General history rewritten 

The World History Rewritten section of this site is a short voyage thorough the human history. It could not be treated as a complete compendium of our history but rather as an illustration of practical use of tools presented in this work. The whole lecture goes in more or less chronological order. 

Ancient civilizations

Cream frames on every page of this lecture present useful historical links. Here are some links about general history:
A short course of World History plus some maps (very schematic).
http://www.fsmitha.com/index.html
http://www.fsmitha.com/maps.html
For more precise maps go to UT Library Online.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/history_shepherd_1923.html
Short information about persons, states, events, etc. you can find in Wikipedia or in wiki.tatet.com (both use the same database).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_mythology
http://wiki.tatet.com/Mesopotamia.html	

Origins of first civilizations

It is hard to describe the very beginning of first civilizations (and first states), because there are no written documents that could help us. Of course we could find some clues analyzing the most advanced cultures North American Indian, early African states (which were described by European voyagers and traders) or history of Medieval Ireland, but you should remember that many “facts” from ancient history are really reasonable guesses made by historians. So, I am not going to describe the exact reasons for uprising of early countries.

According to models presented here, the very first states appear with the invention of the trade. When ancient communities accumulated enough technologies (generally pottery, mining, agriculture and domestication of animals) to create the surplus of goods that could be traded, the first states and governments appeared. We can discover the choice of very first traded goods analyzing the system of clay tokens from Syria and Mesopotamia region. These tokens were sealed in clay envelopes and were (probably) used as a kind of money or credit - an owner of goods could go to another city and after presenting the envelope, could get these goods from local “banker”. Generally, the very first civilizations emerged in regions that had large agricultural surplus and easy ways to trade them. The best places were river valleys.

About clay tokens from which evolved Sumerian cuneiform writing . http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/lrc/numerals/dsb/dsb.html 
Ancient systems of writing. 
http://www.ancientscripts.com/sitemap.html 
Art timelines (useful in archeology). 
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/intro/atr/02sm.htm	

First governments could emerge in many ways:
·	A village could be conquered or dominated by some military group which will collect non-voluntary tax from merchants, craftsmen and peasants as a charge for “protection”. The leader of such group sooner or later becomes a king. It is the mob-like (or mafia-like) scenario.
·	A family, or the group of families could buy or collect large share of land this way taking control of the majority of the land owned by the village community. In consequence they can dominate poorer peasants, and turn them into clients or dependent peasants. The head of the strongest clan (family) sooner or later becomes a king.
·	A village community could nominate a group of people to build some constructions important for the community (like irrigation system or temples). These administrators could become a privileged group of “administration aristocracy”, and eventually the most influential of them (like the great priest) could become a king.
·	A group of the richest merchants could constitute a council and government to administrate the village, and to promote the trade and production. 

Sometimes the village turns into feudal country and sometimes immediately becomes a populistic country. When the location of the village offers possibilities to easy expansion, the village usually becomes a feudal state. When the village is located in a place that is the nexus of important trade routes and the village have limited space to expand (because of natural borders or other strong villages in the close vicinity), it usually becomes the populistic state - good example here were Sumerian city-states. Sometimes a group of neighbouring villages form a tribal federation which eventually evolves into a feudal state.

Links to ancient civilizations

Here is the short and black introduction to Ancient Sumeria. http://ragz-international.com/sumeria.htm
And comprehensive archive of cuneiform texts.
http://cdli.ucla.edu/
See also books of Samuel Noah Kramer.	

So, somewhere in the fourth millennia BC (4000-3000 BC) the civilization of Sumer emerged in a swamp region close to the sea coast of Arabian Gulf in Mesopotamia. Our knowledge about the history of these city-states is not complete, but remained writings give us enough proves to be sure that Sumeria was the civilization of populistic, merchant city-states (here we can find for example the very first parliament consisted of two-chambers) fighting with each other - more or less the same as in Ancient Greece. Trade and inventions of Sumerians accelerated development of Mesopotamia and probably India (maybe also Egypt). 

At the end of 4th millennia trade backbone of river Nile was united and the kingdom of Egypt emerged - probably the first large feudal state. Somewhere in the 3rd millennia emerged the civilization Harappa & Mohenjo Daro (maybe populistic) in the Indus Valley in India and Minoan civilization on the islands of Aegean Sea (for sure populistic). We cannot be sure when the first feudal state in China appeared (in a the Valley of Yellow River - today’s Shaanxi, Henan and Shanxi provinces) but probably also more or less the same time. 

Ancient Egypt links Here is the complete site about Ancient Egypt (I wish all sites I quote here were like this one). http://www.narmer.pl/indexen.htm 
Or short and little more complete summaries of the history of Ancient Egypt, for those who want only a brief introduction. http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/history/history.html http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/index.html	

Populistic cultures made some important technology advances that enables great colonization and trade expansion of these civilizations. After some time (about 2400 BC) populistic cultures of Sumer city-states goes to the limits of their expansion and was conquered by barbarian tribes - since then the history of Mesopotamia is the story of successive feudal empires (Akkad, Babylonia, Assyria periodically invaded by barbarians. Somewhere in the middle of 3rd millennia a Minoan civilization (see below) started expansion in Mediterranean basin. 

Mesopotamia links 
Short chronological history of Mesopotamia 
http://www.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/Welcome_mesopotamia.html
Quick review of Ancient Middle East. http://i-cias.com/e.o/mesopotamia.htm 
Useful link-site for Mesopotamia. http://www.historylink101.com/ancient_mesopotamia.htm	

Minoan civilization

Minoan civilization evolved on Crete and other islands of Aegean Sea in the Bronze Age. Military expansion across the sea is more expensive that land expansion, so Minoan Empire expansion was probably mostly the trade expansion and thus could last longer and spread over the larger area. A few hundred year before the final fall, economy of the Minoan Empire probably started to decline. This crisis forced Minoans to start military expansion (mentioned in Greek myths) and launched the migrations of Indo-European barbarian tribes. Minoan state finally fell about 1500 BC because of eruption of volcano on Thira (or Thera) island and the invasion of Greek tribes.

Why Minoan civilization was populistic? First, why I believe that Minoan civilization was populistic: · In Egyptian writings Minoians (called Keftiu) were always mentioned as a traders, and the lists of traded goods shows that Minoans had to trade with many distant countries.
 · There are no evidences of intensive military expansion in close vicinity of Crete (except the last decades before the final fall of Minoan civilization). There are no great monuments to glorify great kings and conquerors. 
· Minoans have large fleet and ruled over the seas. This is typical for merchant countries that have to protect large sea trade. 
· The scale of migrations launched by the fall of Minoan civilization is too large for a feudal country. When a feudal country falls, the fall is relatively shallow and barbarian tribes which conquers the country  are usually absorbed by the higher culture.  
· Minoan art is typical for populistic countries (i.e. very distributed), where the money for art comes from large number of quite rich people, not only from the monarch’s court. 	

Minoan and Ancient Aegean links Short summary of Minoan Civilization. http://www.dilos.com/location/13406 Minoan Crete archeological sites. http://www.uk.digiserve.com/mentor/minoan/ Maps of Ancient Crete. http://www.uark.edu/campus-resources/achilles/maps/maps.html 
Academic lectures about Aegean Region in Bronze Age. http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/index.html	

Why I believe that Minoan trade spanned the whole Mediterranean region? Well, let’s compare Well, let’s compare Crete with Netherlands in XVIth and XVIIth century. Netherlands, a relatively small country, had colonies in such a distant places as Indonesia or South Africa, and almost no colonies (only trade outposts) on the coasts of large feudal countries or in places where trade was less profitable (like Africa or Northern America).

The same was probably true for Minoans. Crete was too small island to conquer feudal states and strong barbarian tribes, so Minoans probably had only a trade outposts and maybe small colonies in places that could offer goods for profitable sea trade (such as: ivory, gold, copper, tin, slaves, pottery, etc.). So its perfectly legal for Minoans to have trade outposts in Georgia (Kolchida or Kolkhida), Romania, Northern Turkey, Tunisia, Spain or Italy (maybe also in Etruria).

Of course there are only weak evidences here: 
· Trade with Black Sea region have to be important, because of the wealth city of Troia (Troy). 
· There are numerous archeological evidences of rapid economic development of different communities which lived on Mediterranean coast more or less 2000 BC. 
· Probably Phoenicians took over some of Minoan colonies. This could explain, how they could start such a distant trade (with Northern Africa and Spain), very soon after the fall of Minoan civilization (actually its Myceanean successors ca. 1200 BC).
· Directions of migrations of Indo-European tribes suggest some locations of Minoan trade outposts (ex. Black Sea region, Italy).  
· And most important, Minoan artifacts were found by archaeologists in different places around the west coasts of Mediterranean Sea. 	

Why the eruption of Thira volcano was so destructive? It was probably the strongest eruption of volcano in historic times (a few times stronger than eruption of Krakatau volcano in 1883). The Isle of Thira (Thera) exploded and disappeared - today here are few small isles around an undersea volcano.  
· Great Tsunami waves probably destroyed all ports and ships on northern coasts of Crete and in all colonies in close vicinity (Greek cities of Athens and Argos were built a few miles from coast because of the fear of Poseidon’s anger - i.e. probably tsunami). 
· Volcanic ashes probably destroyed most of the farms on Crete causing hunger. 
· Floating pumice probably blocked ports and coasts for many months, making sailing across the Aegean Sea very difficult. 
So, the eruption destroyed the trade of Minoan Empire launching the economic crisis and the final collapse of Minoan state came sooner. 	

Greek tribes (Achaians) that conquered Crete, formed here and in Greece some feudal states (Mycenian civilization). Around 1200 BC they probably destroyed the state of Troia, and shortly after that they were conquered by another Greek tribes (these times Dorians).

A word about migration of Indo-European tribes Migrations of Indo-European tribes had a few stages: (http://www.verbix.com/documents/pie/index.htm)
· It was started probably around 2000 B.C, when Indo-Europeans (probably) came to Greece and Asia Minor. 
· Then, there was a migration launched by the fall of Minoan Empire (more or less 1500 BC). 
· And the migration after the fall of Troy and Mycenian civilization (more or less 1200 BC, the same time as the invasion of “sea nations” into Egypt). To be honest, I don’t know reasons for the first wave of Indo-European migrations (except that it was launched by some economic changes in the Black Sea basin). Of course it is possible that the Minoan civilization before 2000 BC traded with Black Sea region, then started to trade with West Mediterranean Sea region, and that shift of trade launched the first migrations of Indo-Europeans. It is possible, and very likely (according to mechanisms which drives great barbarian migrations), but you have to remember that there is no material proof for this hypothesis.  	

Invasion of Sea Nations (and Dorians) was the beginning of the dark period in the history of Aegean Sea region. It is important to note (and this will be true for the fall of the Roman Empire and early centuries of Medieval Ages too) that when the general level of technologies declined, the most basics technologies did not. Technologies that were used in a day-to-day human existence - in agriculture, sea sailing or war - remain on more or less the same level as before the fall, and there was even some advances (for example use of iron weapons). Only the high-level technologies: like a writing or advanced construction technologies used in Minoan palaces, completely disappeared. Common, everyday technologies are very important, even if are less spectacular than “great discoveries”, because these technologies create the economical basement for building more advanced communities and cultures. 

And a final note: 
You have to remember that generally all “facts” from the ancient history (i.e. before 500 BC)  bases  in a great part on guesses made by historians. So the same is true for my constructs. Using my laws I am quite sure that Sumer and Minoan civilizations were populistic, but everything I am writing here about the migrations of Indo-European tribes and the political system of ancient India civilization is no more than guessing. 

Simplified chronology 

Below is the general timeline of ancient civilizations for your reference. But I advise you to skip this section at the moment and return back later (after the page about early medieval history). This will make clear some assumptions taken here. 

Again Ancient Art timelines
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/intro/atr/02sm.htm
Major events by centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centuries
And simple chronological graph of ancient civilizations
http://www.timelines.info/history/empires_and_civilizations/ancient_civilisations/	

But please remember that all ancient chronologies are unclear. Before the first Olympic Games (776 BC) people were counting time in relative manner (example: third year of king X rule), chronicles are incomplete, and some cities and artifacts are dated only roughly (using archaeological methods). Therefore you may find (many) other chronologies of ancient history before the first millennium BC.

As an example of problems historians have with Ancient History see controversial David Rohl’s “New Chronology. And graphical timeline based on New Chronology.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/judeoroots/rohl.htm
http://mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/newchrono.html
The same problems we have with the chronology of Mesopotamia. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_chronology
As you can see, there are a few hundred years „mistake margin” in ancient chronologies. 	

ca. 10000 BC - End of the last Ice Age.
ca. 9000 BC - First “cities” in Middle East. One of the oldest was Jericho in Palestine.
9000-4000 BC - Neolithic revolution. Humans, especially in Middle East made many discoveries that for the first civilizations. Especially discoveries in agriculture and domestication of animals allowed the rapid growth of population, and created the food surplus that allowed the emergence of civilizations. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
First discoveries of this technological “revolution” were agriculture and pottery, and last were writing, bronze working and wheel.

Why the Fertile Crescent of Middle East? Probably there was two reasons:
- Thanks to the climate region was very feertile, therefore new discoveries in agriculture were very effective. Population density increased and the number of inventors too.
- Middle East was a kind of “croossroads” of trade routes. Therefore the diffusion of new technologies between human communities was faster.

In other regions Neolithic Revolution started later (although it is not the rule, for example the oldest pottery come from Japan and Korea). And finally Middle East buildings of stone and clay last longer than wooden structures of Europe, India or China. Therefore much more archaeological evidences of early cultures survived here. 
8000-3000 BC   Clay tokens in Mesopotamia and Syria. Probably were used as a kind of “currency” guaranteed by temples.
6200-4000 BC   Ubaid period in Mesopotamia
6000 BC   Many Neolithic “cities” in Turkey, Mesopotamia, India, Egypt and China. Rather shelters against nomads than true cities.
ca. 5600 BC  Rising waters of Mediterranean Sea (after the Ice Age) overflowed the Bosphorus straight turning a freshwater lake of Black Sea into a salt sea and slowly flooding a plain between Romania and Crymea peninsula.  Note: I use blue background for hypothesis that are not proved yet but you may find interesting.
5000-3200 BC   Sahara was turning from steppe to desert. Some of the nomadic tribes migrate into Egypt. Predynastic Egypt.
4000 BC   Number of traded goods in Mesopotamia increases, therefore system of clay tokens complicate. Some villages of Mesopotamia became “true” cities.
4000-3100 BC   Important city of Uruk in southern Mesopotamia (Sumeria), maybe populistic.
4th millennium BC    Early Sumer (or pre-Sumer) civilization. Mesopotamian reed ships coated with tar (probably) sailed along Arabian Peninsula to Red Sea and Egypt and along Iranian coast to India. Early villages in Arabia. 
4th millennium BC    A few cultures in Europe thanks to flint stone mining. Stonehenge.
3300 BC + few centuries   Great Flood in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia (the same ac China) was periodically affected by floods. One of them was especially disastrous starting a myth of Deluge (known from Bible and other Mesopotamian texts). Archaeologists found a thick layer of mud in cities of Sumeria suggesting a several weak long flood, but there are no evidences if was one or a few floods. 
3300-3100 BC   Amount of tradable goods increases making clay token system too complicate, so it evolves in early writing system - a Cuneiform script.
ca. 3200-3100 BC   The Unification of Egypt. First Pharaoh Menes-Naramer ruler of the Southern (Upper) Egypt conquered the Northern (Lower) Egypt. First large feudal state.
According to David Rohl’s hypothesis Egypt was united by the tribe of sailboat people from the coast of Red Sea (more or less like Russia was united by Vikings), who had some connections with Sumer civilization.
ca. 3000 BC   Early beginnings of Indus Valley civilization (India).
ca. 3000 BC   Early beginnings of Minoan civilization (island of Crete)
ca. 3000 BC   Early city of Troy (close to straights between Aegean Sea and Black Sea).
ca. 3000 BC   Beginning of Bronze Age (first in Mesopotamia) - axes, knifes, nails, sickles.
3100-2400 BC   Sumer civilization. Several populistic city-states close to Persian Gulf: Ur, Eridu, Uruk, Umma, Lagash, Nippur, Kish, Isin, Girsu, etc. Trade expansion to “emerging markests” of Northern Mesopotamia (ex. Babylon was originally a Sumerian colony), Elam and India. Map (http://history-world.org/Sumer-Akkad.jpg)
3100-2200 BC   Early Dynastic period and the Old Kingdom in Egypt. Construction of Pyramids - Egypt was extremely rich these times because of coordinated agriculture and large deposits of gold. Pyramids as great government investments, had Keynesian effect on Egyptian economy. 
3rd millennium BC   Indus Valley civilization. Cities of Harappa, Mohejo-Daro, Lothal.
3rd millennium BC   Kingdom of Elam in southern Iran.
3rd millennium BC   Pre-palace period of Minoan civilization.
2600-2400 BC   Quite well documented history and every day life of Sumer. Wars between city-states. Decline of populistic civilization of Sumer.
after 2600 BC   Migration of Akkadians (from Arabia) to Sumer.
ca. 2400 BC   Amorites (from Syria) invade North Mesopotamia.
ca. 2350-2150 BC   Akkadians united Mesopotamia creating first large feudal kingdom here. Sargon I.
ca. 2150   Guti tribes (from Zagros mountains in west Iran) destroyed Akkadian empire. Mesopotamia - opposite than relatively isolated Egypt - had open borders, so its history was much more chaotic. 
2200-2100 BC   First Intermediate (chaos) Period in Egypt.
After 2200 BC   Populistic civilization on Minoan Crete. It is my guess based on two premises: 1. average cycle of rise and fall of populistic civilization is about 700 years (compare Greece, Phoenicia, Etruscans, Medieval-Renaissance Italy) 2. Because of economic connections there was probably some correlation between Minoan an Egyptian history (Intermediate Periods).
ca. 2150-2000 BC   Feudal Sumer kingdom in Mesopotamia destroyed by Elamites.
ca. 2100 BC   First (legendary) Xia dynasty in China.
2100-1650 BC   Middle Kingdom in Egypt.
around 2000 BC   Few cultures in Mediterranean: Island of Malta, Island of Sardinia, Cities of El-Argar culture in Spain, Polada culture in Italy. Maybe a side effect of Minoan trade. 
ca. 2000 BC   First wave of migrations of Indo-European tribes (from northern coasts of Black Sea): Greeks to Greece, Hitties to Asia minor, Aryans move east (maybe to Iran).
2nd millennium BC   Early cultures in America: Olmecs in Mexico, Chavin in Peru. 
2000-1700 BC  Many small kingdoms in Mesopotamia. Economic prosperity of early Assyria. 
ca. 1900 BC   Amorities conquered central Mesopotamia - capital of Babylon.
ca. 1750 BC   Babylonian Empire of Amorite king Hammurabi famous from his law code.
ca. 1700 BC   Hurrian tribes from mountains north invaded Northern Mesopotamia. 
ca. 1600-1500 BC   Old Hittie Kingdom in Asia Minor.
ca. 1600-1400 BC   Hurrian and Indo-European Mitanni Kingdom in northern Mesopotamia.
ca. 1700-1500 BC   Decline of Harappa & Mohenjo-Daro civilization. 
ca. 1700-1500 BC   Aryans invaded Indus Valley from north.
ca. 1650-1550 BC   Second Intermediate (chaos) period in Egypt. Northern Egypt under the rule of Hyksos tribes (from Asia)
1700-1200 BC   Mycenaean civilization of Achaeans in Greece
ca. 1500 BC +70 years   Eruption of Thira volcano. Achaians (Achaeans) conquered Crete. End of Minoan civilization.End of Minoan civilization. Age of chaos in the Mediterranean started (see Ipuwer papyrus, section III). http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/ipuwer.htm
ca. 1447 BC   Exodus - Jews ran away from Egypt (according to “New Chronology, traditional chronology places Exodus in XIIIth century BC! - see arguments http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.html).
There is a hypothesis that Egyptian Plagues were a side-effect of Thira eruption and crossing the Sea of Reeds (hebrew Jam Suf) was possible thanks to a tsunami wave. Warning: There is absolutely no proof for this hypothesis (the same as for other Daniken-like hypotheses).  
ca. 1600-1000 BC   Shang dynasty in China
ca. 1500 BC   Iron Age. But for a few centuries (until ca. 1200 BC) Hitties had monopoly on iron working. Age of war chariots invented by Indo-Europeans.
ca. 1600 BC   Kassites (from Zargos mountains in western Iran) conquered Babylonia.
1600-1150 BC   Dynasty of the Kassites in Babylonia. Cultural decline.
1400-1200 BC  New Hittie Empire.
1550-1050 BC   New Kingdom in Egypt.
1500-1300 BC   Military expansion of Egypt to Palestine and Syria during the XVIIIth dynasty (Thutmose III) and the XIXth dynasty (Ramses II). Wars with Mittani and Hittie (Hatti) Empire. 
1500-1200 BC   Achaeans (Greek) states in Greece, on Crete, and in Southern Italy (late Mycenaean civilization). 
ca. 1200 BC   Achaeans destroyed city of Troy.
ca. 1200-1100 BC   Dorians (Greek tribes from central Greece) invasion destroyed Achaean kingdoms of Mycenaean civilization.
ca. 1200 BC   Frygians (Indo-Europeans from Balkans) invaded Asia Minor and destroyed Hittie Empire.
ca. 1200 BC   Probably the migration of Latin (Indo-European) tribes to Italy.
ca. 1200 BC   Raids of iron-armed Sea People (Sea Nations) against Egypt and other countries in West Mediterranean.
after 1350 BC   Assyria defeated the Mitanni Kingdom and became the major power in Northern Mesopotamia. 
after 1200 BC   Sea expansion of Phoenician city-states (from Lebanon). First Phoenician colonies: Utica (in Tunisia), Lixus (in Morocco), Gades (in Southern Spain).
after 1200 BC   Culture of Tartessos in Southern Spain.   
ca. 1200 BC   Chaldeans (from Arabia) migrated to Mesopotamia.
ca. 1150 BC   Invasion from Elam destroyed Kassities kingdom in Babylonia.
ca. 1100 BC   Expansion of Assyrian under the rule of Tiglathpileser I (First Assyrian Empire).
ca. 1100-1000 BC   Urartu kingdom in Armenia.
ca. 1000 BC   King Solomon in Palestine.
ca. 1000 BC   Beginning of Zhou dynasty in China.
ca. 1050-700 BC   Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. Political decline.
1500-600 BC  Aryan expansion in northern India (Ganges Valley). Many feudal states.
since 900 BC   Villanova culture in Italy - rise of populistic Etruscan city-states.
900-700 BC   Second Assyrian Empire. Example of expansion of middle-income country. Assyrian conquests were very brute. First large armies equipped with iron weaponry. Late Assyrian kings (Assurbanipal) created large libraries of old Babylonian and Sumerian texts. Map. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/assyrian_empire_750_625.jpg
ca. 850-800 BC   Reforms of Lycurgus in Sparta - first populistic city-state in Greece.
ca 800-500 BC   Greek colonization in Mediterranean
ca. 800 BC   Phoenician city of Carthage (in Tunisia) founded (traditionally 814 BC).
776 BC   First Olympic Games in Greece.
ca. 750 BC   Rome founded (traditionally 753 BC).
770-475 BC   “Springs and Autumns” period in China. Feudal decomposition of late Zhou dynasty.
712 BC   Fall of the Assyrian Empire defeated by Medes (from Iran) and Babylonians (general Nabopolassar).
700-600 BC   Invasions from northern coasts of Black Sea. Cimmerians raided Assyria and Asia Minor. Then Scyths (Scythians) made some raids to Central Europe and Middle East.  
712-538 BC   Neo-Babylonian Empire (Chaldean Empire) of  king Nebuchadnezzar II known from the Bible. Map. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/oriental_empire.jpg
ca. 650 BC   Persians subordinate Medes in Iran.
After 700 BC   Late Period in Egypt.
ca. 600 BC   According to Herodotus Phoenician expedition launched by pharaoh Necho sailed around Africa.  
593 BC   Solon’s reforms in Athens.
ca. 550 BC   Gautama Buddha in India. 
538 BC   Persians leaded by king Cyrus II conquered Babylonia - Persian Empire. Map. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/persian_empire.jpg
509 BC   Banishment of Etruscan kings - populistic republic in Rome.

