It seems to me that a lot of what can be said about the Middle East's stagnation also applies to the Indian Subcontinent. Except there are more signs of green shoots there now, at least in parts of India proper and in Bangladesh.
I have a belief that riverine agrarian civilizations tend towards insularity and a lack of emphasis on individual initiative. All the wealth they'll ever need is produced by The River, which is controlled by the state, which means the way to get rich is to play a role in the state and gain yourself an entitlement to some of The River's bounty. Such civilizations have little to gain from conquering their neighbors, who are inevitably poorer (in an agrarian context) because those neighbors lack The River. There's not even much value in enslaving them because The River's produce supports far more souls than can productively work it, resulting in a labor surplus. That labor surplus also results in less interest in labor-saving inventions and capital improvements. The only capital improvements of interest are the irrigation works that maximize the value of The River itself and that are, again, effectively controlled by the state.
Those poorer neighbors, by contrast, have everything to gain from conquest and, at times, slavery. And a lot of this can be a matter of non-state individual initiative: raids, etc., such as those of the Vikings. They are outward-looking, obsessed with gaining an advantage over their neighbors so that they might conquer and enslave them and avoid being conquered and enslaved themselves. Those that are not obsessed in this way are outcompeted and replaced by those that are. Individual capital accumulation also plays a larger role in these societies, whether in the form of slaves or in improvements made to individually-owned farms and orchards, and in herds of livestock.
Of course, parts of the Arab world are not riverine in this sense. But it seems to me that Egypt and Mesopotamia have dominated this area demographically and culturally and that gives the whole region a riverine character. The importance of the Maghreb has also diminished relative to the ancient world, and if I'm not mistaken changes in climate played a role there.
All of the above seems plausible to me, although it is very hard to unpack culture from other potential causes. Keep in mind that non-riverine agriculture has played an important role, so that would be a third category in your working theory.
This would include most of Europe, the Andes, the Sahel, New Guinea, and probably some other regions that do not come immediately to mind. I am not sure that these groups have a whole lot in common other than they are based on agriculture.
Central Asia, Moslem nations all, did not get their first printing press until after the Russians invaded and subjugated them starting in the 1860s (I believe the first press was in Tashkent in the 1880s) -- over 400 years after Gutenberg's invention! Education consisted of rote memory of the Quran and other Islamic tomes. Their ruling classes assumed if the Prophet didn't have it in the 600s, it wasn't worth having. Today most of the Central Asian countries boast of 100% literacy, thanks to the Soviets, and Uzbekistan in particular appears to be pushing forward in social development. But blindly following religion, they dug themselves a big hole to work themselves out of.
I am not sure that I understand. Do you mean that those regions are not included?
If so, that is intentional. For the purposes of this analysis, I am considering them to be Central Asia. I cover that region in my book, and I might write an article on the region in the future. Central Asia shares many characteristics with the Middle East and North Africa, but they have different enough histories that I cover them separately.
Great discussion, really enjoy these overviews.
It seems to me that a lot of what can be said about the Middle East's stagnation also applies to the Indian Subcontinent. Except there are more signs of green shoots there now, at least in parts of India proper and in Bangladesh.
I have a belief that riverine agrarian civilizations tend towards insularity and a lack of emphasis on individual initiative. All the wealth they'll ever need is produced by The River, which is controlled by the state, which means the way to get rich is to play a role in the state and gain yourself an entitlement to some of The River's bounty. Such civilizations have little to gain from conquering their neighbors, who are inevitably poorer (in an agrarian context) because those neighbors lack The River. There's not even much value in enslaving them because The River's produce supports far more souls than can productively work it, resulting in a labor surplus. That labor surplus also results in less interest in labor-saving inventions and capital improvements. The only capital improvements of interest are the irrigation works that maximize the value of The River itself and that are, again, effectively controlled by the state.
Those poorer neighbors, by contrast, have everything to gain from conquest and, at times, slavery. And a lot of this can be a matter of non-state individual initiative: raids, etc., such as those of the Vikings. They are outward-looking, obsessed with gaining an advantage over their neighbors so that they might conquer and enslave them and avoid being conquered and enslaved themselves. Those that are not obsessed in this way are outcompeted and replaced by those that are. Individual capital accumulation also plays a larger role in these societies, whether in the form of slaves or in improvements made to individually-owned farms and orchards, and in herds of livestock.
Of course, parts of the Arab world are not riverine in this sense. But it seems to me that Egypt and Mesopotamia have dominated this area demographically and culturally and that gives the whole region a riverine character. The importance of the Maghreb has also diminished relative to the ancient world, and if I'm not mistaken changes in climate played a role there.
Thanks for the comment.
All of the above seems plausible to me, although it is very hard to unpack culture from other potential causes. Keep in mind that non-riverine agriculture has played an important role, so that would be a third category in your working theory.
This would include most of Europe, the Andes, the Sahel, New Guinea, and probably some other regions that do not come immediately to mind. I am not sure that these groups have a whole lot in common other than they are based on agriculture.
Central Asia, Moslem nations all, did not get their first printing press until after the Russians invaded and subjugated them starting in the 1860s (I believe the first press was in Tashkent in the 1880s) -- over 400 years after Gutenberg's invention! Education consisted of rote memory of the Quran and other Islamic tomes. Their ruling classes assumed if the Prophet didn't have it in the 600s, it wasn't worth having. Today most of the Central Asian countries boast of 100% literacy, thanks to the Soviets, and Uzbekistan in particular appears to be pushing forward in social development. But blindly following religion, they dug themselves a big hole to work themselves out of.
Under the heading So Why Has the Region Stagnated?, you list the Arab conquest as 625 BCE instead of CE
Good catch. I have corrected it. Thanks.
The chart on Soil Type does not show the outline of northern Iran, Turkmenistan and the Caspian Sea correctly
I am not sure that I understand. Do you mean that those regions are not included?
If so, that is intentional. For the purposes of this analysis, I am considering them to be Central Asia. I cover that region in my book, and I might write an article on the region in the future. Central Asia shares many characteristics with the Middle East and North Africa, but they have different enough histories that I cover them separately.