In this weeks reading, Janet Abu-Lughod discussed the development of Genoa and Venice as major players in the shipping industry. Beginning in the 11th century until the 14th century, the two cities were locked in battle over fruitful sea-lanes. Throughout the 12th century, Italians made huge feats in their imperial reach by building and arming ships, plundering weaker vessels, making advancements in navigational techniques, and through the development of larger more maneuverable vessels.
Another aspect Abu-Lughod focused on was the development of new capitalist partnerships, such as the fraternal, commenda, sleeping partner, etc. Each created new opportunities for various groups of people. For example, the fraternal was a family firm usually between two brothers. The two brothers would share the capital investment. The first brother would stay at home to protect their interests. The second brother traveled abroad to sell and secure items for trade. The commenda partnership consisted of two partners as well. One partner would put forth 2/3 of the capital and the other partner put up the other 1/3 as well as his labor. The sleeping partner was extremely appealing to wealthy individuals who were looking for an investment with minimal involvement and to men who lacked capital but were young and eager to pursue the exotic adventurous Orient.
In the second section of our readings, Abu-Lughod focuses on the Mongol Empire. The Mongol Empire was a unique conquering group. The Mongol Empire spanned from Asia to Eastern Europe during the 13th and 14th century. The Mongol Empire, established by Kublai Khan, was divided into four khanates and distributed to his four sons.
Each of the four sons remained peaceful and united under the Mongol banner, but each pursued his own interest and objectives with their khanate. The Mongols acted under entrepot function. Through which the Mongols created a place where there was less risk to transit, and lower protection cost than the Genoa and Venice shipping. The set back for the Mongols was evident in their lack of strategic crossroads, a lack of industrial capacity, and a no transportation function. However, the benefits were enough to overcome their faults. Thus, the Mongol broke up the southerly routes monopoly on shipping. At a time where the shipping cost escalated due to armory protection.
The Mongols ability to expand their empire was based on their method. Mongols are known to ride in on horses establish themselves and continue on to other lands. They would establish allow the conquered to continue with their cultures and social institutions. They did not try to impose their culture on their conquered. In fact, they took calculated action to remain distinctive. In this sense, they were perfect for establishing efficient trade routes. They did not wish to impose their own culture and desired only the profit that could be obtained through occupation.
One aspect of the text that I did not really understand was when Abu-Lughod focuses on the three routes to the East: 1) northern route on land from Constantinople to central Asia, 2) central route between Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, and 3) southerly route that linked the Red Sea with the Arabian Sea. Who controlled each of these routes? Or was there not really a single group in control of these three like the Genoa or the Venice ports?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Genoa and Venice
Trade during the 13th century was there to create a “world system” and for this reading Genoa and Venice were the power house of trade. Genoa and Venice both wanted to monopolize the trade, but in the end Venice ended up having the upper hand. This trade was maritime trade with the Middle East which was eventually broken down during the Crusades. The Middle East saw the European Crusades as barbaric and opposite of the culture they wanted for themselves. Because of the Crusaders the Muslims thought they were superior to the westerners as they battled for monopoly in the “world trade system.”
I find it interesting that human behavior has not changed drastically and also that the Muslim’s still feel they live the best, superior, life. The human behavior that happened during the Crusade was a normal human reaction to hunger. If you are hungry enough you will eat anything to substance life, fight or flight. The Muslim’s saw the western behavior as crazy but they did what they thought was the best way to continue to live. Someone in class said that every country sees itself as superior, which I completely agree with. The Westerners probably saw themselves as superior to the Muslim’s, and many countries today see themselves superior if not in one aspect or many. The Muslim’s also are and were very ingrained into their religion that any other culture or religion was wrong.
Another question that was briefly discussed in class was the better strategy, trade center, industrial center, or transport magnate. I feel to have a successful economic strategy that a country must possess all three if not more aspects of trade. To have good trade you must have goods another country wants; therefore industry is important to produce goods to sell. In order to have successful trade and industry the transport magnate is there to correlate so that everything runs smoothly.
Struggle of Maritime Powers
Venice and Genoa, two maritime trade and sea powers existed in competence for centuries, as well as part of the “Big Four”. As Abu-Lugbod describes, “both cities played pivotal roles in joining Europe to the ongoing world economy of the east.” The referred reference is that of mainly China, Mongolia, India, and a few others. There were three main passages used create the eight zones of trading, until the Portuguese circumnavigation of Africa. Genoa is eventually supplanted by Venice in the 14th century. So, why did Genoa fall to Venice in terms of monopolizing when Genoa predates Venice as preexisting port?
There is no question that when it came to terms of resources, that these two key city-ports spent as much money and time on trading and expanding their connections as they did fighting with each other(Genoa-Venetian Wars). Genoa and Venice both sought to monopolize trade. Genoa motivated by more likely greed then religious factors joined the crusades, as did Venice, though much more reluctant, created a want for eastern goods. These goods included silk, spices, pottery, and more. Ironically, even though Venice was reluctant to join the crusades until it seemed a sure victory, they ended up being the hegemonic force controlling the route that allowed them access to spices and silks. Genoa, although rewarded for their help in the crusades, did not gain such a victorious benefit from the crusades.
Another factor in the downfall of Genoa was its wavering supplies of slaves and it poor choice in the Black Sea. Genoa at one point supplied much of the slave labor for the Egyptians, thus granting them trade rights and routes into the East. Genoa was unable to continue the supply of slaves, where as Venice capitalized on this situation picking up the slave trade into Egypt, along with routes to the East. Genoa, trying to fully exclude Venice and vice versa, attempted to use the Black Sea as another entry to the Northern Route. Thus, at this point in history in the world system both were hegemonic powers yet located in different regions of trade, creating in essence a world system. Genoa’s attempt at using the Black Sea is crushed by the rebellions and fragmentation of the Mongol Empire. The Mongol empire collapsed on itself due to an insufficient system of relying on resources of its conquered, and no export production. In essence without the continual conquest of new people the system would eventually have to collapse on itself. The downfall of the Mongol Empire proved to render the Black Sea, and the Northern Route less then mediocre, due now to unsafe conditions of traveling the route.
The perpetual downfall of Genoa is marked in my opinion by start of the Black Plague. The Black Plague wiped out two-thirds of the world’s population including Genoa and Venice. Again, why did Venice prevail over Genoa? Well, the Black Plague created a contraction in the world system. Genoa was not able to reform its political issues, and government to account for the change. Venice recovered from the Black plague because it provided state support to its maritime merchant’s investments such as convoys, warships, weapons, and more where as Genoa was not did not. Basically, Venice had a “safety net” to insure its overall trade. Genoa on the other hand was not located in as prime of a position as Venice. Venice’s overall choice on the Southern Route, trade with Egypt, and state insurance allowed them ultimately to overcome Genoa.
There is no question that when it came to terms of resources, that these two key city-ports spent as much money and time on trading and expanding their connections as they did fighting with each other(Genoa-Venetian Wars). Genoa and Venice both sought to monopolize trade. Genoa motivated by more likely greed then religious factors joined the crusades, as did Venice, though much more reluctant, created a want for eastern goods. These goods included silk, spices, pottery, and more. Ironically, even though Venice was reluctant to join the crusades until it seemed a sure victory, they ended up being the hegemonic force controlling the route that allowed them access to spices and silks. Genoa, although rewarded for their help in the crusades, did not gain such a victorious benefit from the crusades.
Another factor in the downfall of Genoa was its wavering supplies of slaves and it poor choice in the Black Sea. Genoa at one point supplied much of the slave labor for the Egyptians, thus granting them trade rights and routes into the East. Genoa was unable to continue the supply of slaves, where as Venice capitalized on this situation picking up the slave trade into Egypt, along with routes to the East. Genoa, trying to fully exclude Venice and vice versa, attempted to use the Black Sea as another entry to the Northern Route. Thus, at this point in history in the world system both were hegemonic powers yet located in different regions of trade, creating in essence a world system. Genoa’s attempt at using the Black Sea is crushed by the rebellions and fragmentation of the Mongol Empire. The Mongol empire collapsed on itself due to an insufficient system of relying on resources of its conquered, and no export production. In essence without the continual conquest of new people the system would eventually have to collapse on itself. The downfall of the Mongol Empire proved to render the Black Sea, and the Northern Route less then mediocre, due now to unsafe conditions of traveling the route.
The perpetual downfall of Genoa is marked in my opinion by start of the Black Plague. The Black Plague wiped out two-thirds of the world’s population including Genoa and Venice. Again, why did Venice prevail over Genoa? Well, the Black Plague created a contraction in the world system. Genoa was not able to reform its political issues, and government to account for the change. Venice recovered from the Black plague because it provided state support to its maritime merchant’s investments such as convoys, warships, weapons, and more where as Genoa was not did not. Basically, Venice had a “safety net” to insure its overall trade. Genoa on the other hand was not located in as prime of a position as Venice. Venice’s overall choice on the Southern Route, trade with Egypt, and state insurance allowed them ultimately to overcome Genoa.
BEH: Commentary 2
This weeks readings elaborate on the Mariner States of Genoa and Venice and also finally move on to the "Mideast Heartland" (which I have been waiting for with all the references to it in Part 1.) These two mariner states of Italy played a key role in joining Europe to the flourishing world economy of the East. Both played pivotal roles, and hence were always at odds with eachother; whether through rivalry for markets and ports or wars. Both found personal gains through the Crusades, although I find it necessary to mention that while Genoa was eager to join the effort early on to gain access to the "richer markets" (pg 105), Venice did not want to risk her economic ties. The Crusades ushered in ways for economic and cultural interactions between Europe and the Levant. While the Europeans harbored a mixture of hatred and romantic awe, the Muslims saw the Crusaders as barbaric animals. New maritime technology allowed Genoa and Venice to continue to not only hold but expand their land and economic holdings as well as their roles as the vital middlemen of the world economy. However, rivalries and wars (including Christian crusades against Christains, essentially) brought Venice to the top mariner state while Genoa fell below the ranks. The lessons from these mariner states are that "commercial shippers" (pg 130) are necessary however unstable, as they are most vulnerable to external factors beyond their control.
The Mideast Heartland was described very romantically and (in my opinion) in a very interesting fashion. The first part of BEH constantly made references to the Mideast, and here finally those references were elaborated on. The Mideast had three major routes which all had different characteristics and served different purposes: the northern route, the middle route and the southern route. The Mongols play a vital part in understanding the blossoming of the world system and its eventual - yet temporary - downfall. Due to the Pax Mongolica, Europe was able to integrate into the already existing world system between the Mideast and the Far East. Prominent examples of the integration are the Polos - especially Marco - and the various Friars and Preachers that trekked the route across the dualcontinent via land and sea and came back safely. Fragmentation of the Mongol Empire, interestingly enough - yet also ironically, served Europe both positively and negatively. On the one hand, the unsurance of the succession of Mongol power after the death of Genghis Khan allowed Europe to be spared from ever being directly invaded by the Mongols. If this had happened, it is unlikely that Europe would have ever become the hegemonic power it later became. On the negative side, the fragementation and end of the Pax Mongolica also ended safe transit routes and exchange between the two regions. This compounded with the disasterous results of the Black Plague reiterate the temporary downfall of the world system that later recovered but in a new form. Like the lessons learned from the Mariner States, the Mongols show us that as "facilitators," (pg 182) they are always vulnerable to political and geographical changes that are often out of their own control.
Although I have learned about it before, I was still intrigued by the complicated history of the Mideast in terms of dynasties, rulers and ethnic groups and their connected rivalries. The complication and frequent change of rule from hand to hand may also be reflected in the short span of time in which the Crusaders were able to retain control of sections of the "Holy Land" they conquered during the Crusades. I find it interesting (and also question how) there could be stability in a region that was constantly changing rulers/government.
It would be nice to have more elaboration as to exactly why and how Genoa was not able to revive after the Black Plague while Venice was. Some explanation is given, but I find the topic very interesting; If more details could be provided I think it would also give conceptual clues as to what ensures economic success. Abu-Lughod also makes reference to how in Venice there was pooled capital and in Genoa there were the joint stock companies (pg 118), I do not understand the difference between these two systems and why it matters?
Champagne and Fairs
Who would have thought that the Champagne Fairs would have played such an important role for Europe. Without them Europe would not have been introduced the world of production and trade which is so crucial for its development.
Four cities: Troyes; which became the capital for the county that became Champagne, Provins, Bar-sur-Aube, and Lagny attracted all the trade. The question is why?
The counts of Champagne offered protection for the merchants. As soon as they started their journey to the fairs, they were protected from pillagers. There were also "Guards of the Fair" hired by the counts. They were the police for the fairs. They enforced justice and order. They made sure people followed through with their contract promises and they also fined people who were cheating. There were also two notables who were like judges who could hear cases and impose penalties.
Because of these two things, it created a "nonatural monopoly for the fairs." It was because of this that these fairs were held in these cities and not somewhere else.
People of many different places came from all over to participate in the fairs. The first type were the local merchants of the towns themselves. There were also merchants from other French and Flemish towns who organized themselves into the "Hanse of Seventeen Cities." There were merchants from western and southern french cities. There were merchants from northern Italy. There were merchants from all over Europe; Spain, Portugal, Germany, England, and Scotland. There were also merchants from the Orient. All of these different merchants contributed to the fairs with many different products. They all played different roles. It worked out well because there was selection. Each of the different types of merchants had a certain loyalty and commitment to certain fairs. Everybody has favorites right?
These fairs did so much for these cities that otherwise would not have been so famous.
Four cities: Troyes; which became the capital for the county that became Champagne, Provins, Bar-sur-Aube, and Lagny attracted all the trade. The question is why?
The counts of Champagne offered protection for the merchants. As soon as they started their journey to the fairs, they were protected from pillagers. There were also "Guards of the Fair" hired by the counts. They were the police for the fairs. They enforced justice and order. They made sure people followed through with their contract promises and they also fined people who were cheating. There were also two notables who were like judges who could hear cases and impose penalties.
Because of these two things, it created a "nonatural monopoly for the fairs." It was because of this that these fairs were held in these cities and not somewhere else.
People of many different places came from all over to participate in the fairs. The first type were the local merchants of the towns themselves. There were also merchants from other French and Flemish towns who organized themselves into the "Hanse of Seventeen Cities." There were merchants from western and southern french cities. There were merchants from northern Italy. There were merchants from all over Europe; Spain, Portugal, Germany, England, and Scotland. There were also merchants from the Orient. All of these different merchants contributed to the fairs with many different products. They all played different roles. It worked out well because there was selection. Each of the different types of merchants had a certain loyalty and commitment to certain fairs. Everybody has favorites right?
These fairs did so much for these cities that otherwise would not have been so famous.
Problems of Data
When I saw that I had to read this book, I thought it was going to be very boring. I was wrong though. Abu-Lugbod brings up some very interesting points. One that interested me in particular was The Problems of Data. It think it is absolutely amazing we have so much knowledge of the past. Considering how the ancient world didn't even have enough paper to write things down on, it's astonishing how much knowledge of the ancient world was preserved so that we can learn from it today.
Abu-Lughbod says that "uniform and equally reliable data" isn't something that one always has. Some valuable documents in some places do not always have parallels elsewhere, or worse she says "virtually no data survived." That would be very frustrating, but think of all the data that has survived and how we have learned so much from it.
Abu-Lugbod points out how much knowledge on business transactions there is from the Genoese traders who produced "thousands of notarized documents." It's hard to believe that all that information was able to be preserved so that we can learn from it. And not only Genoa but China too.
It is sad though that three important places that contributed to trade in the thirteenth century were not able to produce and preserve important data. The Mongols were all about conquest and did not produce important data about trade. Thank goodness for Marco Polo. For the principalities along the straights of Malacca, they didn't have a solid place to contribute such information. The Muslims thought other things were more important to write down over commerce and trade.
I find the story about the Egyptian Jewish in Cairo very interesting. For fear of their religious superstitions they threw all papers with writing on them into the repository called the Geniza. These seemingly insignificant pieces of paper offered so much information on Jewish life and trade with "Spain, North Africa, the Levant, and India." I find that so incredible.
Even though Abu-Lugbod says "lack of comparable data has made it difficult to trace levels of living within and relationships between the areas selected for study," I believe that just from what we have discovered, there is still so much to learn from it. Yes there is so much more we wish we knew, but we must be grateful for what we do know from the ancient world and use it.
J. McCracken
Abu-Lughbod says that "uniform and equally reliable data" isn't something that one always has. Some valuable documents in some places do not always have parallels elsewhere, or worse she says "virtually no data survived." That would be very frustrating, but think of all the data that has survived and how we have learned so much from it.
Abu-Lugbod points out how much knowledge on business transactions there is from the Genoese traders who produced "thousands of notarized documents." It's hard to believe that all that information was able to be preserved so that we can learn from it. And not only Genoa but China too.
It is sad though that three important places that contributed to trade in the thirteenth century were not able to produce and preserve important data. The Mongols were all about conquest and did not produce important data about trade. Thank goodness for Marco Polo. For the principalities along the straights of Malacca, they didn't have a solid place to contribute such information. The Muslims thought other things were more important to write down over commerce and trade.
I find the story about the Egyptian Jewish in Cairo very interesting. For fear of their religious superstitions they threw all papers with writing on them into the repository called the Geniza. These seemingly insignificant pieces of paper offered so much information on Jewish life and trade with "Spain, North Africa, the Levant, and India." I find that so incredible.
Even though Abu-Lugbod says "lack of comparable data has made it difficult to trace levels of living within and relationships between the areas selected for study," I believe that just from what we have discovered, there is still so much to learn from it. Yes there is so much more we wish we knew, but we must be grateful for what we do know from the ancient world and use it.
J. McCracken
As far as my academic career goes, I have always learned about "the Muslims" and how European expansion was threatened by "the Muslims". Therefore, I'm amazed and fasinated to learn about exactly who "the Muslims" were. For instance, the readings discuss the dynamics within the Muslim world with fighting caliphs and competing dynasties, such as the Abbasid Empire and the Malmuk Empire in Egypt. I feel as if there were more of the middle man for trade in the world during that time. They traded with what we now know as Europeans and traded with the Eastern empires like China. What I find most interesting is how despite all the tensions within the Islamic Empire that it was able to sucessfully facilitate trade with other empires. I've never been exposed to any articles or texts that discussed the specifics of the tension within Islam.
Also, the class discussion of why the Muslims thought they were superior to the Italian merchant still reminds me egocentrism and the other class discussion of where the center of the world is located. It seems to me that everyone thinks that the center of the world is where they themselves are located and that naturally, they are superior to other people that are different from them. The Muslims believed that they were God's chosen people as do both the Jews and Christians alike. Europeans believed that they were superior to those of foreign lands during expansion. In conclusion, egocentrism allows everyone to feel as if they are the center of the world and that they are superior to all others, especially in the case of Kayne West.
Also, the class discussion of why the Muslims thought they were superior to the Italian merchant still reminds me egocentrism and the other class discussion of where the center of the world is located. It seems to me that everyone thinks that the center of the world is where they themselves are located and that naturally, they are superior to other people that are different from them. The Muslims believed that they were God's chosen people as do both the Jews and Christians alike. Europeans believed that they were superior to those of foreign lands during expansion. In conclusion, egocentrism allows everyone to feel as if they are the center of the world and that they are superior to all others, especially in the case of Kayne West.
The Mideast Heartland
Following the Crusades, which Venice and Genoa played major roles in, Europe was able to expand its trade connections and become a greater player in the “world system.” To utilize its position in the world system, however, Europe would need to pass through one (or all) of the three routes in the eastern Mediterranean that granted access to the Orient. There was northern, central, and southern routes, all of which were functioning and highly networked by distant peoples. Despite the increased relations among world economies, and the promising future of a world trade system, many regions were left in ruins by the second half of the 14th century. A series of events and relations can be examined for answers as to how this all unfolded.
The northern route spanned across Central Asia, and experienced both its birth and (near) death within a century. During the 13th century, the Mongols were under the leadership of Genghis Khan, whose aspirations were world conquest. He started with Europe, but quickly turned his attention eastward. Before any conquests made progress, however, Khan passed away. The campaigns were paused, and Khan’s sons were assigned different regions to conquer. By the second half of the 13th century, southern Russia, Poland, Hungary, parts of the Middle East, and all of Central Asia were under Mongol control, signifying the commencement of the Central Asian route. Although Genghis Khan’s death did not hurt his empire or his dream of conquest, the separation of regional rulers later proved problematic. The subgroups diversified – some rulers converting to Islam, others adapting to Chinese culture and Buddhist faith – and fragmented the Mongols. In addition to this, plagues and insurrections furthered weakened the empire, and the northern route to the Orient via Central Asia was left a damaged, inhospitable terrain.
