State vs. Market

Just read the Wikipedia entry on his main book and he doesn't seem to say what you say he says.

As far as I can understand from this article, I could surely agree with this Kennedy in most of what he says. Yet I can't agree with your interpretation of it - which is something totally different. So, then, why don't you quit hiding behind others' name and start reasoning your position on your own words and with your own logic?

Originally posted by ataman Originally posted by Maju Originally posted by ataman Originally posted by Maju Russia was definitively the "third world of Europe" at that time: a country that exported cheap agricultural products such as grain in exchange for little. Paul Kennedy in his 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' claimed that what made every country (including GB) wealthy was agriculture. It was at least until 1850. Allow me to doubt such affirmation. Maju, allow me to believe more professor Kennedy than you

Sure. That's your choice.

Instead I prefer to put my money in arguments and reasons rather than titles. So which are the reasons of your professor (whose name I never heard before, btw)?

Originally posted by Maharbbal Just consider all their defeats after 1815 even by weaker countries (Ottoman) and on their own soil (Crimea war).

Crimean war was lost by Russia, but Russia had to fight against the coalition of 4 countries and because the place of this war (by the sea) favoured armies of the coalition.

 

Edited by ataman

And few more datas from Kennedy's book.

GNP of countries in 19th c. (bln dollars)

in 1830: Russia 10.5; GB 8.2; France 8.5

in 1840: Russia 11.2; GB 10.4; France 10.3

in 1850: Russia 12.7; GB 12.5; France 11.8

in 1860: Russia 14.4; GB 16.0; France 13.3

in 1870: Russia 22.9; GB 19.6; France 16.8

in 1880: Russia 23.2; GB 23.5; France 17.3

Originally posted by ataman Originally posted by Maju Russia was definitively the "third world of Europe" at that time: a country that exported cheap agricultural products such as grain in exchange for little. Paul Kennedy in his 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' claimed that what made every country (including GB) wealthy was agriculture. It was at least until 1850.

I would have to disagree with that.  Back in this thread, we discussed Spain and the Dutch and Sweden.  All those powers made wealth out of some control of trade, and none of them could feed themselves, let alone make wealth from selling agricultural produce.

 

Originally posted by ataman Originally posted by Maju Napoleon defeated himself and not just against Russia but against a huge coalition. A huge coalition.... Before Russia (with allies) finally defeated Napoleon, a huge coalition of major European powers led by Napoleon lost in Russia.

Napo lost against Britain. If he attacked Russia was only because he wanted to force this country to "blockade" the UK.

Originally posted by Maju Napoleon defeated himself and not just against Russia but against a huge coalition.

A huge coalition.... Before Russia (with allies) finally defeated Napoleon, a huge coalition of major European powers led by Napoleon lost in Russia.

Edited by ataman

What European powers?

Napoleon defeated himself and not just against Russia but against a huge coalition. If Napoleon wouldn't have got the problem of Britain, he could have widely ignored Russia.

I don't know to what else you may refer. Only when the bolchesindustrialized the country, it did become a major power, able not just of defeating Germany but even challenging the USA.

Originally posted by ataman Originally posted by Maju There was never any option for strong state nor remaining feudalist was any option that offered anymore than being a "thrid world country" of the time. I can't agree with this sentence above. The strongest European country of the 18th and 19th c. was Russia which (at least) until 1864 was by no means a feudal country.

I don't know what you mean exactly but Russia was definitively the "third world of Europe" at that time: a country that exported cheap agricultural products such as grain in exchange for little. Russia was large but not "strong". It was extremely weak and that would be seen as the 19th century and Industrialization moved ahead. In the end Russia needed a revolution like a malaria victim needs quinine.

Hi,

Market or not? It is indeed a problem; so lets consider a few cases:

� Spaniards were controling both resources and consumtion but at one
point their system was less productive than the Dutch's. Hence more and
more smuggling took place.

� Even though sometime one country could protect sucessfully its trade
there was still (dispite of many rules) a clear concurrence between the
traders.

� For quality or other reasons, a country (or a town or the all continent)
could change it source of supply one day on the other. It is what
happened for the furs first coming from America and then Siberia.

� Some borders were officially closed to foreign trade, but not all and not
for every thing. For instance, concurrence took place between Spanish
and Dutch traders in France before Colbert.

� On the other hand production and transport were also submitted to
concurrence. Colbert again did his best, using the navy, to convince
French colonists to use French and not Dutch cargos.

Of course, this was very far from the perfect market or even from today's
interpretation of market, but one thing is sure there were some markets
in early modern Europe for some types of products. On the contrary, corn
trade was so watched over and regulated that it can hardly be considered
as a market. Colonial products were much more fluid.

Yes the East India Company has existed till 1857 but the Levant Company
lost its monopoly in 1760, the Hudson Bay Company lost its monopoly
between the 1820's and 1870's, VOC disappeared in 1815 and the
Comapgnie fran�aise des Indes in 1754. So 1800 is uncorrect but by then
the process was well started.

Bye.

Edited by Maharbbal