Why did the UK brexit from the EU? Why is one of the world’s most powerful countries still a monarchy? Why does it have strong separatist movements? Why is London one of the biggest cities in the world? What makes English unique as a language? Why was the UK’s parliament one of the earliest? Why did the Industrial Revolution start there?
Hi Tomas, well done as always. If you were to add an appendix to your article, it might be the British embrace of learning in general and science/ technology in particular.
Most noblemen and (as the centuries went on) rich young men attended universities, particularly Oxford and Cambridge. The Royal Society gave scientifically-minded people a place to gather, report and rebate. It was also seen as an honor to belong.
The Royal Navy and merchant fleet recognized the value of technology to help them survive the sea and to defeat their rivals.
I suspect that the Church of England together with the puritans and other Protestant churches exerted a net positive on the enterprise, but much of the history I know reports the British morality being honored in the breach. But there is a uniform tendency to report bad news. There is also a tendency of those who rebelled against the British Empire, like my fellow Americans, to slant the story so that it justifies their treason/ freedom fighting.
But why did that science focus appear there and not in Denmark?
What I'm arguing is that this scientific sensitivity was a consequence of (1) the freedom, which was a consequence of the geography, and (2) the neighboring influence of the Netherlands, which was as scientifically-minded as England, and more precocious—because it was free quite early.
In other words: the "scienciness" doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from freedom. And freedom was heavily influenced by geography.
Tomas hasn't mentioned part of the reason for the freedom he describes: the early and more complete escape from the influence of the Catholic Church (he's probably a bit wary having burnt that bridge a few times already). Religion and science are not comfortable bedfellows. Having a model of reality that incorporates a belief that the world is flat cannot be reconciled with exploring and conquering the globe.
Science was a key part of Britain's success so of course if was valued highly and encouraged. Britain was the new melting pot of ideas, free of some of Europe's sclerotic baggage just as the US was to be in the future. The other ingredient was wealth. Once Britain establish naval supremacy it was free to extract wealth from the new world and wealth also gives freedom. Combine that with increasing agricultural productivity at home and suddenly people are free to move to the cities and work in factories and a reinforcing cycle begins.
Mark, what a curious set of ideas you put forth in your first paragraph! I largely agree with your second paragraph but we may disagree on exactly what the baggage of Europe was at the time.
When Henry VIII ended the power of the Catholic Church in England he did that by making himself the head of the Church in England, which then became known as the Church of England. From what I have read, it dominated English/British life every bit as much as the Catholic Church had been doing and it had at least as much influence in England as the Catholic Church did elsewhere.
As to religion (specifically Christianity) not being "comfortable" with science. well, that is a stretch. Consider the number of scientists that were (and are) faithful Christians and even members of the clergy. This page has a good start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Of these, a couple have a special place in my heart. For instance, there is Gregor Mendel, Abbott (leader of a monastery full of monks) and father of genetics. Also, there is Georges Lemaitre (sorry, I could not figure out how to put the "hat" over the "i" in his last name.) He was a Catholic priest and the person who first proposed the Big Bang. He found an error in one of Einstein's calculations and Einstein thanked him for it - once he was finally convinced it was an error.
Finally, you mention the "model of reality that incorporates a belief that the world is flat" in a way that makes me think that you believe most believers from say 1400-1800 held that opinion. Indeed, you may have a point for many of the illiterate people of the time. However, it was not the opinion of those educated in the universities, which were founded by the church. When Columbus applied for funding from the Church he was rejected because those with the money calculated the distance he would need to travel west in order to reach his goal and they knew that he and his crew would die of starvation before getting there, which they would have if not for their luck in finding the Americas - and they almost ran out of food before reaching the island now known as Hispaniola.
I'm happy to continue the conversation with you. Many smart, scientifically minded people look at incidents such as Galileo's interactions with a pope and the rejection of Darwin's theories by the Christians who read the book of Genesis as if it was a scientific text and conclude, as you do, that science and faith are incompatible. IMHO, if you look into these issues while remaining open to whatever you find, you will find that the two are quite compatible.
I think my post above was a little too simplified as to the move to the Church of England. One can very reasonably argue that the C of E was the first major move of the Reformation in England, prior English moves being squelched by the monarchy.
Also, after the death of Henry VIII and the short reigns of Edward VI and Jane Grey, the Catholic Church was reinstated by Mary I for five years before the C of E was reinstated by Elizabeth I.
From that time I believe the C of E was the official state church and other protestant churches were tolerated. The Catholic Church was not, at least for a long time. But protestant churches were also tolerated to a greater and greater extent in nominally catholic countries during the expansion of the British Empire. The Catholic Church in France, for example, took a huge hit immediately after 1789.
One thing I believe to be true from all that I have read is that the UK was a strongly Christian country at least until World War II with the C of E enjoying pride of place. The decline of Christianity in the UK happened at very much the same time and pace as the decline of the Empire.
“What a curious set of ideas”. Such a polite way of putting it, Tomas should use your response as a great example of how to give good, kind feedback. An Australian reply would have been much more blunt!
As you clearly set out, religion and science do not have to be in conflict (in fact my father was a committed scientist with strong religious faith). The nature of the educated population in the early Middle Ages meant to some extent that there had to be strong links between the two. The idea in my head when I was writing the post was more to do with those in power feeling threatened by new ideas, rather than religion specifically and was not expressed at all well. As Tomas mentions, the monarchies could feel equally threatened by new ideas. Whilst brushing up a little on my rusty European history, I found it interesting that Copernicus’ heliocentric theory was relatively well received, yet 80 years later Galileo was in trouble for holding those same views. I wonder if the Catholic Church felt more threatened at that time and so responded very differently.
I think it is interesting to contrast over time in European communities the balance of power between the monarchy, the church, the nobles/parliament, merchants, the intelligentsia, artists and the common people. During the crusades, the monarchy seems to have been very much aligned with the church, but gradually the balance changed. Having spent a fair bit of time wandering through art galleries, the change in thinking is starkly evident looking at the change in art over several hundred years. By the time of Henry VIII, he felt comfortable enough breaking away from the Catholic Church and appropriating its English wealth. I believe he was wise enough to invest some of the proceeds in strengthening the British navy! The Church of England may have still been powerful, but once force had been used against religion, “Schrodinger’s gun” was always there in the background to keep it in check. My point was meant to be about how the changing balance of power in England between religious leaders, the monarch, parliament, the military, scientists and the merchants provided ideal conditions for progress (though geography of course was the chessboard on which these forces played out and winning teams are less likely to suffer from internal conflict).
I was thinking over the last couple of days about how much relevance this has to the metaconversation and our current situation. I would be interested in your thoughts on the power balance between different parts of society today. Personally I think a bit more spirituality in some areas wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply. One of the things I enjoy about Substack, in general, and Tomas's Substack in particular, is the tone of the discussions. Here, I feel free to modify my positions and admit I was wrong when someone points out where I have overstepped, mis-stated or just plain stated falsehood. You and Tomas are both excellent examples of intelligent people who have the humility to admit their limitations - which also speaks of your honesty and intelligence. I try to imitate what I see as praiseworthy.
In the US and other democratic republics the balance of power between various groups can shift quicky, especially if the size and fervor of the competing groups is roughly equal. The US, as a political entity, is approaching a quarter-millennium in age. Social media did not exist 20 years ago, so it is a bit of a shock to the system. Some intelligent observers have noted the oversize influence that a small, engaged group can have on the overall conversation. That can be for good or ill - and, of course, different people will have different opinions on what is good or ill.
I am seeing glimmers of hope that a growing body of people has grown weary of "google experts" repeating their catchphrases endlessly in a manner reminiscent of the sheep in Animal Farm. I also see a glimmer of hope of social scientists who realize that their findings on human flourishing line up with Catholic social and moral teaching - which, of course, has much in common with the moral teachings of other faith traditions.
Some, like Jordan Peterson, will ponder seriously how an enterprise not involved in gathering data on "what works" came up with a formulation that actually works, even when that formulation is quite non-obvious. That can be one route into a more spiritual life. In fact, it was mine.
I think you are right that humans finished up with lots of things that simply “work” without gathering data and analysing it. In fact I have mentioned to Tomas my observation that it is natural for there to be constant conflict between different ideas and different ways of doing things. Over time things that work will survive these challenges.
