> The third key is Decentralized political, economic, religious, and ideological power. It is of particular importance that elites are forced into transparent, non-violent competition that undermines their ability to forcibly extract wealth from the masses.
Thinking about it, this requires extremely specialized circumstances. Political, economic, religious, and ideological power must be decentralized, while military power is just centralized enough to stop the elites from resorting to violence in their competition, but not centralized enough to centralize the other types of power.
Yes, that is why it took so long for humans to get the right balance. And there were constant attempts by elites to strive for more power and potentially upset the balance.
I think there is some truth to this. As others have noted, the failure of any single nation to conquer and hold Europe made it harder to persecute intellectuals.
If the printing press was not welcome in one country, the inventor need only move a short distance to another and bring the invention with them.
European rulers eventually learned that if they persecuted those with new ideas, sometimes those ideas would end up in the hands of their enemy. Thus, a culture of tolerance gradually emerged.
I don't know what sources (i.e., others) you have to support this and I had not thought about it that way. So initially I found it a very reasonable idea. But in thinking about it a little more, I had the thought that perhaps also the reverse was in play, especially with rise of the universities (starting 1188?) and then the spread of the printing press, expanding the population of literate and intellectual people. Such people were becoming more and more valuable in an increasingly complex commercial and legal world, so there would be a desire by leadership to attract such talent, rather than pushing it way or persecuting them.
There would also have been a measure of "intellectual competition" among the various European states/ statelets, including among the universities or other centers they fostered.
Maybe we are really saying basically the same thing, and I am just overreacting to your use of the "harder to prosecute" language?? :-)
It's the same thing. If you look throughout history, many intellectuals in Europe did their best work while living outside the birth country. The list is long. When the Kings and Queens of Europe realized that they were driving talent toward their enemies, they let up. Had Europe been unified under one government, this would have been impossible.
On the tendency for decentralization, I think you already mentioned the geographical aspects of rivers and valley/mountain separators, inhibiting political and social consolidation. Is it fair to also emphasize the rules on cousin marriage fostered by the church reducing kin/tribe allegiance? Rome conquering a major tribe incorporated a largish group at one time, but as that tribal pull was dissipated, the potential for wider communication and coordination also was reduced, to the point they went their separate ways?
> The third key is Decentralized political, economic, religious, and ideological power. It is of particular importance that elites are forced into transparent, non-violent competition that undermines their ability to forcibly extract wealth from the masses.
Thinking about it, this requires extremely specialized circumstances. Political, economic, religious, and ideological power must be decentralized, while military power is just centralized enough to stop the elites from resorting to violence in their competition, but not centralized enough to centralize the other types of power.
Yes, that is why it took so long for humans to get the right balance. And there were constant attempts by elites to strive for more power and potentially upset the balance.
I think there is some truth to this. As others have noted, the failure of any single nation to conquer and hold Europe made it harder to persecute intellectuals.
If the printing press was not welcome in one country, the inventor need only move a short distance to another and bring the invention with them.
European rulers eventually learned that if they persecuted those with new ideas, sometimes those ideas would end up in the hands of their enemy. Thus, a culture of tolerance gradually emerged.
"made it harder to persecute intellectuals."
I don't know what sources (i.e., others) you have to support this and I had not thought about it that way. So initially I found it a very reasonable idea. But in thinking about it a little more, I had the thought that perhaps also the reverse was in play, especially with rise of the universities (starting 1188?) and then the spread of the printing press, expanding the population of literate and intellectual people. Such people were becoming more and more valuable in an increasingly complex commercial and legal world, so there would be a desire by leadership to attract such talent, rather than pushing it way or persecuting them.
There would also have been a measure of "intellectual competition" among the various European states/ statelets, including among the universities or other centers they fostered.
Maybe we are really saying basically the same thing, and I am just overreacting to your use of the "harder to prosecute" language?? :-)
It's the same thing. If you look throughout history, many intellectuals in Europe did their best work while living outside the birth country. The list is long. When the Kings and Queens of Europe realized that they were driving talent toward their enemies, they let up. Had Europe been unified under one government, this would have been impossible.
Really enjoyed this piece!
Very thought provoking post.
On the tendency for decentralization, I think you already mentioned the geographical aspects of rivers and valley/mountain separators, inhibiting political and social consolidation. Is it fair to also emphasize the rules on cousin marriage fostered by the church reducing kin/tribe allegiance? Rome conquering a major tribe incorporated a largish group at one time, but as that tribal pull was dissipated, the potential for wider communication and coordination also was reduced, to the point they went their separate ways?