What do you think?
Rate this book
The Origins of the Modern World: A Global and Ecological Narrative; packaged with: The British Imperial Century, 1815-1914: Imperialism from the Perspective of World History
This clearly written and engrossing book presents a global narrative of the origins of the modern world from 1400 to the present. Unlike most studies, which assume that the "rise of the West" is the story of the coming of the modern world, this history, drawing upon new scholarship on Asia, Africa, and the New World and upon the maturing field of environmental history, constructs a story in which those parts of the world play major roles, including their impacts on the environment. Robert B. Marks defines the modern world as one marked by industry, the nation state, interstate warfare, a large and growing gap between the wealthiest and poorest parts of the world, increasing inequality within the wealthiest industrialized countries, and an escape from the environmental constraints of the "biological old regime." He explains its origins by emphasizing contingencies (such as the conquest of the New World); the broad comparability of the most advanced regions in China, India, and Europe; the reasons why England was able to escape from common ecological constraints facing all of those regions by the eighteenth century; a conjuncture of human and natural forces that solidified a gap between the industrialized and non-industrialized parts of the world; and the mounting environmental crisis that defines the modern world. Now in a new edition that brings the saga of the modern world to the present in an environmental context, the book considers how and why the United States emerged as a world power in the twentieth century and became the sole superpower by the twenty-first century, and why the changed relationship of humans to the environmental likely will be the hallmark of the modern era--the "Anthopocene." Once again arguing that the U.S. rise to global hegemon was contingent, not inevitable, Marks also points to the resurgence of Asia and the vastly changed relationship of humans to the environment that may in the long run overshadow any political and economic milestones of the past hundred years.
1 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
176 people are currently reading
1460 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 - 30 of 95 reviews
February 7, 2017
The author announces right at the start of the book that he has no intentions of looking at history from all perspectives in this book and indeed, wants to frame the history of the world of the last few centuries from a non-European perspective. He does it in this book from mostly Indian and Chinese perspectives.
The best part about this book is that it doesn't seek to explain the "rise of the West" with a generalized theory and instead, points out how the "rise of the West" is actually a collection of events that, while linked, were often unrelated and not environmentally inevitable. In doing so, it destroys the simplistic "geographic determinism" explanation forwarded by authors like Jared Diamond which doesn't explain colonialism in Asia at all. Indeed, a central idea that is stressed in this book is that despite the commonly-held belief now in European domination of the world since the 15th century, Europeans were not economically or socially dominant till about the early 1800s. The Spanish and the Portuguese, while more powerful than their European neighbors, were nowhere near as powerful as Ming China or Mughal India. Their primary role in world trade was to provide much-needed liquidity to Chinese and Indian economies through selling New World silver in exchange for manufactured goods from Asia.
There are quite a few novel arguments in the book that are well-supported by the author such as the absence of any role for science in the Industrial Revolution till well into 1880s, the responses to hitting the limits of the biological old regime in India, China and Britain, and how these responses, determined to a large extent by geography, triggered the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Even if you don't agree with all the arguments the author makes, the relinquishing of any generalized theory to explain the European-dominated world of the present affords readers the opportunity to look at history in totality and not feel pressured to fit every event into a restrictive theory ("Guns, germs and steel" and its variations) that falls apart outside of very specific circumstances.
The best part about this book is that it doesn't seek to explain the "rise of the West" with a generalized theory and instead, points out how the "rise of the West" is actually a collection of events that, while linked, were often unrelated and not environmentally inevitable. In doing so, it destroys the simplistic "geographic determinism" explanation forwarded by authors like Jared Diamond which doesn't explain colonialism in Asia at all. Indeed, a central idea that is stressed in this book is that despite the commonly-held belief now in European domination of the world since the 15th century, Europeans were not economically or socially dominant till about the early 1800s. The Spanish and the Portuguese, while more powerful than their European neighbors, were nowhere near as powerful as Ming China or Mughal India. Their primary role in world trade was to provide much-needed liquidity to Chinese and Indian economies through selling New World silver in exchange for manufactured goods from Asia.
There are quite a few novel arguments in the book that are well-supported by the author such as the absence of any role for science in the Industrial Revolution till well into 1880s, the responses to hitting the limits of the biological old regime in India, China and Britain, and how these responses, determined to a large extent by geography, triggered the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Even if you don't agree with all the arguments the author makes, the relinquishing of any generalized theory to explain the European-dominated world of the present affords readers the opportunity to look at history in totality and not feel pressured to fit every event into a restrictive theory ("Guns, germs and steel" and its variations) that falls apart outside of very specific circumstances.
September 26, 2011
This book serves its purpose perfectly well, it just isn't something to really recommend as a read. This is for assigning to undergrads and grad students as the first reading in a world or global history class. Marks is attempting to get away from a Euro-centric model of recounting world history; he wants to re-orient world history to the...orient...sort of. He basically is arguing that the Indian Ocean world was the first place where all kinds of cultures came together to trade, and this is where world history can really be said to 'begin'. The Chinese and the Indians were really the drivers of history at this point, as they were simultaneously the big producers of goods and the big markets. But Europe was desperate to get in on the action, so they accidentally discovered America, developed nice new guns and boats, and started their long, illustrious history of pushing everyone else in the world around. Now we are reaching a point after several centuries where China and India are heading towards regaining their rightful thrones as the cruxes of the world.
I also get a sense that you can read this book and basically understand what Pomeranz is arguing in The Great Divergence, as Marks cites him at length, and I think he's making the same or a similar argument.
So anyway, this is for students to read and then they can come to class and argue about getting away from being Euro-centric and about whether this is just switching from Euro to China-centric and why did some countries industrialize before others and etc.
I also get a sense that you can read this book and basically understand what Pomeranz is arguing in The Great Divergence, as Marks cites him at length, and I think he's making the same or a similar argument.
So anyway, this is for students to read and then they can come to class and argue about getting away from being Euro-centric and about whether this is just switching from Euro to China-centric and why did some countries industrialize before others and etc.
April 7, 2008
My first question when I put it down was "Why didn't I have to read this in high school?" Clear, easy to read overview of often under-taught [or in US public schools, at least, taught from a perspective that leaves out a lot] parts of world history.
September 22, 2015
It is hard being a historian and a justice crusader, you end up with tainted history and unmoved justice. Marks’ self-proclaimed goal is to provide a narrative for the development of the modern world (1400-1900) which is meant to ‘correct’ the Eurocentric view of history. Sadly he overshoots and instead paints an explicitly anti-Eurocentric view which suffers from the obverse set of biases relative to the ones he set out to correct. Luckily the book is pleasantly short and the sections where he sticks to straight history are succinct, well-structured and informative.
As far as bias mitigation there are much better options for non-Eurocentric histories of development – from Jared Diamond (who wrote his best-selling ‘Guns…’ before Marks btw) to more recent Ian Morris or Acemoglue&Robinson. At least those guys have theories of the world that one may agree or disagree with, but the insights they are offer are genuine, attempt to be objective, and are worth considering.
As far as bias mitigation there are much better options for non-Eurocentric histories of development – from Jared Diamond (who wrote his best-selling ‘Guns…’ before Marks btw) to more recent Ian Morris or Acemoglue&Robinson. At least those guys have theories of the world that one may agree or disagree with, but the insights they are offer are genuine, attempt to be objective, and are worth considering.
December 23, 2015
His thesis, while definitely not Eurocentric, was definitely not individual-friendly. He proposes that the inventiveness of the individual had nothing to do with anything of the past 600 years. Really?
February 7, 2018
This is an extended review of this short but very useful book of world history.
Wanting to tell the story of world history from a viewpoint that is truly global, Robert Marks has written The Origins of the Modern World. The inspiration for this book arose from two sources. Intrigued by the most recent scholarship concerning world history but dismayed by the fact that this most recent scholarship typically takes many years to enter the mainstream of university teaching, Marks used a year of sabbatical from Whittier College to research and write this story of how the world came to look as it does today. Realizing that, if his incoming students knew anything about world history, it was a version of the story putting Europe squarely at the heart of things as the primary actor in the events of modern history, Marks attempts to remedy that mistaken view with this short but insightful book.
