Industrial Revolution in Rome?

Cornivus · Mar 24, 2006

There was this guy in the 1st century A.D., named Hero of Alexandria. He is famous for inventy many things, but is most famouse for inventing the aeolipile, a steam engine, used as a toy. What if he went a step furthur, far enough for an industrial revolution in Acncient Rome? The Romans could biuld trains and steam ships, all faster then previous ways to travel! The Revoulution changed the world in the 1800's, something new invented every month. Assumming the Romans would biuld trains, legions could be transported faster, it took 54 days to march from Rome to the English channel according to The Oxford Latin Course Part III second ed. I predict that The Barbarians would've been defeated, purhaps even the Parthian Empire would be conquered, and, the Roman economy being based on conquests, march through India before 500 years of the intro. of the steam engine. the Romans could respond to threats quicker then ever!

Derkum · Mar 24, 2006

Well, I must admit, there is most certainly precedent for your theory. Once the Americans began the widespread building of rail lines through the western frontier, the natives were quickly supressed.

The problem is, coal wasn't as readily available at the time and many times, it takes someone to look beyond that little tinker-toy train and say "What if..."

NapoleonXIV · Mar 24, 2006

One objection I've heard on this board is that you need steel, but that could be a chicken egg thing if you have gears and machinery.

A more serious objection is contained in what Augustus was supposed to have said to an inventor who brought him a way to draw back the awning over the Colosseum with a tenth the men. "What will I do with the rest?"

Still, this argument has never quite made sense to me. A corollary of it is that Rome and Greece didn't have an IR because they didn't want to be efficient because they had slaves and the slave had no motivation to improve efficiency. Well maybe the slave didn't but the owner certainly did, and then the slave might because the owner might reward him. Also, lots of Roman slaves were in fact scholars, teachers and clerks, not tradesmen or laborers. Most engineering was done by the Army in fact and skilled artisan work was done by...uh..skilled artisans.

Can anyone here state the "slavery blocked the IR argument" better? I've heard it a lot but noone has ever explained these parts to me.

DominusNovus · Mar 24, 2006

Cornivus said:
There was this guy in the 1st century A.D., named Hero of Alexandria. He is famous for inventy many things, but is most famouse for inventing the aeolipile, a steam engine, used as a toy. What if he went a step furthur, far enough for an industrial revolution in Acncient Rome? The Romans could biuld trains and steam ships, all faster then previous ways to travel! The Revoulution changed the world in the 1800's, something new invented every month. Assumming the Romans would biuld trains, legions could be transported faster, it took 54 days to march from Rome to the English channel according to The Oxford Latin Course Part III second ed. I predict that The Barbarians would've been defeated, purhaps even the Parthian Empire would be conquered, and, the Roman economy being based on conquests, march through India before 500 years of the intro. of the steam engine. the Romans could respond to threats quicker then ever!

Anyway, a few points. First of all, the aeoliopile was likely a demonstration device, not a toy. Heron, in addition to playing with steam, pneumatics, gears, automata, etc. also went on for quite a bit about experimental results, such as using an experiment to disprove the contemporary theory behind why a syphon works. He came much closer to a scientific method than an industrial revolution.

Second of all, the aeolipile was useless. Terrible torque, terrible seals, expelled water constantly, etc. Spun really fast though, and looked really cool. Plus, how would you do anything with it?

Third, the Industrial Revolution was more a function of population and economy than technology, both of which were far more advanced in Britain of the 19th century than in Rome of the 1st.

Fourth, the metallurgy of the Romans wasn't advanced enough to make steam power practical. And locomotives? Ugh. Steamships would work far better.

However, on the bright side. The Romans have relatively effecient pumps. Heron's own wind powered organ showed that he had the idea of transforming rotary motion into reciprocal motion. The other way around is more useful, though, when you want to use steam power for transportation.

So, an industrial revolution is a no go for the forseeable future. However, steamships were remotely possible (the romans did have a concept of paddlewheel ships).

DominusNovus · Mar 24, 2006

NapoleonXIV said:
Can anyone here state the "slavery blocked the IR argument" better?

