European proto-capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Some historians claim that "capitalist relations" as such preceded their emergence in European society by merit of the existence of production conducted for profit in ancient slave-based societies as well as during the Islamic caliphates ( despotic societies - ancient China, and so on). While of course we can recognize the ridiculousness of this claim, solely by merit of the fact that "capitalism" in the caliphates eventually took an irrational role politically and divulged into oriental despotism, as well as the fact that even if production was conducted for profit in ancient societies, labor relations to production were in bondage (as well as a plethora of other reasons why calling it capitalism is beyond ridiculousness).

What struck me as interesting was this: Was the emergence of mercantilism in Europe necessarily owed to the subservience of Italian trade to the caliphates, which in turn brought proto-capitalist relations to Europe in an oddly mutated way, while the caliphates eventually collapsed and degenerated into despotism a la the Ottoman Empire (the point being that "capitalism" in Islamic societies was not "capitalism" at all but productive relations which were inevitably bound to collapse)? Can the very first roots of capitalism, in other words (a proto-proto-capitalism) be traced to the Islamic caliphates of the middle ages? It does after all make sense: culturally, these societies were incredibly influential to the emergence of the Italian renaissance and the rebirth of western philosophy (Hegel did say that the Arabs had brought philosophy to Europe).

Edit: It should be noted that the claims with regard to the societies of the caliphate being 'capitalist' are taken with skepticism. I have found efforts to find the social composition of these societies rather fruitless as far as the mode of production goes. We are told by some sources that ownership of land wasn't based on inheritance and so on. Has anyone have an idea about the details?

[Antiochus]

Mhh no.

The Islamic Caliphates (I assume you are speaking specifically of the Ummayyad and Abbasid Caliphates before the sacking of Baghdad, i.e excluding anything like the Fatimid and the later Turkic states) were far less advanced economically than the Roman Empire of the 1st century A.D. In addition to that, the Tang Dynasty in the 8th century composed nearly 60% of the world economy, just to put it in modern terms: They had twice the global economic clout the U.S has today.

The fact of the matter is, the largescale sale of finished goods into China or Europe by Middle Eastern artisans was quite unheard of. Muslim states just didn't produce very many finished goods except a few luxury items that Europeans quickly manufactured themselves. This is in comparison to the flooding of porcelain, sculpture, fabrics by the Chinese to Europe.

India and China really dominated the world economy until the 18th century, not just by the virtue of their population either. Europe and the Middle East had really backwards systems of production and the Caliphates did little to advance them, don't listen to the Islamists propaganda portraying them as the center of civilization, they weren't. Off course Islamists eat the propaganda up. And I suppose they were more advanced than say Britain or Germania (some of the poorest areas of the planet until the 16th century).

European "proto-Capitalism" is a wholly European phenomenon. Capitalism has traits that go beyond merely "profiting", after all, the Ancient Egyptians "profited" from the Nubian gold trade, they were hardly Capitalists:lol:

Other traits include massive re-investment of profits; a dynamic system of production that spans national borders as well as an actual ownership of those means of production (which wasn't the case in any of the aforementioned states).

[tuwix]

Yes. Even in ancient Greece there was a trade, debts, etc. The pro-to-capitalism should rather connected with emergence of money as universal mean of payment. Then a profit emerged too. When there was barter only, there was difficult to estimate rich from poor because you could exchange anything for anything if only there would be such need and will. But money are universal measure of value. And this measure is very clear measure of profit. Exchanging cows for lambs doesn't give any reason to say who is the winner of the transaction. But exchanging cows for coins and coins for lambs and comparing it to different prices gives us a clear winner of any transaction...

[Rafiq]

Europe and the Middle East had really backwards systems of production and the Caliphates did little to advance them, don't listen to the Islamists propaganda portraying them as the center of civilization, they weren't. Off course Islamists eat the propaganda up. And I suppose they were more advanced than say Britain or Germania (some of the poorest areas of the planet until the 16th century).

