Roman Industrial Revolution

Hmm I am thinking a worse Socii war, one that has a worse effect on the Italian and Latin country side. Heavy destruction of land could be the incentive Rome needs to move towards banking. Then along comes Lucius Cornelius Sulla, puts the constitution in order, for funs sake we can have Ceasar proscribe, and the we still have the problem of Pompey and Crassus destroying the Sullan constitution…

Very true, and throw in Spartacus's rebellion or some equivalent and we have mistrust of slaves and a shortage of manpower. We have huge amounts of capital in the form of the plunder taken from Asia during the Pontic wars, and of course the rest of the empire.
All we'd need is for someone to amend the Republic. I suggested Marius because he would be more likely to create a more equitable system and could balance the powers of the Senate and the people. Sulla it seems was too brutal in his methods- he had no power restraints and that ensured stability yet after his death it fell apart. If he'd changed the constitution so that he could be say Dictator for Life then we could have a Republican backlash and the restoration.
OR- Pompey et al murder Sulla, fight for awhile and then the winner (probably a Pompey/Crassus alliance) takes the spoils of war.
The point is that an IR requires a stable political system that represents the middle classes. the Roman Senate did not do this; the property requirements were too high. If, however, the entry requirements were say a certain amount of capital tied up in bonds, cash, property, merchandise etc. then we'd see a far more mercantalist Rome.
 
Guys, you aren't going to be able to get the steam revolution of our time in ancient Rome. It's not possible. They didn't have the materials science to get the machining tolerances tight enough to make those kinds of steam engines and, unfortunately, materials science is one of those things which advances at its own pace and can't really be sped up.

With a zero they're not going to get the sophisticated banking system necessary for real capitalistic finance. Without Arabic numerals they won't, either.

There are a shit ton of really good reasons Rome didn't industrialize IOTL. Some of them can be over-come. Most can not.
 
Very true, and throw in Spartacus's rebellion or some equivalent and we have mistrust of slaves and a shortage of manpower. We have huge amounts of capital in the form of the plunder taken from Asia during the Pontic wars, and of course the rest of the empire.
All we'd need is for someone to amend the Republic. I suggested Marius because he would be more likely to create a more equitable system and could balance the powers of the Senate and the people. Sulla it seems was too brutal in his methods- he had no power restraints and that ensured stability yet after his death it fell apart. If he'd changed the constitution so that he could be say Dictator for Life then we could have a Republican backlash and the restoration.
OR- Pompey et al murder Sulla, fight for awhile and then the winner (probably a Pompey/Crassus alliance) takes the spoils of war.
The point is that an IR requires a stable political system that represents the middle classes. the Roman Senate did not do this; the property requirements were too high. If, however, the entry requirements were say a certain amount of capital tied up in bonds, cash, property, merchandise etc. then we'd see a far more mercantalist Rome.

Hmm actually pre the sullan refeforms the power of law making was firmly vested in the Tribunes, not the sentat, remeber Marius gainde power via the Tribunes.

The Sullan constitution would have worked, but 2 of sulla 3 lieutenats, pompey and crassus, tore it appart, mostly iy seems as a way to make their marke.

Sulla was a dictator, not for life, but for as long as (he) it was need to restore the republic.

And Rome had sufferd manpower shortages, the capi centi army and scoii wars are becauss of this shortage.

And the the qualification for the sentat was money tide upp in land.
 
First you need an agricultural revolution (that's within Rome's reach),
Wasn't there already one of those in the Stone Age? :p
I think he's talking about the Northern European heavy plough/horse collar/three-field rotation agricultural revolution.

You are going to have to explain that one to me. How does explosion of mass industry != asthma and soot?
Water wheels, wind-mills. There was such an explosion somewhere around, IIRC, the 1500s. Treadmills and similar animal power has been used, but IMO not feasible for mass industrialisation.

Guys, you aren't going to be able to get the steam revolution of our time in ancient Rome. It's not possible. They didn't have the materials science to get the machining tolerances tight enough to make those kinds of steam engines and, unfortunately, materials science is one of those things which advances at its own pace and can't really be sped up.
I think we've been more or less off steam and on agriculture and economics since the last few posts on page 1. Anyway, i'll disagree that materials science can't be sped up. Make an environment that's more suitable to innovation and transmission of ideas and it can happen.
 