It didn't. The primitive economy of the ancient world did. Slavery was just one facet of that economy, and cheap labor is usually a good thing for an economy (though that labor not providing major consumers isn't). Plus populations weren't high enough to create the demand for that much output. So, Rome would need higher populations and a more advanced economic model first. [shameless plug]I wonder if anyone's working a timeline where that happens?[/shameless plug]

And haven't we reached a relatively consensus that an industrial revolution is a pretty unlikely event anyway?

Syphon · Mar 25, 2006

DominusNovus said:
It didn't. The primitive economy of the ancient world did. Slavery was just one facet of that economy, and cheap labor is usually a good thing for an economy (though that labor not providing major consumers isn't). Plus populations weren't high enough to create the demand for that much output. So, Rome would need higher populations and a more advanced economic model first. [shameless plug]I wonder if anyone's working a timeline where that happens?[/shameless plug]

And haven't we reached a relatively consensus that an industrial revolution is a pretty unlikely event anyway?

You and me both Dominus have TL's of more advanced roman empire.

A simple walking beam steam engine is possible but to get anything else you need major interlectual investments.
My TL stalled when I couldn't find an adiquate way to introduce electricity.
which was needed for the discovery of metals that are needed for a more modern society.

As for coal Turkey and GB both have deposits that are very close to the surface to be exploited.

NapoleonXIV · Mar 25, 2006

Syphon said:
You and me both Dominus have TL's of more advanced roman empire.

A simple walking beam steam engine is possible but to get anything else you need major interlectual investments.
My TL stalled when I couldn't find an adiquate way to introduce electricity.
which was needed for the discovery of metals that are needed for a more modern society.

As for coal Turkey and GB both have deposits that are very close to the surface to be exploited.

Do you have compasses in your ships? If so, you can have sailors notice that the compasses move a little during lightning storms. After that, have them investigated for this. If you have Michael Faraday, make sure you have him formally educated, particularly in mathematics. In OTL the mathematical justification for Faraday's laws had to await James Maxwell and this may have delayed electrical development by several decades.

Othniel · Mar 25, 2006

A start might be the wider avaliblity of knoledge. I had a thread labeled Wine Press, Olive Press, Printing Press a while back that explored the possiblity of earlier bloc-type. Theroritcally the wider avaliblity of knoledge would enable people with ideas in mechanics to make their ideas more wide spread, and thus we might see more attempts at working modles. Rail is unlikely in the Mediterrian region because of the vast avabiltiy of ships, and poor contions to build into.. as well as some of the avablity of Trade from the East...

Faeelin · Mar 25, 2006

DominusNovus said:
Third, the Industrial Revolution was more a function of population and economy than technology, both of which were far more advanced in Britain of the 19th century than in Rome of the 1st.

Hmm. True, to an extent. I'd expect a Roman industrial

Fourth, the metallurgy of the Romans wasn't advanced enough to make steam power practical. And locomotives? Ugh. Steamships would work far better.

Hey, but the IR wasn't about steam engines. It awsn't even about cast iron. It was about massive gains in productivity outweighing the population growth.

So, an industrial revolution is a no go for the forseeable future. However, steamships were remotely possible (the romans did have a concept of paddlewheel ships).

Hmm. I'm not so sure it's that impossible. It'd be slower than the IR in 19th century Britain, but I think you could manage something like it.

Faeelin · Mar 25, 2006

Hmm.

We could probably get a Roman world in the throes of a scientific revolution, with a larger merchant class, joint-stock companies, banking, prodigious use of waterpower, canals (where practical; I don't think we can get up to 18th century Britain's level right away), and a large literary market.

Does this society have an industrial revolution?

If so, why not?

Earling · Mar 25, 2006

Something thats often forgotten. Even if Rome (or any other pre-industrial state) doesn't quite go through the motions nessasary for a full industrial revolution its going to go through some form of revolution due to the changing technology, economy and relative power of various classes.