Well, certainly there are no illusions here, although I was indeed unaware of the nature of such Near Eastern civilizations. The reason this doesn't necessarily work anyway in their favor is that even if we assume they were paradises, their very best intellectuals were not uniquely religious with even some instances of irreligion among them. Hegel, however, had provided a rather comprehensive understanding of Islam's history with this regard which recognizes them as having brought philosophy to Europe through Italy. Certainly, the scholastic sphere of such civilizations was undeniably sophisticated, with advances in astronomy, medicine and philosophy (etc) being outright undeniable, along with its influence on the Italian Renaissance. What I had asked was not whether such societies were capitalist, but whether mercantilism in Europe formed as a result of trade relations with the Near East, subsumed by their mode of production only contingently (i.e. Of europe's condition). I suppose this has already more or less been answered, so many thanks. What is rather interesting is that a lot of the talk of the Muslim golden age actually has its origins in European orientalists during the age of reason, which is an ironic twist on those who claim the designation of these societies as backward and despotic is Eurocentric.

Also, are there any decent works on the subject which could expound upon this (Productive relations in muslim civilizations)?

[Antiochus]

Also, are there any decent works on the subject which could expound upon this (Productive relations in muslim civilizations)?

Can't post links so: w w w dot muslimheritage dot com / uploads / AgriculturalRevolution2 dot pdf

The Caliphate sort of innovated, or rather 're-innovated' property rights that would be key for European Capitalism (although I would argue they developed independently and are a natural process).


their very best intellectuals were not uniquely religious with even some instances of irreligion among them.

Yeah I mean, logic doesn't have to play a part into these people :lol: Averroes is banned by most Islamists. Its kind of problematic for them because many concepts that were developed in Islam (i.e not found directly in the Qu'ran) were developed by Abbasid philosophers who were big fans of Greek philosophy. Sort of like the Classicism conundrum and Christianity.


What is rather interesting is that a lot of the talk of the Muslim golden age actually has its origins in European orientalists during the age of reason,

Even earlier. I mean, people like Saladin were virtual nobodies (in fact in the Middle East he used to have a bit of a bad reputation because he murdered Nur Ad'Din's son) until Arab nationalism. But Europeans have always loved Saladin because he was seen as a "virtuous infidel". Its pretty evident Dante Alighieri read the Qu'ran as well.

I think whats key here is that from the 12th century B.C (Bronze Age collapse) till the early 19th century, human worldwide GDP per capita was roughly the same. It wasn't until the steam engine allowed humans to reach a threshold where they could produce substantial amounts of labor with minimal initial input that growth really took off. That is capitalism. Anything before that is just, meh, you will always have hucksters.

The Greeks actually invented a fully working steam engine by the 1st century A.D. :laugh::laugh: And they said god isn't a jokester. I mean if they had put it to practical use instead of in some masturbation seminar showing off how smart they were we'd either all be dead or living in a paradise.

[Alexios]

India and China really dominated the world economy until the 18th century, not just by the virtue of their population either. Europe and the Middle East had really backwards systems of production and the Caliphates did little to advance them, don't listen to the Islamists propaganda portraying them as the center of civilization, they weren't. Off course Islamists eat the propaganda up. And I suppose they were more advanced than say Britain or Germania (some of the poorest areas of the planet until the 16th century).



First of all, you can't speak about global economy in the pre-modern era; China, India, and Europe were only connected to each other indirectly. No one was "dominating" the world economy by virtue of its economic output. Second, European and Arabic economies were hardly 'backward.' Agriculture underwent major advancements in the 10th- and- 11th- centuries that launched European agricultural production to levels that allowed the mobilization of large armies in the Crusades and later. They far surpassed their Roman ancestors.

Lastly, I don't know why you're talking about Britain being "one of the poorest areas on the planet." If you mean the standard of living for the average person, of course it was abysmal. But no peasant in China or India was faring any better. England, in fact, was one of the wealthiest and most powerful kingdoms of the High and Late Middle Ages. Germany wasn't necessarily dirt poor either, but even to talk about it as a single entity is idiotic.

[Antiochus]

First of all, you can't speak about global economy in the pre-modern era; China, India, and Europe were only connected to each other indirectly. No one was "dominating" the world economy by virtue of its economic output

Most economic activity today is "indirect" as well, what exactly is your point? When you go buy from Walmart did you physically connect with the Chinese labourer that created your product? With the middle-man that provided the capital? With the retailers?

China did dominate the world economy:


"By the lowest reckoning, India, Seres and the Arabian peninsula take from our Empire 100 millions of sesterces every year: that is how much our luxuries and women cost us."-Pliny the Elder

China extracted huge sums of gold and silver from Rome, so much so that it was of paramount concern to Roman elites and almost certainly played a role in the wars of expansion in the late 1st/early 2nd century into gold-rich Dacia.


