The Great Victory of the Capitalist System
The Battle of Lepanto was one of the most famous events in the history of Western Europe. American military historian Victor Davis Hanson stresses that this battle is a good example of the advantages of the capitalist system of Venice in comparison with the imperial model of the Ottoman Empire. First, Venice had more advanced military technology. For instance, Venetian Arsenal was the center of the development and mass production of the latest designs of ships and weapons. Secondly, the fleet of the Venetian Republic had more professional commanders, soldiers and sailors. Thirdly, the Republic of Venice had an effective capitalist economy, which created conditions for the construction and maintenance …show more content…
He stresses, «Even under normal conditions the Arsenal was able to launch an entire fleet of galleys within a few days, utilizing principles of ship construction, financing, and mass production not really rivaled until the twentieth century” (Hanson 259). Furthermore, Hanson points out that since ancient Greece the European states produced high-quality weapons and formed large armies thanks to the freedom of entrepreneurship. Free flow of information and competitive environment created conditions for the development of military science in Venice and other Western countries. The Ottoman Empire had no such advantage and so it was compelled to import new military technology. However, this explanation is not convincing. Hanson does not take into account the existence of periods of prosperity and decline of various states. Western European states began to develop rapidly during the 16th century. Author does not examine the impact of great geographical discoveries, Renaissance, the Reformation and other phenomena on the development of Venice, Spain and the Ottoman Empire. Thus, Venice technological superiority over the Ottoman Empire could be due not only to the capitalist system but also to other …show more content…
Moreover, according to Hanson it was the main cause of the Holy League victory in the Battle of Lepanto. Venice was a small city-state, but it had enough resources for maintenance of the Arsenal and a huge fleet. Hanson convinced that Venice was able to achieve such results due to the capitalist system. Entrepreneurs create production for manufacturing harquebus, guns, ships and other goods. These productions competing with each other and conquered new markets. In this way, the capitalist system has stimulated the economic development of the Western European states. Non-European states did not take an active part in the development of this system and therefore they could not compete with European states in the production of new technological products. That is why the Ottoman Empire was compelled to import new technological inventions and to attract European professionals and scientists. For example, Ottoman Empire copied the Venetian Arsenal, but it could not copy the capitalist system, which stimulated the emergence of more and more inventions. In this way, Hanson explains the basic premise of the Holy League victory in the Battle of Lepanto. This explanation is quite convincing. However, the author probably exaggerated the weakness of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century. Technological backwardness of the Ottoman Empire became visible much later in the 18th and
The Battle of Lepanto was one of the most famous events in the history of Western Europe. American military historian Victor Davis Hanson stresses that this battle is a good example of the advantages of the capitalist system of Venice in comparison with the imperial model of the Ottoman Empire. First, Venice had more advanced military technology. For instance, Venetian Arsenal was the center of the development and mass production of the latest designs of ships and weapons. Secondly, the fleet of the Venetian Republic had more professional commanders, soldiers and sailors. Thirdly, the Republic of Venice had an effective capitalist economy, which created conditions for the construction and maintenance …show more content…
He stresses, «Even under normal conditions the Arsenal was able to launch an entire fleet of galleys within a few days, utilizing principles of ship construction, financing, and mass production not really rivaled until the twentieth century” (Hanson 259). Furthermore, Hanson points out that since ancient Greece the European states produced high-quality weapons and formed large armies thanks to the freedom of entrepreneurship. Free flow of information and competitive environment created conditions for the development of military science in Venice and other Western countries. The Ottoman Empire had no such advantage and so it was compelled to import new military technology. However, this explanation is not convincing. Hanson does not take into account the existence of periods of prosperity and decline of various states. Western European states began to develop rapidly during the 16th century. Author does not examine the impact of great geographical discoveries, Renaissance, the Reformation and other phenomena on the development of Venice, Spain and the Ottoman Empire. Thus, Venice technological superiority over the Ottoman Empire could be due not only to the capitalist system but also to other …show more content…
Moreover, according to Hanson it was the main cause of the Holy League victory in the Battle of Lepanto. Venice was a small city-state, but it had enough resources for maintenance of the Arsenal and a huge fleet. Hanson convinced that Venice was able to achieve such results due to the capitalist system. Entrepreneurs create production for manufacturing harquebus, guns, ships and other goods. These productions competing with each other and conquered new markets. In this way, the capitalist system has stimulated the economic development of the Western European states. Non-European states did not take an active part in the development of this system and therefore they could not compete with European states in the production of new technological products. That is why the Ottoman Empire was compelled to import new technological inventions and to attract European professionals and scientists. For example, Ottoman Empire copied the Venetian Arsenal, but it could not copy the capitalist system, which stimulated the emergence of more and more inventions. In this way, Hanson explains the basic premise of the Holy League victory in the Battle of Lepanto. This explanation is quite convincing. However, the author probably exaggerated the weakness of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century. Technological backwardness of the Ottoman Empire became visible much later in the 18th and