Hero of Alexandria points Rome towards the Space Age

[Sinaz]

Hello, Alternate History folks. I just registered for pretty much this one thread. Call it research or open-source brain-storming.

I am working on a project which will require an alternate history frame work.

I need to get from Point A:
Hero of Alexandria pursues his Aeolipile into practical application as a viable steam engine, first deployed, let's say, 62ishAD.

...to Point B:
in, let's say, 269ishAD, Rome puts its first milestone on the center of the Moon's face with a historic marble marker engraved with an arrow pointing straight up to Earth, and an inscription: "Omnes viae Romam ducunt"... all roads lead to Rome (I hope :P )

...to Point C:
The dark ages befall the remnants of the Roman Interplanetary Empire circa 1200AD... in which a few dozen deep space colonies lay mostly isolated as the monolithic hyperspace gates built by the Romans fall into decay.

Just imagine a picture of ancient Rome with the vapor-trail plume of a rocket arcing away from it in the third century AD, and then let your imagination run with it.

I'll be chiming in with my own ideas and comments as we go. Thanks for the input!

[Caesar]

I like the idea, but you have technology advancing too quickly, for instance, at the very minimum you should probably have spaceflight take place a millenium after the POD (and this is probably optimistic). And personally, I'd probably reconsider the whole hyperspace gates.

[Hobelhouse]

The problem with advancing tech that fast is there's really not enough of a population base to support it.

[Sinaz]

The problem with advancing tech that fast is there's really not enough of a population base to support it.

My simple timetable was based on the Apollo 11 mission's offset from the beginning of the industrial revolution. Rome had some great thinkers... let's just say that all the necessary theoretical knowledge came about via rapid advances in observational technology.

And, though I anticipated that people would rather declare why such a time table is impossible, my project is Science Fiction.

And the "hyper-space gates" are just my futuristic analogy to the Roman aqueducts.

[DominusNovus]

My simple timetable was based on the Apollo 11 mission's offset from the beginning of the industrial revolution. Rome had some great thinkers... let's just say that all the necessary theoretical knowledge came about via rapid advances in observational technology.

And, though I anticipated that people would rather declare why such a time table is impossible, my project is Science Fiction.

And the "hyper-space gates" are just my futuristic analogy to the Roman aqueducts.
Well, we generally have some concern for plausibility. The general concept itself, Heron starting an industrial revolution, is not entirely accepted to be a plausible scenario as it is.

That said, there's plenty of leeway. Myself, I once wrote a barebones timeline where Roman technology caught up to ours comparative to our different calendars (frex, our tech of the 20th century AD by the 20th century AUC).

Romans on the moon in the 3rd century is not likely by any stretch.

[Anaxagoras]

The problem with "technology evolving faster" TLs is not just that people didn't discover stuff, but that intellectual paradigms didn't exist to exploit them. Hero, it should be noted, DID develop a steam engine. The problem was that nobody saw it as anything other than an interesting toy.

The modern concept of using science as a means for society to progress comes from the Enlightenment of the 17th-18th Centuries. The ancients didn't even have the concept of progress- to them, the way things were was the way they always had been and the way they always would be. The possibility that it might be otherwise never really occured to them.

So you need much deeper and more complicated PODs for something like this to work.

[Sinaz]

The problem with "technology evolving faster" TLs is not just that people didn't discover stuff, but that intellectual paradigms didn't exist to exploit them. Hero, it should be noted, DID develop a steam engine. The problem was that nobody saw it as anything other than an interesting toy.

Isn't this kind of one of the many roots of this exercise... that a paradigm to exploit a steam engine would have existed... that someone had just put it to practical use and yelled EUREKA?

The modern concept of using science as a means for society to progress comes from the Enlightenment of the 17th-18th Centuries. The ancients didn't even have the concept of progress- to them, the way things were was the way they always had been and the way they always would be. The possibility that it might be otherwise never really occured to them.

I'm no historian, but are you suggesting that the Romans had no concept of invention and progress? That they accidentally created things like sewers and aqueducts and siege engines and forgot how and why this occurred?

The Romans were capable of manufacturing metal plumming, advanced war engines, chariots, sailing ships... if someone were to generate the mass-production technologies afforded to them by the steam-engine, then I see no reason that technology could not progress at a similar pace to our own. Only 250 years ago we were sailing about in wind-powered ships, casting muskets and ammunition by hand, and attaching horses to wheeled carts... not entirely different than the Romans, only with a much broader scope of the world around us. So in my TL, that scope of the world will have to develop along side the technology.

So you need much deeper and more complicated PODs for something like this to work.
How much more complicated? I would think that artistic license would give most people the freedom to exercise their imagination. This whole thing is a hypothetical.

Ideas that follow my initial guidelines and push the necessary boundaries of it would be more productive then spending brain power typing up a bunch of reasons why an exercise in imagination is futile.

Just have fun with it. At least try to help me.

[DominusNovus]

I'm no historian, but are you suggesting that the Romans had no concept of invention and progress? That they accidentally created things like sewers and aqueducts and siege engines and forgot how and why this occurred?
No, just that it wasn't taken for granted that tomorrow would be better than yesterday. We have faith that, all other things equal, things will progress. Back in ancient times, things weren't that cut and dry. Technological progress over the pass few centuries (even this last millennium) has been staggering compared to prior progress. When technology is not advancing much over the years, and is easily lost to dark ages and barbarian incursions, its not so easy to have such an assumption. Thats what he's saying.

But sewers, aqueducts, and (to a lesser extent), siege engines both predate the Romans by a fair degree.

The Romans were capable of manufacturing metal plumming, advanced war engines, chariots, sailing ships... if someone were to generate the mass-production technologies afforded to them by the steam-engine, then I see no reason that technology could not progress at a similar pace to our own. Only 250 years ago we were sailing about in wind-powered ships, casting muskets and ammunition by hand, and attaching horses to wheeled carts... not entirely different than the Romans, only with a much broader scope of the world around us. So in my TL, that scope of the world will have to develop along side the technology.
Steam power doesn't afford mass production automatically. Water power is much better suited to the function in most respects. And the Romans have several instances of water mills, very large ones even. Yet they didn't do anything with it.

Next, mass production requires mass resources, mass capital, and mass demand. You can provide the last one easiest, and its still pretty hard. But compared to the Romans, the people of 1750 had several technological edges (though the Romans did have an edge in civil engineering, perhaps). Paper, printing, gunpowder (huge, absolutely huge), more advanced metallurgy, more advanced shipbuilding techniques, which lead into much higher populations and quicker communications. Coupled with more extensive theoretical knowledge, this provides a much more suitable environment for technological progress.

How much more complicated? I would think that artistic license would give most people the freedom to exercise their imagination. This whole thing is a hypothetical.

Ideas that follow my initial guidelines and push the necessary boundaries of it would be more productive then spending brain power typing up a bunch of reasons why an exercise in imagination is futile.

Just have fun with it. At least try to help me.
We're not being nearly as cynical as you're implying, and we are trying to help you, it just happens to be by providing constructive criticism.


You want much faster technological progress in Rome?

a) invent, acquire paper. The Chinese might have had it at the time.
b) printing. With paper, this will provide much easier dissemination of knowledge.
c) gunpowder. This will both further rocketry (kinda crucial to your space exploration plans) as well as fuel improvements in metallurgy (for cannons and such), which is necessary for industrialization.

Have all this, by some weird, unlikely, implausible, twist of fate all be discovered around the same time as Heron lived, and you might have something.

But, there's still the issue with the Aeliopile not being a true engine. Heron would have to develop a piston system, and crankshaft for rotary motion, to create something actually useful, as far as steam technology is concerned.

[Anaxagoras]

I'm no historian, but are you suggesting that the Romans had no concept of invention and progress? That they accidentally created things like sewers and aqueducts and siege engines and forgot how and why this occurred?

They didn't have the concept of progress in the same way that we think of progress today. They didn't think, for example, that they would have flying chariots one day. And the Romans didn't invent any of the things you mention- they had been around for millennia and the Romans adopted and refined them.

In early modern times, Europeans went through the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment before they really had a social zeitgeist saying, "The future can be better than the past." It's so engrained in us today that it's difficult for us to imagine that anyone else doesn't also think the way we do. But the ancient Greeks and Romans, for all their genius, didn't think that way.

[Faeelin]

The modern concept of using science as a means for society to progress comes from the Enlightenment of the 17th-18th Centuries. The ancients didn't even have the concept of progress- to them, the way things were was the way they always had been and the way they always would be. The possibility that it might be otherwise never really occured to them.


This isn't entirely true; there were poems written in praise of water wheels when they were first developed, frex. And certainly Archimedes saw no problem with inventing labor saving machines.

