar in the world. Secondly, there is only one 'a' in Greek- you have no single character that differentiates between 'a' as in 'anus' and 'a' as in '...'- you have to form conjugates, which implies that Greek is not as phoenetic as Sanskrit or Hangul.

6) Wrong, our Brazilian friend is an economist and knows more about ancient economies than you do. If you don't stick to engineering and pretend to know everything I will remind you what you once told me: You are not an engineer so your opinion does not count. To each his own.

Irrelevant if my queries don't get answered and fyi, most engineers are quite competent in economics, as it is an integral part of our analysis.

7) False, Sanskrit is not more complete, it is more complicated and thus less practical and less usable. The Greek language that the Greek alphabet serves, does not have sounds like thE or ... or nervOUs. I guess you fail once again, because you think that Greek or any other language has the same vowels as English, which of course is not the case....
The Greek alphabet is perfect for this language.

It only proves the limitations of the Greek language. Sanskrit is not more complicated- it simply has more characters that accurately represent a larger phoenetic group of sounds.
The fact that Greek language does not have such sounds is only indicative of its phoenetic limitations.

mingming · Apr 24, 2011

Guys this isn't a Greece vs. India thread. Seriously, its getting old.

The Imperial · Apr 24, 2011

2) Rig Veda etc. were all written down after 400 BC as all sources indicate.
I provided 6 links already, including Britannica.

Not all sources. It is debatable. There are no solid evidences to prove when the vedas were written. Only logic and reasoning is used.

3) No, Between 1500-600 BC the Vedas were preserved orally.

The Vedas were preserved orally, in SANSKRIT.

Sanskrit was written in scripts that appeared after 500 BC. I already gave sources for that. They are indisputable, period.

4) Still no sources about Sanskrit being the most phonetic or anything else

Sanskrit can be written in any script, given the phonetics were available. For example- no Western script can write this sound - ಳ(Kannada script), or ळ(Devangiri Script)..... So Sanskrit is best suited for Indian scripts. Latin or Greek alphabet is useless for writing Sanskrit, because many sounds cant be written for example- ङ, ञ, or ळ्ह or फ. So you cant write words like- fruit, tap of Sanskrit language in Greek alphabet.

7) False, Sanskrit is not more complete, it is more complicated and thus less practical and less usable.

There is no source, or any reason or logic to make this statement.

Lord_of_Gauda · Apr 24, 2011

mingming said:
Guys this isn't a Greece vs. India thread. Seriously, its getting old.

I understand that- i just wish Thessalonian would.

Either way, back to the OP: Industrial revolution takes place in England, a land that saw 700 years of political, social and demographic stability. Such a stability was lacking in any part of Asia for such a long period of time and thus, Asia, despite being ahead of the Greco-Roman world in antiquity as well as in the dark ages, failed to gain enough impetus to industrialize.

The Imperial · Apr 24, 2011

mingming said:
Guys this isn't a Greece vs. India thread. Seriously, its getting old.

haha our bad

But atleast we have a good point to learn for now-

LoG is debating that Greek mines are not an example of Western superiority in metallurgy.

Thessalonian · Apr 25, 2011

Lord_of_Gauda said:
So did the Indians, Persians, Chinese, mesopotamians, Egyptians, celts, hittites, ie, practically everyone. What differentiates Indians from the rest is higher quality metallurgy (wootz steel is of higher quality than ANY steel produced anywhere in the world till damascus steel-which is identical to wootz steel) and something like the Iron pillar, far ahead of its time. It is quite definitive that the Indians were the masters of metallurgy of the ancient era.

None of those sources are conclusive. Infact, Rig veda is accepted to've been composed entirely by 1000 BCE, since 500 BCE is the period of Panini, the world's first grammarian and he changed archaic sanskrit to classical sanskrit, while the Rig Veda is in archaic sanskrit, therefore, predating Panini.

I just proved it to you that Sanskrit is more phoenetic than Greek- it has 70+ characters in its alphabet than 26, it has seperate characters for 'a' and 'aa' such as 'anus' and 'anvil'.

False. First off, Sanskrit gammar is the most consistent grammar in the world. Secondly, there is only one 'a' in Greek- you have no single character that differentiates between 'a' as in 'anus' and 'a' as in '...'- you have to form conjugates, which implies that Greek is not as phoenetic as Sanskrit or Hangul.

Irrelevant if my queries don't get answered and fyi, most engineers are quite competent in economics, as it is an integral part of our analysis.

It only proves the limitations of the Greek language. Sanskrit is not more complicated- it simply has more characters that accurately represent a larger phoenetic group of sounds.
The fact that Greek language does not have such sounds is only indicative of its phoenetic limitations.

One Iron pillar doesn't make any difference. One thousand of them would just start to make a difference. Is that understood?

No, there is no doubt that before 300 BC, anything could have been added to the Rig Veda or any other piece of literature, because it was not written down yet. What was composed in 1500 BC is unknown and irrelevant. What was orally preserved is unknown and speculative. What matters is when it was actually written down. Otherwise one might suggest that the oral tradition of Iliad and Odyssey, which regarded the Mycenean period, could date back to 1600 BC or so. No one says that. We stick to the dates of actual writing (around 750 BC).

