Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

  1. #1

    Default innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    One of the questions is what caused the Great Divergence, where Western Civilization greatly surpassed other societies, which previously had been comparable or even ahead of Europe, both economically and technologically.


    A distinctive feature of Western Civilization since the Middle Ages has been its continous technological advancement. This has been unique in history, other civilizations have burst of technical innovation lasting for a few centuries followed by periods of relative stagnation, where innovation and advancement greatly slows down. You see this in the ancient classical world, where after a burst of innovation during Classical Greece and Hellenistic period, you much less technological advancement during Roman times, more a refining and improving of existing technology rather than creating brand new technology. You see this also in China, which after the burst of innovation in the Song dynasty you see relative technological stagnation during the Ming and Qing dynasty. Yet that same technological stagnation did not happen in Europe starting from medieval times onward. If anything, innovation increased over time, not diminished. This fact is what I believe is the root cause of the Great Divergence, and understanding why Europe did not follow the usual pattern of technical innovation diminishing overtime and is the key to understanding the Great Divergence.


    After all, if you keep technologically advancing while your peers don't, there will come a point in time where you willi have so much of a technological edge you will overwhelm your peers. Like a tortoise passing the hare, you can come from behind and still wind up the winner. The question is why didn't Europe wind up in the typical pattern of technological stagnation following innovation. Take for example the stern rudder. The Chinese invented a stern rudder centuries before the Europeans, but then stopped- they did not make major changes to it. After the European's invented their stern rudder, they found as their ships got bigger a problem that you also see on the Chinese ships, namely that big ships require big rudders which require a lot of effort and men to operate. So the Europeans came up with a solution, the whipstaff, which gave mechanical advantage to operate the rudder tiller, in the 16th and 17th century, so one helmsman could operate the rudder. But the whipstaff had drawbacks, a big one being you were limited on how far you could turn the rudder. So in the beginning of the 18th century Europeans came up with a better solution, the steering wheel. Without the steering wheel the large ships of modern times. For the 800 ton 19th century Chinese sailing ship the Keying, it took up to 15 men to handle the tiller rudder.and the captain said it would have taken 30 men without block and tackle ("A Description of the Chinese Junk Keying", Fourth Edition. London 1848. A 51 page pamplet sold onboard) A larger ship woukd take even more men to operate the rudder While Chinese innovation stopped Euorpean innovation on the rudder continued for centuries

    Nor was it just the Chinese who displayed this lack of innovation overtime. The Roman made some improvements to the ballista invemted hundreds of years earlier, making them bigger and switching to metal frames, but they never made major changes or advanced to more powerful siege engines like the counterweight trebuchet. Europeans advanced from the medieval trebuchets to black powder smoothbore cannons to rifled barrel guns firing explosive shells in the same amount of time. Both the Romans and Chinese might have felt their inventions were good enough but there is always room for improvement.

    One thing I noticed in Western Civilization is an appreciation of newness for its own sake - the new, latest clothing styles that are different from what went before is actively sought, not merely tolerated. An annual Paris type fashion show where the latest new fashions are displayed and sought would be inconceivable in pre modern China, it would be a total dud. But I could conceive such a fashion trend working in high medieval Europe - nobles there appreciated new trends in fashion and tried to be up-to-date with the latest court fashion.

    You see it in art as well - new styles of art are praised and western artists seek out new methods, new styles, new mediums. Pre Modern Chinese artist sought to replicate the works of earlier times rather than deliberstely seeking out new styles and new modes. I think this desire and seeking out the new spilled over into technical innovation in Europe in a way it did not in China.

    New, simply for the sake of being new, was not as appreciated in other civilizations as in Europan civilization. Even in what is traditionally a conseravitive area, you often find the expression of the "new" in Europe. Gothic cathedrals were radical innovation in their day, pushing advances in both engineering and art. Likewise, when Wren rebuilt St. Paul's cathedral, he did not use the well establish gothic design, but the newer, more radical designs of his day, and faced new engineering challenges. Compare that to the pagodas of the Ming dynasty which look like those of the Tang, or the Blue Mosque in Instanbul, which looks like the Hagiaii Sophia built a 1000 years earlier. I am not saying what is new is not appreciated in other cultures, it just was not as highly esteemed in premodern times outside of the West.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; August 14, 2020 at 07:36 PM. Reason: typos

  2. #2

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Well, I don't think there's any such thing as "Western" or "European" civilisation. The cultures that have been developed in the European continent, from Iceland and Portugal to the Caucasus and the Urals are so diverse, linguistically, religiously, architecturally and etc. that they cannot be classified together, unless we ignore every methodological concept completely. Anyway, in my opinion, the crux of the matter lies in the unprecedented prosperity and urbanisation of certain parts of Western Europe (especially in the British Isles, the Rhine valley and etc.) that provided not only the necessary requirements for scientific motivation, but also the equally important motivation for it. That prosperity was the result of the discovery of the Americas, whose resources (precious metals, agricultural products, fish and etc.) could only be exploited by the maritime powers of the western shores of Europe.

    Trade and credit services were boosted dramatically, while the generated wealth was gradually distributed to countries, which had initially not directly benefited from it, such as Germany. That positive evolution also coincided with other geographical advantages of Europe, like a temperate climate and navigable rivers, which encouraged an efficient agricultural and commercial sector. I can't comment on China, because I'm totally clueless about anything eastwords of Central Asia, but, in the meantime, the Middle and Near East faced serious difficulties. The climate was changing since the 11th century, with hotter and drier summers, which sabotaged the region's fertility, while also offering great opportunities for lethal diseases to decimate nearby populations on a regular basis. As for the American market and resources, these were obviously inacessible even to the Ottoman Empire, while the Sultanate of Morocco lacked useful ports and a solid basis (population, political and military strength) to even think of committing itself into such ambitious endeavours. Further to the east, the Mongol invasions were particularly catastrophic, as they annihilated urban communities, intentionally and unintentionally undermined irrigation infrastructure and provoked a massive immigration of nomadic herdsmen, at the expense of both city-dwellers and settled farmers. The circumnavigation of Africa and the subsequent decline of the Silk Road exacerbated the situation, but, in my opinion, it was not the decisive factor, it is often assumed to be.

    The resulted difference in wealth, prosperity and urbanisation was so huge that western Europe was able to excel in technological affairs, without any serious competition, until basically the 20th century, when the benefits of the aforementioned economic boom started to slowly trickle down to the rest of the continents. Of course, it should also be mentioned that scientific advance brought more prosperity, which led to even more significant scientific progress, in a pattern that strongly ressembles a vicious circle (albeit without any negative connotations, of course).

  3. #3
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    where innovation and advancement greatly slows down. You see this in the ancient classical world, where after a burst of innovation during Classical Greece and Hellenistic period, you much less technological advancement during Roman times
    I don't think you can make that argument. How do propose a show a slow down in technological advancement under Rome. I'd say if you want to bracket the early classical period around the Med till when Rome lost persistent and united control over the Mediterranean you say there was any loss of technical improvements.

    over the same length of period European siege wespons went from tebuchets to cannons
    Of course the later European got the fortuitous import of Chinese innovation. Lacking that how could the Romans experiment with cannons.

    , but they never made manor changes or advancd to more powerful siegd engines like the counterweight trebuchet
    Problematic as the trebuchet is not more powerful. It is in fact simpler, but a medieval army so equipped would loose the duel with a Roman legion. The Legion however would need quite bit larger and more expensive logistical chain to sustain its artillery.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  4. #4

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Quote Originally Posted by Abdülmecid I View Post
    Well, I don't think there's any such thing as "Western" or "European" civilisation. The cultures that have been developed in the European continent, from Iceland and Portugal to the Caucasus and the Urals are so diverse, linguistically, religiously, architecturally and etc. that they cannot be classified together, unless we ignore every methodological concept completely.
    Hundreds of books talk about Western Civilization and can find college courses on "Western Civilization" across the country all contraeixt your claims. I have a."Great Lecture" college course on the origins of "Western Civilization". You are quite wrong for a number of reasons:

    1. From Sweden to Italy and Poland, Latin was long the language of scholarship, providing an unifying language for.scientific and scholarly pursuits. Newton's works on Gravity was written in Latin. Scientific naming of plants and animals using Latin was developed by a Swede, a land well beyond the Roman Empire. The Swedes did not start using Latin until after they converted to Christianity, long after the Roman Empire was no more

    2. The Crusades drew nights from all over Europe to work for a common goal. Their opponents and allies recognized the commonality of the Crusaders, lumping them togerher as Franks oe Latins.

    3. A single religion held sway over Western Europe, originally the Catholic Church which was an united orgsnization with a central administration holding theoretical religious control. Even when the religious unity split, the daughter churches still had common features and outlook, sharing s lot of common beliefs

    4. People freely exchangrd letters, and ideas across the region of western Europe. A German, Kepler, used observstions by a Dane, Brahe, to calculate the orbits of the planets, using a theory proposed by a Pole, Copernicus, which was promoted by an Italian, Galileo. Works like Dante's inferno were popular throughout Europe, not just in Italy. Shakespeare is very popular in Germany

    5. Technology showed sharing of design - the stern rudder of northern ships was combined with the caravel frame first hull construction, square northern sails combine with southern latin sails create a common Europesn ship design used by Europezn ships.from England, Sweden to Spain. Similar clothing trends czn be found throughout Europe. An 17 th century well off European is going to look more similar to another 17th European from another country than a 19th one from his own country.

    While there were regional variations, there were even more common technological features as well. By your logic therr isnno such.thing as Islamic civilization either, or a Mediterranean or ancient Classical Civilization, since your same objections would apply to them.


    Anyway, in my opinion, the crux of the matter lies in the unprecedented prosperity and urbanisation of certain parts of Western Europe (especially in the British Isles, the Rhine valley and etc.) that provided not only the necessary requirements for scientific motivation, but also the equally important motivation for it. That prosperity was the result of the discovery of the Americas, whose resources (precious metals, agricultural products, fish and etc.) could only be exploited by the maritime powers of the western shores of Europe.
    Northern Italy was one of the most prosperous areas of Europe and advanced up to the 17th century. Parts of Europe achieved a certain level of prosperity before the discovery of the Americas. Places like Flanders had achieved high levels of urbanization before Columbus. Inventions like thr printing press happened before Columbus, and gothic cathedrals demonstrate that Eueope had achieved a degree of properiry and technical before Columbus. Discovery of America added to European prosperity, but it did not create it all.

    Trade and credit services were boosted dramatically, while the generated wealth was gradually distributed to countries, which had initially not directly benefited from it, such as Germany. That positive evolution also coincided with other geographical advantages of Europe, like a temperate climate and navigable rivers, which encouraged an efficient agricultural and commercial sector.
    Trade and credit services had been growing drsmatically before the discovery of the New World. The first European bankers were Italians, whose wealth came from Mediterranean and internal European trade, not the New World. The Italian Renaissance was not fueled by the New World but Mediterranean trade.

    I can't comment on China, because I'm totally clueless about anything eastwords of Central Asia, but, in the meantime, the Middle and Near East faced serious difficulties. The climate was changing since the 11th century, with hotter and drier summers, which sabotaged the region's fertility, while also offering great opportunities for lethal diseases to decimate nearby populations on a regular basis. As for the American market and resources, these were obviously inacessible even to the Ottoman Empire, while the Sultanate of Morocco lacked useful ports and a solid basis (population, political and military strength) to even think of committing itself into such ambitious endeavours. Further to the east, the Mongol invasions were particularly catastrophic, as they annihilated urban communities, intentionally and unintentionally undermined irrigation infrastructure and provoked a massive immigration of nomadic herdsmen, at the expense of both city-dwellers and settled farmers. The circumnavigation of Africa and the subsequent decline of the Silk Road exacerbated the situation, but, in my opinion, it was not the decisive factor, it is often assumed to be.
    Europe's rise occurred during the Little Ice Age, which made for significantly poorer growing conditions. Europe.agriculture advanced due to technological improvements, not better weather conditions. And poorer growing conditions doesn't. explain the Islamic world rejection of the printing press which it did for centuries. The Islamic world and the Middle East still had wealth, the Ottomman Empire's wealth is demonstrated in things likr the Blue Mosque. The plague routinely hit Europe as well, Newton developed his idea for gravity at home while his univerisity was shutdown due to the plague. It still didn't stop the rise of Europe. Europe was especial hit hard by the Blsck Death and it took a long time for Euuropean population levels to recover. But it still didn't stop n Europe's technical advance. A century after thr Black Death, the printing press was invented.

