Industrial Revolution before gunpowder?
- Thread starter Scarecrow
- Start date
Technically yes, though probably not for long. Gunpowder is so simple that as soon as you have people systematically trying out mixtures of known chemicals to see what they will do, they'll get it. And without that mindset, you don't really get industrial.
I also suspect that the understanding of rocketry and guns helped in the development of steam power, so without gunpowder there would have to eother be a different source (more advanced hydraulics maybe?) or a different development (more water- and windpower, later steam power).
I also suspect that the understanding of rocketry and guns helped in the development of steam power, so without gunpowder there would have to eother be a different source (more advanced hydraulics maybe?) or a different development (more water- and windpower, later steam power).
The famous Aeolipile...
I petition the assembled to vote Hero of Alexandria the Before-1900 forum's honourary Sealion. All in favour say aye!
Thande
Donor
Thirded...
I am somewhat guilty of doing the same with Cugnot, whose devices were probably too inefficient to be much good in practice, but since when has hypocrisy stopped anything?
Thirded...
I am somewhat guilty of doing the same with Cugnot, whose devices were probably too inefficient to be much good in practice, but since when has hypocrisy stopped anything?
At least Cugnot was making devices that had a practical purpose rather then simple spinning toys.
Nay! The aeolipile was the predecessor to the steam turbine (actually it was a reaction turbine), which has replaced Watt's piston engine in most applications, especially electric generators...
Now if Hero could have just designed a ship that used a steam turbine to drive a propeller based on Archimedes' screw...
Ok, so really I just wanted to be a naysayer, because I've never been one before.
Now if Hero could have just designed a ship that used a steam turbine to drive a propeller based on Archimedes' screw...
Ok, so really I just wanted to be a naysayer, because I've never been one before.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
I second this.
One minute you're saying that you're bound to just "stumble" on putting together, sulphur, glowing stuff from dungheaps and carbon in just the right proportions, mixing them with water, drying them somehow without setting them afire and then, if you're not blown up, you've got a rocket. OTOH somebody makes a device that rotates faster and harder than anything anyone's ever seen and nobody will ever think to make any application.
Everybody makes a great fetish about high pressure boilers and the ancient's lack of metals knowledge, but the first steam engines in OTL were low pressure types. One might easily bring about the other.
Max Sinister
Banned
Not that easily. IOTL it took several decades to go on, and they valued science and technics higher than the Romans, and had a lot of experience with better tools (made for building sugar mills, among other purposes).
Gunpowder is also tricky. The three components have to be mixed with the right percentages.
Gunpowder is also tricky. The three components have to be mixed with the right percentages.
Um, yeah. You don't *need* gunpowder to have a society industrialise. Gunpowders good for killing people and exploding things, but there are alternatives.
If you're looking to posit an earlier/different/alternative industrialisation you might want to look at the social and economic factors. Like 'could you have an industrial revolution without capitalists' or 'could you have an industrial revolution without having first crowded out open field farming'.
As you might expect there is a huge body of work on this, which might inspire given some closer examination. Like 'could the 12th C renaissance have led to an earlier anticipation of the industrial revolution'.
As for the aeliophile, I like Toynbee's alt-his treatment of it. I'm not sure what 'honorary Sealion' entails, but it seems to be some sort of a left handed compliment.
Croesus
Not so sure about China.
If anything, it was too prosperous for its own good. Since the industrial meathods it altready had (i.e. human/animal powered) could make everything that it needed, there was no need for an industrial revolution.
One could make a similar argument for India, too.
The problem with the others is:
a) lack of population / population density too low
b) lack of way to support a larger population (Malthusian cycle)
c) improper economic situation
One really needs a mercantilist/commercial capitalist-style economy before an industrial revolution, since a land-based (physiocratic) economy emphasises agricultural-based instead of trade-based wealth.
Gunpowder in its advanced form is the outcome of a long development. But look at the things that came out of systematic tinkering with chemicals in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth century and tell me that the basic mix would go undiscovered. As soon as you have a culture that values innovation and discovery and systematises its pursuit, certain discoveries will be made in short order, and I can not see an industrial revolution without such a culture. Now, whether we get rockets or guns from this is another question, but someone is bound to find a powder that goes flash when lit interesting.
As to the Aeolipile - what purpose could it be put to? It is a nifty machine that goes round and round, and when you hook something up to it, it stops. I cabn't think of anything that this could usefully do at the technological stage of Principate Rome.
THe principles are rarther different. HOwever, I could see a low-pressure condenser steam engine be developed in a world that has no guns or rocklets, even if it might take people a bit longer to come up with the idea of using pressure differentials for technical purposes. You'd still need a purpose to use it for - I'd argue that deep mining had more to do with its emergence than scientific gas theory.
The Romans may not have valued labor saving devices, but if it could solve an engineering problem, they'd have been all over it. Or, if it could provide entertainment, they'd be all over it. Hero used steam power to open doors and what not... if he could have thought of or gotten a contract for something cooler and more entertaining, maybe more people would have witnessed the steam turbine itself in action, and somebody could have found a use for it that would actually be cheaper than the cheapest slave labor.
Faeelin
Banned
So give the Romans the tool kit.
How do you say East India Company in Latin?
Also, I'm very dubious about the utility of sugar mills in fomenting an industrial revolution. I mean, do we consider the Arsenal in Venice to be the origin of Skunkworks?
(What I'm trying to say is that just because aspects of the factory system in Europe were present in sugar mills, does not mean that sugar mills are a necessary or even useful prerequisite to industrialization).
Using explosives for mining was a relativley late invention so I say yes. Or invention, they knew the possibility but i guess it was to expensive. They just heated the rocks and then cooled it with water so the rocks cracked.
And I say no to the Hero motion. There could be only one Sealion.
And I say no to the Hero motion. There could be only one Sealion.
Max Sinister
Banned
It's a necessary step in between. In hindsight, it's easy to say "if only the Romans had invented the steam engine". Did they have thermometers, or valves? What was the most complicated machine they had?
There's more difference between Heron's machines and a 19th century factory than between Venice's arsenal and Skunkworks.
Agreed re. a culture that values innovation leads towards industrialisation. I think that's a key phrase as it implies an investment climate and an urge to improve returns.
The example of the sugar mills is valid. The owner of the mill has invested for a purpose and want's a return. He prefers an increasing return to a static one. He invests further seeking more efficiency in his plant and technology affords a cost effective means to do so. Mills by themselves won't do it, but the mill will be part of a technological cluster, and that is what will deliver industrialisation.
The Aeliophile is an enticing idea, but is a red herring for the purposes of investigating alternative industrialisation scenarios. It would form part of an industrialising Rome scenario but would not be the most significant part. It's a technological innovation but must be part of a wider social-economic context. The additional Roman tool-kit would be quite substantial.
Croesus