Why did Europe rise to the top prior to 1700

[Abdul Goatherd]

Yeah it survived but was never a major power - not in the way that France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Germany, Persia, the Ottomans, etc etc were.

You got to be kidding? Venice was not only a major power, it was hegemonic. That's why everyone attacked it in conjunction together in 1509.

It just wasn't a land power. It was a naval superpower and to which (as is commonly conjoined) made it a commercial and financial super and had the rest of the world in its pocket. Its reach was far greater and its power much larger than most of the powers you cite above. In its heyday, Venice was the unparalleled center of the world - a level that Paris, Berlin, Vienna nor Moscow ever reached.

The fact is, only one naval power has ever become a genuine superpower - and that was based on the fact it owned a gigantic landmass, namely the Indian subcontinent. The Royal Navy alone didn't conquer India, without a decent army it would have been useless. When the UK lost its Empire it became a third rate power and would have remained so even if it had maintained a gigantic navy. The USSR has no navy to speak of and was a superpower. The USN is clearly a major asset to the US, but it never became a global power until it built a decent army.

It didn't need a gigantic army. Just ships. You use local armies to the bulk of your fighting for you.

The fact that you cite how naval powers can have their navies sunk by other naval powers and then be easily destroyed by land powers is not a point you want to be making. It just illustrates how fragile a sea power is. One major naval battle gone wrong and a sea power can cease to exist. Land powers like Russia, Germany, China, etc have survived enormous catastrophes and still lived to tell the tale.

That is a drawback. But that's a general drawback of imperialism. Far-flung dominions are always susceptible to poaching by a better-armed, better-financed, better-organized naval powers.

But notice not the reverse. A land-power can take a single colony of a naval power, but they won't cripple the naval power. They're fine. They'll be back in a few months later, with stealth and more firepower than you can handle, and likely get it back and pay your relatives to overthrow you.

It is easier to defeat a land power than a naval power. You have to have the ability to reach it everywhere, i.e. be a naval power yourself, or at least have their capital and arsenal within striking distance. By contrast, land powers are stationary ducks.

The Brits can reach and hit Bengal anytime. But Bengalis can't reach London at all. That is not because of land technology. It is sea technology.

Navies can be rebuilt. Roman navy was sunk every year by the Carthangians, but they just built another one, then another one, then another one.

Take your example. The Ottomans destroyed the Venetian navy and this did for Venice. Had the battle gone the other way and the Ottoman navy been destroyed, would that have been the end of the OE? No, it wouldn't, because they still had a gigantic land empire.

Possibly. It has happened before where land-based states lose one big battle - lose one leader - and splinter into warring parts.

Where was Napoleon's land-based empire after the Moscow campaign?

Really? Russia, Germany (in all its forms), China, France, Persia, Austria, The Ottoman Empire, The Arab Empires, The Mughal Empire, The Mongolian Empire, the Roman Empires etc weren't persistent? They hardly survived the death of a charismatic ruler? They all had hundreds of years of enormous power, far more than Venice, The Netherlands or Genoa ever came close to.

No, they weren't. Your confusing the geographic area for a state. I might as well say the Mediterranean Sea or the Indian Ocean has also persisted in some form or another.

The point is precisely the form. If the Russian state collapses to the Mongols, or breaks into multiple pieces, or is overrun and vassalized by another state, then it has ceased, and it is not persistent.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

You got to be kidding? Venice was not only a major power, it was hegemonic. That's why everyone attacked it in conjunction together in 1509.

It just wasn't a land power. It was a naval superpower and to which (as is commonly conjoined) made it a commercial and financial super and had the rest of the world in its pocket. Its reach was far greater and its power much larger than most of the powers you cite above. In its heyday, Venice was the unparalleled center of the world - a level that Paris, Berlin, Vienna nor Moscow ever reached.

