by Tim MacBain OP
Word Count: 1982 words
Bibliography
Feedback
[Me speaking now] This essay was not very well structured.
However, I scraped a 2:1 – but as is evident from the feedback, only just!
I always wanted to keep writing for Portsmouth Point once
I’d left; I noticed that there didn’t seem to be many Old Portmuthians posting
on the blog, but there were enough to give precedent to me submitting the odd
article! However, the subjects that I used to post on, mainly sport, are being
covered so exceptionally by the current contributors that it would seem like I
was trying to detract from them. Therefore, I began to think about what would
be appropriate and, crucially, interesting to post on the blog. The second I
think I may have fallen down on, but I began to think about my current position
at university (York, if anyone’s interested), and an idea started to coalesce
in my mind. Why not put my essays on the blog? They aren’t fantastic pieces of
scholarship – far from it – but it might give any pupil interested in going on
to university to study history an idea of what a history essay is like, or for
those thinking of an essay based subject what the essay itself is like.
Therefore, here starts an infrequent series of essays; if allowed, I will
submit a few here and there over my degree, so as I (hopefully) improve it can
be of interest or use to those who want to write essays at university.
As I’ve already said, these are not fantastic, shining
examples of scholarship. Alongside the essays I will put the feedback I have
received from my tutors, so as the weaknesses of the essays can be made
completely obvious. DISCLAIMER: GCSE, IB and AS/2 Level students, DO NOT write
any essays like this unless told to by a teacher (which is highly unlikely).
ESPECIALLY the first essay. I will become the most despised man amongst the
history department if you do. Thanks.
This first essay was written as a procedural (non-assessed)
essay for the module Cultural Encounters in Asia, 1400-1700. An unfamiliar
topic for me, and thus I struggled a bit to get going, as you can see. The
title was “What effect did European commerce have on Asian trade networks?” My
tutor’s feedback is at the end. Please excuse the referencing and bibliography;
if I don’t do them then bad things happen; plagiarism is taken very seriously
at York.
When the likes of Vasco da
Gama, Marco Polo and John Mandeville ventured east and hitherto undocumented
and unexplored by Western Europeans, they opened up a trade system rich in
diversity and depth, which could stimulate and facilitate new commercial
ventures whilst exposing European markets to new and exotic goods. It is within
the implications of this statement that the argument of this essay lies;
conversely, Asia networks of trade were an already fully functioning and
diverse system into which the European traders were entering. They were not
needed to reciprocate the stimulation and facilitation these networks provided
them with. Their impact was limited, predominantly to shifting the focal points
of trade within the Indian Ocean;
Prakash’s idea of “the Asian loci”[1] of
trade can be applied at a more localised level, with the fall and rise of ports
such as Malacca and Aceh (respectively)[2]
examples of this. However, it is also evident that different Europeans had
different effects on the Asian trade networks; the more heavy-handed top-down
approach of the Portuguese had a greater effect than the Dutch and English who
joined the system to a much greater extent (although it should be noted that
the official EIC (English) line did not involve itself in intra-Asian trade;
the private English merchants were the more prevalent participators.[3]
For the VOC (Dutch), it was company policy.[4])
To fully assess exactly what
the effect European commerce did have, one must first understand what the
networks within Asia actually were. It would be beyond the scope of this essay
to describe them all in great detail, but a general overview is necessary. As
stated above, the system of Asian networks was rich in both diversity and
depth. There was a wide range of materials and products traded from the
unaltered raw materials such as cultivated cotton[5] to
the refined products such as Chinese silk garments and Indian cotton textiles,[6]
and the process merchants went about in the gaining of these goods were
enormously complex, as Bouchon demonstrates; “For example, junks [Asian trading
ships] from Malacca brought bars of copper to Pasei in the north of Sumatra to
be exchanged for pepper, which was in turn traded at Martaban for rice for
Malacca.”[7] This
quotation originates from a discussion on the “secondary circuits”[8] of
trade caused by the demand for rice within the Indian Ocean; such complexity
with a subsection of the trade for a foodstuff is a demonstration of just how
diverse the Asian trade networks were.
The aforementioned depth of
these trade networks is best conveyed through the merchants themselves.
Although Bouchon contends that they were “dominated … by Indian Muslims”,[9]
Pearson does propose a somewhat broader idea of the religions of those who
participated in the trading networks, with varieties of Muslims, Hindus,
Confucians from China, and other, more minor, religions, such as those
indigenous to the islands of South East Asia.[10]
In addition, these merchants were highly able; the Europeans felt “at no
particular advantage”[11]
when they traded with them.
Overall, then, it is evident
that the system of Asian trade networks was independent and fully functioning.
