[pugsville]

Doing some reading, thinking and stuff, does anyone know why the wool industry got going in england as opposed to elsewhere? The export of wool was the basis of the english trade economy for some time. Why england? Why not elsewhere? Chance? What conditons in england were favourable? I dont even have no-fact theroies, I on to drunken speculation and I still got zip. Anyone got anything?

[Potemkin]

This may be a good starting point: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0861998.html.

The Britons kept sheep and wove wool long before the Roman invasion, but the establishment by the Romans of a factory at Winchester probably improved their methods. William the Conqueror brought into England skilled Flemish weavers. Henry II encouraged wool industries by laws, cloth fairs, and guilds of weavers. Edward III brought weavers, dyers, and fullers from Flanders. England became the great wool-producing country of Europe, and wool was the staple of its industry until cotton began to overshadow it in the 18th cent.

[Bosnjak]

Thanks to the British the mankind made with the industrialisation a giant leap for the Mankind. It is so important like the invention of agriculture.

[Amanita]

The wool trade wasn't just limited to England. It was the basis for the economy of Castile/Spain as well.

First of all, English climate naturally favoured pastoralism. England also had a strong urban middle-class whose artisanship (cloth-making, dyeing, etc.) rendered supplying raw wool a profitable business for the landowners. It didn't directly or consciously cause industrialisation. What happened is that villages and agricultural communes were rased to make way for grazing in what is known as the enclosure movement, thereby creating an abundance of landless peasants who had no choice but migrate to the cities in search of work.

In Spain, the case was a bit different and peaked much earlier. Incessant warfare between the Christian and Muslim states made tillage impossible so pastoralism became the only viable occupation.

[Potemkin]

First of all, English climate naturally favoured pastoralism. England also had a strong urban middle-class whose artisanship (cloth-making, dyeing, etc.) rendered supplying raw wool a profitable business for the landowners. It didn't directly or consciously cause industrialisation. What happened is that villages and agricultural communes were rased to make way for grazing in what is known as the enclosure movement, thereby creating an abundance of landless peasants who had no choice but migrate to the cities in search of work.

This is all perfectly true, but it's worth pointing out that something similar happened in ancient Rome following the Third Punic War, but industrialisation never took off there, even though (as Marx pointed out) all the objective preconditions existed. There were probably also subjective, cultural reasons why industrial capitalism took off in Britain in the early modern period (and in fact created what we now call 'modernity') and not elsewhere.

[Amanita]

Indeed. That explanation only covers one aspect of labour supply. There were many other causes at play.

[Fasces]

This is all perfectly true, but it's worth pointing out that something similar happened in ancient Rome following the Third Punic War, but industrialisation never took off there, even though (as Marx pointed out) all the objective preconditions existed. There were probably also subjective, cultural reasons why industrial capitalism took off in Britain in the early modern period (and in fact created what we now call 'modernity') and not elsewhere.

I would argue that slavery, being more efficient than the early stages of industrial production, prevented the process. Why worry about developing efficient machines when an overabundance of labor exists? Slavery was much less widespread in Britain - to make paying workers profitable, efficient machines necessarily had to be developed.

[Potemkin]

I would argue that slavery, being more efficient than the early stages of industrial production, prevented the process. Why worry about developing efficient machines when an overabundance of labor exists? Slavery was much less widespread in Britain - to make paying workers profitable, efficient machines necessarily had to be developed.

I would dispute that slave labour was actually any cheaper than 'free' labour - a slave has to be purchased, then fed and housed (otherwise they have an annoying tendency to die and take your capital investment with them). 'Free' workers in 18th and early 19th century Britain were not materially much better off than slaves, and required no initial capital investment on the part of the employers. The reason why 'free' labour was used rather than slave labour is almost certainly because of the greater flexibility offered by a free labour market - in a downturn, workers can simply be fired. You try selling slaves during an economic downturn, and see what happens to your capital investment. You won't be happy.

There is also the point that free labour tends to be more efficient than slave labour - 'free' workers are terrified of being fired, so will perform at least adequately. Slaves have no fear of losing their jobs, so they usually deliberately underperform.

[Fasces]

The Romans have a much milder climate and a much greater food surplus than did the British. The marginal costs of keeping a slave may have been lesser than the prices of paying for equal amounts of labor - especially as most laborers would require housing anyway to work in fields - without the efficient machinery common to the era that oversaw the abolishment of slavery.

[Cookie Monster]

I had also read that the slave system of the Romans obstructed industrial innovation and development. Does modern globalisation perhaps obstruct industrial innovation and development as it allows access to greater masses of free labour and at cheaper prices?

[Suska]

The "efficiency of modern machinery" in this context may also have something to do with labor shortages resulting from the black death.

