7/09/97, Randy Groves wrote to philofhi:
>On Genghiz Khan, most historians point to superior military
>technology (saddles, bows etc) and strategy. From what I remember,
>the consolidation of a Khan's power base wasn't a lot different from
>many tribal and nomadic peoples. In my view then, the historical role
>played by the Mongols is explainable largely in terms of the
>technology and military strategy.
Was Khan's rise immediately following an upgrade in Mongol technology or
strategy? If so, then that upgrade might shift the local balance of power
and spark expansion. If not, then one must look for a third factor to
account for the _timing_ of the expansion.
Such a factor might be a unique and unprecedented level of personal drive
on the part of Khan himself, a depletion of local resources, or whatever.
But if we are are identifying causation, then we need a timing explanation
equally as much as we need a capacity explanation.
>I don't see any real conflict between adherence to
>complex lists of factors along with reference to the "identification
>of dynamic pattern-trends." (I think I know what you mean. Sort of.)
>Maybe a bit more on that would help.
dynamics: n. 1.a The study of the relationship between motion and
the forces affecting motion.
Forces act on bodies over time, and the position of the bodies changes over
time - in proportion to the strength of the force (which might vary over
time). If there are multiple forces, the movement is cumulative, and the
component due to each force can be factored out and measured.
Historical forces (factors) cause society to move in certain directions.
Loss of water might cause it to migrate, loss of investment opportunities
might cause it to colonize. It is not as simple (as in physics) to
quantify precisely how much a given factor "moves" the society, in
comparison to the contribution of another factor, but the attempt to factor
out the contributions is the essence of useful historical analysis.
Nikolai, in these terms, has selected what he thinks are the dominant
factors, the strongest forces. Fine. Similarly, one might say the
dominant forces on the Moon's orbit are the Earth and the Sun. But
dynamics goes on to _measure_ the two forces and _account accurately_ for
the Moon's orbital fluctutations.
In the case of Euro expansion, one can begin to study the effect of
specific factors by first asking the right questions. Two of the most
critical questions, in my opinion, would be:
(1) How did the political power of the capitalist class vary over time.
(2) What was the portfolio of capitalist investments over time.
>From (1), we might learn, for example, that capitalists started out with
minimal political influence compared to the landed aristocracy, but that
over time their influence increased and eventually became dominant. One
could presumably determine within a decade or two when the balance of power
shifted by looking at government records. That "point" in time would mark
the "enabling" of the "capitalist factor" to become determinative in
national policy.
>From (2), one might learn that portfolios were in domestic manufacture,
domestic commerce, and foreign trade, let's say. By looking at the growth
of these portfolios over time, one might notice that a point of diminishing
returns was reached - where further investment under existing circumstances
was no longer profitable. Again, if we pin that event down to, say, a
decade, then we have a "point" in time at which the capitalists are
_motivated_ to encourage expansionism - a point where the "capitalist
factor" becomes "pro-expansion".
When both (1) and (2) enablers had occurred (capitalists BOTH influential
AND expansionist), then one would expect to begin to see evidence of
effective expansionist activism, on the part of capitalists, in the
society.
ONLY THEN would it become relevant whether or not the society has the
military CAPACITY to expand - without the societal motivation, the capacity
can only be potential. And for the motivation to arise, there must be some
factor in the society which is driving that motivation, and which is
sufficiently influential to make its direction dominant.
To concern oneself primarily with the capacity factor, I hope you will now
agree, is to miss the whole essence of what historical change is about, why
it happens, and when it happens.
---If in fact Euro expansion started very soon after both (1) and (2) became true, then there is some real validity in claiming that capitalism was the critical factor in Euro expansion - primary rather than secondary.
If on the other hand, many decades went by with no sign of expansion (but with lots of frustrated capitalists), then when expansion finally DID occur, I'd want to find out what other factor was shifting its power-balance at that time, and I'd be inclined to name it as the critical factor.
rkm