But we have several posters over in OT saying Anarchy is the bestest way to run {
ruin?} a country,
They can't be wrong, can they?
ruin?} a country, They can't be wrong, can they?
- 1
-
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.
Literacy rates are one thing and "general backwardness" (a quite nebulous concept) is another thing. According to Angus Maddison, these are the per capita GDP levels (in 1990 international Geary-Khamis dollars) for some European countries, in the following years: 1500 - 1600 - 1700 - 1820 - 1850 - 1900.
Spain: 661 - 853 - 853 - 1008 - 1079 - 1786
France: 727 - 841 - 910 - 1135 - 1597 - 2876
Germany: 688 - 791 - 910 - 1077 - 1428 - 2985
Italy: 1100 - 1100 -1100 - 1117 - 1350 - 1785
Netherlands: 761 - 1381 - 2130 - 1838 - 2371 - 3424
Sweden: 695 - 824 - 977 - 1198 - 1289 - 2561
Britain: 714 - 974 - 1250 - 1706 - 2330 - 4492
Portugal: 606 - 740 - 819 - 923 - 923 - 1302
The great divergence between Iberian and mainland European countries happened during the XIX century (excluding the Netherlands and Britain). And it was less marked in Spain's case than in Portugal's. Despite so, the situation was not that "catastrophic" in 1900, because the Spanish per capita GDP level was still higher than in most countries in Central and Eastern Europe (and was for example almost exactly the same as the Italian one). Maddison's data for 1900 GDP per capita levels (according to 1990 international borders):
Czechoslovakia (modern Czech and Slovak republics): 1729
Hungary: 1682
Poland: 1536
Rumania: 1415
Yugoslavia: 902
Bulgaria: 1223
Greece: 1351
USSR: 1237
As for former Iberian colonies in 1900:
Argentina: 2756
Brazil: 678
Chile: 1949
Colombia: 973
Mexico: 1366
Peru: 817
Uruguay: 2219
Venezuela: 821
As you can see, of the former colonies, only the three southernmost countries of South America were better off in per capita GDP levels than Spain.
Spain: 661 - 853 - 853 - 1008 - 1079 - 1786
France: 727 - 841 - 910 - 1135 - 1597 - 2876
Germany: 688 - 791 - 910 - 1077 - 1428 - 2985
Italy: 1100 - 1100 -1100 - 1117 - 1350 - 1785
Netherlands: 761 - 1381 - 2130 - 1838 - 2371 - 3424
Sweden: 695 - 824 - 977 - 1198 - 1289 - 2561
Britain: 714 - 974 - 1250 - 1706 - 2330 - 4492
Portugal: 606 - 740 - 819 - 923 - 923 - 1302
The great divergence between Iberian and mainland European countries happened during the XIX century (excluding the Netherlands and Britain). And it was less marked in Spain's case than in Portugal's. Despite so, the situation was not that "catastrophic" in 1900, because the Spanish per capita GDP level was still higher than in most countries in Central and Eastern Europe (and was for example almost exactly the same as the Italian one). Maddison's data for 1900 GDP per capita levels (according to 1990 international borders):
Czechoslovakia (modern Czech and Slovak republics): 1729
Hungary: 1682
Poland: 1536
Rumania: 1415
Yugoslavia: 902
Bulgaria: 1223
Greece: 1351
USSR: 1237
As for former Iberian colonies in 1900:
Argentina: 2756
Brazil: 678
Chile: 1949
Colombia: 973
Mexico: 1366
Peru: 817
Uruguay: 2219
Venezuela: 821
As you can see, of the former colonies, only the three southernmost countries of South America were better off in per capita GDP levels than Spain.
I remember reading somewhere that in 1900 Argentina was expected to become the 2nd wealthiest country in the world in a few decades.
Rather surprised to see the Netherlands still ahead of Britain by 1850 in GDP/capita. I thought the industrial revolution had done the catching-up by then.
But we have several posters over in OT saying Anarchy is the bestest way to run {
They can't be wrong, can they?
It was much worse than just "pronunciamientos". It was a succession of wars and disasters:
- A foreign invasion that turned the peninsula into a battlefield for 5 years (1808-14), with enormous human and material losses. And then the flight from the country of those who were deemed to be "afrancesados", generally belonging to the cultural elite.
