Skip to main content
added 5 characters in body
Source Link
kingledion
  • 85.8k
  • 29
  • 285
  • 484

It is culture, not geography, that makes a trading city powerful. A short history of Rennaisance Italy can be plenty constructive. Cities with excellent harbors and local resources like Naples or Taranto were much less of a trading city that cities built on a steep hillside (Genoa) or in a malarial swamp (Venice). Pisa was a port city that was surpassed as the leading city of Tuscany by an inaccessible city up in the hills, Florence.

The single thing that is most important for making a trading city successful is freedom from government appropriation. SuccessfulWhere a successful trading citiescity of the late middle ages that came under the rule of a strong monarch who could confiscate merchant's money as taxes declined (Naples, Palermo, and Barcelona under Aragon, the Champagne fair cities, Bordeaux and Toulouse under France), that city declined while those cities that came underruled by weaker monarchial/episcopal rule or republics became more prominent (Venice, Genoa, Florence, Augsburg, Nuremburg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Antwerp (in the County of Brabant, which was only ever half ruled by the dukes of Burgundy and Austria).

With safety from confiscation, merchants are free to invest their wealth in generating returns. This is something that no one else was doing in the early modern period. Wealth that accumulated to the noble class was spent on wars or prestige (gold trimmed clothes, fancy feasts, Michelangelo, things like that). Wealth that accumulated to the Merchant class was re-invested. Since only a few of these merchants were doing the trade building, there were profits aplenty, especially considering that the nobles, far from being competition, were pouring money into the Merchant's coffers.

Merchants in countries with stronger monarchies would be subject to repeated confiscations. This was done through the parliments of the time, such as the Estates General in France and the various Cortes in Spain. England's parliment, on the other hand, had a richer tradition of opposing the Monarch as was not so pliant. So merchants in wealthy but confiscatory nations like France and Spain would invest their wealth in places where it was safer, and merchants from places where wealth was safer did a lot of the business in rich monarchies. Examples of this are the Fuggers and Welsers from Augsburg in Austria/Spain, the Dorias from Genoa in Spain, and various Florentine bankers like the Medici for France and the Pope.

This explains why the income of the Dukes of Milan in the early 1400s was equivalent to that of the Kings of France, who had probably 50 times as many subjects. Liquid capital gravitates to places where it can be invested, and in an Rennaisance/Late Medeival setting, those places are merchant republics and Imperial Free Cities and Hanseatic Leagues and such.

Also worth a note, this really isn't restricted to pre-industrial societies. Look at the explosive growth of city states like Hong Kong and Singapore in the modern world. Nation states are the rule in the first world, but I suspect that an independent city state of San Francisco or Manhatten would be fabulously wealthy, even more so than now. The information economy and financial sectors and the income inequality that they cause would make being a city state more viable than ever.

It is culture, not geography, that makes a trading city powerful. A short history of Rennaisance Italy can be plenty constructive. Cities with excellent harbors and local resources like Naples or Taranto were much less of a trading city that cities built on a steep hillside (Genoa) or in a malarial swamp (Venice). Pisa was a port city that was surpassed as the leading city of Tuscany by an inaccessible city up in the hills, Florence.

The single thing that is most important for making a trading city successful is freedom from government appropriation. Successful trading cities of the late middle ages that came under the rule of a strong monarch who could confiscate merchant's money as taxes declined (Naples, Palermo, and Barcelona under Aragon, the Champagne fair cities, Bordeaux and Toulouse under France) while those cities that came under weaker monarchial/episcopal rule or republics became more prominent (Venice, Genoa, Florence, Augsburg, Nuremburg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Antwerp (in the County of Brabant, which was only ever half ruled by the dukes of Burgundy and Austria).

With safety from confiscation, merchants are free to invest their wealth in generating returns. This is something that no one else was doing in the early modern period. Wealth that accumulated to the noble class was spent on wars or prestige (gold trimmed clothes, fancy feasts, Michelangelo, things like that). Wealth that accumulated to the Merchant class was re-invested. Since only a few of these merchants were doing the trade building, there were profits aplenty, especially considering that the nobles, far from being competition, were pouring money into the Merchant's coffers.

Merchants in countries with stronger monarchies would be subject to repeated confiscations. This was done through the parliments of the time, such as the Estates General in France and the various Cortes in Spain. England's parliment, on the other hand, had a richer tradition of opposing the Monarch as was not so pliant. So merchants in wealthy but confiscatory nations like France and Spain would invest their wealth in places where it was safer, and merchants from places where wealth was safer did a lot of the business in rich monarchies. Examples of this are the Fuggers and Welsers from Augsburg in Austria/Spain, the Dorias from Genoa in Spain, and various Florentine bankers like the Medici for France and the Pope.

This explains why the income of the Dukes of Milan in the early 1400s was equivalent to that of the Kings of France, who had probably 50 times as many subjects. Liquid capital gravitates to places where it can be invested, and in an Rennaisance/Late Medeival setting, those places are merchant republics and Imperial Free Cities and Hanseatic Leagues and such.

Also worth a note, this really isn't restricted to pre-industrial societies. Look at the explosive growth of city states like Hong Kong and Singapore in the modern world. Nation states are the rule in the first world, but I suspect that an independent city state of San Francisco or Manhatten would be fabulously wealthy, even more so than now. The information economy and financial sectors and the income inequality that they cause would make being a city state more viable than ever.

It is culture, not geography, that makes a trading city powerful. A short history of Rennaisance Italy can be plenty constructive. Cities with excellent harbors and local resources like Naples or Taranto were much less of a trading city that cities built on a steep hillside (Genoa) or in a malarial swamp (Venice). Pisa was a port city that was surpassed as the leading city of Tuscany by an inaccessible city up in the hills, Florence.

The single thing that is most important for making a trading city successful is freedom from government appropriation. Where a successful trading city of the late middle ages came under the rule of a strong monarch who could confiscate merchant's money as taxes (Naples, Palermo, and Barcelona under Aragon, the Champagne fair cities, Bordeaux and Toulouse under France), that city declined while those cities ruled by weaker monarchial/episcopal rule or republics became more prominent (Venice, Genoa, Florence, Augsburg, Nuremburg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Antwerp (in the County of Brabant, which was only ever half ruled by the dukes of Burgundy and Austria).

With safety from confiscation, merchants are free to invest their wealth in generating returns. This is something that no one else was doing in the early modern period. Wealth that accumulated to the noble class was spent on wars or prestige (gold trimmed clothes, fancy feasts, Michelangelo, things like that). Wealth that accumulated to the Merchant class was re-invested. Since only a few of these merchants were doing the trade building, there were profits aplenty, especially considering that the nobles, far from being competition, were pouring money into the Merchant's coffers.

Merchants in countries with stronger monarchies would be subject to repeated confiscations. This was done through the parliments of the time, such as the Estates General in France and the various Cortes in Spain. England's parliment, on the other hand, had a richer tradition of opposing the Monarch as was not so pliant. So merchants in wealthy but confiscatory nations like France and Spain would invest their wealth in places where it was safer, and merchants from places where wealth was safer did a lot of the business in rich monarchies. Examples of this are the Fuggers and Welsers from Augsburg in Austria/Spain, the Dorias from Genoa in Spain, and various Florentine bankers like the Medici for France and the Pope.

This explains why the income of the Dukes of Milan in the early 1400s was equivalent to that of the Kings of France, who had probably 50 times as many subjects. Liquid capital gravitates to places where it can be invested, and in an Rennaisance/Late Medeival setting, those places are merchant republics and Imperial Free Cities and Hanseatic Leagues and such.

Also worth a note, this really isn't restricted to pre-industrial societies. Look at the explosive growth of city states like Hong Kong and Singapore in the modern world. Nation states are the rule in the first world, but I suspect that an independent city state of San Francisco or Manhatten would be fabulously wealthy, even more so than now. The information economy and financial sectors and the income inequality that they cause would make being a city state more viable than ever.

Source Link
kingledion
  • 85.8k
  • 29
  • 285
  • 484

It is culture, not geography, that makes a trading city powerful. A short history of Rennaisance Italy can be plenty constructive. Cities with excellent harbors and local resources like Naples or Taranto were much less of a trading city that cities built on a steep hillside (Genoa) or in a malarial swamp (Venice). Pisa was a port city that was surpassed as the leading city of Tuscany by an inaccessible city up in the hills, Florence.

The single thing that is most important for making a trading city successful is freedom from government appropriation. Successful trading cities of the late middle ages that came under the rule of a strong monarch who could confiscate merchant's money as taxes declined (Naples, Palermo, and Barcelona under Aragon, the Champagne fair cities, Bordeaux and Toulouse under France) while those cities that came under weaker monarchial/episcopal rule or republics became more prominent (Venice, Genoa, Florence, Augsburg, Nuremburg, Cologne, Frankfurt, Antwerp (in the County of Brabant, which was only ever half ruled by the dukes of Burgundy and Austria).

With safety from confiscation, merchants are free to invest their wealth in generating returns. This is something that no one else was doing in the early modern period. Wealth that accumulated to the noble class was spent on wars or prestige (gold trimmed clothes, fancy feasts, Michelangelo, things like that). Wealth that accumulated to the Merchant class was re-invested. Since only a few of these merchants were doing the trade building, there were profits aplenty, especially considering that the nobles, far from being competition, were pouring money into the Merchant's coffers.

Merchants in countries with stronger monarchies would be subject to repeated confiscations. This was done through the parliments of the time, such as the Estates General in France and the various Cortes in Spain. England's parliment, on the other hand, had a richer tradition of opposing the Monarch as was not so pliant. So merchants in wealthy but confiscatory nations like France and Spain would invest their wealth in places where it was safer, and merchants from places where wealth was safer did a lot of the business in rich monarchies. Examples of this are the Fuggers and Welsers from Augsburg in Austria/Spain, the Dorias from Genoa in Spain, and various Florentine bankers like the Medici for France and the Pope.

This explains why the income of the Dukes of Milan in the early 1400s was equivalent to that of the Kings of France, who had probably 50 times as many subjects. Liquid capital gravitates to places where it can be invested, and in an Rennaisance/Late Medeival setting, those places are merchant republics and Imperial Free Cities and Hanseatic Leagues and such.

Also worth a note, this really isn't restricted to pre-industrial societies. Look at the explosive growth of city states like Hong Kong and Singapore in the modern world. Nation states are the rule in the first world, but I suspect that an independent city state of San Francisco or Manhatten would be fabulously wealthy, even more so than now. The information economy and financial sectors and the income inequality that they cause would make being a city state more viable than ever.