The first thing Marks does is to abandon the idea of Europe as the center of world history over the past 600 years. Rather than seeing the rise of Europe to world dominance as an event that was somehow inevitable and preordained, instead Marks sees Europe’s rise to power as the confluence of three factors. The first of these in contingency, the argument that nothing preordained world history to turn out as it has. The second is the role of accidents in history. By this, Marks means things like changes in climate or coincidences of timing that are unpredictable and outside of human control. The final piece of the book’s theoretical framework is that of conjuncture. Independent events sometimes come together to produce a situation of historical importance; the synergy of these separate events coming together produces a result with much larger implications than any of the events individually.
Chapter one sets the stage for all the arguments that follow. Occupying the center of this stage is the concept of the biological old regime. By this term, Marks is referring to the fact that until very recently in world history, humans everywhere existed as part of the natural environment and were in turn limited by that environment. The primary source of energy was the sun, and the ability of humans to increase production depended on their ability to harness its renewable energy. Marks also examines population and finds the Eurasian landmass holding about 70% of world population in 1400, as it does today. This fact, combined with the existence of eight large zones of trade connecting Europe, Asia, and East Africa, explains why Eurasia dominated world trade while the biological old regime was in place. Interestingly, it also demonstrates that the idea of global trade is by no means a twentieth century invention. Finally, Marks demonstrates the power of his theme of conjuncture, using it to explain the Black Death. The disease that killed many millions in Europe and Asia originated in China, and the existence of the Mongol Empire, spanning most of the Eurasian landmass, provided the vector for transmission to Europe by maintaining overland trade routes across the Eurasian steppe. Burrowing rodents also lived along this trade route, and they became the carriers of bubonic plague. Italian traders in Europe frequented a second trade route, which overlapped with the Mongol route at the Black Sea city of Caffa. When the Venetians and Genoese sailed back to Italy in 1346, the Black Death sailed with them, with devastating consequences.
Other meaningful contingencies and conjunctures abound throughout the book. Portuguese sailors rounded the southern tip of Africa and entered the (largely unfortified) Indian Ocean just as the Chinese navy was withdrawing due to internal events in China. Had it remained to contest the navies of Portugal and other European nations, the European attempt to control trade routes in the Indian Ocean would possibly have turned out very differently. Similarly, without its colonies to provide the raw materials of industry, cotton especially, England would not have been able to industrialize as it did because the land base of the British Isles is far too small to provide the raw materials on its own and still grow food to feed the British population.
One of the most profound insights offered in The Origins of the Modern World is the momentous role of China and India in the world economy under the biological old regime. Indeed, the desire to access the markets of China and India was a primary cause of European exploration. Shut off from the old trade routes by the Islamic states controlling the Middle East, Europeans sought to find a way around the Muslim middlemen and gain access to the Indian Ocean trade for themselves. Even into the eighteenth century, the textile industry of India was vastly more productive than that of any European nation. Furthermore, it was the Chinese demand for silver that made trade with Europe possible. Under the biological old regime, the Chinese could produce everything produced in Europe, and at a lower cost. However, due to a decision in the 1400s to use silver as the basis of the Chinese monetary system, silver became the one trade item in high demand. By the mid-1500s, Europeans could supply this demand once they had located the Americas, plundered the Inca and Aztec Empires, and found further new silver deposits such as the one at Potosi.
How, then, did Europe manage to overcome its weak economic position relative to China and India? They were the first societies to escape the limits of the biological old regime. In 1793, American Eli Whitney invented a contraption called the cotton gin which made short staple cotton viable in the creation of textiles. This development, combined with the technology of steam power and easily-accessed coal deposits next to the places that needed them (an accident and a conjunction), allowed first England, then Europeans generally, to start down the industrial path. The ability to access stored energy through coal first and later oil provided the mechanism for Europe to escape the biological old regime and gain a competitive advantage economically and militarily over all others. Unfortunately, this economic advantage, when combined with imperialism and colonialism, had devastating effects in other parts of the world. One example is India. After Britain gained control of the subcontinent, they enforced “free trade” in India, forcing Indians to become consumers of British finished products, including textiles, effectively de-industrializing India and setting it on the road to third-world economic status. Small wonder, then, that Gandhi was able to use the symbolism of the spinning wheel to such effect in his efforts to gain independence from Britain.
Throughout the book, Marks also considers the implications of Europe’s nation-state system. He finds that military competition encouraged the rise of polities with large cities that allowed for capital accumulation, backed up by large rural hinterlands to provide manpower for standing armies. These strong states favored industrialization in their efforts to expand and project their military power. Areas of the world unable to create strong states, or colonized by the strong states, were destined to remain in the biological old regime, exporting materials to allow the European states to continue their economic and military dominance.
Several aspects of The Origins of the Modern World elicit praise. The attempt to demonstrate that world history was not completely a European-driven phenomenon is a much-needed addition to scholarship. Though other scholars have addressed this issue, this effort at a comprehensive retelling of the story is still refreshing because of its attention to other regions of the world. Careful readers will find that Marks has indeed incorporated many aspects of recent scholarship, as demonstrated by his description of the state of the Inca and Aztec empires immediately before their conquest by the Spanish. Designed for an introductory level college classroom, it is very readable without sacrificing the complexity of the discussion. Finally, a useful collection of maps demonstrates the evolution over time of political entities throughout the world.
Because of its attempt to describe such an immense topic in only about 200 pages of text, this book does leave itself open to a few minor criticisms, the foremost being that the need to abbreviate parts of the story leaves the interpretations open to debate in a few cases. A bit more detail at times would help alleviate this problem and clarify the reasoning behind many of the author’s points without extending the book unnecessarily. Along the same lines, Islamic empires and states feature prominently in the first half of the book, but quietly fade away after that with no clear explanation of why they have fallen out of the narrative. They appear only occasionally in the second half of the book. The title is a bit misleading as well; the narrative is ecological only in the broadest sense. The concept of the biological old regime, and how it influenced economic choices and possibilities, is the main ecological insight of the work, though it is a powerful one. However, despite these small reservations, this book remains an interesting read with many useful insights and, considering its length, the reader will get a quality overview of modern world history without investing the extensive time usually necessary in books of world history. At the very least, it provides open-minded readers with a great deal to ruminate on, and that is no small achievement.
Wanting to tell the story of world history from a viewpoint that is truly global, Robert Marks has written The Origins of the Modern World. The inspiration for this book arose from two sources. Intrigued by the most recent scholarship concerning world history but dismayed by the fact that this most recent scholarship typically takes many years to enter the mainstream of university teaching, Marks used a year of sabbatical from Whittier College to research and write this story of how the world came to look as it does today. Realizing that, if his incoming students knew anything about world history, it was a version of the story putting Europe squarely at the heart of things as the primary actor in the events of modern history, Marks attempts to remedy that mistaken view with this short but insightful book.
The first thing Marks does is to abandon the idea of Europe as the center of world history over the past 600 years. Rather than seeing the rise of Europe to world dominance as an event that was somehow inevitable and preordained, instead Marks sees Europe’s rise to power as the confluence of three factors. The first of these in contingency, the argument that nothing preordained world history to turn out as it has. The second is the role of accidents in history. By this, Marks means things like changes in climate or coincidences of timing that are unpredictable and outside of human control. The final piece of the book’s theoretical framework is that of conjuncture. Independent events sometimes come together to produce a situation of historical importance; the synergy of these separate events coming together produces a result with much larger implications than any of the events individually.
