[pratik661]

Rights to privately acquire land, create corporations, and sell across markets were extant across different civilizations throughout history.

The Chola merchant guilds had formalized corporate structures that dissipated the risk of long voyages 2000 years ago. Seeing that the Romans traded with the Cholas, the Romans probably had corporate structures too.

Humans have been living in complex societies since the Bronze Age. It’s difficult to run a complex society without some sort of bureaucratic organization.

[nine_k]

The problem is that (early) Medieval Europe has lost much of that.

Romans built blocks of dwelling houses 5-6 stories high, houses with central heating, and running water delivered to their cities (and wealthier homes) by systems of aqueducts and pipes, etc. These are things that we associate with 19th or even 20th century in large parts of Europe.

Sadly, their social institutions, even as famous as the republic, were also not practiced and even forgotten for long centuries. Much of the Enlightenment was fueled by re-reading and re-understanding of classic Greek and Roman works, which felt fresh and mind-expanding at the time.

[mullingitover]

> Sadly, their social institutions, even as famous as the republic, were also not practiced and even forgotten for long centuries.

I mean, the main social institutions that underpinned all the others in Rome were massive human trafficking and looting operations. The enlightened Greeks weren't any better.

My personal guess is that we would've had the industrial revolution thousands of years earlier if these groups we like to glorify in our history books would've laid off the enslaving, murder, and robbery.

[halJordan]

Its hurts that people like you are here solely to make others throw out the baby with the bathwater. MLK JR was a baptist. Do i have to hate him because of the baptists' pro-life stance? JKF was a kennedy; do i have to hate the civil rights act because of his illgotten wealth?

[mullingitover]

On the one hand, you have a family that smuggled alcohol and a person who has religious views I don't hold. On the other hand you have people who, as a civilization, committed unapologetic genocide, rape, robbery, and founded their economic system on human trafficking . Personally I don't see how these are remotely comparable.

I'm not saying the Greeks and Romans didn't have any merits at all. Can we learn some things from them? Sure. Do we have to call them 'great,' and aspire to be like them? Absolutely not.

[hodgesrm]

I would not undersell the late middle ages. It was a complex society with sophisticated economics and social structures. Just to pick one example European warfare was highly organized by the late 1400s and enabled them to found huge empires overseas.

[nine_k]

Late middle ages / early Enlightenment, say, 14-15 centuries, were very cool in their special way, with very complex social structures. ThInge like the Hanseatic league, the great geographical discoveries and conquests, the beginning of modern science, the flourishing of arts — this all required highly advanced society, compared to, say, what Charlemagne or (imaginary) king Arthur would have.

[inglor_cz]

The very concept of "the Middle Ages" in Europe tends to muddle our thinking.

Life in 700 AD was completely different from life in 1400 AD. Cities, population density, building styles, international trade, weapons and warfare, agricultural methods, secular institutions - almost nothing stayed the same.

People tend to even forget that the official definition of "the Middle Ages" stretches back into the Dark Age, where kings were more like chieftains, castles basically unknown, even most of the clergy struggled to read and write, and a typical member of the elite warrior class looked nothing like a stereotypical knight.

[Symmetry]

I'm not familiar with the Chola but one problem the Arab world had during this period was their equivalents of corporations dissolved upon the death of any of the principals. For a trade expedition that might last a year or two this is a perfectly sensible arrangement. But not for large mills or foundries requiring multiple principals to build and run and which might last decades and which can't be easily divided.

[missedthecue]

Another one is that ancient Mediterranean traders used what were essentially futures contracts to trade wheat and other grains.

[pratik661]

We tend to underestimate how complex even pre Bronze Age kingdoms were. To rule them, our ancestors came up with an intricate way to let different combinations of symbols represent abstract thoughts.

[Crespyl]

> an intricate way to let different combinations of symbols represent abstract thoughts

I seem to find that this is still the best way to communicate.

[int_19h]

So long as we keep updating the symbols from time to time, such that that they don't deviate too much from other means of communications.

[Crespyl]

Symbols are always lossy, they cannot be relied on even in the best case. I think what matters are the games we play with them.

[legitster]

I largely agree with this.

But I still think there was something unique about the legal entitlements in 17th century England that didn't really exist in previous eras. Previous versions of complex structures were still family oriented, or had to put up with local power brokers, or were a fiefdom unto themselves.

Like, you didn't see James Watt build a fort and hire goons to protect his assets. But that would have been a completely normal requirement of establishing an organization in the Roman world.

[eesmith]

I'm having a really hard time understanding your observation, or how to apply it.

What was unique about legal entitlements 1600s England that wasn't in, say, 1600s Netherlands?

Like, why doesn't the Dutch East India Company count?

Or quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Mine#Free_miners :

> The organizational structure of Falun Mine created under the 1347 charter was advanced for its time. Free miners owned shares of the operation, proportional to their ownership of copper smelters. The structure was precursor to modern joint stock companies, and Stora Enso, the modern successor to the old mining company, is often referred to as the oldest joint stock company still operational in the world.[2]

[legitster]

I'm largely thinking about why the Industrial Revolution couldn't be cooked up during, like, the Roman period despite there being many places with a similar set of ingredients.

My point isn't that England was first or best at these things, but the chronology of these things coming first was essential for the puzzle pieces coming together.

[eesmith]

You're walking very close to the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

English is an unusual European language using "did" to express some negatives, like "I didn't want it" instead of "I want it not", and with a relatively insignificant gender system in the grammar.

Maybe that was part of the puzzle.

Or perhaps Anglicanism was part of the puzzle.

Or the wealth from colonial exploitation and slavery that was used to fund these projects.

For that matter, when Watt developed his steam engine, Scottish "colliers and salters [were] in a state of slavery and bondage" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Slavery_and... , so there's another puzzle piece. That surely seems like part of the legal entitlements you refer to, albeit in Scotland instead of England.

Or, as English people 150 years ago argued, the natural superiority of the Anglo-Saxon and Scottish races -- a puzzle piece that biology has conclusively shown does not exist.

How do you know which puzzle piece is relevant enough to the puzzle, vs. a happenstance?