Jump to content


Photo

Alt.history Challenge - No Reformation, Does The Industrial Revolution Happen?


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#21 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0632 AM

 

 

When I was studying the history of Europe between 1815 and 1914, which is when most of them industrialized, there was a trend noted that deserves some study. All the nations in Europe that first industrialized were protestant nations. That doesn't mean that somehow protestants were smarter. It just implies there was some retardation on progress in Catholic nations, that held them back. And I think that was the Catholic church being a retardation on progress, perhaps for social reasons, perhaps even because they owned land or had great influence and feared the upheaval progress would bring.
 
An example is Italy, which was unified by Garibaldi. Unfortunately in doing so he took some of the land that belonged to the Vatican. If I can remember rightly, the Pope put out a bull or proclamation saying that anyone that supported Garibaldi and tthe new Italian state would be excommunicated (or at the very least, treated with extreme displeasure). The result was Italy took longer to unify than many of the European nations that also went through similar integrations (such as the German Empire). That may have contributed to poor performance in WW1, and eventually the rise of Mussolini.
 
I dont think the industrial revolution would have happened, it was too destructive of the established social order. If you think of what happened in just Britain, it nearly resulted in revolutions or uprisings several times, and it was only the use of excessive violence (such as at Peterloo) that kept things in check. Look to what happened in several places in Europe in 1848, and clearly that was an option that didnt always work. I think most nations would have recognized the problems it was causing and just clamped down on such progressive ideas.
 
Maybe Industrialism would have progressed, but it would have been at a far, far slower pace than it was. It may have made the US the initial industrializing nation, and Europe remaining just a backwater.

Good point here.  The Catholic nations still had the dead hand of the papacy holding them down.

 


No, it is not. Stuart could present his own opinions, but not his own facts. One fact there is Belgium, a Catholic country, being the first Continental European country to develop an Industrial Revolution. Thus that argument is a good example of garbage in, garbage out.

 

 

Its not my opinions, it was in a textbook on Europe between 1815 and 1914, and the industrial development of it, that I read when I was doing an Open University course on the industrial revolution. I can probably look it up if you want to cite it.

Do I agree with them? Yes. But please dont imply im plucking them out of think air just to attack Catholics because this is not the case.

 

As said before, for goods to go from Britain and Germany, where do they go? Belgium. So what we are interpreting as Belgian industrialization efforts, may just be British and German Financiers developing trade links in a 3rd nation. I do seem to recall that unlike the UK, the Belgian Railways, like the German ones, were state planned and largely built with state funds. Which implies to my mind, entreprenerism didnt have much to do with the initial stages of the Belgian industrial revolution. Why was Belgium different in this regard from other Catholic nations? A good question I have no answers to. But that it was, is self evident.

 

Compare and contrast to Spain, Portugal and Italy, and contrast how industrial development occurred there compared to Britain. It lagged considerably. Even France to a large extent lagged the UK, although to be fair to them, not sitting on large stockpiles of coal didnt help matters much either. Its why they subsequently became world leaders in hydro electric power, and perhaps nuclear power also.

 

 

There was something different about the Protestant countries. And I dont mean they were better, or cleverer, or anything like that. For some reason they industrialized first, and there was some inherent structural advantage being 'different' from the rest of Europe helped them. We can argue about why that is, but that it happened that way is a fact.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 15 July 2019 - 0636 AM.

  • 0

#22 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0643 AM

 

 

 

When I was studying the history of Europe between 1815 and 1914, which is when most of them industrialized, there was a trend noted that deserves some study. All the nations in Europe that first industrialized were protestant nations. That doesn't mean that somehow protestants were smarter. It just implies there was some retardation on progress in Catholic nations, that held them back. And I think that was the Catholic church being a retardation on progress, perhaps for social reasons, perhaps even because they owned land or had great influence and feared the upheaval progress would bring.
 
An example is Italy, which was unified by Garibaldi. Unfortunately in doing so he took some of the land that belonged to the Vatican. If I can remember rightly, the Pope put out a bull or proclamation saying that anyone that supported Garibaldi and tthe new Italian state would be excommunicated (or at the very least, treated with extreme displeasure). The result was Italy took longer to unify than many of the European nations that also went through similar integrations (such as the German Empire). That may have contributed to poor performance in WW1, and eventually the rise of Mussolini.
 
I dont think the industrial revolution would have happened, it was too destructive of the established social order. If you think of what happened in just Britain, it nearly resulted in revolutions or uprisings several times, and it was only the use of excessive violence (such as at Peterloo) that kept things in check. Look to what happened in several places in Europe in 1848, and clearly that was an option that didnt always work. I think most nations would have recognized the problems it was causing and just clamped down on such progressive ideas.
 
Maybe Industrialism would have progressed, but it would have been at a far, far slower pace than it was. It may have made the US the initial industrializing nation, and Europe remaining just a backwater.

Good point here.  The Catholic nations still had the dead hand of the papacy holding them down.

 


No, it is not. Stuart could present his own opinions, but not his own facts. One fact there is Belgium, a Catholic country, being the first Continental European country to develop an Industrial Revolution. Thus that argument is a good example of garbage in, garbage out.

 

 

Its not my opinions, it was in a textbook on Europe between 1815 and 1914, and the industrial development of it, that I read when I was doing an Open University course on the industrial revolution. Do I agree with them? Yes. But please dont imply im plucking them out of think air just to attack Catholics because this is not the case.

"All the nations in Europe that first industrialized were protestant nations". That is a quite strong statement. I am wondering if your memories are accurate, as this statement is clearly false, because of Belgium.

 

As said before, for goods to go from Britain and Germany, where do they go? Belgium. So what we are interpreting as Belgian industrialization efforts, may just be British and German Financiers developing trade links in a 3rd nation.

I think the Dutch Netherlands are more in the way, and the Rhine does not meet the sea in Belgian territory. Then there is the Hansa.

 

Compare and contrast to Spain, Portugal and Italy, and contrast how industrial development occurred there compared to Britain. It lagged considerably. Even France to a large extent lagged the UK, although to be fair to them, not sitting on large stockpiles of coal didnt help matters either.

You should go back to your books. In mine, they stated that coal fields + iron ore is the common trend among the early areas that had the industrial revolution. 

 

There was something different about the Protestant countries. And I dont mean they were better, or cleverer, or anything like that. For some reason they industrialized first, and there was some inherent structural advantage being 'different from the rest of Europe helped them. We can argue about why that is, but that it happened that way is a fact. Im not making it up.

Yes, there was something different, like better propaganda.

 


  • 0

#23 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,062 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0644 AM

I fully agree.
Luther was a skilled demagogue and at the same time also a well-schooled theologian, so he combined three factors that made his absolutely non-unique critique of the Roman Catholic church particularly successful. But he was also a useful pawn on the chessboard of European politics at the time for those of the aristocracy who wished to liberate themselves from overbearing RCC influence on non-religious policy matters.


And not only the direct Church influence, but also against the Habsburg dynasty at the top of the Holy Roman Empire. German princes championed Luther's cause as a way to assert/extend their sovereignty against the Catholic emperor and his base of legitimacy.

I'm rather sure a variant of the Thirty Year War would have happened anyway; its religious facade wore off quick enough, with Catholic France fighting alongside Protestant Sweden against the Catholic Habsburg side, etc.
  • 0

#24 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0701 AM

And not only the direct Church influence, but also against the Habsburg dynasty at the top of the Holy Roman Empire. German princes championed Luther's cause as a way to assert/extend their sovereignty against the Catholic emperor and his base of legitimacy.


Very much. I've seen the thesis that William the Silent used Lutheranism to justify his rebellion against Philip II.
No Luther could also means no Müntzer, then no German Peasant's War, but still could have been smaller revolts, Jacquerie-style.
 

I'm rather sure a variant of the Thirty Year War would have happened anyway; its religious facade wore off quick enough, with Catholic France fighting alongside Protestant Sweden against the Catholic Habsburg side, etc.


Yes, France is a wild card. On one hand, they will not suffer the internecine religion wars, on the other hand, the Habsburg encirclement could be a fact.