Dates above are rounded, simplified for reader convenience (for example 1700-1600 BC means in XVIIth century BC) and grouped to illustrate sequences of events - for example how a collapse of empire or civilization launched barbarian invasions. Here is a quick summary:

4th millennium BC
Uruk Period in Mesopotamia, invention of writing, early Sumer Civilization.

3100-2300 BC
Populistic Sumer city-states in Mesopotamia, Old Kingdom in Egypt. Bronze age starts.

2300-1650 BC
Feudal kingdoms in Mesopotamia, Middle Kingdom in Egypt, populistic Minoan Civilization, Indus Valley Civilization.

1650-1150 BC
Age of political chaos and barbarian migrations after the fall of Hammurabi Empire, Minoan Civilization and Indus Valley Civilization. A kind of ancient “dark ages”. New Kingdom in Egypt.

Since 1200 BC
Sea expansion of populistic Phoenician city-states. Successive feudal empires in Mesopotamia. Iron Age starts.

Since 800 BC
Sea expansion of Greek city-states. Etruscans and Rome in Italy. First reliable historical dates. 

Ancient Greece

In a very short time after the fall of Mycenian civilization Phoenician city-states (Tyrus, Sidon, Byblos and others) became populistic and dominated the Mediterranean trade. Phoenician city-states were located at the crossroads of important trade routes to Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Western Mediterranean Sea, so the large amount of trade that goes thorough those cites makes the merchant class stronger. Before the industrial revolution the trade was the main power that created populistic states. Phoenicians retained some technologies invented in older populistic cultures and also invented some new (with the most famous invention of alphabet).

These times Greek city-states were stressed on Greek Peninsula and Aegean Islands. Numerous mountain ranges on the peninsula and of course surrounded seas made military expansion much more costly and thus relatively cheaper import of technologies (from Phoenicians), invention of new technologies and trade enterprises. In a few hundred years the dark period in Greece ended, and the first populistic city-states appeared.

One of the first was Sparta, more or less since the times of politician Lykourgos (or Lycurgus, who lived probably in IXth century BC). Having more advanced political system than their neighbours Sparta conquered a half of Peloponnese Peninsula, especially the large kingdom of Messenia.  Large colonies made the political system of Sparta a classical example of the rule of oligarchy.

When a populistic country conquests many other countries, its political system usually becomes very stable and oligarchic. The reason is that any instability or political upheaval could give the country’s colonies an opportunity to win independence. Great income from colonies makes other citizens of the core empire core (who participate in that income) more agreeable to  a nearly “frozen” political system, and the rule of a very narrow elite of elders (gerontocracy). It is useful to compare the political system of Sparta and the political system of the Soviet Union between 1960-1980.	

Appendix: Polity of ancient Sparta. (political institutions of Sparta)

In a very short time other Greek city-states (Corinth, Athens, Argos, Aegina and others) became populistic too. This is the start of the period of Greek colonization and trade expansion in the Aegean Sea, Black Sea, and other regions of the Mediterranean Sea. That expansion (very profitable at the beginning) created the great demand for capital, so the first populistic governments in the Greek city-states were dominated by the richer citizens and were oligarchic as in in Sparta. Eventually there were a hundred or more Greek populistic city-states. 

Here is the map showing some of the most important populistic city-states in the Aegean Sea region.
[picture]
Populistic city-states are marked with red dots. The most important are little bigger. 
I have also marked the borders of some of the biggest city-states - Sparta, Argos, Corinth, Athens, Thebes (really a union of city-states) the big feudal state of Thessalia, and the kingdom of Macedonia.
Really the map should be more complicated: there were more populistic-city states. Some of them changed to populistic a few centuries after the first ones. Some of them were colonies. Some of the most important  achieved the peak of their power in different centuries (e.g.. Samos and  Chios were great sea powers before the times of Persian invasion and Athens Sea Union). But to be accurate I would have had to present several maps, not one. 
This map was taken from the web page http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/greece.htm, part of Bernard SUZANNE's  "Plato and his dialogues" site, which also presents a very good short introduction to ancient Greece.  Other Ancient Greece Links Ancient Greece Timeline. (PDF) http://www.holoka.com/pdf-files/hist_323_lect.pdf Nice overview of Ancient Greece History based on Herodotus. http://www.herodotuswebsite.co.uk/Herodotus.htm History of some important cities of Ancient Greece (for example Thebes) http://www.sikyon.com/index.html Library of ancient texts in Ancient History Sourcebook. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook07.html And a short, systematic review of Greece History. http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_smithhistoryofgreece_contents.htm	

Slavery Here is a good time to correct one of Carl Marx mistakes. Slavery in ancient times was an effect of a very low technology level, and not the immanent element of a political system. In those times there was plenty of jobs that did not require any special skills from workers, but just simple strength. So the workers had very limited political power, and thus could be turned into slaves very easily - especially in labour-intensive jobs like in mining, great plantations or household services. Since the ancient times our technology level has grown drastically, and now even the labour-intensive jobs require much more knowledge and skill, so there is no slavery today, except maybe kidnapped women who have to work in whore houses in Western Europe, or quasi-slavery in some “dirty jobs” taken by immigrants. It is useful to compare this with the status of private slave in ancient Athens, who generally were able to go everywhere in the city and take any job, only having to pay his master some percentage of money he had earned. 	

In the VI century BC most of the Mediterranean coast had been colonized, and thus colonization became less profitable, and other ways to increase the community income (like wars to conquer other countries or to dominate the trade) became more attractive. In consequence, the demand for capital fell, and of course the political power of rich citizens decreased too. As middle and lower classes (middle-income merchants, craftsmen, farmers) come to power, oligarchic governments in some cities fell, giving way to tyrannies or so-called “democracies”.

In a populistic state there are many different GPIs (groups of political interests) - there are factions of: rich people and poor people, capital owners and labour workers, small business owners and consumers, expansionists and pacifists, free-market adherents and protectionism adherents, farmers and food consumers from cities, money lenders and debtors, religious conservatives and liberal progressives, government administrators and believers of free initiative and personal freedom who pursue government abuses. All  these GPIs fight or cooperate with each other, and form different alliances. But with all  these various GPIs, there were basically only three basic forms of a populistic system in ancient Greece:  
·	oligarchy with the rule of richest citizens,
·	 “democracy” (really a quasi-democracy) with the rule of poorer citizens, 
·	and tyranny which usually emerged in middle-income countries in times of economic crisis.
·	plus many mixed variants like ex. Athens after Solon reforms
 
So-called “democracy” in ancient Greek city-states was no more than a left-winged populistic system. A “democratic” system usually emerged in states strongly involved in sea trade (mostly in Aegean Sea region), because those kind of countries could easily increase their wealth by combined military/trade expansion. This policy was strongly supported by middle-income groups of citizens like traders, craftsmen and low-income groups like labour workers or sailors, because they were beneficiaries of the increase in trade exchange. Sea trade made necessary a large navy that could be build only by a country government, and thus the role of “government administrators” GPI increased too. So Greek “democracy” was simply an effect of the alliance between middle and low-income citizens against the high-income groups of political interests: aristocracy, planters, the richest merchants.

When the economy was in a good condition, this kind of populistic regime worked quite well without serious conflicts, and at first glance was very similar to real democracy. But when the crisis came, all institutional weakness of that system became obvious. Here are some examples  from ancient Athens:
·	There was very weak control over the government income and spending (In Athens at the times of Pericles, the main part of the city income was the tax paid by the members of Athens Sea Union. Those members were obligated to pay, and could not protest because the Athenian army terrorized them. So payers had no way to decide, how large a tax they would pay, and how this money would be spent.) 
·	There were institutions which made it easy to hound opposition politicians (like ostracism, special courts founded to “protect democracy”), and almost no institutions that could protect them against government abuses.
·	Meeting of all citizens was very weak in controlling government and conducting serious legislative work, but was very easy to dominate by a skillful demagogue.

Appendix: Polity of ancient Athens (political institutions of Athens)

When the crisis came, the low-income groups of citizens increased in number, and they became the political clients of government politicians, who could buy their support using non-controlled government money or propaganda. Large groups of mob (low-income citizens) led by demagogues from the most influential faction of the “democratic party” helped that  group to dominate meeting of all citizens and thus to overwhelm and threat other groups of citizens. Everyone who tried to made politics against them could be banished from the city or even killed. 

It is useful to compare this with France after the Great Revolution, when the Jacobins faction ruled the country and threatened the other political faction and politicians using the street demonstrations of sanquillots (little merchants, craftsmen, etc.). 	

Especially the freedom of richer groups of people was restricted. They were for example obligated to make “voluntary” financial donations for the state. So, when we look at the political regime (organization) of a country, we should always think, how it will work in times of economic crisis, and how easy it is to abuse the political institutions of the state and use them to hound the political opposition. 

Let’s start an intellectual experiment:  Let assume that in early 1970-s  during the oil crisis, the democratic party had won the election in USA, then made all important republican politicians leave the country, prohibited all “republican anti-american propaganda”, and killed some less important republican politicians after manipulated court trials. Moreover, they forced other NATO members to pay large sums of money into the USA budget, and when the French protested, they invaded France with an army, killing most of citizens of Paris. If USA had done that, would you call you call that country “democratic”? But in Athens all practices mentioned above were normal, and in spite of this we still call ancient Athens a “democracy”. 	

Let’s make it clear, I have no personal prejudice against ancient Athens. I am showing all its weaknesses, because it is  a very good illustration of  how easy it is to mistake some forms of populistic system with democracy. I have to confess that for the first two years after 1990 (when I invented the new political system classification), I believed that Athens was a democracy. But then I read some books describing ancient Athenian democracy in more detail, and found that it was the classic example of a populistic state. 

In the VI century BC Greek city-states developed technology to such a level that the Aegean Sea region slowly became the economical center of the ancient world (center of the Mediterranean region to be precise). Greek city-states were the richest and most advanced countries in the ancient world. That brought them new dangers, problems and opportunities for expansion. First, the Greek city-states on the coasts of Asia Minor were conquered by kings of feudal states in Asia Minor (most important was the kingdom of Lydia) which had grown in power on exports to those city-states. After that, city-states on the islands (Samos, Chios, Rodos, etc.) faced a crisis because of less profitable conditions of trade with Asia Minor, and this pushed them into military expansion plus made social conflict inside cities more intensive.

Then the Asia Minor kingdoms were conquered by the Persian Empire - a great feudal state in the phase of growth, and the Greek populistic city-states were incorporated into it . We have learned in school that Greeks from Asia Minor heroically fought against the Persian Empire, but it is only partially true. Some of the Greek city-states citizens felt oppressed (usually left-winged GPIs that were interested in Aegean Sea trade), but some prospered (usually right-winged, oligarchic GPIs that was interested in trade with Asia Minor). => It is useful to compare this with today’s Hong-Kong under China’s rule. 

Generally, when a small populist state neighbours a large feudal state, it usually falls into a kind of symbiosis with his bigger neighbour, and in most cases both countries finally unite with each other. Phoenician city-states are a good example of this process. They began to cooperate with powerful land empires like Assyria or the Persian Empire, and sold their independence (but still had some autonomy) for the profits from land trade.

Then the European Greeks were faced with the Persian invasion. Basically there were three main reasons for Persian aggression against European Greeks:
·	The Persian Empire was in a phase of expansion, so wars and tribute from conquered countries was the main way to increase Persia’s wealth.
·	The Persian Empire supported the economic interests of Phoenicians merchants, who competed very hard with Greek merchants.
•	European Greek city-states were a shelter for radicals who had to flee from Greek cities in Asia Minor.
It’s a good example that even if can find “rational” reasons for war (or any other historical event or process), one reason is not a sufficient explanation. 

The Persian Wars were the classic example of how a small country with a superior political system (populistic Greek city-states) could defeat a much bigger country with an inferior political system (Persian Empire). Of course the rule “nec Hercules contra plures” is still true, but a combination of  better war technology, high mobilization and sheer determination, which was an effect of patriotic ideologies of populistic states, helped the Greeks to defend their freedom. Moreover, even if the Persians had won, they probably would not have been able to hold Greeks down for long. 

About 50 years after defeating the Persians, the Greek city-states started the 100 year period of wars for domination in Greece. During that period different states had the status of dominant power: Athens, Sparta, Thebes, but none of them was strong enough to completely overpower all opponents. It is a good demonstration of a practical rule obvious for all players of political games: when there are 5-10 countries more or less equal in power, which compete each other in -an enclosed region, none of these countries can win. The reason is, when one country grows in strength, the others make an alliance against it, and bring it down. 

And there is one interesting thing I want to show you here. During the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta the low-income groups of citizens in Athens generally supported the war, because the war gave them a chance to improve their social and economic status (ex. from war loots) if they served in the fleet. Or the war gave them a chance of stable employment, if they worked in the naval industry. And the upper middle-income groups of citizens were generally against the war, because they were the core of Athenian land troops, and had to pay with their own blood (very often because Spartan troops generally won most of the land battles) for the profits of low-income GPIs (groups of political interests). So, as you can see a populistic country with a left-winged government could – sometimes be more aggressive than a populistic populist country with a right-winged government. 

Two observations related to populistic states in general: First, Sparta was less expansive than Athens during the Peloponnesian War, because the oligarchic government of Sparta was rather interested in protecting the lands conquered earlier and tried to avoid war as long as possible. Second, traveling teachers called sophists gained popularity, and advised Greek politicians on how to present political ideas to citizens using rhetorical tricks (just like media-specialists in Russia or Ukraine today - i.e. before 2005).

When the Greek city-states were involved in wars with each other, the kingdom of Macedonia in the north slowly grew in strength. Macedonia was an important exporter of  many different goods and natural resources to the Athens Sea Union. This export slowly created the material and social base for the emergence of a populistic system. With the decline of Athens and a protectionist policy introduced by the Athenian government, Macedonia was faced with the threat of an economic crisis. So, when the kingdom of Macedonia had developed into a populistic state (more or less 360 BC in the times of Philip II), the country immediately started military expansion.

Populistic Macedonia was quite a large state compared to the other Greek city-states, and had a similar level of technology, so Philip II had no problem to conquer and subordinate most of Greece except Sparta. It is useful to note that Macedonia had a similar geo-strategic (and geo-economic) position on the Greek peninsula as Russia has for Europe. 

His son, Alexander the Great, as everybody knows, conquered the whole Persian Empire. It was more the effect of the Greek advantage in technology and the overall weakening of the Persian Empire rather than his skill. The Persian Empire started to decline about two centuries earlier, and for a long time the only real power in its army were Greek mercenaries (about 70 years before Alexander 10 thousands of unpaid Greek mercenaries had marched without problems thorough half of Persian Empire). Alexander simply had the luck to start his expedition when the Persian Empire was in the final stage of decay. 

Great Conquests The reasons for the other great and quick conquests were generally the same: the political and economical  decay of the conquered countries. No matter who the conqueror was: Alexander, Arabian Kalifs, Vikings, Gengis Khan, Cortes or Pissarro. 	

The conquests of Alexander opened the whole of the Middle East for Greek economic expansion, creating in this manner a new wide diffusion channel between technologically advanced Greece and the less developed lands of the Persian Empire. This diffusion started the age of economic prosperity in the new Hellenistic kingdoms, but also a period of relative economic stagnation in Greece. Capital and technology (and immigration) flowed to the Middle East intensely, but not enough to stop the trend of decay, which was tearing apart the lands of the former Persian Empire. So after the death of Alexander, his generals portioned his kingdom into a few smaller countries.

Final Notes on Ancient Greece
There are two important observations I would like to present at the end of this short tale about Ancient Greece:

First, the populistic system is not always bad, oppressive and inhuman. Compared to the neighbouring barbarian lands and feudal kingdoms (especially Persia), the Greek city-states were the lands of liberty, justice, economic freedom and prosperity. Moreover, Greece was the center of art, culture and science. Compared to a feudal country, a populistic state is usually a very good place to live.

Secondly, the history of Ancient Greece is a great example of many historic and economic processes which we could analyze in search of answers to present problems: 
·	We could find here (in Corinth, Athens, Thebes, Argos, Samos, Sparta, Siracuse) almost every variant of a  populistic system, every form of political oppression that a populistic government could invent, and every method used in populistic countries to promote one particular GPI.
·	We have great examples of  how the form of populistic systems evolves when economic conditions change.
·	We have examples of what the  economic and political effects are for feudal countries neighbouring the technologically advanced populistic states.
·	We could observe the evolution of many social processes (like mass immigration, economic stagnation, social effects of trade route shifts and many others) and the effects of different measures taken to solve these problems.
·	 We can observe the shifts in people’s mentality and ideologies launched by new economic processes. (Ex. the sexual revolution at the end of a period of colonization - sexual freedom generally decreases the rate of population growth, and sexually oppressive ideologies increase this rate.) 

And so on. Therefore, I strongly encourage everyone to study the history of Ancient Greece beyond this short introduction. Quite a good place to start can be the History of Ancient Greece written by N. G. L. Hammond.

Appendix: Polity of Ancient Sparta
(political institutions of Sparta)
 
According to Spartan  tradition its polity was created by a lawgiver, Lycurgus (or Lycourgos, Lykourgos). Historians are not sure if he really existed, and some of them think that the political system of Sparta at the beginning was not so restrictive as described below. But in a very short time after Lycurgus, the city-state of Sparta started a very rapid military expansion. So there is the possibility that the story of Lycurgus is partially true and it is a reminder of the beginning of a populistic system in Sparta.   

Social classes
There were three major social classes in Sparta:
·	Spartiates - the only class that had full political rights (full citizenship). It was the class of the soldiers. When they were young, they lived in barracks, did hard military training and were the core of the heavy infantry of Sparta. When they were older, they could try for city offices. They did not have to work at all, because everyone had land with dependent farmers called helots. It was quite a limited group. 
·	Perioikoi - they had personal freedom, and some autonomy, but no political rights. They also served in the army, but the heavy infantry units made up of perioikoi were not so elite as the units of Spartiates. 
·	Helots - were the dependent farmers who had to pay half of their income (i.e. fruits of the land) to the Spartiates, who were the real owners of the land. They had no political or civil rights, but could not be sold like slaves nor freed by a Spartiate who owned them.

Generally the first two groups were the “political base” for the state of Sparta. A great mass of helots were oppressed and from time to time rebelled unsuccessfully. So there was a special institution - we can call it the “secret police” (but of course it was not such a formal organization as a modern secret policy) – the cryptia (or Krypteria) that continuously terrorized helots.

The State of Sparta is probably the first known totalitarian populistic state. State of Sparta had an enclosed society, with brainwashing (militaristic) ideology that preserved the political system of the state, strong control of the contacts abroad, and the institutionalized mechanism of terror (cryptia and other political traditions invented to oppress helots). 

Polity of Sparta

Two kings
At the top were two kings, who ruled the city-state of Sparta. After some time their power was reduced with the introduction of the office of ephores, and since then kings were only responsible for commanding the army of Sparta and for the diplomacy of the city-state. The two kings always came from two powerful families of Sparta: Agiades and Euripontides. 

Five ephores
The office of ephore was introduced to reduce the power of kings. They had full administrative and executive authority in Sparta, and had Power to supervise kings of Sparta. They had a one-year tenure - i.e. were elected every year by the meeting of citizens. 

Gerusia (council of elders)
The members of Gerusia were all citizens (i.e. Spartiates) who were more than 60 years old, so it was quite a limited group and therefore the council was naturally very conservative. Gerusia had Power to  prepare laws that were then voted upon at the meeting of citizens. And they  were also able to control the voting process. 

Meeting of citizens (Apella) 
Because only the Spartiates had citizens privileges, it was a meeting of Spariates. The meeting was convened by kings, ephores or Gerusia (who could not convene it by themselves). Citizens had the privilege of electing ephores and voting upon laws prepared by Gerusia. They could not prepare laws by themselves, or make any modifications to laws prepared by Gerusia - if they did, Gerusia could annul the voting. 

As you can see, the polity of Sparta preserved the power of the most important families, had built-in institutional solutions, that made the political system almost invariable and all representative institutions (like ex. meeting of citizens) were strongly controlled by the ruling oligarchy. Because of the important role of the elders from Gerusia the  political system of Sparta was sometimes called gerontocracy (rule of elders). 

Appendix: Polity of Ancient Athens 
(political institutions of Athens)

Here is  a short, tendentious and very simplified description of the evolution of the political system in ancient Athens. But first two important reservations:

Firstly: Historians are not always sure when exactly a particular element of political system was invented. A good example here is ostracism. 

Secondly: We have very limited information about Athens before Solon. So, for example, I couldn’t say when exactly Athens became populistic. We can only be sure that Athens was populistic under the rule of the tyrant (tyran) Dracon, who in 621 BC introduced the very restrictive law codex (Draconic laws). 

Before Solon
At first the populistic Athenian city-state was an oligarchic state ruled by aristocratic families. There were a few state offices: 
·	archont - kind of president with a one year tenure 
·	basileus - this name of office means “a king”, but he was only responsible for organizing religious ceremonies
·	polemarchos - the chief of the Athenian army, overall commander 
·	6 thesmothetai - officials responsible for creating new laws (have legislative power) 

After some time all the officials mentioned above were called “archonts”. Former city-officials (archonts) formed some kind of council called Aeropagus. 

The country was divided into 4 districts called phyle (pl. phylae). 

This type of polity is typical for many oligarchic populistic states. Renaissance Venice could be a very good example of a similar political system.

After Solon's reforms

Solon was an aristocrat politician (and poet) who was elected for the archont office for the year 594/593 BC and reformed the polity of Athens. His reforms were a compromise between aristocrats protecting their privileges and other Athenians fighting for a more righteous political system. The poorer citizens of Athens also argued for a reduction of debts.

So, Solon cancelled some of the debts, took the personal dependency from dependent peasants, introduced the new law codex, and gave the Athenian citizenship to many of the previously dependent peasants and immigrants living in Athens. 

But he also introduced a completely new political system:
·	He created the Council of 400 - a parliament of Athens with 400 members
·	Introduced Heliaia - court (or courts) - which consisted of jurymen, an important protection from law abuses

He also defined four social classes organized according to the annual income of citizens:
·	pentakosiomedimnoi - the richest people with an annual income over 500 bushels, as the name states (probably mainly former aristocrats).
·	hippeis - “horsemen” with an annual income over 300 bushels (rich citizens).
·	zeugitai - “hoplites” (members of heavy infantry) with an annual income over 200 bushels, Athenian “middle-class”.
·	thetes - all other citizens with a lower income.
There were also two other political classes in Athens with no citizens privileges:
·	metoikoi - immigrants (sometimes quite rich).
·	slaves

From this time onwards political privileges depended on the income of a citizen (each of the four classes elected a 100 members of the Council of 400). And there was still the council of Aeropagus, and still usually only the richest citizens were elected for city offices.

A political system of this kind is common for many populistic states (for example in XIXth century France or Germany  we could observe very similar systems where political and voting privileges depended on a citizen’s income). That kind of populistic system is the result of a political alliance between rich citizens and middle-income citizens.

It is also useful to note similarities between these social classes and the classes in the early Roman republic, and similarities between the Athenian Council of 400 and the Roman comitia centuriata. In ancient times social classes were often organized according to the role of citizens in a city-state army, because war was in those days a very profitable kind of “state-investment”.

"Democracy" since Cleisthenes's reforms 

In the last decades of VIth century BC Athens were ruled by the tyrant Pisistratus and his sons. The rule of Pisistratus wasn’t so oppressive, but his sons weren’t so wise. After a serious upheaval, a politician named Cleisthenes introduced (508/507 BC) a  completely new organization of political institutions, that was called democracy (the rule of common people).

The best resource about Athenian “democracy” is Aristotle’s work: Constitutions of Athenians.
Plus here you will find some other resources.	

Here are the most important of his reforms:

New territorial organization of the state. Now there were 10 phylae and three regions: the sea coast, the interior, and the city. Each region was divided into 10 segments. Three segments: one from the coast region, one from the interior region and one from the city region made one phyle. Second segment from the coast region, second from the interior region and second from the city region made another phyle and so on. Moreover, segments that made one particular phyle could not border with each other. Very strange, right?

No so strange indeed. Phylae were voting districts. Here Athenians elected the members of the Council and local officials. Such fragmented districts reduced the political power of aristocrats, because great families of land owners usually had many political clients in the vicinity of theirs lands. After the reform aristocrats could no longer easily win elections in rural phylae, so the reform enhanced the political chances of not so rich citizens. 

Introduction of Bule. New Athenian Council (also called the Council of 500). Members of the Council were chosen randomly (using an “ballot-box” with black and white balls) from the candidates elected in each phyle. New Council of 500 was no longer a parliament like Council of 400, but rather a bureaucratic and court machine. For every 1/10 of the year members elected in one particular phyle worked as officials paid from the country budget, then members from the second phyle took over the presidency and so on. 

The method of election again promoted the organized faction of “democrats” and was against the aristocrats, who now had a very limited chance to become a member of the Bule (because of the random mechanism of the election).

Meeting of all citizens (Ecclesia). Following the reforms, the meeting of all citizens of Athens was responsible for the most of the political decisions. But several thousands of people could not effectively carry out the function of parliament. There were too many people to legislate laws, control the state budget, and solve other more sophisticated problems. Actually the meeting was easy to control by a charismatic leader, a well-organized political faction or a skillful demagogue - as with every large crowd of people. 

Here is an example of how unstable and easy it was to dominate the meeting. In the times of the Athens Sea Union one of the allied cities on the isle of Lesbos rebelled against Athens. Athenians sent soldiers, who pacified the rebellion. Then the Athenian meeting deliberated, how to punish the rebelled city. At first, stirred up by populist demagogues, the meeting decided to kill all adult men and sell all children and women as a slaves. But the next day, calmed by some more rational politicians, Ecclesia changed that cruel decision, and the city survived. 	

Isegoria, isonomia, isotimia, isocratia. Cleisthenes’s reforms introduced some basic rules of the political system. Every citizen had freedom of speech (isegoria), every citizen had equal rights in law (isonomia), every citizen had equal rights to be elected into city offices (isotimia), and every citizen formally had equal political power (isocratia). It was a significant progress compared to the times before Cleisthenes, when different groups of citizens had different political rights. 

It is not obvious if these equalities were more populistic slogans (like liberté, égalité, fraternité slogans, we know from the Great French Revolution) used by the faction of “democrats”, or if they were the real guaranties of the political rights of citizens (isotimia probably was, at least for some time). But they started the idea of political equality, and thus created the ideological basement for modern European democracies. 

Ostracism. Probably also introduced by Cleisthenes. Once a year citizens of Athens had the privilege of pointing out the politician who was a threat to democracy (tried to become a tyrant). They wrote down the names of politicians on broken pieces of pottery. The politician, who got the majority of such votes (and no less than 6000) was banished from Athens for 10 years (but his property wasn’t confiscated).

A true democratic country does not need such a “protection”. A stable balance between different GPIs (groups of political interests) plus institutions that are protecting individuals against state abuses (passive protections) are the best shield against tyranny. That kind of “active protecting” political tools are very dangerous, because they can easily be used against political opposition (while passive protections cannot).

It is informative to look at the names of politicians who were banished in this way: Themistocles, Thucydides, Kimon, son of Miltiades (political opponent of Pericles), Alcibiades the Elder, etc. Ostracism was a very nice tool to eliminate the most prominent politicians, sometimes men with great personal honesty. Let’s imagine that Winston Churchill or Franklin Delano Roosevelt were eliminated from politics that way.   	

Board of 10 strategi
A kind of “government” of Athens. Each strategus (Greek: strategos), elected by Ecclesia, was at the same time a political leader responsible for politics of Athens, and an army commander. The tenure of strategus was one year, but a politician could be elected as strategus many times (as Pericles was).

To recapitulate:
Cleisthenes’s reforms eliminated the true parliament and introduced the bureaucratic offices (financed from the state treasury) used to reward citizens who supported the leaders of “democrats”. All important projects were prepared by a small group of people and then voted upon by the meeting of all citizens, where no one could really control introduced projects. Very similar quasi-democratic political systems (where bureaucrats employed by the state offices are the political clients and supporters of party leaders) were created for example by the PRI party in Mexico or the Congress Party in India. 

Well, I am exaggerating a little. Most of the time there wasn’t any organized structure of a “democratic” faction in ancient Athens. The political system was not so different from real democracy (except the ostracism, and the lack of parliament). Newly legislated laws were controlled by the Aeropagus, and there was still a law system that was respected, so politicians had no absolute power. 
 
However Cleisthenes reforms did not introduce a real democracy but another form of a populistic system. With no oppressive institutions, because the overall economic conditions were good and there were no serious social conflicts. The political system was stable, because of the alliance between middle-income citizens (zeugitai) and low-income citizens (thetes, led by charismatic leaders) against the aristocracy that cemented the new political institutions. 

Evolution of Athenian  “democracy” before the Peloponnesian War  

Until the Peloponnesian War the quasi-democratic system in Athens worked quite well. The main reason was the economic prosperity:
·	Firstly Athens took over the trade across the Aegean Sea, when the rich Greek city states from Asia Minor fell under the dominance of the Persian Empire.
·	Then, just before the Persian Wars, very rich deposits of silver (483 BC) were discovered in the Laurion Mountains, giving Athenians an extra income from the export of precious metal and money minced from that silver. 
·	Thirdly, after the Persian Wars (about 454 BC when the treasury of Sea Union was moved from Isle Delos to Athens) Athens gained the domination over other smaller states of the Athenian Sea Union, and forced them to pay large sums of money to the Athenian treasury (that money was called collections for common defense, but finally became nothing more than a tribute).

Before the Peloponnesian War two important modifications of the political system were introduced:

Since 487 BC, the Aeropagus members were elected (to be more precise were randomly chosen from the candidates elected in local administrative districts).

Secondly, since the Efialtes reform in 462 BC Aeropagus prerogatives (area of authority) were further restricted. Since then Aeropagus was no longer privileged in controlling the legality of new laws.

Both reforms mentioned above eliminated the last institution that could control the laws legislated by a Meeting of all Citizens (Ecclesia), and thus there was no longer a way to control new laws promoted by charismatic politicians.

Crisis of the Peloponnesian War

A long Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta that started in 431 BC ended the period of economic prosperity in Athens and launched some changes in the relative power of different GPIs (groups of political interests):

•	The rise in prices pauperized some of the middle-income citizens (zeugitai).
•	Many middle-income citizens died in land battles (the heavy infantry of Sparta was most of the time undefeatable).
•	The important role of the fleet increased the political power of low-income citizens (thetes), who were the sailors and oarsmen on Athenian warships.  
 
Generally, thetes were interested in war and zeugitai in peace. And every year of the war the middle-income citizens GPI became weaker and Athenian politics and politicians became more populistic. 

See Thucydides The History of the Peloponnesian War.  http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html And the Chapter XVII with Melian Dialogues which disappeared from a version in MIT archives. http://eebook.myrice.com/t/thucydides/chap17.html	

Finally this resulted in political trials (a kind of “ witch hunt”) of the “enemies of democracy”. A good example was the elimination of the political faction led by Alcibiades. Then, after the unfortunate expedition against city-state of Siracuse, the war went very badly, and the political struggle became much more brutal. There were a few coup d’etat, mass executions of political opponents, even a civil war. Finally, defeated by Sparta, the Athenian Empire collapsed. 

Very good test to find out if a country is really democratic is to observe, how well its political system behaves, when the country is put thorough the mill. True democratic systems survive serious conditions (there are numerous examples from the history of Great Britain or ancient Rome), but populistic quasi-democratic countries usually turn into a true populistic state.  	
 
After the war

When Athens was freed from the domination of Sparta, the political system was reconstructed to the form more or less the same as before the disaster (maybe a little more conservative). But I am not going to describe these changes here, because I have not any good resources at hand, and don’t want to offer you information that I can’t verify.

Ancient Rome

Speaking about Ancient Rome there are two important problems that have to be aforementioned:
·	First, people usually have a quite good knowledge about the history of Rome in times of late Republic (I-st century BC) and history of Roman Empire after Caesar. But, as I mentioned before these times Rome was no more a democracy, but a populistic country. And a common knowledge about the history of democratic period of Ancient Rome history (449 - 133 BC) is usually very poor.
·	Second, we have limited historical sources about early ages of Rome. Everything before year 500 BC is half-legendary (like Lykourgos in Sparta). I think that most of the facts in Roman chronicles are generally true, but it is my personal opinion (that roots from laws presented here). Moreover, most of the chronicles that describe the early ages of Rome were written in times of late Republic, so are not always impartial.  
  <http://romanhistorybooksandmore.freeservers.com/l_rep_emp.htm>
Good place to start, if you are looking for facts from the History of Rome. And some detailed maps Ancient Rome (and other ancient countries). http://romanhistorybooksandmore.freeservers.com/l_rep_emp.htm http://www.unc.edu/awmc/downloads/index.html Here is the academic course of Early Roman History. http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_365/Syllabus.html 
And schematic Timeline or more detailed Timeline from Wikipedia
http://www.exovedate.com/ancient_timeline_two.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_Rome 	

Populistic Rome (509-499 BC)

Traditionally Rome was founded in 753 BC by Romulus. Next king Numa Pompilius created the senate. Roman nobles (patricians) very early gained political privileges and thus in times of Etruscan kings (617-509 BC) Latin Rome was feudal state with extended political institutions for nobles. This subclass of feudal system is called a “feudal democracy”.

As I said before, Rome became populistic state in the year 509 BC when citizens of Rome banished Etruscan king Tarquinius Superbus, and after a very short time (only 60 years after) in 449 BC Rome city-state became democratic country. What was the reason for so fast political evolution?

Well, here is “quick-and-dirty” explanation:
·	First, feudal and then populistic Rome have no place to expand because have many strong neighbours: Etruscan city-states and Latin tribal states, so its political system could not decompose because of too many conquered lands. Moreover, for the same reason, the war was always was the worst strategy of increasing wealth for Romans. Trade and export were more profitable.
·	Rome was important intermediary in salt trade that goes thorough the city (which made merchant class stronger), and an exporter of agricultural products (which turned Roman peasants into farmers).
·	Rich Etruscan city-states these times colonized the Northern Italy and were a great market to sell Roman agricultural products.

Because of reasons mentioned above Rome became the “noble-democracy”. Etruscan kings have limited power (probably were even elected by Roman nobles), and noble class (patricians) had many political privileges. As the example of England (1642-1689) proves, when the feudal state with “noble-democracy” becomes populistic, very quickly turns into democratic country, if the external economic conditions are good.

After the banishment of Etruscan kings (509 BC) Rome became a republic. It was a small populistic city-state that waged many, but rather small wars in close vicinity (no more than 50 miles from Rome), and its political system evolved step-by-step evolve through many conflicts between patricians (who ruled the city) and plebeians who had almost no political rights at the beginning.

In 494 BC plebeians made the First Secession - they went out from the city threatening that they will not work and fight for patricians. With that “strike” they gained a special representation: plebeian tribunate - a few special city-officials (or ombudsmen), who could negate the laws created by Roman senate dominated by patricians, and have political immunity (no one citizen could kill plebeian tribune). This privilege made the further political struggle conducted by plebeians against the patricians senate much easier. It useful to note that this success shows the economic strength of plebeians. If plebeians position had been weaker, they would have been pacified with brute force by richer citizens.

Democratic Rome (449-133 BC)

With that institutional protection plebeians could fight for their rights more effectively. Finally, after the 45 years of (sometimes brutal) struggle, the populistic system ended. In 451 BC the Commission of Ten was nominated to write down law regulations which was demanded by plebeians. These times courts (or law enforcement) were dominated by patricians who often abused law against plebeians, taking advantage of fact that law regulations wasn’t written down. But the 10 patricians, who were nominated to the Commission, tried to rule Rome as long as possible and refused to include plebeians postulates into a new codex. 

Here you can find short summary of Political Evolution of Ancient Rome (Struggle of Orders). http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~gstanton/earlyroman/topic02.html#dating
And alphabetical index of Roman Laws.
http://www.unrv.com/government/index-of-roman-laws.php
Titus Livius about the struggle of orders - book 4.
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Liv1His.html	

So, in 449 BC plebeians made the second secession that effected in a compromise between patricians and plebeians, and the Laws of Twelve Tables (lex duodecim tabularum) were legislated. With Valero-Horatian Laws (also 449 BC) it was something like a Constitution and Law Codex of democratic Rome: 
·	regulated the political life of Rome
·	regulated the legal system of Rome

With this dawn of democratic system (in 449 and in a few subsequent years) plebeians gained also:
·	law to marry with patricians (since then patricians were no longer a closed social class) 
·	some guaranties and privileges for tribunes and for the meeting of plebeians
·	a law that prohibited to create a city office (institution) from which decisions a citizen of Rome couldn’t appeal to some other city institution (ius provocationis). In other words: a citizen should always have a right to appeal from arbitrary administrative decisions.

Democratic system usually starts when different GPIs (groups of political interests) have not enough  power to dominate other GPIs, not because politicians had become honest and intelligent or country inhabitants become more mature. Democratic system is simply an effect of a draw situation in the struggle for power.	

Since then the polity of Rome were changed in an evolutionary way. And finally after a many decades of political struggle (but waged in democratic manner) plebeians acquired the law to be elected on every city office (originally most of offices were accessible only for patricians). It is useful to compare this evolution with the evolution of Great Britain political institutions in XVIIIth and XIXth centuries - Struggle of Orders between patricians and plebeians resembles the conflict between Whigs and Tories.

To be honest: usually in democratic manner. There were some exceptions. For example in 439 BC a rich plebeians Spurius Melius, who presented grain for free, buying this way a political votes for himself, was killed by an army officer who had been ordered to arrest him. 

Democratic system is not an utopia or ideal system It is rather a continuous, never-ending struggle to protect democratic institutions against government abuses and manipulations (and sometimes against the manipulations started by political opposition too) or against the corruption. The criminal methods of making politics sometimes happen in democratic system, but are exception rather than the rule (opposite as in populistic system). 	

But generally the laws of twelve tables and political institutions of Rome worked fine for over 300 years. And the higher rationality of democratic system gave Rome an important advantage over all of the neighbouring countries.

Democratic system is not free from brainwashing ideologies Of course in democratic system political ideologies have no such power like in populistic country, but this doesn’t mean that ideologies are not present in democratic country. Even in democratic system more than 95% of citizens are making their political choices under the influence of some ideology. Overall effect is rational only because they believe in different ideologies. Rationality of democratic system is an effect of a free market of ideologies, an effect of freedom and pluralism in the world of ideologies. But under some conditions, (ex. when the dangerous or profitable war comes), there is a chance that political life in democratic country will be strongly saturated with ideology.	

It is a good moment do describe shortly the system of democratic institutions of Rome. It was quite complicated system (but no more than institutions of European Union today), but well balanced and with many protections against potential abuses. And please forgive me some terrible simplifications I have made here, because of limited space: 
·	There were a several city offices that constituted the administrational framework for the city, and had some built-in protections against abuses: 
o	Every office came from election
o	Every office (even dictator nominated when Rome was in serious danger) had the limited tenure
o	Important offices like consulate (two officials that took the most important decisions for the city, and command the Roman army) were collective, so one official could control the another
o	When the tenure ended, a citizen might not be nominated for the same office for some time (usually for 10 years)
o	There was something like the hierarchy of offices (cursus honorum), so politician who wanted  to hold the highest offices was first tested on less important offices
o	And of course no politician could hold two offices or hold an office and be a senator the same time
·	There was the senate of Rome (SPQR) that was something like a higher house of parliament or a government. The members of the senate were former city officials.
·	There were a number of institutional guaranties which protected the civil rights of every citizen: ius provocationis, immunity of plebeian tribunes, independent courts, legal system rooted from Laws of Twelve Tables. These guaranties had similar function as British Bill of the Rights or Amendments to the Constitution of USA. 
·	There were four different kinds of citizens meetings:
o	concilia plebis. Meeting of poorer citizens. A counterbalance for the senate. Had a right to elect plebeian tribunes and other plebeian officials plus some legislative privileges. 
o	comitia tributa. Meeting of all citizens organized according to administrational districts. The most democratic meeting. Most of Roman laws (called “lex”) were legislated here.   
o	comitia curiata. The older kind of meeting without great importance in times of democratic Rome. Probably had (aside of the other responsibilities) the same responsibilities as the High Court or the Constitutional Court.
o	comitia centuriata. Meeting of citizens organized by the types of military units they belonged to (and the types of military units corresponded with the social status of different groups of citizens). Dominated by patricians, who had privileged representation here. This meeting elected higher city officials. 

Here you can find a short description of Roman offices and institutions. http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/earlyrepublic.html	

It is useful to note here that in spite of privileged position that patricians had in senate and in comitia centuriata, since the early days of democratic republic a plebeian could be elected even to the highest office (i.e. could not became a consul, but a “military tribune” who generally had the same scope of authority).

And with the permanent political conflict between plebeians and patricians (which is typical in democratic states), Rome was surprisingly strong. Ironically it was thanks to this permanent conflict which forced Romans to solve potential social problems before that problems become serious. This is one of the most important strengths of the democratic system. 

Political power in a democratic system usually is not equally distributed When there is a group (GPI) of 10% richest citizens that group usually has more than 10% share in political life of democratic country. There is nothing strange here, they simply have greater political strength than other groups of citizens. The same is true for educated citizens, they are also over-represented in political life (comparing with their number). This is not honest or righteous, this is effective.  
· When political interests low-income citizens are over-represented, the rate of development is slower, and that country have not enough capital resources to compete successfully with other countries, either on economic nor political and military planes. 
· When political interests of upper-income citizens are strongly over-represented, the costs of protecting a very unfair redistribution of are too high (and the risk of social unrest is very high) making the country’s economy ineffective too. 
So, democratic country is effective because it maintains the balance. 	

Of course Rome was not a democracy like democratic countries today. Times and people’s mentality has changed, and technological advances made present democracies more “people-friendly” and wealth distribution more righteous. Honestly, there is even a great difference between democracies today and before 1968. But comparing with any other ancient state, ancient Rome was the country of political freedom and much safer place to live. 

Why Rome built an empire? 

Now it is time to explain shortly, why Rome built a great empire. But first I have to correct one false image that many people have about ancient Rome:

People generally think that Ancient Rome was as a very militaristic state. It’s not true. Let see a map that compare Rome and Athens states about 440 BC Just after Rome changed to democratic system and just before the Peloponnesian War in Greece, when both countries have more or less the same population (150 - 200 thousands of citizens). 
Athens and Rome 440 BC
[picture]
Rome city-state is marked blue.
Athens city-state is marked red and its colonies in Athens Sea Union are marked orange.
Orange arrows shows the farthest operations of Athens fleet (with troops on board) during the Peloponnesian War and before (in the age of Pericles).
And thin green line shows borders of Rome 327 BC, just before Alexander the Great conquests in Persia that changed economic conditions for whole Mediterranean and Middle East.

As you can see, comparing with Athens, and with almost any populistic city-state in the Mediterranean region, Rome was rather peaceful, non-expansionistic state. Actually, a great part of Roman conquests at the early stage of its expansion were the effect of devise “si vis pacem, para bellum” (you want peace, be prepared to wage war) - Romans simply eliminated the potential threats to their state.