Like the northern route, the middle route – connecting the Mediterranean with the Indian Ocean – was greatly affected by the western Crusaders and Mongol armies. For centuries, the Mediterranean/Indian Ocean connection was a prime route. Baghdad was right in the center of this connection, making it a “true world city;” full of trade, culture, and religion. Despite this prosperity, however, the Mongols were able to destroy the city and turn rule over to Persia in the mid 13th century. This devastated the middle route through Baghdad. Persia rule secluded the region from world trade, breaking the connection between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. Further damage to the middle route occurred when the Mamluk military state of Egypt successfully expelled all Crusaders from the Syrian coast, and sealed the western end of the route. This blocked Europe’s direct contact with East, and Europe suffered industrially and commercially.
Hindrances with the northern and middle routes created a shift to the south in the world system. Focus was in Egypt, more specifically Cairo, and the powerful Mamluk slave state became the major player in the world trade system. Interestingly enough, this state was established as a result of the dual threat posed by the Mongols and Crusaders, and its existence put it in a position to set the terms of trade for both of these groups. Egypt became the sole connection between the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, and as a result its capital Cairo was a flourishing city from 13th to 15th century. Egypt’s prosperity was not completely a product of itself, however. Unlike feudal or political institutions that could be replenished through inheritance, the Mamluk slave state needed to be continually recreated, to uphold the nation’s strength. Ironically, the very state whose contact with the East had been stripped by Egypt was the one to come to its aid. In return for trading rights in Egypt, Italy provided the nation with the steady supply of manpower it needed to maintain its strength.
These examples illustrate the complexity that existed in the world trade system, and the strategic moves states made to ensure their position in the system. Similar to the world trade system in the 13th through 15th centuries, today's global society operates under many key players, whose actions and decisions all effect one another. In today's world, if a nation stripped our (the United States) trading rights with another nation, do you think our government would then set out to aid that nation if it was the only means we had to gain trading rights in a crucial area?
~Megan Miller-Daghir
Blog Entry 2
Venice and Genoa played a significant role as major ports connecting Europe with the rest of the world system particularly the Orient. These cities played a crucial role not only in trade but also in war, most importantly the crusades.
Genoa was used to battle. She had been conquered and re conquered several times until they received independence from the Roman Empire and established a self-ruled state. Battle hardened and with their prior naval abilities confirmed, Genoa “enthusiastically answered the call” of the pope for the first crusade.
Venice was put into a good position to become a trade leader. Venice came to Byzantium’s side and both were able to resist Charlemagne’s attempt of capture. As a result, Venice became “explicitly protected” providing Venice with the opportunity to become more powerful.
As a result of the crusades, both Genoa and Venice expanded their rule to cities in the Middle East making it easier for transporting goods. The crusades were also responsible for major gains in shipbuilding. Crusading leased hundreds of ships from Venice and Genoa and called for even larger and faster ships to be built. Due to plague, and economic problems Venice emerged as the hegemonic city in Europe over Genoa.
I found some questions very intriguing such as why did the Muslims think their culture was superior to Europeans? In Arab literature westerners were often referred to as “beasts superior in courage and fighting ardour but in nothing else.” Muslims held a notion that Europeans were barbaric, ruthless, and much less civilized then themselves. Such thought could be easily understood due to the ruthless nature of several crusade attacks. I would have liked Lughod to focus more on the Islamic Civilization and go into more detail concerning what exactly their culture had which led them to believe they were superior. From the reading I can only gather what made the Europeans less civilized. I also found it very intresting how the crusades had such a large impact on technology. The demand for faster, larger and stronger ships was so strong that the technology would not be surpassed for hundreds of years.
Sean McNamara
SERPAJ, and Why Central America is Sinking
As noted in Patomaki and Teivainen's piece, Critical Responses to Neoliberal Globalization in the Mercosur Region, SERPAJ was one of the only organizations that has provided continuous aid to Argentina. They have worked in conjunction with other groups to promote Christianity and human rights in Latin America since the its formation in 1974 by its president, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, who won the Nobel Prize for peace six years later. For blog entry numero dos, I decided to look further into this group.
They operate in many countries throughout the region, including Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Colombia, El Salvador and Uruguay. Their program called Education for Peace and Nonviolence aims to "disseminate the methodology of nonviolent action for individuals, sectors and communities to achieve a break liberating oppressed and groups of people originating with capacity to transform their reality." They are funded by churches and other local rights-relief groups. So whats the problem?
In the spirit of neoliberalism, the economic actions of individuals are (supposedly) largely based on self-interest. By this logic, the contributions that come to groups like SERPAJ are from those who expect some sort of reparation. Non-profit groups in their nature pass along their earnings to the underprivileged, the lowest shelf, people who don't have the resources to contribute to such groups. This explains means two things; that eventually those donors will realize their actions have no positive repercussions, and that Central/South America is doomed. With a near-defunct political climate and multinational corporates controlling just about every corner of industry, groups such as SERPAJ can only fight so much before they cannot afford to operate any longer.
Of course, this is all assuming that neoliberalism keeps it's hold on the region, or that the principles under which it operates are even true. Our best hope is for international support. For more information visit http://translate.google.com/translate?.hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.serpaj.org/&ei=Ab-ySruwN8eWlAf59PWMDw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dserpaj%2Bargentina%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff. Here you can contact the organization, make donations, and save Argentina.
They operate in many countries throughout the region, including Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Colombia, El Salvador and Uruguay. Their program called Education for Peace and Nonviolence aims to "disseminate the methodology of nonviolent action for individuals, sectors and communities to achieve a break liberating oppressed and groups of people originating with capacity to transform their reality." They are funded by churches and other local rights-relief groups. So whats the problem?
In the spirit of neoliberalism, the economic actions of individuals are (supposedly) largely based on self-interest. By this logic, the contributions that come to groups like SERPAJ are from those who expect some sort of reparation. Non-profit groups in their nature pass along their earnings to the underprivileged, the lowest shelf, people who don't have the resources to contribute to such groups. This explains means two things; that eventually those donors will realize their actions have no positive repercussions, and that Central/South America is doomed. With a near-defunct political climate and multinational corporates controlling just about every corner of industry, groups such as SERPAJ can only fight so much before they cannot afford to operate any longer.
Of course, this is all assuming that neoliberalism keeps it's hold on the region, or that the principles under which it operates are even true. Our best hope is for international support. For more information visit http://translate.google.com/translate?.hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.serpaj.org/&ei=Ab-ySruwN8eWlAf59PWMDw&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dserpaj%2Bargentina%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff. Here you can contact the organization, make donations, and save Argentina.
Venice vs. Genoa and the Mongols
These chapters discuss the different struggles for dominance in the trade system and the factors that influenced them. First, in the case between Venice and Genoa, they were both fighting to be the main middle-man. They were both located at prime spots to be connected with many people. However, i think that Venice had more advantages than its rival.
