...when France, the Netherlands, Spain, other nations were still contenders?
Opinions?
Opinions?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't think Spain was ever a contender, and neither was the netherlands. Both lack coal which was THE driver for the early industrial revolution. I would say that by 1750 the track was pretty much set to be England, northeastern France or Belgium first, but nobody else. The direction of the napoleonic wars sealed the deal. They could have put France in 1st place, and moved england to 2nd or 3rd, but instead the english were the ones that came out on top.
The bank of England was founded in 1694 (i think )helped finance business...i was thinking 1688 the glouious revolution was a turning point. Thoughts?
At no point could the "industrial revolution" have had happened anywhere else than the UK. The "Industrial revolution" denotes the industrialization of cotton weaving. The mechanical and work organization advances that we attribute to the "Industrial revolution" happened at other places as well during that time span and prior to it as well.
France did not have cotton growing holdings nor did France aspire towards mechanization with the weavers of Lyon demanding a protectionist, Luddite policy.
Northern France/Belgian namely in the form of Wallons did contribute to the industrial revolution by their efforts in modernizing the Swedish iron smeltingin Uppland which was the source of the fine quality iron required to achieve the tolerances necessary for the industrial revolution in England. There's a multitude of examples of how technological gains elsewhere coalesce in the British isles, that is to say that while the industrial revolution couldn't have happened anywhere else than the UK, the industrial revolution ought not to be attributed to the UK as it was dependent on developments elsewhere as well.
France did not have cotton growing holdings nor did France aspire towards mechanization with the weavers of Lyon demanding a protectionist, Luddite policy.
Northern France/Belgian namely in the form of Wallons did contribute to the industrial revolution by their efforts in modernizing the Swedish iron smeltingin Uppland which was the source of the fine quality iron required to achieve the tolerances necessary for the industrial revolution in England. There's a multitude of examples of how technological gains elsewhere coalesce in the British isles, that is to say that while the industrial revolution couldn't have happened anywhere else than the UK, the industrial revolution ought not to be attributed to the UK as it was dependent on developments elsewhere as well.
It could have started/been done in a slightly different way if it had started somewhere else. If it had kicked off in France, it might have been (for example) in the standardization and mass production of muskets for the Napoleonic wars, or with the mass production of canned food goods - a valuable technology pioneered and invented by the French during that time period. Or it could have kicked off in Belgium using imported woolen material instead of in the UK with imported cotton material. There's nothing to say that the word 'industrial revolution' MUST involve cloth at all. That's simply the way it happened to turn out for the UK.
Cloth are basic commodity and it was near impossible to saturate the market by early 19th century means. It is a pretty good product to start an industrial revolution. ;-)
No doubt, but there are other ones that could have sparked it off too. It didn't NEED to be cloth, and even if it was cloth it didn't need to be cotton in England. It could have been cotton in the Americas, wool in Belgium, or some of the other things I mentioned. The example of musket production is a good one - in the period between roughly 1765 and 1800 the French came up with a system to ensure that the parts on their muskets and a lot of other military material would be interchangeable, or at a minimum relatively uniform. However the modes of production mostly remained small scale, with numerous artisans all making parts in traditional ways, but more or less to the same standard. The Americans modernized and centralized this system and successfully developed centralized mass produced facilities for military firearms by the 1830's. It would have been possible for the French to do this themselves during the Napoleonic wars, and have that be one of the key catalysts for the industrial revolution. Instead, the French focused on expanding widespread artisan production of war materials as a means of organizing and engaging the non-combatant populace as a whole, and to avoid the difficulties of concentrating raw materials at a factory and then dispersing finished goods caused by the effective British blockade.
With a less effective British blockade, or a France that felt constrained by manpower earlier than it did, the forces pushing towards centralized mass production of war material would have been stronger in France than they were in real life. It's entirely possible that we would today be talking about how the industrial revolution obviously started with the need to mass produce material for wartime - Obviously in no other case is the need to economize on labor so acute, the desire for a uniform product so urgent, the demand virtually unlimited, and the entire wealth of the state backing it's development and expansion. As it happened, it was peacetime demand for cloth and private purchasing power/demand for it that pushed for industrialization but all the other reasons were identical - desire to reduce labor required, and the demand for a uniform product in very large quantities, and a demand willing to pay for it.
My guess is that the major thing England had going for itself was the lack of disruption from invading armies; even the civil wars were fairly bloodless compared to the experience of the continent. Flanders had everything for an industrial revolution I think but the constant warfare of the 16th-18th century (e.g. the looting of Antwerp by Spanish mercenaries, repeated French invasions etc.) lead to relative economic decline.
I suspect that the chief advantages that Britain + Belgium had over France were more stable and reliable financial markets and a higher labor price. The England financed the Napoleonic wars through bonds which were eagerly bought by the old nobility. These paid extremely low interest and underwrote a huge amount, 200% of GDP. These bonds were easily liquified and were the primary source of income for many. So if you were a wholesaler, you had the luxury of extremely stable banks (at least compared to other places) as a byproduct of this financial system, you can write contracts with confidence and issue stocks. And if you were looking for investors for a risky project, the threadbare returns of government bonds would make alternative investments look attractive. The banking system of the low countries was of course well established for centuries and had been financing risky ventures all the way back to the dutch east India company. The high cost of labor would of course make labor saving devices more attractive and French labor costs might have been half what they were in these places.
So what could have given the French or someone else the labor costs and financial markets that the British and Belgians had? Well the Napoleonic wars ruined the finances of nations all over the European continent. Perhaps a talented diplomat in control of one of the nations might have managed to keep his nation free from the brunt of the wars. Doing so might have allowed another nation to replicate the financial stability and high labor costs that sparked the industrial revolution.
