When Did the ME Go Wrong?

[crazy canuck]

I think that is basically false.

The various Jurchen, Manchu and Mongol conquerors of China certainly "absorbed" much of the civilization they conquered, ditto the various steppe conquerors of India.

The Mongols in particular absorbed and adapted to the cultures they conquered - witness the Il-khanate and Yuan China.  Nor would I say that culture such as it was in the Golden Horde suffered particularly.  Nor did the Mughals seem particularly incapable of absorbing civilization.

I think Malthus means nomads that for some reason remain nomads.  But that gets to the criticism Oex and JR have been making all along.

[Jacob]

This is not "hindsight", it is simply the case - almost universally, the effect of being subject to nomad invasion was to create reactionary governments - whether staffed by the nomads (now aristocrats) like the Turks or Manchus or in reaction to them (Ming, Muscovy).

I don't think this argument is solid.  If the steppe nomads implement reactionary governments (like you say the Turks and Manchus did) then it's a feature of steppe nomad culture, if they are not reactionary but rather progressive (the Mongols) then the gov'ts that come after (Min and Muscovy) will be reactionary.

That's rather "just so" don't you think?  If there is any sort of reactionary government in any proximity of steppe nomads, it's their fault.  This does not explain reactionary governments not related to steppe nomads, nor does it explain why some successor govt's are not reactionary and why some steppe nomad gov'ts aren't either.

[The Minsky Moment]

That's not an argument. Europe had many centuries before they achieved modernity. What has that got to do with anything?

It has everything to do with everything.  One obvious conclusion that it suggests is that there is nothing about possessing the technical pre-conditions of modernity that (absent some sinister monkey-wrench deus ex machina) ineluctably leads to modernity itself.  Ie it is quite possible for "advanced" but non-modern societies to conitnue on for centuries as such.  Indeed, that is the historical norm.  To paraphrase Ornette Coleman, to get to modernity, you need Somethin' Else.

Certain types of disasters have a different effect than others. They are not apples and apples.

To give just one example, the most horrific disaster in European history - the Black Death - is thought by many to have had a positive effect on social progress - essentially helping to break the back of serfdom in some places.

In contrast, other disasters have a different effect.

This is just confusing historical correlation with cause and effect.  The plague that hit Byzantium in the age of Justianian is said to have had a negative effect on progress because historically, "dark ages" follow; the same kind of plague that hits medieval Europe is said by some to be positive because historically the Italian Rennaissance follows.  Is the Black Death the "cause" of the Italian Rennaissance?  No more or less than the Salem Witch trials are the cause of the birth of American republicanism.

The problem with steppe nomads as a disaster is not so much the pyramids of skulls they leave behind - you are correct in that Europe has its share of skull-pilers, figurative if not literal. It is in the effect of creating governments which are intensely conservative and autocratic.

So the government of the Ottoman former steppe nomads was more conservative and autocratic than the late Byzantines?  I don't think so.  For that matter, the rise of medieval European civilization dates from the reaction against the last wave of steppe nomad invasions into Europe (and the parallel invasions of the "glacier barbarians" from the North).  The neat cause-and-effect doesn't hold.

Moroever, this analysis doesn't refute the example.  The governments that emerged out of the early 17th century crisis were also conservative and autocratic.  Indeed the ideology of central, princely abolutism flowed out of the Westphalian settlement.  A priori there is no reason to think the religious fundamentalist revivalism (on both Prostestant and Catholic sides) that arose during the crisis would have any beneficial effect on future development.  The only reason to think so is knowledge of what happened later.  And one cannot legitimately infer cause and effect from that correlation.

Heh never heard of the Huns? 

Or for that matter Vandals, Visigoths, etc.?

Barbarians (both steppe and otherwise) had lots to do with the fall of Roman civilization, which was the culmination of Mediteranian civilization. The main difference between steppe and non-steppe barbarians being, of course, that the non-steppe variety was capable of absorbing much of that civilization even as it destroyed it - by its nature, nomads cannot do so and remain nomads. 