    difference in wealth, prosperity and urbanisation was so huge that western Europe was able to excel in technological affairs, without any serious competition, until basically the 20th century, when the benefits of the aforementioned economic boom started to slowly trickle down to the rest of the continents. Of course, it should also be mentioned that scientific advance brought more prosperity, which led to even more significant scientific progress, in a pattern that strongly ressembles a vicious circle (albeit without any negative connotations, of course).
    It was rhe already increasing prosperity and advancing technology Europe that allowed Europe to discover the Americas in the first place. Europe of the 10th century would not have been able to conquer to conquer the Americas and exploit its resources, only advances in ship technology and weaponry which happened before Columbus made thr conquest feasible. I think you have it backwards. The advancing technology led to the discovery of the New World, not the other way around. The discovery of the New World did not lead to increased urbanization or long term wealth in Spain and Portugal, because the factors driving them in Europe were internal, not the discovery of the Americas. Once other parts of the world adopted European technology and mindset, like Japan, they became as prosperous. Middle East has yet to fully embrace a western outlook, and so it still lags.

  5. #5

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    I don't think you can make that argument. How do propose a show a slow down in technological advancement under Rome. I'd say if you want to bracket the early classical period around the Med till when Rome lost persistent and united control over the Mediterranean you say there was any loss of technical improvements.
    Take a look at ship construction for one example. There was no major fundamental change in ship design, either in warship or commercial, nor in navigstional methods, from classical Greece to the fall of Rome in around 400 AD, a period around 1000 years. In Europe, you went from small viking long ships to steel hull ships battleships in the same length of time. Let us look at things:

    From 1066 AD you went from ships on the Bayeux Tapestry looking like Viking long ships to 1266 medieval cogs, radical different design. From 1266 to 1566 you see the change from a cog.to a galleon, again a radical change in design. You just so those kinds of advances in the ancient world - a Roman ship of 100 BC looks similar to one of 200 AD.


    Of course the later European got the fortuitous import of Chinese innovation. Lacking that how could the Romans experiment with cannons.
    The Europes also invented a lot on their own. The Europeans invented reading glasses, not the Chinese, and they invented horizontal axis windmills. The Romans had the technology, but didn't invent windmillsm. The Romans could have invented pwoerful handheld crossbows that used mechanical assist like windlass, but didn't either.

    The Chinese import of innovations are have been somewhat overrated. True, Europeans got gunpowder from China and handcannons, but it was Europeans.thst invented the matchlock that enabled guns to become the primary weapon of soldiers. The Japanese never embraced Chinese hand cannons but they did embrace matchlocks, for example.

    Problematic as the trebuchet is not more powerful.
    Trebuchets could fire much heavier projectiles than ballistas. Roman balkistas heaviest projectiles were around 60 lbs, while.recontructed trebucher at Warwick Castle fires 36 kg (80 lbs) projectiles and there are reports of trebuchet firing dead horses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet

  6. #6

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Invention, like evolution, is born out of need and competition. And it was continual hammering of these two, thanks to the unique combination of geography and history, that, in my opinion, created a mentality that carries the spirit of individuality, relative non-conformism and invention. Which is unique because human beings display remarkable tendency to slide into tradition and complacency. The drive for invention is born usually out of external pressure on culturally homogenous area, like wars with external enemy, or in the wake of some major upheaval. Basically, things that force people to look at things in new way. Internal pressure rarely produce such effect, because the competition there is all subject to the same cultural mentality.

    Look at the geography of Europe. Compared to the other places where civilizations sprung up, it's far less fertile-and would be much worse if it wasn't for Gulf Stream. The fertile regions are mostly strips of the coast surrounding the hilly and mountainous interior. That is first thing that caused and allowed to maintain fragmentation of the European population. Even during pre-Roman antiquity, this cultural fragmentation is evident. It subsided, for a while, during Roman Empire, but was quickly shaken up by the successive crises and then Migration period that again culturally fragmented Europe.

    Now, Europe at the end of the "dark ages" is an interesting thing. On relatively small area, there are many small kingdoms, many languages, many cultures, all in frequent contact and competing with each other. Historically, such configuration was usually unstable-one competitor would rise above the rest and unify the area into the empire, leading to growth, then stagnation and fall into tradition, then eventually crisis and fragmentation. China went through such cycle a few times, so did India and Japan. But in Europe, the combination of factors-religious situation, where Christianity maintained some degree of kinship between all those small, independent kingdoms against external pressure of Islamic world, while the balance of powers between them, geographical and linguistic/cultural fragmentation prevented rise of one faction unifying the Europe into another empire, all caused Europe to become fixed in one stage of the cycle, the fragmentation and competition that meant there was continual drive for invention. One of greatest examples of this is 15th century Iberian peninsula. Portugal, competing with Spain economically, was driven to look outward for power, innovating seafaring and exploring south along the African coast, eventually leading to establishment of trade route to India, and huge influx of wealth. Spain, in turn, was pressured to compete, eventually leading the Spanish monarch to put faith in Columbus' shoddy mathematics...and the rest is history.