  • 0

#25 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0703 AM

 

 

 

 

When I was studying the history of Europe between 1815 and 1914, which is when most of them industrialized, there was a trend noted that deserves some study. All the nations in Europe that first industrialized were protestant nations. That doesn't mean that somehow protestants were smarter. It just implies there was some retardation on progress in Catholic nations, that held them back. And I think that was the Catholic church being a retardation on progress, perhaps for social reasons, perhaps even because they owned land or had great influence and feared the upheaval progress would bring.
 
An example is Italy, which was unified by Garibaldi. Unfortunately in doing so he took some of the land that belonged to the Vatican. If I can remember rightly, the Pope put out a bull or proclamation saying that anyone that supported Garibaldi and tthe new Italian state would be excommunicated (or at the very least, treated with extreme displeasure). The result was Italy took longer to unify than many of the European nations that also went through similar integrations (such as the German Empire). That may have contributed to poor performance in WW1, and eventually the rise of Mussolini.
 
I dont think the industrial revolution would have happened, it was too destructive of the established social order. If you think of what happened in just Britain, it nearly resulted in revolutions or uprisings several times, and it was only the use of excessive violence (such as at Peterloo) that kept things in check. Look to what happened in several places in Europe in 1848, and clearly that was an option that didnt always work. I think most nations would have recognized the problems it was causing and just clamped down on such progressive ideas.
 
Maybe Industrialism would have progressed, but it would have been at a far, far slower pace than it was. It may have made the US the initial industrializing nation, and Europe remaining just a backwater.

Good point here.  The Catholic nations still had the dead hand of the papacy holding them down.

 


No, it is not. Stuart could present his own opinions, but not his own facts. One fact there is Belgium, a Catholic country, being the first Continental European country to develop an Industrial Revolution. Thus that argument is a good example of garbage in, garbage out.

 

 

Its not my opinions, it was in a textbook on Europe between 1815 and 1914, and the industrial development of it, that I read when I was doing an Open University course on the industrial revolution. Do I agree with them? Yes. But please dont imply im plucking them out of think air just to attack Catholics because this is not the case.

"All the nations in Europe that first industrialized were protestant nations". That is a quite strong statement. I am wondering if your memories are accurate, as this statement is clearly false, because of Belgium.

 

As said before, for goods to go from Britain and Germany, where do they go? Belgium. So what we are interpreting as Belgian industrialization efforts, may just be British and German Financiers developing trade links in a 3rd nation.

I think the Dutch Netherlands are more in the way, and the Rhine does not meet the sea in Belgian territory. Then there is the Hansa.

 

Compare and contrast to Spain, Portugal and Italy, and contrast how industrial development occurred there compared to Britain. It lagged considerably. Even France to a large extent lagged the UK, although to be fair to them, not sitting on large stockpiles of coal didnt help matters either.

You should go back to your books. In mine, they stated that coal fields + iron ore is the common trend among the early areas that had the industrial revolution. 

 

There was something different about the Protestant countries. And I dont mean they were better, or cleverer, or anything like that. For some reason they industrialized first, and there was some inherent structural advantage being 'different from the rest of Europe helped them. We can argue about why that is, but that it happened that way is a fact. Im not making it up.

Yes, there was something different, like better propaganda.

 

 

We didnt have any Iron ore. We had to import it. We had mountains of coal, so there was a growth industry for a start.

 

Sunday, you absolutely cannot accept this is not propaganda based, but an academic study of where industrialism occurred. Ok, lets look at a map.

948418_orig.png

 

And bear in mind, that is halfway through the 1800's. The industrial process is already half done by that point, and still the predominant point is Northern Europe. Look how little it had yet to touch spain or Italy. And arguably they should have been among the first, because they had far better sea links than say, the German confederation.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 15 July 2019 - 0705 AM.

  • 0

#26 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0708 AM

And its not resource distribution. Look at this one to see where the resources are spread over Europe, and its evenly spread.

 

16e_Map_19.02.jpg

 

There needs to be another explanation of why Northern Europe industrialized first. Ive heard rejection of it being down to protestantism, fair enough, im open to other theories, but Im damned if I can think of one.


