Chapter 6 A Late-Eighteenth Century Transition
- An important series of claims urged attention to the mid 18th century as
another turning point in its own right, often instead of 1500.
- The “short history” of globalization by Osterhammela and Petersson, note the
emergence of a global colonial conflict in the 18th century: The Seven Years
War pitted Britain and France in battles not only in and around Europe but
also in North America, the Caribbean and India. The war would end with
enhanced British power in India. British global capacity began to increase
overall, but it did not necessarily change fundamental global dynamics.
- The late 18th century also saw growing unrest in the Atlantic world, meaning
colonial struggles in North America, Haiti and soon Latin America as well.
- Also the Industrial Revolution began in the later 18th century.
- But it is not clear whether these events decisively reshaped preliminary
globalization at this point.
- Historian C.A. Bayly argues that the later 18th century opened a decisive gap
between archaic globalization and the modern version. Developments from
the Silk Roads through the intensification of the trans-regional network,
constituted a definite form of globalization, bringing serious contacts and
consequences to the societies involved, which is an interesting claim in its
own right. He also argues that this process constituted a system different from
what globalization would come to involve later on.
- Archaic globalization emphasized luxury goods for rulers and elites, as part of
a tribute system; these products enhanced the status of the ruling class.
Archaic globalization was often disrupted by nomadic invasions, forcing
alterations in trade routes. Trade itself depended heavily on family and
religious relationships. Bayly highlights the extent to which these patterns
persisted, for at least two centuries after 1500.
- According to Bayly, two developments sponsored by West
Europeans and particularly the British, fundamentally altered the
situation around 1750. First, governments became more powerful
and effective, in Europe, but also elsewhere. → greater control over
nomadic incursions and other disruptions of trade, such as piracy. →
Trade and transportation became more reliable. Second, the
emergence of larger capitalist enterprises, great trading companies
but also slave plantations in the Caribbean, which increasingly
replaced the more personalized, religiously based linkst that had
sustained trans-regional commerce previously. New operations were
more profit-driven and they increased the size of investments in
interregional trade and production for this trade, and were willing to
introduce huge changes in labor systems to drive production up.
They also provided more impersonal management techniques
capable of operating over large distances without the need for
personal connections. → Most dynamic international companies
were ready by the mid-18th century to push global trade to
unprecedented levels.
- The key question with these notions is, whether most of these changes had
not already been set in motion by the transformations after 1500.
Developments around 1750 were perhaps moving toward a next break, but it
- An important series of claims urged attention to the mid 18th century as
another turning point in its own right, often instead of 1500.
- The “short history” of globalization by Osterhammela and Petersson, note the
emergence of a global colonial conflict in the 18th century: The Seven Years
War pitted Britain and France in battles not only in and around Europe but
also in North America, the Caribbean and India. The war would end with
enhanced British power in India. British global capacity began to increase
overall, but it did not necessarily change fundamental global dynamics.
- The late 18th century also saw growing unrest in the Atlantic world, meaning
colonial struggles in North America, Haiti and soon Latin America as well.
- Also the Industrial Revolution began in the later 18th century.
- But it is not clear whether these events decisively reshaped preliminary
globalization at this point.
- Historian C.A. Bayly argues that the later 18th century opened a decisive gap
between archaic globalization and the modern version. Developments from
the Silk Roads through the intensification of the trans-regional network,
constituted a definite form of globalization, bringing serious contacts and
consequences to the societies involved, which is an interesting claim in its
own right. He also argues that this process constituted a system different from
what globalization would come to involve later on.
- Archaic globalization emphasized luxury goods for rulers and elites, as part of
a tribute system; these products enhanced the status of the ruling class.
Archaic globalization was often disrupted by nomadic invasions, forcing
alterations in trade routes. Trade itself depended heavily on family and
religious relationships. Bayly highlights the extent to which these patterns
persisted, for at least two centuries after 1500.
- According to Bayly, two developments sponsored by West
Europeans and particularly the British, fundamentally altered the
situation around 1750. First, governments became more powerful
and effective, in Europe, but also elsewhere. → greater control over
nomadic incursions and other disruptions of trade, such as piracy. →
Trade and transportation became more reliable. Second, the
emergence of larger capitalist enterprises, great trading companies
but also slave plantations in the Caribbean, which increasingly
replaced the more personalized, religiously based linkst that had
sustained trans-regional commerce previously. New operations were
more profit-driven and they increased the size of investments in
interregional trade and production for this trade, and were willing to
introduce huge changes in labor systems to drive production up.
They also provided more impersonal management techniques
capable of operating over large distances without the need for
personal connections. → Most dynamic international companies
were ready by the mid-18th century to push global trade to
unprecedented levels.
- The key question with these notions is, whether most of these changes had
not already been set in motion by the transformations after 1500.
Developments around 1750 were perhaps moving toward a next break, but it