    But that wasn't enough. The biggest kick, and biggest permanent change, was capitalism. Oh, trade and money existed for millennia, but they were always just tools. I won't poke much deeper into philosophy behind economics, but it's sufficient to say that there's a grain of truth to the old maxim that money is the shared belief that currency-in itself an abstract representation-can be freely exchanged for goods and such state will continue. This belief was, historically, propped by a different source of power-usually ruling class embedded in tradition. The unique situation of Europe where large number if independent rulers, independent countries interacted with each other, and thus engaged in international trade, created a situation where this belief in money gained inertia, started becoming detached from the traditional sources of power and became source of power in its own right. That's a huge change, one oft overlooked when talking about capitalism. It meant that even outside extraordinary circumstances, competition for power was open to virtually everyone. The realization came gradually, from the already established moneyed classes partially propped in power by tradition (minor nobility), but eventually, some small bid for power, unhampered by traditional order, was available for large segments of population. But these people-eventually becoming what's known as middle class-were in a disadvantageous position, and thus they had need for invention and innovation to overcome the advantage. What capitalism truly created was internal competition and pressure for innovation in which large segments of population could engage, one that doesn't come with outside invaders or natural disasters.

    Over time, this became embedded in cultural mentalities of European people. We often don't realize it, but within last several centuries, Europeans-and their colonial descendants-displayed a prominent feature in their mentality that has only during 19th and 20th centuries spread around the globe. It's the idea that ordinary people can strive for and become extraordinary outside of extraordinary circumstances. You don't have to be a farmer or a smith because your father was farmer or smith, you can become something better, more powerful. And if you don't have the backing of inheritance, in sense of either wealth or tradition behind you, the way toward it is invention and innovation.

    Well...this ended up being much longer that I thought it will be. And I haven't even touched the effect Islamic world had on the subject, which is another interesting matter. Just a thing...please, do a more through job on spellchecking next time. You make awful lot of typos, and headache from reading such broken text increasses exponentially with its length. If you have time to make such post, you have time to read it again before posting and correcting typos, no matter how you're posting, even on cellphone you can correct your text.

  7. #7

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    Invention, like evolution, is born out of need and competition. And it was continual hammering of these two, thanks to the unique combination of geography and history, that, in my opinion, created a mentality that carries the spirit of individuality, relative non-conformism and invention. Which is unique because human beings display remarkable tendency to slide into tradition and complacency. The drive for invention is born usually out of external pressure on culturally homogenous area, like wars with external enemy, or in the wake of some major upheaval. Basically, things that force people to look at things in new way. Internal pressure rarely produce such effect, because the competition there is all subject to the same cultural mentality.
    I agree that invention is born out of need and competition. But that does not have to be external, internal competition would work also - a manufacturer competing with his competitor across the street will be driven to find any advantage he can, and that can drive innovation as much as any outside factor. European arms advance were driven by European competition not by threats outsiden Europe.

    And there is another factor you missed - the drive for novelty, to seek out something that is new simply because it is new. Esrly adopters of technology often adopt the new technology not because they need it, but because it is cool, to show off and impress others.

    Nor is need itself sufficient. The drawbacks of the matchlocks are well known, but the Chinese never came up with better firing mechanisms like flintlocks to address the deficiencies. Or look at my rudder example- the Chinese rudder required a lot of manpower to operate on bigger ships, yet the Chinese never worked to come up with a better solution. There cleary was a need for a better rudder, but that was not enough for the Chinese to drive it.

    Look at the geography of Europe. Compared to the other places where civilizations sprung up, it's far less fertile-and would be much worse if it wasn't for Gulf Stream. The fertile regions are mostly strips of the coast surrounding the hilly and mountainous interior. That is first thing that caused and allowed to maintain fragmentation of the European population. Even during pre-Roman antiquity, this cultural fragmentation is evident. It subsided, for a while, during Roman Empire, but was quickly shaken up by the successive crises and then Migration period that again culturally fragmented Europe..
    A lot of European soil isn't that bad, it is richer than many soils in other areas. Plus it usually has adequate water, drought is usually not a problem. But the high latitudes does make for a shorter growing season and potentially colder weather. The hilly areas are poorer for farming.

    And while Europe's geography might have made political unity difficult, it did not prevent cultural unity. Even in pre Roman times common cultural and linguistic groups covered large areas of Europe - Celts, Germans, Slavs. Although politically divided these groups had numerous tribed sharing common language and culture. In the middle ages Europe shared a common language of learning, Latin.

    Now, Europe at the end of the "dark ages" is an interesting thing. On relatively small area, there are many small kingdoms, many languages, many cultures, all in frequent contact and competing with each other. Historically, such configuration was usually unstable-one competitor would rise above the rest and unify the area into the empire, leading to growth, then stagnation and fall into tradition, then eventually crisis and fragmentation.
    The Catholic Church was a powerful unifying force, producing a common culture that had a common scholarly language and set of moral values

    China went through such cycle a few times, so did India and Japan. But in Europe, the combination of factors-religious situation, where Christianity maintained some degree of kinship between all those small, independent kingdoms against external pressure of Islamic world, while the balance of powers between them, geographical and linguistic/cultural fragmentation prevented rise of one faction unifying the Europe into another empire, all caused Europe to become fixed in one stage of the cycle, the fragmentation and competition that meant there was continual drive for invention.
    China periods of fragmentation never lasted that long, and a common Chinese culture helped re-establish China's unity. India was never completely united before the British, modern Indis is a British creation. But there was a cultural unity even while India was politically fragment. After the Caliphate, the Muslim became permanently fragmented as well and is still fragmented. Even with common language and religion it is not enough to unite the Arab world.

    Europe's experience is not unique, and the resson Austria is not part of Germany is not really due to geography. The reason Germany and Italy were composed of independent countries for a long time is not really due to geography either. Ascribing Europe's political fragmentation on geography is overrated.

