What caused the industrial revolution to appear in Europe, clearly in full swing after 1800, yet never before anywhere else in the world? Since causes precede effects, one simple way to try to answer this question is to ask: What is the earliest thing that happened only in Europe that seems plausibly along a causal path to later produce an industrial revolution? For example, there was the scientific revolution in the mid 1600s, the exploration of new continents in the 1500s, and the printing press in the late 1400s. I just came across a plausible earlier candidate: rapidly changing clothing fashion starting in the mid 1300s:
I think that early machinery, factories, and chemical synthesis was fueled by demand for clothes. To what extent, I'm not sure. If fashion-->industrial revolution is what happened, maybe it happened very directly, through funding factories to produce clothes and dyes. Then the question is why clothes had to be the first things made in factories, rather than weapons, wheels, and all the other stuff we now make in them.
The Ottoman Empire had a millet system for the different ethnic/religious groups. Europe mandated Catholicism until partway through the 14th century when some principalities began mandating a state Protestant church. Jews once tolerated in the Iberian Peninsula were expelled or forced to convert after the reconquest. They had been expelled from England under Edward I (although the population was quite small back then) and not allowed back until Cromwell.
Sailer made an argument about homogeneity rather than size, so the size of Italy or Sweden relative to the US or any of its components is irrelevant.
Clotheswise I don't think it's slowed down so much as become more diverse, so there's no universal look to associate with a period. My teen son is obsessed with fashion, as are many of his friends. Also, there is a "21st century" look in *body* fashion, with widespread body modifications that were very sub-cultural before the 90's, and a lot of interest in complex facial hair stylings for men.
The other problem is that the Black Death affected almost all of Eurasia, and while I haven't seen any statistics outside of Europe, I'll bet it raised wages everywhere. But the Industrial Revolution only happened in one country in Europe and didn't spread much beyond Europe and European settlements for 200 years.
The groups within some countries are larger than the entire populations of other countries: if Sweden and Italy can have distinct fashion changes then so can any major ethnic or regional group in the United States.
It's difficult to quantize such things but I doubt 13th and 14th century Europe was less diverse than the Ottoman Empire. Sure the smaller states and principalities were homogeous but people could and did walk/ride from one capital to another within days (and without passports or visas), sometimes just a single day.
In the Ottoman Empire, you wore the clothes of your ethnicity. So there wasn't much room for fashion innovation. In contrast, Christendom was relatively ethnically/culturally homogeneous, so people were freer to compete for status via fashion.
This tendency for young people to compete with old people for status -- the Generation Gap -- was strongest in America during the ethnically homogeneous 1960s.
Perhaps the old-money, new-money rift already existed back then (a lot of commoners and second-cousins-of-lords came into money and high positions after the Black Death, Robin is right that people got used to change and new things, he's just taking it the idea way too far). The old aristocracy was traditional and not flashy, the nouveau rich being the opposite. A bit like if today all the old rich suit-and-tie families died out and rappers, actors, athletes and partying trust-fund kids would be the new elites.
Yeah, the Chinese had the technological know-how in the Ming period but they and the Qing were both intensely conservative dynasties. The Song were the dynasty where things seemed to be starting and they also had politics somewhat reminiscent of early modern Europe, with complicated interactions between reformists, the nobility, the peasantry, and the Emperor.
Clothes remained fairly expensive until the Industrial Revolution. In the 1700's ordinary English still had one set of clothes for daily wear and one for Sunday. Fashion was for the well-off, who could always have afforded fashionable clothes. The commercial revolution did have some effect on clothing prices; maybe fashion became affordable for the intelligentsia during the early modern period.
I too fail to see why fashion is a necessary element of the IR story. What's wrong w/ Black Death --> high labor costs --> commence labor-saving innovation --> (let simmer) --> IR?
The high labor costs being due to the Black Death, which killed without destroying capital.
Innovation and the reduced population/natural-resources ratio caused clothes to become markedly less expensive, which gave rise to fashion, since at least the elites could afford the obsolescence of the unfashionable. (Conjecture.)
There's a theory that Ming China was simply too unified while European states were constantly competing and warring (but with large areas relatively safe). European rulers had to let science and engineering go ahead or they wouldn't be rulers anymore the next day. The church couldn't put a stop to it because Europe was fragmented and competing churches destroyed the authority of a unified church.
But I'm sure a lot of it is also just coincidence: I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that had some curious Ming or Ottoman prince died a few years later there would have been an industrial revolution in their empires. What if Zheng He had been allowed (the decision rested with a single emperor) to travel farther, discovering Australia and North America or if they had discovered gold deposits early on? What if an Ottoman inventor had, by chance, the opportunity to present to his sultan plans for a weaving machine that could make military uniforms right when the empire was up to its neck in a war with the Persians?