The history of the Roman Empire is actually quite damaging to your case.  The Roman Empire lasted over 400 years before steppe nomads came into the picture (note -- he Goths, Vandals, Franks, etc. were not steppe nomads).  The early empire had the the technical know-how and the resources needed to create an industrial civilization.  It even had an extraordinary talent for applied engineering, and a very practical outlook on filling material needs.  Yet long before the Huns are even a glimmer in the imagination and even long before the settled barbarians pose even the suggestion of a risk to the security of the core provinces, it is clear that was never in the cards.  If the Huns never show up and the Goths stay calm on the other side of the Danube for perpetuity, it's not like there is any sign that Mediterranean civilization is going to advance steadily into modernity.  Au contraire - it looks like it is going the other way.

Even after Rome is gone, there is a second rise of Mediterranean civilization - the Italian communes and city-states which start their rise in the 12 century.  No steppe nomad threat there.  Also no transition to modernity.  Then comes the rise of the Atlantic civilization of Spain.  Again that would not be the source of the transition to the industrial world.  Again, steppe nomadism is a non-factor.

[Malthus]

Barbarians (both steppe and otherwise) had lots to do with the fall of Roman civilization, which was the culmination of Mediteranian civilization. The main difference between steppe and non-steppe barbarians being, of course, that the non-steppe variety was capable of absorbing much of that civilization even as it destroyed it - by its nature, nomads cannot do so and remain nomads.

I think that is basically false.

The various Jurchen, Manchu and Mongol conquerors of China certainly "absorbed" much of the civilization they conquered, ditto the various steppe conquerors of India.

The Mongols in particular absorbed and adapted to the cultures they conquered - witness the Il-khanate and Yuan China.  Nor would I say that culture such as it was in the Golden Horde suffered particularly.  Nor did the Mughals seem particularly incapable of absorbing civilization.

The did not "absorb" the civilization they took over - they were absorbed by it.  They did not take Chinese or Persian civilization back to mongolia with them - they set themselves up as aristocrats engrafted onto the civilizations they took over, making use of them without attempting to change what they had taken.

This accounts for the theme of my theory - the quite noticable conservatism of such dynasties. The nomad aristocrats were always a tiny purportion of the population, their rule tended to be precarious (witness what happened to the Il-Khans and the Yuan ... ). They did not wish to see any change in the structure on which they had fought to the top.

They did not wish to see change, particularly change which put power into the hands of "native" Chinese or Persians, since any change was likely to be change for the worse - for them.

[Jacob]

Careful now everybody tries to take credit for Europe.  If that was true wouldn't Poland and Russia then have led the developement and not lagged behind the Western Europeans?  After all they were living right beside the Mongols.

The point was, if I recall correctly, that much of the technology which formed the basis for the advancements in Europe arrived through the diffusion and scholarly exchanges facilitated by the Mongols.  No more.  So why Poland and Russia didn't go further than they did is not the point.  The argument isn't "everyone who's next to the Mongols did awesome" the argument is "many of the specific knowledges and technologies from Asia which Europe expanded upon as it developed only reached Europe when the Mongols encouraged and facilitated the exchange, something that was made possible by their vast control, their peace and their inclination to seek out and diffuse knowledge independent of its sources."

[Malthus]

The Mongols - even the non-Yuan ones - "fostered long-distance trade" (that is after all how the Polos got there), but the imposition of the Pax Mongolica was hardly a triumph for civilization.

I recently read a book that argued that it was exactly that.  The administration of the Pax Mongolica facilitated the exchange of ideas and scholarship that sowed the seeds of modernity.  Without the Mongols introducing a variety of administrative practices and technologies to Europe, Europe would not be in the position to develop as it did.

My post was in response to that theory.

[crazy canuck]

Heh never heard of the Huns? 

Or for that matter Vandals, Visigoths, etc.?

Barbarians (both steppe and otherwise) had lots to do with the fall of Roman civilization, which was the culmination of Mediteranian civilization. The main difference between steppe and non-steppe barbarians being, of course, that the non-steppe variety was capable of absorbing much of that civilization even as it destroyed it - by its nature, nomads cannot do so and remain nomads.

You are going to have to be more careful about this.  Vandals and Visigoths were both able to absorb the civilization that they conquered.  A quick trip to Ravenna will tell you about how well the Visigoths did and the Vandals held on in North Africa essentially absorbing Roman culture there until the Eastern Empire drove them out.