  • 0

#27 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0721 AM

 

 

 

 

 

When I was studying the history of Europe between 1815 and 1914, which is when most of them industrialized, there was a trend noted that deserves some study. All the nations in Europe that first industrialized were protestant nations. That doesn't mean that somehow protestants were smarter. It just implies there was some retardation on progress in Catholic nations, that held them back. And I think that was the Catholic church being a retardation on progress, perhaps for social reasons, perhaps even because they owned land or had great influence and feared the upheaval progress would bring.
 
An example is Italy, which was unified by Garibaldi. Unfortunately in doing so he took some of the land that belonged to the Vatican. If I can remember rightly, the Pope put out a bull or proclamation saying that anyone that supported Garibaldi and tthe new Italian state would be excommunicated (or at the very least, treated with extreme displeasure). The result was Italy took longer to unify than many of the European nations that also went through similar integrations (such as the German Empire). That may have contributed to poor performance in WW1, and eventually the rise of Mussolini.
 
I dont think the industrial revolution would have happened, it was too destructive of the established social order. If you think of what happened in just Britain, it nearly resulted in revolutions or uprisings several times, and it was only the use of excessive violence (such as at Peterloo) that kept things in check. Look to what happened in several places in Europe in 1848, and clearly that was an option that didnt always work. I think most nations would have recognized the problems it was causing and just clamped down on such progressive ideas.
 
Maybe Industrialism would have progressed, but it would have been at a far, far slower pace than it was. It may have made the US the initial industrializing nation, and Europe remaining just a backwater.

Good point here.  The Catholic nations still had the dead hand of the papacy holding them down.

 


No, it is not. Stuart could present his own opinions, but not his own facts. One fact there is Belgium, a Catholic country, being the first Continental European country to develop an Industrial Revolution. Thus that argument is a good example of garbage in, garbage out.

 

 

Its not my opinions, it was in a textbook on Europe between 1815 and 1914, and the industrial development of it, that I read when I was doing an Open University course on the industrial revolution. Do I agree with them? Yes. But please dont imply im plucking them out of think air just to attack Catholics because this is not the case.

"All the nations in Europe that first industrialized were protestant nations". That is a quite strong statement. I am wondering if your memories are accurate, as this statement is clearly false, because of Belgium.

 

As said before, for goods to go from Britain and Germany, where do they go? Belgium. So what we are interpreting as Belgian industrialization efforts, may just be British and German Financiers developing trade links in a 3rd nation.

I think the Dutch Netherlands are more in the way, and the Rhine does not meet the sea in Belgian territory. Then there is the Hansa.

 

Compare and contrast to Spain, Portugal and Italy, and contrast how industrial development occurred there compared to Britain. It lagged considerably. Even France to a large extent lagged the UK, although to be fair to them, not sitting on large stockpiles of coal didnt help matters either.

You should go back to your books. In mine, they stated that coal fields + iron ore is the common trend among the early areas that had the industrial revolution. 

 

There was something different about the Protestant countries. And I dont mean they were better, or cleverer, or anything like that. For some reason they industrialized first, and there was some inherent structural advantage being 'different from the rest of Europe helped them. We can argue about why that is, but that it happened that way is a fact. Im not making it up.

Yes, there was something different, like better propaganda.

 

 

We didnt have any Iron ore. We had to import it. We had mountains of coal, so there was a growth industry for a start.

 

Sunday, you absolutely cannot accept this is not propaganda based, but an academic study of where industrialism occurred. Ok, lets look at a map.

948418_orig.png

 

And bear in mind, that is halfway through the 1800's. The industrial process is already half done by that point, and still the predominant point is Northern Europe. Look how little it had yet to touch spain or Italy. And arguably they should have been among the first, because they had far better sea links than say, the German confederation.

 

 

Yes, look at the "Major exposed coalfields". Coal is more determinant, as the transportation cost of coal is higher. Also, one could not do siderurgy with lignite, as you should know.