Finding out what works involves making mistakes and learning from them, both as an individual and as a society. This is a lot easier if there is a “safe space” (e.g. Uncharted Territories) where free exchange of ideas is encouraged and the price of making mistakes is not a barrier to trying new things. I remember having small group tutorials as a medical student and making a conscious effort to answer when our tutors asked the group questions. I made mistakes, but the correct answers stuck in my head much better than if I had just sat and listened to others or been told the answer. I realised that once I had qualified there would be much less room for error. It is much more difficult for someone labelled an expert to admit to being wrong or even to say I don’t know.
As far as the balance of power goes, I would say that globalisation and more leisure time allowed the merchants/financiers and the artists/entertainers to greatly increase their share. I think that the internet revolution put more power into the hands of the computer scientists, but as you say, certain groups have now learned how to better use the battleground of the internet and social media for their own purposes.
yeah. London’s Triumph by Stephen Alford is good… the whole story is fascinatingly complex… the london guild hall is built on top of the site of the old roman forum for londinium so something unique about the geography anchored it as you point out. Alford highlights the expulsion of the Hanse Merchants / the Steelyard as a key catalyst… so London played a key role but was dominated by the continent (amsterdam), until this break…. and after that break then London needed to build
it’s own trading networks…. so it needed peace with the continent to get to minimal scale, but then it needed to break with the continent to really scale globally…. for better overall, but for the worse for a lot of places the network extended to in its early form…
Of course! I had read about his census but not seen a map. Very interesting. Makes sense from an agriculture standpoint. It does mean the center of gravity was closer to the coast than I anticipated. I’ll have to look into this a bit more and make a correction. Thank you.
Tomas, I love this history series! The Spain entry got me hooked.
Wondering if you’ve considered a “further reading” section with book recommendations or if you just use the hyperlinked resources seen throughout the article?
Thank you! I read a bunch a long time ago: Guns Germs and Steel, Nonzero, The evolution of Everything, and prisoners of geography are probably the standouts. After that, it’s link by link!
Brilliant article as usual. Thanks Tomas. I love how you tie geography, culture, and history together. These are so informative while being easily digestible.
I wrote a very brief history of the UK a couple of weeks ago because you hadn't yet and it occurred to me that it has relevance to DAOs. Yours is much better!
I've always wondered why the Magna Carta created The Square Mile? Overlaying your 73 invasions and the influence of geography - one could assert that in the face of invasions, traders/merchants put the square mile in the Magna Carta so that they could continue trading despite invasions and political instability. Would be curious if anyone had any thoughts to share on how the square mile got created.... I've always wondered about that. Because then out of the square mile you get all the companies of merchant adventurers and the colonies in the US, which are originally corporations (mayflower compact is a corporate governance document) and that evolves into the modern corporate form which is arguably now the dominant form of group competition driving cultural evolution.... so its geography but then that collides with these new models of collaboration that over the course of centuries break away from church and state and explode onto the world.... ??? thoughts?
FWIW, according to the theory that I'm laying out, London was always special close to the head of navigation of the Thames. That gave it its business, its growth, and its infrastructure. William the Conqueror recognized it and gave it special powers. By the time the Magna Carta was signed, it would have grown in wealth, which gave it the power to demand its special rights.
“ If I am to speak ten minutes, I need a week for preparation; if fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now.”—Woodrow Wilson
Hi Tomas, I am generally interested in your articles however I often find that they could be more concise and powerful... remember Blaise Pascal 'I wrote a long letter because I didn't have time to make it shorter'... Thank you anyway, Jean-Luc
".....making eastern England a prime target for invasion, pillage, and emigrants." Shouldn't that be "immigrants"? Emigrants leave, immigrants come in.
Yeah I wasn’t precise enough. The locals would leave (emigrate). The invaders weren’t farmers afaik so there wouldn’t be immigrants to settle the region?
Oct 4, 2022·edited Oct 4, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo
Thank you for answering ! My thinking was influenced by one of my favorite books (Theun de Vries - The Sword, the Sea, the False Heart), which describes Frisians immigrating to England for lack of resources at home.
Oct 5, 2022·edited Oct 5, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo
Not a scientific study but a novella based on history. I translated the first page (I am not a prof translator).
"We prepared the ships and went at sea, the dukes Hengist and Horsa, a few younger sons like me, with some sailors and navigators who had gained experience during previous invasions into the land of the Brits. We had to go whether we wanted or not. The Frisian land was overcrowded with people, often without any inheritance, many walking around aimlessly, the soil gave its fruits and harvests not faster or more generous, our stockpiles were meager, not to say exhausted. In older times we would have convened our men to undertake raids to the east and to the south - like my father still told from his youth - to gain pastures and moors by driving border tribes back, however that had not been possible anymore for many years. All seemed to press westward, we heard messy rumors about mighty peoples that rolled in from unknown twilight regions with chariots and cattle, and crushed all that dwelt between them and us onto smaller and smaller pieces of land (....)"
Thanks for that. It summarises neatly a part of something called constant conflict theory that I have been thinking about how best to explain. Population density creates competition for resources: the pressure can be resolved by internal fighting, raiding others but also by taking their land or exploring for new pastures. Britain had means to take control of vast areas of the world.
Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo
The Frisians in the novella went to the British isle at the request of king Vortigern. The king also invited Juttes, Franks, Alemans, Saxons, to fight agains the Picts and the Scots, and later also against other Brit tribes. The Frisians were not really warriors, they were farmers, so they asked for a piece of land, which they got, and later on they assimilated. The narrator goes back to Frisia in the end - wanting for the home country as many immigrants do (me too).
The Crusades were at first also caused by bad economic conditions. The ensuing Black Plague took out about 25-50% of the European population, which meant for the survivors more land/food. More wealth made exploration possible. The colonization that followed had many reasons: greed, curiosity, want for adventure, zeal to convert heathens, glory for the home country, etc.
The Dutch were mainly interested in commerce and making money, for the English enlarging the Empire was equally important. (The English had a country and a monarch, the Dutch did not before 1815). Had we stood firm in the New World, you would all be speaking Dutch now.
Hi Tomas, well done as always. If you were to add an appendix to your article, it might be the British embrace of learning in general and science/ technology in particular.
Most noblemen and (as the centuries went on) rich young men attended universities, particularly Oxford and Cambridge. The Royal Society gave scientifically-minded people a place to gather, report and rebate. It was also seen as an honor to belong.
The Royal Navy and merchant fleet recognized the value of technology to help them survive the sea and to defeat their rivals.
I suspect that the Church of England together with the puritans and other Protestant churches exerted a net positive on the enterprise, but much of the history I know reports the British morality being honored in the breach. But there is a uniform tendency to report bad news. There is also a tendency of those who rebelled against the British Empire, like my fellow Americans, to slant the story so that it justifies their treason/ freedom fighting.
But why did that science focus appear there and not in Denmark?
What I'm arguing is that this scientific sensitivity was a consequence of (1) the freedom, which was a consequence of the geography, and (2) the neighboring influence of the Netherlands, which was as scientifically-minded as England, and more precocious—because it was free quite early.
In other words: the "scienciness" doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from freedom. And freedom was heavily influenced by geography.
Tomas hasn't mentioned part of the reason for the freedom he describes: the early and more complete escape from the influence of the Catholic Church (he's probably a bit wary having burnt that bridge a few times already). Religion and science are not comfortable bedfellows. Having a model of reality that incorporates a belief that the world is flat cannot be reconciled with exploring and conquering the globe.
Science was a key part of Britain's success so of course if was valued highly and encouraged. Britain was the new melting pot of ideas, free of some of Europe's sclerotic baggage just as the US was to be in the future. The other ingredient was wealth. Once Britain establish naval supremacy it was free to extract wealth from the new world and wealth also gives freedom. Combine that with increasing agricultural productivity at home and suddenly people are free to move to the cities and work in factories and a reinforcing cycle begins.
Mark, what a curious set of ideas you put forth in your first paragraph! I largely agree with your second paragraph but we may disagree on exactly what the baggage of Europe was at the time.
When Henry VIII ended the power of the Catholic Church in England he did that by making himself the head of the Church in England, which then became known as the Church of England. From what I have read, it dominated English/British life every bit as much as the Catholic Church had been doing and it had at least as much influence in England as the Catholic Church did elsewhere.
