
			The New Age After the 1500s

   After 1500 there were many signs that a new age of world 
 history was beginning, for example the discovery of America and the 
 first European enterprises in Asia. This "new age" was dominated by 
 the astonishing success of one civilization among many, that of 
 Europe. There was more and more continuous interconnection between 
 events in all countries, but it is to be explained by European 
 efforts. Europeans eventually became "masters of the globe" and they 
 used their mastery to make the world one. That resulted in a unity of 
 world history that can be detected until today. Politics, 
 empire-building, and military expansion were only a tiny part of what 
 was going on. Besides the economic integration of the globe there was 
 a much more important process going on: The spreading of assumptions 
 and ideas. The result was to be "One World." The age of independent 
 civilizations has come to a close.
         The history of the centuries since 1500 can be described as a 
 series of wars and violent struggles. Obviously men in different 
 countries did not like another much more than their predecessors did. 
 However, they were much more alike than their ancestors were, which 
 was an outcome of what we now call modernization. One could also say 
 that the world was Europeanized, for modernization was a matter of 
 ideas and techniques which have an European origin. It was with the 
 modernization of Europe that the unification of world history began. A 
 great change in Europe was the starting-point of modern history.
         There was a continuing economic predominance of agriculture. 
 Agricultural progress increasingly took two main forms: Orientation 
 towards the market, and technical innovation. They were 
 interconnected. A large population in the neighborhood meant a market 
 and therefore an incentive. Even in the fifteenth century the 
 inhabitants of so called low countries were already leaders in the 
 techniques of intensive cultivation. Better drainage opened the way to 
 better pasture and to a larger animal population. Agricultural 
 improvement favored the reorganization of land in bigger farms, the 
 reduction of the number of small holders, the employment of wage 
 labor, and high capital investment in buildings, drainage and 
 machinery.
         In the late sixteenth century one response to the pressure of 
 expanding population upon slowly growing resources had been the 
 promoting of emigration. By 1800, Europeans had made a large 
 contribution to the peopling of new lands overseas.  It was already 
 discernible in the sixteenth century when there began the long 
 expansion of world commerce which was to last until 1930. It started 
 by carrying further the shift of economic gravity from southern to 
 north-western Europe, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, which 
 has already been remarked. One contribution to this was made by 
 political troubles and wars such as ruined Italy in the early 
 sixteenth century. The great commercial success story of the sixteenth 
 century was Antwerp's, though it collapsed after a few decades in 
 political and economic disaster. In the seventeenth century Amsterdam 
 and London surpassed  it. In each case an important trade based on a 
 well-populated hinterland provided profits for diversification into 
 manufacturing industry, services, and banking. The Bank of Amsterdam 
 and The Bank of England were already international economic forces in 
 the in the seventeenth century. About them clustered other banks and 
 merchant houses undertaking operations of credit and finance. Interest 
 rates came down and the bill of exchange, a medieval invention, 
 underwent an enormous extension of use and became the primary 
 financial instrument of international trade. 
         This was the beginning of the increasing use of paper, instead 
 of bullion. In the eighteenth century came the first European paper 
 currencies and the invention of the check. Joint stock companies 
 generated another form of negotiable security, their own shares. 
 Quotation of these in London coffee-houses in the seventeenth century 
 was overtaken by the foundation of the London Stock Exchange. By 1800 
 similar institutions existed in many other countries. It was also the 
 time of some spectacular disastrous investment projects, one of which 
 was the great English South Sea Bubble. But all the time the world was 
 growing more commercial, more used to the idea of employing money to 
 make money, and was supplying itself with the apparatus of modern 
 capitalism. 
         One effect quickly appeared in the much greater attention paid 
 to commercial questions in diplomatic negotiation from the later 
 seventeenth century and in the fact that countries were prepared to 
 fight over them. The English and Dutch went to war over trade in 1652. 
 This opened a long era during which they, the French and Spanish, 
 fought again and again over quarrels in which questions of trade were 
 important. Governments not only looked after their merchants by going 
 to war to uphold their interests, but also intervened in other ways in 
 the working of the commercial economy. One advantage they could offer 
 were monopoly privileges to a company under a charter; this made the 
 raising of capital easier by offering some security for a return. Such 
 activities closely involved government and therefore the concerns of 
 businessmen shaped both, policy and law.                              
          The most impressive structural development in European 
 commerce was the sudden new importance to it of overseas trade from 
 the second half of the seventeenth century onwards. This was part of 
 the shift of economic activity from Mediterranean to northern Europe. 
 By the late seventeenth century. Rising populations and some assurance 
 of adequate transport (water was always cheaper than land carriage) 
 slowly built up an international trade in cereals. Shipbuilding itself 
 promoted the movement of such commodities as pitch, flax or timber. 
 More than European consumption was involved; all this took place in a 
 setting of growing colonial empires. By the eighteenth century there 
 were already present an oceanic economy and an international trading 
 community which does business -- and fights and intrigues for it -- 
 around the globe. In this economy an important and growing part was 
 played by slaves, most of them black Africans. In Europe itself, 
 slavery had by then all but withered away. Now it was to undergo a 
 vast extension in other continents. Soon a permanent slaving station 
 was set up in West Africa. This shows the rapid discovery of the 
 profitability of the new traffic. It was already clear that it was a 
 business of brutality. As the search for slaves went further inland, 
 it became simpler to rely on local potentates who would round up 
 captives and barter them wholesale.
         Early industrial centers grew by accretion, often around the 
 centers of established European industries closely related to 
 agriculture. This long continued to be true. These old trades had 
 created concentrations of supporting industry. Antwerp had been the 
 great port of entry to Europe for English cloth; as a result, 
 finishing and dyeing establishments appeared there to work up further 
 commodities flowing through the port.
         The twentieth century needs no reminders that social change 
 can quickly follow economic change. We have little belief in the 
 immutability of social forms and institutions. Three hundred years 
 ago, many men and women believed them to be virtually God-given and 
 the result was that although social changes took place in the 
 aftermath of inflation, they were muffled by the persistence of old 
 forms. Superficially much of European society remained unchanged 
 between 1500 and 1800. Yet the economic realities underlying changed a 
 great deal. Rural life had already begun to show this in some 
 countries before 1500. As agriculture became more and more a matter of 
 business, traditional rural society had to change. Forms were usually 
 preserved. Although feudal lordship still existed in France in the 
 1780s, it was by then less a social reality than an economic device.
         Europe was divided roughly along the Elbe. To the west lay 
 countries evolving slowly by 1800 towards more open social forms. To 
 the east lay authoritarian governments presiding over agrarian 
 societies where a minority of landholders enjoyed great powers over a 
 largely tied peasantry. In this area towns did not often prosper as 
 they had done for centuries in the West. They tended to be overtaxed 
 islands in a rural sea, unable to attract from the countryside the 
 labor they needed because of the extent of serfdom. Over great tracts 
 of Poland and Russia even a money economy barely existed. Much of 
 later European history was implicit in this difference between east 
 and west.
         In the time span between the sixteenth and the eighteenth 
 century states that were once powerful fell in rank, namely Spain, 
 Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Ottoman Empire.  This led to the rise 
 of the new great powers such as Austria-Hungary, England, France, 
 Prussia, and Russia.  Factors to their rise were their geography, 
 financial system, military strategy, and a new form of bureaucracy.
 Laws ensured the peoples security , whereas religion did not 
 interfere. Furthermore a new form of government was introduced, where 
 there was more than just an exclusive group at power. With these 
 changes a new system of modern bureaucracy began to rise. With that a 
 major contradiction seemed to come up. How could capitalism, promoting 
 free enterprise, and bureaucracy, which was a complex system of 
 regulations and restrictions, coexist? However, taking a closer look 
 at todays capitalistic societies one can clearly detect an advantage 
 of that constellation. In Germany for example the capitalistic 
 business world is strongly restricted by government regulations, 
 decreasing the companies profits, but benefiting society. In Brazil, 
 on the other hand, where the so called "capitalismo salvage" prevails, 
 the business world lives of the people, leaving them in poor 
 conditions.
         The Treaty of Utrecht benefited most of central Europe by 
 establishing a balance of power and restoring peace. Russia benefited 
 of Swedens decline, and a large bureaucratic machinery collected a 
 lot of taxes. Ivan the Terrible build up an extremely efficient system 
 of espionage, which preserved his own power and increased state 
 revenues. Likewise, Prussia prospered from its modern legal system, 
 its strong state apparatus, where bureaucrats were state servants with 
 some duties and many privileges. Prussia was also known for its 
 disciplined army with advanced weapons. One could say that Prussia was 
 a very well organized efficient power. 
         Austria-Hungary was also able to maintain its status as a 
 great power for a long  time.  The bureaucracy remained efficient due 
 to the separation of power that existed between the prince and the 
 people.  In this case, the elements of finance, geography, and 
 military strategy were not as crucial to the rise of this 
 organization. France kept an effective and rational bureaucracy that 
 consisted of royal officials who acted as state authorities along with 
 the king.  The collection of revenue was direct and strictly enforced 
 by the bureaucracy.  While France was a prominent Great Power, it also 
 faced numerous problems.  Their military strategy was extremely weak. 
  The allotment of revenue that went towards defense was split between 
 land and sea powers; creating a mediocre military in both areas.  
 Thus, France was unable to turn to the offensive.  The taxes collected 
 were not enough to uphold the maintenance of the state.  France's 
 financial situation was inferior to that of England's since they had 
 no system of credit which England already developed.  France also 
 relied heavily on the importation of goods from colonies.  This 
 constant trade drained the economy because it called for a strong navy 
 which was not possible. 
         England became superior to France in many ways.  This was 
 largely due to the industrial revolution that made England a powerful 
 force while France suffered because of structural problems.  England 
 experienced success in the coal, iron, textile, and steel industry.  
 England was the leading nation in Europe in mining and heavy 
 manufacturing.  Then came more innovations such as the invention of 
 the steam engine in 1712.  This success led only to more prosperity in 
 many areas.  
         The rise of the mentioned powers was greatly influenced by the 
 adaptation of a new system of bureaucracy.  This new system utilized 
 at least one of the important factors that brought about the rise of 
 these nations:  finance, geography, or military strategy.  England 
 proves to be the best example of this modern bureaucratic system 
 because it used all three elements while striving for maximum 
 efficiency and power. 

