In the second half of her book, Janet L. Abu-Lughod starts out by describing the trade that was going on between the Muslims and Christians. She says that even despite papal injunctions, the trade continued and even prospered. She also describes, and gives many reasons for the rise and fall of Baghdad, a major metropolis in this Muslim/Christian trade. Next, she describes how Egypt rose to prominence in the slave trade. Something I found interesting was how the plague affected the area. Although the plague did not immediately destroy the area, it slowly killed it by undermining its systems and taking away a great deal of skilled labor that was necessary for life at the time. Next, Abu-Lughod describes India's geographical importance to this early trade. Because of its location ships from Africa, China, Mesopotamia, Thailand, and many other places would stop there. She says that India never gained true hegemony because it was replaced on both sides by greater powers. We then move on to China and the role that it played in the international market. She says that although official chinese documents claim that China participated in trade almost unwillingly, there was, in fact a great deal of trade going on. The black plague again comes up as she describes the role it may have played in this society. She also goes on to explain that there are many reasons given for China's withdrawal from the trade market during the Ming dynasty, but that no one is really sure why this happened.
I found it interesting how large a role security played in facilitating trade. I guess one of the greatest costs had to be that of lost or commandeered ships. It only makes sense that if a region could guarantee a safe trade route then their market would probably explode with trade, thus creating a major city. This is what happened with Baghdad when the unification of Persia and Iraq occurred, and the break of this unification was one of the main factors for Baghdad's downfall.
Chris N
To comment on your last paragraph, I'd have to agree about the costs of unsafe trade being really high. Today we rarely see a ship not make it to port. Back then, it must have been totally incorporated into the cost-benefit analysis of merchants. Also, trade routes may be considered "safe" not only due to the lack or the supression of piracy, but also because of the hostility of nature along that route. For instance, a choppy open sea route subject to monsoons would quickly take the backseat to a calm-water route even if it took longer to travel the calm waters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you about the importance of trade route safety. This fact can further be established by looking at the cities of the Champagne Fairs in chapter 2. It was the Counts of Champagne that transformed their cities into attractive trading hubs through a treat with the kings of France that guaranteed all merchants traveling to the fairs protection. Without the advantage of a safe trade route, the cities of Champagne may not have been the 'chosen' location of the fairs.
ReplyDelete