Generally a 320 years long expansion of democratic Rome was possible because of five reasons:
·	First, Rome was democratic, so ruling GPI (group of political interests) could not involve the state into a war that would give profits only that GPI, when other GPIs had to pay costs of that war. All costs of every war were evident, no cost were hidden. So, Rome waged only those wars which were necessary because of national security reasons, or were profitable for most of the citizens.
·	Second, Rome used only a small percentage of its resources in expansive wars. So, when the city was in real danger (as the war with Sammites, with Pyrrus or with Hannibal), Rome could loss a dozen of battles, and always had reserves to build another army. (Compare this with great industrial production increase when USA joined the 2nd World War.) 
·	Third, Rome almost always built an alliance against its enemy with some other states (even if Rome was actually stronger). About half of the Roman Empire were really the allies of Rome - countries or tribes that were united with Rome in more or less peaceful way. It is useful to mention here two basic rules from diplomatic games:  
1.	Even much stronger enemy can be defeated by the alliance of smaller states    
2.	When there are several players, is often no chance to win anything without making an alliance
·	Fourth, Rome very quickly adapted and imported technologies from neighbouring countries. Most of the Roman war tactics and military technologies were taken from its enemies. 
·	Fifth, divide et impera (divide and rule). One of the basic tactics that lowers the costs of occupation of a country is to find here an important GPI (conflicted with other GPIs) which will support the rule of the occupier and pay some costs of occupation. It is very easy to find that group in a feudal country, rather hard in a populistic country, and almost impossible in a democratic country. Therefore Rome could use the tactic of divide and impera against almost any enemy, and no enemy could use this tactic against Rome. 

Democratic system is a very dangerous enemy Generally, democratic country loses a war only when it have to retreat from colonies that had became to expensive to control (like United States for England or Algeria for France). Of course there are no rules without exceptions. There was one war that was completely lost by democratic country: in 390 BC a Rome was defeated and occupied by Celtic tribes.	

And now is a good time for a short digression. I have written that science and technology development is faster in a democratic country than in a populistic one. But we all know that Greeks made much more discoveries than Romans. Are you wonder why? Here is a quick-and-dirty explanation:
1.	There was many Greek city states and only one Rome city-state.
2.	At the beginning Rome had quite low technological level, so more profitable choice was to import technologies from Etruscans and Greeks.
3.	Romans invented many new technologies which was not so spectacular as Greek discoveries but had important impact on everyday life (ex. in road and bridge building, construction, law system). We don’t call people like James Watt, Thomas Edison or Steven Wozniak great scientists but their inventions launched great changes in our life.
4.	When Rome achieved technological level comparable with Greece, it was so strong country that the state investments (i.e. expansive wars) started to be more profitable than science development. Then in a very short time Rome became populistic state.
As you can see, even very strong law of history could be (under some circumstances) negated by a cumulated effect of other laws. It is one of the reasons, why the overall pattern of our history is so complicated.

Collapse of democracy, populistic Rome again

With all conquered lands, the polity of Rome (political system of Rome) was still the same as when Rome was a small city-state. Conquered provinces were administrated by former city officials or special private enterprises. Romans usually confiscated from 1/3 to 2/3 of fields from countries they had conquered (Athens usually confiscated the whole land). These fields then became a property of Rome called ager publicus (public land). This land was divided between the citizens of Rome, who organized here farms or plantations. 

In the middle of IInd century BC the great conquests of Rome (whole Italy, Spain, Greece, North Africa, Mediterranean coast of France, coast of Adriatic Sea and western portions of Asia Minor) started two important processes: 
§	First, a cheap import of agricultural products from newly conquered lands and Egypt started the agricultural crisis in Italy. Many owners of small farms bankrupted, and migrated to the city of Rome where they have better chances to survive the crisis. Rich planters increased the exploitation of slave-workers. 
§	Second, rich citizens grew in wealth, because they have better starting position in the race for profits that great conquests of Rome had brought: they could gain a larger farms made from ager publicus, and have a better chance to gain a privilege of administrating the conquered provinces, which was extremely profitable. 
This way the GPI (group of political interests) of the richest citizens grew in strength, and many very poor citizens arrived to Rome increasing the number of poor educated citizens with no financial independence (because of low-income) who were easy to manipulate by populist leaders. The group of middle-income citizens became overpowered, and that was the economic reason for the fall of democratic system in Rome.

GPI of richer citizens formed a faction of Optimates (represented by the senate), and the leaders of poor citizens formed the faction of Populares (represented by plebeian tribunes). At the beginning both factions competed in democratic manner but about 133 B.C a leader of Populares and a plebeian tribune Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus tried to promote an legislation that introduced the agricultural reform: project to divide great farms formed from ager publicus, and gave that land to poor citizens. In counter-strike armed senators killed him and many men from his faction on Forum (a central public square in Rome, the place of political meetings). 

The year of 133 BC was the moment when democratic institutions of Rome were definitively broken. So, I am nominating this year as the end of 315 years long democratic period in the history of Rome. Of course it is an arbitrary date. Whole process was gradual, and the economic base for democracy decomposed probably a few years (or even decades) before, but democratic institutions suspended the final fall of democracy until 133 BC. 

The final element of diffusion caused by conquests of Rome was the war with Roman allies in Italy (90-89 BC). In consequence of this war Rome had to grant a privileges of citizens to all free people living in Italy (with edict called lex Julia after young Julius Caesar, who promoted that law). Since then, the core of Empire was the whole Italy, not only the city-state of Rome.

Because of economic changes, no matter which politician, or which political option would won, the final result would be the same: some kind of populistic system. Further military expansion was the most profitable way to increase national income, so finally the populistic system in Rome took a form of military dictatorship.

Political clientelism 
When the group of poor citizens is very large, they don’t represent their own political interests but the interests of some other, richer or more influential citizens. They are usually poor educated, with no work or any stable source of income, what made them very susceptible to manipulation by skillful demagogues, populistic ideologies or easy to bribe with relatively small sums of money or cheap gifts. They become clients of some other GPI or a populistic political party, organization, church, charismatic leader, etc.  

Term clients come from the history of ancient Rome. During the first populistic period (509-499 BC) rich patricians families were usually supported by group of financially dependent clients. But there are other forms of political clientelism too: 
· Politicians could buy votes for food (like Spurius Melius mentioned before or Julius Caesar) or for alcohol (like in Kansas in the early XXth century or in modern Russia). 
· Local oligarch could threat them to vote for him, if he have someway a control over their source of income (ex. could stop their wages). 
· Political party like communists in Soviet Union (or some GPI of government administrators) could gain their votes offering social protections and material stability, even if their wages would be relatively low. etc. 

Ironically, because of the danger of political clientelism, sometimes voting rights in democratic country could be the privilege of smaller group of people than in some contemporary populistic countries. Compare for example France and Great Britain in the last decade of XVIIIth century.   

One of the symptoms of increasing problem with political clientelism could be a high popularity of primitive entertainments like gladiator fights. Therefore it is always useful to observe changes in culture, because this gives us a chance to predict social and economic processes we cannot measure statistically for some reasons. 	

Populistic Rome was still the largest and strongest country in Mediterranean region, so could continue military expansion with ease for next 150-200 years. Until too high costs made that expansion economically ineffective. Basically there was three elements of these costs:
1.	Costs of occupying many large (i.e. with numerous inhabitants) countries and protecting a very long border. These are more or less the logistic costs, as Paul Kennedy describes them.
2.	Decreasing country's income because of crisis that was launched by diffusion powers.
3.	Increasing costs of continuous wars with barbarians who grew in number and strength (effect of importing Roman military technologies) because of the same diffusion powers.

Diffusion powers launched by Roman conquests were responsible for one of the longest economic recessions in history. Of course this crisis had some intervals, and the same time some provinces like Gallia (France) or provinces in Asia could experienced periods of economic growth thanks the implementation of Roman technologies and the law system.

Further decomposition, feudal Roman Empire

About the end of II century AD political system of Roman Empire regressed from populistic to feudal. As with the fall of democracy, is hard to give an exact date here, because it was a gradual process. I can only say this was happened probably between year 180 AD (death of imperator Marcus Aurelius at the end of serious wars with German tribes of Marcomans) and the edict of emperor Caracalla (212 AD) which granted citizen status to all free people who lived in the Empire. This way emperor Caracalla gained extra money from new citizens. 

Here is a quick list of a few important processes we can observe in falling Roman Empire:
·	Because of economic crisis income from taxes shrank. This forced Rome Emperors to increase taxation and to spoil the money (decrease the amount of precious metals in coins - a historical receipt to start inflation, which always helps to finance government spendings). Unfortunately the side-effect of inflation is always the destruction of credit system plus the higher transaction costs of every trade transaction.
·	Because of the fall of the trade, economic power of the cities declined. And many richer citizens moved to rural areas to avoid high taxes and other tributes for the state.
·	Slavery production on large plantations became less and less effective because of shrinking trade, increasing costs of capital and workers resistance. Therefore, large land owners started to prefer small farms with feudal-dependent peasants over the organized slavery plantations. 
·	Rome as the rich state was an immigration destination country for many barbarians, a long before their forces invaded Roman Empire. It was very similar process like Muslim immigration to EU, with the same social and political consequences, but of course the scale of immigration in Ancient Rome was greater.   
·	Social processes like: shrinking of the liberal-oriented middle-class (and thus decay of rational ideologies promoted by that class), long lasted economic crisis plus natural disasters launched by that crisis (like great plague in the last decades of II century), and need for ideology that could cement the resistance against government and economic oppression - all those reasons increased the popularity of different religions (cults of Kybele, Isida, Mitra, etc.) imported from the East.

Change from populistic to feudal system in a short run increased the military power of Roman Empire, but couldn’t stop the diffusion processes, so the final fall of the Empire was unavoidable. Long-distance trade which glued the state shrank so much that the Empire finally broke into a few pieces (which was the beginning of feudal fragmentation). Eastern part of the Empire (Byzantium) which was composed of mostly civilized lands, survived the crisis, but the Western part that consisted of many less-developed lands conquered on barbarians was completely destroyed by the invasions of German tribes in the Vth century AD.

Final Notes on Ancient Rome
Generally, first chronicles that are describing the history of the beginnings Rome were written in Ist century BC when Rome was populistic or at best in IInd century B.C, when the democratic system of Rome was decomposing. Ancient historians were not always objective (impartial), and they obviously weren’t know for sure some facts from the first centuries of Rome (especially because some documents were lost in the time of Celtic invasion - 390 BC). Moreover, many parts of later historical documents and chronicles were lost too. So, you have to be aware that facts from the democratic period of Rome history are not always certain.

For example I know two variants of history of Spurius Melius. Which one is true? On the other hand, statistical information about the number of Roman citizens are precise because were systematically collected by the democratic administration of Rome, and the number of citizens of ancient Athens we can only guess.

Pre-Columbian America

Here I will present some remarks about civilizations of Pre-Columbian America. But first two reservations:
·	First we have to remember, that civilizations of Pre-Columbian America had many great achievements, but generally had the technology level of middle-east civilizations had about the year 2000 BC It means that Spaniards were about 3500-year technological advantage over the Indians empires when they conquered them.
·	Second, there were several dozens of Indian cultures in Pre-Columbian America and a few cycles of rise and fall before the Christopher Columbus voyage, but I will mention only three of them: city-states of Mayan civilization, Aztec Empire and Inca Empire.  

Mayan Civilization

Mayan civilization emerged in Jungles between today’s Honduras, Guatemala and Southern Mexico. Here is the schematic map of the region:

City-states of Mayan Civilization 
[map]
This map is hand-drawn so some locations of cities are approximate. Names are in Polish transcription, but it is (I hope) the same as English.
Red circles shows some Mayan cities of the “Old Empire” (term “empire” is a mistake here)
Purple circles shows some Mayan cities of the  “New Empire”
Black outlines highlights metropolises of Tikal and Calakmul

It wasn’t the first Indian civilization in this region, but had the strongest influence on the development of Indian civilizations in neighbouring Mexico. First villages of Maya culture were formed in the first millennium BC. 

But the apogee (zenith) of Mayan civilization was between IIIrd and IXth centuries AD These times Mayans formed several dozens (even more than 40) city-states with population of 5,000 - 50,000 people. The reasons for evolution of populistic city-states here were probably:
·	Some discoveries in agriculture, astronomy and writing technologies.
·	Trade between regions of Yucatan peninsula, Central America and Southern Mexico - maybe also economic influence of some older Indian cultures (ex. Olmecs). 
·	And the relative isolation of villages because of jungles (very similar to the isolations provided by mountains and isles in Ancient Greece or swamps of Sumeria in Ancient Mesopotamia).

Mayan Timeline Here you can find nice-looking chronology of Mayan culture (or Mayan Long Count if you are interested). http://www.oneworldjourneys.com/jaguar/mayan_timeline.html http://www.isourcecom.com/maya/themaya/timeline.htm 	

Every city was relative independent, so term “Old Mayan Empire” traditionally used by archeologist to describe this period is a mistake (term Classic Period is better). There wasn’t any centralized state here. The most important cities these times were populistic city-states. Their trade, culture and technology radiated on neighbouring lands: today Southern Mexico, Honduras and last but not least the Yucatan peninsula, which was colonized by Mayans. Especially important Mayan discoveries were the alphabet and the calendar (with extraordinary exact calculation of the year length). 

Final decryption of the Mayan “alphabet” made not so long ago let the archeologists discover, that Maya city-states continuously waged wars against each other. Rulers of the cities were often changed by coups d’etat, many times sponsored or supported with military force by neighbouring cities. The ruler of the city was often a priest-king (it is not usual in ancient populistic states, for example Julius Caesar had the title of pontifex maximus - the high priest).

Two most powerful states at the peak of the classic Period were Tikal and Calakmul. For long decades both cities waged wars against each other, making clients and allies of less powerful cities. This resembles the long wars between Athens and Sparta in Ancient Greece or Umma and Lagash in the Ancient Sumeria (Sumer).  

Around the year of 900 AD Mayan civilization of the Classic Period was destroyed by severe drought. Drought was the reason for bad crops and catastrophic famine. This catastrophic natural disaster launched civil wars and mass migrations. The reason for the drought was the climatic change but also too intensive agricultural exploitation of land.

Overexploitation of resources 
Mayan city-states at the end of the Classic Period reached the limits of productivity in the agriculture. Some symptoms of this overexploitation were: intensive wars and great government investments like building new temples (tiered pyramids with temples on the top). City-states and different groups of political interests (GPIs) started to fight for limited resources. Methods of this struggle were a conquest of weaker neighbors or increasing exploitation of poorer citizens. No matter of method the particular city chose, the result was the same -  greater role of government in economy and overexploitation of the land. 

When the economy is free-market oriented, prices are not regulated, and there is some inequality in the social distribution of income, then the increase of prices usually forces a community to start search for alternate, cheaper natural resources a long time before a crisis. But when economy is government-driven the prices of goods, land or human work could be administrative-regulated (and lower than market prices), resources are overexploited to the limits of effectiveness - and therefore the economy becomes very vulnerable for natural disasters.  	

After the disaster of the great drought, Mayans rebuild their culture in colonies on the north end of Yucatan peninsula. This new culture is called “Post-Classic Period” (or the “New Empire”). These times Mayan states were not so powerful as before, and were probably feudal states, that sometimes united many Mayan cities. About 1200 AD Mayan cities of the New Empire were invaded by Toltecs. Then the economic and political crisis came. When the Spanish voyagers discovered Maya, the civilization was totally decomposed. And Spaniards conquered the Mayans with ease. 

Here is a quite good site about Mayan Civilization, if you want some basic knowledge. http://www.kidskonnect.com/AncientMayan/AncientMayanHome.html	

The Aztec Empire, Herman Cortes

One of the oldest cultures in Mexico was the civilization of Olmecs (ca. 1500-300 BC), a nation that lived in Gulf Coast Region north from the Maya city Palenque on my map (generally in the Mexican state of Tabasco).

Then in the Classic Period (300-900 AD) there was a few brilliant civilizations in Mexico, probably because of the influence of Maya city-states of the Classic Period. The most important ones were the Zapotecs (with the capital in Monte Alban), culture of Teotihuacan, and culture of El Tajin (in the Mexican state of Veracruz). 

In the IXth century AD more or less the same time when the Maya city-states started to decline, region was invaded by barbarian Toltecs, who built a great feudal empire spreading on the whole Central Mexico with the capital in Tollan. After a few hundred years in XIIIth century Mexico was again invaded by barbarian tribes (Chichimecs), and Toltecs were forced to migrate to Yucatan Peninsula, where they invaded Mayan states of Post-Classic Period.

The Aztec Empire and Herman Cortes (Hernan Cortes) expedition
[map]
It is the same map as above, but this time you should look at its left side.
Green area represents the (approximate) territory of Aztec Empire at the beginning of XVIth century AD.
Yellow spots marks some other independent or half-independent Indian states this time.
Red arrow is the route of Herman Cortes expedition.
Black dots marks some important Pre-Columbian cities (some of them were already ruins in XVIth century).
Blue dot is the city of Vera Cruz founded by Cortes.
Black dot with Yellow outline is the Aztecs capital of Tenochtitlan localized on the isle in the middle of a lake (today is a Mexico City here). 

One of the last barbarian tribes were Aztecs, who invaded Central Mexico in the XIIth century and built their state in the valley, where today is Mexico City. Valley was fertile, and was an important strategic point, plus have great importance as a nexus of trade routes, so the Aztecs grew in strength, and in the last decades of XIVth century started a very spectacular expansion. 

Here is the link to the short history and chronology of the Aztec Empire. http://www.allempires.com/empires/aztec/aztec1.htm	

At the beginning of XVIth century Aztecs conquered most of the Indian nations in Central Mexico. One of the reasons for their expansion was the need for captives used then in human sacrifices which were a part of many religious rituals. Aztecs were killing this way thousands men a year. But it is useful to note that this religious terror was not so strong at the beginning of the Empire, but increased with every conquest - helping Aztecs to preserve their rule over many Indian nations. At the beginning of XVIth century Empire reached the logistics limits of expansion, and Aztecs king Montezuma II stopped further conquests. But Aztecs still waged some ritual wars with other Indian states (ex. with Tlascalans, whose state was in the yellow area east from Tenochtitlan).

In 1519 Herman Cortes (Hernan Cortes) expedition landed in Mexico. He had little more than 500 Spanish soldiers, several horsemen, several light canons and guns (arquebuses), about thirty crossbows. Realized that he discovered a large and rich country, and the Aztecs are hated by conquered Indians, he set off to heart of the Aztec Empire. During his march, Cortes won alliance and support of subsequent Indian tribes. For this reason he entered Tlascalans state. With the support of Tlascalans (which he gained defeating them in a battle), Cortes marched to the Tentochtitlan. Montezuma II let Cortes’ army enter the capital without a battle. Probably reasons for his “ostrich tactics” were: the legend of Quetzakoatl, Indian rebellion and the reputation of unbeatable soldiers, which Spaniards gained defeating Tlascalans.   

This time Spaniards made a terrible mistake. Drunken with easy conquest, they forget, that the superior military advantage could be not enough to occupy a conquered country and to promote a completely new ideology. They started to rob Aztecs’ treasury and temples. Finally they killed Aztecs nobles and officials on a religious festival. This was the last mistake, which launched the Aztecs’ rebellion against Spaniards. Cortes had to retreat from Tentochtitlan losing during a “noche triste” (sad night) 2/3 of his army. Withdrawing to the coast Spaniards were stopped with 200 000 Aztecs army in an mountain pass to the Otumba Valley. And Spaniards won the battle. Batle of Otumba was probably the greatest victory in the history of warfare. Cortes was the only one commander who dare to defeat a 1000 times greater army. 

He killed the Indian commander ad Aztecs' army fled. But Spanish estimations of the size of Aztecs’ army were probably exaggerated. Maybe even ten times. 	

Fortunate for Cortes, he got reinforcements from Spanish colonies, and with a new army of Indian allies he besieged and destroyed Tentochtitlan, finally conquering Mexico (But the Montezuma’s treasury lost during a noche triste was lost forever.)

How Spaniards could conquer so great country like the Aztec Empire with such ease? Well, there were basically four reasons: 
1.	Aztecs' homeland was only a small island in the sea of conquered Indian nations. The Aztec Empire had just started to decompose (was not so decomposed as the Persian Empire in times of Alexander the Great, but if Greeks were united, they could conquer Persian Empire or at least its large part, probably a 100 years before Alexander). 
2.	Spaniards had a 3500 years of advantage in warfare technologies (these times had the best army in Europe). Aztecs did not know metal weapons, armors, pikes, had no cavalry, no chariots, had only very primitive bows and ranged weapons. No city wall could stand Spanish canons. Even Aztec tactics was weak: Indian armies usually made a frontal attack on Spanish column in narrow mountain pass, so they could not use their advantage of great number - and thus Spaniards seemed completely unbeatable for them.
3.	Indians were afraid of horses, guns, cannons, and had a legend about the god of wind Quetzalkoatl (taken from Toltecs, name means “feathered serpent” or “plumed serpent”, probably a merge of two deities) - a good white and bearded god, who gave them laws, alphabet and taught many technological inventions, then departed to the East Sea, and who some day would return from East on a “winged ship” to punish bad people and help poor and oppressed (every second Indian culture in Central America had a myth like that, so you may find also another versions of this legend). Therefore at the beginning Cortes was taken for Quetzalkoatl. And even if Montezuma II was not sure Quetzalkoatl really returned, he had to take into account beliefs of his subjects (i.e. people who lived under his rule). 
4.	And at last but not least Cortes had a great dose of a good luck. 

As an anecdote (I was not able to verify this information): The Holy Thursday 1519, a day when Herman Cortes (Hernan Cortes) landed in Vera Cruz was exactly one day before the day of Quetzalkoatl’s return according to Indian’s prophecies.  	

Link to Web site with many information about the History of Mexico. http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/history.html	

The Inca Empire, Francisco Pisarro

Again, there was several Indian cultures in South America (Andes Mountains region) before the Inca empire, and some regions experienced at least tree cycles of expansion-and-fall. I am not going to describe them here, the same as (when talking about Central American cultures) I didn’t mentioned many important archeological sites for example in Panama. I am going to focus only on the Inca Empire, the kingdom of Chimu and Pisarro’s conquest of the Inca Empire.

Here you have the short description of major Indian cultures in Peru, and the most important archeological sites.  
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/south/satable.html
http://www.go2peru.com/historical.htm	

And here is a schematic map of the Inca Empire
[map]
Yellow color shows the Inca Empire. 
Blue area is the kingdom of Chimu conquered by the Inca Empire.
Green squares represents some of the pre-Inca archeological sites.
Red arrows shows the march of Francisco Pisarro.
Red circle with black outline represents Cuzco - capital of the Inca empire.
Other red circles marks the cities of Tumbes and Cajamarca, which plays important role in the story of Pisarro’s conquest.
Green circle with the black outline represents Machu Picchu, the last (and never conquered) stronghold of Incas. 

The Inca Empire originated in a mountain valley around the capital of Cuzco (or Cusco). It was the third or even forth culture in this region of Andes Mountains (all these cultures based on potatoes, which helped to feed large populations). The same as with the Aztecs Empire, Inca’s valley was the important nexus of trade routes. From the second half of XIVth century till the year of 1525 the Inca Empire conquered many tribes and states and got control over the most part of Andes Mountains and Pacific Coast.

The original name of the state was Tahuantisuyo (which means “the four sides of the world”). The Incas was not exactly the name of nation but a name of privileged ruling class of soldiers, priests and sages (called amautas), who were administrating the state. The rest of people were subjects (ruled ones) and had social status lower than helots in Ancient Sparta. 

