cw1865
Trade with the East
Apparently there is an historical reference to Roman Senators bemoaning the flow of gold to the East. In Pliny's Historiae Naturae: "India, China and the Arabian peninsula take one hundred million sesterces from our empire per annum at a conservative estimate: that is what our luxuries and women cost us. For what percentage of these imports is intended for sacrifices to the gods or the spirits of the dead?"
They had access to and did utilize coal using it obviously to heat water.
I would postulate that the steam engine would've been invented to drain mines or to turn a mill that isn't running due to low water. If its invented with a purpose in mind, then its more likely to take hold.
But it is obviously the condition precedent.
But Britain DID....I see no true fundamental differences in human productive potential between Classical Antiquity and Renaissance Europe [Late Antiquity/Dark Ages you see a marked decrease in living standards in Western Europe]. With the exception of gunpowder and firearms, the Europeans are doing NOTHING in 1600 that the Romans weren't capable of.
I think so, at the end of the day, the Roman state had the burden of protecting its frontiers. Rome fails because at the end of the day it simply cannot sustain this burden. By industrializing and increasing output per worker, the burden of defense becomes much easier for a society to bear.
You can see this when comparing Medieval land schemes (Knight's fees) with modern defense budgets. The US defense budget is very large, but as a total percent of GDP in 2000 (prior to the current conflicts) was around 3% of GDP. Compare this to medieval England: "A free peasant paid for field work around the same period could expect around 3d per day, or a much as £3-4 in a year, meaning that a knight's fee was about three to five times more than a peasant's average income." This is an ENORMOUS burden on a society.
With respect to the Turks, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#19th_Century
In comparison to Britain and the other European powers, the Ottoman Empire was known obviously as the 'Sick Man' because their overall productive potential did not reach the heights that they did in Britain or even in France. But when compared to pre-industrial societies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Saudi_War
The Turks were actually quite formidable.
Britain conquers something like 25% of the world's surface based on the productive potential of an island. All the Romans need to do is to keep the barbarians on the other side of the Rhine and the Danube. The scale of that problem is MUCH smaller in comparison to the power that Britain was able to exert. Even if Rome is able to reduce its agricultural work force by 10% and they are better able to harness the productive potential of their urban areas, that alone would have a major impact on the Roman/Barbarian conflicts.
"By the end of Augustus' reign, the imperial army numbered some 250,000 men, equally split between legionaries and auxiliaries 25 legions and ca. 250 auxiliary regiments). The numbers grew to a peak of about 450,000 by 211"
Hrmm. Is there any evidence that the trade with India was so extensive? Rome did export some things; wine, art, etc. And it has plenty of silver lying around; Dacia, Bohemia, and Germany (where it didnt' get to it OTL).
Apparently there is an historical reference to Roman Senators bemoaning the flow of gold to the East. In Pliny's Historiae Naturae: "India, China and the Arabian peninsula take one hundred million sesterces from our empire per annum at a conservative estimate: that is what our luxuries and women cost us. For what percentage of these imports is intended for sacrifices to the gods or the spirits of the dead?"
The problem with the Roman Empire develop the stream engine are one; fuel.
They had access to and did utilize coal using it obviously to heat water.
They might invent the steam engine, but would their society do anything with it?
I would postulate that the steam engine would've been invented to drain mines or to turn a mill that isn't running due to low water. If its invented with a purpose in mind, then its more likely to take hold.
Invention per se isn't all that important.
But it is obviously the condition precedent.
Afaik, the Japanese never invented steam engines or the like, but that didn't stop them copying European ones after learning of their existence in the 19C. By contrast, Turkey was right next door to Europe but made next to no use of the innovations there.
But Britain DID....I see no true fundamental differences in human productive potential between Classical Antiquity and Renaissance Europe [Late Antiquity/Dark Ages you see a marked decrease in living standards in Western Europe]. With the exception of gunpowder and firearms, the Europeans are doing NOTHING in 1600 that the Romans weren't capable of.
Is there any reason to suppose that there were fewer Turkish geniuses than European ones? Given that Medieval Islam had led the world in chemistry, astronomy, metallurgy and much else besides, there seems no reason to think so. More likely, the geniuses existed but just found no "market" for their ideas. Similarly, Chinese were (and are) probably just as bright as Japs, but 19C China didn't do what 19C Japan did. Industrialisation just didn't suit the vested interests there. Would the vested interests in Rome have been any different?
I think so, at the end of the day, the Roman state had the burden of protecting its frontiers. Rome fails because at the end of the day it simply cannot sustain this burden. By industrializing and increasing output per worker, the burden of defense becomes much easier for a society to bear.
You can see this when comparing Medieval land schemes (Knight's fees) with modern defense budgets. The US defense budget is very large, but as a total percent of GDP in 2000 (prior to the current conflicts) was around 3% of GDP. Compare this to medieval England: "A free peasant paid for field work around the same period could expect around 3d per day, or a much as £3-4 in a year, meaning that a knight's fee was about three to five times more than a peasant's average income." This is an ENORMOUS burden on a society.
With respect to the Turks, please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#19th_Century
In comparison to Britain and the other European powers, the Ottoman Empire was known obviously as the 'Sick Man' because their overall productive potential did not reach the heights that they did in Britain or even in France. But when compared to pre-industrial societies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman–Saudi_War
The Turks were actually quite formidable.
Britain conquers something like 25% of the world's surface based on the productive potential of an island. All the Romans need to do is to keep the barbarians on the other side of the Rhine and the Danube. The scale of that problem is MUCH smaller in comparison to the power that Britain was able to exert. Even if Rome is able to reduce its agricultural work force by 10% and they are better able to harness the productive potential of their urban areas, that alone would have a major impact on the Roman/Barbarian conflicts.
"By the end of Augustus' reign, the imperial army numbered some 250,000 men, equally split between legionaries and auxiliaries 25 legions and ca. 250 auxiliary regiments). The numbers grew to a peak of about 450,000 by 211"
Last edited by a moderator: