What POD to Have Early Industrialization in Roman Period?
- Thread starter Rhomaion1
- Start date
There is no obvious structural reason they can't. Ignoring that you've not demonstrated a Roman inability given the right PoD, the wealth disparities between the different provinces suggests that it could develop in the less advanced provinces.
Which is why, I have stated (repeatedly), that it'd need an agricultural revolution to have this work - you improve the agricultural production of the region, it starts to grow rapidly. No region of the Empire has a greater opportunity to do this than N.Gaul and Britainnia.
Am I saying it'll be there in 100AD? No. I'm simply stating that if there was an industrialisation, it would need improved food production techniques, AND greater transmission of knowledge, and for it to emerge in the more .. deprived areas of the Empire is more likely due to a greater potential for productivity increases. It'll likely take centuries between any introduction of improve agriculture, and any industrialisation - if in 100AD, it could take till 700AD - literal spitball numbers. I'm merely talking process.
Although, I'll have to mention, developing agricultural techniques for northern gaul and Britannia - apart from allowing the local societies to advance to the same level as Italy - there are also the Germanies next door. Effective agricultural practices would mean a larger tax base via a larger population that would facilitate eastward conquest.
Overall, isn't just about "How advanced a society is" - its about the character, the needs and resources at hand. The Romans have two of the earliest industrialised regions in their Empire, who, despite improved agriculture, are unlikely to surpass the rest of the Empire any time soon. They are peripheral - less so with an improving population, and that'll help - but they are the 'creche' of industrialisation in an Empire as large as the Roman one. Developments there, once demonstrated as superior, are more likely than not to be adopted elsewhere.
I agree 99% with you on this. I'd only argue that Italy and the Mediterranean would probably concentrate the earliest Roman industries because it would certainly have better wages, higher population density, better infrastructure and easies access to foreign markets. As I see it, the "Gallic part of the empire" would firstly serve as a third breadbasket for the Romans (alongside Africa and Egypt); only when this early Industrial Revolution shifts from the focus on textiles to the heavy industry we'll see rapid urbanization of the northern empire.
Oh, we aren't in vast disagreement then. I think you'd see some success, on a small scale in the 'Gallic Regions' - that is then adopted in the more affluent regions at large, for all the reasons you've given. Only once the North starts to catch up will it become comparable.
If Rome is able to survive to the Gupta Golden Age, perhaps those numerals would be spread to the port of Alexandria via trade with India. They're just so much better than Roman numerals that it should be enough for the adoption of "Indic numerals".
Faeelin
Banned
Sure! Florence, Lombardy, Antwerp... these are urban centers in a way the Roman west was missing them.
It's also odd people are continuing to talk about a population boom in the west, rather than a revolution from the Greek east.
longsword14
Banned
The West called them Arabic numerals, Arabs called them Persian, the Persians callled them Indian.
You would think using place holders instead of face would be obvious.
At least in my case - best potential for change is in the west - and as you've been stating - the more advanced east is less likely to adopt the changes (if your advancement theory is true) - if the balance of potential/ease of overcoming barriers is in the favour of the east, it'd happen in the east, but that entrenches Roman problems with the balance of power in the west vs the east. To me, it is less interesting than a big ol' shift. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy either way.
I'd love to see a sort of "Dieselpunk" ERE - using oil instead of coal. Sure it'd be nasty till they start to refine it, but if they can handle Greek Fire, inventing what is essentially a giant oil bbq should be possible. What obstacles would they need to overcome?
Or am I underestimating the coal resources of the East?
Would the Romans be able to introduce the Rotherham swing plough early, or were their iron-working techniques not up to it?
Something like the Jethro Tull seed drill would probably be within their grasp.
It depends on what you call Greek east. The most populated and urbanized areas in the East are the Levant and Egypt, which IMHO can't start a Industrial Revolution. These areas have a similar equilibrium also seen in China and India. ie. there's little incentive to innovation, since you can simply use the large population surplus in marginal lands to increase productivity.
Nonetheless, if you're thinking of Anatolia, it wasn't a developed area yet (if compared to the Levant, Greece and Egypt) and will certainly be a fundamental part of the Roman Industrial Revolution and form the urban industrialized core of the Empire alongside Italy. Still, the further integration and increased productivity of Gallia and Britannia would be an important factor to decrease militarization inside te empire and avoid trouble with Barbarians, which are the two main political problems of the Roman Empire.
Obviously, I was talking about innovations in the means of production. Why invest time and money to invent something that will do the job of an army of paupers who work for next to nothing?
And that's the likeliest factor working against Roman industrialization as a whole.
And as for the "develop the west" idea, why develop the west when the east is already quite wealthy?
Because I'm a provincial governor and it means I have more taxes to work with?