Rubbish. Venice was never as powerful as France in Napoleon's era, Germany during the 20th century, Austria in the 17th or the USSR. It just wasn't. It was powerful. It was powerful enough that it got gradually beaten down again and again because it couldn't hold territory in far-flung places like on the Adriatic coast, the Venetian hinterland, Greece etc. It got smaller and smaller and smaller because it couldn't compete with a local land power, then it was eventually put to an end by a land power.

If naval power was a magic bullet, like you say it is, why hasn't Venice been an independent state for hundereds of years or a powerful one for even longer? your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

It didn't need a gigantic army. Just ships. You use local armies to the bulk of your fighting for you.

Yep. Fat lot of use those ships were when the empire went bankrupt because of a war it had to be bailed out of by one land power vs another land power. Where were the local armies the UK could use against Hitler? you cannot just draw an arbitrary cut-off point at industrialisation.

That is a drawback. But that's a general drawback of imperialism. Far-flung dominions are always susceptible to poaching by a better-armed, better-financed, better-organized naval powers.

Yes, far flung territories. Or, if you are only a sea power, both far-flung territories like Albania or Cyprus, AND your capital city, Venice. Russia, China, Germany, France etc all lost wars where their entire country was devastated yet they survived and often came back stronger. Venice didn't, it just got smaller and smaller until it's navy couldn't protect and then it disappeared forever. Had they been a land power this likely wouldn't have happened.

But notice not the reverse. A land-power can take a single colony of a naval power, but they won't cripple the naval power. They're fine. They'll be back in a few months later, with stealth and more firepower than you can handle, and likely get it back and pay your relatives to overthrow you.

Like how Venice paid Napoleon's relatives to overthrow him and restore the Venatian Republic, or Phoenicia came back with more stealth and firepower than the Persians could handle? Or what about that time the Netherlands reconquered Indonesia with its navy after it recovered from being devastated by German land power?

It is easier to defeat a land power than a naval power. You have to have the ability to reach it everywhere, i.e. be a naval power yourself, or at least have their capital and arsenal within striking distance. By contrast, land powers are stationary ducks.

No it isn't. Occupy Venice? Venice is defeated. Occupy Genoa? You can dictate terms. Siege Phoenicia? They'll give in and become your vassal. Occupy Moscow? What do you know, Russia exists hundreds of years later. Occupy Paris? Oh look, only a few decades later you're signing the Versailles diktat. Occupy Berlin? who dominates Europe now?

The Brits can reach and hit Bengal anytime. But Bengalis can't reach London at all. That is not because of land technology. It is sea technology.

No it isn't. The RN cannot shell Bengal, nor can it force the surrender of its government. It needs land power to do same, because it remains at all times hundreds of miles form Bengal and has to pay locals to occupy it for it. Then what happens come 1948? The RN can't do anything at all as the Jewel in the Crown leaves and the UK becomes a third rate power. Not because it had no navy left; because it lost a big chunk of its land.

Where was Napoleon's land-based empire after the Moscow campaign?

Still a major global power for 200 years. Where was Venice after Napoleon's campaign?

The point is precisely the form. If the Russian state collapses to the Mongols, or breaks into multiple pieces, or is overrun and vassalized by another state, then it has ceased, and it is not persistent.

OK, go ahead and tell me how Russia, Germany (in all its forms), China, France, Persia, Austria, The Ottoman Empire, The Arab Empires, The Mughal Empire, The Mongolian Empire, the Roman Empires all hardly survived the death of one charismatic leader.


Good old contrarian Abdul. It's kind of boring and kind of interesting at the same time.

EDIT: Actually I know how the rest of this will go, so feel free to post a point-by-point rebuttal, but I'm going to leave it there

 

[Avernite]

I think the issue is in how power propagates.

Naval power tends to propagate through dominance and vassalage. The Danes and Swedes had to bow to Anglo-Dutch demands many times, but never handed over their land to them. They were dominated. Likewise, Indonesia was dominated for a long time before the Dutch tried to create a land power in Indonesia (and that failed after the Japanese naval power stomped the Dutch).

Land power tends to propagate through occupation. Lorraine had to bow to French demands many times, and Lorraine tended to shrink as a result.

When French power collapsed (as it did a few times) the new borders didn't necessarily shift even though the French no longer dominated Lorraine. But when naval powers stopped dominating Sweden or Denmark, their control vanished off the map.

 

[greendevil]

Stop using the argument of Venice in the 18th century. In the 18th century it had already declined as a naval power, by the time Napoleon invaded and gave it to Austria Venice was a shadow of its former power.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Rubbish. Venice was never as powerful as France in Napoleon's era, Germany during the 20th century, Austria in the 17th or the USSR. It just wasn't. It was powerful. It was powerful enough that it got gradually beaten down again and again because it couldn't hold territory in far-flung places like on the Adriatic coast, the Venetian hinterland, Greece etc. It got smaller and smaller and smaller because it couldn't compete with a local land power, then it was eventually put to an end by a land power.

You're looking at two different eras, with very different technological aspects. But yes, within the confines of contemporary technology of their day, it was as powerful, if not more powerful. And quite lasting.

They operate differently. Acreage of occupation may be your kink. But that's not where power lies. While you may think it a big achievement for Napoleon to try to militarily occupy the deserts of Egypt or the Russian steppes, only to get his countrymen slaughtered by the bucketful. The Venetians, with only the minimal manpower, were sitting in occupation of Constantinople, managing Egypt and telling the Golden Horde what to do for centuries. Who is the superpower?

Boney may have imposed a fleeting king on Rome. But Venetians had been imposing popes on Rome for eons.

If naval power was a magic bullet, like you say it is, why hasn't Venice been an independent state for hundereds of years or a powerful one for even longer? your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Hundreds? Venice lost its independence in 1797 or so. I guess a couple hundred. But it was independent for a thousand years before that. And was never occupied by a foreign power until then.

In the hundred of times it was attacked, Venice remained inviolate. By contrast, how many times did foreign armies overrun Paris?

you cannot just draw an arbitrary cut-off point at industrialisation.

It's not arbitrary. The point was that imperialism rests critically on mobility, range of reach and boom-boom power.

Before industrialization, that meant invariably ships. A land army couldn't match or even approach the efficiency of a navy in these three elements. Railways and airplanes changed that.

Yes, far flung territories. Or, if you are only a sea power, both far-flung territories like Albania or Cyprus, AND your capital city, Venice. Russia, China, Germany, France etc all lost wars where their entire country was devastated yet they survived and often came back stronger. Venice didn't, it just got smaller and smaller until it's navy couldn't protect and then it disappeared forever. Had they been a land power this likely wouldn't have happened.

The states didn't survive. The land existed. It is part of the earth's geography - land doesn't sink into the ocean. Don't confuse that with the survival of the state.

No it isn't. Occupy Venice? Venice is defeated. Occupy Genoa? You can dictate terms. Siege Phoenicia? They'll give in and become your vassal. Occupy Moscow? What do you know, Russia exists hundreds of years later. Occupy Paris? Oh look, only a few decades later you're signing the Versailles diktat. Occupy Berlin? who dominates Europe now?

Occupy Lisbon? There's still Rio de Janeiro. Occupy Genoa? There's still Caffa. Siege Byblos? There's still Carthage. They have no reason to give in. And didn't. Good luck getting your big land armies there.

Infuriated Napoleon to no end. And for all his superpowerness, turns out Bonaparte was utterly powerless to impose terms on Portugal. Wrote a strong letter to the local newspaper complaining that it was inconceivable that a South American state could have a European colony. And that's all he could do about it.

No it isn't. The RN cannot shell Bengal, nor can it force the surrender of its government. It needs land power to do same, because it remains at all times hundreds of miles form Bengal and has to pay locals to occupy it for it.

