How close was Antiquity to Industrialism?

[LHB]

I didn't know there were chattel manning the factories in Merry Old England.

No but historians like Kenneth Pomeranz argue the massive amounts of liquid capital, coupled with all the specie and bullion looted by Spain and Portugal, that created the liquid wealth necessary for those investments in the first place. Easily the most profitable aspect of the British economy in the 18th century was the sugar plantations of the Caribbean. That's before one talks about the direct link between Southern cotton, Northern industry, and US capital accumulation in the Antebellum period.

The thing that's worth pointing out is there was an intensive, cash-crop plantation system at work in the Americas and the Caribbean that had no parallel in the Roman Empire. Slaves in Rome were not as thoroughly dehumanized as was the case in chattel slave situations and enjoyed greater legal (and real) protections. It was possible, though not easy or likely, for a slave to become a free citizen. Voluntary manumission happened in the antebellum US but slaves working their way out was almost unheard of and the degree of coercion was far greater.

 

[scholar]

Definitely not. Even assuming feudalism is an economic concept (which is not, but I think you meant manioralism), slavery was well alive up to the Xth or XIth centuries in most regions (up to 10% in the late XIth century in England) and remained important enough on mediterranean basin during the Middle-Ages (even with a different place in the productive system, as specialised workers, except in agricultural production as sugar in Spain).

You are right, for some reason I was not remembering correctly when I typed that up. I thought the Colonus became the dominant economic mode in the region, for some reason.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

No but historians like Kenneth Pomeranz argue the massive amounts of liquid capital, coupled with all the specie and bullion looted by Spain and Portugal, that created the liquid wealth necessary for those investments in the first place.

And can Rome have such an accumulation of capital? I proposed reinforced trade with India and China without Parthian problems. Is this possible?

 

[LSCatilina]

You are right, for some reason I was not remembering correctly when I typed that up. I thought the Colonus became the dominant economic mode in the region, for some reason.

Coloni were more of a juridic criteria than a really relevent economical one, and became even less so eventually. Even in merovingian villae, you can sort out slaves (obviously, ones in mancipiae rather than domestics) and free or semi-free clientele, and they already began to look like a lot to each other giving room for servage and tenents.

(Interestingly, you have a similar evolution in Byzantium with the ergatia)

And in places like Visigothic Spain, you still have a large servile population even if, there as well, tendency went into semi-free clientele.

Basically, coloni, free peasant and slaves conditions began to merge but the process itself took time.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

This depends on both location and what your interpretation of the Roman state is. Carthage for its part was built around bourgeois mercantilism, and while that state was destroyed, the economic functions it performed merely reorientated elsewhere. For the most part, one could describe the ascent of a very small group of people who were no where near as rich or as powerful as the rich, but significantly better off than the vast majority of the population. We know almost nothing about them, most of modern scholarly analysis is retroactively inferring details through sociological and anthropological reinterpretation.

So to answer your question, you need to pick your interpretation from the various arguing academics sprawling across the study of antiquity. Granted there are far fewer examples of this, than there are to the contrary.

Now that's interesting. Judging by the abstract in the link, I think we could say that at the very least the Roman Empire, for at least part of her history, had the makings of a strong consumer class.

So why didn't this demand lead to the costs of labor rising to the extent that "mechanization" became economically viable? Well, a big part of the answer I think is fairly obvious -- slavery. Rome, at her height, simply had far too many unfree persons, covering too much of the empire, for the costs of inventing and developing new processes to be worth the investment. Of course, this explanation only goes so far -- when the Rome stopped growing this slave population (due to her borders becoming secure, etc), by this thinking, it might have been an opportunity for Rome to transition into a proto-capitalist economy (with subsequent Industrial Revolution), except OTL it transitioned instead to a proto-manorism. This brings us back to the ongoing conversation:

Basically, coloni, free peasant and slaves conditions began to merge but the process itself took time.

The question I have is, what was pushing this process? From the height of the Roman Empire, what needed to happen differently for slave and other unfree labor to decline allowing for the costs of labor to rise?

 

[LSCatilina]

The question I have is, what was pushing this process? From the height of the Roman Empire, what needed to happen differently for slave and other unfree labor to decline allowing for the costs of labor to rise?

I'm not sure the process could be bluntly copied, but IOTL you could see three factors.

- Christianism, witch itself wasn't incompatible with slavery, but created more limits over time : not enslaving Christians, freeing slaves as a caritable act (usually on wills)

- Less sources of slaves : when not only wars didn't carried new ones, or even trade, it became harder to renew them and their relative rarity made their situation more clement and more close of semi-free clientele.

- Different economic and productive priorities. Local consumption was already in Roman times more trusted to free or semi-free peasantry. With the decline of market production, gathering slaves became less interesting over time, while domestic slavery remained a thing (visigoths went to distinguish court and ecclesiastical slaves on this regard).
(Interestingly domestic slavey was renewed in Mediterranean basin later on the form of paid and/or specialized urban workers)

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

- Different economic and productive priorities. Local consumption was already in Roman times more trusted to free or semi-free peasantry. With the decline of market production, gathering slaves became less interesting over time...

While the other two help our cause of commerce, this one seems like an overall hindrance; is there a way for the decline of market production and rise of local consumption to be curbed or even prevented?

 

[LSCatilina]

While the other two help our cause of commerce, this one seems like an overall hindrance; is there a way for the decline of market production and rise of local consumption to be curbed or even prevented?

You have the issue of the inflation and that's gonna be hard to resolve : it was already on the run by the Ist century CE for various reasons ("hidden" tax, increased treasury needs, artificial monetary starvation, etc.). We're talking about an inflation up to 2% per year there.
And in the Third Century, it simply explodes with evaluation going from 5% to 10% (I'll spare you the most pessimist ones, but they involve a row of four zeros on a 200 years period).

Prices sky-rocket without a real compensation on monetary value and thesaurisation is widespread.

Maybe (but I don't know how, maybe an earlier Constantine or Diocletian reform?) a temperated and most of all better controlled devaluation could prevent the worst effects but for that you'd need a definitely stabler Empire. Get rid of the Third Century crisis as much you can, keeping in mind you still have to deal with a crisis no matter what (would it be only because of climatic changes and epidemics).

It would still imply a strong fiscal pressure, but maybe (someone more knowledgable than I am could answer that) you could save the silver-based coinage or at least have some form of bi-mettalism, as gold transaction aren't best fit for basic trade and exchanges.

The survival of a common political and economical sphere would help a lot to keep enough monetary and commercial stability, of course, so political survival of the Empire is mandatory. Of course, this will cost you (see the inflation part again and despair).
But the survival of productive and consumption structures would be worth it if you can pay it.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

<snip>

Yeah, I figured Rome was a tough case for the OP; that's why I prefer later PoDs like Dar al Islam or Sengoku Japan.

 

[LSCatilina]

Yeah, I figured Rome was a tough case for the OP; that's why I prefer later PoDs like Dar al Islam or Sengoku Japan.

The problem with Dar al Islam being the lack of coal deposits in the historical regions (safe low quality ones). I'm unsure how it would be doable directly with oil and if deposits are easily workable in a first wave of industrialisation.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The problem with Dar al Islam being the lack of coal deposits in the historical regions (safe low quality ones). I'm unsure how it would be doable directly with oil and if deposits are easily workable in a first wave of industrialisation.

I'm less concerned about that; even if the socio-economic revolution necessary begins in a region without resources, if successful it should spread soon enough to those that do. Plus there's no law that says industrialism has to start with coal.

 

[LSCatilina]

I'm less concerned about that; even if the socio-economic revolution necessary begins in a region without resources, if successful it should spread soon enough to those that do.

I think there's a more dialectic relationship, rather than a successive "tech/social tree" advance.

Diffusionism, on this regard, wouldn't work this automatically : after all many features of medieval Arabo-Islamic world weren't used quickly by their neighbours even when in direct contact. You need to develop an incitative on the region concerned that go further than "This cool kid is doing it".

Plus there's no law that says industrialism has to start with coal.

Coal specifically, no. But you still need enough energetic power to...reach some productive level. Hence my question on oil.

 

[riggerrob]

"Cottage industry" preceded the industrial revolution. Most cottage industries (knitting, weaving, broom-making, etc.) were done by small farmers during the off-season (long, cold winter nights). A merchant would buy wool and "job" the wool yarn out to farm wives, who would knit socks (by the hundreds) then turn them in for cash and more yarn.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Diffusionism, on this regard, wouldn't work this automatically : after all many features of medieval Arabo-Islamic world weren't used quickly by their neighbours even when in direct contact. You need to develop an incitative on the region concerned that go further than "This cool kid is doing it".

Sorry, I meant ideas can spread far more easily within the Islamic world; one Islamic society (eg Spain or Central Asia) could have an economic revolution first, spreading the relevant social ideas and economic practices to parts of Islam that have the necessary energy deposits (eg the Middle East).

Coal specifically, no. But you still need enough energetic power to...reach some productive level. Hence my question on oil.

Of course, my bad for not addressing it. My opinion on this is that if the energy demand (through increased mechanization) comes, supply will find a way -- if the industrializing society has access to oil but not coal, then petroleum technology will outpace coal tech; if enough whale oil can be secured, then that will be the next energy step. And though this may sound crazy, it may even be that an industry ready society could have gone fairly far without fossil or bio fuels, making earlier strides in renewables like solar thermal, etc.

 

[scholar]

If you want to spark an industrial revolution in the Roman Empire, it would probably occur in the rural provinces as a result of people trying to recreate old Rome with fewer available resources, fewer people, and far fewer slaves. It would not originate from the center, where some leaders employed far more men than they needed to because of the prestige and possible clients that could be won by doing so.

 

[jkay]

The biggest need was for a creative culture, how a Greek, Hero of Alexandria, did an alpha steam engine in the 1st century AD, but was after the Republic died unremedialey in total corrupt uncreativity, so it was too late to be help. After that the Empire was pretty static. It was so static that it came to lose battles to the adaptable like the Ottomans and horse warriors.

India could've done a steam engine, and not know, but it had its papers destroyed; we do know it was as creative as Greece and Italy. The same thing happened in China, we know, by 1the first unifier of China.

I'd add a need a scientific revolution as well. And both the classical Med and India had scientific revolutions.

Creativity as a revolution probably started with the Cretan Minoans. And others I know of include the Caliphate, Vikings, the Renaissance when Roman-descended culture resumed fast, and probably the democratic Mapuche of South America whom resisted the Spanish for centuries.

Coal seems like a red herring to me because easy oil's easier to get to than easy coal. And slaves just IMHO slows rather than stops, for the South and South Africa
were just slower to industrialize.

 

[Faeelin]

The biggest need was for a creative culture, how a Greek, Hero of Alexandria, did an alpha steam engine in the 1st century AD, but was after the Republic died unremedialey in total corrupt uncreativity, so it was too late to be help. After that the Empire was pretty static. It was so static that it came to lose battles to the adaptable like the Ottomans and horse warriors.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

 

[Tjakari]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

.....what?

 

[DominusNovus]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Scott, I'd have a few laughs at your expense for how articulate you are there...

but....

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

[LSCatilina]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

.....what?

Basically a long list of clichés.

- Hiero's "steam machine" was but a toy, a gadget used to demonstrate theories and not a proto-engeineering marvel that corrupt Romans neglected.

- Rome's total lack of adaptability as cause of its doom is quite conflicting with its really long lifespawn (if we're counting Byzantium as the poster did, we're talking of a millenia-long collapse. Also the multiple changes in military since the Ist century BCE (Late Republican general's armies, professional Augustean army, Diocletian armies, Byzantine, etc.) each one being vastly different from its counterparts as for organisation and tactics. Basically no.

- Creative "culture" being arbitrary selected along poster's preferences. The whole "apathy is death" when it comes to culture and technology have little sense historically.