Jan 16, 2023·edited Jan 16, 2023Liked by Misha Saul
two authors that touch on similar ideas
Joel Mokyr - Europe's competitive advantage came from porous cultural barriers, human talent could move around so the Industrial Revolution eventually reached escape velocity. He points to China as the counterexample but I could easily see the Ottoman Empire being something similar
Carrol Quigley - He posits that the Dark Ages in Europe separated, at least in the minds of Europeans, the concepts of society and the state. Lots of interesting arguments to be made about this being a necessary condition to move past the traditional empire societal structure
Jan 15, 2023·edited Jan 15, 2023Liked by Misha Saul
As a modern Catholic I can confirm that, at least in my experience in Portugal and the UK, most modern Catholics appear to accept those Popes as examples of human fallibility and corruption of the human institution side of the Church. Not necessarily aberrations in that period, but maybe that period is viewed as something of an aberration.
Also, just to nitpick: the Portuguese navigator is called da Gama, not de Gama - but really the usual convention when referring to someone by surname only is to omit the particle and just say Gama; though that's not usually carried into English.
Surely an increase in pc income after the plagues in a near subsistence, Malthusian economy is obvious enough not to need a special explanation. [The argument for immigration in modern day US/Europe depends a lot on selection for above average immigrants.]
Possibly it was "obvious" to me only becasue I have been immersed in the kind of Solo growth model that underlies Brad DeLong's "Slouching Toward Utopia."
Also, although there is no explanation of why after a long bloody siege the defenders of Rhodes might decide to surrender with safe passage to a new island, Malta, it does not seem implausible.
They didn't "win." The Ottomans had to get home before sailing was impossible. That's why they made the offer. The knights took it, I guess, becasue the Ottomans could come back next year and finish them off.
That sounds... unconvincing? Why would they surrender if they had a whole year to prepare for round two? Surely surrendering with an army beneath their walls can't be to their advantage
My reasoning is that the Empire has a who year to prepare, too, and that the Templars knew it. I don't see anything odd in Wyman not explaining why the Templars accepted the terms that guaranteed their survival to live and fight another day as they did in Malta less than a hundred years later.
two authors that touch on similar ideas
Joel Mokyr - Europe's competitive advantage came from porous cultural barriers, human talent could move around so the Industrial Revolution eventually reached escape velocity. He points to China as the counterexample but I could easily see the Ottoman Empire being something similar
Carrol Quigley - He posits that the Dark Ages in Europe separated, at least in the minds of Europeans, the concepts of society and the state. Lots of interesting arguments to be made about this being a necessary condition to move past the traditional empire societal structure
Nice thanks!
As a modern Catholic I can confirm that, at least in my experience in Portugal and the UK, most modern Catholics appear to accept those Popes as examples of human fallibility and corruption of the human institution side of the Church. Not necessarily aberrations in that period, but maybe that period is viewed as something of an aberration.
Also, just to nitpick: the Portuguese navigator is called da Gama, not de Gama - but really the usual convention when referring to someone by surname only is to omit the particle and just say Gama; though that's not usually carried into English.
Also,
Great reviews; thanks for posting!!
Surely an increase in pc income after the plagues in a near subsistence, Malthusian economy is obvious enough not to need a special explanation. [The argument for immigration in modern day US/Europe depends a lot on selection for above average immigrants.]
Not obvious to me…. Not sure it’s a settled question either, saw a paper on it recently. But was struck by the fact when I first read it
Possibly it was "obvious" to me only becasue I have been immersed in the kind of Solo growth model that underlies Brad DeLong's "Slouching Toward Utopia."
Also, although there is no explanation of why after a long bloody siege the defenders of Rhodes might decide to surrender with safe passage to a new island, Malta, it does not seem implausible.
It’s totally plausible — I don’t doubt it’s true even! But… why? How did they actually win? No idea
They didn't "win." The Ottomans had to get home before sailing was impossible. That's why they made the offer. The knights took it, I guess, becasue the Ottomans could come back next year and finish them off.
That sounds... unconvincing? Why would they surrender if they had a whole year to prepare for round two? Surely surrendering with an army beneath their walls can't be to their advantage
My reasoning is that the Empire has a who year to prepare, too, and that the Templars knew it. I don't see anything odd in Wyman not explaining why the Templars accepted the terms that guaranteed their survival to live and fight another day as they did in Malta less than a hundred years later.