[Potemkin]

I had also read that the slave system of the Romans obstructed industrial innovation and development. Does modern globalisation perhaps obstruct industrial innovation and development as it allows access to greater masses of free labour and at cheaper prices?

I suspect that the reason why the use of slave labour hampered industrial innovation and development was because of the fundamental inefficiency of slave labour, due to the fact that the slave resents his condition and also has no incentive (since he cannot become unemployed) to work hard or efficiently. Any new machinery would quickly be broken or rendered unusable, and any new working practices would be passively resisted. There is also the point that the various manufacturers in ancient Rome were organised more along quasi-guild lines than being in cut-throat competition with each other - they therefore felt no urgency to continually innovate or improve their production methods.

[Suska]

I don't think it's fair to compare modern stereotypes of slavery to to ancient slavery practices. We get our ideas of what a slave feels from the English slave trade and the American civil war. In ancient Rome slavery had a holiday that lasted weeks, what we call Christmas, incidentally a holiday now defined by corporations that limit the very traditional worker's break to a matter of a day or two. We are all slaves now provided we are not capital-holding slave-traders.

[houndred]

OK lets deal with the question.

The wool trade exploded in the late 14th century for several reasons.

Firstly the Black death in 1349/50 reduced the English population from between 4-7 million people to 2 million people effectively ending the feudal system. Wages skyrocketed despite hastily passed laws to try and limit such inflation and much land passed from Crop to Pasture through sheer lack of labour to tend it

Secondly the cold wet climate of England produced a particularly thick oily fleece that made an incredibly high quality wool. With sheep now being grazed on prime meadowland that had previously been tilled the quantity of wool produced expanded exponentially.

Lastly when compared to continental Europe trade routes were relatively safe and wool producing hinterlands were extremely well served by natural infrastructure ( Nowhere in England was more than 70 miles from the sea or more than 10 miles from a navigable waterway),.

[albionfagan]

Wool in England = West Yorkhire right, or are we talking about long before?

[houndred]

West Yorkshire (and Derbyshire) was the centre of the 18th century woolen cloth manufacturing industry due to its proximity to fast running waters necessary to power the water frames and the river Ouse linking it to the Ports in Kingston and Grimsby.

It is North Yorkshire where the weather and pasture makes for the perfect fleece however wool farming was pretty much spread all over England in this periord,

[Zenno]

Industrialization is closely linked to the development of international trade. The UK was the only colonial power that commercially benefited from its colonies over an extended period of time. That is the reason why industrialization (in particular the weaving industry) started in England.

[Suska]

Wasnt the little age around that time?

[houndred]

The UK was the only colonial power that commercially benefited from its colonies over an extended period of time. That is the reason why industrialization (in particular the weaving industry) started in England.

Yes and no.

Firstly industrialisation did not start in England. It started in the Netherlands. However it is true to say that the scale was vastly larger in the UK than elsewhere in the mid-late 18th century and that was at a point before our Empire was well enough established.

However there was a lot of investable capital around , about 8% of which were direct profits from the slave trade and the proceeds of Sugar plantations.
The real source of the capital is international trade and the UK had a dominant position because of an accident of Geography.

Being an Island nation mean that the UK could maintain a comparatively tiny army as compared to France or Prussia and could apportion vastly more money into a Navy that ensured maritime dominance for around 200 years. Coupled with a climate that produced oak in very large amounts and readily available supplies of pitch (from the baltic) and Hemp and linen meant that Naval supplies were in abundance. It being an island also ensured that there was a ready supply of seamen.


The UK also has the advantage of a central highland spine in the North which provided a ready source of water power for the first mills and easy internal transport as I have outlined above.

[Tigerlily]

England shifted from consuming sheep's milk to cow's milk, by the 13th century, because they realized sheep were more valuable for wool. (1) Wool was very profitable and many monasteries became rich because of it. There was a monastic movement, the name escapes me, that built their monasteries in inhabitable lands, up on hills and mountainous regions, far away from other people. However, these monasteries still needed an income. Sheep were perfect as they could graze easily on hilly terrain. (2)

As well, unlike other places, England did not have very many goods to trade. Whatever goods they did have were not exploited during the Medieval times (coal). Wool was the only thing they could trade that others wanted.











1. C.M. Woolgar, “Meat and Dairy Products in Late Medieval England,” Food in Medieval England: Diet and Nutrition. Medieval History and Archaeology, ed. C.M. Woolgar, D. Serjeanston, T. Waldron (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 95-96. (I am not giving the ebook link as it will redirect you to my school's proxy, which, I do not want to share with strangers on the internet.)
2. I do not have a citation for this, as it is in my class notes, but I can look it up if someone would like proof.