A thing I often wonder when browsing “Rome (or any other large empire, really) Survives” threads is that surviving large empires might breed more stagnation in society compared to more Balkanized areas that are constantly in competition with each other (read: war). I have to wonder though: is that really true? A example given is Qing-Era China, though it must be noted that, in that society, the merchant class was heavily looked down upon. Commercial competition breeds just as much innovation as military competition does, if not more so, and so I am wondering, could commercial competition breed innovation and stave off stagnation in any other large, peaceful empire, or would such commercial competition even be present due to the nature of such empires?
To What Extent is the “Competition Breeds Innovation” Argument True?
- Thread starter atlatlman
- Start date
Competition can produce innovation, but the mere existence of competition does not produce innovation, in my understanding. You need there to be an environment where doing something new is more rewarding than doing the same old thing but better/acquiring a monopoly on that thing.
It's not inevitable - but places like Rome (not so much the "large empire" as how society worked internally) in my understanding tended to favor acquiring a monopoly over innovating as far as profits.
It's not inevitable - but places like Rome (not so much the "large empire" as how society worked internally) in my understanding tended to favor acquiring a monopoly over innovating as far as profits.
Military competition can often strangle innovation, whether because of resources that would have been spent on developing new technology being spent on the military instead, or because in unstable times long-term planning is less attractive (no point experimenting with a new crop if your field are going to get burnt by a marauding army before your results are in).
I think the real main reason why medieval and early modern Europe innovated more was some mixture of (a) trade and manufacture was less stigmatised than in some other societies (e.g., the Sinosphere, where international trade was carried out under the guise of "tribute missions" because openly trading with other countries was beneath the Empire's dignity), (b) labour shortages incentivising the development of more efficient manufacturing techniques, and (c) a relatively robust system of property rights.
On the other hand, you have the Warring States era in China which saw a lot of innovation in not just military fields and was also famous for its philosophers and scholars.
Overall it's better to say military competition directs technology down a particular path, like how massive government investment got us nuclear bombs quite a while before nuclear reactors for civilian use, or all the surplus military aircraft and the pilots who flew them massively expanding the airline industry after WW2, rocketry, computers, etc. There's probably a safe spot where nations feel they have room to experiment (i.e. their elite feel they aren't in imminent peril from invasion) and where it's believed they must do so lest the enemy devise some new weapon or strategy that undermines them.
Ideas that are forbidden in one country can be less easier suppressed, if books can be printed in a near country and smuggled in. The Dutch Republic and Switzerland were major book distributors for the enlightenment. This is also how earlier the ideas of Descartes could spread out, to become the major point of discussion in Europe. Although i know much less about Chinese thought, It doesn't really surprise me that the warring states period had such a diversity of thought.
It depends on mind set as well. If you think everything is the God(s) will then you may just keep doing the same thing rather than experiment. Its one of the reasons given for the change in Europe during the late Medieval, the Protestant's challenging of everything brought about the use of scientific method. Its why China stagnated at times, it got over regimented with everyone knowing the correct way of doing things so not trying to change.
This is my best hypothesis for what made Europe so successful. The small states were incentivized to venture out to compete. Of course this doesn't preclude the Guns and Steel part, but that was present in other civilizations too.
It saw a lot of philosophical innovation, certainly, though AFAIK it didn't see as much technological innovation. (Though I could very well be wrong about that -- I'm not an expert on the period.)
Yes, but only in specific scenarios.
Innovation requires two things: motivation and material resources to be able to dedicate to innovation. Naturally, the existence of a competitor creates that motivation to innovate lest one falls behind their competition, but the state also needs to be stable enough to either directly or indirectly support innovation. As such, the competition needs to limited in scale enough that states are able to have the luxury of being able to spend money on long-term investments like research, researchers, and the adoption of new technologies.
As you point out, Qing China is an example of a state with the resources but without the motivation to innovate (in broad strokes; post-Taiping Qing lack both material and political capital to effectively reform and an argument could be made that the Manchu rulers didn't have the political capital with the Han to push for innovation or reform).
To contrast, there are also examples of states with the motivation but without the resources for innovation. The Sassanids for instance had been engaging in protracted warfare for centuries against the Byzantines that had weakened their empire and caused stagnation that eventually lead to their rapid downfall at the hands of the Rashidun Caliphate.
I believe Native North America was in a similar situation, where the 13th-14th century climate optimums caused instability that resulted in military developments such as longbows, improved armor, and advanced fortifications, but it also weakened and led to the collapse of societies like Cahokia, obviously reducing the Native American capability to innovate and adapt right before the European discovery of the Americas.
In this regard, Europe had an advantage in both having significant competition, but also being in a stable enough equilibrium where states had the relative freedom to innovate instead of merely worrying about their survival this year and reliable communication could still occur between states to form the likes of the Republic of Letters (for the most part, but even devastating wars like the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars still had major belligerents effectively be untouched by conflict).
Off the top of my head, the Warring States saw the development of polearms and pikes, mass adoption of crossbows, the transition away from chariots to horse-riders, traction trebuchets/mangonels, the rise of large-scale infrastructure projects, and the final steps of the transition from bronzeworking to ironworking.
Edit: Also, continuous interstate competition/warfare also results in the development of an advanced commercial class, since states need to finance their wars somehow.
Last edited:
Is it possible to have too much competition? So much competition, that it just ends up into a state of eternal war where nothing can get done?
That's also common result of eras of feudal anarchy or areas suddenly divided into many states due to a power vacuum. For instance, the beylik period in Anatolia wasn't really an era of much innovation (although yes, there were new Turkish architectural styles and there was Byzantine influence on Ottoman military organisation and governance). You do have counter-examples like Sengoku era Japan where many daimyo were fairly innovative in terms of administration and borrowing foreign influences, but a lot of that is because the less successful daimyo were eliminated or reduced to mere vassals as the period progressed.
Mohist argumenrtation and despite being pacifists siegecraft canons
Uh... No. The Middle Ages saw a much higher level of innovation than seen under the Romans, such as advances in seafaring, cartography, lenses, mills, agriculture, metallurgy, etc. Take one look at portolan charts and tell me the Middle Ages did not see real progress and experimentation. While general life only changed slowly across multiple generations, that is true of the modern age up until about 200 years ago.
Last edited:
I'm not saying that medieval Europe wasn't innovative, or even that they weren't more innovative than the Romans. However, the Romans innovated quite a lot; look at their watermills, or water powered saws, or their quite extensive use of hydraulics in mining, or their agricultural improvements, or the improvements in glassblowing during the 1st century, or Greek fire, or any number of novelties produced during the imperial era. The ancient world was hardly stagnant.
Perhaps, but it should be remembered that in any case between Rome and Persia, there were also important periods of peace, so it was not always an eternal conflict, rather a constant stalemate situation, in reality I am of the opinion that if Rome had found itself having to coexist with a similar entity along the Rhine-Danubian limes, then the chances of surviving would have been greater than Otl ( also because with a "centralized" state, in addition to waging war ( which can be quickly resolved by taking its capital ), you can also easily communicate and trade there ) unlike Otl where the empire had to deal with various independent entities all more than capable of competing almost on equal terms with it, it is therefore more difficult to deal with, therefore certainly for Rome, the the formation of a possible Germanic rival would not be the preferred scenario, but in the long run the most ideal one, because it could also bring greater benefits ( which balance the risks ) without forgetting that a state that develops Germany, in the event of conquest, would facilitate Roman control of the region, because the Empire would not be forced to build an administrative system from scratch but rather would co-opt the pre-existing one, as well as acting as a useful buffer in case of invasions coming from the steppes, as with the Otl Huns
I'm not saying the ancient world was stagnant, merely that the popular conception of "Catholic Christianity set back scientific advancement for centuries" doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Modern technology advanced at only a slightly faster pace than in the Middle Ages, until the Industrial Revolution kicked it into high gear.
Last edited:
I would say that the ancient and medieval worlds advanced at a similar pace, and neither were stagnant. Catholic monasteries were centers of knowledge in medieval Europe, and Catholic Italy was the center of the Renaissance.
above all, the papal court was the greatest patron of Europe, with people of the caliber of Copernicus giving lectures in the Vatican in front of the pontiff himself and the curia, who happily financed his career
While I agree with the large scenario, I think it's important to note that the Sassanids took a lot of innovations in the governance side from Byzantium: that made their Empire a true peer competitor, even able to threaten Constantinople and retake Egypt for a short while, before the sheer wear of literally a generation of warfare took them down.