Why Did Europe Conquer the World?

Sunday, August 16th, 2015

Why Did Europe Conquer the World? Philip T Hoffman’s new book presents a strong case that it was gunpowder technology:

Its starting point is the assertion that Europe really did conquer the world, or at least 84 per cent of it, between 1492 and 1914 — but that you probably would not have bet on that outcome had you landed on Earth in the year 900, when our continent was deeply backward in comparison with the cultural and commercial sophistication of the Muslim Middle East, southern China and Japan.

So why did those early leaders of civilisation stay at home and regress, while our ancestors sailed the seas and built empires?

It was not a matter of economic supremacy through industrialisation, which arrived only in the last of the five centuries or so that Hoffman’s study covers.

Rather, he argues, it was down to both military and economic advantage gained through “gunpowder technology” — the continuing development of firearms, artillery, ships armed with guns and fortifications that could resist bombardment — which itself derived from the fact that warfare was “the sole purpose of early modern states in western Europe”.

The core of Hoffman’s analysis is the idea that European powers were engaged in a centuries-long “tournament” — a competition that drove contestants to exert enormous effort in the hope of winning a prize. In pursuit of “financial gain, territorial expansion, defence of the faith, or the glory of victory”, Europe’s rulers fought each other for two thirds of the time between 1550 and 1700; well over 80 per cent of the annual government budgets of England and Prussia between 1688 and 1790 were spent on waging war. Small amounts of tax revenue and state borrowing were spent on other items of statehood, but by far the bulk was spent on armies and navies.

And this investment in ceaseless fighting brought constant improvements in gunpowder technology, both in productivity — measured by shots per minute per infantryman, as well as killing power — and in costs of deployment: the price of a musket in London in 1620 was as little as 10 days’ worth of an unskilled labourer’s pay. When peace and industrialisation came to Europe in the 19th century, after Waterloo, competitive empire-building became the new tournament, while advances in materiel, including railways and steam-powered ships, made possible the annexation of large areas of the globe by relatively small British and European forces.

Comments

  1. Bob Sykes says:

    Social and emotional skills have a strong genetic component and likely are resistant to change.

    I note they included race. Did they indicate how important is was as a predictor?

  2. Al Fin says:

    Hoffman examines the twig and ignores the forest. Another book, Why Nations Fail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Nations_Fail
    helps to fill in some of the blanks.

    Other books such as Wealth and Poverty of Nations:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_and_Poverty_of_Nations

    and IQ and the Wealth of Nations:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

    help to fill in some of the remaining gaps.

    A Farewell to Alms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Clark_(economist)#A_Farewell_to_Alms

    Civilisation and the Rest:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson#Civilization

    and The European Miracle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_European_Miracle

    add more historical details and speculative suggestions.

    People who read just one book or one article, or one set of in-bred books or articles, often believe they have the jist of the topic. They are almost always wrong.

    Blame the modern dumbing down of academics and the substitution of indoctrination for the teaching of thinking skills and natural scepticism.

  3. Felix says:

    So, remove gunpowder from the equation.

    Does that cause the Chinese to pull back inside their 1400′s shell?

    Does it stop Europeans from building boats and strings of forts, etc. to support a world-spanning, cooperative network?

    The Euros spent several centuries building and running a new circulatory system for humans. And they got paid for doing so.

    One thing seems hard to remove from the equation: Euros simple out-cooperated the locals. And out-visioned them, too – which only required the Euros to see improvements the locals refused to see. Easy to do when you see a huge variety of “locals”.

    Euros have often been “locals” themselves. Consider how hard it would be to convince a (Euro) 1960′s South American oligarch that he’d be better off if the locals were all as well off as he is now.

  4. AAB says:

    Al Fin says:

    People who read just one book or one article, or one set of in-bred books or articles, often believe they have the jist of the topic. They are almost always wrong.

    I’ll second that. Polymaths and interdisciplinary studies are undervalued.

    Everyone seems to be a reductionist these days. “It’s all about economics” or “It’s all about sex” or “It’s all about religion” or “It’s all about technology” and on and on..

Leave a Reply