Chapter one sets the stage for all the arguments that follow. Occupying the center of this stage is the concept of the biological old regime. By this term, Marks is referring to the fact that until very recently in world history, humans everywhere existed as part of the natural environment and were in turn limited by that environment. The primary source of energy was the sun, and the ability of humans to increase production depended on their ability to harness its renewable energy. Marks also examines population and finds the Eurasian landmass holding about 70% of world population in 1400, as it does today. This fact, combined with the existence of eight large zones of trade connecting Europe, Asia, and East Africa, explains why Eurasia dominated world trade while the biological old regime was in place. Interestingly, it also demonstrates that the idea of global trade is by no means a twentieth century invention. Finally, Marks demonstrates the power of his theme of conjuncture, using it to explain the Black Death. The disease that killed many millions in Europe and Asia originated in China, and the existence of the Mongol Empire, spanning most of the Eurasian landmass, provided the vector for transmission to Europe by maintaining overland trade routes across the Eurasian steppe. Burrowing rodents also lived along this trade route, and they became the carriers of bubonic plague. Italian traders in Europe frequented a second trade route, which overlapped with the Mongol route at the Black Sea city of Caffa. When the Venetians and Genoese sailed back to Italy in 1346, the Black Death sailed with them, with devastating consequences.
Other meaningful contingencies and conjunctures abound throughout the book. Portuguese sailors rounded the southern tip of Africa and entered the (largely unfortified) Indian Ocean just as the Chinese navy was withdrawing due to internal events in China. Had it remained to contest the navies of Portugal and other European nations, the European attempt to control trade routes in the Indian Ocean would possibly have turned out very differently. Similarly, without its colonies to provide the raw materials of industry, cotton especially, England would not have been able to industrialize as it did because the land base of the British Isles is far too small to provide the raw materials on its own and still grow food to feed the British population.
One of the most profound insights offered in The Origins of the Modern World is the momentous role of China and India in the world economy under the biological old regime. Indeed, the desire to access the markets of China and India was a primary cause of European exploration. Shut off from the old trade routes by the Islamic states controlling the Middle East, Europeans sought to find a way around the Muslim middlemen and gain access to the Indian Ocean trade for themselves. Even into the eighteenth century, the textile industry of India was vastly more productive than that of any European nation. Furthermore, it was the Chinese demand for silver that made trade with Europe possible. Under the biological old regime, the Chinese could produce everything produced in Europe, and at a lower cost. However, due to a decision in the 1400s to use silver as the basis of the Chinese monetary system, silver became the one trade item in high demand. By the mid-1500s, Europeans could supply this demand once they had located the Americas, plundered the Inca and Aztec Empires, and found further new silver deposits such as the one at Potosi.
How, then, did Europe manage to overcome its weak economic position relative to China and India? They were the first societies to escape the limits of the biological old regime. In 1793, American Eli Whitney invented a contraption called the cotton gin which made short staple cotton viable in the creation of textiles. This development, combined with the technology of steam power and easily-accessed coal deposits next to the places that needed them (an accident and a conjunction), allowed first England, then Europeans generally, to start down the industrial path. The ability to access stored energy through coal first and later oil provided the mechanism for Europe to escape the biological old regime and gain a competitive advantage economically and militarily over all others. Unfortunately, this economic advantage, when combined with imperialism and colonialism, had devastating effects in other parts of the world. One example is India. After Britain gained control of the subcontinent, they enforced “free trade” in India, forcing Indians to become consumers of British finished products, including textiles, effectively de-industrializing India and setting it on the road to third-world economic status. Small wonder, then, that Gandhi was able to use the symbolism of the spinning wheel to such effect in his efforts to gain independence from Britain.
Throughout the book, Marks also considers the implications of Europe’s nation-state system. He finds that military competition encouraged the rise of polities with large cities that allowed for capital accumulation, backed up by large rural hinterlands to provide manpower for standing armies. These strong states favored industrialization in their efforts to expand and project their military power. Areas of the world unable to create strong states, or colonized by the strong states, were destined to remain in the biological old regime, exporting materials to allow the European states to continue their economic and military dominance.
Several aspects of The Origins of the Modern World elicit praise. The attempt to demonstrate that world history was not completely a European-driven phenomenon is a much-needed addition to scholarship. Though other scholars have addressed this issue, this effort at a comprehensive retelling of the story is still refreshing because of its attention to other regions of the world. Careful readers will find that Marks has indeed incorporated many aspects of recent scholarship, as demonstrated by his description of the state of the Inca and Aztec empires immediately before their conquest by the Spanish. Designed for an introductory level college classroom, it is very readable without sacrificing the complexity of the discussion. Finally, a useful collection of maps demonstrates the evolution over time of political entities throughout the world.
Because of its attempt to describe such an immense topic in only about 200 pages of text, this book does leave itself open to a few minor criticisms, the foremost being that the need to abbreviate parts of the story leaves the interpretations open to debate in a few cases. A bit more detail at times would help alleviate this problem and clarify the reasoning behind many of the author’s points without extending the book unnecessarily. Along the same lines, Islamic empires and states feature prominently in the first half of the book, but quietly fade away after that with no clear explanation of why they have fallen out of the narrative. They appear only occasionally in the second half of the book. The title is a bit misleading as well; the narrative is ecological only in the broadest sense. The concept of the biological old regime, and how it influenced economic choices and possibilities, is the main ecological insight of the work, though it is a powerful one. However, despite these small reservations, this book remains an interesting read with many useful insights and, considering its length, the reader will get a quality overview of modern world history without investing the extensive time usually necessary in books of world history. At the very least, it provides open-minded readers with a great deal to ruminate on, and that is no small achievement.
March 28, 2018
A concise and engaging short summary of the last 600 years of world history that draws on lots of current and recent research. Marks also does a great job of integrating the environmental perspective into the book.
August 17, 2023
This was suggested for teaching AP World and I’m glad I read it as we are headed back and crafting lessons, read some but audiobook for most. Asia, and particularly China and India, are the future. I appreciated his critiques of Eurocentric history and American exceptionalism.
September 8, 2019
Believe the hype.
July 30, 2023
yeah i mean it does what it says it does
February 23, 2019
great overview of world history from the beginning of the mongols to the modern day. obviously it can't go into much depth (its only 200 pages), but the author does a fantastic job of explaining how the european powers colonized the entirety of the world, and addresses the sort of racist/elitist attitudes people subconsciously hold regarding this in today's age. if you're interested in history but don't know where to start, this is the place.
-----
EDIT: so I found a little book summary I made a while ago. Here it is
-----
Intro
The Rise of the West
In the space of 200 years, India and China were replaced by Europe/US as main economic powers. How did this happen?
Attributed superiority to Christianity -> Enlightenment (Greek rationalism) -> Exceptionalism (French/American Revolutions). Used this to explain world conquest (ignorant of theory of germs re Americas)
Thought that other countries could only industrialize if they changed their culture (Weber)
The Gap and it’s explanations
Two most important dates: Discovery of America by Columbus, Navigation around Cape of Good Hope to Asia by Vasco da Gama.
Ideas developed by rise of west – capitalism, democracy, assumed to be universally good. Ie to solve any problem, just become Western?
Need to know history to know who you are, what it has done to you, where you will go in future.
Eurocentric
Europe was destined to be the leader – not really. This only started happening in the last 200 or so years, until then, China was comparable to Europe
Europe’s dominance was contingent on a bunch of events happening at the same time
Edge when England had an unlimited coal supply, used it to power steam pistons and start the Industrial Revolution (the technology existed in Asia as well, but coal not easily available/close to population centers). 1750’s
Conjuncture – different independent events come and interact together. Eg China’s demand for silver in minting currency -> discovery of new world by Europe -> flow of silver into China/textiles out
Material and Trading Worlds (1400s)
Population: 350 million
Agricultural Revolution
People learned to farm food – meant not everyone in society had to farm. Gave rise to cities and writing. Priests/taxmen could live away from farmers. Taxes of farmers supported these lifestyles. Trade to get things you don’t have.
Farmers paid kings to protect them against nomads. When nomads ran out of food, they attacked cities (Roman/Han Chinese fall, Mongol invasions)
World’s population was limited by how much food they could farm. China expanded, 4* population within 300ish years. Europeans could not (can’t expand east because of Turks, Tatars, Mongols)
Trade networks
Multiple networks, functioned without one dominant or controlling force.