Sanskrit has 70 characters and Chinese has thousands of characters. The number of characters is irrelevant. English has 26 characters but is more phonetic than Greek.

Sanskrit grammar is the most consistent? You mean the more bizarre maybe.

No, engineers who think they are also economists have a huge ego, especially when they think they know better than economists. Period.

Limitations because we don't use useless phonetics? Interesting....

Thessalonian · Apr 25, 2011

imperialmen said:
Not all sources. It is debatable. There are no solid evidences to prove when the vedas were written. Only logic and reasoning is used.

The Vedas were preserved orally, in SANSKRIT.

Sanskrit can be written in any script, given the phonetics were available. For example- no Western script can write this sound - ಳ(Kannada script), or ळ(Devangiri Script)..... So Sanskrit is best suited for Indian scripts. Latin or Greek alphabet is useless for writing Sanskrit, because many sounds cant be written for example- ङ, ञ, or ळ्ह or फ. So you cant write words like- fruit, tap of Sanskrit language in Greek alphabet.

There is no source, or any reason or logic to make this statement.

No, there are indisputable sources. The oldest decipherable Indian scripts which were used for the Sanskrit language where invented after 500 BC.

Oral preservation cannot possibly block adding more elements, before it is actually written down on paper/papyrus etc. Don't even argue that.

To each his own. Languages use respective scripts for a reason. They best suit them. 24 letters is all we need for our language. We don't need 70.

The Imperial · Apr 25, 2011

No, there are indisputable sources. The oldest decipherable Indian scripts which were used for the Sanskrit language where invented after 500 BC.

Oldest decipherable? So the non-decipherable scripts were not Sanskrit then? The source that says readable script invented in 500 BC?? And please provide this 'undisputable' source.

Oral preservation cannot possibly block adding more elements, before it is actually written down on paper/papyrus etc. Don't even argue that.

We are not talking about folk tales or religious songs and hymns. We are talking about the Vedas- these were learned only by the upper class brahmins, ie only to the teachers and gurus who wished to pass the Vedas to the next gen of students. Now imagine a hard, strict school..... will the authorities accept the changes in curriculum made by a teacher?

To each his own. Languages use respective scripts for a reason. They best suit them. 24 letters is all we need for our language. We don't need 70.

That was not my argument. I was trying to counter the views on Greek script's superiority over Indian scripts.

leveller · Apr 25, 2011

I dont think there was ever such a thing as an industrial revolution, certainly not in britain. it was more of an evolution, that slowly took place over decades.

Thessalonian · Apr 25, 2011

imperialmen said:
Oldest decipherable? So the non-decipherable scripts were not Sanskrit then? The source that says readable script invented in 500 BC?? And please provide this 'undisputable' source.

We are not talking about folk tales or religious songs and hymns. We are talking about the Vedas- these were learned only by the upper class brahmins, ie only to the teachers and gurus who wished to pass the Vedas to the next gen of students. Now imagine a hard, strict school..... will the authorities accept the changes in curriculum made by a teacher?

That was not my argument. I was trying to counter the views on Greek script's superiority over Indian scripts.

The upper class brahmins could always add or remove elements within centuries. Don't tell me that you think the Rig Veda was the same in 1500 BC and 500 BC, because you know how mouth works! Changes and alterations are inevitable before something is written down.

Non decipherable scripts can't tell us anything and are highly speculative.
How can you guess what's written, if you can't read it?

We are interested in readable Sanskrit. Classic Sanskrit that is....

I gave you 6 links. I can give you another 100000 that state exactly the same thing. Sanskrit was written down in Indic scripts which did not exist before 500 BC.... Is encyclopedia Britannica not good enough for you?
You choose the source then...

Thessalonian · Apr 25, 2011

Kharosthi alphabet

The earliest Indic script that was used for Sanskrit and can be read...

"The Kharosthi alphabet was invented sometime during the 3rd century BC and was possibly derived from the Aramaic alphabet. It was widely used in northwest India and central Asia until the 4th century AD.
Unlike the Brahmi script, which was invented at around the same time and spawned many of the modern scripts of India and South East Asia, Kharosthi had no descendants.
Kharoshti was deciphered by James Prinsep and others around the middle of the 19th century. Since then further material has been found and the script is now better understood.
Notable features

Kharosthi is a syllabic alphabet - each letter has an inherent vowel /a/. Other vowels are indicated using diacritics.
It was written from right to left in horizontal lines.

Used to write:

Gandhari and Sanskrit"

Rosi · Apr 25, 2011

Guys, let's just stick to the OP, shall we. As mingming said, this isn't a Greece vs India thread. So I suggest you take your debate about which script was the oldest to a new thread, if you want to continue it.

Thanks,
Rosi

Search

Search

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

Lord_of_Gauda

The Imperial

Thessalonian

Thessalonian

Thessalonian

OakRidge

Lord_of_Gauda

Thessalonian

Lord_of_Gauda

mingming

The Imperial

Lord_of_Gauda

The Imperial

Thessalonian

Thessalonian

The Imperial

leveller

Thessalonian

Thessalonian

Rosi

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions