The brits expanded outwards because they had a technology advantage. Same as the mongols. Right? Am I missing something? Has this somehow been discredited now or are you subtly fucking with me in a way I don't understand
-
Welcome, guest!
Why not take a moment to register an account?
If you already have an account, remember to Log In!
What Twitter pile on are you watching right now (8 Viewers)
Nono, not fucking with you, I don't believe these things are as linear as that though, they expanded because they had the technology and they had the technology because they needed to expand, I don't know if either come first but they certainly fed one another.
Bearing in mind that the entire of north Europe was considered as a bit of a backwater circa, say, the year 1000, within 500-600 years they went from that to starting empires, and from starting empires to ruling the world within about 200 years.
Other empires that were around for a few thousand years never felt the same need and i'm saying it's likely no accident as they clearly weren't wholly based around expansion in the same way, and they certainly had the time required to create the technology needed to expand if that was needed.
I'm genuinely thinking out loud about this, I believe the answer is something vaguely around a world created by the drive of capitalism but i'm not set on that being the only answer.
- Thread starter
- #2,563
Thinking out loud also, but do the two go hand in hand? Like trying to maintain a lifestyle that is impossible to maintain requires endless outward expansion - that kinda comes with technology. The thing that made me think this is the brits clearing all our woodlands to build ships because they'd stripped thier own country bare ruling the seas. At a point you either take a lifestyle hit, or just press out and until you can't any more.
A paralled with this is that at one point the oligarchs in egypt were stripping the gold off thier own relics to fund thier military to maintain the whole god-king lifestyle.
Well yes, that's what i'm getting at.
But once again, civilizations that were thousands of years old where they, at one (or probably several) point(s), stripped gold off their own relics to fund their military, vs. destroyed the entire planet and everything on it in about 500.
and, what, the lads on top tell everyone "You would have done it too if you had the chance" and we just believe them? Gaslighting bastards.
- Thread starter
- #2,565
We do.
Hmmm. I see what you're getting at, but I think you're missing the fact that technology creation has an awful lot of randomness inherent in it. People had been riding horses for thousands of years, then the Mongols came up with stirrups and compound bows and created the biggest land empire the world has ever seen (so far).
Your framing is a little weird - the egyptians didn't need to invent new tech to maintain the empire because none of their competitors had new tech either. If the Nubians had come up with machine guns or something then the Egyptian empire woulda been out the window pretty quick.
I think you might be on to something but I think the question would be more "what about set up of Europe allowed the industrial revolution to take hold there" and less "what about Europeans compelled them to create an industrial revolution so they could take over the world"
- Thread starter
- #2,567
Just to clarify I wasn't agreeing that we believe them. I was agreeing that we are pretty content to live a lifestyle that requires endless outward expansion on mutlipleplanes to be maintainted. Obvioulsy opting out is inconvenient, but also there are est 40 million slaves in existence at present.
I'll take the randomness point about technology but the rest... I mean, the size and stability of an empire is just as random, as is the history of which empires get remembered, in what way, and which get forgotten. This is just a listicle but it illustrates my point
African Empires That Have Been Forgotten - How South Africa
Ancient African Civilization refers to the pre-propelled condition of the African human society, the old concentrated administration and their models of leadership. These were the solid government and authoritative powers that guided and surrounded the undertakings of the general population...
howsouthafrica.com
My question is more what was it about Europeans that compelled them to want to take over the world?
God.
- Thread starter
- #2,571
Wasn't he born outside europe and anti-roman empire?
Ok. I don't think there's anything special about Europeans, and I think that it's very likely that most empires over the course of history would have taken over the world if they had the technology/economic incentive to do it.
I feel like this is the sort of question you'd get on a right wing forum, where they'd be looking for answers like "initiative" and "drive". Do you think Europeans have some special evil in our hearts that makes us do such things? If America didn't exist I doubt we'd even think of ourselves as European
i would assume that how fast information travels has a bearing on how well you can hold your empire together - the faster information can travel, the larger the area you can practically manage/control. goes back to eggs point about technology. still, portugal and spain in their heydays were about projecting nautical power, and information is not necessarily speedy when being sent by sailing ship, but they did have a technological edge over the territories they invaded.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2002
- Messages
- 38,346
- Solutions
- 3
There's a 2000ad for everything
2000 AD Prog #217: "The Last Rumble of the Platinum Horde!"
Download 2000 AD Prog #217 Tharg's Future Shocks Dept. I promised you folks some difficult-to-find, high-quality material and here is some...
swords-and-veeblefetzers.blogspot.com
I think this is received wisdom about history, humanity, and how people think and it deserves to be interrogated. I don't know enough to have a definitive answer though.
No I do not, I also don't think that humans (dwelling both outside and inside Europe) naturally try to hoard resources, enslave others (especially in a chattel slavery system) and rule the world, and something that I do know that there is a wealth of anthropological evidence backing this up.
I don't think it can be stressed enough that there have been civilizations stretching millennia that didn't feel the need to invent the technology to enslave the entire planet. I do agree that what happened in Europe could have happened elsewhere, my point is that it was not inevitable anywhere, including in Europe.
test
If by "naturally" here you mean "inevitably" then I absolutely agree, but wealth hoarding and chattel slavery have been features of a great many human societies, and they're as natural as anything else we do.
I still feel like personifying a society like this is really bizarre, but let's not quibble over styleLili Marlene said:
Do you know of examples of societies with technology advantages that haven't overrun their accessible neighbours? I'd guess you've been reading Graeber, maybe he has some?Lili Marlene said:
Well I don't know how to use multi-quote, but there's a few things here that other people have touched on. And to be honest I'm not sure I fully understand your point.
The British Empire grew out of Mercantilism, rather than Capitalism. But that just gave the crown more money really, but it did speed up the the Agricultural Revolution, because there was posh boys with land who could spend time thinking about how to make farming more productive. That then sped up the Industrial Revolution. The IR pulled in all the people who'd been ruined by greedy landlords from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North into cities. The English had ravaged everything nearby enough to make that worthwhile.
And it worked. And then there was enough posh Brits who could sit around and think about things and realise that "slavery is bad actually". So then capitalism happened instead.
There is a big religious aspect to this I think as well. That might be closer to the point you're making. Why they wanted more, I don't really know. Because it was there. Capitalism is the nicer face of Mercantilism or Privateering or Slavery. They are honourable men of god who came to save the savages with hard work and decency, and if that didn't work, then slaughter.
America and Germany industrialised much more quickly because they learned from what the English did. And they tried a bit of Empire building, but all the good shit was gone at that point.
The Russians had a go at an industrial revolution, in their own way. But eh...
And then there's Belgium.
And the French.
Anyway, I'm glad David Kronenburg has been given fair warning. I'll just sit here, cheers.
The British Empire grew out of Mercantilism, rather than Capitalism. But that just gave the crown more money really, but it did speed up the the Agricultural Revolution, because there was posh boys with land who could spend time thinking about how to make farming more productive. That then sped up the Industrial Revolution. The IR pulled in all the people who'd been ruined by greedy landlords from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North into cities. The English had ravaged everything nearby enough to make that worthwhile.
And it worked. And then there was enough posh Brits who could sit around and think about things and realise that "slavery is bad actually". So then capitalism happened instead.
There is a big religious aspect to this I think as well. That might be closer to the point you're making. Why they wanted more, I don't really know. Because it was there. Capitalism is the nicer face of Mercantilism or Privateering or Slavery. They are honourable men of god who came to save the savages with hard work and decency, and if that didn't work, then slaughter.
America and Germany industrialised much more quickly because they learned from what the English did. And they tried a bit of Empire building, but all the good shit was gone at that point.
The Russians had a go at an industrial revolution, in their own way. But eh...
And then there's Belgium.
And the French.
Anyway, I'm glad David Kronenburg has been given fair warning. I'll just sit here, cheers.
Oh and c'mere @Lili Marlene here's another thing - IMO the main thing that drives human behaviour is competition for status more so than wealth. Maybe the secret ingredient you're looking for here is money becoming a proxy for status in Britain (and/or elsewhere in Europe and eventually the US), which drove people into commercial ventures and expanded the empire
Just thinking out loud here, but if your prowess in battle is a proxy for status then that will lead to imperial expansion too (the mongols). Maybe if your culture's primary status competition is based on godliness or something then expansion is less likely? Unless you start getting into crusades/jihad
Users who are viewing this thread
Activity
So far there's no one here
21 Day Calendar
Support thumped.com
Support thumped.com and upgrade your account
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade now