Morally, the crusades were horrible and gave the Muslims a well deserved bad impression of the Europeans. They considered them as "beasts superior in courage and fighting ardour but in nothing else, just as animals are superior in strength and aggression." Considering what the westerners were doing, these accusations were not far off. Although morally horrible the Crusades greatly influenced the expansion of trade and the improvements in naval power. When the Pope ordered the fight against the Muslims and Jews and the capture of Palestine and Jerusalem unlike Genoa, Venice held off until the end when the outcome was already clear to join the fight. As a result of their help the Venetians were awarded a privileged position in the trade system and became an active player in the exchange of goods.
The struggle between Genoa continued for decades most dramatically over the fight and the transfer of control of Constantinople. With Constantinople and access the Egyptian spices and goods Venice had the upper hand over Genoa. However, even without Constantinople, Genoa controlled the passage with North Africa and northwestern Europe. The fight for dominance, with Genoa lagging behind in a close second, continued until they both began to fall along with the rest of the trade system. There were a few main reasons for their demise. First, both Genoa and Venice's populations increased drastically during the prosperous trading years. Venice's population almost doubled and Genoa's was not far behind. This led to a strain on space and sustenance. Second, the Bubonic plague took three fifths of Venice's population and sixty percent of Genoa's within eighteen months after it hit the Italian ports. Third, before the Black Plague even arrived there was an economic decline due to wide spread crop failure. Fortunately for the Venetians Venice was in the right spot to commence trade after the Bubonic plague finally disappeared. Genoa could no longer safely protect their traders or their trade routes and therefore never reemerged as a strong player in the trading game.
The second chapter was about the Mongols. They did not offer their own goods to trade with but rather the goods of those people they conquered. They supplied land passages that were protected and secure for transfers of good to take place on. Unfortunately for them their system fell apart rather rapidly. First because they stopped being able to conquer people and the Mongols were restless and always needed to be mobile. Therefore they could not get together a system of their own when they could no longer use the ones they stole from those they conquered. Second, when the black death hit they were hit the hardest because it spreads the fastest in the areas where people are the most mobile. Therefore the Mongols and any people utilizing their trade paths were hit hard. When the Black death finally subsided and traders reemerged they no longer sought the passages provided by Central Asia and the Mongols.
What is most interesting about the trade system developed in Venice and Genoa was that it established the first forms of Capitalism. The traders banded together and split costs. Mostly families where the males would all trade together and split the cost leaving one brother at home to manage dealings with locals. It was initially mainly limited to families because that is who people thought they could trust. However, some people don't have brothers. In this case they would partner with others splitting the cost in various ways depending how much each individual put in. Also, everyone took very detailed records of what money went where and who traded with whom. The traders developed systems of borrowing money, paying back debts, making partners and one independent trader even developed an investment banking system.
Although Abu-Lughod describes these chapters such a way that is enjoyable to read and easy to understand i think she could have spent more time discussing what the Muslim civilization was like at this time compared to the westerners. Their society had reached a much more advanced point at the time of the crusades than the societies of Europe and yet they were being destroyed.
--Dorothy "Bunny" Smith
The Mongols and the Northeast Passage- Commentary #2
In the beginning of the Thirteenth Century, trade flourished within contained areas of Europe and Asia. People did however travel long distances for the exchange of goods. The Champagne Fair, the port of Aden, the Strait of Malacca, the coast of Malabar, and of course Venice and Genoa. The Mongols sought a new opportunity for economic gain by contributing to the system of world trade. They were not offering their own supply to trade, nor were they providing further demand for products. The Mongols proposed neutral land for transfer and security through a Northeast Passage.
Europeans understanding of the Mongols was limited. They were considered barbaric and even Tartars from hell. Before the Northeast Passage was established, Europe and Asia had little ability to connect or communicate. This left a lack of understanding that the Europeans were more eager to resolve. The crusaders were first intrigued by the possibility of new allies. The Pope sent out many of his men to explore and document their findings. One of the most extensive early records of eastern exploration was documented by Marco Polo. He noted the goods they produces, what they traded, and what was considered valuable. By the end of the thirteenth century, Europeans became impressed by the reports of Asia’s prosperity. This intensified the Mongols influence between Europe and Asia.
The Mongols did find some drawbacks in their new role within the world trading system. Firstly, they found that profit related directly to taxation increase and trade-land expansion. Secondly, the rapid monopolization of trade routes would eventually leader to an even more rapid demise. The Mongols united so many regions through the Northeast Passage that the ease of transport became dangerous. A pandemic erupted where Europe, the Middle East and Asia unintentionally exchanged their “disease pools (p170).” Measles, smallpox, and the bubonic plaque spread far and wide. The Mongols connected these areas to simplify trade, but ultimately left the Black Death as their central historical mark.
Europeans understanding of the Mongols was limited. They were considered barbaric and even Tartars from hell. Before the Northeast Passage was established, Europe and Asia had little ability to connect or communicate. This left a lack of understanding that the Europeans were more eager to resolve. The crusaders were first intrigued by the possibility of new allies. The Pope sent out many of his men to explore and document their findings. One of the most extensive early records of eastern exploration was documented by Marco Polo. He noted the goods they produces, what they traded, and what was considered valuable. By the end of the thirteenth century, Europeans became impressed by the reports of Asia’s prosperity. This intensified the Mongols influence between Europe and Asia.
The Mongols did find some drawbacks in their new role within the world trading system. Firstly, they found that profit related directly to taxation increase and trade-land expansion. Secondly, the rapid monopolization of trade routes would eventually leader to an even more rapid demise. The Mongols united so many regions through the Northeast Passage that the ease of transport became dangerous. A pandemic erupted where Europe, the Middle East and Asia unintentionally exchanged their “disease pools (p170).” Measles, smallpox, and the bubonic plaque spread far and wide. The Mongols connected these areas to simplify trade, but ultimately left the Black Death as their central historical mark.
Genoa and Venice
I think one of the most important points Abu discusses is the influence the crusades had on the boating industry. The crusades brought out great advancements in ship building and technology. They needed to be constructed to carry as many soldiers and supplies as possible, while maintaining speed and durability. Abu mentions that the biggest ships the Genoese presented was only 83 feet long and carried only about 100 crusaders and their supplies. This does not seem significant, but the carrying capacity did not increase much into the 14th, 15th, and 16th century. Another factor that came along with the crusades and better ships was the improved navigation techniques. The stars worked for years and continued to work, but the compass, or “floating magnetic needle” allowed for year round sailing. The last improvement that can partially be attributed to the crusades was the social and economic techniques employed. This enhanced the security of ships which brought in many more investors so that risk could be more distributed and not on one person. Abu responds to this last point stating, “The first involved the convoy and the fighting merchant marines; the latter required new forms of capitalism” (112-113). The protection of the ships was so important during such a war time period. In order for the privatized investors to gain protection from tyrants and pirates they needed to put trust into the state. Abu describes the Genoese institution being like a joint stock company, investing also in protection of their goods to help establish sea trade as a dominant trading system. This great rise in technology, navigation, and economic techniques only came and quickly left for the powerful areas like Genoa and Venice. The Black Death has been estimated to kill up to three-fifths of Venice and up to 60 percent of Genoa’s inhabitants. This crushed shipping because not only did the disease spread greatly because of boats and ports, but because investors lost money as ships disappeared and no one wanted to leave their homes because of the fear of such a horrible disease.