    One of greatest examples of this is 15th century Iberian peninsula. Portugal, competing with Spain economically, was driven to look outward for power, innovating seafaring and exploring south along the African coast, eventually leading to establishment of trade route to India, and huge influx of wealth. Spain, in turn, was pressured to compete, eventually leading the Spanish monarch to put faith in Columbus' shoddy mathematics...and the rest is history.
    Spain was not forced to compete, it was driven by the example of Portugal getting wealth, and the same relative poverty as drove Portugal. The English and Dutch were inspired by the Spanish. The Dutch were already well off beforenthey became a major naval power, it was not economic necessity but desire for even more profits which drove the Dutch. France was thr richest country in Europe, but still became involved in the European expansion

    But that wasn't enough. The biggest kick, and biggest permanent change, was capitalism. Oh, trade and money existed for millennia, but they were always just tools. I won't poke much deeper into philosophy behind economics, but it's sufficient to say that there's a grain of truth to the old maxim that money is the shared belief that currency-in itself an abstract representation-can be freely exchanged for goods and such state will continue. This belief was, historically, propped by a different source of power-usually ruling class embedded in tradition. The unique situation of Europe where large number if independent rulers, independent countries interacted with each other, and thus engaged in international trade, created a situation where this belief in money gained inertia, started becoming detached from the traditional sources of power and became source of power in its own right. That's a huge change, one oft overlooked when talking about capitalism. It meant that even outside extraordinary circumstances, competition for power was open to virtually everyone. The realization came gradually, from the already established moneyed classes partially propped in power by tradition (minor nobility), but eventually, some small bid for power, unhampered by traditional order, was available for large segments of population. But these people-eventually becoming what's known as middle class-were in a disadvantageous position, and thus they had need for invention and innovation to overcome the advantage. What capitalism truly created was internal competition and pressure for innovation in which large segments of population could engage, one that doesn't come with outside invaders or natural disasters.
    Capitalims is important but not quite in the way you describe. As weapons became more costly, rulers needed to borrow to be competitive. The British were the best at borrowing, so they won out. France bad a bigger population but bankrupted themselves funding thr American Revolutio which lead to the French Revolution. Capitslism also funded technologicsl innovation, an example is the printing press, which Gutenberg had to borrow money to fund its invention - without that money, the printing press would not habd been invented

    Over time, this became embedded in cultural mentalities of European people. We often don't realize it, but within last several centuries, Europeans-and their colonial descendants-displayed a prominent feature in their mentality that has only during 19th and 20th centuries spread around the globe. It's the idea that ordinary people can strive for and become extraordinary outside of extraordinary circumstances. You don't have to be a farmer or a smith because your father was farmer or smith, you can become something better, more powerful. And if you don't have the backing of inheritance, in sense of either wealth or tradition behind you, the way toward it is invention and innovation.
    True, but not unique to Europe. You see examples in other societies where people leave their home and farms to strikenit rich in the big city, that is not unique to Europem

    Well...this ended up being much longer that I thought it will be. And I haven't even touched the effect Islamic world had on the subject, which is another interesting matter. Just a thing...please, do a more through job on spellchecking next time. You make awful lot of typos, and headache from reading such broken text increasses exponentially with its length. If you have time to make such post, you have time to read it again before posting and correcting typos, no matter how you're posting, even on cellphone you can correct your text.
    A good point. I will try to do better, but even when I think I have corrected all my mistakes, I find a dozen more typos I missed after I read what I posted. I swear, when I am fixing one typo more seemn to be c. reated in other areas.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; August 14, 2020 at 06:56 PM. Reason: typos

  8. #8

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    To add an interesting discussion on the Great Divergence?, here is an.artice on Japan 730 - 1876. Although Japan lagged northwest Europe, it experienced positive growth before 1868, unlike China and India, which had negative growth https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...14498317300992

    It is interesting to note Japan, which was the first non European country to close the gap with Europe, had a number of cultural similarities with Europe
    Last edited by Lifthrasir; August 15, 2020 at 12:15 AM. Reason: Continuity

  9. #9

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    I agree that invention is born out of need and competition. But that does not have to be external, internal competition would work also - a manufacturer competing with his competitor across the street will be driven to find any advantage he can, and that can drive innovation as much as any outside factor. European arms advance were driven by European competition not by threats outsiden Europe.

    And there is another factor you missed - the drive for novelty, to seek out something that is new simply because it is new. Esrly adopters of technology often adopt the new technology not because they need it, but because it is cool, to show off and impress others.
    You have a knack for picking the wrong examples. I've stated that it was capitalism that generated most internal drive for innovation, and you counter with...capitalistic example.

    Drive for novelty is a factor, but rather insignificant one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Nor is need itself sufficient. The drawbacks of the matchlocks are well known, but the Chinese never came up with better firing mechanisms like flintlocks to address the deficiencies. Or look at my rudder example- the Chinese rudder required a lot of manpower to operate on bigger ships, yet the Chinese never worked to come up with a better solution. There cleary was a need for a better rudder, but that was not enough for the Chinese to drive it.
    This is exactly what I meant by the human tendency toward tradition and complacency. People usually need some shaking up to start thinking about doing things in better way than their ancestors. China lacked that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    A lot of European soil isn't that bad, it is richer than many soils in other areas. Plus it usually has adequate water, drought is usually not a problem. But the high latitudes does make for a shorter growing season and potentially colder weather. The hilly areas are poorer for farming.

    And while Europe's geography might have made political unity difficult, it did not prevent cultural unity. Even in pre Roman times common cultural and linguistic groups covered large areas of Europe - Celts, Germans, Slavs. Although politically divided these groups had numerous tribed sharing common language and culture. In the middle ages Europe shared a common language of learning, Latin.

    The Catholic Church was a powerful unifying force, producing a common culture that had a common scholarly language and set of moral values

    China periods of fragmentation never lasted that long, and a common Chinese culture helped re-establish China's unity. India was never completely united before the British, modern Indis is a British creation. But there was a cultural unity even while India was politically fragment. After the Caliphate, the Muslim became permanently fragmented as well and is still fragmented. Even with common language and religion it is not enough to unite the Arab world.
    If my memory serves me right, European population plateaued during middle ages, several times in fact, due to food supply, and it was nowhere near other civilization centers.

    Anyway, you're overstating the influence of Catholic church in this. It did pull the countries together, but it didn't unify them in the most important aspects for this topic. Thinking, language, tradition. The biggest drive for invention is the time when people are confronted and compete with someone who thinks and acts differently, because that induces change in both. Language and tradition...those factors immensely shape the way people think. If you're multilingual and actually have contact with people from other cultures, it doesn't take much thinking to realize that.

