I am very skeptical of the claim that Anglo-Saxon England was significantly wealthier per capita than other Eurasian societies. I think that it took centuries for England to achieve that level.
they key is state capacity. the anglo saxons didnt necessarily have high gpd per capita compared to other north european regions, but they ran a centralized state with the capacity os raising large sums of silver, a system developed during the viking invasions to pay for things like danegeld. this is what the normans and others saw in the english state, not high gdp but a centralized system from which to extract rents.
This is great work. You could send a copy to TRIH, they do have question time sometimes.
However, Tom did say Western Europe. Spain is southern. And the ability for the state to garner taxes matters to invaders looking to be bribed or to stay. So, both right.
London with perhaps 10,000–25,000 inhabitants and York around 10,000 on the eve of the Norman Conquest. There’s something lovely about imagining the history of English on that human scale, the voices in the streets and markets, and the words changing hands alongside the goods. Fascinating read.
Economists are so dumb. Key idiocy is your insistence that an urban population of 10% can't deliver ecnomic growth. It did throughout meidiaeval period.Next your reliance on Malthusian ideas. Read Alan Macfarlane (Cambridge) who. Knows more about this than anyone. Something was going on in England from an early period. There were no peasants for a start. Catch up quickly with his The Culture of Capitalism, and read on...
I agree.
I am very skeptical of the claim that Anglo-Saxon England was significantly wealthier per capita than other Eurasian societies. I think that it took centuries for England to achieve that level.
they key is state capacity. the anglo saxons didnt necessarily have high gpd per capita compared to other north european regions, but they ran a centralized state with the capacity os raising large sums of silver, a system developed during the viking invasions to pay for things like danegeld. this is what the normans and others saw in the english state, not high gdp but a centralized system from which to extract rents.
This is great work. You could send a copy to TRIH, they do have question time sometimes.
However, Tom did say Western Europe. Spain is southern. And the ability for the state to garner taxes matters to invaders looking to be bribed or to stay. So, both right.
yeah, Tom qualified it and tweeted this on X.
Great post, I shared it with my family.
The argument that England was wealthy compared to its war-torn neighbors is convincing, but not very impressive! It was a low bar.
London with perhaps 10,000–25,000 inhabitants and York around 10,000 on the eve of the Norman Conquest. There’s something lovely about imagining the history of English on that human scale, the voices in the streets and markets, and the words changing hands alongside the goods. Fascinating read.
Economists are so dumb. Key idiocy is your insistence that an urban population of 10% can't deliver ecnomic growth. It did throughout meidiaeval period.Next your reliance on Malthusian ideas. Read Alan Macfarlane (Cambridge) who. Knows more about this than anyone. Something was going on in England from an early period. There were no peasants for a start. Catch up quickly with his The Culture of Capitalism, and read on...
Interesting that you think that I haven't read Alan Macfarlane . . . not sure about the relevance of anything else though.