Between 1500 and 1800, Europeans acquired significant power over numerous other parts of the world: the Americas, large parts of India, and smaller areas of east Asia came under their direct control, and they established trading stations in Africa and other parts of Asia. The key question is, how did this happen? What forces underlay European imperial successes? This week's assignments in Parker and de Vries are meant to supply some answers.
The large question of European success can be subdivided into some smaller ones. First, what impelled the Europeans to undertake such difficult, expensive ventures? Why were they willing to undertake the enormous risks that long-distance exploration and commerce posed? And why were the successful when they got to these far-off places? Why were they able to defeat long-established and powerful empires?
Parker of course is especially concerned with this last question: he asks what Europe's military revolution meant for its struggles with other societies, in the Americas and in Asia. What answers does he come up with? He's particularly interested in the capacity of other societies to adapt to European military techniques; consider the examples that he gives of both successes and failures in resisting European intrusions.
Finally, consider what de Vries has to say about the profitability of international trade during the seventeenth century. How did Dutch trade with the East Indies compare in this respect with its trade in the Baltic region of Europe?
Keep in mind what's in the background of these discussions. It's the question of imperialism's contribution to Europe's eventual industrial revolution and economic take-off: did Europe become rich through its exploitation of other continents and their peoples? Or did European wealth come mainly from internal developments, in social relations and technological innovations? Put somewhat differently: is imperialism an essential or an incidental part of the European story?