Abu makes very good points on the crusades and its influences. I think that they had one of the greatest influences on the great expansion of “the big four” and the shipping industries. I think Abu could go into greater detail on the crusades explaining which crusades brought the greatest and most influential improvements to trade overseas. This could be the improvements in ship engineering (which she goes into briefly), or more importantly the protection of ships. The larger the vessels got the slower they moved which made them very easy targets. The social interactions of men on the same ships, and the men interacting in ship fleets is very interesting and different for this time period. Not only do they have to stay with in close proximity with each other for long periods of time (with no women!), but they had to work as a team to sail and navigate the ship while protecting it.
These new social interactions are very interesting to me, but I would like to know how the Black Death once again changed these interactions. I feel like before the Black Death children would love to grow up and become a sailor and travel the world for its riches. Even though many did not know that the Black Death was mainly spread by boats, I believe a great fear of sailing was brought upon many areas that were greatly affected such as Genoa and Venice and this fear resulted in a greater decline than we could ever imagine today.
Abu makes very good points on the crusades and its influences. I think that they had one of the greatest influences on the great expansion of “the big four” and the shipping industries. I think Abu could go into greater detail on the crusades explaining which crusades brought the greatest and most influential improvements to trade overseas. This could be the improvements in ship engineering (which she goes into briefly), or more importantly the protection of ships. The larger the vessels got the slower they moved which made them very easy targets. The social interactions of men on the same ships, and the men interacting in ship fleets is very interesting and different for this time period. Not only do they have to stay with in close proximity with each other for long periods of time (with no women!), but they had to work as a team to sail and navigate the ship while protecting it.
These new social interactions are very interesting to me, but I would like to know how the Black Death once again changed these interactions. I feel like before the Black Death children would love to grow up and become a sailor and travel the world for its riches. Even though many did not know that the Black Death was mainly spread by boats, I believe a great fear of sailing was brought upon many areas that were greatly affected such as Genoa and Venice and this fear resulted in a greater decline than we could ever imagine today.
Commentary 2
This week's reading from Janet Abu-Lughod's "Before European Hegemony" consisted mainly of the point that the two riveling cities of Genoa and Venice were huge middlemen that supported the world trade system. They pulled and pushed goods between Europe and Asia and became practically indispensable. They dominated the Mediterranean Sea, pushing Milan and Florence out of the way as their lesser competitors. And in the position for the possibility of absolute power, both struggled to gain monopoly and put in much time and finance and blood into the Genoa-Venetian Wars. In the end though, Venice gained the upper hand but that power did not last for long; this trade with the Middle East was dismantled by the European Crusades, seeing as the Middle East believed themselves as having a superior culture.
I find the question of "superiority" very interesting. The Middle East, trading silks and spices and other assortments of rare materials, looked down upon the European Trade which consisted mainly of furs and things that the Middle East thought was less significant. Also, the Crusaders smothered their own name in mud when they pillaged, raped and burned their way through the "holy route" to "do good." This show of atrocities dampened, to say the least, the relations between them and the Middle East (and other societies as well) and furthered their idea of superiority. Like we discussed in the first class, each culture is thinks that it itself is superior to all other culture. China is named the "Middle Kingdom" and almost every country drew its eary maps centered around itself. Likewise, the Crusaders believed that their culture was superior too, therefore giving them the right to "help" the less fortunate and become the world police. This thought carries on into modern society and is the fuel for much of the conflict going around in the world today. Take the War in Iraq for example: who gave us the right to barge into someone else's home and claim that we are there for "their own good?"
One question I had was whether or not just one thing could be blamed for the downfall of Genoa. Most things happen as a result of one key event that led to a domino effect. Was Genoa just a victim of unlucky events that happened too quickly for it to react or catch up, or was there really one event that triggered it all and brought a once- powerful maritime trading center to the ground?
~Helena Li
I find the question of "superiority" very interesting. The Middle East, trading silks and spices and other assortments of rare materials, looked down upon the European Trade which consisted mainly of furs and things that the Middle East thought was less significant. Also, the Crusaders smothered their own name in mud when they pillaged, raped and burned their way through the "holy route" to "do good." This show of atrocities dampened, to say the least, the relations between them and the Middle East (and other societies as well) and furthered their idea of superiority. Like we discussed in the first class, each culture is thinks that it itself is superior to all other culture. China is named the "Middle Kingdom" and almost every country drew its eary maps centered around itself. Likewise, the Crusaders believed that their culture was superior too, therefore giving them the right to "help" the less fortunate and become the world police. This thought carries on into modern society and is the fuel for much of the conflict going around in the world today. Take the War in Iraq for example: who gave us the right to barge into someone else's home and claim that we are there for "their own good?"
One question I had was whether or not just one thing could be blamed for the downfall of Genoa. Most things happen as a result of one key event that led to a domino effect. Was Genoa just a victim of unlucky events that happened too quickly for it to react or catch up, or was there really one event that triggered it all and brought a once- powerful maritime trading center to the ground?
~Helena Li
Venica and Genoa
In our discussion in class we were asked if the Muslims found themselves more superior to that of the Westerners. How Abu-Lughod described the accounts of the Crusaders' hostile take overs would suggest that, yes the Muslims did see themselves as superior and had much of a right too. The Muslims had the luxuries to trade with the Westerners, but the Westerners did not have anything that the Muslims wanted in return. Not only would the Muslims see themselves as a more important area for the activity of trade, but the hostile take overs would suggest that the Westerners were only outlandish, brutes that were uncooth compared to the Muslim society; the cannibalistic qualities portrayed by the Crusaders did not help their machoism tendencies. We see this type of behavior in our society today- while there are those people who may be strong and demoralizing, it is the citizens of the population who are contributing to the globalization of society that will succedd, in return have a reason to look down upon those Crusaders. However, the take of the cities did in fact lead the trading of Europe in an onward direction.
Another question that was discussed is that of the papal injunction against trade with the "infidels" (Muslims). By placing a prohibition on certain items, it makes them seem more desirable to those who have lived years before with these "necessities." While, the idea of prohibition against the Muslims' trade was understandable at the time, it was already uncertain to work due to the luxuries the Westerners had already been enjoying prior to the injunction. I suppose the prohibitioners of the 1920s did not do their research and learn from the history that was set before them.
Another theme that I would like to touch upon would be the question of what a better strategy- to be the trade center or the industrial center; it depends on how you interpret the situation that you will come about with an answer. Being the trade center allows for more interaction with the countries around you, therefore culturally diversifing yourself with those who have come to trade. Being the industrial center, you already have the means of trade therefore am not obligated to running out of those means or lacking the ability to produce more. I think each center has its own attribute to the whole trade process and are both equally important. Most coincidentally, I have been reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and have come across a very interesting fact of trade that Smith had published: Why both the trade center and the industrial center are both important is because both benefit each other. The example that Smith uses is that suppose an expert bow maker (remember the time this was written) makes his bows and exchanges (or trades) his creations for venice or cattle. He then realizes that it is easier for him to create a good that he knows he can produce well in exchange for something he needs (cattle) instead of making that need himself (i.e. hunting venice and cattle on his own). This concept goes vice versa with the cattle herders who raise cattle and the hunters who shoot deer, they need means of weapons, but can not produce the means themselves.