    That it remained fragmented this way without isolation of its kingdoms and with massive contact and competition between them was the unique period in European history that forced continued invention and created the divergence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Europe's experience is not unique, and the resson Austria is not part of Germany is not really due to geography. The reason Germany and Italy were composed of independent countries for a long time is not really due to geography either. Ascribing Europe's political fragmentation on geography is overrated.
    Geography and history are IMO the biggest parts. Migration period shattered the growing cultural homogenity of Roman empire, and in its wake, the geography certainly helped in giving the fragments coalesce into individiual, independent ethnic, cultural and linguistics factions that could resist much of the further unification.


    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Spain was not forced to compete, it was driven by the example of Portugal getting wealth, and the same relative poverty as drove Portugal. The English and Dutch were inspired by the Spanish. The Dutch were already well off beforenthey became a major naval power, it was not economic necessity but desire for even more profits which drove the Dutch. France was thr richest country in Europe, but still became involved in the European expansion
    Oh, but they were. Competition doesn't necessarily mean a military one. Every time you have two countries in contact with each other, there is some competition. The poorer strives to to be like the richer one, no matter how rich theose two already are. And the richer might see the poorer ones as threat or something to exploit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    Capitalims is important but not quite in the way you describe. As weapons became more costly, rulers needed to borrow to be competitive. The British were the best at borrowing, so they won out. France bad a bigger population but bankrupted themselves funding thr American Revolutio which lead to the French Revolution. Capitslism also funded technologicsl innovation, an example is the printing press, which Gutenberg had to borrow money to fund its invention - without that money, the printing press would not habd been invented
    In middle ages, the borrowing of money by kings to fund their wars was how the wealthy people first got a real whiff how money became power in its own right. Even kings were subject to economics. That got the ball rolling. Economy became another separate power structure, outside of tradition, religion and cultural inertia that kept kings and nobles on their thrones. And everyone could compete in it, without having the requisite place in social hierarchy first. This meant that much larger portion of population became involved in striving for power. And for those who came into it with less money, invention was a good way toward power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    True, but not unique to Europe. You see examples in other societies where people leave their home and farms to strikenit rich in the big city, that is not unique to Europem
    Yes. Now. In, say, 18th century China or India? Very rarely. That's my point.
    Last edited by Lifthrasir; August 15, 2020 at 12:20 AM. Reason: Continuity

  10. #10
    Lifthrasir's Avatar "Capre" Dunkerquois
    Patrician Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    City of Jan Baert
    Posts
    13,950
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Please, stay on topic. If you mention additional factors/events to the discussion, make a clear relation between them and the topic of this thread. Thanks for your understanding.
    Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader

  11. #11

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Quote Originally Posted by Sar1n View Post
    You have a knack for picking the wrong examples. I've stated that it was capitalism that generated most internal drive for innovation, and you counter with...capitalistic example.
    Yes, but capitalism worked differently than you explained. Capitalism was merely the tool, not end goal. Capitalism by itself did not change society, it was merely an enabler. You could accumulatr great amount of capital but not result in major changes. It is how Capitalism is used that counts. You gave the impression it was the ???only major factor that counted. And that is not correct.

    Drive for novelty is a factor, but rather insignificant one.
    But that is my premise, that this drive for novelty is not insignificant. It is what made Europe different from the other regions. People seldom do things for just one reaons, it is usually for a bunch of reasons. Need by itself might not be enough to invest in an new invention, but add the novelty factor and it could tip the balance. You see it in the introduction of new technology. New technology is often expensive and has development problems, but no one wants to buy the new technology until is proven and developed, and manufacturers can't gain experience and make the new technology cheaper until people people start buying it first, which prevents a new technology or invention from getting off the ground. The novelty breaks that cycle - you can sell the item due to its novelty and gain the experience you need to make it practical.

    The entire aviation industry started off as a novely item - the first planes were built by hobbyist, and only when they had been somewphat perfected did practical needs take over.




    This is exactly what I meant by the human tendency toward tradition and complacency. People usually need some shaking up to start thinking about doing things in better way than their ancestors. China lacked that.
    But isn't the need to do something a different way the novely factor? After all, the Chinese got along with their rudders, the Europeans didn't need to come up with steering wheels. It was that over all desire for the new, the novelty that made things different in Europe. Europe didn't need to be shaken up to want to improve things, it operated on the rule "things could always be improved" and the desird to have the latest new thing.

    If my memory serves me right, European population plateaued during middle ages, several times in fact, due to food supply, and it was nowhere near other civilization centers.
    There was the plague and reoccurrences of it that could have effected population fluctiarion?. The Black Death played a primary role in the 14th century. And there was another drop in the 17th century where you had plague in England and 30 years war in Germany. Food supply waa in the 14th century as, but I didn't see it in the later centuries.

    ?



    Anyway, you're overstating the influence of Catholic church in this. It did pull the countries together, but it didn't unify them in the most important aspects for this topic. Thinking, language, tradition.
    Actually, the Catholic Church did. Language (Latin), thinking, tradition were all common across Europe thanks to the Catholic. People all read the same philosophers, read same literary works, had similar traditionsnin marriage, over all outlook. Universities, which were created by the Church, had similar curriculums. That would not have happened without the Catholic Church laying the foundations. The very concept of being an Europe came because of it. Of course, once foundation was laid, Church wss not as important. But it ws crucial to creating that essential foundation in the first place.

    The biggest drive for invention is the time when people are confronted and compete with someone who thinks and acts differently, because that induces change in both. Language and tradition...those factors immensely shape the way people think. If you're multilingual and actually have contact with people from other cultures, it doesn't take much thinking to realize that.
    Not so. Biggest drive for invention comes from the desire to invent new things. Japan was very successful at inventing despite its lack of diversity. It is new ideas that is importan but you don't need diversity in language or tradirion to achieve new ideas. Just to be open to them wherever they come from.



    Geography and history are IMO the biggest parts. Migration period shattered the growing cultural homogenity of Roman empire, and in its wake, the geography certainly helped in giving the fragments coalesce into individiual, independent ethnic, cultural and linguistics factions that could resist much of the further unification.
    Much of Europe was never under Roman control to begin with. Scotland, most of Germany, Scandinavia. You cannot shatter what did not exist in the first place. Geography does not explain why Germany was not united in medieval times but is now. You give platitudes but offer no actual specific elements to support your claims. Examples of Italy and Germany seems to disproves the geography claimso .



