Tweet
It seems to me some people here have a most distorted image of the technical possibilities of pre-industrial societies. Here is a quotation about road building, communication and travel in 18th-century Europe(!). Though some progress had been made, distance was still a restrictive factor to the exercise of power.
'Communications were a serious problem, whether in terms of the movement of people or of goods, of transport with speed or in bulk. Poor communications magnified the effects of distance and imposed high costs on economic exchanges. Road transport was particularly bad across most of Europe. Without metalled roads or mechanised transport, land communications were generally slow. The quality of roads reflected the local terrain, in particular drainage and soil type, and the ability and determination of governments and local communities to keep the roads in good repair. The resistance of the road surface to bad weather or heavy use was limited. The rainy summer of 1708 made the Russian and Lithuanian roads very soft, hindering Swedish military moves. The need for constant repair was expensive in terms of money, manpower and government effort, and it is easy to appreciate why road construction or improvement might be seen as a poor investment. The most important Russian road, that between St Petersburg and Moscow, was laid out by Peter I in the first two decades of the century. The roadbed consisted of tree trunks, with piles driven into the marshes and low-lying soft spots. Covered with a layer of gravel, sand or dirt, such a roadbed was supposed to provide a firm and relative smooth surface, but the rotting of the wooden base, erosion of the surface and gradual subsidence of long stretches into the soft, marshy soil, kept it in a permanent state of disrepair. Important Russian secondary roads lacked any roadbed and were simply a cleared expanse on which construction and cultivation were forbidden. The absence of any standardisation helped to ensure great variety in European roads. In the kingdom of Naples land communications were so bad that it was easier to ship olive oil than take it across the country by cart. In contrast the roads in the Austrian Netherlands were both relatively good and well maintained. In France the transportation networks were substantially denser and more interconnected north of a line stretching from Geneva to St Malo than south of it. There was no integrated French national framework. Poor roads led to long and unpredictable journeys that strained individuals, damaged goods and tied up scarce capital in goods in transit. The bad Portuguese roads ensured that the 350 km journey between Lisbon and Oporto took about a week. The newly crowned Adolphus Frederick of Sweden when touring his territories was forced in 1752 to abandon his plan to return from Finland along the shore of the Gulf of Bothnia, because of the difficulty of crossing the rivers, the bad state of the roads and the impossibility of finding sufficient horses.
Some road improvements were made. A powerful incentive was governmental, with the need to move instructions, officials, armies and monarchs more swiftly. The improvements made on the St Petersburg-Moscow road between the death of Peter I (1725) and the 1760s, including the construction of bridges, reduced the journey time over its 825 km from five weeks to two. It is clear that economic motives also lay behind much road improvement, particularly when, as in northern Italy, different states would gain from any shift in trade routes. In 1748 over 500 labourers were employed in building a new road from Bologna to Florence which it was hoped would improve trade between Lombardy and Tuscany. Six years later the Austrian government were worried about the effects on their possession of Milan of Genoese plans to build a major road from their port of Sestri to Parma. By the end of the century there were signs of improvements in areas such as Spain, France (particularly Languedoc) and Savoy. The École des Ponts et Chaussées established in Paris in 1747 was partly responsible for the development of French bridge-building in the second half of the century. However, in general road transportation was still bad. Main roads were often still primitive, that between Verviers and Aachen in 1785 being still in part 'a narrow sandy lane'. There were major gaps, such as between Provence and Genoa, that prevent any depiction of an integrated system. The enormous effort that was required for those that were built, for example the mountain road over the Col de Tende between Nice and Turin taking 17 years to build, helps to explain the relative absence of significant change. In Britain the government played a far smaller role. A sizeable network of 'turnpikes' was created, radiating from London by 1750 and from the major provincial centres by about 1770. The main impetus for this came from trade and the desire of local merchants and manufacturers for growth.
The difficulties and cost of road transport helped to ensure that much was moved by sea or river. A Tuscan government inquiry in 1766 found that it cost as much to move goods overland from Pescia to Altopascio as on the water route from Altopascio to Livorno, which was six times as far. Water was particularly favourable for the movement of heavy or bulky goods, such as building stone from Savoy to Lyons. In 1703 the Swedes used the Vistula to move their heavy baggage and artillery in Poland. But the river system was not always helpful: many rivers were not navigable and transport was often only easy downstream. Furthermore, rivers did not always supply necessary links. This was clear in the case of St Petersburg, separated by the nearby continental divide from the Volga and Dnieper river systems that provided much of the rest of western Russia with a good network of trade routes.
There was little improvement in the condition of European marine transport during the century. It still remained heavily dependent on the weather, as Charles XII of Sweden discovered when a storm disrupted the movement of troops from Sweden to her Baltic provinces in October 1700. The seasonal variation of insurance rates reflected the vulnerability of wind-powered wooden ships, which had not yet reached their mid-nineteenth-century levels of design efficiency. Sea travel was very slow compared sith what it was to become in the following century. However, it was the cheapest method for the movement of goods and the sea brought together regions, such as south-western Scotland and eastern Ireland, or north-western Spain and western France, whose road links to their own hinterlands were poor.'
(source: J.Black:'Eighteenth Century Europe 1700-1789',1990)
So it is rather surprising that without constant repairing your roads, mines and irrigation works, public works in CIV are blessed with some 'divine' imperishability. One of the main causes of the decline of the Sumerian civilization was salination of their irrigated fields.
Until the Mongol conquests the Middle East and Persia were always the 'heartland of cities'. Actually the region has even today not yet truly recovered from the Mongol pillaging in the later Middle Ages! After the Thirty Years War(1618-1648), the recovery of Germany lasted about a century and until the nineteenth century it remained a economic and cultural backwater. And what about the South after the American Civil War...?
'Communications were a serious problem, whether in terms of the movement of people or of goods, of transport with speed or in bulk. Poor communications magnified the effects of distance and imposed high costs on economic exchanges. Road transport was particularly bad across most of Europe. Without metalled roads or mechanised transport, land communications were generally slow. The quality of roads reflected the local terrain, in particular drainage and soil type, and the ability and determination of governments and local communities to keep the roads in good repair. The resistance of the road surface to bad weather or heavy use was limited. The rainy summer of 1708 made the Russian and Lithuanian roads very soft, hindering Swedish military moves. The need for constant repair was expensive in terms of money, manpower and government effort, and it is easy to appreciate why road construction or improvement might be seen as a poor investment. The most important Russian road, that between St Petersburg and Moscow, was laid out by Peter I in the first two decades of the century. The roadbed consisted of tree trunks, with piles driven into the marshes and low-lying soft spots. Covered with a layer of gravel, sand or dirt, such a roadbed was supposed to provide a firm and relative smooth surface, but the rotting of the wooden base, erosion of the surface and gradual subsidence of long stretches into the soft, marshy soil, kept it in a permanent state of disrepair. Important Russian secondary roads lacked any roadbed and were simply a cleared expanse on which construction and cultivation were forbidden. The absence of any standardisation helped to ensure great variety in European roads. In the kingdom of Naples land communications were so bad that it was easier to ship olive oil than take it across the country by cart. In contrast the roads in the Austrian Netherlands were both relatively good and well maintained. In France the transportation networks were substantially denser and more interconnected north of a line stretching from Geneva to St Malo than south of it. There was no integrated French national framework. Poor roads led to long and unpredictable journeys that strained individuals, damaged goods and tied up scarce capital in goods in transit. The bad Portuguese roads ensured that the 350 km journey between Lisbon and Oporto took about a week. The newly crowned Adolphus Frederick of Sweden when touring his territories was forced in 1752 to abandon his plan to return from Finland along the shore of the Gulf of Bothnia, because of the difficulty of crossing the rivers, the bad state of the roads and the impossibility of finding sufficient horses.
Some road improvements were made. A powerful incentive was governmental, with the need to move instructions, officials, armies and monarchs more swiftly. The improvements made on the St Petersburg-Moscow road between the death of Peter I (1725) and the 1760s, including the construction of bridges, reduced the journey time over its 825 km from five weeks to two. It is clear that economic motives also lay behind much road improvement, particularly when, as in northern Italy, different states would gain from any shift in trade routes. In 1748 over 500 labourers were employed in building a new road from Bologna to Florence which it was hoped would improve trade between Lombardy and Tuscany. Six years later the Austrian government were worried about the effects on their possession of Milan of Genoese plans to build a major road from their port of Sestri to Parma. By the end of the century there were signs of improvements in areas such as Spain, France (particularly Languedoc) and Savoy. The École des Ponts et Chaussées established in Paris in 1747 was partly responsible for the development of French bridge-building in the second half of the century. However, in general road transportation was still bad. Main roads were often still primitive, that between Verviers and Aachen in 1785 being still in part 'a narrow sandy lane'. There were major gaps, such as between Provence and Genoa, that prevent any depiction of an integrated system. The enormous effort that was required for those that were built, for example the mountain road over the Col de Tende between Nice and Turin taking 17 years to build, helps to explain the relative absence of significant change. In Britain the government played a far smaller role. A sizeable network of 'turnpikes' was created, radiating from London by 1750 and from the major provincial centres by about 1770. The main impetus for this came from trade and the desire of local merchants and manufacturers for growth.
The difficulties and cost of road transport helped to ensure that much was moved by sea or river. A Tuscan government inquiry in 1766 found that it cost as much to move goods overland from Pescia to Altopascio as on the water route from Altopascio to Livorno, which was six times as far. Water was particularly favourable for the movement of heavy or bulky goods, such as building stone from Savoy to Lyons. In 1703 the Swedes used the Vistula to move their heavy baggage and artillery in Poland. But the river system was not always helpful: many rivers were not navigable and transport was often only easy downstream. Furthermore, rivers did not always supply necessary links. This was clear in the case of St Petersburg, separated by the nearby continental divide from the Volga and Dnieper river systems that provided much of the rest of western Russia with a good network of trade routes.
There was little improvement in the condition of European marine transport during the century. It still remained heavily dependent on the weather, as Charles XII of Sweden discovered when a storm disrupted the movement of troops from Sweden to her Baltic provinces in October 1700. The seasonal variation of insurance rates reflected the vulnerability of wind-powered wooden ships, which had not yet reached their mid-nineteenth-century levels of design efficiency. Sea travel was very slow compared sith what it was to become in the following century. However, it was the cheapest method for the movement of goods and the sea brought together regions, such as south-western Scotland and eastern Ireland, or north-western Spain and western France, whose road links to their own hinterlands were poor.'
(source: J.Black:'Eighteenth Century Europe 1700-1789',1990)
So it is rather surprising that without constant repairing your roads, mines and irrigation works, public works in CIV are blessed with some 'divine' imperishability. One of the main causes of the decline of the Sumerian civilization was salination of their irrigated fields.
Until the Mongol conquests the Middle East and Persia were always the 'heartland of cities'. Actually the region has even today not yet truly recovered from the Mongol pillaging in the later Middle Ages! After the Thirty Years War(1618-1648), the recovery of Germany lasted about a century and until the nineteenth century it remained a economic and cultural backwater. And what about the South after the American Civil War...?
Comment