Agriculture underwent major advancements in the 10th- and- 11th- centuries that launched European agricultural production to levels that allowed the mobilization of large armies in the Crusades and later. They far surpassed their Roman ancestors.

Agricultural practices in the Middle East and Europe were very backwards. If we compare them to the Chinese they were "3rd world" or worse. The Chinese invented the seed drill during the Han Dynasty (it would not be invented in Europe until the 18th century) that allowed them to yield FAR (in the magnitude of 4x or higher) higher produce per hectare. That is why China's population was/is so big.

Historians and anthropologists measure pre-industrial civilizations according to 2 main factors: Overall population size and urbanization (as well as the size of the largest cities).

I would post links but I can't:
-The size of Rome in the 1st century (over 1.2 million) would not be seen in Europe until the 19th century.
-London, a relatively unimportant city, would not recover its 2nd century size (50,000) until the 15th century.
- The largest city in modern France during the 13th century (Paris) was smaller than Lugdunum
-2nd and 3rd century Trier would continue to hold the title of Germany's largest city until the 18th century :lol:

I could go on, but I suppose you get the point.


They far surpassed their Roman ancestors
First off, most agricultural improvements in the 10th/11th centuries were due to the Medieval Warm Period, not any revolutionary advancements in production. The Roman Latinfundia is still the basis for modern corporate agricultural production.

Ok, so let me get this straight. During the 1st Crusade (roughly 60,000 men) were raised from the nobility and fanatics, half of them starved en-route to Jerusalem because their logistics were so poor they had to buy food from local nobles and at Marrat al-Numan they literally ate dead people; and the Romans, who fielded a field army of 400,000+ men hundreds of miles from their main sources of agricultural production (North Africa, Sicily, Egypt) and for which there has been virtually no evidence of large scale logistical disruption that caused starvation within the legions actually means the 11th century Western Europeans "far surpassed the Romans?!"?????


But no peasant in China or India was faring any better. England, in fact, was one of the wealthiest and most powerful kingdoms of the High and Late Middle Ages. Germany wasn't necessarily dirt poor either, but even to talk about it as a single entity is idiotic.

Well, its true that the general standard of living isn't very different before the 18th century across the planet. Nevertheless the "average" Indian and Chinese lived better than the average European for the simple reason that their agricultural practices were light years ahead and so had more access to food. The standard of living of the Song dynasty peasants was much better than your average European/African/Middle Easterner, barring a few exceptions off course.

I actually laughed a bit when you told me "England was one of the wealthiest and most powerful kingdoms". Ok, first off, the PLANTAGENETS were "one of the most powerful", not England. Their continental possessions took precedence over England, for them. Furthermore when England lost those continental possessions they reverted back to being a relatively unimportant kingdom until the 16th century.

And I spoke of "Germany" in the same vein as "Britain" i.e a geographic zone with some cultural and economic similarities populated by ethnically related people.

[Alexios]

Most economic activity today is "indirect" as well, what exactly is your point? When you go buy from Walmart did you physically connect with the Chinese labourer that created your product? With the middle-man that provided the capital? With the retailers? China extracted huge sums of gold and silver from Rome, so much so that it was of paramount concern to Roman elites and almost certainly played a role in the wars of expansion in the late 1st/early 2nd century into gold-rich Dacia.

Of course it's not "indirect" today. China knows exactly how best to manipulate the global economy to its favor because it *actually knows what's going on in other nations' economies*. No one in China had any damn clue about the Romans, let alone what was going on in the Roman imperial economy. Global economics has not been a phenomenon until the advent of capitalism, the world's first and only global economic order.




Agricultural practices in the Middle East and Europe were very backwards. If we compare them to the Chinese they were "3rd world" or worse. The Chinese invented the seed drill during the Han Dynasty (it would not be invented in Europe until the 18th century) that allowed them to yield FAR (in the magnitude of 4x or higher) higher produce per hectare. That is why China's population was/is so big.


This is a false dichotomy. Taking into account population size and the overall quality of the land, of course the Chinese were bound to be agriculturally productive; it was a secure and ancient society with a remarkably fertile country to boot. Still, High Medieval Europe was certainly not "third world" unless you want to make a senseless comparison between two completely different continents.



-The size of Rome in the 1st century (over 1.2 million) would not be seen in Europe until the 19th century.


Yeah, it's almost as if Rome lost its political relevance for four straight centuries and was eclipsed by Constantinople.


-London, a relatively unimportant city, would not recover its 2nd century size (50,000) until the 15th century.


Because the city had less importance with the advancements in agriculture and the growth of villages. City life wasn't desirable until the growth of the merchant class. The population was more dispersed, but I don't see how this is a sign of "third worldness" or whatever moronic attribute you want to give.



- The largest city in modern France during the 13th century (Paris) was smaller than Lugdunum


I'm not really interested in getting into a numbers game, but Paris is thought to have had over 100,000 people in the 13th century. Smaller than the major cities of Roman Gaul, maybe, but the agriculture of Roman Gaul was also far more primitive.




First off, most agricultural improvements in the 10th/11th centuries were due to the Medieval Warm Period, not any revolutionary advancements in production. The Roman Latinfundia is still the basis for modern corporate agricultural production.


Completely wrong, sorry. Look at Lynn White's "Medieval Technology and Social Change" for at least an introduction.

And your point about the latifundia is about as useless and observation as saying "the Romans used cavalry so Frankish heavy cavalry technology was meaningless."


Ok, so let me get this straight. During the 1st Crusade (roughly 60,000 men) were raised from the nobility and fanatics, half of them starved en-route to Jerusalem because their logistics were so poor they had to buy food from local nobles and at Marrat al-Numan they literally ate dead people; and the Romans, who fielded a field army of 400,000+ men hundreds of miles from their main sources of agricultural production (North Africa, Sicily, Egypt) and for which there has been virtually no evidence of large scale logistical disruption that caused starvation within the legions actually means the 11th century Western Europeans "far surpassed the Romans?!"?????


It's well known that Western medieval agriculture was more advanced than that of the Romans; this isn't an observation that I'm just pulling out of a hat. As far as the First Crusade goes, your numerical comparison is as stupid as the other comparisons you've made in this thread. The size of armies was smaller for the simple reason that warfare was more specialized and geared toward sieges rather than pitched battle. An army of 30,000 pulled from various unaffiliated principalities was massive by the standards of the time. Even the Battle of Manzikert, in which troops were pulled from a more tightly organized realm, had similar numbers.

You bring up cannibalism in the Siege of Ma'arra as if you have no idea how miserable a medieval siege could be. This doesn't surprise me, but that siege happened during an extraordinary Middle Eastern winter and was certainly not the norm, and the chronicles show that it was terrible even by the standards of the time.


Well, its true that the general standard of living isn't very different before the 18th century across the planet. Nevertheless the "average" Indian and Chinese lived better than the average European for the simple reason that their agricultural practices were light years ahead and so had more access to food. The standard of living of the Song dynasty peasants was much better than your average European/African/Middle Easterner, barring a few exceptions off course.


Did they? Famines and droughts were still common, and serfdom was a phenomenon in China and India at several points in their histories.



I actually laughed a bit when you told me "England was one of the wealthiest and most powerful kingdoms". Ok, first off, the PLANTAGENETS were "one of the most powerful", not England. Their continental possessions took precedence over England, for them. Furthermore when England lost those continental possessions they reverted back to being a relatively unimportant kingdom until the 16th century.


Yet England was still a compact enough kingdom that it could be ruled efficiently by the monarchy and field a sizable army during wartime. If we're going by the wealth of the aristocracy, then England was certainly one of the top performers alongside the French dukedoms and the Norman kingdom of Sicily.

[Antiochus]

You've made a lot of assumptions with absolutely nothing to back it up, probably because you literally have no clue what it is you are arguing about.

Historians and anthropologists use the size of cities and urbanization rates as a measure of the advancement of ancient civilizations, did you get that? So how on Earth is a "numbers" game irrelevant? You would have to be a complete idiot to think so.


Yeah, it's almost as if Rome lost its political relevance for four straight centuries and was eclipsed by Constantinople.

Right, so quote me and then start arguing with yourself about something I never said. The population of Constantinople probably never surpassed 500,000, that is the POINT. The POINT is Constantinople never reached anywhere NEAR the size of the city it 'replaced'. No city in Europe did. The only areas that showed any progressive trend were the cities in Moorish Iberia.


And your point about the latifundia is about as useless and observation as saying

No it fucking isn't. Stop making worthless generalizations that you have no clue about. There is a reason why the Latinfundia system totally replaced the small sharecropper and private farmer system that had been in place in Europe BEFORE the Romans and would be in place after the collapse of the Western Empire. This is in complete accordance with the trend of consolidation of capital.



The population was more dispersed, but I don't see how this is a sign of "third worldness" or whatever moronic attribute you want to give.

And why the fuck is "population more dispersed"? Could it fucking be because there was far greater insecurity, communication and transportation systems were lacking and there was absolutely no urban infrastructure (aqueducts, sewage systems)? You know, the traits of the "3rd world"?

Roman mineral extraction was light years ahead of anything most medieval societies were at. Read: "Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy" and you'll get an idea of just how lopsided it was.


The size of armies was smaller for the simple reason that warfare was more specialized and geared toward sieges rather than pitched battle.

Source? You keep bringing up things that are either blatantly false or you hope that I don't call you out on. The average "Medieval" army was composed of untrained levys, mercenaries and the occasional mounted nobility. There were no specialized siege corps as in the Roman army, where there was literally a specialized body of troops and engineers that operated during sieges. There was no standing army (apart from Byzantium) in Europe until the Spanish army of Flanders ffs.

Anyway I'm done arguing this since 1) You don't use any facts or sources and 2) Its not the topic.

[Alexios]

You've made a lot of assumptions with absolutely nothing to back it up, probably because you literally have no clue what it is you are arguing about.

You haven't cited a single source in your argument, and your ridiculous arguments about the pre-modern "global economy" have not exactly convinced me you have even the slightest clue of what you're saying.



Historians and anthropologists use the size of cities and urbanization rates as a measure of the advancement of ancient civilizations, did you get that? So how on Earth is a "numbers" game irrelevant? You would have to be a complete idiot to think so.


Do they? Are you a published anthropologist, and if not, why are you so qualified to speak on this subject?

Big cities were common in Classical times but there's no denying that agriculture underwent major advances in the 10th- and- 11th- centuries.


Right, so quote me and then start arguing with yourself about something I never said. The population of Constantinople probably never surpassed 500,000, that is the POINT. The POINT is Constantinople never reached anywhere NEAR the size of the city it 'replaced'. No city in Europe did. The only areas that showed any progressive trend were the cities in Moorish Iberia.


Where did you hear that the population of Constantinople never passed 500k? Some estimates suggest it neared 1 million at its peak.


No it fucking isn't. Stop making worthless generalizations that you have no clue about. There is a reason why the Latinfundia system totally replaced the small sharecropper and private farmer system that had been in place in Europe BEFORE the Romans and would be in place after the collapse of the Western Empire. This is in complete accordance with the trend of consolidation of capital.


Laughing. Sure, the latifundia anticipated feudal manorialism. But the technology that allowed Europe to flourish wasn't developed until the 10th century; most people until then were still using wooden tools. Have you even read a single thing on medieval economy?


And why the fuck is "population more dispersed"? Could it fucking be because there was far greater insecurity, communication and transportation systems were lacking and there was absolutely no urban infrastructure (aqueducts, sewage systems)? You know, the traits of the "3rd world"?


Yeah, let's talk about a "third world" nearly a thousand years before that term even came into discourse. You sound smart.


Roman mineral extraction was light years ahead of anything most medieval societies were at. Read: "Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy" and you'll get an idea of just how lopsided it was.


What does coinage have to do with this whole question? Like it or not, the areas under Roman influence did not have the agricultural capacity of 11th century Europe, and this is attested by everyone but you.


Source? You keep bringing up things that are either blatantly false or you hope that I don't call you out on. The average "Medieval" army was composed of untrained levys, mercenaries and the occasional mounted nobility. There were no specialized siege corps as in the Roman army, where there was literally a specialized body of troops and engineers that operated during sieges. There was no standing army (apart from Byzantium) in Europe until the Spanish army of Flanders ffs.


Really? You're asking for a source when you go on to claim that there was no specialization of warfare in the entire medieval age? Sieges were the central component of medieval warfare; the pitched battle was a much less common phenomenon than it was in ancient western societies. Even classical historians would contend that warfare became increasingly more specialized into the 11th century. You're acting as if the West underwent some kind of plunge into backwardness, suddenly sprang up out of nowhere, and then went on to dominate the continent. This is garbage straight out of the mouth of a Victorian-era "historian."


Anyway I'm done arguing this since 1) You don't use any facts or sources and 2) Its not the topic.

Sounds good. To sum up, here's what you've argued so far:

- There was a global economy before the advent of capitalism, which the Chinese and Indians unquestionably dominated.
- Pliny the Elder is a reliable source for proving the above fact.
- City population is the be-all end-all statistic for measuring any society's advancement.
- The Romans pioneered the latifundia system and therefore nothing developed in the following 800 years was significant.
- War in the Middle Ages was fought by mercenaries and untrained levies, even though all existing evidence contradicts this.

[Antiochus]

You haven't cited a single source in your argument, and your ridiculous arguments about the pre-modern "global economy" have not exactly convinced me you have even the slightest clue of what you're saying.

Where did I say globalization existed? Show me. You can't because its a strawman from what I said. I said China/India dominated the global economy. By global I clearly meant "worldwide", not that there was a "global" (in the modern sense) economy. Nevertheless commercial ties between India/China and Western Europe would not be re-established on any major level until the 13th century.



Where did you hear that the population of Constantinople never passed 500k? Some estimates suggest it neared 1 million at its peak.

Show me a single source that claims 1 million. Even the most high-end estimate places it at 600,000 during Justinians reign ("Early Medieval And Byzantine Civilization"- See, this is called a "source" :lol:). But the Justinian plague and the destruction of supply routes first during the last Persian war and the Rashidun invasions must have caused a collapse in the population.


Yeah, let's talk about a "third world" nearly a thousand years before that term even came into discourse. You sound smart.

Ok, listen, either you are a troll or you are just acting stupid. The population (the overall size) of England would not reach the Roman levels until the 13th century, and it would quickly collapse again due to the Great Famine and the subsequent Black Death.

So what YOU are arguing is that despite having a more advanced agricultural system that produced a greater output, Medieval (pre-13th century) England somehow managed to have less urbanization rates and an overall smaller population :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Jesus Christ you are thick.


What does coinage have to do with this whole question?

The source I posted is about iron, lead, copper etc... production, its uses are more than just "minting coins". Lead production in Britain wouldn't equal Roman Britain's production until the 17th century. You know, mining is a key sector of any economy, even today :)

Normally I don't do this, but since I have posted 3-4 sources and I can't even copy/paste links I'll just quote Wikipedia for you:


The Romans improved crop growing by watering growing plants using aqueducts and there is an increasing amount of evidence that some parts of the industry were mechanised. For example, extensive sets of mills existed in Gaul and Rome at an early date to grind wheat into flour.

There is direct evidence from bas-reliefs that they also used a kind of automatic harvester or reaper when collecting in ripe crops. It is believed that either Romans or the Celts before them, invented the mechanical reaper that cut the ears without the straw and was pushed by oxen.

The machine was forgotten in the Dark Ages, during which period reapers reverted to using scythes and sickles to gather crops.



War in the Middle Ages was fought by mercenaries and untrained levies, even though all existing evidence contradicts this.

This is what I said:

The average "Medieval" army was composed of untrained levys, mercenaries and the occasional mounted nobility

Naturally this varied by location. Find me a single centralized army prior to the 13th century in Western Europe. You come off as either a liar or just someone who has 0 clue what he is talking about. The bulk of William the Conqueror's army was not even from Normandy.

While there were major advances in warfare like the stirrup that greatly improved shock cavalry, the logistical systems were still far inferior to that of the Roman army. The total English "army" (most were fyrds) to defend England in 1066 was no more than 15,000. This is compared to the Roman garrison of 55,000 in the 2nd century.



Sieges were the central component of medieval warfare; the pitched battle was a much less common phenomenon than it was in ancient western societies. Even classical historians would contend that warfare became increasingly more specialized into the 11th century. You're acting as if the West underwent some kind of plunge into backwardness, suddenly sprang up out of nowhere, and then went on to dominate the continent. This is garbage straight out of the mouth of a Victorian-era "historian."

You keep using ambiguous words like "specialization" that carry virtually no meaning. Yes, cavalry took on a greater role and its possible that siege warfare might have increased due in part by feudal power relations. I have yet to find any evidence that "pitched battles were far less common" since battles like Hastings are the definition of a pitched battle.

The reason battles were smaller in scale had far more to do with an inability to properly supply large bodies of soldiers and a lack of a centralized professional army. Finally, there is absolutely no correlation between the size of a standing army and whether or not sieges took precedent over pitched battles. The 80 years war was the epitome of siege warfare and the Spanish and Dutch fielded armies of over 60,000 each.