Here you can find the short summary of the Inca Empire. http://www.angelfire.com/realm/shades/nativeamericans/incaempire.htm An here more detailed (probably the best site about Incas). But be careful there are other versions of names’ transcription, see for example Inca kings list.  http://incas.perucultural.org.pe/english/index.htm 
http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/lilac/3/inka1.htm	

It is useful to look at the organization of the Inca Empire because it was strongly administration-regulated (we can call this a “feudal communism”):
·	Regular people generally had no property (like houses, clothes, tools, animals), almost everything was distributed by Inca administration.
·	There were no private fields, all land was owned and disposed by state (king), temples and local administration. Peasants were ordered to cultivate these fields in strictly defined order.
·	Craftsman workshops, mines, cattle of llamas, and so on were also owned by the state, and the Incas precisely (meticulously) administered the production. 
·	And every economic activity (except some small local fairs) were regulated by Inca administration (There was also “ecological” regulations protecting for example some valuable animals).
·	All precious metals, jewelry and gems were prohibited to commoners, and only Incas were allowed to possess them. 
·	Commoners were obligated to work for free for the state (in mines, at roads construction, etc.) 
·	Even marriage was regulated by administration.
·	Whole villages and nations were deported or moved from one place to another to pacify rebellions, or simply to increase the productivity.
etc.

Effective administering of such a large empire was possible thanks to: 
·	Extended road system with the state service of mail couriers (relay runners), who delivered messages with the speed 250 miles a day (400 kilometers, unbelievable but verified).
·	Incas writing called khipu (or quipu) based on a system of knots on strings (khipu/quipu was rather a mnemonic system, which should be read by an educated Inca, who reconstructed the information).
Both inventions helped Incas to collect statistical information needed for effective administering.

Similar economic conditions result in similar economic and political systems, no matter of the cultural background of the country. Other examples of feudal states with strongly government-regulated economy are medieval Byzantium, China or Japan.	

Another interesting element of Inca culture was the religion - with very similar rituals like in Christianity (generally almost all nations of Pre-Columbian Indians conquered by Spaniards have rituals that resembled Christian rituals, but similarities Spaniards had found in Inca’s religion were so strange, that made them think it was a devil’s joke). 

For example Indians had a ritual of confession with priest ordered expiation, and remission of sins. It was an element of religion but also a tool that helped Incas to control common people. So it had the same purpose as the ritual of self-criticism in XXth-century communistic states. 

Religion (as every ideology) has some political and economic impacts  
Here are some of them:  
· Religion could be a brainwashing ideology that helps to control commoners (it is Marx observation, but ironically communist ideology - for example in USSR - had the same purpose). 
· Religious institutions (like confession mentioned above) or offices (like European Inquisition) sometimes had the same role in ancient and medieval communities as a security service or a secret police in modern states.
· Religion promotes honesty, and thus lowers the transaction costs of trade and every economic activity (so religion could stimulate the economy). 
· Religion could suppress free thinking, and thus slow science and technology development. 
· Religion usually promotes legality, and thus stabilizes political institutions, reducing the chances of revolutions. 
· Religion could give hope, virtues and ideals, which makes human life easier, when there are limited supply of goods and resources to dispose.   

I have mentioned six, probably the most important consequences of religion. And most of them could be some times positive while other times negative. Religion could protect peasants and labour workers from exploitation or discourage them to defend themselves against exploitation.  

This theory makes possible to analyze social and political impacts of different religions. But remember, no scientific theory could give answer is God exist or not, nor gives answer on any other religious question. This is the scope of philosophy or theology.	

In XVIth century, Inca king Tupac Yupanqui (or Thopa Inca Yupanqui) conquered the coastal kingdom of Chimu. It is didactic to compare the Inca Empire with Chimu Kingdom (but please treat the story below as an illustrative story tale for children rather than as a record of facts, because all we know about Chimu comes from Spaniards, Incas and from archeological discoveries).

Opposite to the Inca Empire, kingdom of Chimu was rather a “liberal” (I mean: freedom-oriented, not left-winged) feudal state, with larger wealth differences between peasants and aristocracy, and with larger amount of personal freedom. Kingdom of Chimu sometimes was the arena of domestic wars between different feudal factions, but also was richer (per capita) than the Inca Empire.

Because of the strong culture of freedom and national proud, conquered kingdom of Chimu many times rebelled against Incas. Rebellions were pacified with army, but also made Incas to treat the coastal region of Chimu in a special way (we could say: with some autonomy). 

Ideology of freedom Freedom is not the natural aspiration (or goal) of every human, but not more than another ideology. People are not identical - some of them want to be rich, some want to be free, some wants a material safety, or a safety from crime. And ideology of freedom is only one of many ideologies existing in human society. People who live in democratic countries tend to forget about that.  When a country is oppressive, the promotion of the ideology of freedom will be very weak, and the ideology of freedom will be suppressed with other, stronger ideologies like ex. nationalism. People who live there, will not be fight for freedom, understand the freedom, or even see that they are brainwashed. From my own experience: until I was 13 years old, I believed in communist ideology, because it was so strongly promoted in my country that I didn’t know it was based on lies - no mater how intelligent you are, you can always be brainwashed by some strongly-promoted ideology. It is only the matter of the amount (and balance) of resources used to promote different ideologies.  

Ideology of freedom stimulates the economic growth. Generally because of two reasons: 
· Helps the science and technology development. 
· Guarantees more effective economic redistribution of resources, like capital (or to be precise, thanks to the freedom in economy, faster corrects the ineffective uses of resources). 

But not guaranties a honest redistribution of resources. Honestly, the ideology of freedom favors richer, active or more intelligent people. Please look at this simple schema. 
[picture] 
As you can see, the country with dominating ideology of freedom is usually little right-winged. This is not honest, but (usually) guarantees the higher economic effectiveness, because the ideology of freedom protects the interests of the capital, helps the accumulation of knowledge, and the science development. 

Life in freedom-oriented country could be very hard for poor, not so educated, not so intelligent or not so enterprising peoples. When some members of the society become rich very rapidly (active-ones), others could suffer poverty, because the active-ones increase demand on goods bringing prices of goods up, and increasing this way the living expenses for the rest of the society (this effect could be analyzed using math and economic tools, but have a social and economic consequences - for example could be some times responsible for the increasing popularity of populistic politicians and populistic ideologies). 

Please note that both extremes: too equal distribution of income and very unequal distribution of income (typical in freedom-oriented country) could have negative consequences: overexploitation of natural resources and slower growth (in first case) or political instability and mass poverty (in second case). Of course things are little more complicated here, but probably the most important law of my History Mechanics is: There are no ideal solution in politics and economy, every solution will have some positive and some negative aspects. 	

At the beginning of XVIth century the Inca Empire reached the logistics limits of expansion. Rulers started to build walls and fortifications protecting borders where barbarian Indian tribes were especially active, costs of pacifying rebellions of other Indian nations began to increase dramatically. And we can observe the very beginning of conflict between the “soldiers faction” and the “priests faction”. Army wanted to conquer new lands, while Incas close to the Court and priests tried to get some extra privileges from the king, destroying this way the equality among the Inca class. Sooner or later this conflict have to launch a civil war between feudal factions and it was. 

After the death of old king Huayna Capac, prince Atahualpa (soldiers faction) started the coup d’etat against the first son of old king, a new king Huascar (priests faction). Atahualpa defeated his brother and imprisoned in Cuzco (Cusco). But that was probably the last victory of soldiers faction - next Inca king would have no resources to continue the expansion. The side effect of the war was that the empire was rebelled, and some provinces still supported the legal king. And exactly in this moment (1532) the expedition of Francisco Pizarro landed in Peru in Tumbes (or Tumbez).

Again, Pizarro have also a great dose of god luck. 
First, he discovered the Inca Empire about 5 years before, but had no money to finance the expedition. And when he tried to organize funds in Spain, the civil war mentioned above started in the Inca Empire. 
 
Second, Indian nations of the Inca Empire (and also some tribes from Columbia) had legends about white, bearded god called Viracocha, Kon-Tiki (Con Tiqui) or Pachacamac, very similar to the legend of Quetzalkoatl. Probably the main difference was that prophecies about Viracocha said: he will return from the north or from Pacific Ocean. 	

Pizarro had even the smaller army than Cortes. About 300 soldiers, but better equipped and with more horses. Realizing that the Inca Empire is in the middle of civil war, Pizarro marched south, hoping to conquer the kingdom the same way like Cortes did. Partisans of Huascar tried to got an alliance with him, but Pizarro didn’t answer yes or no, to have options (of alliance) open.

In the city of Cajamarca Spaniards met 30 000 Incas army leaded by Atahualpa. The negotiations started. Cortes invited the king to the meeting, and when the procession of 2000 servants, guardsmen and officials went into a wall-bordered city square, Spaniards attacked them and kill everybody but Atahualpa. The great Inca army, now without commanders, fled. Among Spaniards only Cortes was wounded, when he tried to protect Atahualpa.

Atahualpa was a great commander (and chess player when imprisoned), administrator, the ruler skilled in intrigues, who had no problem to kill the whole family of Huascar and many of his brother’s partisans. Why he went so carelessly right into Pizarro’s trap? 
·	Well, he was a king of great empire, had 30 000 man against less than 300 Spaniards. He had more guardsmen in his procession! He did not believed that Cortes was so stupid to attack him. 
·	Atahualpa waged a civil war and hoped to get an ally who could help him to defeat partisans of Huascar.
·	And finally, common people believed that Cortes was send by Viracocha or Pachacamac (in Chimu), and hoped that Spaniards would bring them freedom form Incas rule.

Even if the ruler of the despotic country does not believe in an officially promoted ideology (like Atahualpa in prophecies about Viracocha) that ideology limits his political moves and options. If the ruler (or tyrant) acts against the official ideology, he would destroy one of the key-elements that support his rule. This would force him to use (more costly) brute-force methods for protecting his rule.  

This is an universal principle: compare (for example) one of the reasons why Saddam Hussein in 2002 could not admit that he had no WMD (weapon of mass destruction) at all - such confession would destroy his ideology of “New Saladin who fights against Western Crusaders” - ironically true Saladin (Salah-ad-Din) was a Kurd.  	
 
The battle of Cajamarca was really the end of the Inca Empire. Spaniards imprisoned the Emperor, and got significant reinforcements when copartner of Pisarro, captain Almagro, landed in Peru. Atahualpa tried to save his kingdom secretly ordering to kill Huascar (which not stopped the civil war), and trying to get the freedom paying Spaniards with gold. Very soon important Inca armies and cities capitulated and Spaniards killed Atahualpa. 

After some time Pisarro and Almagro started to fight with each other. This war between Spaniards gave Incas a chance to start a rebellion against Spanish rule. Indians were adopting Spanish technology very fast: they used cavalry and gunpowder weapons (taught by Spanish renegades). But there was now too many Spaniards in Peru, and most of Indian peasants were not interested to die for Incas, so the rebellion was unsuccessful. But remains of Inca Kingdom survived in Vilcapampa (mountain region close to Machu Picchu) for many years. 

Consequences of the Spanish conquest

Conquests in America gave Spain great resources of precious metals (mainly silver from new mines), which allowed Spanish kings to wage imperial politics in Europe. But also launched the diffusion processes which destroyed the “parliamentary” institutions in kingdoms of Aragon and Castile (two components of Spain), therefore helped Spanish kings to introduce oppressive governments in Spain (using the Inquisition and income from colonies), and in a long run were the reason for the fall of the Spain. 

Indians were murdered during the conquest and rebellions (but Aztecs and Incas did the same). Were turned into feudal-dependent peasants, and many of them (maybe 1/3, maybe more) died from European diseases. But we should also remember that European technologies made local economies much more effective (it is easier to cultivate field with iron tools than with tools made from wood and stone). 

What would happen if...

It is a good moment to show how important role simple coincidences played in human history. Columbus voyage (who discovered probably the longest possible route to America), and very fast conquests made by lucky commanders - Cortes and Pisarro, in a very few years gave Spain control over most of the contemporary Latin America (except Brasilia colonized by Portugal).  

Let’s assume this not happened: 

America would be probably very soon discovered by Portuguese (Brasilia) or English (New Foundland) sailors. Other European countries (England, France, maybe Netherlands) would probably gain large colonies in the New World. Indian Empires would be conquered anyway, but maybe by different countries. Large colonies of England would launch the diffusion powers inside the kingdom - according to the law of connected vessels - which would stop the evolution of political institutions in England (the same way like in Spain, as it was said above). And England would not became a democratic state in 1689 but many years after. This, of course, would delay the industrial revolution. 

And there would be no large, democratic country of United States, because USA grew on British capitals and technology. Well, there would be some large state in North America, because the river Mississippi and system of Great Lakes are the natural trade backbone for a great country (the same way as rivers Dniepr and Volga and lakes Illmen and Ladoga for Russia), but it would be a populistic country. With two great populistic states: one in Russia and second in North America a nuclear war in the second half of XXth century would be probably inevitable. 

History of China

Speaking about the history of China (and then about history of India) I will try to show you that it is not so different form European history, and historical processes and laws are basically the same.

You should also remember that China has extremely large share of the World population. For the whole history (except XVIIIth and XIXth centuries) 1/4 of the World population lived in China. The same is true for India. 

Here is the short introduction the history of China (with maps). http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/china/timeline.html 
And more systematic summary from Wikipedia (with timeline and lists of emperors). http://wiki.tatet.com/History_of_China.html 
Plus more maps. http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Dynasty/history-maps-dynasty.html	

For this lecture I will divide the history of China (before XIXth century) into five stages. Map below illustrates these stages, and also shows basic geography of China: rivers, deserts, mountain ranges (cities are today’s cities).
[map] 
·	First stage is the ancient China (2nd millennium BC - 770 BC) when the state that appeared in Shaanxi, Henan and Shanxi provinces (blue border) conquered the valley of River Huang He (Yellow River). Blue arrow shows this expansion.
·	Second stage is the feudal fragmentation of “Springs and Autumns” and “Warring Kingdoms” periods (770-221 BC).
·	Third stage starts from emperor Shi Hunagdi (founder of Quin dynasty), who conquered all kingdoms, built the Great Wall (navy blue zigzag) and was the real creator of China Empire. This was the age (221 BC - IXth century AD) of relative economic prosperity because of the expansion to the South China (green arrow) and profitable export thorough the Silk Road (red line). 
·	Fourth stage (Xth - XVIth century) is the age of stable and relatively isolated feudal state, periodically invaded by barbarians (black arrows) or quaked with  peasants revolts (yellow border shows the core of China lands).
·	Fifth stage begins in XVIIth century when China started to isolate form the European penetration. This stage was ended in XIXth century with Opium Wars. 

First stage: Ancient China
Historians have very limited knowledge about the first China’s dynasties (Xia, Shang and Zhou). Those dynasties are mentioned in China tradition, but most of the early literature and historical writings were destroyed according to orders of emperor Shi Hunagdi, when he fought with political opposition to unite China. Chronologies before the year 841 BC are constructed based only on archeological discoveries and have the fault that historians could mistake cultures (people who use the same pottery, weapons, etc.) with dynasties (families of rulers). But we can safely assume that before the year of 770 BC there was three cycles of rise-and-fall of early feudal China states (called Xia, Shang and Zhou). We also know that Zhou dynasty was real and started form barbarian invasion.  

These times early China state, probably formed in Shaanxi, Henan and Shanxi provinces, expanded East along the river Hunag He. The Shaanxi province was originally called “The Land Between Mountain Passes” (or sometimes “west of the mountain passes”) and is really the great valley, where a few important trade routes are stressed together and cross. Maybe this was the reason the first state was formed here not in the North China Plain (East form Shaanxi close to the sea), where the local rulers cannot so easy control many trade routes. It is also useful to note that Huang He river (Yellow River) very often changes its river-bed (in Medieval for some time Huang He went to the sea thorough the River Yangtze).

Of course it is hard to say, was it more a military or peaceful economic expansion. In my opinion, because of geography of Huang He river basin, the expansion of Ancient China probably resembled the expansion of early medieval Russia from river Dniepr basin to river Volga basin: peaceful colonization of higher-technology nation was (when necessary) supported with military force by rulers.

Second Stage: Feudal fragmentation 770-221 BC 
Feudal fragmentation (divided into two periods: “Springs and Autumns” and “Warring Kingdoms”) started from barbarian invasion, but rulers of China were loosing their power gradually for some time before. For five centuries China was divided into many kingdoms fighting with each other. It was the period of wars and chaos, but also the acme of culture and philosophy.

I am not going to describe different schools of Chinese philosophy here (Chinese tradition says wit some poetic emphasis that there was a 100 of schools of thought), but I have to mention two most important:
·	Confucius doctrine. Simplifying terribly Confucius (Kong Fu Zi) doctrine concentrates on life according to virtues, respect to moral authorities, respect for elders and ancestors. Finally Confucius doctrine (Confucianism) became an official doctrine of China Empire, because it promoted ideas that naturally supported the authorities of Empire. 
·	Taoism (or Daoism) was a mystic doctrine which promotes self-development and some magic practices. Taoism finally became a philosophy of poor ones and common people, and was sometimes ignored, some times haunted by authorities.

It is an example of ideological polarization natural to feudal countries. Such opposite ideologies (pro-authority and anti-authority) like Confucianism and Taoism in China, were also present in medieval Middle East (sunnites and shi’ites) and in medieval Europe (official church hierarchy and beggars orders, heresies, mystic religious movements respectively). 	

Here is a short introduction to Hundred Shools of Taught of Springs and Autumns and Warring Kingdoms periods. http://wiki.tatet.com/Hundred_Schools_of_Thought.html	

Continuous wars (the same as renaissance wars in Italy inspired Machiavelli) inspired Sun Tze (or Sun Tzu) to write a tractate about the art of waging war.

Below is an link to “The Art of War” written by Sun Tze (Sun Tzu). Well, it is a very basic tractate about strategy and tactics, and do not mention many important elements (the main weakness is that Sun Tze describes the war as an art of deception, but sometimes there is no chance to use deception tricks, and the brute clash of steel decides who will win), but in spite of this, his tractate is a mandatory lecture for everyone, who want to study tactics.  

The basic rule of tactics from his tractate could be summed up as: Find what advantages (number, morale, terrain, maneuverability, firepower, intelligence, etc.) you have over your enemy, and what advantages the enemy have over you. Then don’t let him use his (or her) advantages against you, and use yours advantages against him (or her).  

The Art of War 
http://quan.nguyen.net/me/suntze/default.htm  
I also don’t like this translation, because Lionel Giles had problems with poetic nature of Chinese language. For example word “heaven” should be probably translated as “sky”! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koalang	

Finally China was reunited by kingdom of Quin. Probably the reason for Quin strength and conquests was the income from the export by the Silk Road (a trade route from China to Middle East, Europe and India) plus maybe better iron weapons and other war technologies imported from West.

Third stage: Export by the Silk Road
Emperor Shi Huangdi (name means “The First Emperor”) - famous for his funeral terracotta army and from movie “Hero” - from Quin, who united China was the real creator of China Empire. He introduced many reforms: unified law, administration, currency, systems of measures and built roads. His methods were brute (like methods of Peter the Great or Ivan The Terrible in Russia) - many opponents were killed, many nobles were deported, many books were burnt. And he also built the Great Wall joining together many smaller walls protecting China from barbarians. 

Walls. It is useful to note that great walls protecting borders are often the first symptom that the country have no strength to continue expansion beyond the protected border. It was true for the Great Wall, for Roman walls (called limes), for wall built by Chimu kingdom or for French Maginot Line. 	

After Shi Huangdi death, a great rebellion destroyed the Quin dynasty, but thanks to his reforms the Empire survived the civil war, and next dynasty - Han - ruled China for four centuries. Another reason for this political stability was the economic prosperity because of colonization of low-populated South China and export by the Silk Road. China (peripheral state) had lower income than Middle East and Europe (core states), so could easy export goods that China manufacturers had a technological monopoly: first silk, then china (delicate pottery), tea, etc.

Economic center of the World (core states) Well, Immanuel Wallerstein classification of “core” and “peripheral” countries is too simplified. Actually the whole pattern is more complicated, and we should distinguish at least three types of states: high-income (core), middle-income, and low-income countries plus a special subclass for countries which have great deposits of natural resources (comparing to the number of inhabitants). And there are periods when the international trade is extremely profitable for non-core countries, and periods when non-core countries are exploited because of monopolistic prices dictated by core countries or some international trusts (ex. OPEC). A few paragraphs below I will present a picture that helps to understand reasons for both scenarios.  

But since IIIrd century BC most important regions of the Old World (Europe Asia and Africa) was one economic organism, and we can define the economic center of the World (i.e. core states). Below I present simplified timeline: 
· IIIrd BC - IVth AD, Greece, Hellenistic States and then Roman Empire 
· VIth - VIIth, Byzantium 
· IXth - Xth, Arabian states of Middle East and Spain plus Byzantium 
· XIIth - XVth, Italian city-states 
· XVIth - XVIIth, Spain, Netherlands and Northern Italy (in decline) 
· XVIIIth till the first half of XIXth century, England 
· 1860-1940, England plus some Western European states and North-East USA 
· After 1940, USA, Western Europe plus Italy and Japan (since 1975) 

Of course there were also “local cores”. For example medieval China was a core state for Japan and other neighbouring states.	
 
China is one of the best examples of feudal state with a strong role of government and administration. The feudal hierarchy was the hierarchy of offices (like ex. in XIXth century Russia). Moreover China officials (like in the Inca Empire) were usually highly educated. We can say that in Europe generally dominated a “free-market-oriented” feudal system while in China a “state-oriented” feudal system. 

Free market is generally more effective, but government regulated marked also have some advantages, which are generally the same as a monopoly or great corporation with big market share has:
·	Big firm or country has advantages of scale (or economies of scale) in some economic activities (for example a big country usually wins wars with smaller countries).
·	When a country is important exporter of some goods or resources (silk or china for China), could dictate the prices and thus maximize income from export.
·	Monopoly could protect important technologies longer than many independent producers (China was able to protect technology of silk and china for few centuries).
·	And finally, transaction costs for some economic activities are sometimes lower when there is a kind of central management (government administration, corporate managers).

Transaction costs generally speaking are the whole costs of transaction other than price: costs to get to the market place, costs to negotiate the price, costs to chose the best offer, cost of recalculating the currencies and units of measure, cost of controlling if we are not cheated by a dishonest market-player, etc.   

These costs can be so high that is sometimes better to implement some organization and central management than to allow a free-market game (and using math tools we can say when is better). Do you imagine that a Grand Canal (between Huang He and Yangtze rivers) could had been built by a thousands of small private enterprises employing only several workers each? 	

Of course a government-regulated market has some flaws. One of them is an inflation when government spendings are to high. China experienced this after the year of 133 BC as an effect of wars with barbarian tribes of Huns (the same nation that a few centuries later invaded the Roman Empire), when emperor - because of the costs of war - had to spoil money, but Huns were defeated and started a migration to the west.