As to religion (specifically Christianity) not being "comfortable" with science. well, that is a stretch. Consider the number of scientists that were (and are) faithful Christians and even members of the clergy. This page has a good start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
Of these, a couple have a special place in my heart. For instance, there is Gregor Mendel, Abbott (leader of a monastery full of monks) and father of genetics. Also, there is Georges Lemaitre (sorry, I could not figure out how to put the "hat" over the "i" in his last name.) He was a Catholic priest and the person who first proposed the Big Bang. He found an error in one of Einstein's calculations and Einstein thanked him for it - once he was finally convinced it was an error.
Finally, you mention the "model of reality that incorporates a belief that the world is flat" in a way that makes me think that you believe most believers from say 1400-1800 held that opinion. Indeed, you may have a point for many of the illiterate people of the time. However, it was not the opinion of those educated in the universities, which were founded by the church. When Columbus applied for funding from the Church he was rejected because those with the money calculated the distance he would need to travel west in order to reach his goal and they knew that he and his crew would die of starvation before getting there, which they would have if not for their luck in finding the Americas - and they almost ran out of food before reaching the island now known as Hispaniola.
I'm happy to continue the conversation with you. Many smart, scientifically minded people look at incidents such as Galileo's interactions with a pope and the rejection of Darwin's theories by the Christians who read the book of Genesis as if it was a scientific text and conclude, as you do, that science and faith are incompatible. IMHO, if you look into these issues while remaining open to whatever you find, you will find that the two are quite compatible.
I agree with you.
One additional point is that you didn’t need the Church of England to free yourself from Catholicism. The reformation was a perfect example.
I think my post above was a little too simplified as to the move to the Church of England. One can very reasonably argue that the C of E was the first major move of the Reformation in England, prior English moves being squelched by the monarchy.
Also, after the death of Henry VIII and the short reigns of Edward VI and Jane Grey, the Catholic Church was reinstated by Mary I for five years before the C of E was reinstated by Elizabeth I.
From that time I believe the C of E was the official state church and other protestant churches were tolerated. The Catholic Church was not, at least for a long time. But protestant churches were also tolerated to a greater and greater extent in nominally catholic countries during the expansion of the British Empire. The Catholic Church in France, for example, took a huge hit immediately after 1789.
One thing I believe to be true from all that I have read is that the UK was a strongly Christian country at least until World War II with the C of E enjoying pride of place. The decline of Christianity in the UK happened at very much the same time and pace as the decline of the Empire.
“What a curious set of ideas”. Such a polite way of putting it, Tomas should use your response as a great example of how to give good, kind feedback. An Australian reply would have been much more blunt!
As you clearly set out, religion and science do not have to be in conflict (in fact my father was a committed scientist with strong religious faith). The nature of the educated population in the early Middle Ages meant to some extent that there had to be strong links between the two. The idea in my head when I was writing the post was more to do with those in power feeling threatened by new ideas, rather than religion specifically and was not expressed at all well. As Tomas mentions, the monarchies could feel equally threatened by new ideas. Whilst brushing up a little on my rusty European history, I found it interesting that Copernicus’ heliocentric theory was relatively well received, yet 80 years later Galileo was in trouble for holding those same views. I wonder if the Catholic Church felt more threatened at that time and so responded very differently.
I think it is interesting to contrast over time in European communities the balance of power between the monarchy, the church, the nobles/parliament, merchants, the intelligentsia, artists and the common people. During the crusades, the monarchy seems to have been very much aligned with the church, but gradually the balance changed. Having spent a fair bit of time wandering through art galleries, the change in thinking is starkly evident looking at the change in art over several hundred years. By the time of Henry VIII, he felt comfortable enough breaking away from the Catholic Church and appropriating its English wealth. I believe he was wise enough to invest some of the proceeds in strengthening the British navy! The Church of England may have still been powerful, but once force had been used against religion, “Schrodinger’s gun” was always there in the background to keep it in check. My point was meant to be about how the changing balance of power in England between religious leaders, the monarch, parliament, the military, scientists and the merchants provided ideal conditions for progress (though geography of course was the chessboard on which these forces played out and winning teams are less likely to suffer from internal conflict).
I was thinking over the last couple of days about how much relevance this has to the metaconversation and our current situation. I would be interested in your thoughts on the power balance between different parts of society today. Personally I think a bit more spirituality in some areas wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Mark,
Thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply. One of the things I enjoy about Substack, in general, and Tomas's Substack in particular, is the tone of the discussions. Here, I feel free to modify my positions and admit I was wrong when someone points out where I have overstepped, mis-stated or just plain stated falsehood. You and Tomas are both excellent examples of intelligent people who have the humility to admit their limitations - which also speaks of your honesty and intelligence. I try to imitate what I see as praiseworthy.
In the US and other democratic republics the balance of power between various groups can shift quicky, especially if the size and fervor of the competing groups is roughly equal. The US, as a political entity, is approaching a quarter-millennium in age. Social media did not exist 20 years ago, so it is a bit of a shock to the system. Some intelligent observers have noted the oversize influence that a small, engaged group can have on the overall conversation. That can be for good or ill - and, of course, different people will have different opinions on what is good or ill.
I am seeing glimmers of hope that a growing body of people has grown weary of "google experts" repeating their catchphrases endlessly in a manner reminiscent of the sheep in Animal Farm. I also see a glimmer of hope of social scientists who realize that their findings on human flourishing line up with Catholic social and moral teaching - which, of course, has much in common with the moral teachings of other faith traditions.
Some, like Jordan Peterson, will ponder seriously how an enterprise not involved in gathering data on "what works" came up with a formulation that actually works, even when that formulation is quite non-obvious. That can be one route into a more spiritual life. In fact, it was mine.
I think you are right that humans finished up with lots of things that simply “work” without gathering data and analysing it. In fact I have mentioned to Tomas my observation that it is natural for there to be constant conflict between different ideas and different ways of doing things. Over time things that work will survive these challenges.
Finding out what works involves making mistakes and learning from them, both as an individual and as a society. This is a lot easier if there is a “safe space” (e.g. Uncharted Territories) where free exchange of ideas is encouraged and the price of making mistakes is not a barrier to trying new things. I remember having small group tutorials as a medical student and making a conscious effort to answer when our tutors asked the group questions. I made mistakes, but the correct answers stuck in my head much better than if I had just sat and listened to others or been told the answer. I realised that once I had qualified there would be much less room for error. It is much more difficult for someone labelled an expert to admit to being wrong or even to say I don’t know.
As far as the balance of power goes, I would say that globalisation and more leisure time allowed the merchants/financiers and the artists/entertainers to greatly increase their share. I think that the internet revolution put more power into the hands of the computer scientists, but as you say, certain groups have now learned how to better use the battleground of the internet and social media for their own purposes.
yeah. London’s Triumph by Stephen Alford is good… the whole story is fascinatingly complex… the london guild hall is built on top of the site of the old roman forum for londinium so something unique about the geography anchored it as you point out. Alford highlights the expulsion of the Hanse Merchants / the Steelyard as a key catalyst… so London played a key role but was dominated by the continent (amsterdam), until this break…. and after that break then London needed to build
it’s own trading networks…. so it needed peace with the continent to get to minimal scale, but then it needed to break with the continent to really scale globally…. for better overall, but for the worse for a lot of places the network extended to in its early form…
Oh tell me about the Hansa and steelyards and London!
An interesting map I encountered showed population density at the time of the Norman conquest, and East Anglia was the key centre. https://www.themaparchive.com/product/englands-population-in-1086/
Of course! I had read about his census but not seen a map. Very interesting. Makes sense from an agriculture standpoint. It does mean the center of gravity was closer to the coast than I anticipated. I’ll have to look into this a bit more and make a correction. Thank you.
Do you have a resource list for more information? I would love to dive deeper into some of this! Thanks.
You can find virtually anything on the Internet (if you’re looking for facts)
Tomas, I love this history series! The Spain entry got me hooked.
Wondering if you’ve considered a “further reading” section with book recommendations or if you just use the hyperlinked resources seen throughout the article?
Thank you! I read a bunch a long time ago: Guns Germs and Steel, Nonzero, The evolution of Everything, and prisoners of geography are probably the standouts. After that, it’s link by link!
Brilliant article as usual. Thanks Tomas. I love how you tie geography, culture, and history together. These are so informative while being easily digestible.
Glad to hear, Drew! This one was especially hard given the complexity of the ties between geography and history...
Fascinante!
Te has convertido en uno de mis escritores preferidos!
Gracias Francisco!
Christian Jensen should be spelled as : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Jensen
Ah thanks, updated!