    Oh, but they were. Competition doesn't necessarily mean a military one. Every time you have two countries in contact with each other, there is some competition. The poorer strives to to be like the richer one, no matter how rich theose two already are. And the richer might see the poorer ones as threat or something to exploit.
    I don't see Canada striving to be like the US or US like Canada.


    In middle ages, the borrowing of money by kings to fund their wars was how the wealthy people first got a real whiff how money became power in its own right. Even kings were subject to economics. That got the ball rolling. Economy became another separate power structure, outside of tradition, religion and cultural inertia that kept kings and nobles on their thrones. And everyone could compete in it, without having the requisite place in social hierarchy first. This meant that much larger portion of population became involved in striving for power. And for those who came into it with less money, invention was a good way toward power.
    Kings sometimes borrowed money then didn't pay it back bankrupty the lender. Phillip the Fair cancelled his debts by killing thr Jews and having the Templars declarex heretics. Money is only a tool, not power in itselfpoo p p. You have to use it wisely for it to be effective. The economy is much more than capital, it is manufacturing and other things as well. The printing press was not about power, it was about making money. Making money is about getting the good things in life. not power.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; August 15, 2020 at 10:32 AM. Reason: typo. correction

  12. #12
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Trebuchets could fire much heavier projectiles than ballistas. Roman balkistas heaviest projectiles were around 60 lbs, while.recontructed trebucher at Warwick Castle fires 36 kg (80 lbs) projectiles and there are reports of trebuchet firing dead horses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet
    The Romans had heavier loads its just ~60 was the most popular. Why because the of the trebuchets had such a low velocity for the kinetic energy equation. The roman machines could double to near triple the trebuchet. so needed less mass for the delivered energy. Also although the Romans preferred working to a close flat shot to minimize lose of velocity and keep both accuracy and lack of shall we ducking time. at long range in lobbing fight the Roman machines had the easy range advantage as well.

    Their draw back was as I said they were very complex. And thay had a nasty tendency to 'explode' if not properly managed. A Trebuchet was very much more simple. In some ways its the very same reason Trebuchets were not displaced by cannons immediately. Or say why as late as the Thirty years war controlling or having friendly access to a major gun producing center was vital if you really wanted a mass army with quality guns and certainly so for wheel locks. A few guys in a hill fort with crude beams and what not and a one guy who knows how to a trebuchet get start tossing light rocks over the walls. Heavy to crush a head even in a helmet. A light torsion repeating device shooting bolts is not something the guys from the pub are going to be able make or maintain even if it is a lot better.

    Take a look at ship construction for one example. There was no major fundamental change in ship design, either in warship or commercial, nor in navigstional methods, from classical Greece to the fall of Rome in around 400 AD, a period around 1000 years. In Europe, you went from small viking long ships to steel hull ships battleships in the same length of time. Let us look at things:

    From 1066 AD you went from ships on the Bayeux Tapestry looking like Viking long ships to 1266 medieval cogs, radical different design. From 1266 to 1566 you see the change from a cog.to a galleon, again a radical change in design. You just so those kinds of advances in the ancient world - a Roman ship of 100 BC looks similar to one of 200 AD.
    You pick one vector? That's silly take a look at water mills under the Empire thay proliferated massively and in type. Consider livestock breeding and that is a technology. The increasing scale sophistication and nature roman cattle and Hog raise is palpably different the Hellenistic world. Be it the size of the animals, the management (Pigs in manged situations knocking out two broods a year). The careful rotation of tens in not more types of forage. And set within a careful long term rotation maximizing manure usage etc.

    Sail types and use evolved substantially over the Roman period

    Glass blowing was refined in Italy and than Imperial Italy and Gaul to factory scale far beyond what the Hellenist world invented.

    The Europes also invented a lot on their own. The Europeans invented reading glasses, not the Chinese, and they invented horizontal axis windmills. The Romans had the technology, but didn't invent windmillsm. The Romans could have invented pwoerful handheld crossbows that used mechanical assist like windlass, but didn't either.
    That was not my point. But they effectively prodce small hand held cross bows just tiny torsion devises.

    The Chinese import of innovations are have been somewhat overrated. True, Europeans got gunpowder from China and handcannons, but it was Europeans.thst invented the matchlock that enabled guns to become the primary weapon of soldiers. The Japanese never embraced Chinese hand cannons but they did embrace matchlocks, for example.
    I'm not sure what your point is? So you are saying if the Indians invented Gun powder somehow and that and it came back on a Roman ship crossing the Indian Ocean it would not have been used by Romans?
    Last edited by conon394; August 15, 2020 at 12:33 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  13. #13

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    The Romans had heavier loads its just ~60 was the most popular. Why because the of the trebuchets had such a low velocity for the kinetic energy equation. The roman machines could double to near triple the trebuchet. so needed less mass for the delivered energy. Also although the Romans preferred working to a close flat shot to minimize lose of velocity and keep both accuracy and lack of shall we ducking time. at long range in lobbing fight the Roman machines had the easy range advantage as well.

    All the evidence says you are wrong. For convenience here is an article on trebuchet which includes a comparison with Roman ballistas. Trebuchets were more powerful pastehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet. Please provide evidence for your claims. A number of sites bavd been found from ancienr sieges and 26.kg, 60 Lbs were the largest not average size.
    ?

    Their draw back was as I said they were very complex. And thay had a nasty tendency to 'explode' if not properly managed. A Trebuchet was very much more simple. In some ways its the very same reason Trebuchets were not displaced by cannons immediately. Or say why as late as the Thirty years war controlling or having friendly access to a major gun producing center was vital if you really wanted a mass army with quality guns and certainly so for wheel locks. A few guys in a hill fort with crude beams and what not and a one guy who knows how to a trebuchet get start tossing light rocks over the walls. Heavy to crush a head even in a helmet. A light torsion repeating device shooting bolts is not something the guys from the pub are going to be able make or maintain even if it is a lot better.
    They were weaker than trebuchets but longer range. I have not seen any evidence they exploded, please provide. A replica did, but was made of wood instead of iron for cost. Yes trebuchets were simpler too.

