What do you think?
Rate this book
The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia
Why did modern states and economies develop first in the peripheral and late-coming culture of Europe? This historical puzzle looms behind every study of industrialization and economic development. In his analytical and comparative work Eric Jones sees the economic condition forming where natural environments and political systems Europe's economic rise is explained as a favored interaction between them, contrasting with the frustrating pattern of their interplay in the Ottoman empire, India and China. A new preface and afterword have been added for the third edition. Previous Edition Hb (1987): 0-521-33449-7 Previous Edition Pb (1987): 0-521-33670-8
344 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
8 people are currently reading
487 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
Currently reading
March 7, 2022Essential read for every student of the roots of European and global economic growth. Make sure to get the 3rd edition as it includes some updates and, most importantly, a response to criticism that Jones received from other scholars.
The core theme/argument of the book is that Europe was politically always fractionalized whereas other parts of the world were hosting large unified empires. This fractionalization led to a very different state system and meant that polities were smaller on average and were competing against each other in different sort of spheres. The latter was also picked up by other scholars as a core feature that made Europe different (and more successful), e.g. Phil Hoffman (military development) or Joel Mokyr (mobility and refuge for people and ideas).
tbc.
The core theme/argument of the book is that Europe was politically always fractionalized whereas other parts of the world were hosting large unified empires. This fractionalization led to a very different state system and meant that polities were smaller on average and were competing against each other in different sort of spheres. The latter was also picked up by other scholars as a core feature that made Europe different (and more successful), e.g. Phil Hoffman (military development) or Joel Mokyr (mobility and refuge for people and ideas).
tbc.
December 13, 2024
Overview
I discovered this book from its citation in Pussycats: Why The Rest Keeps Beating The West, And What Can Be Done About It. It seeks to find out why Europe as a whole, in general, progressed faster and more efficiently than the rest of the world. There are a few other societies and peoples that Europe is compared to throughout the book who were able to accomplish impressive feats in their own right, which are China, India, and certain parts of the Muslim world (the Arabs and the Ottoman Empire). Japan is briefly mentioned as well.
What makes this book unique compared to others that try to tackle the same thesis is that it focuses primarily on ecology. A good portion is devoted to comparison of societies in the dark ages and how this set the stage for years to come up until the modern era. Other factors are considered as well, however. Cultural differences, political structures and economic developments, warfare, expansion, etc., are all important as well and are given their own dedicated portion.
It would be both tedious and inappropriate to summarize every single point made in the book in a review, so instead I will provide a few examples in the different categories mentioned to give an idea of the approach Jones takes to the topic at hand.
Ecology, Environment, and Technology
Beginning with the difference in climate, Europeans migrating north and living in colder areas proved to be beneficial for a few reasons. Migrating North helped develop economies and nations for Europeans because most bacteria would die in the climate, and workers could exhaust more energy. China and India had many diseases, particularly various kinds of worms, due to the warm climate in which they thrived in as well as people defecating in public streets and water supplies. This also led to a shortage of manpower in China, despite its large population. Interestingly, William Luther Pierce discusses many of these same things in his book Who We Are, but his book has been banned on Goodreads (even from Goodreads’ various banned book clubs!). Also worth noting is that Asia suffered from more natural disasters than Europe did, including the aforementioned biological ones. Some of these were so bad that for quite a while, China had the highest reports of cannibalism, something Hollingsworth notes is a sign of “true famine.”
Through the Middle Ages up until the 18th century, Asia had higher productivity of agriculture. This was due to the soil and river-basins as well as man-power. They utilized as much land as possible to grow cereal and other vegetation wherever possible. Since Asia had such a high population, human labor was available to the point in which some people were expendable (outside of deaths by disasters as mentioned above). Europeans, however, spent less manpower on agriculture due to hydraulic agriculture. By medieval times, Europeans were using more energy in terms of water power. They also used more timber, charcoal, and iron per head. There was a brief period in 1100 where iron output per capita in China was 20% higher than Europe, but that was short lived. Europeans did a great job in commerce and importing materials that they either did not have or were depleting. Fast forward in time and this trend continued, with the American colonies being able to produce 14% of the world’s iron by 1750. Europeans also tended to eat more meat than Asians, which helped with vitality and labor output.
