The industrial revolution of the European empire
The empires of the weak s a short book that is written by Jason, C, Sharman. The book is 150 pages, and it has, in a revisionist type of war, explained the history of imperialism of the western. In his book, Sharman tries to discuss some of the reasons behind the supposed victory of the west and its expansion. The book is a critique to most of the historians that believe that Europe dominated due to advancement in the military technology in 1500. Sharman asserts that it was not until 1750, that Europe got a stand on its own, however before then, it relied on the power of other empires. The book, therefore, is a significant critique of the prevailing modes of thinking on global politics, resulting in more confusion about the politics of the world and the significance of the west.
According to historians and what we as historians have known for long is that the European won the war on world history. However, Sharman does not believe that this is a fact. For him, Europe did not win, and for a fact, its empire fell, and their military capacity was incapable. Sharman argues that during 1500-1800, Europe was nowhere on the map. The victors of the time were the big empires of Asia like the Qing, Ottomans, and Mughals. At the time, the territory was a symbol of power, ad, these empires had mast land.
According to Sharman, the imperialism in which countries like France, the UK, Spain, and some of the countries in Europe came into dominance is not based on their superior military, technology, inherent power that they posed, or the administration behind them. In the book, he argues that the Europeans were in a position to conquer based on their military power. Sharman believes that the reason as to why these nations expanded and won the wars is because of their ability to delicately designate their elites through trade, giving them opportunities to be mercenaries, helping them in their struggles with their enemies. However, if all these approaches failed, then the European countries could bride their neighbors and blocking their ports.
Sharan, therefore, broadly argues that maybe Americans and not Europeans gained military superiority during the 15th century to the late 18th century. The success of the Europeans was merely due to deference and subordination to the Asian and African politics, diseases that were deadly imported by the Americans. Sharman reports that the Europeans did not send their big armies overseas to fight. A however small collection of adventures, private sectors, and expeditionary forces that concentrated on the development of the local allies contributed to the expansion.
In addition to this, the Europeans could not compare with the developments that the Asians were involved in at the time. The empires of the Asians were expanding. By the time Europeans were thinking of imperialism, countries in Asia and china were way economically advanced compared to Europe, as they had guns. In this case, the Europeans countries were sure that they had no chance against the Asians since they could be able to put more powerful forces against them. Therefore the Europeans deferred to the empires of Asian authority. Proper expansion for the Europeans did not take place until after in 1760, when the advent of the industrial revolution swept in. The competition between the Asian and the European empires resulted in Europe winning in their conquest for Africa except for the Christians in Ethiopia. However, the industrial revolution did not take long, and therefore it offered little advantage for the Europeans.
On the contrary to the ideas presented by Sharman, Phillip Hoffman, in what did Europe conquer the world have different opinions. Phillip argues that the innovation speed of the Europeans was facilitated by a form of competition, which he termed as a tournament. A tournament can be defined as a type of game in which given the appropriate conditions, the contesting parties can go to any length to earn the prize of winning. Phillip argues like unlike China and the Ottoman empires (Asian Empire), Europe had no one to hold it together, especially after the fall of the Charlemagne in 814. In this case. Most of the states that have the spirit to struggle for the top position were forced to nurse their competitive injuries, and as a result, they refined their military abilities. Besides, European nations raised their taxes and showered the resources on the armies, navies, and the technology on gun powder.
In my opinion, the book is short, engaging, and well written. The arguments presented by Sharman are concerning the historians and political scientists regarding explaining the expansion of Europe and its dominance between 1500 and 1800. The book looks at the dominance of Europe on the Americans, Africans, and Asians. People over history have concentrated on the military strength of the Europeans to be the backbone of their dominance. Sharman, however, argues against this and reports that the supremacy of the Europeans did not take place until 1790, and military advancements had nothing to do with its dominance. Compared to what historians have reported to us, Sharman believes that expansions of Europe was as a result of diseases, diplomacy, manipulation, blackmail of enemies, and incompetence of the European enemies and not on military supremacy, as many would argue.
There are three aspects to take away from the arguments of Sharman. One is that the expansion of the Europeans between 1500 and 1700 is not through military supremacy, but instead through diplomacy, manipulation. At the time, Europe was so low of war, that they were only able to set up ports through the mercy of powerful empires of the Chinese and Asia. Also, the Europeans had no power compared to the Asians and o9ther empires since then; power was measured in terms of territory, which the Europeans had none. Secondly, there is a lot of variations on how empires should be evaluated. History is selectively concentrated upon. For instance, most historians focus on the rise of the European empire and the fall of the non-European empires but do not pay attention to the fall of the European empires and the success of the non-European empires. History should be holistic, and Sharman thought that lesson well through his book. Finally, Sharman teaches as a biased approach to history can leave people confused and having the wrong ideas. The known logic is that Europe went from glory to glory, which is not the case. History does not teach us on the fallbacks of the empire and its challenges, which makes history confusing for many.
Europe did not have a smooth ride, especially between 1500 and 1700. Sharman helped in informing us of this fact. As many historians discuss how the Europeans expanded as a result of military supremacy, Sharman argues that the empire faced challenges of diseases, incompetent enemies, manipulating, and diplomacy. The industrial revolution was the limelight for the European realm. The book by Sharman is a small book that realistically and comprehensively critiques the military revolution thesis. Sharman tries to discuss some of the reasons behind the supposed victory of the west and its expansion. The book is a critique to most of the historians that believe that Europe dominated due to advancement in the military technology in 1500. Sharman asserts that it was not until 1750, that Europe got a stand on its own, however before then, it relied on the power of other empires. The industrial revolution was the light that enabled the development of the European empire. The book clearly illustrates that Europe did not move from glory to glory, but rather, it had its complications.