The intent of this book is to “show both how economics can help understand war and how understanding war can help explain modern economics.” As I do not believe the author achieved his stated goal, I have posted only brief comments on some of his better examples.
The Vikings were superb raiders, but later became conquerors and occupiers. The “Danegeld” tribute in East England and the taxes collected in Normandy were reinvested locally, establishing them as “excellent state builders.”
A strong case may be made “that Genghis Khan’s economic legacy dwarfs that of almost any other individual.” His Mongols conquered from China to Hungary, and a century later his heirs extended their reach to Iran and the Baltics. Khan established a true meritocracy, and they saw fit to share all of the booty extracted from conquered tribes. They standardized money, weights, and measures, and provided a primitive safety net in hard times. The Pax Mongolia was the first era of globalization. The Khan showed the Europeans the advantages of opening up and trading far and wide. But the devastation wreaked in China made them wary of outsiders.
Both the longbow and the inexpensive crossbow changed the face of European warfare around the millennium. The longbow had an extraordinary rate of fire and propelled England to victory after victory. England succeeded where others did not because of a “state-driven agenda to create a culture of archery.” England’s throne was more stable than Scotland’s or France’s, affording the monarchy the chance to employ a more democratic weapon, as they feared uprisings less than their enemies.
During the Renaissance, soldier of fortune Federico de Montefeltro made so much money that he “assembled the most comprehensive library outside the Vatican and paid for Raphael’s training.” He was not alone, and the warriors of the era “helped fund the flowering of knowledge which transformed medieval Italy into Renaissance Italy.”
Britain’s victory in the Seven Years’ War was achieved in battle, yet ably assisted by the Bank of England. It was achieved as much through financial strength as raw military power. Although France’s population was over twice Britain’s, the British commanded more wealth because they were more industrialized and incredibly more efficient at collecting taxes. The creation of the Bank of England meant that Britain could also borrow money responsibly. It was a modern state which simply functioned better than its competitors.
When the southern, states’ rights, debtor-friendly states seceded in 1861, it gave the North the chance to strengthen federal government borrowing, which is what occurred when the United States passed the Legal Tender Act. “The modern US dollar was created by the pressures of the American Civil War.”
World War II saw the introduction of total war, making the tasks of domestic administrators as important as those fighting overseas. In the UK and the US, the ability to outmanage and outproduce the Axis is what led to eventual triumph.
No comments:
Post a Comment