Sure it can. Done so before can do it again. Doesn't need them to surrender, its enough to break their power, blockade them and draw all their vassals away and then support them against it. Bengal can't touch you, but you can cripple it to the point of irrelevance, if not surrender, by ships alone, without setting a single boot on the ground.

Imperialism works and has worked that way.

OK, go ahead and tell me how Russia, Germany (in all its forms), China, France, Persia, Austria, The Ottoman Empire, The Arab Empires, The Mughal Empire, The Mongolian Empire, the Roman Empires all hardly survived the death of one charismatic leader.

Try opening a history book.

 

[greendevil]

Abdul, you seem very knowledgeable on naval expansion, trade and geopolitics in the late medieval / early modern period.

Would you be able to suggest some books? I'm particularly interested in the relationship between the sea republics and the oriental states, as well as the rise of Portugal and the expansion in the Atlantic and to Africa and the conflict between Iberians and the Ottomans in the Mediterranean and in North Africa.

 

[icedt729]

Yeah the Mongolian Empire in particular literally disintegrated on the death of its founder. The only genuinely long-lived Mongol Empires were actually Chinese and Hindustani, respectively.

 

[Arilou]

You're both I think oversimplifying things.

A naval power (in the pre-modern era) cannot beat a land power without some way to project power inland. (it gets slightly different in the post-industrialization era, when trade becomes more critical and blockades more feasible) The british army might have been a bullet fired by the navy, but the navy still needs the bullet. British naval supremacy did nto end Napoleon's empire: Russian armies (and russian winter) did. The Southern Ming did not bring down the Qing, that was an internal revolution.

But on the other hand, a naval power can exert drastically more force for drastically less cost, and for added benefits. And a sea power is very difficult to defeat using a land power. For Sparta to defeat Athens they had to build a navy of their own.

 

[HuzzButt]

Yeah the Mongolian Empire in particular literally disintegrated on the death of its founder. The only genuinely long-lived Mongol Empires were actually Chinese and Hindustani, respectively.

The Chinese Mongol Empire wasn't particularly long lived as a Mongol Empire, Sinofication is a quick and detrimental process.
But If we were to apply the same reasoning as we do on European nations such as France were a surviving rumpstate or the post occupation state is always the same state then the turkic hordes reigned supreme between the fall of the scythians /Sakans/Sogds until Russia had secured Transoxania, Some 1800 years of Empireness.

As rewarding it would be for some to use that kind of reasoning I'm reminded of the fairly clear deliniation between the separate powers of Sweden where each age is treated as separate and while the reference to each period is Sweden in X they're neither sufficiently separate nor cohesive enough to be considered an unbroken continuation I'd go even further and say that there's no real justification to let the timeline run uninterrupted over the loss of Finland, The loss of Finland was effictively the end of that iteration. Same goes for post empire Britain, or post occupation Denmark... Edgy.

 

[Herbert West]

Occupy Lisbon? There's still Rio de Janeiro. Occupy Genoa? There's still Caffa. Siege Byblos? There's still Carthage. They have no reason to give in. And didn't. Good luck getting your big land armies there.

Try collecting taxes on protugese peasants from Rio de Janeiro. Try trading with Madrid when your principal ports are occupied.

As for Geona and Kaffa, surely, you must be joking. If Genoa is occupied properly, and the occupant is not ejected, then Genoa, the entity, stops existing (using the same logic you used to say that there is no continuity between Absolutist France and France today), and a somewhat geonese cultured maritime state, with its capital now in Kaffa, is born.

Abdul, you always argue for monochrome interpretations, and cast aside any and all viewpoints and interpretations to the contrary, even when that is to your detriment. See also: feudalism and trade in France.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

You're both I think oversimplifying things.

A naval power (in the pre-modern era) cannot beat a land power without some way to project power inland. (it gets slightly different in the post-industrialization era, when trade becomes more critical and blockades more feasible) The british army might have been a bullet fired by the navy, but the navy still needs the bullet. British naval supremacy did nto end Napoleon's empire: Russian armies (and russian winter) did. The Southern Ming did not bring down the Qing, that was an internal revolution.