Well an agricultural and economic revolution would be very possible in the 1st century BC.
In agriculture we have large amount sof land being organised into large estates to export to Rome (in Egypt, N. Africa etc.) and also southern Italy being given over largely to latifunda (large farms usually owned by hge plutocrat landowners) if there was some problem with the Roman slave system then there could be something like enclosure in some areas (maybe Gaul and Spain) and estates starting to use more machinery etc. which could cause an agricultural revolution. Maybe someone like Pliny (not exactly him but someone similar) could discover four field crop rotation and then we've got massive increases in yields.
In the field of economics, arabic numerals were originally from India, so stronger ties with India (maybe fewer Parthian wars or more involvement in Egypt in the form of Red Sea trade) could cause the numbers to shift to Rome. They'd probably be very popular and by the 1st century AD we'd probably see an advanced baking system. This would mean Rome could raise more revenue and therefore be more stable and also mean the Emperors would need to be credit-worthy, thereby inposing some monetary restrictions on their power.
Once we have these, around 2nd or 3rd century AD industrialisation would be very likely, especially if Rome fragmented or there was some rival power to spark some sort of arms race (a la the Napoleonic wars) also- what would an industria lrevolution without gunpowder look like?
 
If we look to the preindustrial developments that preceded the IR, the following has been noted as being important, in no particular order:

1. A calculating system using zero's, improving math which is the basis of science and banking.

2. A monetary system based on rare metals, making wealth something one can accumulate, not another word for "how many peons/slaves/ how much land you own.

3. The printing press, to spread literacy. Literacy means a much faster spread of ideas and knowledge, which would lead to improved techniques in most areas.

4. Water power and wind mills. Not only do they provide a starting point for simple mechanics, they also provide power non-dependent of human/animal (and thereby agricultural) resources.

5. A parliamentary system, to promote the growth of a middle class. Without a just society, all of the above improvements would probably be suppressed in their infancy by some jealous mandarin/noble/jerk
-.-.-
These have all been mentioned, but how about gunpowder? The Romans knew of all the necessary components and only need a little luck to invent it. While its invention precedes the IR by several centuries, it would have to following benefits:

A. It would revolutionize warfare, which would be perceived as a change in a until then very static society. Do not underestimate the importance of the very concept "technological development", this is IOTL an early modern idea, until then almost unknown to most people. Seeing legions and cavalry shot down by bullets or blown apart by bombs would make anyone present wonder what other changes might be also be possible.

B. Guns would remove the benefits of having a standing army, instead probably leading to conscription which in would favor republicanism, and thereby promote the political power of the middle class.
 
If we look to the preindustrial developments that preceded the IR, the following has been noted as being important, in no particular order:

1. A calculating system using zero's, improving math which is the basis of science and banking.

2. A monetary system based on rare metals, making wealth something one can accumulate, not another word for "how many peons/slaves/ how much land you own.

3. The printing press, to spread literacy. Literacy means a much faster spread of ideas and knowledge, which would lead to improved techniques in most areas.

4. Water power and wind mills. Not only do they provide a starting point for simple mechanics, they also provide power non-dependent of human/animal (and thereby agricultural) resources.

5. A parliamentary system, to promote the growth of a middle class. Without a just society, all of the above improvements would probably be suppressed in their infancy by some jealous mandarin/noble/jerk
-.-.-
These have all been mentioned, but how about gunpowder? The Romans knew of all the necessary components and only need a little luck to invent it. While its invention precedes the IR by several centuries, it would have to following benefits:

A. It would revolutionize warfare, which would be perceived as a change in a until then very static society. Do not underestimate the importance of the very concept "technological development", this is IOTL an early modern idea, until then almost unknown to most people. Seeing legions and cavalry shot down by bullets or blown apart by bombs would make anyone present wonder what other changes might be also be possible.

B. Guns would remove the benefits of having a standing army, instead probably leading to conscription which in would favor republicanism, and thereby promote the political power of the middle class.

Ok, so taking all that on board; the Romans discover gunpowder, reform their army etc. this coupled with an agricultural revolution and other socioeconomic changes leads to an IR in about 300 AD
 

terence

Banned
Ok, so taking all that on board; the Romans discover gunpowder, reform their army etc. this coupled with an agricultural revolution and other socioeconomic changes leads to an IR in about 300 AD

I'm glad that someone eventually mentioned gunpowder. There could be no development of steam power without the metallurgical and physics of pressure and gases knowledge gained from 400 years of cannon making. One may note that Britain was in the forefront of steam development and was the pre-eminent manufacturer of iron, as opposed to bronze, cannon manufacture.
 
Nearly all of the technology mentioned had been invented by the time of the later Empire. Water wheels (the mines at Rip Tinto were pumped out by a series of slave powered water wheels) and grain had been ground by water powered technology, printing (Roman maps for example were printed by pressing non-movable type sets onto parchment or other materials)

I have never heard this about the maps. I don't suppose you have a cite for that? I'm curious.
 