It is useful to note here that China had a very limited deposits of precious metals, except copper (comparing with the demand for money created by the China’s economy). So when Chinese a several centuries later discovered paper money, they really discovered the hyperinflation, which, as you recall, is a side-effect of stagflation crisis in a government-regulated economy. 

Han dynasty (the same Tang dynasty a few centuries later) - as every feudal government supported by GPI, I call the planters faction (i.e. group of political interests that represents feudals and merchants interested in export) - was open for new ideas. China even sent expedition of explores to the West. 

Centuries from IIIrd to VIth were another period of feudal fragmentation in China. One of the reasons for this decline was the economic and political crisis in the Roman Empire, which reduced the demand for Chinesee export and thus weakened China’s government which had monopolistic control over the export. With the economic recovery of populistic Byzantine Empire, China recovered also. Of course there is some latency in economic cycles in both regions.

Here is a simplified model explaining economic relations between countries and thus economic cycles. Although very simple, this model is quite strong, because is based on the second law of thermodynamics and the Solow’s model.
 [picture] 
This model would probably look better if animated: countries should go up and down, diffusion channels (pipes between bottles) should become wider or narrower, and red valves could be opened or closed by governments. Of course there are some simplifications here: 
· There are no “backflows” (blue streams going up) from the export of capital. 
· There are no income from international trade (income collected from diffusion channels). 
· There are no tributes from conquered countries. 
· There are no extra income when a country have a monopoly on a particular good. 

And the most important: economic policy is usually (except maybe the highest political system in my classification) constructed in such a way to protect the economic interests of the ruling GPI (group of political interests). So sometimes government policy could be protectionistic when a free trade is profitable for the whole country, and vice versa. As you recall, this is one of basic explanations, why the higher political system is usually more economically effective (a country with higher political system usually has a higher rate of “natural growth”) - government represents interests of wider group of citizens.

But even playing with such a simple model, you can understand reasons for most of the economic processes in history. Including reasons for feudal fragmentation of China when the demand in Europe and Middle West shrunk.	

In the times of another great dynasty, Tang (VIIth-IXth century AD), the process of colonization of South China ended, and populations of both regions equalized. The trade between Southern and Northern China became more important than the trade with the West. In result the capital of China was moved from the Shaanxi province (Xi’an) closer to the Grand Canal. (It is not unusual for the capital of the state to be moved, when trade routes shifts or government changes the economic policy. Great examples are removals Roman Empire capital from Rome to Constantinople or the Russia capital from Moscow to St. Petersburg and back).

Tang dynasty is also the age, when Buddhism imported from India (generally in Vth century AD) gained popularity in China. Interestingly in China the religion did not played so important role here as in Europe, India or Middle West. Well, here is a simplified explanation: 
·	When a feudal country prospers because of profitable export, there are no serious social conflicts (see frame below), and thus elites are tolerant and open for new ideas (including other religions) - this is the case of early China (Han dynasty).
·	China conquered many lands with local beliefs and local religions, so the ideology that united the Empire had to be irreligious and tolerant for local traditions. 
·	And there was little or no economic need for ideology like religion (see below).

Economic function of religion Generally most of the religion ideologies have one common element: promise the happiness after death on in the future, if the believer lived honestly, sparingly and not fought for his (or her) rights. So, religions have an economic effect of promoting the capital accumulation and suppressing the power of labor workers. Simply speaking: in the early history of the China Empire, when the export was very profitable and there was a high demand for peasants (people were more valuable than the capital) to colonize South, there was no natural economic conditions and reasons for a religion system to evolve.   

Of course, when I speak “capital” I really mean “land”  which is the main form of capital in feudal countries. There is a little difference between them: land can’t “run away”, when is confiscated by government or external invaders. Capital can also be confiscated or nationalized, but because it should be continuously renewed, is much harder to hobble (imprison).  

And again, I do not want to say there is a conspiracy mechanism here. There is no secret meeting of aristocrats or government officials, who decide that introducing the religion ideology will be profitable, because will help to exploit peasants or to rule the common people. No, new ideologies emerge in an evolutionary way - simply speaking: people who promote new ideology gradually gains more money, larger audience or influential friends in administration structures of the state.	

After a few centuries when conditions changed, Confucianism ideology was so strongly rooted in China tradition that could substitute the religion. But in the times of Tang and Song dynasties (VIIth-XIIth) there was some times periods or serious religious conflicts between main religious and ideological movements: Buddhism, Taoism (in many aspect very similar to religion but not so formalized), Confucianism, Islam and Christianity. And government periodically organized haunts for followers of non-China religions. As you can see, China was not really so different from Europe - when different factions fought to gain control over country’s politics, ideological conflicts were intense.  

With the shrinking demand for Chinese export in the Middle East and with the less profitable trade exchange between South and North China when economic levels of both regions equalized, the power of central government declined, and Tang dynasty failed (at the beginning of Xth century). And another period of feudal fragmentation started.

Fourth stage: Relatively isolated feudal state
Since Xth century China was a relatively isolated feudal state that had its own cycles of rise an fall (more or less as the Ancient Egypt). Economic policy of the Emperor’s court changed many times and because of many reasons. Originally I have planed to use China as an example to show the reasons for transitions of government policy in a feudal state (to explain when different feudal factions take over the leadership). But then I realized that the whole lecture is too long for this short introduction to the Mechanics of History. I present short explanation in the frame below. 

My simplifications I said before that in feudal country there are basically three feudal factions: soldiers faction, priests faction, feudal faction. But you have to remember that this is only a kind of simplification. For example in China there were a subfactions interested in expansion West, South and North-East (Korea) in the soldiers faction (expansive faction). Also the transitions of the state policy was (depending on economic circumstances) an effect of military coup d’etat, court intrigue, peasants revolt, barbarian invasion, or simply effect of changing advisors by the Emperor. Moreover, transition could be brutal or quite peaceful depending on a few factors like: 
· Is the country’s economy in decline or in growth 
· How rich is the country comparing with its economic partners 
· How deep are conflicts of goals and interests between different factions Also the personal decisions of the Emperor mattered. Intelligent ruler could slow the decline a few decades, while stupid one may cause the catastrophe of the Empire come sooner. So, my classification of political factions in the feudal country should be used to explain only the basic processes. 	

The Empire of Song dynasty - which united China again (and ruled the Empire till the Mongol invasion 960-1225 and till 1279 in South China) - was rather peaceful comparing with Han and Tang dynasties. This time the Empire was smaller and strong half-barbarian kingdoms controlled the Great Wall, northern mountain passes and the Silk Road. Simply speaking, China was a quite rich country these times and has no profitable lands to conquer in close vicinity, so the pacifism was the most reasonable economic policy.

Here is a short article about steppe states of Asia. http://berclo.net/page97/97en-steppe-empires.html	

Also there was no reason to control trade route to the West because the economic gap between China and the West (i.e. Europe and Middle East) almost disappeared and therefore export to the West was not so profitable as before. China Empire was one of the richest countries these times. Also the technological gap between China and the West was smaller. Chinese made many important discoveries like: gunpowder, print, compass, paper. 

But we have to remember that China was still less technologically developed than the West. These discoveries were spectacular, but there were only a few of them while Europeans and Arabians had known many technologies which Chinese did not know (in metallurgy, warfare, constructing, engineering, math, writing, mining, ships building). Here are only a few examples:
·	Chinese discovered printing but did not know the alphabet, so the technology of printing was not very profitable.
·	Chinese discovered gunpowder, but were behind in metallurgy, so did not invented canons.
·	Chinese had no technology of stove, so could not colonize Siberia forests (and even Manchuria) north of them.

It is the irony of history that the country ruled by civil service of very educated officials - because education was the main criteria to become a state official and then to go up in administration hierarchy (as you recall feudal class in China was the class of state officials) - had slower technological growth than countries of the West, often ruled by uneducated rulers. The main reason is, the scientific development is chaotic of nature and its rate slows down when the government controls and regulates the country’s economy.

Chaotic nature of scientific development  The rate of science development is slower in states with government-regulated economy. There are a few reasons for this: 

· First, and the most important: new scientific discoveries and new technology ideas are most often a result of cross-branches studies and implementation of new ideas stolen from neighbouring branches (for example economics was originally developed when Adam Smith used the idea of predictable clock-like nature taken from Isaac Newton’s physics). When there are a very formalized castes of researchers with very limited areas of interests, the scientific development slows down.  

· Second, development of new technologies is much more effective when there is an economic pressure that eliminates the most ineffective research efforts. When there is no wasting money on large, ineffective government-sponsored projects and when scientists are forced do search the cheapest solutions and are forced to use their brains first. And when there are many private sponsors without prejudices, who are open for new ideas, which may be considered as “stupid” or “magic” in academic community (great example is the gunpowder and alchemic researches, which was considered by Confucianists as “magic tricks for plebeians who uses to believe in Taoistic superstitions”). 
 
· Third, when economy is free-market oriented, new ideas and discoveries are almost immediately implemented and used in economic enterprises. Practical implementation of technologies gives scientists a great volume of new data, and much more of observations than any academic in its ivory tower could ever produce in laboratory experiments. These times a scientist need only a talent for observation, and a few tools to verify his (or her) new theories. Plus of course a faster implementation means that the economy grows faster and thus there is more money for scientific researches in a long run.	

We should also remember that many of Chinese inventions were really the toys for the Imperial Court and for rich officials, and were not implemented in every day life or were not implemented in the most efficient way. On the other hand, European inventions were usually not so spectacular, but had greater impact on economy. It is like comparing the technology of Soviet Union and USA in 50-ties and 60-ties. Launch of Sputnik (first satellite launched by USSR) was spectacular, opposite to computers, genetics, plastics, television, and many other US technologies, which however had greater practical value. But to stay honest: in early Medieval (VIth-Xth centuries AD) China had probably higher technology level than Western Europe (but probably not higher than the Byzantine Empire and Arabian Middle East). Then with the emergence of populistic city-states in Italy in XIth century, the rate of technology development in Europe speeded up and China technologies were slowly becoming more and more obsolete. 

Before the XIXth century one of the basic economic evidences, which country was richer is the direction of coins (money) flows. We just need to see which country was an exporter of goods (China), and which one had to export money (Middle East, Europe). Country that had to export money, usually is richer - demand for the goods imported from abroad is so high that the country have not enough exportable goods to balance the import and thus have a permanent negative trade balance (warning: it is true only when economies of most countries are government-regulated). As I said before: rich country have a comparative advantage at money.

An effect of economic stagnation in China was the neighbouring barbarian tribes grew in strength. Song dynasty lost the north of China for the half-barbaric rulers in 1126 - Ruzhens (or Jurchens), founders of Jin dynasty. And finally China experienced the Mongol invasion. Mongols leaded by great chieftain Gengis Khan conquered Northern China at the beginning of XIIIth century. (Song dynasty survived in Southern China till 1279 AD, when the grandson of Gengis Khan, Kublai Khan conquered the rest of the China.) The Mongol Empire of Ghengis Khan and his descendants (called Yuan dynasty) was probably one of the greatest empires in the history. (See map) As I said before, one-fourth of human population lived in China, so Mongol barbarian conquests launched by the fall of China have to be extraordinary. Especially because steppes and grasslands of Eurasia (from Hungary to Manchuria) are a very easy travel route for nomad tribes.

Climatic changes There is also a theory that barbarians invasions on China were caused by climatic changes. Of course in feudal states and primitive barbaric societies climatic changes (periods of cold or drought) can expedite the crisis and have the influence on economic cycles that are responsible for the falls of feudal states and barbarian invasions.	

Armies of Mongols conquered and subordinated China, Siberia, Central Asia, the great part of Middle East and Russia. (Of course most of the feudal countries conquered by Mongols were more or less decomposed.) They even plundered Poland and Hungary in Central Europe. But aside from the destruction and fire that Mongol conquests brought to many cities and states, had also some positive effect: uniting the Asia opened again the trade route from Europe to China. Before Mongols the Silk Road was controlled by several countries and the costs of trade exchange were very high, because of many taxes merchants had to pay - now it was much easier to travel and trade.

Opening of new trade routes brought extra profits to Italian populistic merchant republics of Genoa and Venice. With the travels of Venetian merchant Marco Polo (http://www.silk-road.com/artl/marcopolo.shtml) Europeans gained knowledge about China and the Court of Kublai Khan. But for China export to the West was these times not such profitable as before. The main source of government income for Mongol Emperor - who resided in Bejing - was the salt monopoly. 

Under the rule of Kublai Khan the empire of Yuan dynasty reached the peak of its power. Mongols as every barbarian tribe which conquered China were absorbed by the higher civilization of conquered country. Emperor even tried to conquer Japan, but the strong resistance of Japanese and the fortunate storm called Kamikaze (divine wind), which destroyed the invasion fleet, saved Japan from Chinese conquest. It is useful to mention that even the invasion was successful, the large population of Japan (plus the logistic problems) would made the long occupation of Japan isles impossible.

Here is a short introduction to the History of Japan. http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e641.html Plus the short History of Korea. http://www.koreaaward.com/korea/history.htm Detailed lectures on Japan and Korea history, you can also find in Wikipedia.	

The rule of Yuan dynasty was ended with national rebellion against Mongol Emperors and that was the start of Ming (1368-1644) dynasty famous in Europe from precious china. In the times of Ming dynasty European sailors (Portuguese) arrived in China, and since then trade exchange with Europe was not longer conducted by the Silk road but by the sea. 

It is also worth to mention here that in times of Ming dynasty - and a few decades before the Great European discoveries - between the years of 1405-1433 Chinese admiral Zheng He (Muslim eunuch) made a number successful expeditions to India Ocean (here is a map, http://www.chinapage.com/zhenghe.html). His fleet reached even the eastern coast of Africa, but then his journeys were prohibited by the Emperor. Zheng He expeditions reached only the well lands known for a few centuries to the Arabian sailors, which had for some time trade outpost in South China (and also Chinese merchant sailors according to Arabic chronicles). But the strange decision of China Emperor is a good example that in feudal countries with government-regulated economy there is very little economic pressure to explore of new lands and made geographic discoveries, because political interests of merchant class are poorly represented. 

Fifth Stage: Protectionism and isolation

First contacts with Europeans were not encouraging. European sailors (especially Portuguese, who first reached China) used to practice piracy taking advantage of superior firepower of their ships. It was the normal practice among European sailors of all nations. European countries were much richer (per capita) than China, so there was a high demand for Chinese goods in Europe and almost no demand for European goods in China. European traders had three options: 
1.	To pay with precious metals (coins) - again: rich country has comparative advantage at money.
2.	To monopolize the sea trade in the region, and get extra income as trade middlemen, which will help to pay for Chinese goods.
3.	To rob traders of other nations, getting Chinese goods for free.

Strategy 1. would effect in money leak from Europe, and strategies 2. and 3. forced Europeans to practise the piracy as a way of economic activity. 

However sea export to Europe was extremely profitable for local Chinese officials (often corrupted by European merchants), so for some time China government did not react. But in XVIIth century China Emperors started to take some protectionist measures - more or less the same time as shoguns of Japan did. To be honest, the reason for this change in policy was rather to protect the Emperor income from taxes and monopolies than to protect Chinese traders.
 
The last dynasty of the Emperial China was the Quing dynasty (1644-1912). Emperors of Quing dynasty came from Manchuria (region north of Bejing and Korea east from Mongolia), which conquered the China when Ming dynasty was ended with civil unrest. After the years of unrest rule of external invaders were reasonable option for Chinese elites. Manchuria (Manchu state) was a half-nomadic tribe, but Manchu were not really barbarians, because there was many Chinese cities in Manchuria these times. As I said before, when a feudal state falls, it is usually invaded by barbarians, but invaders could also come from a neighbouring middle-income country.

The rule of Quing dynasty was the age of economic protectionism. So, the ideology promoting that policy evolved, supporting official policy of isolation. Here are some basic foundation of this ideology:
·	China Empire is the center of the World, and have the oldest tradition. Other nations (especially Europeans) are barbarians.
·	Other nations did not developed anything important - our culture, goods and technology are the best.
·	There is nothing interest in ideas imported from other nations, they (their ideas) could bring only corruption to our traditions (which are no doubt the best).

This isolationistic ideology was very different from the curiosity of the world and openness in times of Han or Tang dynasties, but Europeans, who did not know the China before, perceived this ideology as a natural philosophy of Chinese. It is useful to note here that similar ideology could evolve in any state which is in protectionist phase of economic cycle, for example: in Spain in XVIth century, in Poland in 1650-1750 (called Sarmatism), in Soviet Union, or even in France in last decades of XXth century. 

Isolationism made China terribly technologically underdeveloped, so British Fleet had no problem to defeat China ships and army in two Opium Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_wars). These wars ended the China’s isolation and opened the Empire for European trade and investments.

Great Britain started the Opium Wars, because the lack of money to pay for import from China. As a rich country England would had to pay for Chinese goods with gold (again rich country has comparative advantage at money, see the polarization effect). To protect English trade balance, British wanted to export opium to China (a drug cultivated in British colonies in India). Since then English could buy Chinese goods paying not with British gold, but with money earned from exporting a drug, which was cheaply produced in India. China government tried to stop British smuggling of opium - but rather to protect state income from export taxes and tolls than to protect drug-addicted commoners - so the war was inevitable.

As you can see, the country with the highest political system (third in my classification) also could wage “dirty” and morally doubtful war if such war is profitable. And reasons behind the promotion of free trade are not always honest.

History of India

The same as China, India has extremely large share of the World population. For the whole history (except XVIIIth and XIXth centuries, when here was a demographic explosion in Europe) 1/4 of the World population lived in India subcontinent - i.e. on the territory of today’s India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (Ceylon).

Speaking about the history of India (the same as about history of China before) I will try to show you that it is not so different form European history, and historical processes and laws are basically the same.
Links about the history of India
Here is a short introduction to the India history.
http://www.webindia123.com/history/index.html
Plus as usual, systematic article from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India
And a set of maps for India history.
http://www.mapsofindia.com/history/	

Opposite to the history of China where generally there was one state (which sometimes had a periods of feudal fragmentation), history of India before the British conquest is a history of thousands smaller or larger feudal states fighting with each other (where some times one country conquered a large part of subcontinent). It is impossible to describe here the history of even the most important of them, so this page will be rather a presentation of some tools from my theory than a guide to the history of India (Jambudvipa).

Harappa & Mohenjo-Daro Civilization

Indus Valley Civilization (also called Harappa & Mohenjo Daro Civilization after the contemporary names of two biggest cities discovered by archeologists) was the oldest civilization of India subcontinent. The script used in Indus Valley is still not deciphered, so all knowledge we have about Harappa & Mohenjo Daro civilization comes from archeological digging. The start of Indus Valley culture is dated on more or less 2800 BC (so it is almost as old as the Egyptian Civilization) and the end came in XVIIIth century BC, when Indus Valley was conquered by barbarian Aryan tribes.

Indus Valley Civilization links
The best and user-friendly site about Harappa & Mohenjo Daro Civlilization is probably The Ancient Indus Valley. 
Here you can find maps, notes on Indus Script, and even 3-D simulation of the city of Harappa.
http://www.harappa.com/har/har0.html
And here is another Web site with a nice review of archeological discoveries in Indus Valley.
http://bosei.cc.u-tokai.ac.jp/~indus/english/index.html	

Mesopotamian artifacts found in ruins of cities prove that Indus Valley civilization had intensive trade contacts (probably also by the sea) with Sumerian city-states, and Mesopotamia. Although in times of natural trade (when one good is exchanged for another without using any kind of money) is very hard to say which one of the trading countries is richer, we can assume that Indus Valley was less developed, and was a kind of ancient “emerging-market” exporting goods to Mesopotamia. Archeological discoveries prove that overall technology level of Indus Valley civilization was lower than technology level of Sumer city-states. For example bronze tools and weapons were rare and poorer quality than in Mesopotamia. One of important Harappa & Mohenjo Daro exportables was probably a cotton (India discovery).

I have said that cities of Harappa & Mohenjo Daro civilization were probably populistic merchant republics or oligarchies (or at least two or three biggest cities: Harappa, Mohenjo Daro, Lothal). But because we can’t read the Indus Script, and there was almost no information about Indus Valley civilization from other sources, it is only a hypothesis based on very weak premises: 
·	Archeologist discovered a very advanced canalization systems in major Indus Valley cities. Usually it is a signal that a city is ruled by some kind of populistic government (like in Sumeria, Ancient Greece or Roman Empire), which needs a popularity among citizens (opposite to the feudal states, where monarchs usually have a little or no interested in comfort of people living in cities).
·	There were many quite rich houses in cities, which suggest that there was a strong class of merchants here.
·	Crisis after the fall of Indus Valley civilization was very deep, as after the fall of populistic civilization, and the Indus Valley civilization was almost completely destroyed by Aryans. In case of populistic civilization economic expansion last longer but the fall is deeper and barbarians invaders are too numerous to be absorbed by invaded country (as usually happens when the feudal country is invaded). 
There are also several “low-weight” evidences, for example a popularity of seals among Indus Valley people may suggest a very strong trade exchange typical for populistic civilizations. But these evidences are weak.

Besides the trade with Mesopotamia, merchants of Indus Valley traded with the tribes of Ganges Valley and probably with the west coast of India peninsula. Expansion of Indus Valley Civilization, I have marked with a brown arrow on my first map on Maps page was probably a trade expansion and a diffusion of Indus Valley technology (like Sumerian expansion in Mesopotamia or Phoenician colonization), not the military expansion.

The reason for fall of the Harappa & Mohenjo Daro civilization were probably combined crises in Mesopotamia (the fall of the Sumer city-states and thus the shrinking demand for India export) and the local crisis in India, when the trade of Indus civilization spread over too large territory, and the diffusion powers outweighed the profits from expansion. Trade contacts with Mesopotamia was broken after the fall of Hammurabi’s Empire (called Old-Babylonian Empire).

Decomposed civilization of Indus Valley was Invaded by barbarian Indo-European tribes of Aryans, who probably (around 2000 BC) first wandered from the north Black Sea coast to the territory of today’s Iran (which was named from Aryans), Northern Mesopotamia (see ancient state of Mitanni formed by Indo-Europeans here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitanni) and Afghanistan, and then at the beginning of the second Millennium BC invaded Indus Valley thorough the Khyber Pass. Aryans although barbaric had an advantage of better bronze weapons and the technology of chariot. Aryan's conquest was rather a process than an immediate event (similarly as with Germanic invasion of Roman Empire).