The Mists Of Time · Mar 25, 2006

Because imperial type systems tend to stiffel freedom of thought, design, invention, my sense is you would have to have an Ancient Rome that had remained a republic with the two consuls of equal power elected to serve together of a one year term.

To have an industrial revolution you have to have freedom of thought, freedom to design and dream and make dreams come true. I just don't feel an Imperial Rome would have been as conducive to that as a Roman Republic would have.

Once Rome becomes Imperial Rome, I feel there is less chance to have an industrial revolution. I feel a Roman Republic would have been more conducive to an industrial revolution than an Imperial Rome.

I think a Roman Republic would have been better able to overcome any technological problems that might prevented an indestrual revolution, and a Republican Rome would have had more time and energy to devote to an industrial revolution.

A Republican Rome might not have grown as large as an Imperial Rome, but I feel a Roman Republic might have been longer lasting. A true democratic republic is more interested in its people and meeting their needs and the people feel more a part of that republic that they have a personal stake in it. An Imperial Rome was more interested in conquest and extending the empire and trying to satisfy people's needs with goods from an ever growing empire. The true republic is longer lasting because by making people feel that they are part of and have a stake in the whole system it can call on their personal loyalties more than an imperial empire.

That's why I feel a Roman industrial revolution would have required Rome to remain the Roman Republic more as it was politically before Julius Caesar and emperors and an Imperial Rome.

Max Sinister · Jul 17, 2006

*bump*

One important thing I want to mention, since the Roman steam engine pops up every few months:

Don't forget the Roman numeral system. It makes mathematics a nightmare.

Just compare this:

Code:

and this:

DCCXLIX * CLXXXV

How do you calculate that? I guess the Romans had multiplication tables, but it makes things much more difficult even then (underlined letters indicate that you have to multiply the value with 1000):
DCC * C = LXX
DCC * LXXX = LVI
DCC * V = IIID
XL * C = IV
XL * LXXX = IIICC
XL * V = CC
IX * C = CM
IX * LXXX = DCCXX
IX * V = XLV

Sum up:
LXX + LVI + IIID + IV + IIICC + CC + CM + DCCXX + XLV = CXXXVIIIDLXV

A Roman multiplication table would have 27 * 27 = 729 entries (27 = 3 * 9, because you need one symbol for each of 1-9, 10-90 and 100-900), compared to the 100 of our system. It gets even worse if you consider that in our 10x10 table the multiplication with 1 and 10 can be subsumed as "Mult with 1: same number; mult with 10: append a 0", so you only have to remember those two rules and the remaining 8 * 8 = 64 entries. In the Roman system, you still have the rule "mult with I returns same number", but that still leaves 26 * 26 = 676 entries to remember. So, Roman multiplication is ten times more difficult than ours.

And the lack of zero, negative and irrational numbers doesn't make things better. I'm not even sure how the Romans wrote fractures.

Without a good mathematical system, you can forget higher mathematics (calculus and such), and with that, all modern science.

That's why I don't wonder that the Romans had no scientific or industrial revolution.

Johnnyreb · Jul 17, 2006

Sad to say, I don't think steam trains would mean the longevity of a Roamn Republic. All those regional commanders would be able to rush their legions from Gaul to Rome to try their hand, real quick. There would be emperors, and probably a much faster turnover of these, as the next train from Spain or Dacia arrives.

Of course, this depends on the Italians running their trains on time.

jolo · Jul 17, 2006

Quite a few things were missing, but others could also have been invented in another order.

Romans for instance already had stock companies. Add a stock exchange, and things would become much more dynamic. That might lead to banking, banking might lead to a modern numerical system, which would improve both science and accounting.

An important step in our development was the printing press. A simpler version just using metal plates or the likes for a page should easily be possible, and should already have value for printing popular songs, religious themes, pictures, and so on. Rome was also big enough to have a sufficent market for a few printers.

