It sure is a tough concept to get my head around from a modern perspective! I'd be pretty creeped out by the idea of a network of cities controlled by Amazon, but merchants putting political pressure on states to curtail war or at least war's impact on trade feels beneficial for the common person who could have steady access to goods.
I mean, yes I too would feel uncomfortable with that proposition. Supposing that merchants, or in this case, industry and financial institutions don't already put political pressure on states when it comes to war. We need to make an assumption that war is not profitable, that there is not instead political pressure to continue conflicts, which may be the more profitable option in the modern age.
Finally someone that gets it and explains it quite well. The root of history is economics, war and politics are usually secondary or even tertiary in historic importance. On a side note you may be interested in the Bazacle Milling company. There's a great book about it called the Origins of the Corporation. Another interesting medieval topic to look into in terms of economic history is the Song Dynasty.
I have The Origins of the Corporation, it is sitting shamefully on my shelf at the moment. I find the root of economics and trade and its relationship to human cultures and history inseparable. Even as early as the Paleolithic, or earlier ( since that is not my wheelhouse) humanity has been trading commodities, war and politics were maybe developed to facilitate trade not the other way around?
@@PopulaUrbanum the primary focus of economics is production, consumption, and exchange. so yes, it is the root of all history. Even back before civilization as we know it came to be there were still those 3 elements at play. And it is impossible for war and politics to exist without economics. The very creation of an armed force, no matter how small, primitive, or temporary, is an economic process.
Is OPEC a reasonable modern analogy? Transnational cartel that can exert significant geopolitical influence. Though OPEC is composed of nations and not cities within nations. You make a good point that nothing in the modern world with quite the structure of the Hanseatic League exists, and it's difficult to even conceive of something functional that is like it. So I take it this has to do with the relative weakness of states in the region at the time? States were still consolidating and building capacity, so it was possible for such a transnational entity to exist, and even yield notable power against states at times. Which may also imply that the consolidation of state power was one of the factors that contributed to the weakening and eventual dissolution of the Hanseatic League. Is this reasoning correct? Fantastic video, thank you.
I know this video is a bit old and maybe you won't see this, but would you recommmend any resources (in english) to learn about the Hanseatic league? Books, articles documentaries or whatever really. Thanks in advance
Interesting video, is there any good resources i could find on things like roughly how long i might expect a journey between the various major Hanseatic trading ports to last?
Do you know if the league improved market efficiency? Reducing tariffs and getting tax relief, becoming free cities, ought to mean they had more money to invest into their industries?
@@PopulaUrbanum That's fair enough. Apparently, Greece flourished the most economically and artistically during monarchies. The impression I get is the guilds made Europe pretty rich, though it's also plausible they impoverished Europe for their own gain.
German cities? Seriously, for back then you talk about German cities? *Low German* cities is what you mean. Low German and High German were still two quiet distinct cultural areas, even though related. But direct communication was not that simple, and the Low German area was only colonized and assimilated to becomee High German after the fall of the Hansa.
No if I meant slaves that's what I would have said. It's just the list of commodities is too large to list. This could be things such a oak timber, pottery, cod fish, furs and wax. While there was slave trade into Europe, that predominantly was focused through the Mediterranean and not the north sea. Medieval Europeans had laws restricting the trade of slaves who were not Christians, this saw a significant number of their slaves either coming from north Africa or the black sea regions which had not yet Christianised.
Interesting & helpful.
This was great, good to see you back
Good to be back
It sure is a tough concept to get my head around from a modern perspective! I'd be pretty creeped out by the idea of a network of cities controlled by Amazon, but merchants putting political pressure on states to curtail war or at least war's impact on trade feels beneficial for the common person who could have steady access to goods.
I mean, yes I too would feel uncomfortable with that proposition. Supposing that merchants, or in this case, industry and financial institutions don't already put political pressure on states when it comes to war. We need to make an assumption that war is not profitable, that there is not instead political pressure to continue conflicts, which may be the more profitable option in the modern age.
Glad to see you back, great topic looking forward to the next part.
Thanks, good to be back.
Finally someone that gets it and explains it quite well. The root of history is economics, war and politics are usually secondary or even tertiary in historic importance. On a side note you may be interested in the Bazacle Milling company. There's a great book about it called the Origins of the Corporation. Another interesting medieval topic to look into in terms of economic history is the Song Dynasty.
I have The Origins of the Corporation, it is sitting shamefully on my shelf at the moment. I find the root of economics and trade and its relationship to human cultures and history inseparable. Even as early as the Paleolithic, or earlier ( since that is not my wheelhouse) humanity has been trading commodities, war and politics were maybe developed to facilitate trade not the other way around?
@@PopulaUrbanum the primary focus of economics is production, consumption, and exchange. so yes, it is the root of all history. Even back before civilization as we know it came to be there were still those 3 elements at play. And it is impossible for war and politics to exist without economics. The very creation of an armed force, no matter how small, primitive, or temporary, is an economic process.
We're baaaack!
back again!
This sounds super interesting, I can't wait! 😁
Hopefully it won't disappoint
Is OPEC a reasonable modern analogy? Transnational cartel that can exert significant geopolitical influence. Though OPEC is composed of nations and not cities within nations. You make a good point that nothing in the modern world with quite the structure of the Hanseatic League exists, and it's difficult to even conceive of something functional that is like it. So I take it this has to do with the relative weakness of states in the region at the time? States were still consolidating and building capacity, so it was possible for such a transnational entity to exist, and even yield notable power against states at times. Which may also imply that the consolidation of state power was one of the factors that contributed to the weakening and eventual dissolution of the Hanseatic League. Is this reasoning correct? Fantastic video, thank you.
Welcome back!
thank you
I love the Hanseatic Architecture throughout Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, Holland and Brugge Belgium
I know this video is a bit old and maybe you won't see this, but would you recommmend any resources (in english) to learn about the Hanseatic league? Books, articles documentaries or whatever really. Thanks in advance
Interesting video, is there any good resources i could find on things like roughly how long i might expect a journey between the various major Hanseatic trading ports to last?
Do you know if the league improved market efficiency? Reducing tariffs and getting tax relief, becoming free cities, ought to mean they had more money to invest into their industries?
I am not really able to answer that one..... yet! BUT as soon as I know I will come back to you.
@@PopulaUrbanum That's fair enough. Apparently, Greece flourished the most economically and artistically during monarchies. The impression I get is the guilds made Europe pretty rich, though it's also plausible they impoverished Europe for their own gain.
STOCKFISH TIME!
All stockfish all the time!
German cities? Seriously, for back then you talk about German cities? *Low German* cities is what you mean. Low German and High German were still two quiet distinct cultural areas, even though related. But direct communication was not that simple, and the Low German area was only colonized and assimilated to becomee High German after the fall of the Hansa.
Oh and btw, the Low German (or Low Saxon) speakers back then still called their language sassesch which literally means Saxon.
09:46
Other goods...
Slaves! Why not to say it???
No if I meant slaves that's what I would have said. It's just the list of commodities is too large to list.
This could be things such a oak timber, pottery, cod fish, furs and wax.
While there was slave trade into Europe, that predominantly was focused through the Mediterranean and not the north sea.
Medieval Europeans had laws restricting the trade of slaves who were not Christians, this saw a significant number of their slaves either coming from north Africa or the black sea regions which had not yet Christianised.
If you like board games, I’d suggest Hansa Teutonica