Alt.history - What trade could Europe and China have in the middle ages?

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

It isn't. For large seagoing ships competing with pack animals on routes without paved roads it's a couple of hundred, or something like that. But it doesn't have to be, since even the long sea route from Europe to China is less than four times as long as the land route.



Odd. That's how I feel.

I meant I feel the embarrassment personally that I normally feel for someone showing extreme ignorance. I accidentally conveyed the exact opposite of what I meant.

So it's profitable to land trek bulk goods hundreds of miles? I thought the double markup was around 100 miles.
Either way, I admit my mistake, and won't derail the thread further.

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

So it's profitable to land trek bulk goods hundreds of miles? I thought the double markup was around 100 miles.

That's the rule-of-thumb distance for transporting grain and similarly priced bulk goods, not for overland transport in general. The cost of transporting the fuel you need (in this case, grain to feed the draft animals) equals the cost of any load of fuel you could carry after that distance, so there's a limit to how far you can profitably transport the fuel itself.

However, the cost per pound per mile is the same if you're transporting other goods; it makes no difference to the camel. If you can sell something at the end of your trip for far more than the cost of an equivalent load of bulk grain, you turn a profit. So while nobody's going to load a camel up with grain and try to take it from Chang'An to Paris ('cause the camel will eat up the value of that load of grain many times over in other grain along the way), you could do that with something which you can sell for an immense price, like silk or cinnamon. The markup is huge, but so is demand for your exotic goods.

[Flyndaran]

Sorry for derailing the thread into what must seem like horribly basic history.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I have barely more than a high school education. My crippling anxiety stopped me from attending any school after a few terms of college.

I thought the opium wars were steam age, not near middle ages age of sail.

It's the idea that the gargantuan distances all the way around Africa over 10, 000 miles one way allowed hefty profit when mere hundreds of miles across land didn't at all that sounds odd.

Very few people travelled the entire Silk Road. But aside from danger, tariffs would become forbidding as each prince along the way got a piece of the action. The gargantuan distance around Africa cut out the overhead. A ship the size of those commissioned for it can carry provisions for it without stopping in cities to buy and can carry enough arms for self-defense quite easily. The transport capability was far more efficient lot for lot then overland. Moreover it needs comparatively few mouths. Planks and nails don't have to eat and while rigging has to be repaired and replaced it is a small price compared to all the people and animals that would have to be fed.

The actual distance is meaningless once you have the technology. Think in terms of effort expanded and results obtained. If a given Merchant House sent the equiv amount of goods through the Silk Road it would count itself lucky to get halfway as close to India or China in the same time period for the same expense. In fact it would probably be impossible.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Sorry for derailing the thread into what must seem like horribly basic history.

It is not basic history. Most people don't know much about the subject at all.

[doulos05]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Sorry for derailing the thread into what must seem like horribly basic history.

Don't feel bad, we've all be there at some point.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Agemegos

I'm sorry that I upset Flyndaran and derailed this thread onto an irrelevant tangent about the history and economics of trade between mediaeval Europe and China. I shall delete all the offending posts and leave you to it.

You didn't upset me... in this thread at least. ;)

[martin_rook]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Slaves are just people, and there would be loads more much closer to China.

Sure, but depending on the culture, it might not be okay to enslave the people nearby, who are pretty similar (culturally, racially, or whatever) to yours. But slaves from some far-off (and no doubt, barbaric) land might be acceptable.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by martin_rook

Sure, but depending on the culture, it might not be okay to enslave the people nearby, who are pretty similar (culturally, racially, or whatever) to yours. But slaves from some far-off (and no doubt, barbaric) land might be acceptable.

Assuming some resemblance to Real Life Ancient China, the Chinese sell their own children into slavery. And consider them far superior to any foreign barbarian.

Luxury slaves (this is a euphemism) might be valued for exotic looks, but otherwise, no interest.


Hans

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

Assuming some resemblance to Real Life Ancient China, the Chinese sell their own children into slavery. And consider them far superior to any foreign barbarian.

Luxury slaves (this is a euphemism) might be valued for exotic looks, but otherwise, no interest.


Hans

I remember on Emperor of the Sea a scene where one Korean merchant chieftainess is personally acting as a creepily Affably Evil sort of schoolmarm to children being groomed to be concubines for Chinese nobles. To be fair that is not quite the same as selling children to a street brothel if one wishes to make distinctions and it might even be a more comfortable life then a peasant girl would have.