But on the other hand, a naval power can exert drastically more force for drastically less cost, and for added benefits. And a sea power is very difficult to defeat using a land power. For Sparta to defeat Athens they had to build a navy of their own.

Most coastal states are dependent, to a greater or lesser degree, on trade. Certainly was the case by the 15th C. The routine recipe is to bring the coastal states to heel by naval power alone - which is perfectly feasible and usually enough. That gives the imperialist a local client army against whatever inland land power they have troubles with. And navy can and did efficiently protect coastal vassals from retaliation by the simple art of resupplying sieges, bringing its large ship guns to bear and (sometimes) ferrying troops around a coastal battlefield.

But I want to emphasize that the primary function of the navy is not to transport troops. Indeed, it rarely did that. An Athenian trireme carried no soldiers at all (save for a small five-man squad of archers to protect the helmsman). It was a floating battering ram, designed to sink ships, not to ferry troops. It is deployed to blockade trade and sink enemy ships and transports. Similarly for Venetian galleys. And Portuguese caravels and galleons - the small gunnery crew of a dozen or so were its only soldiers aboard. It was a floating artillery piece, designed to resolve matters by sea gunnery alone.

And that is usually enough to exert imperialist power. You don't actually need your army to bring a land power to its knees. A navy can carve out and protect coastal enclaves permanently, isolate and contain it by a network of local alliances, and simply use local armies of vassals and allies if there's any fighting that actually needs to be done further inland. Ferrying an army from home is usually unnecessary and only done in rare instances (and not really for conquest anyway, usually just for garrison duty).

That is how small manpower states - Carthage, Athens, Genoa, Venice, Portugal, Netherlands - maintained vast empires. They weren't ferrying their armies - many didn't have armies worth speaking of. But they had ships. Ships that could usually resolve matters by themselves.

RRW seems to find it "impressive" that the King of France can exert control on neighboring Lorraine and intimidate the Bishop of Toul, and hail it as a great imperialist power as a result. I am a little more impressed by the Netherlands holding an empire that stretches from New York to Nagasaki, from Cape Town to the North Pole, and can intimidate, defy and indirectly manipulate much larger land powers. Including the aforementioned King of France - plus the Kings of Spain, the Tsars of Russia, the shoguns of Japan, the emperors of China, etc. all at once.

naval powers >>>>>> land powers.

And has always been so until post-industrial age.

Naval powers only get defeated by other naval powers.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Try collecting taxes on protugese peasants from Rio de Janeiro. Try trading with Madrid when your principal ports are occupied.

*shrug* Portugal doesn't trade with Madrid. Never has. It trades with London.

That you manage to occupy a corner of a naval power doesn't prevent it from getting revenues from other parts. Point is, you're not "dictating terms" as RRW suggests. Never has been the case. You're not getting any terms if the 90% of the naval empire is still outside your grasp and unreachable. You can simply occupy a corner and hope - that's the most you can do.

As for Geona and Kaffa, surely, you must be joking. If Genoa is occupied properly, and the occupant is not ejected, then Genoa, the entity, stops existing (using the same logic you used to say that there is no continuity between Absolutist France and France today), and a somewhat geonese cultured maritime state, with its capital now in Kaffa, is born.

French were invited by one Genoese party into Genoa (customary, indeed almost obligatory, for Italian states to appoint rulers from outside - real power is in the republican institutions, and these were left intact. The only rarity in this instance is that he was French, rather than from some other Italian state). That said, there are other Genoese political parties, who disagreed, concentrated in Kaffa and eventually ejected the French from Genoa.

Abdul, you always argue for monochrome interpretations, and cast aside any and all viewpoints and interpretations to the contrary, even when that is to your detriment. See also: feudalism and trade in France.

There's no inconsistency. Monochromacity commits me to a point. I don't yield to woolly compromises to get other people to feel better. If I think they're wrong, that needs to be hammered without mercy.

