can you think of any way for ancient Rome to reach our level of technology?

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.
 
Slave revolts, Greek scientists, Roman engineers, Celtic alchemists...combine that much you might get some rudimentary high tech. But to reach our level of science and technology you need the science to be plagiarizer and passed around.
With us it was from China, to India, to Europe, to America, to Japan.
 
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.
 
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.

Did they need to revolutionize production?

As in, would the benefits have been as significant as social disruption (and it is a legitimate dilemma - dealing with that from the perspective of keeping things from breaking down is a problem even if you're selflessly dedicated to Rome)
 
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.
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.

Also remember, the first engines were used for pumping water out of mines, so that would probably be the first use of the Roman engines as well.
 
But revolutionizing production? That causes social disruption, and that's something they seldom willingly abided.
My guess is that it was Romans who made technological revolution impossible.

What we know about revolutionizing production in Western Europe in OTL is that it needs as much competition as possible.
Including competition between the states. And competition within (inside) the state.

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.

So, technological revolution was possible before the united unified Roman Empire (Greek states or Carthage). Or after (which actually happened in OTL).
 
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.

Persia wasn't serious competition?
 
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:)
 
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:)

As who says? :confused:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
And there were the Germans, The Dacians, the Sarmataes and so long and so forth.
And all of them were worth some innovation to beat them.

But they were not competitors. They were enemies.

Sorry, my fault, I did not properly explain my thought.

What I mean by 'competitors' is some group of states, close to each other culturally, historically, linguistically. And these 'states-competitors' are actively interacting: fighting, invading, helping each other. Competing. And borrowing technologies.

Before Rome Empire such 'competitors' were hellenistic states and Carthage and some other states (including Rome itself).
When Rome conquered all this group - the system became static, lost momentum.

* Of course, these system of 'states-competitors' is only one condition (provision). But essential IMHO.
 
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.
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.

As far as we know (and I would stress we know a lot less than Moses Finley thought we did), the Roman Empire was slave-based only for a relatively short period of time and only ever in part of its territory. Slavery was universal and deeply rooted socially, but it seems not to have been as economically central as the writers of the first century BC suggest.

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, expecially when emperors intervene to shield influential losers such as Italian wine growers.

As to the question of Roman abolitionism, Caius, a very senior jurisconsult, is quoted in the Corpus Iuris Civilis Iustiniani to the effect that slavery is an institution of the common law of nations (ius gentium) that is contrary to natural law (ius naturale). Now, "natural law" does not mean the same thing to a Roman legal theorist that it does to post-Enlightenment lawyers, but the sentiment is clear. Roman abolitionism is thinkable. Not very probable, given the relatively rudimentary mass communication of Rome, but not impossible. The real problem, IMO, is that Rome is so many steps away from industrialisation. The necessarily intervening time for this development covers so much history that an industrialised "Rome" cannot remain recognisably "Roman". As a matter of fact, you could make a good case that we live in an industrialised Rome.
 
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

How would slavery work, is that what you're asking? Simple: work and we'll let you live. That's the way Rome usually operates, isn't it?

The point I was trying to make was the manpower issue. The Industrial Revolution started in Britain, which had a lower population than other European giants. I suppose it could be a coincidence, but both Russia and China had large pools of menials in the 19th Century, and they didn't immiediately industrialize. Rome had a large imperial population, which is why I suspect they would be slow to catch on.

Still, Industrial Rome would be interesting from an academic standpoint. They were already solid engineers, and modern construction crews could learn a thing or two about Roman concrete.
 
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).

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.
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.

The problem with these machines (which were also used in medieval mining) is that they can't cover great heights very well. Miners prefer to work in the horizontal as much as they can, and where they can, such machines are perfectly sufficient. Later on, German engineers also developed water-powered bucket chains to pump out deeper shafts. But at some point (a point from which Roman mining by and large was still very far away, but could have reached), an articicial power source to cover the depth you have is good.

Of course, it seems that by 300 AD, there were still many conveniently accessible natural resources around. The Romans could have kept going for a few centuries with the technology they had. And as steam engine really only makes sense in a coal mine (for the enormous amounts of fuel) in a wet country (because in much of the Mediterranean, your problem is dust).
 
the Roman Empire was slave-based only for a relatively short period of time and only ever in part of its territory.
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.

Actually there's evidence that private slave-owning enterprises used more 'sofisticated' technology than it was ordinary for that time.

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
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".

So, that was what stood in the way of technological development.

But what if was there say ten states-competitors instead of one great Roman empire?
My guess is in this ATL they had been just forced to use new technologies more willingly.

It is like in modern capitalism - you cannot throw away new technologies: you will go bankrupt soon by the nature of things.
Your competitors will outrun you...

89f2dd8ba708.jpg
 
Last edited:
A plague cutting down the population would give a decent chance for development, as per the Black Death.

But at what point? There were several devastating plagues in the mid-to-late Imperial period, including one which killed Marcus Aurelius. Then there was one during Justinian's reign that was, per capita, possibly even more devastating than the Black Death and effectively ended the re-conquest of Justinian and Belisarius of former Roman territory in the west.

If, somehow, you could come up with factors that drove exploitation of mechanical devices in medieval Europe--a relatively low population with no slavery--you might be in business.
 
Top