The republic to empire switch really had desastrous consequences - moving the capital from the largest city in the western hemisphere to a much smaller city in Asia sure was a set back. Keeping prices down by enforcing price limits also was a big problem for economic development. Even more desastrous was the decision to allow people to only work in the trades of their parents. If it's not an urban myth, aluminum was apparently invented by a Roman - who was killed because the Roman Emperor believed the value of his silver coins would drop if people could make a silver-like metal from clay. And so on.

DominusNovus · Jul 17, 2006

jolo said:
The republic to empire switch really had desastrous consequences - moving the capital from the largest city in the western hemisphere to a much smaller city in Asia sure was a set back. Keeping prices down by enforcing price limits also was a big problem for economic development. Even more desastrous was the decision to allow people to only work in the trades of their parents. If it's not an urban myth, aluminum was apparently invented by a Roman - who was killed because the Roman Emperor believed the value of his silver coins would drop if people could make a silver-like metal from clay. And so on.

Well, the formation of an imperial monarchy had mixed results, good and bad.

Moving to Byzantium was mainly good, since the imperial administration already was conducted in the east, it was just a formality that Rome was the capital. Byzantium was ideally situated for administration, commerce, and defence. One of the best sites for a city in the world. Definately a positive in the long run. Could you imagine Rome holding out for another millenium like Byzantium did?

As for the occupation restrictions, that happened in the later empire.

The aluminum story is almost identical to the story about a guy who invented shatterproof glass like we have now, and was killed because the emperor (Tiberius, in this story) didn't want to hurt the glass making industry.

jolo · Jul 18, 2006

DominusNovus said:
Well, the formation of an imperial monarchy had mixed results, good and bad.

Moving to Byzantium was mainly good, since the imperial administration already was conducted in the east, it was just a formality that Rome was the capital. Byzantium was ideally situated for administration, commerce, and defence. One of the best sites for a city in the world. Definately a positive in the long run. Could you imagine Rome holding out for another millenium like Byzantium did?

As for the occupation restrictions, that happened in the later empire.

The aluminum story is almost identical to the story about a guy who invented shatterproof glass like we have now, and was killed because the emperor (Tiberius, in this story) didn't want to hurt the glass making industry.

I believe keeping the Administration and the government in Rome might have led just to that - the Roman Empire surviving another 1000 years or so. Also, I don't consider this ever shrinking Empire (with a few interruptions) a survival story - it's more like a small piece braking off and sinking a little slower.

Another problem imo is that the much more Asian population of Byzantium was way out of touch with Europe - thus unable to keep the Empire together. Rome, with its more even mixture of European and Mediterranean influences, was more likely to get along (one way or the other) with everyone - as it did.

Not to mention the size of the city, and the according potential (economy) and real (choice of talent) advantages - Byzantium did later grow to similar size, but Rome could also have grown some more.

Max Sinister · Jul 18, 2006

Only as long as they could grow enough food in the rest of the Empire. If said empire shrinks...

Wozza · Jul 18, 2006

jolo said:
I believe keeping the Administration and the government in Rome might have led just to that - the Roman Empire surviving another 1000 years or so. Also, I don't consider this ever shrinking Empire (with a few interruptions) a survival story - it's more like a small piece braking off and sinking a little slower.

Another problem imo is that the much more Asian population of Byzantium was way out of touch with Europe - thus unable to keep the Empire together. Rome, with its more even mixture of European and Mediterranean influences, was more likely to get along (one way or the other) with everyone - as it did.

Not to mention the size of the city, and the according potential (economy) and real (choice of talent) advantages - Byzantium did later grow to similar size, but Rome could also have grown some more.

The problems with this are legion.
The most obvious being that the Eastern Empire repeatedly regained territory, and outlasted most of its medieval rivals. Certainly it showed strong signs of prosperity into the 6th century.

The comment about the Asian population og Byzantium is laughable, it reflects modern concerns no Ancient reality. The cities of the East were Hellenised anyway.

Finally the assertions about the role of Rome do not add up as Rome was not even the Western capital, that role passed to cities such as Trier and Ravenna, with Rome remaining an economic and cultural centre until the end.

Max Sinister · Jul 18, 2006

But that made the difference: In the West, people spoke Latin; in the East, Greek.