It have really few chances to be ever widespread in Romania : its use was mainly based on the lack of manpower in Northern Gaul and to compensate it (while ruining part of the harvest, specifically hay)Add in the Galic reaper and grain production is less labour intensive.
Heavy plough already existed Late Antiquity Germania, IOTL. Arguing that it would change the face of Germania, when it not much did historically (arguably in later period) seems awfully speculative and optimist.
As for urbanisation exemple, it seems really wild tought : its absence never prevented southern Germany to be as structured as Gaul around urban/tribal entities, and its existence didn't made western Middle-Ages any more urbanized.
As for Roman use : many mediterranean soils aren't really adapted to it in first place : even with the heavy plough being widespread, it wasn't that much used there. It's basically why it didn't get more used in Europe while we know, as a quasi-certainty, that Germans knew about it.
And knowing that latifundiae agriculture was essentially based on Roman/Mediterranean features (remember that climatic context meant a greater geographical expension of the latter) didn't went well with a more "North European" take : during the High Empire, the great domains were the norm, having an extensive production that didn't required much mechanisation.
Medieval Religion and Technology, as others books, point that heavy plough was known and used (if not widely) in parts of north-western Romania (as Rhineland or Britain).Everything I've ever read suggests that the Heavy Plow was only widespread by 900 AD
You had much more than "a few guys knowing about it". It's just that it didn't fit the roman agricultural model, but was certainly used in non-Mediterranean features.I've seen mentions that a few farmers using it in Britannia, but nothing widespread - I think it would be fair to say that we're talking about a widespread introduction here, rather than a few guys knowing about it.
Not really. In the Ist century, you had a tendency to get more tied with cities, which served as important political, administrative and cultural centers. It doesn't change, however, the huge rural population of, say, Gaul, Britain, Germania, Ratia, etc. where guesstimate around 75/90% points no "trend" in urbanisation.At this point in history, urbanisation was the trend - populations tended to urbanise
Medieval Religion and Technology, as others books, point that heavy plough was known and used (if not widely) in parts of north-western Romania (as Rhineland or Britain).
Heavy plow seems to have been reinforced more or less slowly in Britain or Northern Gaul (and of course absent of soils that weren't convenient for its use) but as long it didn't fit with an agricultural model, on an intensive use of the soil rather than extensive, it simply wouldn't get widespread.
Not really. In the Ist century, you had a tendency to get more tied with cities, which served as important political, administrative and cultural centers. It doesn't change, however, the huge rural population of, say, Gaul, Britain, Germania, Ratia, etc. where guesstimate around 75/90% points no "trend" in urbanisation.
Also, more food means more innovation. The industrial revolution was made possible by increased crop production in England, which allowed people to focus on other careers.
So, chances are good that even more scientific and technological advances would be brought about.
Perhaps we need someone to push for an agricultural reform?
I find it hard to believe (perhaps it is the culture I was raised) that they wouldn't seek to get the most out of their land - have someone experiment, become wealthy, and then have people adopt a more intensive use of the land they already have.
Very slight then : many civitate didn't went more than 2000, with existing but few metropols.I may be splitting hairs here, but going from a widely disconnected rural environment to increased urban populations and links to them does count in a way to urbanisation - if only slight.
It would rather go as a more important production in Northern parts of the Empire, which would (as it was used IOTL) either go for exportation (inner or extern) or feeding armies.But I more was suggesting that there would be at least LARGER populations
Then again, heavy plough wasn't exactly fit Mediterranean soils. It's a geographic/geological feature, not something one could have changed by getting angry enough at. Giving this was the base of Roman economy, and was eventually getting a larger area than in Middle Ages due to climatic concerns (again, a horde of old men yelling at coulds isn't going to change much), any change would probably concern a really limited part of the Empire.
Giving that we're talking economical models (if you will as someone raised in its current culture, do you really think the current economical model is the best fit for everyone and everywhere on the planet, even for elites? It's about social/economical/cultural predominance there, and at this point, the source of it was in the Mediterranean basin), the motivation would probably mainly stuck with Northern Romania regions where heavy plough was already a thing.
I'll add that manorialism have not much to do with heavy plough, but to the lack of manpower and desintegration of latifundiae into semi-free explotation under villae dominations; and its subsequent political translation. It's why it happened as well in regions where heavy plough was absent, even during Middle-Ages.
(It's worth mentioning that allods, outside strict manorialism, were particularly present in Northern Europe as well)
As for "widely disconnected rural environment", it's simply going against basically everything we know about Gallic territory distribution and urbanism.
