The ability to trade in the summer is not the same as reliably transport and supply tens of thousands of soldiers. Moreover the population and economic centers north of the Alpes were not really at the Baltic Coast (or there were quite few located elsewhere)
-
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.
The ability to trade in the summer is not the same as reliably transport and supply tens of thousands of soldiers. Moreover the population and economic centers north of the Alpes were not really at the Baltic Coast (or there were quite few located elsewhere)
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about lines of communication for some reason.
I keep coming across the sentiment that simply giving the Romans either better technology (medication), or better politics (abolished slavery, wealth redistribution) would avert the fall of their empire, but there were so much more that caused that fal l than any one answer. For instance, the plight of the poor was one of the motors behind the rise of the populists - the party of Julius Caesar. But the most neglected linchpin of them all is the environment itself, and how much the land itself degraded under the Romans. The Romans ran a very short-term centred economic system for the Mediterranean, where Pax Romana connected all of the resources of three continents together into one gigantic network, the likes of which had never been seen before. This is how the wealth of the city of Rome was created. But the Romans left the environment no room to recover, which is one of the reasons for why the late empire became less and less wealthy.
For example, the clear-cutting of forests lead to soil erosion and the subsequent lower crop yields, and that coupled with extensive goat grazing on the now clear-cut lands made regrowth impossible. That is not all though, the rich soils' nutrients did not simply disappear, they were swept away by rain into low lying wetlands, creating large amounts of malaria-infested swamps. And then there is the hunting of predators. Roman writers greatly approved of the practice of hunting down predators like foxes, and then also bemoan the fact that the population of disease spreading rodents like rats had dramatically increased. This is part of the reason why the late empire saw so many epidemics.
But Europe did recover after the Romans, even though it took us a thousand years to do so. (But I still want more great cats than the lynx). North Africa never did. There are Tunisian ruins were Roman wine presses are to be found in the middle of what is today desert. I don't see any magical invention changing that.
For example, the clear-cutting of forests lead to soil erosion and the subsequent lower crop yields, and that coupled with extensive goat grazing on the now clear-cut lands made regrowth impossible. That is not all though, the rich soils' nutrients did not simply disappear, they were swept away by rain into low lying wetlands, creating large amounts of malaria-infested swamps. And then there is the hunting of predators. Roman writers greatly approved of the practice of hunting down predators like foxes, and then also bemoan the fact that the population of disease spreading rodents like rats had dramatically increased. This is part of the reason why the late empire saw so many epidemics.
But Europe did recover after the Romans, even though it took us a thousand years to do so. (But I still want more great cats than the lynx). North Africa never did. There are Tunisian ruins were Roman wine presses are to be found in the middle of what is today desert. I don't see any magical invention changing that.
If you are talking about the time of Julius, you are talking about one of the most rapid periods of roman expansion. You could just as easily say that the plight of the poor caused them to expand.
Check out this article:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...s-climate-change-disease-toppled-roman-empire
Massive plagues and climate change make much more sense then land depletion. After all, the biggest population pressures were happening outside of the empire. That wouldn't make sense if their agricultural practices were to blame.
This is definately not the case - after all, North Africa was a key population and economic center for several centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire.
The article rings true. To a certain extent, the warming of the climate in general can be blamed on the Romans - ice cores in Greenland and other areas indicate that the Romans successfully smelted massive volumes of metals, the likes of which wouldn't be matched again on a worldwide basis until the 18th or early 19th centuries. This massive clearing of forests for smelting metals liikely caused some of the climate issues that felled the Roman Empire - - - BUT without those side effects, then there isn't an awesome educated well connected Roman populace to lead into a new world order, so it's a self undermining problem. At any rate, most of the change was probably natural, or not under control by the Romans, so it would have had the same problems anyway - with or without any other intervention.[/QUOTE]
As anywhere else, technology depends on economy, and economy fundamentally depends on "how many people are not involved in agrigulture and can be used for other activities". So improving agricutlure would fundamentally improve technology.
An easy thing to carry would be New World seeds which revolutionised agriculture in the old world. Corn, cotton, potato etc. Even just taking contemporary versions (not modern breeds) would have a huge impact.
The critical second component is, as mentionned by Båtsman, the knowledge of sustainable agriculture, to prevent the desertification of North Africa
An easy thing to carry would be New World seeds which revolutionised agriculture in the old world. Corn, cotton, potato etc. Even just taking contemporary versions (not modern breeds) would have a huge impact.