 

[Avernite]

Much as Abdul is right on the power of naval power, I think one component is missing: Mercenaries (and their analogues). The Dutch States Army managed to be pretty big for ages, often matching the French in the (Habsburg) Netherlands man for man. Not because of the manpower of the Netherlands, but because naval power unlocked the vast financial power needed to get foreigners to do the fighting (and to keep national armies in the field). Much the same seems to have been the case for other naval powers; naval power unlocks wealth, which can be spent on acquiring an army when (and where) necessary.

 

[Sabotage13]

The Venetian Republic survived a thousand years without fragmenting or breaking up. How many land powers can claim that?

France, Austria, Spain, Poland, Hungary, China, Persia...

But it is.

Venetians, Genoese, Portuguese, Dutch, etc. all based their imperial projection on naval power. They were otherwise tiny places that didn't really have armies worth speaking of. Ships and naval gunnery were everything.

Armies were so unimportant to the United Netherlands that they devised an entirely new system of recruiting and maintaining a professional army, just for the lulz of it.

 

[cacra]

I don't think anyone is saying armies are unimportant, but you would be hard pressed to argue that the Dutch army was anything but second fiddle to the navy.

 

[Tufto]

Yeah the Mongolian Empire in particular literally disintegrated on the death of its founder. The only genuinely long-lived Mongol Empires were actually Chinese and Hindustani, respectively.

It survived intact until Mongke, and for a fair amount of time longer it survived as a sort of commonwealth or confederation of sorts. The individual Khanates lasted varying lengths- the Ilkhanate about 70 years, the empire in China about 100 (with the actual state itself lasting another couple of hundred), in Central Asia until the 16th century, and on the Western steppes until the 16th century, with the successor states there lasting until the 18th and 19th centuries (I believe one lasted to the 20th century). Then of course there were the Timurids and Mughals, whose rulers retained a Turco-Mongol identity all the way through (the early religious tolerance of their rulers was a legacy of this), but were more Persianate than Mongol in character.

But yes, a unified "Mongol Empire" really ended with the Toluid Revolution, and cannot really be called an "empire" from Mongke's death, more of a confederation of four independent empires. Those empires were pretty damn powerful and stable as separate entities, though. The Mongol Empire was a rather weird polity compared to most Empires, as it divided quickly but if anything prospered even more as a result of that division.

 

[Sabotage13]

I don't think anyone is saying armies are unimportant, but you would be hard pressed to argue that the Dutch army was anything but second fiddle to the navy.

Was there any engagement against a non-naval power (i.e. not England) where the Dutch navy was in any way decisive? I struggle to name even one.

 

[Sabotage13]

You're looking at two different eras, with very different technological aspects. But yes, within the confines of contemporary technology of their day, it was as powerful, if not more powerful. And quite lasting.

By "lasting", I assume you mean the period between the late 14th and early 16th century, when continental powers in the Mediterranean were temporarily weakened, allowing the Italian city states to briefly become major powers.

Sure, in a power vacuum without major military contenders on land, I think we can safely assert that even small but economically influential powers can assert power.

 

[cacra]

Was there any engagement against a non-naval power (i.e. not England) where the Dutch navy was in any way decisive? I struggle to name even one.

The Dutch-Swedish War?

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

France, Austria, Spain, Poland, Hungary, China, Persia...

Huh? Not sure if it is your grasp of English, history or mathematics that is failing you here.

By "lasting", I assume you mean the period between the late 14th and early 16th , when continental powers in the Mediterranean were temporarily weakened, allowing the Italian city states to briefly become major powers.

Sure, in a power vacuum without major military contenders on land, I think we can safely assert that even small but economically influential powers can assert power.

Again, huh? Continental powers? What continental powers? Not sure who you are referring to. Italian city states dominated the Mediterranean since the 11th C. And that they took over from the Saracen naval powers (Baleares, Ifriqiya, Sicily), etc. who had dominated it before.