Not sure whether you lump those groups into the steppe or non steppe categorie you have created or on what basis you might do that.

[Malthus]

This is not "hindsight", it is simply the case - almost universally, the effect of being subject to nomad invasion was to create reactionary governments - whether staffed by the nomads (now aristocrats) like the Turks or Manchus or in reaction to them (Ming, Muscovy).

I don't think this argument is solid.  If the steppe nomads implement reactionary governments (like you say the Turks and Manchus did) then it's a feature of steppe nomad culture, if they are not reactionary but rather progressive (the Mongols) then the gov'ts that come after (Min and Muscovy) will be reactionary.

That's rather "just so" don't you think?  If there is any sort of reactionary government in any proximity of steppe nomads, it's their fault.  This does not explain reactionary governments not related to steppe nomads, nor does it explain why some successor govt's are not reactionary and why some steppe nomad gov'ts aren't either.

It seems to me a strange sort of coincidence that those nations taken over by violent, backwards barbarians just happen to suffer the ills of the sort of governments that tend to appeal to their barbarian overlords.

[Malthus]

Heh never heard of the Huns? 

Or for that matter Vandals, Visigoths, etc.?

Barbarians (both steppe and otherwise) had lots to do with the fall of Roman civilization, which was the culmination of Mediteranian civilization. The main difference between steppe and non-steppe barbarians being, of course, that the non-steppe variety was capable of absorbing much of that civilization even as it destroyed it - by its nature, nomads cannot do so and remain nomads.

You are going to have to be more careful about this.  Vandals and Visigoths were both able to absorb the civilization that they conquered.  A quick trip to Ravenna will tell you about how well the Visigoths did and the Vandals held on in North Africa essentially absorbing Roman culture there until the Eastern Empire drove them out.

Not sure whether you lump those groups into the steppe or non steppe categorie you have created or on what basis you might do that.

You aren't carefully reading what I wrote. The parts you quote address this. See emphasized bit.

[crazy canuck]

The did not "absorb" the civilization they took over - they were absorbed by it.

Now play fair.  Your first argument was that they could not absorb the culture because they remained nomads.  Now you are claiming they were absorbed by it....

[Jacob]

The did not "absorb" the civilization they took over - they were absorbed by it.  They did not take Chinese or Persian civilization back to mongolia with them - they set themselves up as aristocrats engrafted onto the civilizations they took over, making use of them without attempting to change what they had taken.

I disagree.  They reorganized the economies (esp. trade) and in their administration relied gathered scholars and experts from all their domains, facilitating the exchange and development of ideas.  Marco Polo was an official in Kublai Khan's government, for example.  Ideas and technologies and goods were exchanged across the breadth of the Mongol domains.  This is far from a conservative outlook or impact in my opinion.

This accounts for the theme of my theory - the quite noticable conservatism of such dynasties. The nomad aristocrats were always a tiny purportion of the population, their rule tended to be precarious (witness what happened to the Il-Khans and the Yuan ... ). They did not wish to see any change in the structure on which they had fought to the top.

Again, I don't think the way the Mongols handled the administration of their domains and the facilitation of the exchange of knowledge can be characterized as conservative.  Yes, they wanted to stay at the top and defend their priviliges, but that's hardly convincing.  The captains of industry who created the material foundation for modernity also wanted to gain a position at the top and maintain it.

[crazy canuck]

You aren't carefully reading what I wrote. The parts you quote address this. See emphasized bit.

I am reading quite carefully.  You are shifting.

[Malthus]

You aren't carefully reading what I wrote. The parts you quote address this. See emphasized bit.

I am reading quite carefully.  You are shifting.

How can I be "shifting" when what I said was in the part you quoted?

[Jacob]

My post was in response to that theory.

Your response to the theory is "no, that's not the case"?

I remain unconvinced.

[Malthus]

The did not "absorb" the civilization they took over - they were absorbed by it.

Now play fair.  Your first argument was that they could not absorb the culture because they remained nomads.  Now you are claiming they were absorbed by it....

Obviously the emperor of the Yuan did not "remain a nomad".