Well, if we assume Rome follows the path of OTL's Eastern Empire weapons-tech speaking you could get *Greek Fire, which based on accounts of it's behavior when used may have used saltpeter and sulfur...GP could have popped up in an attempted refinement of the *Greek Fire recipe.
 
These have all been mentioned, but how about gunpowder? The Romans knew of all the necessary components and only need a little luck to invent it. While its invention precedes the IR by several centuries, it would have to following benefits:

A. It would revolutionize warfare, which would be perceived as a change in a until then very static society. Do not underestimate the importance of the very concept "technological development", this is IOTL an early modern idea, until then almost unknown to most people. Seeing legions and cavalry shot down by bullets or blown apart by bombs would make anyone present wonder what other changes might be also be possible.

B. Guns would remove the benefits of having a standing army, instead probably leading to conscription which in would favor republicanism, and thereby promote the political power of the middle class.
Gunpowder and guns have their own set of problems, though. How are they to be transported? Where will the necessary materials be collected for mass production? Why build guns when the average Legionnaire can scarcely afford his own equipment as it is?

Most importantly, where would they be used? IOTL, early bombards were great against huge stone fortifications because that's one of the few places where their massive inaccuracy wouldn't be an issue. How many Goths or Huns had late medieval castles? If they can't be used in the vast majority of battles and sieges, why develop them at all?
 
Gunpowder and guns have their own set of problems, though. How are they to be transported? Where will the necessary materials be collected for mass production? Why build guns when the average Legionnaire can scarcely afford his own equipment as it is?

Most importantly, where would they be used? IOTL, early bombards were great against huge stone fortifications because that's one of the few places where their massive inaccuracy wouldn't be an issue. How many Goths or Huns had late medieval castles? If they can't be used in the vast majority of battles and sieges, why develop them at all?

Well, IIRC the Chinese (also a central empire beset by nomadic barbarians) used fire-sticks (bamboo with a GP charge - forerunner to the gonne) as a defensive weapon at the Great Wall, so possibly something along those lines...

I'd still see Roman GP, if it's something they actually were to develop rather than learning of it from the Chinese, as developing in the navy as an offshoot of *Greek Fire.

Also, there's the potential for a scatter-shot weapon against massed infantry or cavalry...sort of the Grapeshot/Blunderbuss principle. Great way to stop a massed charge at close range or break up a formation.
 
Having done a bit of work on the subject my self:

The best bet for paper would be linen paper, maybe Fannius could make this as well as his papyri treatment. That would introduce linen paper around 130bc-150bc.
Now linen paper needs pulps, either water, or animal power could power the pulps.
The level of Roman literacy was fairly high, Mariuses captie censi army had at least 1of 8 literate. The 5 classes wear more or less literate. Now they only had velum/parchment and papyrus, and both those are expensive and hard to come bye.
Increase the source of paper and you will get an incentive for a printing press.
Not sure if we would get a removable type press.

For banking we need:
- To remove the idea of only land as business
- Have venture capitalism as a accepted way to gain dignitas
- Allowed the legal forming of banks, not just individuals
- Having done something to roman numeral would also be nice

I had a thread about Roman printing last year. It starts with what I think is a believable scenario. The discussion moved into lead poisoning and some of Rome's other internal problems. But here was the opening post:

POD is 121 AD. A fountain is under construction in Rome. A stone carver is doing a plaque. A plumber accidentally spills molten lead on to the carved stone. They lift the hardened lead off the stone and, because it is still hot, drop it face down on to a bed of damp sand.

They lift the lead off the sand and see the legible inscription left by the lead. The carver feels a Gutenberg-like flash of insight and cuts the lead into words and prints images in to the sand. Three senators walk by and see the accidental demonstration and recognize the technique can be used as a tool for communication. They take the pieces of lead to Emperor Hadrian.

Hadrian commissions jewelers to carve letters and words that can be pressed into the wax tablets in use at the time (no paper back then). Texts and messages could be quickly spread without the labor of manual copy. Early day kiosks spread news. School lessons are handed out faster. Libraries spring up.

It would be decades before Rome would feel the instability that followed the death of Marcus Aurelius. In the meantime, literacy could spread. Roman Latin becomes even more widespread and standardized. More literacy means more people available for invention.

I am no expert at Roman history. The challenge is to continue this scenario so Rome becomes too strong to fall, perhaps aided by a cultural/technological exchange with China in a future century. Effectively, China plus Rome equals Renaissance.
 
Speaking of Marcus Aurelius, the great philosopher-Emperor would probably be pretty pleased that he could cheaply crank out all his Meditations for the enjoyment of the masses.
 
