game-changer between 1500 and 1900

game-changer between 1500 and 1900

Essay:

New technologies proved to be game-changer between 1500 and 1900. Massive improvement was made during this period. In short, we can say that the development and advancement of technology between the years 1500 and 1700 led to a cascade of revolutions in various aspects of the city. This includes the invention of the printing press, a revolutionary technology that led to the improvement of trade, the shift from exporting raw materials to finished goods, the advancements in the fields of science and medicine, the rising opportunity for investments, as well as the inception of consumerism. There was a lot of research and advancement in the field of medicine and food preservation. The invention of canning technology was a huge success. It made the shipment of meat and many other things like carrot, soup, vegetables and many other very easy. It boosted business in London. The advancement in glass technology proved to be fruitful, and it led to the improvement of microscopes. As a result, in the progress of the microscope, scientists found bacteria, and it revolutionized the medical industry. The new railway tracks built all across the country made it possible to transport fresh food all across the country. Steam engines were also invented during that era, and it made everything more easily than before. The advancements in the food industry made it possible to speed up the production of the food by using different fertilizers. Different types of gun powders were invented, and they just took the weapon industry to the next level. Printing was not accessible earlier, but due to amazing inventions, printing was made easy and less time-consuming. The textile industry grew at an unbelievable rate. Modernization in the society introduced new trends in fashion. Navigational instruments were introduced, and it opened exploration opportunities to a whole new level. Great discoveries were made during that era. Installment of new locks was on hype due to the increase in wealthy things. Different types of locks were invented during that time.

After the Reformation, there was a new emphasis on literacy. The Bible was translated into English, and people were becoming more literate, which contributed to the demand for books in English. One notable outcome of the spread of literacy in Tudor London was the removal of the ‘common privy’ in St. Paul’s Churchyard to provide space for a new bookshop (Ross & Clark, 2011). The invention of the printing press contributed to the advancement of trade and communication across Europe. By 1500, London became the national center for the book trade. The Reformation also brought forth new ways of thinking for Londoners, and a lot of people obtained a newfound interest in trade with the hopes of gaining a fortune. The trade of exporting finished objects rose to a new level as compared to that of raw materials. The growth of the economy and the development of technology made people realize that exporting finished goods is far more profitable than exporting raw materials. In the middle of the 16th century, the growing demand for manufactured goods expedited the creation of new industries in the capital. In short, the development during that era was the breakthrough point of the whole revolution.

 

 

Essay 2:

The physical geography of London changed a lot between 1500 and 1900. During 1500 London was just contained inside ancient Roman walls. There was only one bridge at that time that connected the city to the countryside. If we looked at London in 1900, it is 200 times bigger than what it was back in 1500. During the start of 1600 city walls disappeared and construction of many bridges started. Number of events happened during that time that reshaped the London forever. The Great Fire of London was one of them. This fire burned the whole city. It started in a bakery in Pudding Lane, in Old London town in the year 1666. Although the fire was a tragedy with the loss of life and homes obviously, it cleared all the old wooden buildings and gave way for the redesign of the Cities footprint which lasts till today. There’s a nursery rhyme also dedicated to the fire as well called “London’s Burning, London’s Burning fetch the Engines”. Well, the old St Paul’s cathedral was a pretty uninspiring heap, whereas Wren’s replacement is one of the greatest buildings in the country, not to mention all his and Hawks moor’s other churches in the city. Although most of the plans to rebuild London on a grid (or in the case of Wren’s proposal, concentric circles) came to nothing because landowners and businessmen were in too much of a hurry to get up and running again, the government managed to retain enough control to ensure that streets were widened and that new buildings were in brick or stone, which all helped to prevent uncontrollable fires until the 1940s. So that was a good thing. There was no property insurance in 1666 nor was it a protected site. In fact it was the Fire of London that drove the beginning of property insurance. The first property insurance company was founded in 1667, in Germany, and 1676 in England. If some developer wanted to redevelop he just had to buy the properties and demolish. It was easy enough to do. There was no property ownership as such in those days either, all property was rented from landlords and, in this case, mainly from the City Corporation. With no property or tenancy rights to speak of even they could do what they wanted. Transportation system got new life. Roads were wider than ever before. The great fire gave a chance to redevelop the city. Suburban areas got developed. If the great fire wouldn’t have happened; maybe the London wouldn’t have been redeveloped. I think surprisingly similar given that it wasn’t used to change the street pattern, the move to the West end in the eighteenth century would still have happened along with the nineteenth and 20th century expansion to subsume surrounding villages and the 21st century arrival of the glass and steel skyscraper. The blitz would still have happened and given us smatterings of Concrete in every quarter. The main difference i can think of is no dome of St Paul’s and fewer Wren and Hawks moor churches. Perhaps in the city, a few old medieval streets would have remained like the Shambles in York. However, I think the wealth that hit London from the eighteenth century would still have resulted in a lot of redevelopment, and its character would be essentially the same as it is today.

Essay 3:

Living standard for the poor during 1500 was not encouraging. Life for the poor in Tudor England was hard and rough. There were thousands of people without jobs wandering around looking for work. A law of 1547 said vagabonds could be made slaves for two years. A lot depends on your understanding of the word “poor.” There were about 2,500,000 people in England in the 1500s, and by modern standards, pretty well all of them would have been classed as poor. Nobody had centrally heated homes, washing machines, fridges, cars, phones, televisions or radios, of course; these things just didn’t exist until the twentieth century (well, all right, the Romans, or a few of them, had central heating, but nobody after that for over 1500 years). Most of the comforts we take for granted, even those of us in very ordinary circumstances just did not exist in the 1500s. People in England who were comfortably off, definitely not poor by Tudor standards, still lived in houses that were mostly cold and damp; fires in main rooms made things bearable in winter, but unless you were positively rich, you wouldn’t have had any heating in bedrooms. Houses were damp, and for months on end, so was all your clothing because most of the year, there was no way of getting it completely dry. You walked almost everywhere, because unless you were very well off, you had no alternative; buying and keeping a horse and cart would have been far too expensive for most people. The situation worsened with the passing of the years: increasing difficulties in finding their next meal or a warm place to sleep. Until now, individual parishes were responsible for providing relief to the poor, then legislation passed (Work House Test Act) in 1722, bringing a new generation of workhouses. But conditions didn’t improve much; e.g., inside people worked for 12h/day on unrelenting jobs. Punishments were frequent and brutal. Most of the population worked on the land, engaged in the serious business of producing food, and seldom went anywhere farther than the nearest market town; feet were good enough. If you had a house, however damp and mouse-infested it might be, with clothing to put on (also damp and probably not always very clean), a bed to sleep in, money coming in and enough food to eat, you almost certainly didn’t consider yourself poor. There would probably have been shutters at the windows rather than glass, and several people might have been sharing the bed, but still, not poor. People living at the peasant worker level would have lived in fairly rough cottages, but if nothing else would have been fed at the farmhouse. Old people, too old to work, would normally be cared for in their families. Poor meant being virtually destitute. Poor meant people with no work, with only a tumbledown cottage to live in, or indeed completely homeless, people dependent on the charity of others for existence, and at real risk of starvation or dying of hypothermia in winter. If there were any statistics kept on these unfortunates, it would almost certainly have been only at the parish level; I very much doubt there was any official record at the national level. My guess would be perhaps a few thousand, dotted around the country; I shouldn’t think it was anywhere near as high as 1%. You’d have to be in a pretty poor state for there to be no work you could do, and if you were really in that state, you probably wouldn’t live very long.