[Dutchie]

Don't confuse engineering progress with scientific progress. They're different modes of thought. The first exploits what has worked, the second looks for what might work, and why.

Incidentally, there is a school of thought that says that a monotheistic belief system is needed to promote a scientific mind - with many gods acting capriciously, there's no reason to the world; with one god, there's rules and designs to nature that can be discovered and exploited.

[Faeelin]

Don't confuse engineering progress with scientific progress. They're different modes of thought. The first exploits what has worked, the second looks for what might work, and why.

Okay, so now it's a question of scientific progress and a belief that you can discover things?



Incidentally, there is a school of thought that says that a monotheistic belief system is needed to promote a scientific mind - with many gods acting capriciously, there's no reason to the world; with one god, there's rules and designs to nature that can be discovered and exploited.[/QUOTE]


Neat theory, but where's the evidence for it?

I mean, how is belief in a god who can cause a flood better than believing in several gods who cause a flood?

[Smaug]

Not to be a downer, but IMO, Rome was never truly innovative.

Rome brings to mind the advertising logo of BASF, We didn't invent alot of the things you use, we made them better. Don't quote me on that:)

[Faeelin]

Not to be a downer, but IMO, Rome was never truly innovative.

I dunno. Look at the way they ran their mines in Spain; or how quickly glassmaking spread.

Plus, it's not like the Roman Emprie consisted of only Romans.

[M79]

For better Roman technology there must be a market to sustain its products. Rome did not have much of a middle class and slave labor can be used for very little money. You might get the development of railroads with a steam engine, but unless there are practical applications in ancient Rome you need a paradigm shift or a darn good reason to get a true indutrial revolution off the ground.

[Shimbo]

Just a thought. If instead of accidentally burning the library at Alexandria, Caesar was amazed by it and stole it and took it back to Rome as plunder it might help speed up progress. It could be the basis of some kind of prototype university that might trigger some advances and kick start technological progress.

BTW I've noticed that more people tend to point out the faults in a timeline than chip in with more ideas. I guess that's just human nature and of course it is useful to have your ideas tested, so don’t take it to heart. :)

At first glance, your idea of space going Romans does seem fantastical, for the reasons people have mentioned. Things that are fantastical tend to go in the Alien Space Bats section of the discussion, where people take a more open minded, even frivolous, view of them.

[Alayta]

You want much faster technological progress in Rome?

a) invent, acquire paper. The Chinese might have had it at the time.
b) printing. With paper, this will provide much easier dissemination of knowledge.
c) gunpowder. This will both further rocketry (kinda crucial to your space exploration plans) as well as fuel improvements in metallurgy (for cannons and such), which is necessary for industrialization.


Good points. But they are only valid with more free people. Dissemination of knowledge is only possible with people wiht the right and time to learn.
A new social order is absolutly nessecary to get to the moon.
So, rome must sort of be destroyed in order to achieve what you want.

[rewster]

You want much faster technological progress in Rome?

a) invent, acquire paper. The Chinese might have had it at the time.
b) printing. With paper, this will provide much easier dissemination of knowledge.
c) gunpowder. This will both further rocketry (kinda crucial to your space exploration plans) as well as fuel improvements in metallurgy (for cannons and such), which is necessary for industrialization.

Have all this, by some weird, unlikely, implausible, twist of fate all be discovered around the same time as Heron lived, and you might have something.
Well, paper certainly existed before this timeline would have begun. Printing and gunpowder (at least early theoretical/experimental forms) existed by 220 AD, which is prior to Point B, though only by 49 years, which means in less than 5 decades the Romans must both acquire these technologies from China and develop them into a society technically aware and capable enough to launch something into space.
Now that is clearly not possible, so either the Romans will have to have developed printing and gunpowder on their own and gotten ahold of paper rather quickly all within a few decades or so after Point A, or Point B needs to be moved out a bit further.
But, there's still the issue with the Aeliopile not being a true engine. Heron would have to develop a piston system, and crankshaft for rotary motion, to create something actually useful, as far as steam technology is concerned.
Given what he did come up with (windmills, mechanical theatres, vending machines) I think this is probably the most plausible part of the scenario. One would just need a PoD which causes Hero to concentrate more on the aelopile than on things like mechanical theatres and temple gimmicks. Perhaps if he had gotten into reenacting naval battles in miniature, rather than automating plays?

