Because the mob would have a hell of a time controlling both and what they couldn't control they would squeeze out. There's a reason people like Pablo Escobar never branched out into the heroin trade, for example, and it wasn't lack of resources
Not necessarily. I was thinking of the French revolution as an example. They went really hard on the anti religious stuff (cult of reason, etc.). There's no fundamental reason it couldn't happen in the American revolution, you just need the right atmosphere.
If Alcohol was still the narcotic de'jure, and prohibition spread (there were temperance movements all over northern Europe and Canada) it might save some developing countries like Colombia from the devastation of the coca trade.
Another interesting question that comes from my reasearch into...
Maybe you could have a more radical revolution with guys like Thomas Paine becoming more influential, making a bigger, harder push toward secularism, prompting a wagon circling among the religious types. Kind of like the religious reaction to progressivism in the 1970s and 1980s.
Consistency is the first casualty of any political dispute. No revolution that has overthrown a government has ever turned around and said "welp, I guess we have to let everyone else revolt now for fear of being called hypocrites". In this particular case, just look at Virginia. The unionists...
It would appear that I was wrong, Japan's coal resources aren't as accessible as I thought so it's unlikely to progress. Southern Song is out because southern China has little coal as well, same for SE Asia. Egypt also has a coal problem as well as a population surplus dating back to antiquity...
Japan was very advanced and didn't have a massive labor surplus. As was Korea (I think? Anyone know their 18th century demographics?) They also have the resources. They would need the incentive though. Maybe an expansionist Qing?
Apparently Indonesia has some decent resources too.
Capturing Al-Qaeda's leaders was pretty low priority for the Bush Administration as evidenced by the missed multiple opportunities to apprehend said leaders (tora bora, taliban offers). The real project was neo-conservative nation building. This deal carries minimal upside for them... which is...
I feel like many of the Frankish kingdoms, from the Merovingians on down, could have done a good job of keeping Europe unified if they hadn't insisted on dividing their kingdoms between their heirs.
That rarely happened in the medieval period. When it did it was facilitated by trade and along trade routes. There would need to be something worth going all the way to Vinland to trade regularly.
Also, writing would help a lot and what little Norse writing there is didn't happen until the 13th...
Could the French start an earlier Maginot line to mitigate the expense or would it just make things worse?
Alternatively, how much were they spending on the navy? Surely this could be reduced considering the nature of their enemies and allies.