Saying that Romans just went into independent Gaul's shoes may be a good description of the situation, for rural (under many Gallo-Roman villa, there's a Gallic farm) as well than urban (when not a direct continuation of a Gallic oppida or town, roman towns creations were usually made as "successors" as Augustodonum, Aquae or Narbo), and whatever connection between then (most Romans roads basically covered old Gallic paths. It's telling that Caesar never had any transportation problem in this supposedly "widely disconnected rural environment").
It would rather go as a more important production in Northern parts of the Empire, which would (as it was used IOTL) either go for exportation (inner or extern) or feeding armies.
I really don't : it's just that these kind of stuff (heavy plough, horse collar and the infamous "stirrup controversy") keeps popping up, and that in order to answer something that would be pointed out as flatly wrong, I had to get interested or perish (metaphorically speaking).(Oh wait, because you know so freaking much)
Indeed, but it was more about Britain being not really fit either the latifundiae model, and with the absence of a Gallic-like develloped agricultural model, that could be directly integrated by Romans.Well, localised changes in agricultural and economic methods do happen - after all, British farmland wasn't suddenly converted into plantations because that was what was used elsewhere.
It's possible indeed, and at least partially was the case. You could see it being more widespread with an important crisis making the latifundar model less sustainable, but it wouldn't be that world shattering, more or an expedient until a more globalized crisis.I think it is perfectly reasonable (and apologies, I didn't think to be explicit) to say that the heavy plow would only be used in the northern areas
The direct imperial intervention into economics was less about micro-management than being sure that stuff gets gathered as they wanted so. "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice".and any Emperor that is half competent would probably be very interested
Or just, better fed population or armies. I think you're doing a bit too much reverse malthusianism, and maybe should point as because a population is better fed, it doesn't mean it explodes demographically.Well, then my point of larger populations isn't entirely false - just WHERE those populations would be.
I really don't : it's just that these kind of stuff (heavy plough, horse collar and the infamous "stirrup controversy") keeps popping up, and that in order to answer something that would be pointed out as flatly wrong, I had to get interested or perish (metaphorically speaking).
My goal isn't to make yourself feel as an idiot : if it's what you felt I was doing, apologizes : put the blame on my deep lack of tact.
Indeed, but it was more about Britain being not really fit either the latifundiae model, and with the absence of a Gallic-like develloped agricultural model, that could be directly integrated by Romans.
It's possible indeed, and at least partially was the case. You could see it being more widespread with an important crisis making the latifundar model less sustainable, but it wouldn't be that world shattering, more or an expedient until a more globalized crisis.
The direct imperial intervention into economics was less about micro-management than being sure that stuff gets gathered as they wanted so. "It doesn't matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice".
Not that Romans weren't interested on agro-economical development, at the contrary : but because the core of their territories, and the core of their productive and fiscal possibilities were tied to a Mediterranean-like production, you didn't have that of a focus for other models.
Or just, better fed population or armies. I think you're doing a bit too much reverse malthusianism, and maybe should point as because a population is better fed, it doesn't mean it explodes demographically.
Climatic difference and lesser structural development, mostly.I was more referencing the British Empire rather than the Roman in my example, but I'm not curious as to why it didn't really fit the latifundiae model.
I think something is missing, there.1) Wait, but Britain (wait a second, you've acknowledged different treatment in different areas
I'd think it would be less "using" the most expedient technique than letting populations continuing their job as they did so far. Romans were more or less conservative when it came to technological management (as in, using on a large scale technologies they knew, but not that thrilled about technological advance : even in military matters, as sieges they prefected, you didn't had much changes in spite of its direct use).2) But couldn't the Romans just use the most expedient technique in Germania? (Wait, why would they apply the niche technique in their assumptions about the value of a conquest?)
Pulling a Imperial Price List at the scale of an Empire isn't exactly what I'd call micro-management myself. The Price List was more of an attempt that largely failed, because of mercantile autonomy : basically, it was based on a larger small coinage production and salary staticity and as inflation followed quickly (merchants/producers not being too much fooled) and quick loss of pucrchase parity for people whom salary depended of the state...It isn't unheard of either, didn't Diocletian both institute serfdom to ensure he could keep track of people, but also had a Imperial Price List? (It is usually mentioned when calculating the cost of the Roman Suez Canal)
But the Roman Empire was decentralized : it's even a wonder it managed to to hold in one piece with a bureaucracy as limited as it was IOTL. The problem isn't cultural, but political : centers were in towns during Classical Roman Era, not in countryside; and they simply didn't have much ressources or political possibility to undergo provincial or regional changes.Probably a simplistic view of why decentralisation can be very effective.
Discounted? No. But you were talking there about really important countrysides with a huge population, and at least in the case of Britain, a huge rural specialized population.that it can be completely discounted.