We already mentioned basic farming technology, but later on Europe began to see technology that was traditionally only available to nobility to be available to the common man. “The invention of the fire-gate and the chimney, the use of coal, and the making of glass with which to glaze windows all made for greater indoor climatic control (Markham 1947). Slowly these devices trickled down from the rich man in his castle towards the poor man at the gate.” This technology was no longer a status symbol, but rather one of necessity. These things especially helped mothers with their daily duties at home. In addition to mechanical engineering, civil and environmental engineering became in high demand during the Crusades and other periods of religious endeavor when Cathedrals began to be produced at a high rate.
Culture
One interesting aspect of culture was the difference between Europeans and Asians when it came to the household members. Europeans tended to restrict the household occupancy to the nuclear family, while Asians tended to include the extended family. This tradition still seems to hold true today for both sides. In terms of the practical effects this had, Europeans adopted this method mainly because they tended to reproduce much later than Asians, and have fewer children. The Chinese and Indians would reproduce early and often, for reasons that include what we have already discussed, that many lives were lost due to disasters, to provide labor, and to care for the extended family (although Jones believes the first two factors were more important than the last). While Europeans missed out on these benefits due to their breeding patterns, the upside was that they were able to accumulate wealth and resources before marrying and reproducing. Men were not encouraged to marry and have children until they were able to support that family, even if that meant living with their own parents longer. Asians, by contrast, saw it strange to not do either of these if they were possible. Indians in particular did not consider economic factors at all when it came to having children. In evolutionary terms, Asians were r-strategists (favouring numbers in fertility) whereas Europeans were k-strategists (favouring environmental carrying capacity).
Europe was unique in the sense that while different European states and societies were separated, they interacted in beneficial ways. Some examples that Jones gives were the various scientific societies throughout Europe that would draw in different people and develop the sciences in European culture, with geology and medicine being two popular fields. Art clubs were also common, as was fashion and design. Even certain professions such as courier services allowed for the development of greater European culture. Latin was widely taught throughout the region, as was French. This is why when many anti-European people, like Ben Shapiro during his speech at Stanford, question whether or not there is such a thing as “white-European culture,” they are being deliberately misleading. They pretend that a Spaniard has nothing at all in common with a Swede, or a Russian, but in fact they do share a common culture and heritage, and there is such a thing as a greater European identity. Of course there will always exist inner-conflict on some scale, but Jones compares this greater European comradery to that of China and Japan who, despite their great cultural achievements in their own rites, hindered and stunted their economic and cultural growth due to their extreme isolation, meaning that they would generally not interact with each other or other East Asian peoples. In a sense they were right to do this to prevent outside cultural influence, but they were wrong in the sense to push away those who shared common culture and heritage.
When comparing Europe to the so-called Muslim world, in this case the Arabs and the Ottoman Empire, we see similarities but also noticeable differences. The Ottoman Empire, despite all its accomplishments, had a large part of its population being illiterate. The printing press was banned for some time due to repression of material that would challenge state and/or religious authority. The Arabs, though they were well-versed in mathematics and technology, would often discourage scientific endevours for similar reasons. There’s a common narrative that Christian Europe was anti-science and anti-reason, with the Galileo affair being the famous example, but according to the material Jones provides, this seems to be exaggerated.
Politics, Economics, and Expansion
The standard of living for the average European has been better than the average Chinese or Indian, with the exception being that the upper class tended to live more lavishly in the case of the latter two. There are a few reasons behind this: the first has to do with the building of grande structures in Asian culture. The building of wonders and monuments was and is a sign of cultural achievement, but many of these were built for personal usage, whether practical or for status, for the upper class in Asia. The second reason pertains to the market economy. In Europe, even the wealthiest of nobility tended to lax their monopoly and control over goods and services in their respective regions to allow for an economy-stimulating open-market. This was not often the case in Asia, or even the Muslim world.
Continuing this point, traders and merchants had goods that the ruling class wanted, but there was a problem. The rulers could either just seize the merchants’ property, but then they would never come back. They could purchase goods from them, but these societies had subsistence economies. The solution then was to charge them rent for land that they conducted business on. “Ironically, therefore, power was the lever that prised society out of its non-market bed.” This meant that royalty made off well through taxing the nobles, the nobles made off well by charging rent, and the merchants and peasantry were at the very least better than they were before because they could now have some autonomy over their goods and services. This may not have been ideal, neither then nor now, but it is certainly better than feudalism and slavery. Overall, this market economy improved the lives of everyone. Compare this to Malaya, for example, where private trade was banned.
In terms of expansion, Europeans tended to look for essential resources rather than treasure or luxury items. “What Europeans sought more than anything was fish, whale oil, seal oil, timber and land on which to grow grain, sugar, or grapes.” This was not due to lack of resources at home, however. Jones claims that Europeans had this intrinsic yearning for exploration. While this may sound strange and unfounded, it appears to make sense considering the second point here about expansion which is the fact that Europeans were pathfinders in unexplored waters and lands. Many other societies did not venture to different areas throughout the world until Europeans mapped out safe routes and made the initial leap. Back to the point of resources, Asia, like Europe, was able to sustain itself but didn’t see the need for exploration, or rather didn’t see exploration worth the risk. Those who did venture out searched for luxury treasure, rather than resources.
Criticisms
One issue I had with this book was its structure and chapter layout. The first half of the book is almost exclusively dedicated to Europe, with the second half covering Asia and the Muslim world. The problem with this is it makes it difficult to follow along the various comparisons of each society that are made. For example, when talking about expansion and exploration, one will read about how these things are applicable to Asia in the latter half of the book, but will have to backtrack to the first half to see how this compares to Europe. What would have been better would be to have each chapter dedicated to a certain topic and compare the different societies then and there. The format in which the book is written makes it read like a general historical survey of Europe, followed by several chapters explaining the hindrances of Asia. Further, the different historical periods are mentioned sporadically. At one point we are talking about the Dark Ages, then the Crusades, then the Renaissance, then back to the Dark Ages, so on and so forth. Sometimes Europe and Asia are mentioned and yet it’s not clear even with context clues what time period is even being discussed.
The other issue I had is that there seems to be too much emphasis on ecology as the main factor of differentiation. While this is the main focus of the book and Jones’ research, it's hard to come to the conclusion that this is the driving force behind the “European Miracle.” Of course environmental factors will play a huge role, but it seems as if Jones does not want to say other things like culture are more influential. There has to be a reason other than the environment, for example, why the Sentinelese people in the year of 2024 have still not discovered fire.
Conclusion
Although it is dry at times, this is a great resource for anyone interested in European, Chinese, and Indian history, as well as a comparative analysis of their respective states and cultures. It is written from an ecological perspective which is different from how most people would approach such a topic, which makes it interesting and unique.
I discovered this book from its citation in Pussycats: Why The Rest Keeps Beating The West, And What Can Be Done About It. It seeks to find out why Europe as a whole, in general, progressed faster and more efficiently than the rest of the world. There are a few other societies and peoples that Europe is compared to throughout the book who were able to accomplish impressive feats in their own right, which are China, India, and certain parts of the Muslim world (the Arabs and the Ottoman Empire). Japan is briefly mentioned as well.
What makes this book unique compared to others that try to tackle the same thesis is that it focuses primarily on ecology. A good portion is devoted to comparison of societies in the dark ages and how this set the stage for years to come up until the modern era. Other factors are considered as well, however. Cultural differences, political structures and economic developments, warfare, expansion, etc., are all important as well and are given their own dedicated portion.
It would be both tedious and inappropriate to summarize every single point made in the book in a review, so instead I will provide a few examples in the different categories mentioned to give an idea of the approach Jones takes to the topic at hand.
Ecology, Environment, and Technology
Beginning with the difference in climate, Europeans migrating north and living in colder areas proved to be beneficial for a few reasons. Migrating North helped develop economies and nations for Europeans because most bacteria would die in the climate, and workers could exhaust more energy. China and India had many diseases, particularly various kinds of worms, due to the warm climate in which they thrived in as well as people defecating in public streets and water supplies. This also led to a shortage of manpower in China, despite its large population. Interestingly, William Luther Pierce discusses many of these same things in his book Who We Are, but his book has been banned on Goodreads (even from Goodreads’ various banned book clubs!). Also worth noting is that Asia suffered from more natural disasters than Europe did, including the aforementioned biological ones. Some of these were so bad that for quite a while, China had the highest reports of cannibalism, something Hollingsworth notes is a sign of “true famine.”
Through the Middle Ages up until the 18th century, Asia had higher productivity of agriculture. This was due to the soil and river-basins as well as man-power. They utilized as much land as possible to grow cereal and other vegetation wherever possible. Since Asia had such a high population, human labor was available to the point in which some people were expendable (outside of deaths by disasters as mentioned above). Europeans, however, spent less manpower on agriculture due to hydraulic agriculture. By medieval times, Europeans were using more energy in terms of water power. They also used more timber, charcoal, and iron per head. There was a brief period in 1100 where iron output per capita in China was 20% higher than Europe, but that was short lived. Europeans did a great job in commerce and importing materials that they either did not have or were depleting. Fast forward in time and this trend continued, with the American colonies being able to produce 14% of the world’s iron by 1750. Europeans also tended to eat more meat than Asians, which helped with vitality and labor output.
We already mentioned basic farming technology, but later on Europe began to see technology that was traditionally only available to nobility to be available to the common man. “The invention of the fire-gate and the chimney, the use of coal, and the making of glass with which to glaze windows all made for greater indoor climatic control (Markham 1947). Slowly these devices trickled down from the rich man in his castle towards the poor man at the gate.” This technology was no longer a status symbol, but rather one of necessity. These things especially helped mothers with their daily duties at home. In addition to mechanical engineering, civil and environmental engineering became in high demand during the Crusades and other periods of religious endeavor when Cathedrals began to be produced at a high rate.
Culture
One interesting aspect of culture was the difference between Europeans and Asians when it came to the household members. Europeans tended to restrict the household occupancy to the nuclear family, while Asians tended to include the extended family. This tradition still seems to hold true today for both sides. In terms of the practical effects this had, Europeans adopted this method mainly because they tended to reproduce much later than Asians, and have fewer children. The Chinese and Indians would reproduce early and often, for reasons that include what we have already discussed, that many lives were lost due to disasters, to provide labor, and to care for the extended family (although Jones believes the first two factors were more important than the last). While Europeans missed out on these benefits due to their breeding patterns, the upside was that they were able to accumulate wealth and resources before marrying and reproducing. Men were not encouraged to marry and have children until they were able to support that family, even if that meant living with their own parents longer. Asians, by contrast, saw it strange to not do either of these if they were possible. Indians in particular did not consider economic factors at all when it came to having children. In evolutionary terms, Asians were r-strategists (favouring numbers in fertility) whereas Europeans were k-strategists (favouring environmental carrying capacity).
Europe was unique in the sense that while different European states and societies were separated, they interacted in beneficial ways. Some examples that Jones gives were the various scientific societies throughout Europe that would draw in different people and develop the sciences in European culture, with geology and medicine being two popular fields. Art clubs were also common, as was fashion and design. Even certain professions such as courier services allowed for the development of greater European culture. Latin was widely taught throughout the region, as was French. This is why when many anti-European people, like Ben Shapiro during his speech at Stanford, question whether or not there is such a thing as “white-European culture,” they are being deliberately misleading. They pretend that a Spaniard has nothing at all in common with a Swede, or a Russian, but in fact they do share a common culture and heritage, and there is such a thing as a greater European identity. Of course there will always exist inner-conflict on some scale, but Jones compares this greater European comradery to that of China and Japan who, despite their great cultural achievements in their own rites, hindered and stunted their economic and cultural growth due to their extreme isolation, meaning that they would generally not interact with each other or other East Asian peoples. In a sense they were right to do this to prevent outside cultural influence, but they were wrong in the sense to push away those who shared common culture and heritage.
When comparing Europe to the so-called Muslim world, in this case the Arabs and the Ottoman Empire, we see similarities but also noticeable differences. The Ottoman Empire, despite all its accomplishments, had a large part of its population being illiterate. The printing press was banned for some time due to repression of material that would challenge state and/or religious authority. The Arabs, though they were well-versed in mathematics and technology, would often discourage scientific endevours for similar reasons. There’s a common narrative that Christian Europe was anti-science and anti-reason, with the Galileo affair being the famous example, but according to the material Jones provides, this seems to be exaggerated.
Politics, Economics, and Expansion
The standard of living for the average European has been better than the average Chinese or Indian, with the exception being that the upper class tended to live more lavishly in the case of the latter two. There are a few reasons behind this: the first has to do with the building of grande structures in Asian culture. The building of wonders and monuments was and is a sign of cultural achievement, but many of these were built for personal usage, whether practical or for status, for the upper class in Asia. The second reason pertains to the market economy. In Europe, even the wealthiest of nobility tended to lax their monopoly and control over goods and services in their respective regions to allow for an economy-stimulating open-market. This was not often the case in Asia, or even the Muslim world.
Continuing this point, traders and merchants had goods that the ruling class wanted, but there was a problem. The rulers could either just seize the merchants’ property, but then they would never come back. They could purchase goods from them, but these societies had subsistence economies. The solution then was to charge them rent for land that they conducted business on. “Ironically, therefore, power was the lever that prised society out of its non-market bed.” This meant that royalty made off well through taxing the nobles, the nobles made off well by charging rent, and the merchants and peasantry were at the very least better than they were before because they could now have some autonomy over their goods and services. This may not have been ideal, neither then nor now, but it is certainly better than feudalism and slavery. Overall, this market economy improved the lives of everyone. Compare this to Malaya, for example, where private trade was banned.
In terms of expansion, Europeans tended to look for essential resources rather than treasure or luxury items. “What Europeans sought more than anything was fish, whale oil, seal oil, timber and land on which to grow grain, sugar, or grapes.” This was not due to lack of resources at home, however. Jones claims that Europeans had this intrinsic yearning for exploration. While this may sound strange and unfounded, it appears to make sense considering the second point here about expansion which is the fact that Europeans were pathfinders in unexplored waters and lands. Many other societies did not venture to different areas throughout the world until Europeans mapped out safe routes and made the initial leap. Back to the point of resources, Asia, like Europe, was able to sustain itself but didn’t see the need for exploration, or rather didn’t see exploration worth the risk. Those who did venture out searched for luxury treasure, rather than resources.
Criticisms
One issue I had with this book was its structure and chapter layout. The first half of the book is almost exclusively dedicated to Europe, with the second half covering Asia and the Muslim world. The problem with this is it makes it difficult to follow along the various comparisons of each society that are made. For example, when talking about expansion and exploration, one will read about how these things are applicable to Asia in the latter half of the book, but will have to backtrack to the first half to see how this compares to Europe. What would have been better would be to have each chapter dedicated to a certain topic and compare the different societies then and there. The format in which the book is written makes it read like a general historical survey of Europe, followed by several chapters explaining the hindrances of Asia. Further, the different historical periods are mentioned sporadically. At one point we are talking about the Dark Ages, then the Crusades, then the Renaissance, then back to the Dark Ages, so on and so forth. Sometimes Europe and Asia are mentioned and yet it’s not clear even with context clues what time period is even being discussed.
The other issue I had is that there seems to be too much emphasis on ecology as the main factor of differentiation. While this is the main focus of the book and Jones’ research, it's hard to come to the conclusion that this is the driving force behind the “European Miracle.” Of course environmental factors will play a huge role, but it seems as if Jones does not want to say other things like culture are more influential. There has to be a reason other than the environment, for example, why the Sentinelese people in the year of 2024 have still not discovered fire.
Conclusion
Although it is dry at times, this is a great resource for anyone interested in European, Chinese, and Indian history, as well as a comparative analysis of their respective states and cultures. It is written from an ecological perspective which is different from how most people would approach such a topic, which makes it interesting and unique.
April 15, 2020
The usual mildly racist stance of "us better, them inferior" and the rationalization required to reach that comfortable conclusion.
September 4, 2022
The European Miracle : Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia (1981) by Eric Jones is a gem of a book that looks at why Europe took off economically from about 1400 and was the place where the industrial revolution took place. Jones was an Oxford educated professor of Economic History at La Trobe University in Victoria. Jones also worked for a time with Joel Mokyr.
Chapter 8, Beyond Europe, starts with a quote that describes the purpose of the book:
“Any objective survey of the past 10,000 years of human history would show that during almost all of it, northern Europeans were an inferior barbarian race, living in squalor and ignorance, producing few cultural innovations
Peter Farb”
The book starts by looking Eurasia and the Environmental and social conjectures and then Disasters and Capital Accumulation. The next section is on Europe and looks at the European market economy, the states of Europe, then the creation of Nation States. The following section looks at the world excluding Asia and Europe and how it fared prior to 1800. Then the Ottoman Empire, India and China are compared. Finally there is a summation and comparison.
It’s very hard to work out why Europe advanced and why others didn’t. We can’t run experiments where Europe is conquered by Charlemagne and is under one empire for the next 800 years. We can’t try history where China is split into 5 parts and see if China is where economic take off happens. The best we can do is reason and compare and this book does that very well.
The book does speculate on the 'Needham Question' somewhat and proposes that had Chinese rulers not turned inward and had they allowed more trade then the Industrial revolution may well have occurred in China. Jones also makes the point that it was perhaps the proximity to the Mongols that was the key difference. The book writes about how Francis Bacon pondered why China wasn't visiting and perhaps plundering Europe because China had invented gunpowder and the printing press.
The places where economic take off was likely to occur is narrowed down in the book to Europe, China and India. The reason for is that in 1500 they had about 80% of the world's population and a large population supporting many non-farmers was required. Also inventions could travel between them and this greatly benefited Europe that could use Hindu Arabic numerals, the printing press and gunpowder without inventing them.
The book puts forward the idea that European seasons may have helped Europe by making it harder for damaging microbes to survive in Europe than in more tropical countries. It’s a plausible idea. The book also states that pathogen loading’s of Chinese peasants in the South were higher than Europeans as far as the twentieth century. America’s remoteness and lack of contact from Europe is pointed out as being a limiting factor.
Europe’s geography is also posited to have been beneficial. Europe doesn’t have a single large cereal growing area but instead has multiple which favors the development of smaller states because one single area is not enough to control. In addition Europe’s geography with hills and rivers made it difficult for one power to dominate. But the powers that arose could then communicate and trade with each other by sea. When one state become a decaying autocracy other states that were more vigorous would take parts of it. But as no single state ever dominated stagnation of one state crippling development wasn’t possible.
The European Miracle is a fantastic book that really looks into what institutional and geographic features made it so that Europe, rather than China or India, was the place where economic growth happened.
Chapter 8, Beyond Europe, starts with a quote that describes the purpose of the book:
“Any objective survey of the past 10,000 years of human history would show that during almost all of it, northern Europeans were an inferior barbarian race, living in squalor and ignorance, producing few cultural innovations
Peter Farb”
The book starts by looking Eurasia and the Environmental and social conjectures and then Disasters and Capital Accumulation. The next section is on Europe and looks at the European market economy, the states of Europe, then the creation of Nation States. The following section looks at the world excluding Asia and Europe and how it fared prior to 1800. Then the Ottoman Empire, India and China are compared. Finally there is a summation and comparison.
It’s very hard to work out why Europe advanced and why others didn’t. We can’t run experiments where Europe is conquered by Charlemagne and is under one empire for the next 800 years. We can’t try history where China is split into 5 parts and see if China is where economic take off happens. The best we can do is reason and compare and this book does that very well.
The book does speculate on the 'Needham Question' somewhat and proposes that had Chinese rulers not turned inward and had they allowed more trade then the Industrial revolution may well have occurred in China. Jones also makes the point that it was perhaps the proximity to the Mongols that was the key difference. The book writes about how Francis Bacon pondered why China wasn't visiting and perhaps plundering Europe because China had invented gunpowder and the printing press.
The places where economic take off was likely to occur is narrowed down in the book to Europe, China and India. The reason for is that in 1500 they had about 80% of the world's population and a large population supporting many non-farmers was required. Also inventions could travel between them and this greatly benefited Europe that could use Hindu Arabic numerals, the printing press and gunpowder without inventing them.
The book puts forward the idea that European seasons may have helped Europe by making it harder for damaging microbes to survive in Europe than in more tropical countries. It’s a plausible idea. The book also states that pathogen loading’s of Chinese peasants in the South were higher than Europeans as far as the twentieth century. America’s remoteness and lack of contact from Europe is pointed out as being a limiting factor.
Europe’s geography is also posited to have been beneficial. Europe doesn’t have a single large cereal growing area but instead has multiple which favors the development of smaller states because one single area is not enough to control. In addition Europe’s geography with hills and rivers made it difficult for one power to dominate. But the powers that arose could then communicate and trade with each other by sea. When one state become a decaying autocracy other states that were more vigorous would take parts of it. But as no single state ever dominated stagnation of one state crippling development wasn’t possible.
The European Miracle is a fantastic book that really looks into what institutional and geographic features made it so that Europe, rather than China or India, was the place where economic growth happened.
May 27, 2023
The European Miracle looks at the economic, environmental, religious and political factors that lead to the rise of Europe as a dominant world power over other areas. This book focuses on comparing Europe to the Ottomans, India and China. It purposefully does not spend much time on the Americas, Africa and excludes Japan as an aberration of this overall theory. This book looks at the environment and the rise and fall of various plagues, droughts, storms and other factors that insulated Europe from large natural disasters. It also looks at the political organization of the nation state arising from feudal empires to city states to kingdoms that allowed Europe to organize in a way other areas did not. This is definitely a meta-analysis that stays high level and offers up a theory that is well played out. Overall an enjoyable read but not a deep dive into this topic.
October 26, 2019
I discovered this book when it was mentioned in a video on YouTube entitled "Our Family of Nations". The author describes Europeans as "ceaseless tinkerers".
December 5, 2020
La respuesta última no está dada, pero el análisis es apasionante.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews