This one time I've had a discussion on Tumblr and it hasn't gone south YET
derek: history tumblr, why did the industrial revolution happen in europe & not somewhere else?
little-ray-of-gabi: basically europe was the only continent not getting invaded by europeans at the time. I guess europeans would like to think they had a more “advanced” or “progressive” culture open to modern ideas and such whereas other cultures were more traditional or rural or ancient. im pretty sure at the time american was fighting in a massive civil war which is not an ideal condition for an industrial revolution, meanwhile other countries such as china, india and parts of africa were being exploited for their agricultural produce many of which such as tea and sugar were becoming less exotic and more everyday items. Good question!
derek: that does beg the next question of why did it happen when it happened? because prior to the east india company seriously fucking india’s shit up, there were several kingdoms there with the wealth and the manpower to do some industrial revoluting.
like most of the stuff i read about this goes “oh industrial revolution was made possible via wealth accrued through slavery, deposits of coal, etc” but wealth and resources existed in other empires at the time as well?
(admittedly europe was a little less … self-invadey during that time period between the 7 Years War and the Napoleonic conquests when the industrial revolution really got going; on england’s part b/c various king georges were trying not to fuck up their chances with their new kingdom & b/c the “patriot” movement were all “go colonise shit” - stodgy merchant types, hope everyone’s pleased that a bunch of shitty powdered wigs fucked things up for everyone because they wanted more money, aooogh - not sure how the rest of mainland europe managed to go a full forty years without seriously invading each other)
nicole: Also, about the US, the founding fathers had an idea that the America would be primarily be this agrarian based economy, and it’d be all down with bankers and such (look up what Jefferson said about bankers - that’s why Glen Beck hates him) further distancing itself from how England was being at the time. But of course, there were a few dudes who were like, NO, INDUSTRY, BANKING… The US was having it’s own little internal philosophical debate since the days of it’s foundation… and look how that’s turned out these days… not really what the founding fathers had in mind.
derek: The bf and I are getting into it now: he’s banking on iron ore, invention of coke, preceding agricultural revolution freeing up the workforce; I’m coming down hard on merchantile-led societies (esp. Britain, Netherlands, various German countries) with upper classes dependent on trade/weaker aristocracies allowing engineers/thinkers to flourish. Small area of land allowing ideas to be traded more quickly, plus from 1695 (or 1770 if you want to be conservative) the freedom of the press/collapse of licensing of printed materials meant ideas could be distributed publicly, allowing more interchange of technological information & information on how those developments could make people more money: absence of censorship a very important part of technological as well as social progress…
also I imagine freedom from domestic strife (again, particularly in england, which enjoyed a basic absence of home-soil war after the jacobite rebellion) and not having the british army come through your home/the east india company cheerfully ban you from stockpiling food during a famine probably had a little effect as well, ahem
(but basically i am not just looking for “what did mid-northern europe have” but “what did they/we have that the rest of the world did not that would allow this rapid expansion of industrialised technology?”)
speakerwiggin: It was a right place, right time scenario. Even though similar innovations happened in a lot of places, Europe had easier access to more abundant materials. It was also influenced by the right economic conditions - wealthy landowners wanting to make more money, agricultural innovations were leaving the rural poor out of work, the political climate was stable, and, well… capitalism/industry requires more resources and more markets and when you mix that with Empire…
But, there was another thing. England’s size and islandness. There was a ton of coal in England, but mines got deeper and deeper until they filled up with water. So, not only did they have to spread out to get more fuel, but they had reason to innovate ways of getting rid of the water from the mines. They improved the steam piston (originally patented in Spain) which exploded manufacturing.
There are like a billion reasons, a most of them involve the phrase “happened to.”
They happened to be on an island.
They happened to be stable politically.
The rural poor happened to be looking for jobs.
Etc…. Etc…
little-ray-of-gabi: basically europe was the only continent not getting invaded by europeans at the time. I guess europeans would like to think they had a more “advanced” or “progressive” culture open to modern ideas and such whereas other cultures were more traditional or rural or ancient. im pretty sure at the time american was fighting in a massive civil war which is not an ideal condition for an industrial revolution, meanwhile other countries such as china, india and parts of africa were being exploited for their agricultural produce many of which such as tea and sugar were becoming less exotic and more everyday items. Good question!
derek: that does beg the next question of why did it happen when it happened? because prior to the east india company seriously fucking india’s shit up, there were several kingdoms there with the wealth and the manpower to do some industrial revoluting.
like most of the stuff i read about this goes “oh industrial revolution was made possible via wealth accrued through slavery, deposits of coal, etc” but wealth and resources existed in other empires at the time as well?
(admittedly europe was a little less … self-invadey during that time period between the 7 Years War and the Napoleonic conquests when the industrial revolution really got going; on england’s part b/c various king georges were trying not to fuck up their chances with their new kingdom & b/c the “patriot” movement were all “go colonise shit” - stodgy merchant types, hope everyone’s pleased that a bunch of shitty powdered wigs fucked things up for everyone because they wanted more money, aooogh - not sure how the rest of mainland europe managed to go a full forty years without seriously invading each other)
nicole: Also, about the US, the founding fathers had an idea that the America would be primarily be this agrarian based economy, and it’d be all down with bankers and such (look up what Jefferson said about bankers - that’s why Glen Beck hates him) further distancing itself from how England was being at the time. But of course, there were a few dudes who were like, NO, INDUSTRY, BANKING… The US was having it’s own little internal philosophical debate since the days of it’s foundation… and look how that’s turned out these days… not really what the founding fathers had in mind.
derek: The bf and I are getting into it now: he’s banking on iron ore, invention of coke, preceding agricultural revolution freeing up the workforce; I’m coming down hard on merchantile-led societies (esp. Britain, Netherlands, various German countries) with upper classes dependent on trade/weaker aristocracies allowing engineers/thinkers to flourish. Small area of land allowing ideas to be traded more quickly, plus from 1695 (or 1770 if you want to be conservative) the freedom of the press/collapse of licensing of printed materials meant ideas could be distributed publicly, allowing more interchange of technological information & information on how those developments could make people more money: absence of censorship a very important part of technological as well as social progress…
also I imagine freedom from domestic strife (again, particularly in england, which enjoyed a basic absence of home-soil war after the jacobite rebellion) and not having the british army come through your home/the east india company cheerfully ban you from stockpiling food during a famine probably had a little effect as well, ahem
(but basically i am not just looking for “what did mid-northern europe have” but “what did they/we have that the rest of the world did not that would allow this rapid expansion of industrialised technology?”)
speakerwiggin: It was a right place, right time scenario. Even though similar innovations happened in a lot of places, Europe had easier access to more abundant materials. It was also influenced by the right economic conditions - wealthy landowners wanting to make more money, agricultural innovations were leaving the rural poor out of work, the political climate was stable, and, well… capitalism/industry requires more resources and more markets and when you mix that with Empire…
But, there was another thing. England’s size and islandness. There was a ton of coal in England, but mines got deeper and deeper until they filled up with water. So, not only did they have to spread out to get more fuel, but they had reason to innovate ways of getting rid of the water from the mines. They improved the steam piston (originally patented in Spain) which exploded manufacturing.
There are like a billion reasons, a most of them involve the phrase “happened to.”
They happened to be on an island.
They happened to be stable politically.
The rural poor happened to be looking for jobs.
Etc…. Etc…