Black death
Mongol empire collapse coincided
Plague was carried by fleas on rats – if the fleas bit a human, they would be affected
Mongol troops campaigning in China, killed 2/3 of the population. Mongol riders carried it across Asia, from where it spread to Europe (Genoese trade boat – Caffa on the Crimean peninsula was being attacked by Mongols)
China
Ming emperor died, Prince Yan took over, campaigned against Mongols, moved capital (Nanjing to Beijing), intervened in Vietnam, funded Zheng He’s voyages
After Yuan (Mongol’s) were deposed, their paper money system was made useless, China needed silver to reestablish economy, had very little. Brought from Japan, then Europe.
Zheng He’s voyages: established presence of China as trade friendly, find old ruler that escaped, show China’s power. Biggest fleet that was seen (wouldn’t be anything bigger until next 500 years). 7th voyage was last, Chinese influence in sea died.
Withdrawal due to political struggles
Indian Ocean
Most important place for trade, Arabic spoken across, intersection of trade networks.
Peaceful, only pirates to worry about. No trade envoys/guards, no walled cities
Europeans introduced “armed trading” – da Gama’s blockade of Goa, Hormuz, Calicut, etc. Either be armed or pay European power for protection. Trade in Indian Ocean was so great that it was still Asian dominated until invention of steam ships in 1800’s (could dramatically undercut price).
Islam
Arose 600’s, took over Persia, North Africa, Iberia, Pakistan. Common lingua franca of Arabic, translated everything, had the biggest library in the world at the time (Alexandria)
Domination of Mediterranean Sea – “European’s couldn’t float a plank in it” – isolation from trade of Indian Ocean = Dark Ages of Europe
Ottomans took over Constantinople, blocked trade routes, forced Europeans to look for more.
Africa
Rise of Ghana and Mali Empires. Mansa Musa – gave away so much gold on Hajj that it’s value plummeted 25%.
Control of labour was seen as source of wealth in Africa (as opposed to land)
Slaves – didn’t have anything to do with skin color – Slav (eastern Europeans were original slaves). Considered as “permanent children”
African coastal cities very cosmopolitan. Supplied slaves, gold, brought manufactured goods.
Gunpowder
Chinese invented gunpowder/cannons. Transmitted via Mongols to Europeans.
Empires, States, the New World
Russia expanded from Moscow to boundaries today: 1500-1800
China expanded to Tibet and Uyghur lands, 1700’s
The Aztecs and Incas
Maya -> Toltecs -> Aztecs
Aztecs were shunned to a swamp. Years later, formed alliance to become dominant power, rule Mexican valley. Took smallest things as declarations of war, sacrificed prisoners to Gods
Inca – vertical civilization. Had trouble growing food. People believed king was the sun incarnate, had to be mummified, wealth divided amongst descendants. Kingship crisis in 1500’s.
Aztec emperor believed Cortez was a returning God, gave him gold gift to send him away. Didn’t do anything. Smallpox, steel weaponry, cannons, etc, meant defeat of both empires. Resistance lasted a long time.
Great Dying: 90% of America’s pre conquest population dead. 8 million Indians (7/10 all Indians working) in Potosi mine died working with mercury.
Spanish were bankrupt warring trying to reunite Europe – wars with Netherlands, French
National debt: countries needed money to finance their wars (esp small European states). English and Dutch accepted Jews, so could keep money within their countries. English created “the national debt” ie bonds.
Mercantilism
Tax all incoming goods from China/Asia, or ban their imports. Work on your own industry.
Seven Years War – loss of Canada and French Indian colonies to british
The industrial revolution
Cotton Textiles and India
Britain importing lots of cotton from India – world’s largest exporter. Very cheap, indian agriculture extremely productive
Decline of Mughals, nawab of Bengal demanded EIC more money, they got rid of him, replaced him with another guy, British could collect Bengal’s taxes
American revolution – British established free trade with Americans on condition that they had monopoly over cotton exports. New source now. After development of steam engine/sowing machines, abandoned mercantilism.
Tea
Around about same time as end of 7 years war, the English developed a taste for tea (due to it’s simulating effect – helped the workers)
Chinese restricted all trade to Guangzhou
George Mccartney sent in 1793, rejected
Used opium instead of silver to buy tea – mercantilist
Lin Zexu – commission – get rid of opium, dumped 21000 chests into the sea. Confiscated from British and American traders.
Opium war – british literally walked in and forced china to cede Hong Kong, legalize opium trade
Opium trade provided wealth to Roosevelt family, capital for development of phone
India farmed this opium, british exported it to China. India became biggest export market for cotton textiles. Completely deindustrialized
US Commodore Matthew Perry – 1853 – told Japan to open up “or else.” (was closed to foreign trade before this)
Japan escaped because Meiji exported to import. Silk and cotton to buy iron and coal. Kept wages very low, employed girls, prohibited labour unions. Tied industry to military (like Germany). Eventually, won in wars against Russia and China.
Chinchona seeds -> malaria prevention -> conquest of Africa. Used machine guns to shoot them down (Sudanese Dervishes, lost 10000 vs british lost 20)
Nationalism – rose as a reason for obedience to government. Traditional sources: dynasty/historic right to rule, divinely ordained, succession. Europe looked like it would collapse with wars between people. People came up with idea of “nation for a culture/language”: “Americans are those who wish to be” – French/Americans led this push (multiple nationalities within borders)
Scramble for concessions – Germany wanted a port to trade in China. USsed death of two monks, staged a rebellion, got port on 99 year lease. Started “scramble for concessions” from other powers. America came in and said “nah, leave it as it is” which meant the trade was still distributed evenly and everyone could squeeze china.
El Nino Famines
30 to 50 million people died as a result of famine and colonial policies
Indians watched British load carts of wheat to Britain as they died. Britain didn’t provide any relief, saying “it promotes laziness and bad character”
Shanxi China didn’t receive enough food – Chinese attention concentrated at coast where political pressure was greatest
Social Darwinism – death of africans, Asians etc was natural. Eugenics programs: migration from Europe to south America (adding milk to coffee), racism in America, evolved into hitler
Military balance between Africans and Europeans narrowed quick – British went from being able to take on armies 9x their size in india (1800s) to only 2x 20-30 years later.
The Great Departure
Gunpowder, Fertilizer, Nitrite
Needed ammonia to make fertilizer and gunpowder. Could only be sourced from Peru/Chile (guano and saltpetre). Germany was landlocked and relied on this to sustain population. Discovered Haber process, used it to make weapons, helped increase it’s confidence for WWI
Population explosion happened around this time.
WWI
Archduke Ferdinand assassinated by Serbian nationalist. Austria declared war on Serbia, supported by Germany. Serbia allied to Russia. Alliance system dragged everyone in.
Colonial subjects fought for masters hoping for independence, no better treatment given
Germany lost, splitting of Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires, world carved up between japan, france, Britain, US
After war, US loans to Germany and European countries kept system going and stimulated US economy
Black Friday: oversupply of food -> US imposing import tariffs -> US bankers calling back loans early. Stock market crashed, global crisis, from 20-40% of people lost their jobs. Economy worldwide value fell 70%. Only soviet union came out unscathed (because they were socialist, trying to build everything in their country). Dissatisfaction started WWII basis.
Post WWII
Collapse of European power, couldn’t maintain their colonies anymore. Drew up retarded borders and left. Made way for rise of USA and Russia
Nuclear weapons -> cold war. Both countries wanted to project their way of running economy onto the world. All history after this is a continuation of this (Vietnam War, Korean War, etc) – US wanted to implement capitalist principles in society, people naturally went toward communist. US overthrew left leaning governments in Latin America, replaced democratic govts with undemocratic but non-socialist (Afghanistan, bin Laden).
