Extent of Western Christianity (orange), 860 AD (Wikicommons – Blidfried) In terms of GDP per capita growth, northwest Europe began to surpass the rest of the world during the fourteenth century. This was before the conquest of the Americas, the invention of printing, the Atlantic slave trade, and the Protestant Reformation.
Good post. The general thrust of your argument seems convincing to me and aligns with what I’ve read elsewhere. However, I think you should have made some mention of the role the Black Death played in catalysing the little divergence.
As you write ‘In 1348 Holland's GDP per capita was $876. England's was $777. In less than 60 years time Holland's jumps to $1,245 and England's to 1090. The North Sea's revolutionary divergence started at this time.‘
If someone wasn’t aware that the Black Death occurred at this time then I think you run the risk of creating the impression that the rise in per capita incomes (in the 14th century) was primarily because of a proliferation of markets and the other factors you mention as opposed to a Malthusian shock. England’s population declined by roughly 30-40% (the figure was similar throughout the rest of Europe) and hence given the population dynamics of the pre-industrial world this lead to the rise in incomes. However, this rise was not unique to northwestern Europe and was seen in Italy too, for instance. What’s significant is that the cultural practices in northwestern Europe (marrying later, small nuclear families, interactions between old pagan belief and church) meant the population didn’t recover to its pre-Black Death level as quickly as it did in places such as Italy (where women tending to marry more commonly in their early-mid teens and extended families were conducive to a higher birth rate). The income gains that the Black Death caused thus endured much longer in northwestern Europe, and these gains were a key factor (along with a relaxation of feudal labour restrictions) in creating the conditions for markets to arise and develop. It was then markets (to grossly oversimplify) and the institutions they helped foster that made what would otherwise have been a temporary Malthusian boost into a permanent boost in incomes.
Anyhow, like I said you covered this second half well but I think emphasising the role of the Black Death in spurring the development of markets would have been useful context to include. Or maybe you dispute the importance of the Black Death? Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
I think that Europeans were ahead long before. Egypt and Sumer started first, then the Greeks and the Romans. The Romans were always more advanced than their Celestial counterparts.
I believe J.D. Unwin also wrote in the 1930s about the weakening of endogamy by an influx of freed slave and other foreign women in Ancient Greece. this has an obvious parallel with the Democrats' open immigration schemes in Biden's America.
Interesting, albeit I believe you overstate the difference between Eastern and Western Christianity - both enacted similar measures.
The difference, I believe, was the authority of the state in enforcing them. Whereas the Germanics quickly supplanted the Romans and took over, in the east the transition wasn't so clear cut - proper states emerged later, and Christianized even later. But the differences in the variants of Christianity was negligible at that time.
The case with the Balkans - mainly due to plague. Turks stayed at their houses during disease outbreaks, Bulgarians and Greeks moved their villages to new locations. It's common knowledge in the Balkans.
By the way, the Byzantine church, and the Bulgarian one after 865 AD forbade cousin marriages. Strange no one knows this.
Reminds me of the case when some science people wondered why people North of the Black Sea used to live semi-nomadic lifestyle up until the Mongol invasion, and then Mongols /Tatars adopted it. Cattle can't graze there because the snow is too deep and people need to prepare hay for the winter. But scientists rarely know such stuff, as no one speaks with locals.
Anyway, my point is the whole theory is wrong as the East Churches did exactly the same - they forbade cousin marriages with stricter terms than the West did. And those were and are enforced, as anyone who knows few Greeks grannies or just any old lady from the Balkans would know.
In other words, the success of northwestern Europe came about because of the rise of the "protestant work ethic". The same thing happened to Japan, Korea and China in the past 40-50 years. Universal education, free enterprise, thrift, hard work and minimal government interference in business.
Good post. The general thrust of your argument seems convincing to me and aligns with what I’ve read elsewhere. However, I think you should have made some mention of the role the Black Death played in catalysing the little divergence.
As you write ‘In 1348 Holland's GDP per capita was $876. England's was $777. In less than 60 years time Holland's jumps to $1,245 and England's to 1090. The North Sea's revolutionary divergence started at this time.‘
If someone wasn’t aware that the Black Death occurred at this time then I think you run the risk of creating the impression that the rise in per capita incomes (in the 14th century) was primarily because of a proliferation of markets and the other factors you mention as opposed to a Malthusian shock. England’s population declined by roughly 30-40% (the figure was similar throughout the rest of Europe) and hence given the population dynamics of the pre-industrial world this lead to the rise in incomes. However, this rise was not unique to northwestern Europe and was seen in Italy too, for instance. What’s significant is that the cultural practices in northwestern Europe (marrying later, small nuclear families, interactions between old pagan belief and church) meant the population didn’t recover to its pre-Black Death level as quickly as it did in places such as Italy (where women tending to marry more commonly in their early-mid teens and extended families were conducive to a higher birth rate). The income gains that the Black Death caused thus endured much longer in northwestern Europe, and these gains were a key factor (along with a relaxation of feudal labour restrictions) in creating the conditions for markets to arise and develop. It was then markets (to grossly oversimplify) and the institutions they helped foster that made what would otherwise have been a temporary Malthusian boost into a permanent boost in incomes.
Anyhow, like I said you covered this second half well but I think emphasising the role of the Black Death in spurring the development of markets would have been useful context to include. Or maybe you dispute the importance of the Black Death? Would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Wouldn't the effects of the decline in female hypergamy under polygamy be counterbalanced by those of male hypergamy?
I think Steven Pinker wrote about this also in his treatise on the decline of societal violence beginning in Elizabethan England.
I think that Europeans were ahead long before. Egypt and Sumer started first, then the Greeks and the Romans. The Romans were always more advanced than their Celestial counterparts.
I believe J.D. Unwin also wrote in the 1930s about the weakening of endogamy by an influx of freed slave and other foreign women in Ancient Greece. this has an obvious parallel with the Democrats' open immigration schemes in Biden's America.
Hypotesis for fall of civilized Islamic World(mesopotamia/levant/egypt/Iran).
1-Consangeniuous marriage
2- Increased sub-saharan african mixture Cause may slave trade or migration.
3-Bedouin/Arab migration from south.
4-Mongol Invasion. They destroyed cities killed skilled/high IQ people.
Interesting, albeit I believe you overstate the difference between Eastern and Western Christianity - both enacted similar measures.
The difference, I believe, was the authority of the state in enforcing them. Whereas the Germanics quickly supplanted the Romans and took over, in the east the transition wasn't so clear cut - proper states emerged later, and Christianized even later. But the differences in the variants of Christianity was negligible at that time.
The case with the Balkans - mainly due to plague. Turks stayed at their houses during disease outbreaks, Bulgarians and Greeks moved their villages to new locations. It's common knowledge in the Balkans.
By the way, the Byzantine church, and the Bulgarian one after 865 AD forbade cousin marriages. Strange no one knows this.
Reminds me of the case when some science people wondered why people North of the Black Sea used to live semi-nomadic lifestyle up until the Mongol invasion, and then Mongols /Tatars adopted it. Cattle can't graze there because the snow is too deep and people need to prepare hay for the winter. But scientists rarely know such stuff, as no one speaks with locals.
Anyway, my point is the whole theory is wrong as the East Churches did exactly the same - they forbade cousin marriages with stricter terms than the West did. And those were and are enforced, as anyone who knows few Greeks grannies or just any old lady from the Balkans would know.
In other words, the success of northwestern Europe came about because of the rise of the "protestant work ethic". The same thing happened to Japan, Korea and China in the past 40-50 years. Universal education, free enterprise, thrift, hard work and minimal government interference in business.
Doesn't Clark claim in The Farewell to Alms, that sustained GDP PC growth only startem in 19th century? Can we reconcile this?