Another question that was discussed is that of the papal injunction against trade with the "infidels" (Muslims). By placing a prohibition on certain items, it makes them seem more desirable to those who have lived years before with these "necessities." While, the idea of prohibition against the Muslims' trade was understandable at the time, it was already uncertain to work due to the luxuries the Westerners had already been enjoying prior to the injunction. I suppose the prohibitioners of the 1920s did not do their research and learn from the history that was set before them.
Another theme that I would like to touch upon would be the question of what a better strategy- to be the trade center or the industrial center; it depends on how you interpret the situation that you will come about with an answer. Being the trade center allows for more interaction with the countries around you, therefore culturally diversifing yourself with those who have come to trade. Being the industrial center, you already have the means of trade therefore am not obligated to running out of those means or lacking the ability to produce more. I think each center has its own attribute to the whole trade process and are both equally important. Most coincidentally, I have been reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and have come across a very interesting fact of trade that Smith had published: Why both the trade center and the industrial center are both important is because both benefit each other. The example that Smith uses is that suppose an expert bow maker (remember the time this was written) makes his bows and exchanges (or trades) his creations for venice or cattle. He then realizes that it is easier for him to create a good that he knows he can produce well in exchange for something he needs (cattle) instead of making that need himself (i.e. hunting venice and cattle on his own). This concept goes vice versa with the cattle herders who raise cattle and the hunters who shoot deer, they need means of weapons, but can not produce the means themselves.
Venice vs Genoa
Venice and Genoa became great naval powers over the Mediterranean and each was trying to broaden their power to do business and monopolize the markets for money. Genoa, who had always been a port, was subject to many invasions. She fell during the Second Punic War, was rebuilt, and then destroyed again by the Ostrogoths. Genoa had also been at war with the Muslim states during the 10th century, but by the end of the 11th century, she gained de facto independence from the Eastern Roman Empire. Genoa did not have a very good relationship with the Middle East states and the Muslims looked down upon her. Genoa, a key trader, lost most of her population to the plague that hit.
Venice, who was 'less eager to enter that struggle' (the struggle involving the conquest of Palestine), was considered a new town. Venice gained trade privileges in Byzantine ports, but was still unable to take full advantage of more commercial opportunities. Venice could only offer salt, fish, and timber to trade with. Before the Crusades began, Venice was starting to play an important role in commerce. She broke the blockade of the Norman Kingdom that controlled the lower waters of the Adriatic. Because she came to the rescue of the Byzantine fleet, she was granted full trading privileges and exemptions from tolls.
Despite the main focus on Venice and Genoa during the past readings, I found the mid-century depression more interesting. An economic collapse followed the plague. The collapse of the economy started with the decline in crops. Also, pulic debt of city-states increased and could not be turned around. Both Venice and Genoa suffered a population loss, but one indicator was the physical changes in the port facilities (Venice's work on waterfront). The second indicator was the declining size of the convoys of merchant galleys leaving the Venetian port. The numbers of these galleys significantly dropped, which led to the collapse.
Overall, this section of the book we were instructed to read was boring and repetitive to me. I did not find it as interesting as last weeks reading. I started to confuse Venice and Genoa and I found myself having to keep going back so I knew which area Abu-Lughod was talking about.
Before European Hegemony 2
The Italian port cities of Venice and Genoa were key places in the international trade organization. These two cities from the start of the Crusades were rivals, always trying to gain the upper hand on eastern trade. The crusades divdided the citites at one point with Genoa willing to answer the call of the Pope and recapture Palestine and Jerusalem while Venice, already having favorable relations with much of the Middle East was a little more reluctant to cause disturbances. However once the Europeans had control in the region Venice then decided to step up and help out. Both Genoa and Venice given parts of the territory and even more favorabletrade conditions. Later on however, once the Middle Easterners reclaimed their territories a new plan was formed. Venice went against the plan and instead captured the finest trade city in the world, Constantinople, however as the divided up the city they purposefully left out Genoa. These new territories would make European trade increase because some Europeans now lived in the Middle East and they wanted European goods. The cities of Venice and Genoa also had differenced in terms of capitalism. Venice as a newer city relied on government investment while Genoa had more individual investment. Up until the Bubonic plague Vencice and Genoa were key trading cities in Europe however both lost over half of their population to the Bubonic plauge resulting in the loss of trade. After the craze Venice and Genoa subsided the middle east was focused on. According to Abu-Lugod there were three routes to the east; the middle, north, and south route. These three land routes were used to gain access into the Orient. These routes characterized the middle eastern trade options during the thirteenth and fourteenth century. As most items are in this book, these trade routes were connected and eventually they disappeared as well.
What I found to be intersting so far in the novel is how most of Europe had to use force and the capturing of other territories in order for trade to progress with the Middle East. Up until around the thirteenth century trade mainly focused on the Orient and the Middle East. After the Crusade battles of course the Middle East would not want to trade extensively with the Europeans. The Europeans stole their cities, burned down their houses, and murdered innocent people. Trade between the two regions really took off once Europe had captured cities in the Middle East and could foster trade between the two regions themselves. Had the Crusades never happened I wonder how the history of world trade wiuld have progressed. Would Europe ever have become the global system remaining today.
Still relating to the theme above I wonder if Europe ever wold have become as dominatn without the Crusade wars. Although other factors led to European trading like the fall of the Orient trading empire, and geographic routes and political ties changing, would Europe have become such a success without first establishing a large trade market themselves. I think Europe might not be as dominant today had they not fostered a larger trade volume with the Middle East themselves. Had Europe never gotten a foothold on that part of the world, even for a little bit I am not sure if the Middle East ever wiuld have taken the initative to start more heavily trading with Europe themselves. I also wonder if other parties, including Genoa had never recaptured Constantinople would Venice have declined so drastically in such a short period of time. My opinion would be yes because even if Constantinople remained in Venice hand the Bubonic plague decimated the city as well. Even more Venicians would have died leading to their port city still losing power.
What I found to be intersting so far in the novel is how most of Europe had to use force and the capturing of other territories in order for trade to progress with the Middle East. Up until around the thirteenth century trade mainly focused on the Orient and the Middle East. After the Crusade battles of course the Middle East would not want to trade extensively with the Europeans. The Europeans stole their cities, burned down their houses, and murdered innocent people. Trade between the two regions really took off once Europe had captured cities in the Middle East and could foster trade between the two regions themselves. Had the Crusades never happened I wonder how the history of world trade wiuld have progressed. Would Europe ever have become the global system remaining today.