I wrote a very brief history of the UK a couple of weeks ago because you hadn't yet and it occurred to me that it has relevance to DAOs. Yours is much better!
What’s the article? And the DAO connection? The value of a network without strong central command?
I'll post it tomorrow when I sort out the bit I wasn't sure about
I've always wondered why the Magna Carta created The Square Mile? Overlaying your 73 invasions and the influence of geography - one could assert that in the face of invasions, traders/merchants put the square mile in the Magna Carta so that they could continue trading despite invasions and political instability. Would be curious if anyone had any thoughts to share on how the square mile got created.... I've always wondered about that. Because then out of the square mile you get all the companies of merchant adventurers and the colonies in the US, which are originally corporations (mayflower compact is a corporate governance document) and that evolves into the modern corporate form which is arguably now the dominant form of group competition driving cultural evolution.... so its geography but then that collides with these new models of collaboration that over the course of centuries break away from church and state and explode onto the world.... ??? thoughts?
Interesting, I'd love to know!
FWIW, according to the theory that I'm laying out, London was always special close to the head of navigation of the Thames. That gave it its business, its growth, and its infrastructure. William the Conqueror recognized it and gave it special powers. By the time the Magna Carta was signed, it would have grown in wealth, which gave it the power to demand its special rights.
Great read, Tomas! UK Citizen here, grew up in the States. Always nice to understand a bit more about my heritage.
You are absolutely right.
So why don’t I?
Maybe I can answer with another quote:
“ If I am to speak ten minutes, I need a week for preparation; if fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now.”—Woodrow Wilson
Hi Tomas, I am generally interested in your articles however I often find that they could be more concise and powerful... remember Blaise Pascal 'I wrote a long letter because I didn't have time to make it shorter'... Thank you anyway, Jean-Luc
".....making eastern England a prime target for invasion, pillage, and emigrants." Shouldn't that be "immigrants"? Emigrants leave, immigrants come in.
Yeah I wasn’t precise enough. The locals would leave (emigrate). The invaders weren’t farmers afaik so there wouldn’t be immigrants to settle the region?
Thank you for answering ! My thinking was influenced by one of my favorite books (Theun de Vries - The Sword, the Sea, the False Heart), which describes Frisians immigrating to England for lack of resources at home.
Interesting. Tell me more. What happened to resources?
Not a scientific study but a novella based on history. I translated the first page (I am not a prof translator).
"We prepared the ships and went at sea, the dukes Hengist and Horsa, a few younger sons like me, with some sailors and navigators who had gained experience during previous invasions into the land of the Brits. We had to go whether we wanted or not. The Frisian land was overcrowded with people, often without any inheritance, many walking around aimlessly, the soil gave its fruits and harvests not faster or more generous, our stockpiles were meager, not to say exhausted. In older times we would have convened our men to undertake raids to the east and to the south - like my father still told from his youth - to gain pastures and moors by driving border tribes back, however that had not been possible anymore for many years. All seemed to press westward, we heard messy rumors about mighty peoples that rolled in from unknown twilight regions with chariots and cattle, and crushed all that dwelt between them and us onto smaller and smaller pieces of land (....)"
Thx! It’s one part of history I need to understand better
Thanks for that. It summarises neatly a part of something called constant conflict theory that I have been thinking about how best to explain. Population density creates competition for resources: the pressure can be resolved by internal fighting, raiding others but also by taking their land or exploring for new pastures. Britain had means to take control of vast areas of the world.
The Frisians in the novella went to the British isle at the request of king Vortigern. The king also invited Juttes, Franks, Alemans, Saxons, to fight agains the Picts and the Scots, and later also against other Brit tribes. The Frisians were not really warriors, they were farmers, so they asked for a piece of land, which they got, and later on they assimilated. The narrator goes back to Frisia in the end - wanting for the home country as many immigrants do (me too).
The Crusades were at first also caused by bad economic conditions. The ensuing Black Plague took out about 25-50% of the European population, which meant for the survivors more land/food. More wealth made exploration possible. The colonization that followed had many reasons: greed, curiosity, want for adventure, zeal to convert heathens, glory for the home country, etc.
The Dutch were mainly interested in commerce and making money, for the English enlarging the Empire was equally important. (The English had a country and a monarch, the Dutch did not before 1815). Had we stood firm in the New World, you would all be speaking Dutch now.