The impact of European commerce, therefore, was never going to be particularly
extensive. However, the introduction of a new group to any economic system will
always cause some sort of change; this area shall now be explored.
The most logical place to
start is in the most obvious changes that could take place; the physical
interference of the European traders and merchants in and on the Asian trade
networks. The use of the cartaz by
the Portuguese, a form of shipping “passport”, and subsequent copying of this
system by the English and Dutch,[12]
impeded Asian merchants from their free sailing of the Indian Ocean which they
had previously enjoyed. This example can be expanded further, in slightly more
speculative terms, by the consideration of the fact that, before setting out on
a trading voyage, an Asian merchant would not only have to think about the
Asian merchants they may encounter, but now also the Europeans who had made
their way round the Cape of Good Hope or across mainland Eurasia. Furthermore,
one can also observe some Europeans attempted to place on some trade; the
Portuguese attempted a monopoly on pepper, both within and without the Indian
Ocean in the first half of the sixteenth century[13]
(coupled with their monopoly on the sea route round the Cape of Good Hope for a
little while after this) is an example; another, although not officially a
monopoly, can be found in the fact that the Dutch were the only foreigners
permitted to trade in Japan after 1639.[14]
Such impositions on the Asian
trade networks were inevitably going to have a great impact on certain areas.
One of these was in Malacca, which the Portuguese captured in 1511, whose
“attempts to centralize [sic] and tax trade led to an exodus” of the major
trading groups in the city to other areas of the Indian Ocean, where they would
have more freedom to trade.[15]
Pearson lists for other ports that “declined” due to the Portuguese, those of
Sofala, Hormuz, Diu and Calicut. The latter is an interesting example; it
differs from the others in as much as it was never controlled by the
Portuguese, but rather was attacked by the Portuguese from 1501,[16]
these attacks resulting in another “exodus” of prominent traders.[17]
To return to the argument, note the terminology used; the trade and merchants
did not die, nor abate, nor cease, they are merely moving; Prakash’s “loci”[18]
are being shifted, not eradicated.
Perhaps the most striking example
of the somewhat reduced effect European commerce had on Asian trade networks is
in the comparison of the ports of Goa and Surat. Goa, “the Portuguese capital”[19]
in Asia, was a major trading port, especially of horses, and benefitted the
Portuguese Crown a great deal.[20] However,
to cite Pearson, “At its [Goa’s] height … Surat alone far out-traded Goa.”[21]
Europeans were making little impact on the Asian trade networks; the Asian
merchants were so unthreatened by the initial European traders that they treated
them as they would any other foreign traders or merchants; Europeans “got a
level playing field”.[22]
Up to now, this essay has
mainly considered examples relating to the Portuguese in Asia, predominantly
leaving the Dutch and English alone. The Portuguese have been presented as
one-dimensional traders who hoped to bludgeon their way into Asian trade
through force and monopolies. This is by no means the entire case; indeed,
Prakash criticises Steensgaard for making this viewpoint predominant,[23]
and goes on to show greater subtleties in the Portuguese modus operandi and instances of Dutch and English uses of force.
However, there is one key difference in the ideas of the Portuguese when
compared to the Dutch VOC and the private English merchants (the EIC are not
considered here in an enormous amount of depth, due to the fact that they rose
to greatest prominence after 1700). This difference is that of “participation
in Asian trade”.[24]
It cannot be argued that the Portuguese did not do this, but the private
English merchants and – particularly – the Dutch placed great emphasis on
taking an active part in the intra-Asian trading networks; “nearly half of the
Company’s [VOC’s] ships that left Europe remained in Asia to be used in
intra-Asian trade.”[25]
The Dutch was especially prominent in this participation, with intra-Asian
trade placed at the centre of the corporation.[26]
This trade was not insignificant; Prakash gives the figure of 3,644,110 florins
for the total value of Dutch imports into Bengal in 1699 alone.[27]
This trade was not narrow in scope either, as Table 2.1[28]
demonstrates.
However, these facts and
figures do not shed much light on the impact of such European commerce in the
Asian trade networks. In terms of the Dutch, they came to dominate the spice
trade in the first half of the seventeenth century as they obtained agreements
with the producers of spices such as cloves, mace and nutmeg on some South East
Asian islands. Superficially, this appears to be an overwhelmingly large event
that must have had a great impact on the spice trading networks in the region.
However, this monopoly of sorts was not particularly effective without control
of pepper, “which was a substantially more important … than all the other
spices put together”, and thus it did not have an enormous effect on the spice
trading networks in Asia.[29]
Therefore, although with
similar effects, one can see the distinct difference between the Portuguese and
the Dutch and private English merchants; one of modus operandi mentioned above. In their aims, the Portuguese were
traders, not merchants; they attempted to control trade remotely, using systems
such as the cartaz, and by imposing
financial measures from above. The Dutch and private Englishmen, in contrast,
were merchants, not traders; although they adopted some of the systems the
Portuguese put in place, they were much more interested in being part of the networks
that were already in place.
Nevertheless, it is still
evident that the effects of this European commerce were not particularly
extensive on the already existing Asian trade networks. The Portuguese were
ultimately unsuccessful in their top-down approach, and the Dutch and private
English merchants were more interested in playing the system; when they did
have an effect on the trade networks, it was either minimal, such as the Dutch
in the spice trade in the South East Asian islands, or on too small a scale
(that is, the private English merchants) to make a significant difference. The
main effects were a result of the Portuguese, and these were of a shifting of
the emphases of trade, with the fall and rise of differing ports. The Europeans
were entering networks in which they were not absolutely essential, and
therefore either facilitated a slight shift in the focal points of trade or
participated within the networks, resulting in a somewhat reduced effect on the
Asian trade networks than one may suppose at first.
Word Count: 1982 words
Bibliography
Bouchon, Geneviève. “Trade in the Indian Ocean at the dawn
of the Sixteenth Century.” In Merchants,
Tompanies, and Trade : Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Era, edited by
Sushil Chaudhury and Michel Morineau, 42-54. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Dale, Stephen F. “Silk Road, Cotton Road or . . . .
Indo-Chinese Trade in Pre-European Times.” Modern
Asian Studies 43, no. 1 (2009): 79-88
Pearson, Michael N. "Markets and merchant communities
in the Indian Ocean: locating the
Portuguese." In Portuguese
oceanic expansion, 1400-1800, edited by Francisco Bethencourt, 88-108.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Prakash, Om. Bullion
for goods : European and Indian merchants in the Indian Ocean trade, 1500-1800.
New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2004.
Prakash, Om. The Dutch
East India Company and the Economy of Bengal, 1630-1720. Princeton, N.J:
Princeton University Press, 1985.
Prakash, Om. “The Portuguese and the Dutch in Asian maritime
trade: a comparative analysis.” In Merchants,
companies, and trade : Europe and Asia in the early modern era, edited by
Sushil Chaudhury and Michel Morineau, 175-188. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Feedback
General
This was a very good attempt at the question. It was tightly
focussed and used some excellent examples, and you demonstrated a good
awareness of the pertinent literature. It took a little while to get going, and
it was not immediately clear what your argument, or indeed your response to the
question was. This nearly made me give the essay a much lower mark, but your
later analysis of some of the scholarly debates over this subject pulled your
mark up considerably. You now need to work more on your structure – making sure
that your argument drives the analysis and that every paragraph is helping you
to build and prove your case. Your conclusion could also be made a little more
punchy.
Specific Points
[I put this as it was written on my feedback form] Ahem.
There’s a bit of time between Marco Polo (1254-1324) and Vasco da Gama
(1460-1524) – why group them together? As for ‘John de Mandeville’, it’s
uncertain how much of his travels were invention… He was also writing in the 14th
Century. What changed between these medieval accounts and the period which
we’re looking at? In addition, we get to page two and I’m not sure what the
argument of your essay is…
In summary, to
improve, work on:
Clearer structure from the beginning
A few more examples to support your points
Perhaps a more in-depth case study to show some close
analysis
[1] Om
Prakash, Bullion for Goods : European and
Indian Merchants in the Indian Ocean trade, 1500-1800 (New Delhi: Manohar
Publishers & Distributors, 2004), 44
[2] Michael
N. Pearson, "Markets and merchant communities in the Indian Ocean:
locating the
Portuguese," in Portuguese oceanic expansion,
1400-1800, ed. Francisco Bethencourt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007), 109
[4] Om
Prakash, The Dutch East India Company and
the Economy of Bengal, 1630-1720 (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University
Press, 1985), 16
[5] Geneviève
Bouchon, “Trade in the Indian Ocean at the Dawn of the Sixteenth Century,” in Merchants, Companies, and Trade : Europe and
Asia in the Early Modern Era, ed. Sushil Chaudhury and Michel Morineau (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999), 46
[6] Stephen
F. Dale, “Silk Road, Cotton Road or . . . . Indo-Chinese Trade in Pre-European
Times,” Modern Asian Studies 43, no.
1 (2009), 79
[24] Om
Prakash, “The Portuguese and the Dutch in Asian maritime trade: a comparative
analysis,” in Merchants, Companies, and Trade
: Europe and Asia in the Early Modern Era, ed. Sushil Chaudhury and Michel
Morineau (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 176
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.