Geography of India subcontinent

The most important observation about India subcontinent is its relative geographic isolation. From the east and west sides India peninsula is surrounded by Indian Ocean. From the North a Himalayan Mountains and Tibetan Plateau give India a natural “Great Wall”, much better than Chinese, because almost impassable. Even Afghanistan and Burma borders are protected with mountains and deserts and with mountains and jungles respectively. Almost only one land gate into India is a Khyber Pass between Indus Valley and Afghanistan. Therefore is not strange that (before the European colonization) India was successfully invaded only three times in a 4500 years long history (of course external empires conquered Indus Valley several times, but the rest of the India stayed independent.)

Here is a schematic map of India subcontinent
[map]
Red lines show the main trade routes.
Yellow dots marks the most important historical capitals of India Empires.
Orange dots marks Portugal colonies in India (Ceylon island was for some time a Portuguese colony too).
Light green names are names of lands, countries and regions, which I will mention later in this lecture.

On the map I have marked the most important trade routes in India. Please note that the Indus Valley and Ganges Valley are the natural backbone for a great state, so most of the Indian empires were founded here. But opposite than in China where in the valleys of rivers Huang He and Yangtzee were the home for approximate 2/3 of Chinese population, in the valleys of rivers Indus and Ganges in India lived about 1/2 of subcontinent population, and both rivers were not joined with a canal like in China – so there was no stable foundation for a great country in India, and the history of peninsula was for the most time a history of feudal fragmentation. 

Note also that:
·	Indus and Ganges Valley are separated by Thar Desert (created by prehistoric farmers who overexploited the land).
·	Deccan peninsula was relatively isolated from the valleys of two great rivers with jungles and mountain ranges (ex. with Vindhya Range). The easiest way into Deccan Plateau is from the east coast of subcontinent.
·	Trade backbone of Indus Valley and Ganges Valley, although not so strong to be a base for stable empire, had very strong influence on the economy of the other parts of subcontinent and hampered the emergence of stable local trade centers (and thus stable countries) in the South India. So borders of Southern India states were very mutable. 

Because of this relative isolation, internal economic cycles were usually more important for India states than external economic cycles.

Short Chronology of India

Here is a very schematic chronology of India history. Ages of feudal fragmentation are marked with green background color. Periods of great empires have orange backgrounds. History of India is very complicated – there were also a small many smaller empires (some of them listed).

Schematic India Chronology
XVth – VIIth centuries BC	Aryans Expansion	After conquering Indus Valley, Aryans formed own states and slowly conquered or colonized Ganges Valley. Because Aryan states were feudal, whole process was very slow and took about 1000 years.	
VIth - IVth centuries BC	Age of Buddha	Aryan kingdoms controlled most of the Northern India. New religion of Buddhism, philosophic doctrine of Jainism and Ajivikas doctrine were founded these times. Some parts of Indus Valley were conquered by Persian Empire and then by Alexander the Great.	
322 BC – 188 BC	Mauryan Empire	First great Empire in India, ruled by Mauryan dynasty. Started with Chandragupta Maurya, reached the peak of its power under the rule of emperor Ashoka (he was for India somebody like Charlemagne for France), who conquered almost the whole peninsula. And similiary like the Empire of Charlemagne in very short time after his death Mauryan empire decomposed. 	
since 188 BC till IIIth century AD 	From Mauryans to Guptas	Feudal fragmentation period with smaller empires like Sunga Empire. Indus Valley under the rule of external powers: Greco-Bactrian state, Kushan empire. 	
IVth and Vth centuries AD	Gupta Dynasty	Founded by Chandragupta I, Gupta Empire controlled most of the Northern India. Golden Age of India.	
VIth – XIIth  centuries AD	Medieval India	Feudal fragmentation period. Chalukya Empire, Cola Empire. At the beginning of XIth century India was raided by Muslim ruler Mahmud of Ghazni.	
since late XIIth century till early XIVth century	Turkish conquest, Delhi Sultanate	At the end of XIIth century India was invaded by Turkish (Muslim) rulers from Afghanistan, who formed Delhi Sultanate and till the beginning of XIVth century (Muhammad bin Tughluq) conquered most of India.	
XIVth and XVth centuries AD	feudal fragmentation again	Feudal fragmentation again. Many small kingdoms often ruled by Muslim rulers, even where Hindus were majority in India. Delhi Sultanate still existed but was only one of many feudal states.	
XVIth and XVIIth centuries AD	Mughal Empire, first European colonies	Babur of Farghana invaded India from Central Asia and conquered Delhi Sultanate about 1526 AD, starting this way Mughal Empire (or Mogul Empire). His successors step-by-step subordinated most of India subcontinent.	
First half of XVIIIth century	European Colonization,  expansion of Maratha 	When Mughal Empire collapsed after the death of emperor Aurangzeb, Marathans took control over Central India forming Hindu state called Maratha Confederacy. European powers that had colonies in South India were fighting for monopoly to trade with India.	
1760-1820	British Conquest	After defeating other European powers (France), British conquered, bought or allied the whole India. Three Anglo-Maratha wars with declining Maratha Confederacy.	
1820-1947	British India	British rule over India until 1947 when states of India subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka - 1948) gained independence.	

The capital of Mauryans and Guptas was the city of Pataliputra in Magadha. The capital of Delhi Sulatanate and Mughal (Mogul) Empire was the city of Delhi.

For chronology of India history see also:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/ssa/ht02ssa.htm	

Interesting historical processes in the History of India 

After the fall of Indus Valley civilization, Aryan states armed with higher technology step-by-step conquered the local tribes of Ganges Valley and colonized neighbouring lands burning jungles and starting the agriculture. We have very little data about this period and our knowledge comes mainly from religious texts and eposes like Rig Veda, Mahabharata or Ramayana. Probably the whole process (at least since 1000 BC) resembled German colonization and expansion in Central and Northern Europe in Xth-XIVth centuries AD – serious wars with local states when economic conditions were worse, and quite peaceful colonization carried out by people with higher technology when economic conditions were better. 

Feudal system of India
One of the important consequences of conquest was a complicated feudal structure that evolved in India. There was essentially four social classes:
·	Brahmins – class of priests, one of two ruling classes.
·	Kshatriyas — class of warriors, second of the two ruling classes
·	Vaishyas — class of plebeians: farmers, peasants, merchants, craftsmen
·	Shudras — the lowest social class of dependent people
Members of first three classes were considered as a members of Aryan community, and the members of fourth class were excluded from that community. Shudras originally were probably the members of conquered tribes or nations. But after some time Aryans melted with conquered natives, who on the other hand were “aryanised”. This feudal model is not very different from European feudal hierarchy where there were nobles (kings and priests) on the top and great mass of subordinate plebeians: merchants, peasants, craftsmen. Using the same analogy again: Slavians or Balts conquered by Germans were usually treated as a the worse category of plebeians (like Shudras in India), while Slavian princes, nobles or merchants often accepted German culture, the same way as Non-Aryan rulers and warriors in India accepted Aryan culture. 

The second element of feudal structure was a system of Castes. Every social class divided into many castes which represents specializations or a professions (like: bard, scribe, chariot driver, etc.). There was a thousands of castes. In many ways castes resembled craft unions or guilds from medieval Europe. Below of cast system were Untouchable – people who had the most disliked professions.

This system was very flexible. In periods of rather free-market oriented feudal economy allows easier social mobility: people could change cast easier than social class, and casts could advance (or go down) in social hierarchy of classes. On the other hand in periods of protectionism, system could limit social mobility: people had problems to change class or cast, and stable system of castes helped to protects monopolies in different crafts or professions. 

Because of India isolation, there were no periods of fast economic expansion followed with deep crises, which periodically destroyed (or decomposed) the social structures of feudal states in Europe. Therefore, feudal social system of India could remain stable (only little relaxed in times of economic expansion, and more restricted in times when economy shrank) for about 3000 years.	

Religions of India
Hinduism, the natural religion of India subcontinent is probably the most complicated religion of the World with the richest mythology. When Aryans conquered northern India they were a minority among conquered nations, so had to incorporate many elements of local cults into original Aryan religion. Moreover, because of permanent political disunity, there was no reason for centralistic monotheistic religion that usually emerges when there is a need for an ideology supporting and explaining the central role of feudal monarch and centralized government.

Note that religion played much more important role in India, than for example in China. When there is no central government, religion ideology and institutions take some social functions that are usually monopolized by government, for example promote honesty and moral codex, this way lowering transaction cost in economic activities and politics. Great benefit when there is no government or central administration that has a power to enforce laws, or protect social structures and hierarchies. 	

At the end of expansion, Aryans finally conquered Bengal (region in the delta of river Ganges), opening this way trade route to East Coast of Deccan peninsula and Deccan plateau (also to Indochina and islands of Indonesia) for Aryan traders. Technology in Aryan North was these times much higher than in Non-Aryan (Dravidian) South. This created a very profitable trade exchange and increased the importance of trade route from Indus Valley thorough Ganges Valley, and Bengal to the South. The focal point of this trade route was controlled by Aryan kingdom of Magadha with the capital in the city of Pataliputra. We can say that a new trade route was as a kind of waterfall joining two water reservoirs, and Magadha state — like a power plant — could use energy of this waterfall to grow in power.

Economic changes launched changes in ideologies. Traditional religion of Hinduism (adequate for times of colonization and expansion) appeared to be not enough for a society where cities and trade became more important. So at the turn of VIth and Vth century BC many mystic and philosophic doctrines emerged. Three most important of them were Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism), Jainism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) and Ajivikas doctrine. All started as a philosophies — explaining how a man should live — rather than religions. Buddhism finally evolved into institutionalized religion, two others not (because are atheistic), but very stable and ritualized doctrines also make them similar to religions rather than philosophies.

The moral is: Doctrine created by the Teacher is always deformed by his followers according to economic, historic and political conditions that influence them.	

Buddhism  with one common moral canon was better suited for centrally governed states than politeistic Hinduism with numerous gods and deities, so it was promoted by the rulers of India empires: Maurya empire (by emperor Ashoka) Gupta empire and others. After the Muslim conquest Buddhism disappeared from India displaced by monotheistic religion of conquerors — Islam. Hiduism survived as a religion of Hindu subordinates and evolved into more hierarchical religion with the trinity of highest gods: Brahman, Vishnu and Shiva (similar evolution we can observe for example in Ancient Mesopotamia when many independent countries and cities were united into one state). 

One final element of all India religious doctrines I want to mention here is an idea of Reincarnation (also present in some other cultures). After the death, the “soul” of living being is reborn again in another living being. When a human is honest, obedient and lives according to its role in a social hierarchy, will be reborn as a person of higher caste or social class. On the other hand human who make crimes, is insubordinate (or outright acts against the social hierarchy), will be reborn in lower caste, social class or even as an animal. This way the idea of reincarnation had the same social, and political impact as the idea of heaven, purgatory and hell in Christian tradition — helped to preserve the feudal hierarchy.

When analyzing an ideology from the historic point of view, you should try to find its economic and political impact. When we eliminate decorations that come from cultural tradition of a country, it usually appears that ideologies of different nations have the same functions when economic and historic environment is similiar.	

The idea of reincarnation and cyclical nature of World, Universe and everything is probably the consequence of high stability of India economy (no deep crises, no periods of fast economic expansion), and the cyclical nature of India history.

Indian Machiavelli
India subcontinent was the first time united by rulers of Mauryan dynasty. Founder of the dynasty Chandragupta started to build the empire short after the death of Alexander the Great and after dividing his empire by Alexander’s generals (diadochs). Maybe economic changes launched by the fall of Persian Empire and expansion of Greek technology were one of the causes of rapid growth of power kingdom of Magadha — shrinking demand for goods imported from India in Middle East weakened Western India sates, making this way Ganges-Deccan trade route relative more profitable — feudal empires need some source of stable income to have resources to grow. 

Chandragupta had an advisor, wise man known as a Kautilya (or Chanakya). We can say that Kautilya was a kind of Cardinal Richelieu for Chandragupta. And the same as Richelieu, he wrote a book explaining secret methods o making politics, called Arthashastra. Book promotes Machiavellian methods of making politics, so Kautilya (Chanakya) is sometimes called an “Indian Machiavelli”.

Here is a link to English translation of Arthashastra.
http://www.swaveda.com/etext.php?title=Arthashastra
This book is very important historical source about the life in Ancient India. But some historians believe that Arthashastra was rewritten (or outright written by author, who want to gain popularity using the name of famous Kautilya) a few centuries later. Historians should have great wariness when analyzing historic sources. Authors could lie, confabulate, exaggerate or simply be mistaken.	

Mauryan Empire reached the peek of its power under the emperor Ashoka (273 BC - 232 BC), who united almost the whole India subcontinent. After his death Mauryan empire start to decompose, and India returned to the state of feudal fragmentation. Although for a few centuries India was not united, it were generally the times of great economic prosperity because of export to Hellenistic kingdoms of Middle East and then to Roman Empire (large deposits of Roman coins were discovered in Western India), and the times of cultural and scientific bloom. For example the decimal counting system was invented these times, which then launched the revolution in algebra when adopted by Muslim mathematicians, and the revolution in accounting (bookkeeping) when imported to Europe.

Political disunity also stimulated knowledge about the mechanisms of politics (as an anecdote: the game of chess was invented these times as strategical-political game for 4 players). India thinkers also formulated the basic rule of alliance in war: a country on the opposite side of our enemy is our natural ally and next country in this chain is our enemy natural ally. So when we have a layer-cake of states: A-B-C-D-E-F. States A, C and E form one alliance and states B, D plus F form another alliance.

Of course this is simplified schema. 
Natural barriers like mountains, jungles or seas could modify alliance pattern.
The same as profitable trade or resources.
Also when a country in such chain is much weaker than its neigbours (c), it will become a vassal state dominated by one of its neighbours, and this will change the alliance pattern: 
A-B-c-D-E-F
Moreover, democratic-system countries never become members of opposite war alliances, so this rule also deforms the basic alliance pattern.	

Sexual freedom and population growth
These times population of North India reached its limits (maximum possible population at medieval technology level), so ideologies promoting sexual freedom gained great popularity. As you recall (from page about Ancient Greece): sexual freedom slows the population growth, and sexual-oppressive ideologies increase the rate of population growth. The reason for this is very simple: expansion (proliferation) of knowledge about contraception (how to not have children) is not possible without knowledge about sex. (Warning: there is only correlation here, not necessary the cause-effect relationship.)

One of the effect of this sexual freedom was the Kamasutra, probably the most famous treaty about sex and art of love in history. Kamasutra (book devoted to the god of love, Kama) was very popular among merchants, nobles, and city-dwellers of India these times. It is useful to mention here that there is a similar treaty about sex in Chinese culture, but opposite than Kamasutra in India it was written only for the Chinese Emperor and his court — as most of the Chinese knowledge it was not popularized among people outside the court. Of course, sexual freedom in India these times was not so great as today (when discoveries in medicine created demand for ideologies that slow population growth), and generally was limited to city-dwellers (the same as sexual freedom in Renaissance). 

Another important factor that slows the population growth is education of people, especially education of woman. And third brake slowing the population growth is some economic pressure promoting smaller families (but not too strong, see point 2. below). Now is a good moment to say a word of two about demographic mechanisms and reasons for demographic explosions. 

Reasons for demographic explosions
There are generally three cases when we a rapid population growth happens:
1.	When there is a high demand for new people, because of new lands to colonize. XIXth century (Victorian Age) or Greek Colonization are good examples here.
2.	When labour workers are over-exploited by regime. Fast population growth increases the “supply” of labour-workers and thus lowers the economic strength of labour-workers. Again there is no conspiracy here, regimes (usually) do not plan to multiply the number of poor people to have cheaper labour force. It is rather an consequence of simple political-economic mechanism: at first people from upper classes have better chance to become state officials, judges, priests (get a job at the social institution responsible for propaganda), to get into schools or universities. After some time all propaganda and administration jobs are dominated by upper classes, and lower classes turn into undereducated crowd, with no chance to accumulate wealth, to have any influence on ideologies or to get any education. In consequence population of undereducated low-income people start to increase rapidly and can be contained only by natural disasters, wars or brute military force when poor ones start to rebel. This effect could be observed for example in Ireland before the Great Hunger (1845-1849), and was described by Thomas Robert Malthus. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Malthus.html) 
3.	When there is some latency between the implementation of new technology and implementation of new social ideology. When some new technologies which decrease the death rate (like discoveries in medicine) are implemented in economy, but there are no liberal sexual ideologies and liberal sexual habits that could slow the birth rate, the Natural Growth Rate of Population also increases (this is basics of demographics, see picture below). 

[picture]
Generally, this happens when a country (Importer) imports only technologies but not ideologies from another high-developed country (Exporter). Importer has lower political system than exporter (ex. is populistic when Exporter is democratic), so ruling elites - government, GPI (group of political interests) or class - try to import from high-developed countries only these discoveries, which are perceived as beneficial, and filter out other discoveries (sex habits, or liberal ideologies, or mechanism of economic pressure) perceived as destructive for local society and political system. Good example here is India in the second half of XXth century with its sexual-oppressive culture and import of European discoveries in medicine. Maybe demographic explosions of populations of barbarian tribes are also the same case (but we can not be sure here). 

Economic and political cycles in feudal states

When export to the West shrank because of collapse of the Roman Empire (IVth-Vth centuries AD) North India was united again by Gupta dynasty. Because of economic prosperity and cultural bloom this period is called the Golden Age of India. But technology and income gap between Aryan North and Dravidian South shrank, so the relative profitability of Ganges-Deccan trade route decreased, and Gupta Empire collapsed, dispatched by Hun invasions (other branch of Hun tribes that invaded Europe). Another period of feudal fragmentation in a rise-and-fall cycle of feudal state started.

Well, rise and fall cycle of feudal state is little more complicated than I stated before - this theory has levels. But before I say more, a few definitions:

1. How to say, when feudal state has free-market oriented economy, and when government-regulated economy? 
·	When feudal state has government-regulated economy and resembles a great corporation, taxes are collected in goods (bushels of rice, grain, craftsmen products) rather than in money, land is a property of monarch and feudals are no more than officials, who gains their land from monarch and monarch could remove them from his land any time. 
·	When feudal state has free-market oriented economy, taxes are collected in money, land is a property of feudals and they cannot be removed from their property without an appropriate legal procedure. 	

Actually, most of the time economy of feudal state is some mix of both models. Taxes are collected concurrently in money and in goods, monarch has only a fraction of whole land, many land manors are allodiums (land the property of feudal is inherited by sons). Monarchs could behave as a boss of a mob (mafia) and steal the land of his political opponents, or as a leader of a nation who generally respects traditions and laws of the country. 

Moreover, economy of feudal states can drift from government-regulated to more liberal. Good example here is Japan which had strongly government-regulated economy - with extended bureaucracy, land owned be Emperor and taxes collected in rice (system adopted from China) in early medieval. Then more “liberal” economy when land become the property of great feudals in late medieval, after the conquest of the north Honshu and Hokkaido islands (when diffusion powers weakened Emperor’s rule). Also we should remember that feudal state economy bases on land and income from military conquests, so liberal economy usually means that one big “corporation” of united country breaks into many “small corporations” of small feudal domains fighting with each other. 

2. When writing about crisis of feudal state, we have to remember that there are a few types of crises:
·	economic crisis - when income shrinks
·	political crisis - when feudal faction fights with each other
·	institutional crisis - when institution of the country decompose (army and officials are underpaid, courts and administrations become more and more corrupted)
·	ideology crisis - when old ideology decompose and new ideologies emerge
·	diffusion crisis - when resources leak from higher developed to less developed regions (although the economy of state as a whole may still grow).
·	polarization crisis - when the economic and political power of middle-income feudals (and cities) decrease. Again, the whole economy of a country may still grow, but the political institutions start to decompose. 
Some of this crises will be independent of each other, other crises will start with some latency one after another (ex. polarization crisis as an effect of the diffusion crisis). Moreover, until XVIIIth century we have very little data to analyze economic processes. So please forgive me when I sometimes speak about crisis not saying what kind of crisis (of mentioned above) I have on mind.

Armed with these definitions lets look how the rise-and-fall cycle of feudal state really works:

[picture] 

Black waves represents the cycles of effectiveness of government’s economic enterprises (large scale enterprises, government income).
Blue waves represents the cycles of effectiveness of  private economic enterprises (small scale enterprises, private income)
Green waves represents the cycles in country’s economy (sum of government and private income, i.e. sum of black and blue waves).

Again this model is very simplified, but we can use it to explain the basic cycles in feudal states. In Reunity Phase country (Northern India in our example) is united by the ruler of the strongest feudal domain, in Wars Phase strong and united country conquers weaker neighbours (Deccan states in our example), In Decomposition Phase power of central government (ruler court) weakens, finally in Fragmentation Phase country breaks into many small feudal domains. As you can see, this cycle is not exactly coherent (or concurrent) with main economic cycle (green waves).	

When profitability of large-scale economic activities (first long range trade, then wars and external expansion) exceeds profitability of small-scale enterprises, feudal country unites. And opposite, when small-scale economic activities (local protectionism) becomes more profitable than large enterprises (external wars appears to be too costly, profitability of long-range trade decrease), the country disunites. But as you can easily see from the picture above, economic processes responsible for these political changes usually started many years before (and changes in ideologies shortly thereafter) - when marginal profitability of large scale enterprises exceeded the marginal profitability of small-scale enterprises (reunity) and vice versa (decomposition).

Marginal profitability is a term from economics (it is a derivative of profitability function). When marginal profitability is positive, we know that the whole profitability increases, and opposite when marginal profitability is negative, we know that the whole profitability decrease. We can also compare the marginal profitability of two kinds of economic activities to say (for example), what of sectors of economy grow faster. And in consequence: which groups of political interests (GPIs) will gain more political weight, and which ones lose their power.	

Of course we should analyze the average profitability and marginal profitability for ruling and privileged classes of feudal country - i.e. for nobles, priests, state officials. Great mass of ruled plebeians with no political rights have almost no influence on the politics of feudal state.

What are the reasons for cycles (waves above)? Generally, it is a very simple mechanism: 
1.	When a feudal country is fragmented, competition is stronger and technology development is faster. F
2.	New technologies stimulate the economic growth that increases the volume of trade. F
3.	And after some time, it appears that only way to explore the benefits of scale that new technologies brought (and to consume all fruits of trade) is to unite the country - because this lowers the negative effect that wars, road robberies, different taxes, monetary and measures systems, etc. have on economy. F/R
4.	So country is united by the strongest feudal domain. R
5.	United country have greater military power, so relative profitability of expansive wars (comparing with other kinds of economic activities) increase. R/W
6.	Country conquers weaker neighbouring states. Technology development slows. W
7.	Diffusion powers and logistic problems connected with expansion (as described by Paul Kennedy) starts to decompose the country. W/D
8.	Large scale enterprises (wars, long range trade) become less profitable, and local feudals protecting economic interests of local communities in their domains (for example against high taxes and tributes collected by monarch) grow in power, gaining more and more political clients. Monarch's authority declines. D
9.	Finally country is divided between the sons of monarch or maybe an alliance of big feudals defeats the monarch (or overpowers him, limiting his authority). D/F
10.	And another period of feudal fragmentation starts. F

Remember that - because of very slow rate of technology development and very weak control over government decisions - only a narrow group people (nobles) have some political rights and could influence monarch’s decisions - feudal country have great inertia, so economic and political cycles are extremely long (even a few hundred years long).