In the following map, in other post, I only need to say that all the points are the same size regardless of how big is the field/deposit, and of how easy is to exploit. I know many of the Spanish mines in that map are small/difficult to work.


  • 0

#28 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,028 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0742 AM

Perhaps the Henry VIII divorce is now an anecdote, as there was no a separate set of religious sects to give him an intellectual background, and Mary I could redress the English situation. Increase of commerce with Spain and the HRE. Also no Puritans, thus no religious driver to settle out of England, and no Mayflower. North America is colonized by other means. Up north, Flodden Field still takes place, Scotland gets less aggressive for a time, and no Presbyterians.

I don't think there's much chance of Henry remaining in the fold.  He wanted a male heir, his current wife had not produced one and he remained infatuated with Anne.  He showed that he was perfectly happy to circumvent the Bishop of Rome in pursuit of that goal.  Absent Luther, he could decide that the Eastern church model of local hierarchy controlled by the king/emperor  worshiping in the local language would suit him just fine.


  • 0

#29 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0742 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

When I was studying the history of Europe between 1815 and 1914, which is when most of them industrialized, there was a trend noted that deserves some study. All the nations in Europe that first industrialized were protestant nations. That doesn't mean that somehow protestants were smarter. It just implies there was some retardation on progress in Catholic nations, that held them back. And I think that was the Catholic church being a retardation on progress, perhaps for social reasons, perhaps even because they owned land or had great influence and feared the upheaval progress would bring.
 
An example is Italy, which was unified by Garibaldi. Unfortunately in doing so he took some of the land that belonged to the Vatican. If I can remember rightly, the Pope put out a bull or proclamation saying that anyone that supported Garibaldi and tthe new Italian state would be excommunicated (or at the very least, treated with extreme displeasure). The result was Italy took longer to unify than many of the European nations that also went through similar integrations (such as the German Empire). That may have contributed to poor performance in WW1, and eventually the rise of Mussolini.
 
I dont think the industrial revolution would have happened, it was too destructive of the established social order. If you think of what happened in just Britain, it nearly resulted in revolutions or uprisings several times, and it was only the use of excessive violence (such as at Peterloo) that kept things in check. Look to what happened in several places in Europe in 1848, and clearly that was an option that didnt always work. I think most nations would have recognized the problems it was causing and just clamped down on such progressive ideas.
 
Maybe Industrialism would have progressed, but it would have been at a far, far slower pace than it was. It may have made the US the initial industrializing nation, and Europe remaining just a backwater.

Good point here.  The Catholic nations still had the dead hand of the papacy holding them down.

 


No, it is not. Stuart could present his own opinions, but not his own facts. One fact there is Belgium, a Catholic country, being the first Continental European country to develop an Industrial Revolution. Thus that argument is a good example of garbage in, garbage out.

 

 

Its not my opinions, it was in a textbook on Europe between 1815 and 1914, and the industrial development of it, that I read when I was doing an Open University course on the industrial revolution. Do I agree with them? Yes. But please dont imply im plucking them out of think air just to attack Catholics because this is not the case.

"All the nations in Europe that first industrialized were protestant nations". That is a quite strong statement. I am wondering if your memories are accurate, as this statement is clearly false, because of Belgium.

 

As said before, for goods to go from Britain and Germany, where do they go? Belgium. So what we are interpreting as Belgian industrialization efforts, may just be British and German Financiers developing trade links in a 3rd nation.

I think the Dutch Netherlands are more in the way, and the Rhine does not meet the sea in Belgian territory. Then there is the Hansa.

 

Compare and contrast to Spain, Portugal and Italy, and contrast how industrial development occurred there compared to Britain. It lagged considerably. Even France to a large extent lagged the UK, although to be fair to them, not sitting on large stockpiles of coal didnt help matters either.

You should go back to your books. In mine, they stated that coal fields + iron ore is the common trend among the early areas that had the industrial revolution. 

 

There was something different about the Protestant countries. And I dont mean they were better, or cleverer, or anything like that. For some reason they industrialized first, and there was some inherent structural advantage being 'different from the rest of Europe helped them. We can argue about why that is, but that it happened that way is a fact. Im not making it up.

