Re: Bruges, Antwerp, Ansterdam (was: s-stems in Slavic and Germanic)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "the_black_sheep@..." <mderon@...> wrote:

>
> I realise this doesn't belong to here, so my apologies for this off-top.
>
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> > You are putting the cart before the horse. 'Centre of gravity'
> > in the description of the geographics of economy is a figure of
> > expression; it describes where the production and trade activity
> > is high; it is not a separate force, it doesn't cause anything in
> > itself.
>
> However the fact that a certain area or city is or becomes such a
> centre, while necessitating a pre-existing set of conditions, also
> increases its urbanisation.

Well, a-hem. You seem to fail to remember to take into account the
importancity of the distinction between urbanization and
urbanification, while simultaneously not considering the impact of
urbanizatification. Why is that so, and not vice versa?

> More on Bruges, Antwerp and Ansterdam as cores:
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/25/1883285/B_A_A.txt
> <http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/4/25/1883285/B_A_A.txt>
>
>
> > The reason trade and production moved to the Netherlands from
> > Northern France was the building of a road through the St.
> > Gotthard pass in Switzerland around 1250.
>
> > A road which is open half the year is more important than one
> > which isn't there. I think I read somewhere that Strassburg, as
> > it was then, had a defense alliance with some of the Swiss cities
> > and they held manoeuvres down the Rhine with expeditionary forces.
>
> "The fairs of Champagne served as the first means of selling Flemish
> goods, with northern European trading centres such as Cologne and
> Bruges gaining importance over time.

How and in what fashion does one gain importance over time? I have
always pondered how to attain that. Please do inform me.

> After 1277, direct overseas trade with Genoa and other Italian
> cities meant that the traditional northern fairs became smaller
> centres of local trade.

If I know my Anglo-Saxon literature 'local' means they didn't speak
English, nothing to do with size or importance.

> The replacement of the northern trading fairs by overseas routes
> run largely by Italians affected most mercantile economies of the
> era." (Jotischky - Hull 2005: 78)

I suppose you quote Jotischky and Hull to support your idea that the
Rhine route was not importrant. What data do they have to back that up?

> Instead of meeting "half-way", using land routes which were long,
> expensive and dangerous,

The Po and Rhine rivers are not land routes. Apparently Hay is not
aware they existed on that dark non English speaking continent

> a connection and regular sea route was established, joining Genoa
> and Venice with London and Bruges, and via these ports, with the
> Baltic coast and its hinterland.

What is this crap? There were no Italian merchants in the Baltic. Hay
is talking through his hat.

> Sea transport from Venice to Flanders increased the product cost by
> 2%, or 6% incl. insurance, while the same product became 15-20% more
> expensive if transported overland. (Hay 1988: 324)

Transport cost is based on a combination of the weight and the volume,
not the value of the cargo. Moving a ton of gold a mile costs
approximately the same as moving a ton of grain a mile, but the value
of a ton of gold is vastly different from the value of a ton of grain.
The value of the cargo has nothing to do with the transport price
(except perhaps for security and insurance concerns). Because of that,
high value / low volume goods is less sensitive to transport costs
than low value / high volume goods, which means other factors like
transport time (transport via the Po - Gotthard - Rhine route was
faster and less weather-dependent) might influence the choice of
transport route. Today high value / low volume goods like electronics
is sent by air, but cement isn't. The fact that Hay is not aware of
that fundamental distinction shows he's most probably made up the
numbers himself.

> > Reformation? That was the Spanish who destroyed the Southern
> Netherlands.
>
> Reformation > Counter-Reformation > the Spanish
>

Ah, so the Dutch had it coming?
The reformation was an attempt by Northern Europe to get rid of the
racket which is organized religion. Naturally the Spanish wouldn't
stand for it.

> >> It would seem that the gravity centre shrunk rather than shifted.
>
> > See above why.
>
> ?
>
> The 'why' is actually more complex:
> The proponents of a new history of development, such as Wallerstein
> and Braudel, propose a world-economy based on the idea of a strong
> core zone, a developed middle zone, and an underdeveloped
> periphery.

That's von Thünen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Heinrich_von_Th%C3%BCnen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_theory

> The core shifts from one area to another;

The problem with (your version of?) Wallerstein and Braudel is that
cores move causelessly.

> the system as a whole experiences cycles c. 3 centuries long
> consisting of the phase of growth/expansion and the phase of
> stagnation/contraction. (They differ in that Wallerstein assumes
> core areas, while Braudel is a proponent of leading
> cities.) During the second period repositioning of the core takes
> place, as well as concentration of capital in that core.

Crap. Cities, or cores, whatever, are nodes in a transport path
network and change in size as a result of changes in the network, ie.
the building or closing of transport paths (shipping lanes, roads,
railways, freeways).

> This phase includes in the relevant period the Dutch Golden Age, as
> it lasted from c. 1620 to
> 1750;

The Dutch Golden Age lasted till 1710, at the most.

> although almost from the onset London was the rival and the
> eventual 'winner' in the competition for hegemony. (Ormrod 2003:
> 4-6)

Causeless explanation. In the waning years of the Golden Century, the
city of Amsterdam still had a large traffic in low value / high volume
goods. That indicates someone blocked the high value / low volume
trade, viz. that on the Rhine.

> The foundations of 'why':
> "With most of Europe enjoying demographic growth, merchants of the
> Low Countries found expanding markets for their exports.

Cart before the horse again. As the trade networks grew, people got
more affluent and procreated.

> Between 1400 and 1475, trade volume in the Low Countries doubled,
> and economic growth was especially marked in northern Brabant,
> where the annual fairs at Antwerp and Bergen op Zoom generated much
> activity. Furthermore, shipping in Zeeland and Holland underwent a
> significant expansion, and Dutch skippers were prominent in the
> trade with England and along the Baltic and Atlantic coasts."
> (Blockmans 1999: 100)


> "Hollanders expanded their business by transporting the cargoes of
> third parties, and in this they proved so successful that they
> thrived at the expense of the German Hanseatic League,

The Hanse didn't do that?

> which had hitherto dominated trade in the Baltic. Nor did
> Hollanders confine their activities to the Baltic;

No, why would they? England is much closer.

> they soon established regular routes to England and along the
> Atlantic coast. The Hollanders further adapted to this trade by
> developing larger, faster, and more efficient ships. Through all of
> this, they managed to turn a serious handicap - a perennial grain
> shortage - into a vehicle for economic growth,

How about this:
'Through all of this, the U.S. managed to turn a serious handicap - a
perennial oil shortage - into a vehicle for economic growth'

What a load of crap.

> in which they both exported their own goods and offered their
> shipping services. This economic growth would form the basis for
> the Dutch Republic's commercial system during the golden age of the
> seventeenth century." (Blockmans 1999: 76)


> "The incidence of the absolute decline in European economic life was
> heightened by shifts and dislocations in the balance of trade. In
> northern Europe, Flemish predominance faded as England began to use
> its wool to manufacture its own cloth, and Dutch ports were
> increasingly able to capture international traffic at the expense
> of the ports of Flanders." (Cantor 1993: 482-483)

The Spanish ethnically cleansed the southern Netherlands and who
survived fled to Amsterdam. That might be a factor too.

> "Simultaneously from the second half of the fourteenth century
> onwards the Hanseatic economic system was shattered by an
> irresistible advance of English and more still of Dutch navigation
> and trade towards Prussia and the eastern Baltic lands.

More causeless blather. Why was the advance of he English so
irresistible and the Dutch one even more so?

> As the large size of ships made it impracticable for them to anchor
> at Sluis, and as the growth of a cloth industry in Holland provided
> them with a return freight in their own country, they tended to
> moor in Amsterdam, the main port in Holland, which was able hereby
> to lay the first foundations of its prosperity."
> (Van Houtte 1966: 43-44)

>
> >> The Provinces were a relative latecomer in the Atlantic and the
> >> Pacific trade
> > Many Spanish ships had Dutch crews before the liberation wars.
>
> 'Crews' doesn't equal a region or country participating in trade.

Erh, what?

> > The Netherlands is closer to the New World than the cities of the
> > Hanse. That settled that race,. Various kings of of Denmark-
> > Norway (eg Chr II and Chr IV) sought to develop their kingdom to
> > a base of trade like the Netherlands and England, but failed too.
>
> Taking into account the Atlantic and Pacific trades, distance
> advantage of the Netherlands over Scandinavia is of very little or
> no significance.

The importance of the distance of the long distance routes is of
course minor relative to the length of the redistribution networks
which fan out from the home port of an overseas trade. Supplying
Northern Europe with colonial goods from Copenhagen or Gothenburg (the
Swedes tried too) incurs an steady overhead of several days, which
will lose you the competition without fail.

> The reason why the Dutch were successful was because they learnt
> the secret of Portuguese navigation routes (Bangs 1970: 476).

And how long do you think they kept that a secret from the rest of
Northern Europe?


Torsten