Of course this schema is very simple, and actually could be modified by some external factors (like external economic cycles, expansion of external states, etc.). Also shift/latency between cycles of private sector (blue waves) and cycles of government sector (black waves) may vary. But generally we can say that there are only two basic reasons for economic cycles here:
1.	Political decisions of governments (our monarch and monarchs of external countries) - wars, economic policy.
2.	Shifts of trade routes launched by geographic discoveries - like Vasco da Gama’s journey. 

Final note: schema presented here explains the economic-political cycles of feudal states, but the model is quite universal. Similar mechanism is responsible for life cycle of great corporations (like for example IBM) - which first buy smaller firms, and then divide or sells some divisions. And is also responsible for political cycles in modern countries - for example helps to understand the  political cycle of late USSR and modern Russia (although in modern populistic states cycles are shorter). I will also revoke this model later when speaking about Kondratiev cycles. 

Some other notes on medieval India

In many ways feudal medieval India (I mean from Mauryans till Muslim Invasion) resembled medieval Europe. We can find here guilds, craft unions, even merchant associations (like ex. Hanseatic League in medieval Germany), cities with extended autonomy (like German or Italian cities), etc.

After the decline of Gupta Empire feudal states of Southern India grew in power. There was several local empires these times on Dravidian South. Probably the most important one was the Chola Empire (IXth - XIIIth century), which span over whole Eastern Coast of Deccan peninsula and controlled the trade along the coast and with interior of Deccan. It was the normal process: when the power of core countries (high developed) declines, former “emerging-markets” (middle-income countries) come into the scene.

At the beginning of XIIIth century Northern India was invaded by Muslims (Turko-Afgan rulers). Who founded the Delhi Sultanate with the capital in city of Delhi where the most important trade routes of North crossed (to Indus Valley, to Ganges Valley and trade route to China, Middle East and Europe thorough Khyber Pass). Controlling the most important city of India (Delhi) Muslim sultans could start to conquer the weaker neigbouring states, step-by-step reuniting most of India.

Capital at the crossroads of trade routes. Feudal country is usually reunited by a dynasty or domain, which controls the city that is located at the crossroads of the most important trade routes in that country. There are hundreds examples: Paris for France, Moscow for Russia, Cracow for Poland, Constantinople for Byzantine Empire, Berlin for Germany, Xi’an for China, etc. And of course Delhi for India. As I said before: to unite the country monarch need some material resources, and the most prominent city in the country with its revenues from trade is a very good source of income to royal treasury.	

Muslim conquerors were relatively small elite in India - some historians estimate that they were only about 10% of India population. Well, elites that rule feudal countries (i.e. have political rights) are relatively small - usually about 5% (maximum 10%) of whole population. So, relatively small number of invaders can easily dominate a large country. They must only defeat old elites (native nobles) and take their place. Subordinate people with no political rights, even if they do not like new rulers, usually have not enough economic strength and resources (weaponry, leaders, organization) to fight against invaders. Especially when invaders do not exploit them so intensive as old elites (as it is usually the case). 

As a rule of thumb: When invaders are about 5% of the population of conquered country, they will be assimilated by the local culture (like for example Normans in Anglo-Saxon England or Mongols in China). When invaders are about 10% of whole population, both cultures could exist independently for long time (like Muslims and Hindu in India). When percentage of invaders is higher (maybe 20% of population) like in case of Aryan invasion, the culture of invaders will dominate the conquered country. India is a good example here, because percentage of Muslims was different in different regions: highest in Indus Valley and intensively colonized Bengal, average in Ganges Valley and Northern Deccan, and lowest in Southern Deccan and in Rajputana region (east from Thar Desert - which was for long the center of resistance against Muslim rulers).

Since IXth century the maritime trade in the Arabian Sea (and India Ocean generally) was dominated by Muslim sailors from middle East, who have trade outposts even in Southern China.

Peninsula schema in India

When the income and technology level of Southern India increased to be comparable with Aryan North, the competition between southern states became stronger, and accelerated modernization started (the same as in Europe or Ancient Greece, see peninsula schema). Southern India was periodically conquered by northern Muslim empires (Delhi Sultanate and Mogul Empire), even some southern states have Muslim rulers (Ahmadnagar, Bijapur, Golconda, Berar, etc.). But generally south of India for the most of time was a collection of independent states fighting with each other.

Good example here are long wars between Hindu Vijayanagara empire (located more or less in central and southern regions of Deccan plateau) and Muslim Bahmani Sultanate (east regions of Deccan) at the turn of XIV and XV centuries. Strong competition caused Deccan states to develop new technologies and to adopt technologies from Europeans — who were present in India since Vasco da Gama journey (1498). For Example India armies were using canons comparable with these used in Europe in XVth century. Generally technology gap between India and Europe was smaller than technology gap between Europe and China.

Especially intensive modernization (capital-organized production of craftsmen, rulers supporting local traders, etc.) we can observe in XVIIIth century in Travancore, a small Kingdom in Kerala. Sooner or later Travancore could probably evolved into a populistic state - a kind of “India Netherlands”, but European colonization stopped this process. Travancore was incorporated into the British Empire. 

Short history of Kerala, unfortunately without economic history.
http://kerala-history.nrksite.com/history4.htm	

Europeans

First Europeans in India (since Vasco da Gama journey) were Portuguese sailors. Europe has these times much higher technology level than India and also much higher income per capita. Therefore demand for Indian goods (mainly spices, but also indigo, cotton, gems, etc.) in Europe was very high, but the demand for European goods in India was very low (see substantiation at my page devoted to the polarization effect), so European traders had to pay for India goods with precious metals and Europe has negative trade balance with India (it may be boring, but again: rich countries have comparative advantage at money).

But Europeans have an important military advantage - ships with canons on board. Portuguese defeated Arabians and monopolized the maritime trade in Indian Ocean. Additional money they got as intermediaries in maritime trade in India Ocean were used to finance import to Europe (extremely profitable because of very high prices of Indian goods in Europe). It is the classic strategy of rich countries in international trade exchange: to monopolize trade and financial services (as you recall Arabians did the same a few centuries earlier). Another tactics to avoid the negative trade balance was to bribe local India feudals with gifts to get privileged (monopolistic) trade position in their domains. According to the theory of monopoly: a market player with monopolistic position could dictate prices and therefore buy and sell goods at better prices (comparing with the prices of these goods in competitive, free market). 

After some time other European nations arrived to India: Dutch, British, French. European powers started to fight with each other for monopolistic position in India trade. These wars were waged for more or less 200 years (from the middle of XVIth century till the middle of XVIIIth century). At the beginning other European nations tried to break Portuguese monopoly, at the end two strongest nations: French and British fought to get domination. Finally Great Britain as a democratic (and thus much more effective) country won this struggle. 

In meanwhile - i.e. in XVIth and XVIIth century - North of India (and periodically the South) was united by emperors of the Mughal (or Mogul) Empire. 

Expansion of Maratha
After the collapse of Mughal Empire at the end of XVIIth century, the new power called Maratha Confederacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathas) took control over the central India. Marathas represented the national Hindu uprising against the Mughal rule. Rise of the Marathas was the consequence of the shift of trade routes - in XVIIth century maritime trade with Europe become much important for India than older trade routes (thorough Indus and Ganges valleys and Khyber Pass). The Marathas grew in power at the background of Portuguese colonies in India - thanks to trade contacts with Europeans they were better equipped (in gunpowder weapons), and had better organization than Mogul armies or other feudal powers in India. 

Maratha expansion was the example of very simple (but important) economic mechanism: The end of XVIIth and the beginning of XVIIIth centuries was the age of economic protectionism for most of the European countries (especially for these powers which were in decline as Portugal). When the core countries introduce the protectionist economic policy - price manipulation taking advantage monopolistic position, higher tools, lower demand for import, etc. - the trade with core countries (vertical trade) become less profitable for middle-income “emerging markets”. In consequence a trade with other middle-income countries (horizontal trade) become relative more profitable than the vertical trade (exchanging labour-intensive goods for capital-intensive goods). 

This change of trade schema usually launches a consolidation of middle-income countries neighbouring with the core (i.e. Portuguese colonies in India) - simply because groups of political interests (GPIs) that are interested in federation grow in power and dominate the local politics. Classical example of such consolidation was the Habsburg Empire in Central Europe in the neigbourhood of Venetia (and Italy in general), but we can easy point out many other examples: gathering of Russia lands by principality of Muscovy in the beighbourhood of  the Republic of Great Nowogorod, expansion of Chola Empire in medieval India, Arabic conquests in the neighbourhod of collapsing Byzantine Empire, etc., etc. 

Middle-income countries could federate peacefully or be conquered by the strongest of them - and then conqueror may bank on support of local GPIs interested in horizontal trade. United middle-income countries has also the better negotiation position when negotiating with diplomats or traders from core countries (traders from core countries could no longer use conflicts and competition between middle-income countries to win trade privileges). Such united political organism may continue expansion on territories of low and high-income countries if the wars appear more profitable for its elites than trade. This mechanism is quite universal, so also explains barbarian expansions or formation of G20 alliance in WTO negotiations for example (early XXIth century). 

In late XVIIIth century Maratha Confederacy start to decompose and after three, sometimes very serious was conquered by British. The last remnants of Maratha Empire were incorporated to British India in 1818.

British Rule
There are two important dates that enclose like brackets the period when British conquered and dominated most of India:
·	1763 - End of Seven Years’ War - British finally defeated French in India and get the control over Bengal (and thus over the Ganges Valley export) - serious colonization started. 
·	1857 - Indian Mutiny (Sepoy Mutiny) 

Until 1857 India was ruled by British East India Company (do not mistake with West India company, which traded with America) - a kind of great corporation but much more influential than any great corporation today. East India Company was generally a private enterprise, but these times great colonial trade companies were strongly supported by governments (most of European powers: ex. Netherlands, France, had such trade companies) and were a kind of “national monopolies”. East India Company had its own military forces: troops, strongholds and ships to protect and promote British trade.

Why the British conquered India?
There was basically two reasons:
1.	Feudal fragmentation of India - there wasn’t one centralized state in India but a hundreds of independent states and domains. Other large feudal countries, which were underdeveloped but united (like China, Japan, Turkey or Persia), were not conquered by European powers.
2.	England was a democratic country - so it was highly effective, and used some classical tactics of democratic country: extensive use of diplomacy, extensive use of alliances, step by step expansion, use of divide et impera tactics, waging only these wars which were really profitable or unavoidable, financing feudal opposition in domains of troublesome rulers, bribing local courts with easy credit, etc.

This web of alliances and political clients made the map of British colonies in India was a “piebald pattern” very similar to the mosaic of colonies and allies we remember from the map of Italy ruled by Ancient Rome:

Map of British India 
[map]
As you can see, regions with direct British administration (red, pink and orange) were mixed with half-dependent autonomic provinces (yellow) and allied domains of local rulers (brown).

This mosaic organization of British colonies in India is responsible for federal structure of modern India, and therefore for the very short duration of populistic system (1947-1997, only 50 years!). Moreover populistic system in India had the form of quasi-democracy - in federal country politicians have to negotiate and accept local autonomies, which always promote the democratic or democratic-like forms of polity (political system). In many ways India of the second half of XXth century resembled the USA of the first half of XIXth century: in both countries states with higher political systems (like Kerala or Rhode Island) and less developed populistic states coexist together. 

British administration - clash of civilizations
India was very large country with population about 20 times (rough estimate) greater than population of England. Even with superior technological and military advantage the British were able to hold India only because of two basic reasons:

·	Trade exchange between India and England was very profitable also for India elites, and import of British technologies accelerated the economic growth in India.
·	The British (the same as the Romans) respected local beliefs, local customs, traditions, hierarchies. Often kept local administrations, local rulers, and elites. Also respected some local autonomies.

Of course British tolerance had its limits, and sometimes serious conflicts arose. Good example here could be conflict around the custom of sati. In some regions of India, according to this custom, widows should burn themselves on their husbands funeral pyre. In 1829 William Bentinck, Governor-General of East India Company delegalized sati.
More about that see Modern History Sourcebook.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1829bentinck.html
For protests that sati is an old India custom, Betenick replied: “And the British custom is to hang people who murder widows.”	

It was a very cruel custom, but as you remember, there was periods in the history of India (early medieval times for example when Buddhism dominated) when Indians were much more civilized and more humanistic and freedom-oriented than Europeans - there is nothing like “stable nature of civilizations” or cultures. Cultures and civilizations are changing continuously. Moreover, originally sati was rather an option for women who really did not want to live after the death of his beloved husband and was very rare. Then in British times custom of sati warped, and women were forced to burn themselves, often by relatives who simply want to get their husband’s property. 

When the crisis affects a community, competition between members of this community increases. These times the weakest of them (women, poor people) are usually eliminated from economic game by stronger players. Again, it is universal process, which can be observed many times in history, even today. Very often law, custom or solution that works quite fine in times of economic prosperity, warps and become abused in the times of crisis. So good solution is the one which has built-in protections against abuses.

The reason for crisis was trade with England and rules of economic game introduced by the British - much more liberal and free-market oriented than before. Therefore many traditional enterprises (ex. some traditional crafts, some small feudal real estates) started to decline and some groups of people start to pauperize. Other groups while still rich (ex. priests) lost some of their economic power. So ironically, British Governor-General fought with the side-effect of economic process that was started by the British themselves (but his solution was correct: economic process was unstoppable, only thing British administration could do, was to introduce the law protecting weaker ones from some negative effects of the process and from being abused by stronger ones).

How works the economic mechanisms that is responsible for clash of civilizations, as described by Samuel P. Huntington? Generally, when a country modernize, some branches of its economy expands but other traditional branches decline. Therefore some group of people get rich, while other pauperize (or become relatively poorer and less important than before). The most important are two streams:
·	Stream of people with low income who get rich because of modernization and join the elites (upward stream).
·	Stream of people with middle income who pauperize and thus are afraid that they will be excluded from elites (downward stream).

When the upward stream is stronger than downward stream, people will support the modernization — advocates of modernizations overrule defenders of tradition, and dominate elites that are responsible for creating and promoting ideologies.

And opposite, when downward stream is stronger than upward stream, people will be against the modernization — defenders of tradition (like fanatic priests) will get more followers, and the ideologies postponing the modernization will be stronger. And thus we can observe the “clash of civilizations”.

So, Samuel P. Huntington prophecy about the inevitable clash of civilizations fulfilled only because of long polarization crisis (1997-2001) that weakened pro-modernization elites in many countries. If the crisis had been shorter, conflict might not arise. Note: my remarks about contemporary politics are included only to show that some historical problems are universal (not to start political rants).	

Best way to prevent such conflicts is to support upward stream. For example by promoting economic and social advance of poor people strengthen this way pro-modernization elites. We should remember that the strongest base for opposition against modernization are not the poor people but members of traditional elites (ex. middle-income feudals, priests) who are losing their status. The true reason for conflict is not the poverty, although “the fight with poverty” could make any of the sides of the conflict stronger, because increases the number of its political clients. Opposite than in democratic system, in feudal system (and most times in populistic system) poor people do not represent their interests but are political clients of other GPIs.

Conquest of India by East India Company also has some negative aspects:
·	Taxes from conquered India states were used to finance British import from India (protecting this way England from negative trade balance), not for local needs. Some percentage of this money were appropriated (i.e. stolen)  by East India Company officials.
·	Officials of the Company quickly got very rich and use their wealth to buy their political power in England (the same way as it happened in Ancient Rome in IInd century BC), but fortunately British democracy did not decompose, maybe because British colonies were smaller (comparing their population with the population of the empire core) than Roman colonies.
·	When India was fragmented, the British could win conflicts between different feudal domains to rule India at relatively low cost. When subcontinent was united, India nation began to form (and national opposition against British rule), so divide et impera tactics became less effective. 
·	East India Company was a private firm oriented to maximize its profits, so officials of the company often forgot that you cannot rule people using only military force and administration, and that the economic effectiveness cannot be the only criteria of government (especially when government represented British economic interest rather than India’s interests). They tend to forget about other ways to support government: promotion of ideologies and elites that might support British rule.

The consequence was the Sepoy Mutiny (1847). Sepoys were the native soldiers armed and trained by the British and used as the army of East India company. Sepoy forces were the first India organization that spanned over the whole subcontinent, and thus the first organization which has a chance to resist against British rule. Mutiny that affected mainly northern regions of India, started from a gossip which might seem crazy (see article about Sepoy Mutiny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepoy_Mutiny), but this could be explained using tools I am presenting here:
·	Many Sepoys and supporters of the rebellion, especially in the North, were the former Muslim nobles, who were losing their privileged political position and economic status under the East India Company rule.
·	British officers and officials treated them as “primitive natives” (or like low-skill labour workers) not as soldiers, who are a kind of elite in feudal nation, and are used to be treated with some respect. Soldiers were even tortured to introduce military discipline. They have no chance to get a promotion, and were enlisted without care.
·	Company officials forgot to educate Sepoys - so gossip can span very quickly. Company officials also did not understand local customs.
·	The British also forgot to support pro-British elites that could be some counterbalance for opposition among Sepoys (so there was nobody to promote pro-British ideologies among Indians).
As you can see these mistakes were not so different from mistakes of USA administration in Iraq today (i.e. after 2002). Of course similar business and public relations mistakes as mistakes of East India Company, nowadays are a case studies in any basic course of business administration (you just have to translate unqualified soldiers to “blue-collars” workers). 

These mistakes cost lives of many British civilians in India. Shock of mutiny was the main reason for introducing British Empire administration in place of East India Company administration. In other words company administration (profit-oriented) was exchanged for government administration (oriented on political solutions). That probably slowed down India modernization, but made the modernization process more acceptable for Indians (or to be precise for Indian elites), and thus much safer for the British, who no longer had to fear of a rebellion. 

And the final note: in spite of mistakes mentioned above, you had to remember that some conflicts are unavoidable because of economic factors that direct the history. Probably it was in the case of Sepoy Mutiny too. 

In 1840 British military expedition tried to conquer Afghanistan. But the British had a bad luck - just a moment before Afghanistan political system changed to populistic and British expedition was completely destroyed (only one man returned to India). Afghanistan was the first populistic country in Asia in modern times - it is nothing strange Afghanistan is just a bunch of trade routes between mountain ranges. But British conquest of India shifted the traditional trade routes (so the importance of Afghanistan trade routes declined), and thus the economic and political development of Afghanistan slowed down. Better political system not always guarantee fast development.

Negatives and positives of British rule
British Rule had some negative effects on India:
·	India was exploited, income from taxes was taken by British administration. 
·	Many traditional enterprises bankrupted - their production appeared to be obsolete, and cannot stand the competition of manufactured goods from England.
·	India had to accept rules of trade that were beneficent for Britain. Every country is like a great corporation and always promotes its own production and its own trade (or its own capital). India had no chance to do that: had to accept prices for exported and imported goods enforced by the British. 
Benefits from trade when one of the countries has monopolistic position
I am not going to introduce trade exchange models yet, but present only conclusions:
When two countries trade with each other and one of them has privileged position (like Britain when trading with India), country with monopolistic privileges gains larger part of surplus that is an effect of bilateral trade. But trade is still beneficial for both countries.
Of course:
·	Independent and unified India with wise government might have a chance to negotiate better conditions of bilateral trade (and thus get the larger portion of surplus).
·	And free trade exchange is beneficial for both countries only when the economy grows. When the economy shrinks, weaker of two players will lose the game of bilateral trade. Of course years 1750-1929 were generally the period of economic prosperity for British Empire, so trade was beneficial for both sides.	

But also many positives:
·	India imported British technologies, which accelerated India’s modernization.
·	British administration invested in infrastructure (like railroads).
·	Volume of trade, both internal and external, increased (and thus extra wealth that come from trade).
·	India had been united, and thus avoided wars and chaos that will be the unavoidable effect of feudal fragmentation and then the expansion of local populistic states. 
Generally, net effect of British rule for India was positive. Of course India was exploited by England and united India with national, wise government might develop faster and get better prices in international trade. But key words here are “wise” and “united”.

Administration and ruling elites of feudal state are interested in exploitation of common people, so feudal government cannot be “wise”, and will never represent interests of the whole nation but only interest of a narrow feudal elite. So, without British rule common people would be exploited too but by the local feudals. Foreign occupation by democratic country is always more beneficial for feudal country than the rule of local (national) feudals. Comparison of foreign democratic occupation and local populistic government gives more ambiguous results.

Using Mechanics of History we can made a reasonable guesses how the history of India without British rule might look like:
·	Indians were about 200 behind the Europeans in technology, so If there was no Europe at all, industrial revolution in India probably would start at the end of XXth century.
·	If India was united feudal country (optimistic but unreal scenario), still would develop slower. Simple example: first railroad was built in India in 1850, first railroad in China was built in 1876 (remember please that, because of terrain, it is easier to built railroad in China than in India). Moreover, populistic system of India would be more brute and expansionistic than, quasi-democratic populistic system that was introduced when the British retreated from India in 1947.

The main reason for India underdevelopment in XXth century was not the British colonial rule, but the very fast development of Europe and USA in 1830-1930 because of higher political systems there (especially because of the democratic system in England and in USA). India was not stopped - European nations started to go faster. 

And last but not least: colonial administration introduced by democratic country is always controlled in some degree (but sometimes may be brute when this control is weak), and had to obey some legal rules that are constraints limiting abuses of colonial governmentand, and therefore the oppositional activity is easier and safer. Simply speaking: If Gandhi lived (for example) in Soviet Union, he would had no chance to organize peaceful protests against government — he would be shoot or send to the deadly work camp. And all his followers too. Please remember about that, if you spent whole your life in a democratic country (or at least country with quasi-democratic variant of populistic system).

Some links to the history of other states
History of Iran (and Afghanistan)
Compact but easy to grasp History of Iran (Persia) http://www.art-arena.com/history.html
History of Afghanistan at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#History
And short summary of the first Anglo-Afghan war (if you do not afraid to read Engels) and Afghanistan in Victorian Age.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/afghanistan/index.htm
http://surrey-shore.freeservers.com/VicAfghan.htm	

Khmer Empire in Indochina
History of Khmer Empire plus map.
http://www.geocities.com/khmerchronology/
http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/seasia/ppenh/khmer01.html	

Other Indochina countries
History of Thailand and Southeast Asia
http://www.guidetothailand.com/thailand-history/index.html
History of Southeast Asia (with menu of the countries at the bottom of page)
http://www.aseanfocus.com/publications/history_foreword.html
Short summary of History of Indonesia
http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/indonesia/pro-history.htm	

Warsaw 31 January 2005