Crosby Article

In his article “Ecological Imperialism: The Overseas Migration of Western Europeans as a Biological Phenomenon”, Alfred Crosby addresses the success of European demographic conquest in many foreign lands, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Uruguay (to name a few).  He discusses how the takeovers were not necessarily related to human demographic conquest, but also included the replacement of native animals, plants, and diseases by their European counterparts, introduced by the European settlers.  In the article, Crosby asks why the European takeover was so successful in areas like the United States, Canada, Argentina, etc., and why it failed so dismally in other areas, such as Africa and tropical America.  This is a significant question to ask because the reasons behind this trend are not readily apparent, and it is extraordinarily important in historical terms, since the demographic dominance of these areas has obviously directed their histories.

Crosby states that one of the primary reasons for the success of the European settlers was the ability of their animals to adapt quickly to their new surroundings.  Crosby even goes so far to say that, to a certain degree, “the success of Europeans as settlers was automatic as soon as they put their tough, fast, fertile, and intelligent animals ashore.”  The animals provided necessities for the settlers, such as food, and also provided them with a vast amount of capital (Crosby).  This allowed the settlers to survive and expand in the areas they had settled.  Crosby provides a large amount of evidence regarding European presence, both human and animal, in various regions of the world.  For example, he provides specific statistics regarding the sheep population in Australia and New Zealand over a period  of years after their introduction to the region (by 1989 there were apparently over 55 million sheep living in New Zealand, up from about a quarter of a million in 1840).

Crosby’s argument is very persuasive.  He provides a copious amount of evidence to back his claims.  The statistical data alone is more than persuasive enough.  I don’t think he overlooks anything, though he is quick to write off technological superiority as a reason for the demographic conquest.  Disease may have killed a lot of the native populations in the various regions, but so did guns.  However, I don’t call this an oversight on his part, due to the fact that he is exploring the demographic conquest as a biological phenomenon (so technology doesn’t play a part in his argument).  Crosby has a similar approach to our beloved Felipe Fernandez Armesto in that they both focus on the ecological effects of various historical events, and also pay a lot of attention to the environment as an explanation for various events and occurrences in history.

Read Full Post »

Wikipedia Project- Final Draft

The Byzantine–Venetian Treaty of 1082 was a trade and defense pact signed between the Byzantine Empire and the Republic of Venice, in the form of an imperial chrysobull issued by EmperorAlexios I Komnenos. This treaty, which provided the Venetians with major trading concessions in exchange for their help in the Byzantine Empire’s wars against the Normans, would have a major impact on both the Empire and the Republic that would dictate their histories for several centuries to come.

Stipulations of the Treaty

The Byzantine Empire made a large number of trade concessions to the Republic of Venice in exchange for military support against the Normans who were invading and conquering various Byzantine holdings in and outside the Empire.  According to the treaty, the Byzantines would allow the Venetians the right to trade throughout the empire without the imposition of taxes.[3]  The Venetians would also be allowed control of the main harbor facilities of Byzantium (Constantinople), along with control of several key public offices.[2]  The treaty also granted various honors to the Doge of Venice, along with an income.[3] Finally, the Venetians were granted their own district within Byzantium, with shops, a church, a bakery, and various housing areas for any Venetians living within the city.[4]

In exchange for these trade concessions the Byzantine Empire requested military support from the Venetians, especially in the form of ships, since the Empire had no real navy to speak of.

Consequences of the Treaty

The military aid promised by the Republic of Venice never really arrived.  The Venetians did not really do anything to halt the Normans, but reaped great benefits from the new trade advantages they now enjoyed due to the treaty.[2]  The Byzantine Empire’s ability to recuperate after loses was significantly reduced, due to the immense revenue the Empire had given up when it allowed the Venetians to trade freely without the imposition of taxes. This stifled the Empire’s power of recuperation, and ultimately started its terminal decline. [2]

References

• 1. George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1968.
• 2. Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, London: Routledge, 1998.
• 3. Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.
• 4. Olivia Remie Constable, Housing the Stranger in the Mediterranean World: Lodging, Trade, and Travel in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• 5. John Mark Nicovich, “The Poverty of Patriarchate of Grado and the Byzantine-Venetian Treaty of 1082”, The Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 24, Issue 1, New York: Routledge, 2009.

Read Full Post »

Wikipedia Project Draft

The Byzantine–Venetian Treaty of 1082 was a trade and defense pact signed between the Byzantine Empire and the Republic of Venice, in the form of an imperial chrysobull issued by Emperor Alexios I Komnenos. This treaty, which provided the Venetians with major trading concessions in exchange for their help in the Byzantine Empire’s wars against the Normans, would have a major impact on both the Empire and the Republic that would dictate their histories for several centuries to come.

Stipulations of the Treaty

The Byzantine Empire made a large number of trade concessions to the Republic of Venice in exchange for military support against the Normans who were invading and conquering various Byzantine holdings in and outside the Empire.  According to the treaty, the Byzantines would allow the Venetians the right to trade throughout the empire without the imposition of taxes.  The Venetians would also be allowed control of the main harbor facilities of Byzantium (Constantinople), along with control of several key public offices.  The treaty also granted various honors to the Doge of Venice, along with an income. Finally, the Venetians were granted their own district within Byzantium, with shops, a church, a bakery, and various housing areas for any Venetians living within the city.

In exchange for these trade concessions the Byzantine Empire requested military support from the Venetians, especially in the form of ships, since the Empire had no real navy to speak of.

Consequences of the Treaty

The military aid promised by the Republic of Venice never really arrived.  The Venetians did not really do anything to halt the Normans, but reaped great benefits from the new trade advantages they now enjoyed due to the treaty.  The Byzantine Empire’s ability to recuperate after loses was significantly reduced, due to the immense revenue the Empire had given up when it allowed the Venetians to trade freely without the imposition of taxes. This stifled the Empire’s power of recuperation, and ultimately started its terminal decline.

References

• George Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1968.

2. Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, London: Routledge, 1998.

Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Olivia Remie Constable, Housing the Stranger in the Mediterranean World: Lodging, Trade, and Travel in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

John Mark Nicovich, “The Poverty of Patriarchate of Grado and the Byzantine-Venetian Treaty of 1082”, The Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 24, Issue 1, New York: Routledge, 2009.

Read Full Post »