> 7/09/97, Randy Groves wrote to philofhi:
> >In my view then, the historical role played by the Mongols is
> > explainable largely in terms of the technology and military strategy.
>
>[snip]
> 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.
If I remember correctly, the expansion dynamic was "caused", in part,
by a series of drought conditions which changed the grazing patterns
of the herds the Mongols lived on. I believe that some archaeological
work has been conducted on this (unfortunately I can't remember the
references).
BTW: Richard, the term "Khan" is a title, not a name.
>[snip]
> 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.
Hmm. Given that you are drawing on a factor/force model, then how
would you define a "point"? This is especially problematic since the
"aristocracy" was not always "landed" (e.g. the merchantile
aristocracy in Venice, or the military/banking aristicracy of the
Sforzas).
It also strikes me that treating "capitalist/-ism" as a *single*
force is inappropriate. What will you look at as its key
characteristics? Accumulation of capital? If that is the case, then
one could easily argue that the Roman Empire was "capitalist". There
is certainly no doubt that Crassus and Otho influence "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".
Once again, this type of examination and argument could be applied to
the founding and expansion of the Roman Empire. Certainly an solid
argument can be made that it meets all of your criteria. Was the
Roman Empire "capitalist"?
> 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.
Again, a question of definition. The Cathars in southern France in
the 11th century probably meet all of your criteria. Their end was
not, IMHO, "effective".
> 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.
I really don't know if the motivation must be dominant. Think about
early British expansion (say, up to 1750). Many of the components of
the British Imperium were under the control of merchant companies
(e.g. the British East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, the
British Far East Company, etc.). British *military* power, both in
terms of capacity and battlefield power, was limited to continental
and North American conflicts, usually directly related to dynastic
power struggles in Europe. "Expansion", per se, was driven by NGO's,
not State organizations.
Since we can easily find "pre-capitalist" examples of this type of
pattern, what then is "unique", if anything?
Marc
Marc W.D. Tyrrell
PhD. Candidate
Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
Carleton University