[ninebucks]

The big problem here is metal. Forging a metal that could survive the forces and pressures of space travel is not possible untill the very modern era. And, unfortunately, it is almost impossible to come up with a POD that would speed up metallurgical development - because, simply put, metallurgy, in OTL, developed as quickly as it could, because metallurgy is always useful. Regardless of how your civilisation is doing, you still need to have a decent sword.

[Analytical Engine]

Edison say - "Nessecity it the mother of invention".

Since there was no demand for such things, there was no need to invent/develop them

[Faeelin]

Since there was no demand for such things, there was no need to invent/develop them

There was, then, no demand for the next seventeen hundred years.

Sometimes I feel that people who want to leap straight to a Roman industrial Revolution are like people complaining that the Victorians didn't invent email.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Another problem with the Roman Empire was that 'thinking' was slave work - you bought a Greek to do it for you. This is not conducive to technological advancement.

A non-roman, possibly Alexandrian POD (point of departure) might work better for what you want. But 300 hundred years to the moon is WAY too fast.

Look at the number of metals the Romans even knew of: Iron, Copper, Tin, Lead, Mercury, Silver, Gold. That may be exhaustive. When your metallurgy is that primitive, there's no way you're going to get into orbit in 300 years!

[DominusNovus]

Oh, and regarding the population base to support this, 18th century people had the advantage of a much larger crop package, as it included all the new world crops as well, enabling much more agricultural productivity across the world.

[Tyr]

Yeah this Roman industrial revolution stuff is...wrong.
It certainly is cool which is why people flock to it but the industrial revolution IOTL was built upon the agriculutral revolution, the establishment of modern banking, the opening up of all these vast markets for you to sell your wares to, etc...
Just look at canals- they 18th/19th century railways built before railways were decent enough for the task. Without the need for such movements though you won't see railways invented.

[freodhoric]

1) The best way to get the Romans to advance technologically would be for slavery not to be used. Spartacus takes Rome? Anyway, if there were no slaves, the Romans had the know-how to build water wheels and would now have reason to.
Eureka! Proto-Industrial Revolution!
There'd still be cheap labor, same as what held back European development for centuries.

2) Maintain or establish colleges/universities. Did Rome have any centers of higher learning? Political stability is needed for higher learning to flourish.

3) The Romans and Greeks invented lots of cool stuff that they never used. How could technological innovation become, uhhh, accepted? used? Part of the cultural imperative (whatever that means)?

4) I think most of this has been discussed in earlier threads.

5) But, there's still the issue with the Aeliopile not being a true engine. Heron would have to develop a piston system, and crankshaft for rotary motion, to create something actually useful, as far as steam technology is concerned. Pistons are totally different technology from Hero's engine, which was more of a turbine. Making piston engines wasn't feasible until cannon were well developed because of the precise tolerances necessary when boring the cylinders.
That said, i've always wondered how Hero's engine could be harnessed to do work. It seems to me that if it was fitted with gears or pulleys or whatever, that would slow it down so that it wouldn't work at all. Maybe if it was built extra heavy and given a push to start, the weight would act as a flywheel and, hmmm. Anyway.
A Dirge for Sabis had a engine similar to Hero's used to power a side-wheel paddle boat.

6) Trade frequently leads to exchanges of ideas. Foster internal trade and ideas will spread amongst the people, which leads to wider usage and a broader range of minds to produce further innovations. Foster external trade to get ideas and ways of thought from foreign lands that have had an entirely different technological history. This requires being open to foreign ideas.

P.S.
Another problem with the Roman Empire was that 'thinking' was slave work - you bought a Greek to do it for you.
Hmmm. Greek slave-professors. Anyway, i'm not sure about that. Being an architect was a esteemed position. And, according to Vitruvius, architects also did machinery, including water wheels, piston(!) pumps, and siege weapons. It seems to me that doing was esteemed over thinking in Roman culture, as being a doctor or an architect was prestigious but philosophy was looked at with suspicion.

But 300 hundred years to the moon is WAY too fast.
Darn straight. Much too fast. More like 800 years (or more).

[Dutchie]

Okay, so now it's a question of scientific progress and a belief that you can discover things?



Incidentally, there is a school of thought that says that a monotheistic belief system is needed to promote a scientific mind - with many gods acting capriciously, there's no reason to the world; with one god, there's rules and designs to nature that can be discovered and exploited.

Neat theory, but where's the evidence for it?

I mean, how is belief in a god who can cause a flood better than believing in several gods who cause a flood?

Well, the Chinese discovered many things long before the Europeans did, but didn't apply their learnings to understand the world, since they believed every tree, rock and hill had a spirit that influenced the world. With gunpowder, the Chinese made firecrackers because they noticed a poppig noise; the Europeans made guns and cannon because they learned to understand compression and force.

If you believe there is only one god, then you can imagine that said god set out rules for the way things work, and you can try to decipher them. If there are many gods each acting on whim, than there's no sense to nature that can be understood.

Take the example of understanding gravity rather than floods: "the 'one god' set a rule that things fall to earth, maybe I can understand that rule", as opposed to "the gods hold some things up, and some things down. Theirs is to know why."

[Adamanteus]

Hello, Alternate History folks. I just registered for pretty much this one thread. Call it research or open-source brain-storming.

I am working on a project which will require an alternate history frame work.

I need to get from Point A:
Hero of Alexandria pursues his Aeolipile into practical application as a viable steam engine, first deployed, let's say, 62ishAD.

...to Point B:
in, let's say, 269ishAD, Rome puts its first milestone on the center of the Moon's face with a historic marble marker engraved with an arrow pointing straight up to Earth, and an inscription: "Omnes viae Romam ducunt"... all roads lead to Rome (I hope :P )

...to Point C:
The dark ages befall the remnants of the Roman Interplanetary Empire circa 1200AD... in which a few dozen deep space colonies lay mostly isolated as the monolithic hyperspace gates built by the Romans fall into decay.

Just imagine a picture of ancient Rome with the vapor-trail plume of a rocket arcing away from it in the third century AD, and then let your imagination run with it.

I'll be chiming in with my own ideas and comments as we go. Thanks for the input!



There's no way that spaceflight would take place so quickly after the invention of a primitive steam engine.

First of all, there has to be a reason why Heron's steam engine is put to use in this ATL. In OTL, it was never used to do any work, and was intended as merely a demonstration of what can be done. The only application I'm aware of is that it was used to automatically open temple doors, in order to create the appearance of divine intervention.

I once pondered a scenario whereby Archimedes invents calculus c. 200 BC by surviving the siege of Syracuse, instead of being killed. He gets taken captive as a hostage by the Roman general Marcellus, and spends the remainder of his life (likely short as he was pretty old by 212 BC) as a guest similar to that of Polybius by Scipio.

Recent investigation has revealed that Archimedes may have actually invented something that passed for primitive calculus, but that it was so ahead of its time and so esoteric that it barely got noticed.

In OTL, Archimedes was already an obscure figure less than 200 years later, despite his great achievements, such that Cicero had to do a special investigation to discover his dilapidated grave in Syracuse, which he restored. I postulate that, as a Roman guest, he would've achieved greater notoriety, fame, and recognition, possibly even having an academy founded in Syracuse called "Archimedia." This would've attracted notable scholars throughout the Mediterranean that might give a scientific boost to the time period, especially after 31 BC, when Rome officially annexes Egypt, along with Alexandria.

By having access to more advanced calculating techniques, there would be fewer errors in scientific judgement and perhaps great tech progress. For example, Ptolemy of Alexandria would've never postulated a geocentric universe. It was already clear from Eratosthenes (3rd century BC) that heliocentrism was the way to go, and for a while, there were two competing schools in astronomy. Geocentrism ended up becoming more widespread by the Middle Ages, which was an outrageous stupidity. In this ATL, I'd suspect that either an alt-Ptolemy, or perhaps Hipparchus, would formulate a heliocentric model that would catch on.

Some early inventions that might come off an alt-aeilopile (perhaps one that turned gears instead of just spun), might be railroads, and steamships. Railroads would be a useful upgrade to the already widespread Roman road network. I don't anticipate them being in widespread use until about the reign of Septimius Severus (c. 193). Probably they'd be used first for military purposes, and later for commercial, as Septimius Severus was first a general. Around the same time, steamships would make an apperance. Unlike steam locomotives, steamships would likely be used initially in commercial shipping and transit, because the Mediterranean had by then been thoroughly free of piracy and foreign threat, removing any need for military application. The Empire relied on the Mediterranean as a kind of maritime highway that allowed for widespread trade and communication.

As for industrialization, I don't foresee that any earlier than around 300, as much of the 3rd century would be spent in anarchy. By this time, there are no wars of conquest and therefore fewer slaves to labor, necessitating labor-saving factories. Industrialization would come too little too late to rescue the declining empire, but may prolong its successor, the Byzantine Empire.

[Paladin]

Some early inventions that might come off an alt-aeilopile (perhaps one that turned gears instead of just spun), might be railroads, and steamships. Railroads would be a useful upgrade to the already widespread Roman road network. I don't anticipate them being in widespread use until about the reign of Septimius Severus (c. 193). Probably they'd be used first for military purposes, and later for commercial, as Septimius Severus was first a general. Around the same time, steamships would make an apperance. Unlike steam locomotives, steamships would likely be used initially in commercial shipping and transit, because the Mediterranean had by then been thoroughly free of piracy and foreign threat, removing any need for military application. The Empire relied on the Mediterranean as a kind of maritime highway that allowed for widespread trade and communication.

As for industrialization, I don't foresee that any earlier than around 300, as much of the 3rd century would be spent in anarchy. By this time, there are no wars of conquest and therefore fewer slaves to labor, necessitating labor-saving factories. Industrialization would come too little too late to rescue the declining empire, but may prolong its successor, the Byzantine Empire.

So would this lead to the fabled "Byzantine steampunk" scenario?

[DominusNovus]

5) Pistons are totally different technology from Hero's engine, which was more of a turbine. Making piston engines wasn't feasible until cannon were well developed because of the precise tolerances necessary when boring the cylinders.
That said, i've always wondered how Hero's engine could be harnessed to do work. It seems to me that if it was fitted with gears or pulleys or whatever, that would slow it down so that it wouldn't work at all. Maybe if it was built extra heavy and given a push to start, the weight would act as a flywheel and, hmmm. Anyway.
A Dirge for Sabis had a engine similar to Hero's used to power a side-wheel paddle boat.
Pistons existed. Very good ones for the technical abilities of the time. Mainly used for pumping water. Not quite sufficient to handle the pressures involved with steam, however.

The Aeliopile had very little torque and you would get very very little work out of it if you hooked it up to anything. The effort necessary to run it, keep it fueled, etc. would indeed make it pointless.

Oh, and I should add that Heron did come very close to inventing the crankshaft. He designed a wind organ that almost has a crank shaft. Instead, there's a lever that catches on a rotating wheel, that is pulled up, and then falls down after slipping by.

[Sinaz]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

I'll concede that the time period may be short. My main goal is to develop an ATL that has a futuristic human scenario that is dated several hundred years in the past by our current era calendar. I want the audience to see something like "Planet Alexandria, 1248AD" and think it cool that if we (as in mankind) just held on to knowledge and embraced progress that we could already be navigating the stars.

So let's say...

~62AD - Hero of Alexandria develops the Aeliopile - improves the steam organ - and in a bought of accidental genius, drops a wad of something into one of the pipes of the organ. He intuits venting pressure up the pipe to retrieve the plugged object. This gives him the idea to directly divert steam to generate pressure to operate pistons, and eventually to design a crankshaft. He invents a steam-piston engine.

Let's not destroy the Library of Alexandria and use that as a center for scientific and theoretical progress.

I'm going to compile a list of things you all say "need" to happen and fabricate some historical points in history for them. If the "Apollo" missions have to occur later than 269AD, that's fine... But I want to keep it before the turn of the millennium, and I want it to have that x69 year just to make it parallel the OTL Apollo mission. Technology grows exponentially - and I simply want the "modern" Roman empire to be a result of Roman stability (however fictitious this may be) in which progress is made up through the first millennium.

[Faeelin]

With gunpowder, the Chinese made firecrackers because they noticed a poppig noise; the Europeans made guns and cannon because they learned to understand compression and force.

You know, the Chiense also used guns, and water power, harnessing it very effectively.

If there are many gods each acting on whim, than there's no sense to nature that can be understood.

Take the example of understanding gravity rather than floods: "the 'one god' set a rule that things fall to earth, maybe I can understand that rule", as opposed to "the gods hold some things up, and some things down. Theirs is to know why."

Counter argument: In many Buddhist traditions, gods are subject to the same universal laws that everyone else is, regardless of the fact that they are gods.

Compare this to Christianity, where God has the power to make the earth stand still, flood the planet, and make people out of mud.

[Faeelin]

With gunpowder, the Chinese made firecrackers because they noticed a poppig noise; the Europeans made guns and cannon because they learned to understand compression and force.

You know, the Chiense also used guns, and water power, harnessing it very effectively.

If there are many gods each acting on whim, than there's no sense to nature that can be understood.

Take the example of understanding gravity rather than floods: "the 'one god' set a rule that things fall to earth, maybe I can understand that rule", as opposed to "the gods hold some things up, and some things down. Theirs is to know why."

Counter argument: In many Buddhist traditions, gods are subject to the same universal laws that everyone else is, regardless of the fact that they are gods.

Compare this to Christianity, where God has the power to make the earth stand still, flood the planet, and make people out of mud.

[Faeelin]

Look at the number of metals the Romans even knew of: Iron, Copper, Tin, Lead, Mercury, Silver, Gold. That may be exhaustive. When your metallurgy is that primitive, there's no way you're going to get into orbit in 300 years!

What did Europe know of in 1670 that's not on the list?

[Faeelin]

Just look at canals- they 18th/19th century railways built before railways were decent enough for the task. Without the need for such movements though you won't see railways invented.

Yes, but well dressed Romans who are reading mass produced books while investing in mininig in Dacia isn't sexy.

[Mike Stearns]

Darn straight. Much too fast. More like 800 years (or more).

You do realize that the Industrail Revolution lasted for 345 years in OTL? I think that the problem is not that the time frame is too fast, that in order for this to happen you have to get the Romans to develope the concept of science and to do that you have to get them to explore beyond the borders of the Empire. And in order to do that, you have to have the Arabs cut off the trade routes with Asia.

[Dutchie]

You know, the Chiense also used guns, and water power, harnessing it very effectively.



Counter argument: In many Buddhist traditions, gods are subject to the same universal laws that everyone else is, regardless of the fact that they are gods.

Compare this to Christianity, where God has the power to make the earth stand still, flood the planet, and make people out of mud.

I don't buy your counter-argument, because if there is an acceptance of universal laws, that even 'gods' can't break (and Buddhist gods are a little different than say the pantheon of Greek or Roman mythology - more like elevated beings than all-powerful spoiled children playing with mankind), then the randomness of nature is removed that way. What other factor kept the buddhists from developing the scientific method? I don't know, but a universe without a logical basis wouldn't be it, as it was for most ancient civilizations.

[DominusNovus]

There are no buddhist gods. Buddhism just allows for the belief in them.

[Faeelin]

There are no buddhist gods. Buddhism just allows for the belief in them.

I maintain that if a Buddhist monastery has shrines devoted to a supernatural being, then that supernatural being should be considered to be part of some Buddhist sects.

[Faeelin]

I don't buy your counter-argument, because if there is an acceptance of universal laws, that even 'gods' can't break (and Buddhist gods are a little different than say the pantheon of Greek or Roman mythology - more like elevated beings than all-powerful spoiled children playing with mankind), then the randomness of nature is removed that way. What other factor kept the buddhists from developing the scientific method? I don't know, but a universe without a logical basis wouldn't be it, as it was for most ancient civilizations.

I'm not sure I'd accept the idea that the Greeks didn't have a logical worldview, either.

Well, some of them.

Anyway, now it seems to be that you're just saying you need a view of a world that runs according to set rules, which is grossly different than saying you need Monotheism.

[Dutchie]

I'm not sure I'd accept the idea that the Greeks didn't have a logical worldview, either.

Well, some of them.

Anyway, now it seems to be that you're just saying you need a view of a world that runs according to set rules, which is grossly different than saying you need Monotheism.

I'm saying that monotheism helps to foster the idea that there are rules to the universe...

[Analytical Engine]

What did Europe know of in 1670 that's not on the list?

Antimony. Useful for stamps in printing presses, don't you know. :)

[Faeelin]

I'm saying that monotheism helps to foster the idea that there are rules to the universe...

And I'm saying there's no evidence of this, since monotheistic faiths are based around the idea of supernatural beings who can do whatever they please.

[Adamanteus]

So would this lead to the fabled "Byzantine steampunk" scenario?

Look at it this way. In the 7th century AD, the Byzantines invented Greek Fire, so it's not beyond them to be innovative. Just imagine Byzantine sailless steamships firing flammable liquid at Arab wooden fleets.

[DominusNovus]

Look at it this way. In the 7th century AD, the Byzantines invented Greek Fire, so it's not beyond them to be innovative. Just imagine Byzantine sailless steamships firing flammable liquid at Arab wooden fleets.
Actually, Greek fire was invented by some Syrian Arab, IIRC.