- The loss of the American colonies through a series of extremely bloody and costly colonial wars fought over 15 years (1809-24).
- Another foreign invasion in 1823, followed by a bloody repression by Ferdinand VII (1823-33), which caused another wave of exiles.
- A long and ruinous civil war between 1833 and 1840 (First Carlist War).
- Another Carlist uprising in 1846-49.
- Invasion of Morocco in 1859-60.
- Intervention in Indochina in 1858-62.
- Mexican intervention in 1861-62.
- An absurd war against Chile and Peru in 1865-66.
- "Cantonalist" uprising in 1873-74, which left several parts of the country in the most absolute chaos. The city of Cartagena declared its indepence and had to be besieged and reduced by the army.
- Another civil war, the Third Carlist War in 1872-76.
- First Cuban uprising, the Ten Years War (Guerra Grande) in 1868-78.
- Another guerrilla uprising in Cuba in 1879-80 (Guerra Chiquita).
- The War of Cuban Indepencence in 1896-98.
- 1
Russia had tremendous natural and human resources. What they lacked was any sort of coherent infrastructure. Getting basic transportation, industrial, and military infrastructure really up and running was probably the one thing you can really give the Soviets credit with accomplishing for the Russian people.
Spain was a bit of a strange beast from day 1. Honestly, its problems are a lot of the same issues that Hapsburg Austria had in the same timeframe, so many different cultures tied into the same political union which was based on royal houses rather than common cultural ties -- with the difference that Spanish leaders knew when the days of empire were over and didn't overtax their relatively fragile unity by getting involved in the World Wars.
I'm honestly surprised you didn't mention the war just on the other side of the 20th century that finished the task of releiving Spain of her last colonies.
Not really, though. The cultures in the peninsula are by no means more distinct than the different ones that made up France, Italy or Germany. The big problems came mainly from the economic issues derived from devoting too many resources (and tons of gold) to war before napoleon, and then from the instability, civil wars and coups in the eighteen hundreds preventing industrialisation and proper state and nation building.
You mean the Spanish-American war of 1898? That's just the final act of the Cuban War of Independence, and although it had a tremendous psychological and political impact on the country, it was actually quite light in terms of expenses and material losses. It was very little compared with the actual haemorrhages that were the wars of American Independence, the war against Napoleon, the First Carlist War or the two Cuban Wars.
As a Portuguese, I can say that the most crucial factor for us and our neighbor to be so "backwards" compared to the rest of Europe is mainly because of the investment in Education.
Education is crucial for a country, as it encompasses everything else. Better educated people lead to more economical / social growth.
Portugal's education can be explained by the following dates:
1143-1910 - Education only for the wealthy and the Nobles
1910-1974 - Very basic education (learn to read and write, BUT it was not mandatory!!). College (Universities) just for the wealthy.
1974-today - Mandatory education until you are 18 or you have completed 12th grade. Superior education is not free, but comes at around 90 euros per month or something at public universities. Private ones cost around 400s.
So as you can see, Portugal had no serious educational policy, and I assume Spain should be the case as well...
This lead to the huge gap between Northern Europe and Southern Europe seen today. While our friends in the North invested early on in Education, we decided that was best to roll around in the mud.
That's why we are in the bad situation we are today (debt crisis and drawing 1-1 against Iceland in the Euro Cup)...
Education is crucial for a country, as it encompasses everything else. Better educated people lead to more economical / social growth.
Portugal's education can be explained by the following dates:
1143-1910 - Education only for the wealthy and the Nobles
1910-1974 - Very basic education (learn to read and write, BUT it was not mandatory!!). College (Universities) just for the wealthy.
1974-today - Mandatory education until you are 18 or you have completed 12th grade. Superior education is not free, but comes at around 90 euros per month or something at public universities. Private ones cost around 400s.
So as you can see, Portugal had no serious educational policy, and I assume Spain should be the case as well...
This lead to the huge gap between Northern Europe and Southern Europe seen today. While our friends in the North invested early on in Education, we decided that was best to roll around in the mud.
That's why we are in the bad situation we are today (debt crisis and drawing 1-1 against Iceland in the Euro Cup)...
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
I'm a Portuguese and I support this assessment xD
*** WARNING: Wall of Text ***
Also, South Europe vs North Europe different educational approaches are also due to Catholicism vs Protestantism. Not so much because of their theological disagreements, but rather because of their different hierarchies...
Catholicism had a pretty rigid clerical structure, with the major decision-makers being the Pope, the Cardinals and, most importantly for this argument, Archbishops and Bishops. The Clergy in each country had immense influence, in no small part because they had the power of the Pope right behind them. Having obtained such influence, they (as nearly everyone who achieves the same degree of influence) endeavored to keep their hold on power. In order for this to happen, control over the minds of the people is of paramount importance. Thus the limitations to education we all know and detest. (I could detail those limitations, but unless someone radically disagrees with my argument, I don't see the point...)
Protestantism, on the other hand, went with decentralizing the Church, which severely limits its institutional leverage. Suddenly (and with much bloodshed in between), the Clergy in Northern Europe lost much of its relevance. Many of the limitations talked above disappeared. And thus an educational divide between North and South appears and widens over the years, the width of it becoming obvious by the 19th century.
In the case of Portugal and Spain, it is rather glaring because:
- they were once "great" powers capable of global power projection, disposing of immense wealth
- the grip of the Clergy over society lasted the longest, as opposed to Italy and France
Why did it last longer than in Italy or France? Because each had internal factors that led to resisting the Clergy more proactively than in the Iberian Peninsula.
Portugal and Spain had a "crusading" nature. It was for centuries part of their national ethos. Once the "Reconquista" was over, the urge was to continue it beyond the Peninsula. The defense of Christianity was the main factor granting legitimacy to the "crusading" mentality. Such mentality led to a natural support of the Faith, of which the Pope and His Clergy are the representatives.
On the other hand, in France and Italy, the urge to fight the enemies of the Faith was far diminished, mainly because the threats posed against them by religious enemies was far smaller. This led to a less reverent stance towards the Church, which in turn led to a greater willingness to challenge its power and influence over their people. The Renaissance princes of Italy, facing a great deal of competition from each other, fought to gain every ounce of power available to them and hold it at all costs, even if it led to opposing the Pope once in a while. Similarly, the French Monarchs had competition from larger nations such as Spain and England. Their squabbles would often spill into the Vatican, which became a proxy battleground for the great powers. Furthermore, the Wars of Religion devastated France and forced it to compromise with its Protestant elements, which naturaly weakened the role of the Catholic clergy. The rise of Absolutism only led to a greater consolidation of power by the Crown and, later on, the Revolution put the nail in the coffin for church dominance over the minds of the people.
Last argument: The Revolution had an anti-absolutist element at its ideological core, which led to Absolute Monarchs like Portugal and Spain to vehemently oppose it, often resorting to enforcing the grip the Clergy had on education to prevent the rise of revolutionary thoughts among the populace. This "knee-jerk" reaction allowed the Clergy to retain great influence well into the 20th century...
- 1
I recall coming across estimation from early 18th century that in Sweden, nearly 2\3rds of its total population (at least accounting Sweden and Finland) could read but only around 15% could both read and write, and it was in 1686 church attendance duty was legally enforced especially in urban areas to be punishable, and shortly after catechism became obligatory reading for everyone as well. By well into 18th century the numbers in the first category were notably higher but the second category probably remained similar, maybe slightly increased. In both cases it makes for pretty weird statistics.
We also had a war against Peru and we "reannexed" Dominican Republic
Btw, Portuguese kings weren't really thrilled ny building universities, like ours but even worse.
Just as an example, while our virreinatos had universities, brazilians that wanted to study had to travel to Portugall until the Napoleonic Wars and the rule of Joao VI
Just as an example, while our virreinatos had universities, brazilians that wanted to study had to travel to Portugall until the Napoleonic Wars and the rule of Joao VI
We also had a single university for a very long time, if I'm not wrong.
Noooo. You can perceive differences within Western sphere, forgetting that the difference between the West and the Rest was even much larger.