Maybe someone like Pliny (not exactly him but someone similar) could discover four field crop rotation and then we've got massive increases in yields.

But four field crop rotation never caught on in the Mediterranean; the climate isn't suited for it.

Everyone assumes that an explosion of industry means that factories powered by coal (and thus the asthma and coal) are the only way to go, which is just false. Already in their heyday IOTL the Romans were making good use of water-power in some areas, but never really managed to properly combine that with their aqueduct civil engineering projects to make phenominal watermill plants. Windmills, too, could be more common-- besides water-pumping duties, IOTL later windmills also became power sources for sawmills, pulp and papermills, and many other early industrial businesses.

Well, there's Arles. And water mills were common enough to be mentioned in price edicts in the 4th century...

Banking, too, was needed to foster ambitious entrepeneurs who would be willing to front the money for all these endeavors. The Industrial Revolution was caused by and developed much more than just machines.

Basically if steel gets accidentally invented early, I would think technology would progress pretty quick.

Hrmm. How long did China have steel before its industrial revolution?

Some info on Roman banking, for the curious:

"Roman banking may have been largely monetized, but it also displays a distinct lack of sophistication in the use of money in comparison with Italy after the commercial revolution of the 13th century. In Medieval Italy it was possible to make payments by transfer between different banks, and both cheques and negotiable paper came into existence. Perhaps even more important was the bill of exchange, which which proved vital in the development of commercial exchange in Europe in the 13th century. "

So far, so good. But what about Rome?

"In the roman world, outside of Egypt, there are no traces of affiliation between banks in different places.... this means that, indefault of any clearing system, banks could not be used to transfer funds from one place to another. Perhaps even more important... there were no bills of exchange and no negotiable paper. Furthermore, cheques.... are unknown outside of Egypt."

Furthermore, "Even in Egypt cheques relied upon trust of the payee (there was no relevent legislation[1]) and there is no evidence that cheques could be endorsed so as to become negotiable. The vulnerability of banks, in which interest bearing deposits could be withdrawn on demand and partnerships were dissolved by the death or wish of one party, cannot have been conducive to the devleopment of complex procedures, or to the full use of such services as were offered."

"In the Roman world the possibility of moving funds without the physical transer of coin was confined to the elite, who could rely on friends with widespread interests, or to those who, like governors under the Republic, could make private use of the system for the transfer of tax revenues through publicani. Under the Principate there appears to be no evidence of private individuals taking advantage of the government's mechanism for the transfer of revenues or through the publicani."


The existence of the societas publicanorum
did not - to alarge extent - depend on the individuals involved; a
representative could act 'for the company;' ownership was fungible,
traded in the form of shares andd separated from the control of the
company."

"We also learn that the shares were traded. In his second speech
against Verres (1,55,143), Ccero implies the transferability of shares, when he quotes an exceptional restriction: Qui de L. Marcio M. Perperna censoribus redemerit... socium non admittito neve partem dato neve redimito, i.e. anyone who had been leasing under the censors L. Marcius and M. Perperna was not admitted to the current lease, neither as a partner, nor as a shareholder, nor should he be allowed to buy any shares later. His quote and the context of the case reveal that shares were often traded between participes after the contract had been assigned to a societas publicanorum.


What makes the partes look even more like modern shares - and is
additional evidence partes were not just loans with variable interest rate, as proposed by Duff45 - is the mention of variable "stock prices." In P. Vat 12,29 Cicero speaks of partes illo tempore carissimae, of 'shares that had a very high price at that time.' He implies that the value of the shares depends upon the success of the enterprise and was as such subject to fluctuations, just like today's stock market. In fact, the "stock-market jargon" in this and
similar quotes have led some scholars to believe that a "stock-market
life" existed in Rome [2].46'
 
Difficult to usher an industrial revolution into a slave based economy . Take the steam engine for example , its scientific background existing for maybe a century in Alexandria and it not being applied for a water pump to be used in irrigation (in Nile Egypt , of all places!)
 

Stephen

Banned
The Iron malbourd plow already existed in Gaul prior to conquest. 4 field crop rotation would make the Celts and Germanics more populous and powerful than the Latins. Even if it is developed post conquest it would soon make Gaul, Britain, and Germania to populous for Roman Legions to control.
 
Four field crop rotation, funny i'd never heard of that before. Don't y'all think you're jumping the gun a bit going straight from two-field to four? I mean, four-field is really only a refinement of three, whereas three-field was a huge jump from two-field.
 
Incidentally, everyone intersted in classical technology should read The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World . It sums up a lot of what we know nowadays about Roman tech, adn discusses, for instance, their extensive use of water power.
 
Top