Still relating to the theme above I wonder if Europe ever wold have become as dominatn without the Crusade wars. Although other factors led to European trading like the fall of the Orient trading empire, and geographic routes and political ties changing, would Europe have become such a success without first establishing a large trade market themselves. I think Europe might not be as dominant today had they not fostered a larger trade volume with the Middle East themselves. Had Europe never gotten a foothold on that part of the world, even for a little bit I am not sure if the Middle East ever wiuld have taken the initative to start more heavily trading with Europe themselves. I also wonder if other parties, including Genoa had never recaptured Constantinople would Venice have declined so drastically in such a short period of time. My opinion would be yes because even if Constantinople remained in Venice hand the Bubonic plague decimated the city as well. Even more Venicians would have died leading to their port city still losing power.
Venice and Genoa
Abu-Lughod depicts Venice and Genoa as rather significant elements of European involvement in the world system very clearly. She goes into detail about the effect of the Crusades, colonial expansion along with technology at sea, and capitalism, all resulting in some changes in trade. Genoa gained de facto independence from the Roman Empire at the end of the eleventh century, and Venice already had a more active role in commerce even before the Crusades. During the Crusades, Europeans sought out Muslim land and wealth, although the interest was not reciprocated. There was a revival of the Champagne fairs, which enhanced demand for eastern goods, and Genoa began to move beyond the Islamic façade into Asia and Africa. Throughout colonial expansion, Italians demonstrated success often times by plundered weaker vessels, and when Venice added on Constantinople, Genoese competition was quickly displaced. In the thirteenth century there is substantial Venetian efflorescence in culture, politics, industry, and business. Then, both Venice and Genoa develop ship size, ship maneuverability, and navigation technique significantly.
Some of the most enticing ideas that Abu-Lughod presents involve the idea of merchant capitalism. Venice had state capitalism with a strong subcomponent of individual enterprise on one hand, and on the other, Genoa had individual citizens more involved in the state. Both already possessed an institution of public debt in order to fund infrastructure and defense. There was also a significant amount of family businesses where brothers worked as partners, and there were also commendas and colleganzas at this time. It is rather surprising that the idea of distributing risk and pooling capital was already so well developed. Also, that documentation of contracts and other various records were becoming more and more common, and the Genoese institution was similar to that of a joint stock company.
In the early fourteenth century, there is already a world system that is a large part capitalist. Genoa is connected to both Bruges and the Black Sea, and Venice has its own strong trade routes with Antwerp and Egypt, yet these well-developed systems face a mid-century economic depression. Why was Genoa unable to recover after the Black Death and naval defeat by Venice (1378-1384)? Abu-Lughod suggests that the inability of mariner states to determine what would occur in regions beyond there control may be a reason for some of their struggle. She described how Venice and Italy were very important in the origins of European trade, but it is difficult to understand how they led to European hegemony if they faced such great struggle. There is lack of transition between the role of the Italian mariner states in the world system, and the basis for European success through northern, middle, and southern routes, moving right along to the Mongols.
Time to Adapt
As the demand for fresh soldiers to the front lines of the Crusades increased, the demand for naval power as well as economical approaches by the state also began to amplify. To this point, Abu-Lughod states, that most ships were the property of private, wealthy ship building families. But, it was the building of the Venice Arsenal in 1104 which first signified the influence of the state on the production of naval vessels. Italian port states built larger, more equipped vessels, for both trade and protection. Improvements were not only limited to innovations in fabrication, but also to economic and social techniques by Italian states. This resulted in an exponential growth in trade. With the states needing protection for transports, merchant marines served as the crew of merchant trade vessels as well as a naval force. This and the caravans used to transport goods allowed for greater economic expansion with the insurance that cargo would reach destinations, and not be lost to opposing vessels.
Something I that caught my attention in this section was the several types of vessels the Italians used during this naval expansion. One was the galley, which served as a warship and was powered by crew of oarsmen. Next was the sailing ship, which was used for long distance transport and was powered by four to six lateen sails. Finally, there was the tarida, which was the largest of the three was powered by both oarsmen and sails. I compare these early vessels to twentieth century battleships, troop transports and aircraft carriers. I also found interest in that once the demand for these vessels in a war time manner was through; the state converted them into transport ships to expand trade. Many of the converted Genoese vessels were able to carry a payload of 600 tons, which for the thirteenth century was remarkable. In comparison, they matched capacities of sixteenth century vessels.
Since these caravans consisted of anywhere from ten to twenty smaller vessels which were also accompanied by either several galleys or two huge cogs, do you think the success of merchant shipping by the Italian port states was due more to the fighting and sailing ability of the merchant marines or a case of “strength in numbers” dealing with convoys?
Dan Loheyde
Something I that caught my attention in this section was the several types of vessels the Italians used during this naval expansion. One was the galley, which served as a warship and was powered by crew of oarsmen. Next was the sailing ship, which was used for long distance transport and was powered by four to six lateen sails. Finally, there was the tarida, which was the largest of the three was powered by both oarsmen and sails. I compare these early vessels to twentieth century battleships, troop transports and aircraft carriers. I also found interest in that once the demand for these vessels in a war time manner was through; the state converted them into transport ships to expand trade. Many of the converted Genoese vessels were able to carry a payload of 600 tons, which for the thirteenth century was remarkable. In comparison, they matched capacities of sixteenth century vessels.
Since these caravans consisted of anywhere from ten to twenty smaller vessels which were also accompanied by either several galleys or two huge cogs, do you think the success of merchant shipping by the Italian port states was due more to the fighting and sailing ability of the merchant marines or a case of “strength in numbers” dealing with convoys?
Dan Loheyde
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Hegemony and Historical Necessity
In the first part of her book, Before European Hegemony, Janet L. Abu-Lughod discusses the lack of an inherent historical necessity to create a European hegemony. She also argues that there were no historical necessities that would have prevented a Middle Eastern, or Eastern society from becoming the “progenitors of a world system.” These concepts are examined through the economic and political systems of the “Pax Mongolica” system of the fourteenth century. This system displays an unprecedented global “golden age” of wealth and surplus production, resulting in extensive international trade and presented what Abu-Lughod describes as a “fulcrum of history” in which any of the major regions could have gained hegemony. Abu-Lughod carefully examines the international trade, focusing on the major cities, (i.e. Troyes, Bruges and Ghent) and the foundation and decline of periodic markets.
Personally, this reading presented a lot of unfamiliar history. My experience with Asian and Middle Eastern medieval history is extremely limited, and Abu-Lughod’s thesis presents a new look at European dominance. I had known that Europe gained many technological advances from Muslim and Asian interactions, but I had not realized the extent to which Europe was behind in international trade. I believed that Europe founded the medieval international trade system, rather than entering a pre-established economic network. The sophistication of currency exchange and the credit lines of Asian and Middle Eastern merchants both surprised and impressed me. The reading definitely altered my understanding of Europe before Western global dominance.
One unclear concept is Abu-Lughod’s definition of an “inherent historical necessity.” Europe and the West obviously came to dominate the global system while Asia and the Middle East fell into the periphery. Abu-Lughod presents the disintegration of trade routes within the Mongol empire, and the Black Death as reasons for their decline, but these are not "inherent historical necessities." So I ask, what would a “historical necessity” for decline or hegemony be?
Colleen Moroney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)