Yes, there was something different, like better propaganda.

 

 

We didnt have any Iron ore. We had to import it. We had mountains of coal, so there was a growth industry for a start.

 

Sunday, you absolutely cannot accept this is not propaganda based, but an academic study of where industrialism occurred. Ok, lets look at a map.

948418_orig.png

 

And bear in mind, that is halfway through the 1800's. The industrial process is already half done by that point, and still the predominant point is Northern Europe. Look how little it had yet to touch spain or Italy. And arguably they should have been among the first, because they had far better sea links than say, the German confederation.

 

 

Yes, look at the "Major exposed coalfields". Coal is more determinant, as the transportation cost of coal is higher. Also, one could not do siderurgy with lignite, as you should know.

In the following map, in other post, I only need to say that all the points are the same size regardless of how big is the field/deposit, and of how easy is to exploit. I know many of the Spanish mines in that map are small/difficult to work.

 

 

Yes, but that doesnt quite work does it? As said, Britain is one giant lump of coal. It was trivial for us to move it to ports and export it to the industrializing nations that didnt have much in the way of coal (such as Norther France). But here is the thing, it was northern Europe that was not industrializing, not the southern part. Why? Its barely more expensive to move by ship to Southern Europe than it is Northern Europe, particularly if you were using sailing ships.

 

Follow the railway lines, they show where the major industrialization efforts were underway. Its clear, predominantly, the industrialization that was underway, was Northern European based. Its not resources, because as you can see from teh map, they are fairly evenly spaced around Europe. There is clearly another reason.

 

Here is another interesting clue. I was watching a Discovery programme called 'Abandoned Engineering', and it showed a giant ore loading gantry that was still standing in Almeira. The point is its called El Cable Ingles, or the English pier. And it was called the English pier because it was British designed and built, and the ore mines in Spain that fed it were British and French owned.

http://andalucia.com...el-cable-ingles

 

Which suggest strongly to me, it was ultimately not Spanish industrialists that were unlocking Spains industrial revolution. It was fellow European ones, including British ones. To which I have to ask, why? What made these other European nations leg behind?  And clearly as we see here, it wasnt for want of resources.  You had everything everyone else wanted.

 

cable-ingles-04.jpg


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 15 July 2019 - 0745 AM.

  • 0

#30 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,824 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0831 AM

Guys, could you stop quoting to the n-th level?

On the topic, I do think that religion had some influence. In the early 20th Germany horse and cow ownership was noticeably higher in protestant areas. So was the level of education, particularly of women. OTOH, no reformation means no 100 plus years of religious wars. You still have the political ones, but there the enemy isn't some horrible heretic who needs to be utterly exterminated. Some territorial concessions will do.
  • 0

#31 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,824 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0835 AM

One more thought:

Political stability. It was very high in the UK, the Germanies and Scandinavia, not so much in Spain.
  • 0

#32 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0852 AM

Yes, but that doesnt quite work does it? As said, Britain is one giant lump of coal. It was trivial for us to move it to ports and export it to the industrializing nations that didnt have much in the way of coal (such as Norther France). But here is the thing, it was northern Europe that was not industrializing, not the southern part. Why? Its barely more expensive to move by ship to Southern Europe than it is Northern Europe, particularly if you were using sailing ships.
 
You forget the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, especially the Peninsular War, that devastated the incipient Spanish industry - shipyards do not exist in a vacuum, for instance. I will not link anything, as you will not read it. Also, still today, it is not cost effective to transport coal for ironmaking.
 
Follow the railway lines, they show where the major industrialization efforts were underway. Its clear, predominantly, the industrialization that was underway, was Northern European based. Its not resources, because as you can see from teh map, they are fairly evenly spaced around Europe. There is clearly another reason.

I see you do not know why the Spanish rail lines are where they are, nor that the transport in Spain before Napoleon was mainly by coastal shipping (yes, not all cargo needed to be moved by train!), and coastal shipping took a hit because some uppity pirates with official sanction based in Minorca found commerce warfare a good way to enrich themselves...
 