US spent 1/3 of annual budget on military, Soviet union 1/2
China: Kumointang (ruling party) cooperated with communist rebels, sent Japan home. Communists took over mainland, kumointang expelled to Taiwan.
Mao: started up, 5 year plan, increased productivity of economy. Used communal agriculture as part of “Great Leap Forward” (to combat creation of elite urban class) – backfired, people became obsessed with figures, exported food when there was none to eat for farmers inland. 20 million people died.
Consumerism
For people to buy cars, they need money. Henry Ford had an assembly line, but no one to buy his cars. Pay the workers good wages so they can buy cars. To keep them coming back: planned obsolescence and advertising
Get rid of tram lines, Los Angeles, urban sprawl.
Electricity – most of rural America by 1940, televisions, phones. Consumer purchases became freedom.
Populations increasing in third world countries – many kids required to work farms. These societies still mostly rural. Despite use of synthesizer etc third world countries would have to export more things just to maintain standard of living.
-----
EDIT: so I found a little book summary I made a while ago. Here it is
-----
Intro
The Rise of the West
In the space of 200 years, India and China were replaced by Europe/US as main economic powers. How did this happen?
Attributed superiority to Christianity -> Enlightenment (Greek rationalism) -> Exceptionalism (French/American Revolutions). Used this to explain world conquest (ignorant of theory of germs re Americas)
Thought that other countries could only industrialize if they changed their culture (Weber)
The Gap and it’s explanations
Two most important dates: Discovery of America by Columbus, Navigation around Cape of Good Hope to Asia by Vasco da Gama.
Ideas developed by rise of west – capitalism, democracy, assumed to be universally good. Ie to solve any problem, just become Western?
Need to know history to know who you are, what it has done to you, where you will go in future.
Eurocentric
Europe was destined to be the leader – not really. This only started happening in the last 200 or so years, until then, China was comparable to Europe
Europe’s dominance was contingent on a bunch of events happening at the same time
Edge when England had an unlimited coal supply, used it to power steam pistons and start the Industrial Revolution (the technology existed in Asia as well, but coal not easily available/close to population centers). 1750’s
Conjuncture – different independent events come and interact together. Eg China’s demand for silver in minting currency -> discovery of new world by Europe -> flow of silver into China/textiles out
Material and Trading Worlds (1400s)
Population: 350 million
Agricultural Revolution
People learned to farm food – meant not everyone in society had to farm. Gave rise to cities and writing. Priests/taxmen could live away from farmers. Taxes of farmers supported these lifestyles. Trade to get things you don’t have.
Farmers paid kings to protect them against nomads. When nomads ran out of food, they attacked cities (Roman/Han Chinese fall, Mongol invasions)
World’s population was limited by how much food they could farm. China expanded, 4* population within 300ish years. Europeans could not (can’t expand east because of Turks, Tatars, Mongols)
Trade networks
Multiple networks, functioned without one dominant or controlling force.
Black death
Mongol empire collapse coincided
Plague was carried by fleas on rats – if the fleas bit a human, they would be affected
Mongol troops campaigning in China, killed 2/3 of the population. Mongol riders carried it across Asia, from where it spread to Europe (Genoese trade boat – Caffa on the Crimean peninsula was being attacked by Mongols)
China
Ming emperor died, Prince Yan took over, campaigned against Mongols, moved capital (Nanjing to Beijing), intervened in Vietnam, funded Zheng He’s voyages
After Yuan (Mongol’s) were deposed, their paper money system was made useless, China needed silver to reestablish economy, had very little. Brought from Japan, then Europe.
Zheng He’s voyages: established presence of China as trade friendly, find old ruler that escaped, show China’s power. Biggest fleet that was seen (wouldn’t be anything bigger until next 500 years). 7th voyage was last, Chinese influence in sea died.
Withdrawal due to political struggles
Indian Ocean
Most important place for trade, Arabic spoken across, intersection of trade networks.
Peaceful, only pirates to worry about. No trade envoys/guards, no walled cities
Europeans introduced “armed trading” – da Gama’s blockade of Goa, Hormuz, Calicut, etc. Either be armed or pay European power for protection. Trade in Indian Ocean was so great that it was still Asian dominated until invention of steam ships in 1800’s (could dramatically undercut price).
Islam
Arose 600’s, took over Persia, North Africa, Iberia, Pakistan. Common lingua franca of Arabic, translated everything, had the biggest library in the world at the time (Alexandria)
Domination of Mediterranean Sea – “European’s couldn’t float a plank in it” – isolation from trade of Indian Ocean = Dark Ages of Europe
Ottomans took over Constantinople, blocked trade routes, forced Europeans to look for more.
Africa
Rise of Ghana and Mali Empires. Mansa Musa – gave away so much gold on Hajj that it’s value plummeted 25%.
Control of labour was seen as source of wealth in Africa (as opposed to land)
Slaves – didn’t have anything to do with skin color – Slav (eastern Europeans were original slaves). Considered as “permanent children”
African coastal cities very cosmopolitan. Supplied slaves, gold, brought manufactured goods.
Gunpowder
Chinese invented gunpowder/cannons. Transmitted via Mongols to Europeans.
Empires, States, the New World
Russia expanded from Moscow to boundaries today: 1500-1800
China expanded to Tibet and Uyghur lands, 1700’s
The Aztecs and Incas
Maya -> Toltecs -> Aztecs
Aztecs were shunned to a swamp. Years later, formed alliance to become dominant power, rule Mexican valley. Took smallest things as declarations of war, sacrificed prisoners to Gods
Inca – vertical civilization. Had trouble growing food. People believed king was the sun incarnate, had to be mummified, wealth divided amongst descendants. Kingship crisis in 1500’s.
Aztec emperor believed Cortez was a returning God, gave him gold gift to send him away. Didn’t do anything. Smallpox, steel weaponry, cannons, etc, meant defeat of both empires. Resistance lasted a long time.
Great Dying: 90% of America’s pre conquest population dead. 8 million Indians (7/10 all Indians working) in Potosi mine died working with mercury.
Spanish were bankrupt warring trying to reunite Europe – wars with Netherlands, French
National debt: countries needed money to finance their wars (esp small European states). English and Dutch accepted Jews, so could keep money within their countries. English created “the national debt” ie bonds.
Mercantilism
Tax all incoming goods from China/Asia, or ban their imports. Work on your own industry.
Seven Years War – loss of Canada and French Indian colonies to british
The industrial revolution
Cotton Textiles and India
Britain importing lots of cotton from India – world’s largest exporter. Very cheap, indian agriculture extremely productive
Decline of Mughals, nawab of Bengal demanded EIC more money, they got rid of him, replaced him with another guy, British could collect Bengal’s taxes
American revolution – British established free trade with Americans on condition that they had monopoly over cotton exports. New source now. After development of steam engine/sowing machines, abandoned mercantilism.
Tea
Around about same time as end of 7 years war, the English developed a taste for tea (due to it’s simulating effect – helped the workers)
Chinese restricted all trade to Guangzhou
George Mccartney sent in 1793, rejected
Used opium instead of silver to buy tea – mercantilist
Lin Zexu – commission – get rid of opium, dumped 21000 chests into the sea. Confiscated from British and American traders.
Opium war – british literally walked in and forced china to cede Hong Kong, legalize opium trade
Opium trade provided wealth to Roosevelt family, capital for development of phone
India farmed this opium, british exported it to China. India became biggest export market for cotton textiles. Completely deindustrialized
US Commodore Matthew Perry – 1853 – told Japan to open up “or else.” (was closed to foreign trade before this)
Japan escaped because Meiji exported to import. Silk and cotton to buy iron and coal. Kept wages very low, employed girls, prohibited labour unions. Tied industry to military (like Germany). Eventually, won in wars against Russia and China.
Chinchona seeds -> malaria prevention -> conquest of Africa. Used machine guns to shoot them down (Sudanese Dervishes, lost 10000 vs british lost 20)
Nationalism – rose as a reason for obedience to government. Traditional sources: dynasty/historic right to rule, divinely ordained, succession. Europe looked like it would collapse with wars between people. People came up with idea of “nation for a culture/language”: “Americans are those who wish to be” – French/Americans led this push (multiple nationalities within borders)
Scramble for concessions – Germany wanted a port to trade in China. USsed death of two monks, staged a rebellion, got port on 99 year lease. Started “scramble for concessions” from other powers. America came in and said “nah, leave it as it is” which meant the trade was still distributed evenly and everyone could squeeze china.
El Nino Famines
30 to 50 million people died as a result of famine and colonial policies
Indians watched British load carts of wheat to Britain as they died. Britain didn’t provide any relief, saying “it promotes laziness and bad character”
Shanxi China didn’t receive enough food – Chinese attention concentrated at coast where political pressure was greatest
Social Darwinism – death of africans, Asians etc was natural. Eugenics programs: migration from Europe to south America (adding milk to coffee), racism in America, evolved into hitler
Military balance between Africans and Europeans narrowed quick – British went from being able to take on armies 9x their size in india (1800s) to only 2x 20-30 years later.
The Great Departure
Gunpowder, Fertilizer, Nitrite
Needed ammonia to make fertilizer and gunpowder. Could only be sourced from Peru/Chile (guano and saltpetre). Germany was landlocked and relied on this to sustain population. Discovered Haber process, used it to make weapons, helped increase it’s confidence for WWI
Population explosion happened around this time.
WWI
Archduke Ferdinand assassinated by Serbian nationalist. Austria declared war on Serbia, supported by Germany. Serbia allied to Russia. Alliance system dragged everyone in.
Colonial subjects fought for masters hoping for independence, no better treatment given
Germany lost, splitting of Austro Hungarian and Ottoman empires, world carved up between japan, france, Britain, US
After war, US loans to Germany and European countries kept system going and stimulated US economy
Black Friday: oversupply of food -> US imposing import tariffs -> US bankers calling back loans early. Stock market crashed, global crisis, from 20-40% of people lost their jobs. Economy worldwide value fell 70%. Only soviet union came out unscathed (because they were socialist, trying to build everything in their country). Dissatisfaction started WWII basis.
Post WWII
Collapse of European power, couldn’t maintain their colonies anymore. Drew up retarded borders and left. Made way for rise of USA and Russia
Nuclear weapons -> cold war. Both countries wanted to project their way of running economy onto the world. All history after this is a continuation of this (Vietnam War, Korean War, etc) – US wanted to implement capitalist principles in society, people naturally went toward communist. US overthrew left leaning governments in Latin America, replaced democratic govts with undemocratic but non-socialist (Afghanistan, bin Laden).
US spent 1/3 of annual budget on military, Soviet union 1/2
China: Kumointang (ruling party) cooperated with communist rebels, sent Japan home. Communists took over mainland, kumointang expelled to Taiwan.
Mao: started up, 5 year plan, increased productivity of economy. Used communal agriculture as part of “Great Leap Forward” (to combat creation of elite urban class) – backfired, people became obsessed with figures, exported food when there was none to eat for farmers inland. 20 million people died.
Consumerism
For people to buy cars, they need money. Henry Ford had an assembly line, but no one to buy his cars. Pay the workers good wages so they can buy cars. To keep them coming back: planned obsolescence and advertising
Get rid of tram lines, Los Angeles, urban sprawl.
Electricity – most of rural America by 1940, televisions, phones. Consumer purchases became freedom.
Populations increasing in third world countries – many kids required to work farms. These societies still mostly rural. Despite use of synthesizer etc third world countries would have to export more things just to maintain standard of living.
September 3, 2019
Part of my first year subject on the Making of the Modern World and hoo boy this was a cracker! Succinct and to the point. Would highly recommend to anyone interested in global/transnational history and on the importance of breaking away from Eurocentric versions of modern history.
March 28, 2024
This feels like when an author writes as complicated as they can to make themselves seem smarter.
April 21, 2021
A concise overview of world history that puts China, India and the IndoPacific trade network as the “start” of world history. European development is placed in the context of its appropriation of the markets and productive forces of Asia, Africa and the Americas. As an ecological history, the book looks at how capitalist development has been undertaken to expand productive capacity past the “biological ancien regime,” or the physical limits of ecosystems and the planet that regulated human societies in prior modes of production. The ending is not so great. I found the “productivist” explanation of Soviet, Chinese and Indian development unsatisfactory.
February 10, 2013
In the preface to his book, Robert Marks notes that he has “no intention of providing a balanced story, one that spends an equal amount of time (or ink) on anything and everything.” And, indeed, he doesn't. Though Marks is, unlike Geoffrey Parker, upfront in noting the limitations of his short survey, I am not convinced that this declaration afforded him the right to gloss over quite so much material as he does in his short history on the origins of the "modern world".
First, It seemed to me that the environmental parts of his "ecological narrative” were divorced from the rest of the argument. When such instances are explicitly mentioned within the text (I suppose the reader is supposed to make these connections on one's own) it appears only to emerge in specific paragraphs with rather poor transitions or tacked on to the bottom of longer vignettes. In a similar vein, though Marks often cites Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, I found it odd that he never once mentioned “geographic determinism”. Given his stated desire to write a short history, it seems to me that he might have employed the term, explained it, cited it, and saved himself a great deal of trouble.
Second, it seemed to me that discarding the entirety of the “scientific revolution” as a “rediscovery of old technologies” was a bit extreme. Though he is certainly justified in noting the rediscovery of ancient (Muslim, Greek, et. al.) thought during the scientific revolution, he should not underestimate the production of original work in the 18th century, which subsequently added fuel to the Industrial Revolution. The Lunar Society of Birmingham (the focus of a great monograph by Jenny Uglow) was responsible for countless contributions to modern science in a variety of disciplines that had little, if any, link to the work of ancient scholars.
Finally, Marks often dances around the point in the final sub-chapters but he never openly accuses the Soviet Union and/or the United States of establishing their own version of empire. In fact, Marks goes so far as to claim that “empire”, as a concept, can now be relegated to the dust bin of history. It seems to me that the opposite is true. Empire may not be so readily apparent today as it was in the “Age of Imperialism”, but the Cold War divided much of the world into two ideological “empires” largely determined by “spheres of influence” claimed by the United States and the Soviet Union. Though control may not be administered on a micro-political level as it was before, the competing ideologies of capitalism and socialism and their primary proponents held (hold?) great influence in both world politics and economics for most of the 20th century.
These criticisms aside, Marks' efforts were not entirely in vain. His focus (perhaps too sharply) on the entangled histories of Europe and Asia are compelling and sorely lacking in most surveys of world history.
First, It seemed to me that the environmental parts of his "ecological narrative” were divorced from the rest of the argument. When such instances are explicitly mentioned within the text (I suppose the reader is supposed to make these connections on one's own) it appears only to emerge in specific paragraphs with rather poor transitions or tacked on to the bottom of longer vignettes. In a similar vein, though Marks often cites Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, I found it odd that he never once mentioned “geographic determinism”. Given his stated desire to write a short history, it seems to me that he might have employed the term, explained it, cited it, and saved himself a great deal of trouble.
Second, it seemed to me that discarding the entirety of the “scientific revolution” as a “rediscovery of old technologies” was a bit extreme. Though he is certainly justified in noting the rediscovery of ancient (Muslim, Greek, et. al.) thought during the scientific revolution, he should not underestimate the production of original work in the 18th century, which subsequently added fuel to the Industrial Revolution. The Lunar Society of Birmingham (the focus of a great monograph by Jenny Uglow) was responsible for countless contributions to modern science in a variety of disciplines that had little, if any, link to the work of ancient scholars.
Finally, Marks often dances around the point in the final sub-chapters but he never openly accuses the Soviet Union and/or the United States of establishing their own version of empire. In fact, Marks goes so far as to claim that “empire”, as a concept, can now be relegated to the dust bin of history. It seems to me that the opposite is true. Empire may not be so readily apparent today as it was in the “Age of Imperialism”, but the Cold War divided much of the world into two ideological “empires” largely determined by “spheres of influence” claimed by the United States and the Soviet Union. Though control may not be administered on a micro-political level as it was before, the competing ideologies of capitalism and socialism and their primary proponents held (hold?) great influence in both world politics and economics for most of the 20th century.
These criticisms aside, Marks' efforts were not entirely in vain. His focus (perhaps too sharply) on the entangled histories of Europe and Asia are compelling and sorely lacking in most surveys of world history.
December 28, 2010
Robert Marks teaches history in a small liberal arts college near Los Angeles I've never heard about before; if I understand it correctly, this book grew out of his introduction to world history course for undergraduates. This is an Earth-from-space view of the history of the world from 1400 to 1900, told in all of 162 pages including chapter endnotes. Naturally, from this height individuals blur away, and most of what remains to be seen are commodities. Silver flows out of the huge mine in Potosí in Peru to Spain (and millions of Native Americans die mining it and refining it with mercury), thence to Protestant European countries, and all the way east; 3/4 of the silver ends up in China (and some goes directly to China from Peru via the Philippines). Textiles flow in the opposite direction, calico from India to France and England, and silk from China to Mexico. Tea goes from China to England, and opium from British-controlled India to China. African slaves are brought from Africa to the Caribbean, making sugar (and also dying by the millions), which is consumed by Englishmen who mine coal and make steel for the Royal Navy ironclads; an all-iron gunboat commissioned by the British East India Company sees action in the First Opium War.
Marks goes out of his way to make his history non-Eurocentric; it becomes Sinocentric instead, which is unsurprising given that he speaks Mandarin and has done research on the Pearl River delta. He insists that the reason Europe came to dominate Asia in the 19th - mid-20th century was due to several natural (easy-to-mine coal in England), political (political fragmentation in Europe encouraged the development of weapons) and ecological (the New World as a source of sugar, cod, timber for England, freeing up hands for the Industrial Revolution) reasons, and not due to superior European culture. I am not so sure. Modern science is uniquely Western; I learned recently that calculus was independently invented in Kerala, India, in the late 14th - early 15th century, but this knowledge was happily lost for centuries, as there was nothing like the Royal Society in England and the community of scholars throughout Europe to preserve it and improve on it - the German Leibnitz, the Swiss Fatio de Duillier, the Dutch Huygens. Neither Indian pandits nor Chinese mandarins cared about science and technology as much as early modern European savants did. Would the West have colonized Asia without steamships, or have steamships without developing natural philosophy? I doubt it. I read a story somewhere, which is probably too cute to be true - but who knows? - about a peasant reporting to a Vietnamese mandarin that he saw a French steamship; based on the peasant's description, the mandarin concluded that it was a dragon, and went back to his study of the classics.
Marks goes out of his way to make his history non-Eurocentric; it becomes Sinocentric instead, which is unsurprising given that he speaks Mandarin and has done research on the Pearl River delta. He insists that the reason Europe came to dominate Asia in the 19th - mid-20th century was due to several natural (easy-to-mine coal in England), political (political fragmentation in Europe encouraged the development of weapons) and ecological (the New World as a source of sugar, cod, timber for England, freeing up hands for the Industrial Revolution) reasons, and not due to superior European culture. I am not so sure. Modern science is uniquely Western; I learned recently that calculus was independently invented in Kerala, India, in the late 14th - early 15th century, but this knowledge was happily lost for centuries, as there was nothing like the Royal Society in England and the community of scholars throughout Europe to preserve it and improve on it - the German Leibnitz, the Swiss Fatio de Duillier, the Dutch Huygens. Neither Indian pandits nor Chinese mandarins cared about science and technology as much as early modern European savants did. Would the West have colonized Asia without steamships, or have steamships without developing natural philosophy? I doubt it. I read a story somewhere, which is probably too cute to be true - but who knows? - about a peasant reporting to a Vietnamese mandarin that he saw a French steamship; based on the peasant's description, the mandarin concluded that it was a dragon, and went back to his study of the classics.
March 12, 2024
1-star feels harsh but I honestly have never enjoyed a history book less than this one. If you want to read a book where the author immediately, and openly, assumes you're a Europe-glazing ignoramus then this is the book for you.
Rather than fostering curiosity and learning through vivid story-telling, Robert comes across as a brash, goatee'd, know-it-all who often makes outlandish comparisons between the behaviour of Europeans vs other Eurasian countries throughout history; of course, painting all European achievement as either evil, lucky, or stolen, while other countries' wrongdoings are often glazed over or shown as "not as bad."
One specific instance of this that occurs to me: Rob writes about the development of the slave trade in Africa and the use of slaves in central Asia (the Middle East), yet HAS to mention that slaves were treated much better in these places while plantation slaves in the Americas were treated much worse. Now, I'm not saying they WEREN'T treated better/worse, what I'm trying to illustrate is that when Rob has to mention a wrongdoing from one of the holier-than-thou Eurasian countries (China, India, Middle East, etc.), he makes sure to shine them in a brighter light and contrast them with the very evil European countries. He does this without any supporting evidence in his text as well. He does not mention HOW he knows they were treated better or in what way, just that they were.
The above example is a feeling you will get constantly throughout this book and it causes it to be a very painful and biased read. I understand that European history has dominated the books of recent years and, prior to this mandatory read, have already made an effort to explore Asian history and other Eastern cultures. My point is that I did so in a healthy way. I speak to people in real life from these countries, read books published in other countries, watch inspired foreign documentaries, movies, YouTube videos. In this day-and-age there are much better, and exciting, ways to learn about world history than suffering through this biased guilt-trip.
If you feel you are a "Eurocentric" racist who needs a good reprimanding, I recommend you force this book down your throat. If you're a curious thinker who is looking for an Asian/Eastern perspective on world history without the bias, this is not the book for you.
PS this was a mandatory book assigned in my undergraduate program.
Rather than fostering curiosity and learning through vivid story-telling, Robert comes across as a brash, goatee'd, know-it-all who often makes outlandish comparisons between the behaviour of Europeans vs other Eurasian countries throughout history; of course, painting all European achievement as either evil, lucky, or stolen, while other countries' wrongdoings are often glazed over or shown as "not as bad."
One specific instance of this that occurs to me: Rob writes about the development of the slave trade in Africa and the use of slaves in central Asia (the Middle East), yet HAS to mention that slaves were treated much better in these places while plantation slaves in the Americas were treated much worse. Now, I'm not saying they WEREN'T treated better/worse, what I'm trying to illustrate is that when Rob has to mention a wrongdoing from one of the holier-than-thou Eurasian countries (China, India, Middle East, etc.), he makes sure to shine them in a brighter light and contrast them with the very evil European countries. He does this without any supporting evidence in his text as well. He does not mention HOW he knows they were treated better or in what way, just that they were.
The above example is a feeling you will get constantly throughout this book and it causes it to be a very painful and biased read. I understand that European history has dominated the books of recent years and, prior to this mandatory read, have already made an effort to explore Asian history and other Eastern cultures. My point is that I did so in a healthy way. I speak to people in real life from these countries, read books published in other countries, watch inspired foreign documentaries, movies, YouTube videos. In this day-and-age there are much better, and exciting, ways to learn about world history than suffering through this biased guilt-trip.
If you feel you are a "Eurocentric" racist who needs a good reprimanding, I recommend you force this book down your throat. If you're a curious thinker who is looking for an Asian/Eastern perspective on world history without the bias, this is not the book for you.
PS this was a mandatory book assigned in my undergraduate program.
April 15, 2009
Okay so I read this book again in 2009. The most obvious "review" sort of thing I can say is that it really trails off halfway through. When it gets into the 20th century the author ceases to offer anything new or interesting.
Otherwise, it still is pretty effective at getting its point across that China, India, and Europe all basically were at parity in 1700 and only began to diverge from there. He also really doesn't like the British.
I think some of his numbers may be a bit curious, including those that he uses to demonstrate the parity between the different world regions in 1700. I hope to look into this more.
-------------------
I love revisionist history. The premise of this book is "quit attributing all progress to the inevitable Rise of the West because of its sweet western character!!!!!!" It discusses the distortions in collective history of the world which enhance the ascendancy of "the West." It also highlights the importance of Asia and its historical strength.
Does get a little whiny.
Otherwise, it still is pretty effective at getting its point across that China, India, and Europe all basically were at parity in 1700 and only began to diverge from there. He also really doesn't like the British.
I think some of his numbers may be a bit curious, including those that he uses to demonstrate the parity between the different world regions in 1700. I hope to look into this more.
-------------------
I love revisionist history. The premise of this book is "quit attributing all progress to the inevitable Rise of the West because of its sweet western character!!!!!!" It discusses the distortions in collective history of the world which enhance the ascendancy of "the West." It also highlights the importance of Asia and its historical strength.
Does get a little whiny.
November 28, 2021
عنوان فرعی کتاب «روایتی دربارهی تاریخ جهان و محیط زیست از قرن پانزدهم تا قرن بیست ویکم» هستش. کتاب ساده و خوشخوانی بود. ولی بیشتر در مورد تاریخ مختصر جهان در ۶ قرن اخیر بود و نه در مورد محیطزیست. در مورد افول چین و هند و آسیا و انقلاب صنعتی و اوج گرفتن اروپا و انگلستان و بعد آمریکا و دوباره سربرآوردن اسیا و چین. اگر تکههایی از کتاب در مورد اهمیت نیتروژن در تولید موادغذایی و کمبود زمین در آستانهی انقلاب صنعتی و دودکشهای حاصل از انقلاب صنعتی و گندکاریهای شوروی و آمریکا علیه محیط زیست را کنار بگذاریم کتاب بیشتر یک روایت تاریخی بود. روایتی که کوشیده ذاتی و فرهنگی بودن برتری غرب در سدههای اخیر را زیر سوال ببرد. من قبل از این کتاب «راههای ابریشم» پیتر فرانکوپن را خوانده بودم و فلسفهی تاریخ او هم همین بود که دلیل برتری غرب به خاطر ذات و فرهنگ غرب نبوده و جهان دوباره در حال چرخش به سمت شرق است. راههای ابریشم کتابی جزئیتر و دقیقتر بود. این کتاب خیلی کلیتر روایت کرده بود و فقط ۱۰ صفحهی اخرش بوی دغدغههای محیط زیستی میداد... به نظرم کتاب «راههای ابریشم» خیلی کاملتر بود. از نظر روایتهای تاریخی بسیار کاملتر بود.. این کتاب در پارهای از موارد خیلی مبهم و گنگ بود.
December 23, 2020
Rabidly anti-Western. Everything good that happened in the last 500 years came out of Asia or Africa; everything bad came out of the US or Europe. Science, or the Renaissance? Rip-offs of other cultures. Millions of people migrating to the US? That was nothing compared to migrations in Africa and Asia. Poor countries in the world today are poor because of the West. Rich countries are rich because they exploited other countries. Essentially, the world was heaven until Europeans made it into hell. Besides this sophomoric view of the world, the book is also marked by a clumsy and uneven writing style.
May 31, 2025
Like re-reading a crap high school level world history textbook except with more Left-splaining that reach massively sweeping conclusions without any data.
If you want to read a book that pretends that ideas don't have consequences, credits the West's success to pure accident and has the bigotry of low expectations for the rest of the world, look no further.
If you want to read a book that pretends that ideas don't have consequences, credits the West's success to pure accident and has the bigotry of low expectations for the rest of the world, look no further.
September 20, 2011
This book isn't that great for World history. It's short, takes a Eurocentric view most of the time, and isn't very detailed. You're better off getting a World history perspective and knowledge reading the McNeill's The Human Web.
Read
March 15, 2018What I expected from a world history class textbook: an overview of world history.
What I got from my world history class textbook: lengthy tangents about the author's opinions of climate change, over-population, and "what-if" scenarios.
What I got from my world history class textbook: lengthy tangents about the author's opinions of climate change, over-population, and "what-if" scenarios.
September 28, 2020
Read for one of my classes. Raises some interesting questions about how environmental crises and economics influenced the 19th and 20th centuries, but, overall, the author came across as a bit full of himself and his ideologies.
August 29, 2008
I had to read this for school during a period of three days- not cool. I t was hard to follow and only recommended if you have time to take it all in.
Read
December 11, 2024Thugged it out
July 1, 2019
Snabbläst historik över kapitalismens uppkomst som driver tesen att det inte var en historisk nödvändighet att just Europa blev den dominerande aktören i världen under 1800-talet. Marks pekar på att Kina och Indien länge hade mycket större ekonomisk aktivitet än vad Europa hade, att Kina ville ha silver och därmed möjliggjorde handel, att Kina kunde ha valt att utveckla handeln i Indiska oceanen istället för att avveckla sin flotta, att England råkade ha stora koltillgångar och så vidare. Från början av 1800-talet menar han dock att utvecklingen hade drivits så långt att Europa kunde börja kolonisera områden och diktera villkoren för handeln på ett sätt som uppenbarligen gynnade kolonialmakten i fråga (England upprättade importtullar för de mycket billigare indiska textilierna under 1700-talet för att gynna sin egen industri, när britterna sedan lyckades producera billigare textilier blev de varma anhängare av "frihandel" under 1800-talet).
Boken driver en viss tes, men är ändå så allmängiltig att den kan läsas som en kort introduktion till världens ekonomiska utveckling 1400-1900.
Boken driver en viss tes, men är ändå så allmängiltig att den kan läsas som en kort introduktion till världens ekonomiska utveckling 1400-1900.
February 12, 2023
The book offers an alternative historical explanation of today's world order which depends on contingencies, accidents and people's choices. So, it is argued that there might have been a different course of historical events if some conditions had differed slightly. Apart from that approach, the author rejects the eurocentric view of rise of the west as the historical basis but prefers a global view taking into account the developments in other parts of the world such as Asia and the Islamic world .
According to the book, globalization can be divided into 4 parts: the first part is from 1500 to 1800, in other words from geographical explorations to industrial revolution. The second between 1800-1900 when rapid industrialization and colonization happened. The third between the 1. World war and the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 and the last one from 1991 there on. Between those eras, the world population has increased from its 1 billion level in 1800s to 2 billion in 1900 and then 4 billion in 1970 and today to 8 billion (a staggering exponential increase)
The book can be good starting point to understand the roots of today's world.
According to the book, globalization can be divided into 4 parts: the first part is from 1500 to 1800, in other words from geographical explorations to industrial revolution. The second between 1800-1900 when rapid industrialization and colonization happened. The third between the 1. World war and the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991 and the last one from 1991 there on. Between those eras, the world population has increased from its 1 billion level in 1800s to 2 billion in 1900 and then 4 billion in 1970 and today to 8 billion (a staggering exponential increase)
The book can be good starting point to understand the roots of today's world.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 12, 2020
This book is an excellent analysis of the Great Divergence that happened in the last 200 years, as well as the future trends of global power and dominance. It offers a fresh angle (mainly that of Chinese and Indian), different from the Eurocentric narrative that has been embedded in history books for decades.
The book diverges from Jared Diamond's environmental determinism proposed in his book, Guns Germs and Steal, and provides examples of various events that led to the West surpassing other societies in the old world.
My biggest complaint about the book is that it is rather poorly written, with too much jargon and redundant words. But once I got past it the contents of the book was amazing.
The book diverges from Jared Diamond's environmental determinism proposed in his book, Guns Germs and Steal, and provides examples of various events that led to the West surpassing other societies in the old world.
My biggest complaint about the book is that it is rather poorly written, with too much jargon and redundant words. But once I got past it the contents of the book was amazing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 95 reviews