How do you go from medieval backwaters shithole with some of the lowest standards of living in western Europe to having the biggest and richest empire in human history?
France for example had a higher GDP than England for most of the middle ages, and Spain beat them in the colonial game by almost an entire centaury.
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
>How do you go from medieval backwaters shithole with some of the lowest standards of living in western Europe to having the biggest and richest empire in human history?
le sea power meme
>backwaters shithole with some of the lowest standards of living in western Europe
Citation needed
Spain was classical obscurantist medieval empire in terms of political-economic administration, a leviathan very reluctant to change and progress. As a crusader kingdom, in origins, the weight of the religious mentality was very strong in Iberian peninsula, the apostate was despicable, for which the population rarely deviated from the guidelines established by the authorities (the church).
France by the other side just had incompetent kings, having been a country called to conquer the continent since the time of Charlemagne (high population density, fertile soil, strategic position for trading, etc), never achieved the conquest of Wes-Central Europe. The Germans stole them the title of heirs of Charlemagne, the Spanish the title of champions of Catholicism, the Italians their status as artists and the British the possibility of inheriting the biggest colonial empire after the fall of the Spanish empire.
Germany was just divided because HRE never worked as political entity, after unification Germans without colonies buckbroke Britain in term of economy, military and production.
Netherlands by the other side were too small, Britain in fact copied the economic and politic system of the Netherlands during the 17th century, which allowed them to take the lead in industrial production of the Dutch, French and Spanish in the mid-eighteenth century.
Just to compare, after losing his fleet and 13th colonies, by the time Napoleonic wars started, Britain already had a new fleet with 100 ships of the line that surprassed both the french fleet (73 ships of the line) and the spanish fleet (77 ships of the line).
>France by the other side just had incompetent kings, having been a country called to conquer the continent since the time of Charlemagne (high population density, fertile soil, strategic position for trading, etc), never achieved the conquest of Wes-Central Europe. The Germans stole them the title of heirs of Charlemagne, the Spanish the title of champions of Catholicism, the Italians their status as artists and the British the possibility of inheriting the biggest colonial empire after the fall of the Spanish empire.
in fairness, whenever France had a capable leader, the rest of Europe teamed up to stop him.
France never fought against an equal in terms of net power, at late XVIII century the It was divided like this.
France population: 29 million inhabitants.
Netherlands: 2 million inhabitants.
Britain: 8 million inhabitants.
Spain: 9 million inhabitants.
Austria: 9 million inhabitants.
Portugal: 2.8 million inhabitants.
Sweden: 2 million inhabitants.
Germany and Italy who were only countries in Europe with a similar % of population, they were too divided into principalities, fiefdoms and city-states that fought each other to be a real threat.
It only took Germany unifying for France to fight another country under similar conditions and the war did not go well for France.
France had very good kings for a long stretch bookended by Hugh Capet and Philip the Fair. Those kings founded a strong royal power and identity, dismantled the Angevin Empire, saw out the last sparks of centralized initiative in the HRE, and crushed Toulouse and Flanders (which were the greatest opposition with no ties to England). Then you had the Cursed Kings, from Louis the Quarrelsome to Charles the Mad. These kings oversaw crushing defeats to England, the loss of most of Western France, and the formation of a Burgundian state that seriously challenged central authority. After that the kings were, broadly speaking, competent, and France became the strongest power of the Early Modern Era thanks to them.
>France had very good kings
And yet failed to conquer their neighbours that were unpopulated poorgays or divided fighting each others.
>These kings oversaw crushing defeats to England
Around that time England had around 1 million inhabitants while France had around 8 million inhabitants, tell me how is that an achievement. You know that only good king France ever had was Louis XIV and Charlemagne.
The rest missed France and its imperial potential (fertile green soil with abundant loess {as Germany, Poland and Ukrain}, rich in natural resources, a good strategic position for the trans-Alpine Atlantic-Mediterranean trade that necessarily crossed France from North to South, politically more stable than other kingdoms {british forced to fight scots and irish, HRE and Italians divided and fighting MENAs or Mongoloids, spanish fighting MENA kingdoms, etc}, historically overpopulated, favored by the papacy, etc.).
The truth is that France with all the resources at his disposal, he accomplished little. The Germans after unification, who are France opposite, have in less than 150 years done more for continental conquest than France in 1,000.
Your reading comprehension is very poor, anon. He said "crushing defeats TO England", it wasn't a brag.
You also ascribe a lot of advantages to France as if those just plopped into France's lap. France only had those advantages (natural border, unified and cohesive state) because it fought for it. If the early Capetian king hadn't been so resolved on expanding their influence, France would probably exist as three or four states currently (Languedoc, Burgundy-Flanders, Provence, etc.). It wasn't destined to be a superpower. More the opposite, the leaders saw its potential and unified the country violently (Albigensean crusades, conflict with the Burgundians, curbing of Piedmontese influence in south-eastern France, protecting Champagne from creeping HRE influence, etc.)
>dismantled the Angevin Empire
So the GOOD kings oversaw near half their country get taken over by the English and their Aquitanian ally and ruled over a highly decentralised realm with a miniscule royal demense
Quiet down Pierre, the rump kingdom of western francia (you don't deserve capital letters) is an accident of history, and should be regarded as such.
What are you on about I'm Anglo
>anglos screaming at each other while thinking the other is french
Weird race
The good kings started out with a highly decentralized realm with a miniscule royal demesne. Toulouse, the Angevins, and Flanders were all great obstacles to France, and at the death of Philip the Fair all were overcome.
I thought you said that Britain became a great power because of iron, and that they iron quantity and quality mogged the continent.
Now your saying it's because tourism increasing?
Daily reminder France had around ~10x the population of England in the earlier medieval
and still a good 5x more during the time of the 100 Years War
Anglos have always been good at punching above our weight.
>Anglos have always been good at punching above our weight.
Anglos owe a lot to the fact they are an island, they would still be the french colony William the conqueror created if wasn't for that peculiarity of british geography.
If being an island is so overpowered why couldn't the Celts who still had Roman infrastructure deal with the Anglo-Saxon invasions?
Because they were so moronic that allowed Germanic mercenaries to land in Britain to fight the Irish and Scots beyond the roman borders who were raiding their cities.
Once inside, they never left.
Some bands of mercenaries who possibly only held a small county in the South East were able to force back all of the Celts into the mountains?
Sounds as if they were punching above their weight.
>Some bands of mercenaries
Yeah, as a small band of french leaded by William was able to subjugate all anglosaxons.
British have been schizos about sea control since then, they were schizos about an spanish invasion during 16th century, schizos about a french invasion during 18th century and schizos about a german invasion during 20th century.
What do you think would have happened if Louis XIV or Napoleon landed in England with 300,000 men behind him? They would have wiped out any English army.
Britain doesn't have the demographic power to beat continental powers in equal term war, that is why british elites always focused their efforts on the sea power and alliances that divided the continental powers (aka. Germany, France and Italy).
>British have been schizos about sea control since then
No not really, we were prolific ship builders sure but thats because we were an island and these ships were for trade.
Naval battles were few and far between in the Medieval anyway and everything decisive happened on land, against the French who as I mentioned before had some 5-10x plus our population depending on the exact time you're looking at.
>they were schizos about an spanish invasion during 16th century
Note that nigh on all English success on the continent happened before the whole navy thing got started e.g. the 'Angevin Empire' and the HYW.
It was only once we began to develop and focus on our navy that we began to consistently perform poorly on the continent such as losing our French holdings and eventually decided not to bother anymore.
We beat the Spanish Armada which was well known to be more powerful than the English Navy, we then took that Navy and lost against them after.
>we
you did nothing and your ancestors are ashamed of your "nation"
>If being an island is so overpowered why couldn't the Celts who still had Roman infrastructure deal with the Anglo-Saxon invasions?
It's only overpowered if you're unified. If you aren't, Saxons, Danes, or Normans can waltz in and take over.
The whole North Sea didn't stop the Scandinavians from taking over England a couple of times
On a good day you can literally see the Continent from Dover
>having the biggest and richest empire in human history?
Scotch guidance. From the 1780s-1840s all medical doctors in England were from Scotland to the point so many jobs were filled by Scotsmen English people rioted to remove Scotland from the UK.
>Scotch guidance. From the 1780s-1840s all medical doctors in England were from Scotland
*Scots under English guidance
>"Much may be made of a Scotchman, if he be caught young."
>"The noblest prospect which a Scotchman ever sees, is the high road that leads him to England!"
http://www.samueljohnson.com/scotland.html
>seething English tard that spent his entire careeer being obsessed with Scotland
Yes a good source. Reminder he had a mental breakdown when a hotel in the Outer Hebrides had a window that didn't open and that there were fields of thistles in Scotland.
Henry VIII starting the English Navy was a huge contributor for England success.
ships
They were not primitive but quite advanced with mathematicians like Alcuin, scholars able to translate from Arabs, thinkers like Roger Bacon, writers like Chaucer, incredible castles, fantastic ships, incredible carhedrals etc
British land army was laughable, it was austrian, prussian, spanish tier at the best. Britain needed of prussian support in Waterloo, french & italian support in Crimea, Burger & Soviet support during WW2, etc.
Unlike Germany and France, Britain cannot continually generate large armies, Hitler could have annihilated Britain's small army at Dunkirk but he let them flee.
Biggest reason was in 1588 the English defeated the Spanish armada at the Battle of Gravelines. This event meant that Spain could no longer meaningfully prevent England from getting a chunk of the New World for themselves.
The British haven't been "backwards" since at least the Anglo-Saxon invasion if not earlier
This is generally true. England naturally still had much of the Roman infrastructure left over from that period, some elites were still living in Villas until at least the late 6th century for example.
Even the AS Kingdoms of the Heptarchy still wielded considerable power and status. Many of the Kingdoms at different times were able to recognised as Bretwalda (overlord of Great Britain).
Just looking at Offa of Mercia one of his daughters was at one time betrothed to a Byzantine Emperor, and Charlemagne sought an alliance with him through marriage too, recognising the strength of his realm.
The major stumbling block that prevented England from being truly powerful until much later in history was simply a lack of population in comparison to other powers.
Britain naval power was no joke. They dominated the world because of it. Germany in 1910s tried to reach Anglo level but it failed.
Ideal European military pre-WW2 was British naval power and German land army power. Not sure about air force though.
>medieval backwaters shithole with some of the lowest standards of living in western Europe
When exactly was this the case? What's the proof?
And the Romans didn't give a frick about archery either, were they backwards too?
>Spain beat them in the colonial game by almost an entire centaury.
By 4 centuries considering Spain started to expand into South Italy and Eastern Mediterranean during 13th century.
I really wish all same gays got perma banned on sight you people are the cancer that are ruining boards
>England had no archery before the Norman's.
*Normans
Learn how to use apostrophes
You posted this the other day and got disproven
https://oldenglishpoetry.camden.rutgers.edu/battle-of-maldon/
>bows were busy—shields were peppered with points.
>Nor could any of them afflict the other side, except those who were felled by the showering of arrows.
>He did not flinch back at all at the war-play, but he sent forth arrows very frequently; sometimes he shot into a shield, sometimes he skewered a warrior
>Word for bow: boga, from which we derive our modern term
>There are three nouns that in all recorded contexts appear to denote arrow: 'arwe', 'earh' and 'scytel'; the former being the ancestor of our modern term
>There is also the related word 'earhfaru' for a flight of or the shooting of arrows
>A couple of verbs are used for the casting of missiles generally: 'strælian' and 'sceotan'
>Bows are known from at least two Anglo-Saxon burials
>The poem 'The Battle of Maldon' includes the phrase 'bogan wæron bysige', or 'bows were busy', and references are also found in poems such as 'The Battle of Brunanburh'
>At least one English archer is depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry
Sorry mate I genuinely thought you were arguing in seriousness
As I'm wrong I shall leave you to continue riling the other chap, he seems annoyed
Night
xx
Why was Portugal the first nation to explore the seas properly?
Outlier state with high ambitions.
You can see from Henry VIII onwards that England wanted to be a major player (Henry VIII wanted to be Holy Roman Emperor). But it couldn't because France and because Habsburgs. So where was French and Habsburg power weakest? Abroad.
Britain started to be a thing due Industrial Revolution at middle-late 18th century, the 13th colonies were Brazil tier in terms of economy and demographic density, New York by 1780 wasn't precisely a highly populated city.
When Britain started to expand in India At the same time that it developed its industry, which would dominate the world economy during the 19th century, we can really speak of a British Empire.
Not really that France and Habsbourgs declined, just Britain made a quantum leap with the industrial revolution, a leap that basically gave Britain the support to counter its low population density.
Why Britain though? My point stands
>There's a cycle where the west creates fake countries then takes them down. Greece with persia..
What? Greece created Persia?
Persia existed before and after the selecuids, im not seeing what exactly the Greeks created.
The selecuids didn't even change the previous Achaemenid form of government. Their long term impact on anything bedsides trade routes were minimal.
OP is just willingly forgetting the whole industrial Revolution thing
The answer is that England was taken over (at least in part) by the business class a lot earlier than these other countries. The business class dropped economic barriers and made England a good place to invest and make money. England had a ton of coastline to work with and only needed to invest in ships to defend themselves. Boats are an incredible cost effective way to dominate trade. The business classes made economical practices trendy for the upper landowning classes. The gentry got obsessed with improving their farming outputs and investing money into overseas ventures. It wasn’t cool anymore to just hunt on your estate all day and leave your peasants in squalor. French aristocrats meanwhile thought it was below them to get involved in business and land improvement. They just ground their peasants into the dirt, hunted on their estates and blew all their money on luxuries in Paris. They also kept up imposts and tax boundaries everywhere in France, which made it impossible to move goods across France without being extorted for taxes. It was a colossal waste of land wealth. It took until the Revolution for French landowners to take after the more industrious British ones. Another consideration is how almost all the middle/business classes of Western Europe were Calvinist work ethic Protestants. France deported or slaughtered its Huguenots, and these ended up taking their skills and talents to britain and Germany. France had to rebuild a lot of its industries from the ground up, and never quite reached the same level that the Huguenots were at.
Tell me how is wrong, the fact Britain needed to send a lot of german, dutch and scandinavian settlers to North America due to the inability of British authorities to populate the lands they dominated with their own people says a lot about it.
Industrial Revolution served to Britain as a stick to alleviate the historical problem that Britain had, the country is small, poor in natural resources and not fertile.
It served them until other powers with richer lands developed their own industries (Germany, France, USA, Japan, etc.).
>the country is small, poor in natural resources and not fertile
The English are superior to other peoples. Anyone who disagrees with this is in denial. I can only hope my people (Columbia) imitate them in word and deed to become successful some day (probably not).
Today, Russians and their allies scream about a few Anglo Saxons being responsible for kicking them out of Ukraine. 80 years ago the Germans said the same, before that the French, before that the Spanish and so on and so on. This is the truth: the society they have created for themselves, which they shared with the planet, is the best. They are better than us. I am not ashamed to say I admire them. We should do like the Japanese and just copy paste English customs.
When I was a kid l, I go to live in Alberta then my parents moved back to Brazil for their careers.
I have been waiting for 8 years to escape Brazil and move back. I wish I was an Anglo. Brazilian reputation for plagiarism and fabrication in academia is so bad no one takes me serious when I apply abroad. You’re right. Anglos don’t have a culture or stealing and making shit up, of lying to get ahead, or just outright murdering you for looking at someone funny.
Even tourism schizo poster actually proves that. People want to visit anglo countries because it’s nice, and the people living there are great, which makes it one of the best places to live.
It's simple.
Britain went from being at the far edge of the known world to being at the centre of it. Had the Americas not been discovered France would have likely just eventually conquered it.
Yeah, but why mate?
the eternal anglo was always comfy
Yep. American geographical advantage on a smaller scale.
Through superior Norman rule, elevating a group of mud shoveling peasants into a global superpower.
>How do you go from medieval backwaters shithole with some of the lowest standards of living in western Europe to having the biggest and richest empire in human history?
It's very simple when you consider who was doing it.
If you want a less memey answer, then, wool - it's a hell of an export.
While your ancestors were fast asleep, the English were discovering the elements.
Shiiiiiiieeeeeeeeettttttt.
>There's no real difference in living standards
now compare international tourism to china vs italy
only for shitholes does this .96 r squared hold
>from medieval backwaters shithole with some of the lowest standards of living in western Europe
That was never the case. Anglo-Saxon England was one of the most centralised, advanced states in Europe.
Didn't the Saxons operate off an elective succession? If the state was centralized, why would they use a succession system that as far as i know was only really used in looser states like the HRE or Irish kingdoms (or if we want to go much later, the PLC)
Calvinism.
Read Weber and thank Cromwell for the industrial revolution.
Theft, murder, mass kidnappings and piracy on high seas apparently
Lost tribe of Israel destined to fulfil the promises God gave to Abraham.
Source: trust me m8
Anglo Lies
Muffle of aryan womens cries
It's because us plucky brits are all naturally salty sea dogs.
We've always known how to produce the worlds finest semen
>Because Valencia is a good port and able to fit tankers, europe is able to survive
There are many ports in europe larger and with more throughput than valencia
it's not even the most important one in Spain
So, there are four bigger ones in your pic
even then, why is Spain poor if it is in the top 3 for tourism and has the best port in europe?
>How do you go from medieval backwaters shithole with some of the lowest standards of living in western Europe to having the biggest and richest empire in human history?
Being that one kid in the Civ 5 multiplayer lobby who spawned alone on his own island with all the endgame resources is how
>Spain has less tourism than England
so if England has more tourism because it has more business, couldn't it actually be that England is rich because it actually does a lot more business than other countries, not "tourism"?
This is just a random assortment of things you picked up spending countless hours on IQfy, Mark Ingraham, it has little bearing on reality.
For example river deltas. Flood plains of the Nile, Mesopotamia, Indus and other places were good for agriculture in early civilization, but we're talking about the middle ages when intensive agriculture had spread to other environments. However this doesn't occur to you, because your mind sort of fixates on random things. Your fixation with "gdp = tourism", "smallpox is fake" and so on is a symptom of schizophrenia and schizotypal disorders call apophenia.
You have legit schizophrenia, seek mental healthcare.
I'm not jidf, just a random anon. You do have legit schizophrenia and your life is going to be pretty bad unless you get help.
Do you really believe "tourism is due to malaria"? How is that logical in any way?
Protestant work ethic