Monday, October 12, 2015

How did Europe come to dominate the world by 1914?

In two words, war and taxes:

Between 1492 and 1914, Europeans conquered 84 percent of the globe, establishing colonies and spreading their influence across every inhabited continent. This was not inevitable. In fact, for decades, historians, social scientists, and biologists have wondered: Why and how did Europe rise to the top, even when societies in Asia and the Middle East were far more advanced?

So far, satisfactory answers have been elusive. But this question is of the utmost importance given that Europe’s power determined everything from who ran the slave trade to who grew rich or remained mired in poverty. . . .

Mostly, it derived from the incentives that political leaders faced in Europe—incentives that drove them not just to make war, but also to spend huge sums on it. Yes, the European monarchs built palaces, but even the huge Chateau at Versailles cost King Louis XIV less than two percent of his tax revenue. The rest went to fighting wars. He and the other kings in Europe had been raised since childhood to pursue glory on the battlefield, yet they bore none of the costs involved—not even the risk of losing their thrones after a defeat. Leaders elsewhere faced radically different incentives, which kept many of them militarily weak. In China, for example, emperors were encouraged to keep taxes low and to attend to people’s livelihoods rather than to pursue the sort of military glory that obsessed European kings.

For this and a variety of other reasons, leaders outside of Europe could not match Europe’s innovations in warfare innovation. The huge sums of money showered on fighting in Europe gave military leaders the flexibility to buy new weapons and battleships and try out new tactics, fortifications, and methods of supply. In the process, they learned from their mistakes and improved their technologies. And because European countries were small and geographically close, they could easily learn from their rivals’ errors and copy their improvements. . . .

Europe’s ability to tax was no small achievement. China could not raise equivalent tax revenues, even in the nineteenth century. And countries in sub-Saharan Africa today still lack the basic capacity to tax, which keeps them from providing security and other basic public goods to their citizens.

Europe had yet another advantage as well: its entrepreneurs were free to use gunpowder technology to mount expeditions of conquest, colonization, and militarized trade. Although they usually needed official permission to launch a voyage, entrepreneurs were often encouraged by authorities eager to find riches abroad. And they had no trouble acquiring weapons or finding battle-hardened veterans to train military novices who joined their undertakings. By the seventeenth century, such private expeditions had spawned gigantic enterprises that raised huge sums on Europe’s burgeoning capital markets to finance ventures abroad, enterprises such as the Dutch East India Company, which was not only a private arm of Dutch foreign policy, but also the first business to issue tradable shares of stock.

A final difference between Europe and the rest of the world lies in political history. From 221 B.C. onward, China, more often than not, was unified in a large empire. The Chinese empire soon developed a centralized bureaucracy that drew local elites into government service and gave them a stake in the empire’s survival. The rewards of government service helped hold the empire together, and as long as the empire was strong and unified, other East Asian powers hesitated to attack it. This meant that China had little incentive to seek out new enemies or opportunities.

Western Europe, by contrast, experienced no such lasting unification after the collapse of the Roman Empire. What it endured instead were centuries of warfare by bands of warriors whose leaders resembled modern-day warlords. The incessant fighting groomed leaders who were victorious in war. The conflict also generated enduring enmities between leaders and their followers, enmities that eventually hardened into lasting political borders. It was such ill will—and not Europe’s physical geography—that kept any single leader from ever uniting Western Europe in the sort of durable empire that prevailed for centuries in China. In the long run, the winners in Western Europe were the military leaders who learned how to impose heavy taxes to fund their fighting, and as a result, Europe ended up with kings who spent pharaonic sums on warfare and who had, in the words of Machiavelli, “no object, thought, or profession but war.”

Without a single-minded focus on war and the extraordinary ability to tax, there may never have been any European empires. The wars and the taxes lavished on them gave the Europeans an enormous lead in military technology. This enabled their conquests, and allowed them to keep native populations under control without stationing large numbers of European troops abroad. Without such advantages, the Europeans might have grown rich anyway—and perhaps even industrialized early—but they would not have dominated the world in 1914.
Happy Columbus Day!


rcocean said...

An interesting analysis - but confusing. Australia, Africa, and the America's were easily conquered because of the inhabitants were technologically backward. To put it down to taxes and war is silly. The American Indians and the Aztecs, not to mention to Zulus were warrior tribes. As for China, Europe never really conquered them, Korea or Japan. India was taken over because it was politically divided, Indonesia was the same.

BTW, to talk about "Europe" in this context is equally confusing - were really talking about France, Spain, Portugal, England, and to much lesser extent Holland. Italy, Germany and the rest of Europe were late in obtaining overseas colonies or had none at all. Did England spent all its time/money on war? How did the constant wars with Spain help Holland? When did the King of Portugal fight all his wars? I must have missed that. And in the 1400's the primary opponent of Spaniards were the Muslims.

rcocean said...

One more Follow on comment. The Article talks about the Western lead in military technology. Well, not really. In 1500 there was no "lead" and in 1600 the Portuguese brought the most current Western military technology to Japan and China - The "modern" sailing ship, flintlock musket and large cannon. But neither the Japanese nor the Chinese were interested in developing hem further. The Shogun in fact, monopolized all the gunsmiths in order to preserve the rule of the sword wielding samurai. The Chinese were uninterested in developing the musket any further, because why? they already constituted a quarter of the world's population.

BTW, are the Turks "Europeans"? Because as late as 1648 they were besieging Vienna. And the Arab states along the coast of North Africa were engaged in attacks on European shipping and enslaving Christians until well into the late 18th century. All with the same weapons.

Manmeet Swami said...

searching for Top Escorts in Gurgaon, We have top Class escorts in Gurgaon, for fun in the Night, Our High Class escorts in Gurgaon are top escorts in Industry and they have great qualities to gave you real fun time.
Escorts in Gurgaon
Call Girls in Dwarka