I think that early machinery, factories, and chemical synthesis was fueled by demand for clothes. To what extent, I'm not sure. If fashion-->industrial revolution is what happened, maybe it happened very directly, through funding factories to produce clothes and dyes. Then the question is why clothes had to be the first things made in factories, rather than weapons, wheels, and all the other stuff we now make in them.
I have the same impression about fashion slowing down, but here's how I explain it: I'm getting old.
The Ottoman Empire had a millet system for the different ethnic/religious groups. Europe mandated Catholicism until partway through the 14th century when some principalities began mandating a state Protestant church. Jews once tolerated in the Iberian Peninsula were expelled or forced to convert after the reconquest. They had been expelled from England under Edward I (although the population was quite small back then) and not allowed back until Cromwell.
Sailer made an argument about homogeneity rather than size, so the size of Italy or Sweden relative to the US or any of its components is irrelevant.
Clotheswise I don't think it's slowed down so much as become more diverse, so there's no universal look to associate with a period. My teen son is obsessed with fashion, as are many of his friends. Also, there is a "21st century" look in *body* fashion, with widespread body modifications that were very sub-cultural before the 90's, and a lot of interest in complex facial hair stylings for men.
The other problem is that the Black Death affected almost all of Eurasia, and while I haven't seen any statistics outside of Europe, I'll bet it raised wages everywhere. But the Industrial Revolution only happened in one country in Europe and didn't spread much beyond Europe and European settlements for 200 years.
Another reason was that women had higher status in Christendom than in most of the rest of the world. Women tend to like fashion.
The groups within some countries are larger than the entire populations of other countries: if Sweden and Italy can have distinct fashion changes then so can any major ethnic or regional group in the United States.
It's difficult to quantize such things but I doubt 13th and 14th century Europe was less diverse than the Ottoman Empire. Sure the smaller states and principalities were homogeous but people could and did walk/ride from one capital to another within days (and without passports or visas), sometimes just a single day.
In the Ottoman Empire, you wore the clothes of your ethnicity. So there wasn't much room for fashion innovation. In contrast, Christendom was relatively ethnically/culturally homogeneous, so people were freer to compete for status via fashion.
This tendency for young people to compete with old people for status -- the Generation Gap -- was strongest in America during the ethnically homogeneous 1960s.
There was a long delay between the Black Death and the labor-saving innovations: the population had rebounded in the meantime.
Perhaps the old-money, new-money rift already existed back then (a lot of commoners and second-cousins-of-lords came into money and high positions after the Black Death, Robin is right that people got used to change and new things, he's just taking it the idea way too far). The old aristocracy was traditional and not flashy, the nouveau rich being the opposite. A bit like if today all the old rich suit-and-tie families died out and rappers, actors, athletes and partying trust-fund kids would be the new elites.
Yeah, the Chinese had the technological know-how in the Ming period but they and the Qing were both intensely conservative dynasties. The Song were the dynasty where things seemed to be starting and they also had politics somewhat reminiscent of early modern Europe, with complicated interactions between reformists, the nobility, the peasantry, and the Emperor.
Clothes remained fairly expensive until the Industrial Revolution. In the 1700's ordinary English still had one set of clothes for daily wear and one for Sunday. Fashion was for the well-off, who could always have afforded fashionable clothes. The commercial revolution did have some effect on clothing prices; maybe fashion became affordable for the intelligentsia during the early modern period.
I too fail to see why fashion is a necessary element of the IR story. What's wrong w/ Black Death --> high labor costs --> commence labor-saving innovation --> (let simmer) --> IR?
The high labor costs being due to the Black Death, which killed without destroying capital.
Innovation and the reduced population/natural-resources ratio caused clothes to become markedly less expensive, which gave rise to fashion, since at least the elites could afford the obsolescence of the unfashionable. (Conjecture.)
"around" \= "exactly at"
There's a theory that Ming China was simply too unified while European states were constantly competing and warring (but with large areas relatively safe). European rulers had to let science and engineering go ahead or they wouldn't be rulers anymore the next day. The church couldn't put a stop to it because Europe was fragmented and competing churches destroyed the authority of a unified church.
But I'm sure a lot of it is also just coincidence: I don't think it's outside the realm of possibilities that had some curious Ming or Ottoman prince died a few years later there would have been an industrial revolution in their empires. What if Zheng He had been allowed (the decision rested with a single emperor) to travel farther, discovering Australia and North America or if they had discovered gold deposits early on? What if an Ottoman inventor had, by chance, the opportunity to present to his sultan plans for a weaving machine that could make military uniforms right when the empire was up to its neck in a war with the Persians?