So what could have given the French or someone else the labor costs and financial markets that the British and Belgians had? Well the Napoleonic wars ruined the finances of nations all over the European continent. Perhaps a talented diplomat in control of one of the nations might have managed to keep his nation free from the brunt of the wars. Doing so might have allowed another nation to replicate the financial stability and high labor costs that sparked the industrial revolution.
Thank you for the very detailed posts. So to summarize, at any point in history, the location of the Industrial Revolution (first) was destined to be in Britain? How about 1648? In doubt then?
Frankly, I think people need to step back and realize that "Industrial Revolution" is ultimately an arbitrary definition - similar to how Australia is designated a "continent". There is nothing in the natural world that actually defines what a continent is; it is instead a convenient human shorthand to describe very large land masses.
Hence, when people talk about the Industrial Revolution it will be intrinsically linked to Britain, particularly with the growth of the cloth-making industry powered by machines rather than human labor. Because that's how historians (many of whom are very frankly Anglo-centric) chose to classify this particular period in history; as it also conveniently coincided with Britain's relative dominance over European affairs and the growth of its enormous empire.
That said, if you apply a less British-centric lens to world history then it's extremely easy to see that Britain's model was far from unique or could not be replicated - that's just a triumphalist / exceptionalist narrative in play that was pretty much disproven by the dissolution of the Empire after 1945.
For instance, Japan essentially underwent an even more drastic transformation in the same period - going from very little industry to being one of the leaders in industry. Meanwhile America had in fact overtaken Britain in industry by the end of the 19th Century, hence it could be argued that while some significant inventions and systems were pioneered in Britain the full fruition of these advances were brought about by America.
Indeed, I would note that all the focus on steam-powered industrial production (again a consequence of a very British-centric narrative of the industrial revolution) has also served to obscure the fact that water-based industry was quite common in the United States during the same time the British were building steam engines, and that American labor shortages also resulted in the concept of "interchangeable parts" which in turn was a major reason why machine tools became more reliable and widespread. And looking further back even the Romans had used water power to some extent for their own industrial production - which demonstrates how some things are actually not as new as people make them out to be.
If you would like to postulate a different (or alt-history) nation taking the lead in an industrial revolution however, I would note that such a nation would probably need to have a high literacy rate, and a strong central government that supported investment in industry and scientific development; and that these two factors are more important than any cultural factor. Japan's rise in particular seems less surprising when one considers that they had literacy rates comparable to Europe - so they could disseminate new ideas and technologies very quickly while adding their own ideas thanks to so many people knowing the basics of fields such as mathematics.
Last edited:
Very nicely phrased.
The next line one might follow is your suggestion something special in England took root in America and blossomed there. What was the spirit of invention that drove forward progress, particuarly when it is applied to 'American Ingenuity'?
The reason why I posted this question is that I am working on a mod for Victoria Revolutions (not Vicky 2...the economy cannot handle a greatly extended timeline in its current form). I wanted to make the race to the industrial revolution an objective...The EU series kind of falls down around then...
I would argue that the idea of English or American exceptionalism with regards to the Industrial Revolution is somewhat overblown. If you look at the other "industrial" powers of the time - such as France, Germany, or Japan - you'll find that many were quickly able to establish their own fields of expertise. If we define the "Industrial Revolution" as being based around the production of new chemicals and high-quality steel for instance then it could be argued that Germany should be its home rather than England.
What was instead common among all of the industrialized powers were two important factors: High literacy rates, and a strong central government that promoted investments in both industrial production and scientific inquiry. That Japan had both of these - almost uniquely so compared to the rest of Asia - was almost certainly why they were the only ones in Asia to industrialize so quickly.
And really, when you think about it the real roadblock to "invention" is not the lack of ideas - just look at all the ridiculous attempts to make an airplane - but a lack of funding (which central governments can provide) and a lack of knowledge on which ideas are feasible or not. The latter can be greatly mitigated through the use of books and reading - as even "ordinary" citizens can now find solutions to current problems.
If you mentioned books... the blossoming of the printing industry might qualify for an earlier starting point of the industrial revolution. Machines were there, exponential growth of products and workforce was there. Drastic social changes caused by the availability of affordable books/regular newspapers is there.
It is just smaller scale than the "real" industrial revolution caused by the mass production of clothing.
Few technology, Mechanic (clocks), steel, bank (for investment), new economic idea (addam smith), and scientific method theories.
Hight litteracy rate.
Raw Coal disposable, and iron cause without Iron, no railways
Hight litteracy rate.
Raw Coal disposable, and iron cause without Iron, no railways
Aye. But that goes back to another poster's comment that 'Industrial Revolution' is a coined phrase.
Where I agree is in the idea that if progress and innovation are driven by education, then a free press and cheap books are an excellent foundation to build upon. The ability to think, read, and reason for oneself if far superior to repeating rote knowledge of the Elder Days.
Market...market...market.
You need a product which justifies large scale industrial production and the ever increasing efficiency. Clothmaking was ideal, because the market was infinite and the British had unlimited access to the raw resources (be it wool or cotton).
As WW1 had shown munition making could also be such a thing for a global war, but I guess as of 1750 there was both a demand (lack of machine guns) and supply bottleneck (rare components were required for making gunpowder).
Books are just showing how a stillborn industrial revolution works. The printing press revolutionized that field enormously and the Protestant Reformation would have been impossible without the ability to mass produce leaflets... but it was just a too small market.
Similarly advanced watchmaking/jewellery could also not be flagship of an industrial revolution because the access of raw materials limits how much you can gain by reducing the per unit labor costs.