Here is another interesting clue. I was watching a Discovery programme called 'Abandoned Engineering', and it showed a giant ore loading gantry that was still standing in Almeira. The point is its called El Cable Ingles, or the English pier. And it was called the English pier because it was British designed and built, and the ore mines in Spain that fed it were British and French owned.
http://andalucia.com...el-cable-ingles
 
Which suggest strongly to me, it was ultimately not Spanish industrialists that were unlocking Spains industrial revolution. It was fellow European ones, including British ones. To which I have to ask, why? What made these other European nations leg behind?  And clearly as we see here, it wasnt for want of resources.  You had everything everyone else wanted.
 
Yes, Stuart, you are easily suggested. Show me a facility for embarking Spanish coal, please. Because you highlighted that bit about Coal is more determinant, as the transportation cost of coal is higher. Iron ore is way easier to handle - it does not burn by itself, for starters, and usually it makes more sense to transport iron ore than to transport coal for ironmaking. Sweden used to export a lot of iron ore. Was Sweden lagging behind too? Ah, no, they are Protestant!


Also, congratulations in discovering France is a Protestant country


Edited by sunday, 15 July 2019 - 0857 AM.

  • 0

#33 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0855 AM

One more thought:

Political stability. It was very high in the UK, the Germanies and Scandinavia, not so much in Spain.

 

Indeed. Spain's 19th century was horrible in that matter.


  • 0

#34 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0856 AM

Guys, could you stop quoting to the n-th level?

On the topic, I do think that religion had some influence. In the early 20th Germany horse and cow ownership was noticeably higher in protestant areas. So was the level of education, particularly of women. OTOH, no reformation means no 100 plus years of religious wars. You still have the political ones, but there the enemy isn't some horrible heretic who needs to be utterly exterminated. Some territorial concessions will do.

 

If Stuart is not reading the answers to his posts, then it is difficult for him to delete unnecessary quotes. 


  • 0

#35 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0901 AM

Im going to say something I heard from my grandfather, by way of my father, and I mean no insult to any Catholics, least of all Sunday. He said that when he advanced through Sicily, latterly through Italy, he noticed that everyone in every village he went to, was starving. Except the Parish priest, who was always tubby and well fed. Im sure there is some degree of exaggeration in that (and he admittedly had a personal beef because the Pope didnt allow the British Army in to see the Vatican after liberating it), but it does illustrate that at least some elements of the church were well established, and determined to remain so, even in the middle of a war. Its difficult not to think this much have retarded industrialization as well, even at a low level, because Social change means different living standards, both for the church and the local population. Both Poland and Ireland saw significant social change in the past 3 decades, and its mean a considerable denudation of the churches influence and standing in those regions. I remember John Paul the second lamenting about it at some length when it came to Poland.

 

I mean no offense with that observation. If its worth anything, I think the Russian Orthodox Church had a far worse effect on the industrializing of Russia (not to mention is social and political development), which ultimately had even worse effects than it had in Southern Europe.

 

 

One more thought:

Political stability. It was very high in the UK, the Germanies and Scandinavia, not so much in Spain.

 

To a point. We were willing to put down revolts savagely, in fact the Yeomanry was intended for very little else. I think also the fact there were increasing living standards went a long way to head of political instability. Even in the worst of the industrial revolution you could actually make a fairly good living, as long as you didnt get married and have about 7 kids which seemed popular in the Victorian period, probably due to high mortality. The downside of that was if you didnt have any kids, it was probably the workhouse for you in your dotage.

 

There were riots in london and other places, most notably Bristol. But they never seemed to last long, and most notably, the only time someone put forward an agenda for social change, the chartists, it was ignored without much in the way of rioting. Again, economic advancement was probably a major drive for ignoring such concerns. In the 1970's and 80's we didnt see such reticence.


  • 0

#36 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0909 AM

Stuart, if you really do not want to offend anyone by making a possibly offensive statement, then the best way to not offend anyone is by not making the statement.


Edited by sunday, 15 July 2019 - 0909 AM.

  • 0

#37 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0914 AM

 

Yes, but that doesnt quite work does it? As said, Britain is one giant lump of coal. It was trivial for us to move it to ports and export it to the industrializing nations that didnt have much in the way of coal (such as Norther France). But here is the thing, it was northern Europe that was not industrializing, not the southern part. Why? Its barely more expensive to move by ship to Southern Europe than it is Northern Europe, particularly if you were using sailing ships.
 
You forget the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, especially the Peninsular War, that devastated the incipient Spanish industry - shipyards do not exist in a vacuum, for instance. I will not link anything, as you will not read it. Also, still today, it is not cost effective to transport coal for ironmaking.
 
Follow the railway lines, they show where the major industrialization efforts were underway. Its clear, predominantly, the industrialization that was underway, was Northern European based. Its not resources, because as you can see from teh map, they are fairly evenly spaced around Europe. There is clearly another reason.

I see you do not know why the Spanish rail lines are where they are, nor that the transport in Spain before Napoleon was mainly by coastal shipping (yes, not all cargo needed to be moved by train!), and coastal shipping took a hit because some uppity pirates with official sanction based in Minorca found commerce warfare a good way to enrich themselves...
 
Here is another interesting clue. I was watching a Discovery programme called 'Abandoned Engineering', and it showed a giant ore loading gantry that was still standing in Almeira. The point is its called El Cable Ingles, or the English pier. And it was called the English pier because it was British designed and built, and the ore mines in Spain that fed it were British and French owned.
http://andalucia.com...el-cable-ingles
 
Which suggest strongly to me, it was ultimately not Spanish industrialists that were unlocking Spains industrial revolution. It was fellow European ones, including British ones. To which I have to ask, why? What made these other European nations leg behind?  And clearly as we see here, it wasnt for want of resources.  You had everything everyone else wanted.
 
Yes, Stuart, you are easily suggested. Show me a facility for embarking Spanish coal, please. Because you highlighted that bit about Coal is more determinant, as the transportation cost of coal is higher. Iron ore is way easier to handle - it does not burn by itself, for starters, and usually it makes more sense to transport iron ore than to transport coal for ironmaking. Sweden used to export a lot of iron ore. Was Sweden lagging behind too? Ah, no, they are Protestant!


Also, congratulations in discovering France is a Protestant country

 

 

Sunday, this is getting silly. France as I said industrialized, but it was slower than Germany for a variety of reasons. Yes, it is Catholic, but its still had a not insignificant population of Protestants. Was it Catholic or Protestants that were these investors? I dont know, and to be honest its somewhat academic AFTER France had industrialized. Which it did, although it took longer than its Northern and Eastern neighbour.

 

It will also be remembered that the first railways built in France were actually British built. I cant swear they were British financed, but it wouldnt surprise me to learn of it. So even the French industrial revolution needed significant British input.

 

It wasnt for lack of smarts either, this was the nation that gave the world the Brunels and Louis Bleriot. So what was holding them back? Partly it was lack of coal. But for whatever reason, they didnt industrialize like Britain and Germany. It started with small cottage industries, gunmakers, cheesemakers, viniers, and then the larger industries came later.

 

Why did it work that way? Who knows. Perhaps people found industrial development easier on a small, local scale than they did on a larger, state scale. Although considering how screwed up France was until after Napoleon III departed, I can hardly blame them for keeping it local.


  • 0

#38 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0920 AM

Stuart, if you really do not want to offend anyone by making a possibly offensive statement, then the best way to not offend anyone is by not making the statement.

 

Well if you are determined to be offended, there really isn't much point contributing anything further I guess.


  • 0

#39 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 15 July 2019 - 0936 AM

I think the information on evilness of things Catholic has been sufficiently introduced.


  • 0

#40 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 15 July 2019 - 1155 AM

The way I understand the sequence of events and working backwards...

The industrial revolution happened because James Watt perfected the steam engine. Steam engines were invented to boost the coal industry. Coal was developed because the crown needed to save the forests from being burned and instead used as lumber for the navy.  The navy was expanded enormously to fight imperial rivals. Europe has been fighting wars with itself for thousands of years. What does any of that have to do with the pope?


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users