The critical second component is, as mentionned by Båtsman, the knowledge of sustainable agriculture, to prevent the desertification of North Africa
That was my what I was pointing out as a response to previous posters, but just worded it poorly. Caesar and Augustus did use populism to abolish the republic and turn it into an empire in the vein of Persia and Egypt, ruled by divine god-kings (whilst technically never naming themselves kings).
Thanks for the link. Natural climate change was indeed something that happened to the Romans, and everyone else. I just wanted to focus on what the Romans did wrong and needed to change to avert their fall, and natural climate change isn't something that can just be willed away. And could you elaborate on what you mean with "the biggest population pressures were happening outside of the empire", since I've always thought of the Germanic invasions as "Look, the Romans are having yet another civil war. Lets go and take their stuff".
Oh well then, I was more focused on Italy and what went on there to be honest.
Unfortunately Song China did stagnate even before the Mongols entered the picture. The Song encountered a development trap and were unable to get through it.
Hopefully not the one where you bought EU4 without DLC and now can't play any of the newer patches.
OTOH, Prussia and Ireland did not lead the industrial revolution, the agricultural surplus was just taken up by the landowning class and the military.
At least for Prussia that is not wholly accurate. Silk production was introduced, glass production, procellan manufacture, etc.
And, of course, a bigger army is something you need when you are stuck between Russia, France, Sweden and Austria.
Ireland was a colony of England THE leader of the industrial revolution. Prussia was in 4th place behind the UK, USA and Belgium for fastest nations to industrialize. In fact agriculture underpinned the role of both. The development of potato’s as a cheap food meant that Ireland grew large surpluses of other foods which were internally moved to the UK by market forces (and the corn laws) to provide a food supply to the burgeoning industries of England. That same vegetable was used in Prussia to dramatically improve the efficiency of agriculture there and transform Prussia from a tiny state trying to maintain its independence to the nascent colossus of Europe.
Last edited:
The society was strongly biased against trade and industry. Instead, everyone craved to become a landowner.
Commerce was seen as dishonourable in the long run and most of capital obtained was used to purchase land. There was little to no incentive to reinvest money beyond the point of accumulating it enough just to buy some land. In the result, Song economy plateaued.
North Africa and northern Europe were the areas that saw the greatest changes in climate. Over the course of about 700 years, the climate tremendously warmed and dried.
- Tunisia/Carthage went from rival to Rome to scrub lands for sheep grazing with a few medium sized cities
- Libya went from breadbasket of the Roman empire where Senators owned vast lands full of wheat fields to a desert that people traveled over to get to other places.
- Germany went from a wasteland of frozen swamps, to become the source of power for the Franks which succeeded the Romans as the seat of power in Western Europe
The French started before the Prussians. The Prussians eventually caught up but that was not during the first decade of the industrial revolution. Prussia was already feeling the benefits of the potato during the time of Frederick the Great. It seems far fetched to me to go with a theory that would imply that the potato was a larger factor for industrializing in 1850 then 1830.
And once you've discounted the British, Americans and French, all you are left with besides the Prussians are states that still hadn't abolished medieval privileges and/or were quite small...
Last edited:
I’ll make a more complete response when I’m not on my phone, but yes- he French started before the Prussians - which makes it all the more impressive that the Prussians passed them up. The Prussian adoption of the potato wasn’t an overnight process. It started in the 1790’s but the potato didn’t reach its most important role in Germany until WWI. There is a relatively smooth adoption rate in between. By contrast after Napoleon the French agricultural sector wasn’t reorganized until after WWII. The large % of the French population that remained in agriculture in between was a major factor retarding French industrialization.
Der Kartoffelkönig died in 1786.
I agree with that, but I think you are talking about a trend that was later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_German_Empire
At the time that Germany unified, they were a very rural country. Paris alone had as large a share of the French population as all German cities of the German population. The urbanization in Germany started after 1870, which is generally considered the period of the second industrial revolution. Mechanization boosted agricultural production and cheaper transport meant grain started to be imported from the western hemisphere and Germany had the massive indemnities to boast their standard of living in the early years of this transition.
So I stand by my statement. New crops helped but it's interesting to note that the areas that had the biggest impact missed out on the first wave of industrialization. It wasn't until the second industrial revolution that they caught up.
It would be impossible for Germany to "urbanised" in the same way as France. One had a stable capital city for the past few centuries, the other was split into dozens of statelelts until into 19th century. New crops helpted technolgy tremendously, it's just that in the case of Prussia, the bulk of the freed up workforce did not go to the city as laborers, they went to the army and war instead. Which is how they were able to punch above their weight throughout the 18th century and went from a minor state that was not even considered to controlling central europe as one of the great powers in a mere 150 years.