    You pick one vector? That's silly take a look at water mills under the Empire thay proliferated massively and in type. Consider livestock breeding and that is a technology. The increasing scale sophistication and nature roman cattle and Hog raise is palpably different the Hellenistic world. Be it the size of the animals, the management (Pigs in manged situations knocking out two broods a year). The careful rotation of tens in not more types of forage. And set within a careful long term rotation maximizing manure usage etc.
    Watermlls were invented the Greeks. The Roma s perfected technology they got, did not invent lot new. The medievsl Europesn had windmills, the Romans did not..Euoropeans had reading glasses, the Romans did. The shire horse dwarfed any horse the Romans had, and Medieval Europe had horseshoes the Romans did not.

    I am talking about rate of changes. In 400 years how much did the Roman soldier armor advance, not just change style? Was the Roman of 200 AD better stopping arrows than the Roman armod of 100 BC? Bows more powerful? Warships? In Roman cases it would be no, Europe 1150.- 1450 yes. A Roman army could hold its own against a Roman army 300 year in the future, a mediviel army could not. An army from 1366 would crush an army from 1066.

    Sail types and use evolved substantially over the Roman period.
    No it didn't. Square sails were use throughout the period. Sprit sails were also used, but but the had them. But basic oversll ship design was the same.

    Shils got bigger and additional masts were added, but overall design remained the same.

    Glass blowing was refined in Italy and than Imperial Italy and Gaul to factory scale far beyond what the Hellenist world invented.
    Glass blowing was a Roman Empire invention in Syria or Israel and then spread. One of the new Roman inventions. but relatively fewer than in the middld ages. Didn't say they had none, just fewer.?

    That was not my point. But they effectively prodce small hand held cross bows just tiny torsion devises.
    Scaled down version not really new technology. The steel cranequin crossbows did repesent new technology.

    I'm not sure what your point is? So you are saying if the Indians invented Gun powder somehow and that and it came back on a Roman ship crossing the Indian Ocean it would not have been used by Romans?
    The Romans might not have advanced to the matchlock if all they got was hand cannons. They would not have advanced to the flintlock

    But that was not my point. My point is Europe would still have advanced on its own without Chinese inventions. I thought you implied that the reason Europe advanced and Rome did not was due to Chinese inventions.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; August 16, 2020 at 03:05 AM. Reason: add clarification typo

  14. #14
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    All the evidence says you are wrong. For convenience here is an article on trebuchet which includes a comparison with Roman ballistas. Trebuchets were more powerful pastehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet. Please provide evidence for your claims. A number of sites bavd been found from ancienr sieges and 26.kg, 60 Lbs were the largest not average size.
    ?
    If you can wait a while. I was actually writing up a long post on the Trebuchet, vs 30 years era gun gun thread from a while ago. Had amassed a pile work on Guns, Trebuchets, Torsion etc. Unfortunately I stored all on a brand new drive that seems to have failed just a week ago. Seeing as its the rather difficult run up getting kids back to school and my son off to college (or not seeing as things pan out) I have not been in the mood to crack open my tower and trouble shoot. I will poke about in history and also bookmarks to see if I can pull up some of the relevant sources I would cite. But may not be till close to September.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  15. #15

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    Quote Originally Posted by conon394 View Post
    If you can wait a while. I was actually writing up a long post on the Trebuchet, vs 30 years era gun gun thread from a while ago. Had amassed a pile work on Guns, Trebuchets, Torsion etc. Unfortunately I stored all on a brand new drive that seems to have failed just a week ago. Seeing as its the rather difficult run up getting kids back to school and my son off to college (or not seeing as things pan out) I have not been in the mood to crack open my tower and trouble shoot. I will poke about in history and also bookmarks to see if I can pull up some of the relevant sources I would cite. But may not be till close to September.
    No hurry. I actually did a lot of research a number of years past on ballistas and trebuchets and they all said trebuchets were more powerful. I lost all the old links, but the wiki confirms what I remembered and sad. But I would be interested in what you find. New research change can change old beliefs

    I would be be more interested in Roman ships. I thought Roman ships were mostly carryover Greek design but bigger, perhaps I am wrong



    We will table the trebuchet discussion.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; August 16, 2020 at 10:59 AM. Reason: tu

  16. #16

    Default Re: innovation and the Great Divergrnce

    To illustrate what I driving about when I talk about a greater driving force for the new and innovation, of innovation for its own sake, in Europe. compare the design of Chinese swords with European swords overtime. All Chinese and Japanese swords used similae circular hilt designs. from the Han dynasy jian to modern katana.

    Europe had a much wider variety of swords. In the 16th cenrury you might see 2 handed long swords wirh simple straight cross shape guards, to large zweihanders with forward sweeping cross shaped guards wirh loops. of side projecting rings, and the complex fullly enclosing loopz of a single handed rapier. Blade design could the cuttinf blade of a falchion to the long slender thrusting blade of a rapier and estoc.

    From the katana to the larger odachi similar circular guards were use, while from the single handed basker hilt broad sword to the 2 handed long sword the guard designs are very different.

    You can see the circular hilt guard on these 10th - 13th century Chinese sword Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1536px-Liao_and_Jin_swords(2).jpg 
Views:	1 
Size:	191.5 KB 
ID:	362405



    looks similar to this 700 year later 20th century katana's circular hilt guard. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	H0298-L111608987(3).jpg 
Views:	0 
Size:	101.7 KB 
ID:	362404


    But look at the variey of hilt guards on just long swords. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nathan_collection_longswords02_s(2).jpg 
Views:	2 
Size:	37.1 KB 
ID:	362403


    While the Far East was content to use the same basic design for thosands of years, Europe experimented with. a variety of designs on even the same sword type
    Last edited by Common Soldier; August 19, 2020 at 02:30 PM. Reason: added pictures

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •