one problem is that the Roman Empire was slaved based. "why advance when they have slaves that can do the work for cheaper". unless you make some kind of Roman Abolitionist movement its essentially impossible.
And yet they steadfastly refused to build larger iron bloomeries to make iron more efficiently, even though they had the technology and know how to do so. Adopting a military technology is one thing. But revolutionizing production? That causes social disruption, and that's something they seldom willingly abided.This is quite true. Romans derided their barbarian opponents but adopted their technology when needed. The Roman gladius was from Spain, many Roman helmets were made by metal workers in Gaul, and Romans copied cataphracts and bows from the Scythians and Parthians.
And yet they steadfastly refused to build larger iron bloomeries to make iron more efficiently, even though they had the technology and know how to do so. Adopting a military technology is one thing. But revolutionizing production? That causes social disruption, and that's something they seldom willingly abided.
True, but WI Marc Anthony hadn't been delayed, and had managed to save Caeser. Maybe we could be looking at a Newcomen style low-pressure engine (no advanced metallurgy required, just enough to make a pressure seal) at around the turn of the millennium.Roman conservatism tended to discourage or outright thwart development, whether in the arts, philosophy or science. And their conservatism continued to get stronger and stronger as time went on, and the atavistic tendencies in early Christianity only strengthened this.
You'd have to completely undo all of that to allow for any sort of continuing innovation under Rome.
My guess is that it was Romans who made technological revolution impossible.But revolutionizing production? That causes social disruption, and that's something they seldom willingly abided.
That is indispensable condition for any serious technological development outgrowing into technological revolution. The great Roman Empire did not have any serious competitors among its' neighbours.
And inside it was too dangerous to revolutionize technologies, as have already been mentioned in this thread.
Actually first it was Parthia, then Sassanian Persia.Persia wasn't serious competition?
Actually first it was Parthia, then Sassanian Persia.
But anyway - No, it was not.
As they say - one competitor is no competitor.
And Parthia/Persia never seriously threatened the existance of the Roman Empire. At least in OTL![]()
And there were the Germans, The Dacians, the Sarmataes and so long and so forth.And while the Parthian state may not have threatened the existence of Rome, it was certainly formidable enough that it would be worth some innovation to beat it more consistently, if such innovation would help do so.
Unless the slaves were also seen as a social standings; having machinery that doesn't tire, needs to be fed and doesn't have an opinion of its own (could be debatable if things break down often) or lessen the amount of slaves that a landowner needs to keep and manage, its a good incentive for advancement.one problem is that the Roman Empire was slaved based. "why advance when they have slaves that can do the work for cheaper". unless you make some kind of Roman Abolitionist movement its essentially impossible.
one problem is that the Roman Empire was slaved based. "why advance when they have slaves that can do the work for cheaper". unless you make some kind of Roman Abolitionist movement its essentially impossible.
But how would it work? The economy would not have the money to pay them instead would it? Slavery seems to have the advantage of effectively being a barter system (you work for me, you get somewhere to live and something to eat) whereas if they had to pay them it would go into the monetary economy...
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Well the first use of the steam engine was pumping water out of mines, so that would probably be enough to get at least the first few built (it would simply be inefficient to have lines of slaves bucketing the water out).
Because you wouldn't need to excavate huge volumes of earth to make room for water-wheels.They actually had quite an ingenious way of dealing with that problem already, using a series of tiered water wheels powered by slaves walking inside the wheels (kind of like the wheel in a mouse cage). One wheel would dump the water onto a higher level, where the next wheel would dump it onto the next, until it was removed from the mine. And all it took was one or two slaves per working shift, per mine level, to power it.
All in all, its hard to see how an early model steam engine is more efficient than that.
They actually had quite an ingenious way of dealing with that problem already, using a series of tiered water wheels powered by slaves walking inside the wheels (kind of like the wheel in a mouse cage). One wheel would dump the water onto a higher level, where the next wheel would dump it onto the next, until it was removed from the mine. And all it took was one or two slaves per working shift, per mine level, to power it.
All in all, its hard to see how an early model steam engine is more efficient than that.
That's it. And I am personally inclined to think that slavery has nothing to do with industrialisation. It did not get in the way at least.the Roman Empire was slave-based only for a relatively short period of time and only ever in part of its territory.
I don't remember exactly which emperor it was (Vespasian?) but he was proposed to use some new cranes for his Rome construction programme. This new invention was advertised to save a lot of human labour and money. The Caesar smirked and rejected this technological breakthrough. He said: "Let my poor people earn some living".Technology transfers on a large scale happened, and interregional (it is doing too much honour to the identity-creating properties of these entities to say interprovincial) competition is frequently in evidence
A plague cutting down the population would give a decent chance for development, as per the Black Death.