This is pretty much what I mean. Saying it's in no way possible that technology could have possibly advanced in some way earlier than it did historically, but somehow Germany can form before 1550 or England can own 90% of the entire world sounds to me a bit strange to cope with. How is something like that even physically possible given the constraints on the military power and technology of the time? Logistically, it wouldn't have been possible. Having technology before it actually existed given that you have 400 years to work with is easily possible although it didn't actually happen because obviously the technology didn't exist at the time.
This is, in a word, BS. Take a very simple problem how to accurately determine longitude at sea. Many folks know that the British famously offered a huge prize and that resulted in the development of the maritime chronometer in the late 1700s. What people don't know is that larger prizes were previously set up by the Dutch and Spanish who had far more people working on them and spending far more money. Yet they got nowhere - even though they worked on the same idea as Harrison who made the first marine chronometer.
Why?
Because there are a lot of upstream processes that prima facie have
nothing to do with watchmaking that went into the marine chronometer. Gear control mechanisms from industrial processes were rejiggered as anti-yaw control elements. Metallurgic advances went into making temperature independent motions. Philip II did
exactly what you suggest - he dumped a huge amount of money and manpower at the problem - and got nowhere because there were 20 different advances that needed to be made first.
The difference is if you have the drive to make the Panama Canal and you needed that technology, you would employ every person you could possibly think of who had any kind of expertise to help you do this project, especially if you're a little bit crazy and the absolute monarch of an entire country.
That wouldn't make a difference at all. Without an agricultural revolution a globe spanning empire is going to have fewer people to throw at a problem than little old Brittania after the agricultural revolution. Before even a totalitarian despot (which never existed in the EU timeframe) can throw bodies at a problem, you have to feed them. Feeding them in the EU timeframe requires the vast bulk of your labor stock. Something like 98% of the population needs to be doing manual labor as farmers in the early EU period. After the agricultural revolution you dropped that down to around 40% and you increased the base population (getting around the land limitations). 1880s France had more manpower to throw at the Panama Canal than
the entire word in 1700. In terms of purchasing power parity, 1880s France had more wealth to throw at the problem than
the entire world in 1700. 1880s France - with the industrial revolution behind it, couldn't finish the Panama Canal.
So maybe you will just throw money and bodies at improving agriculture? Sorry but that is
exactly what 90+% of the world's population
was doing in the EU period. These weren't stupid morons lazing about waiting for some enlightened genius to say "you know you should make agriculture more efficient", they were hard working folks who struck a good balance between securing their livelihoods and experimenting.
This is exactly where I'm coming from, with the right drive these things were entirely possible.
I won't respond to people who suddenly come out of nowhere claiming people with a different opinion are trolls though. That's just silly.
No, what is silly is how you keep repeating your mantra "these things were entirely possible" without offering an iota of evidence to support it. You play a nation, not a god. So if you aren't a troll, man up, and give us some hard figures. Let's grant you 50% of the worlds population in 1600; how many bodies do you send to Panama? What will their living conditions be? From where will they be fed? How much tonnage will be required for supplying them? Give us your actual plan of attack that a despot in 1600 who controls 50% of world population would manage.
