Roman innovation.

[carlton_bach]

Did they have windmills?

Probably not, but then again, I would not be surprised if one turned up in the archeological evidence- Conventionally, windmills are considered a Central Asian invention and dated to sometime before 1000.

 

[Michael Busch]

Horse railroads (wagonways) seem interesting. What's the history of the flange? That seems necessary.

Also, I've read that the Romans weren't into the kind of invention we were, I mean, culturally speaking. They could innovate yes, but they didn't prize technological progress the way our civilization does so things might be quite a bit slower.

Third the horse railroad idea. The Romans may not have valued new toys, but they appreciated the importance of roads and transportation.

 

[Bill Cameron]

They are a step on the road...

Spike Torch,

No, they weren't. They were toys produced by Hero for competing temple priests in Alexandria to lure in worshippers and their money. They were gimmicks and tricks. They were seen as gimmicks and tricks by their own designer and not as machines doing useful work.

The Romans had trains already, all they need is to make a leap, it happened OTL, why not earlier?

Yeah, it happened in the OTL but it took over a century. When Watt added a condenser to Newcomen's hideously inefficient atmospheric engines, those devices had been in use for over sixty years and over another sixty years passed before the Rainhill Trials took place. It took all that time in a society much more advanced than Rome, in a society that was capitalist unlike Rome, and in a society with an idea of progress unlike Rome.

I agree with previous posters about the need for mathmatics...

Newcomen, Watt, and the others used far less math than people think.

... and blast furnaces, but why not?

Perhaps because Rome was a completely different society with a completely different worldview and completely different needs? The Romans are human, but they also aren't 21st Century Americans in togas either. They thought differently, saw the world differently, and perceived a much different role for themselves in that world.


Bill

 

[carlton_bach]

Carlton,

The Indians had the zero, and even the beginnings of calculus, but what they didn't have was engineering on the scale (or of the complexity) that the Romans had. The Romans were practical engineers, and were particularly talented in hydraulic engineering, which would have made the effective development of steam engines over time virtually certain, whereas the Indians never really pursued that branch of technical development.

As for the use of steam engines, pumping water out of mines (mentioned by one of the other posters) is precisely where it would begin, and the Romans did a VERY significant amount of mining (tin, silver, gold of course, etc.) where such an innovation would be very attractive. Calculus would have been critical here, as it would have given engineers the basis for designing (and scaling) new engines, something that simply wasn't feasible without it.

I agree that mining would be a good starting point, but I am not sure it would be doable nonetheless. A steam engine used to drain mineshafts would mean a large consumption of firewood, and a lot of the Mediterranean is not very rich in that. Coal or peat would bring down that cost factor, but it would still be costly, especially if it's a first generation machine.

As for smallholders, I believe that you might have missed my point. Steam engines would permit water pumping (irrigation anyone?), even primitive prime movers, something that smallholders would find fantastically valuable, yet would not offer similar benefits to the wealthy landowners, who were already heavily invested in slaves. Rail lines (a bit of a reach, to be sure) would have broken the monoply of the grain factors quite effectively, further enhancing the fortunes of the smallholders, and making possible long range transport of specialty crops and luxuries that could have also helped 'level the playing field'.

The capital investment for early steam engines was not excessive, and might have been lower still if metals were cheaper, which would have likely been an early effect of steam adoption by mines. This would have left such things within the reach of the smallholders, though in fairness, not without some barriers.

I think you are overestimting the wealth level of Roman samallholders. These are people who, at a time when the system was widely considered 'healthy' and functioning, could frequently not afford the cost of body armour, despite the fact that buying it was both socially desireable and a very relevant immediate benefit. According to Cato, a hundred iugera (about 60 acres) made a landed estate. The Romans never had a standardised sioze for settlement allotments, but there are indications that 5-10 acres was enough to be considered an established farmer. The surplus on that kind of land is not going to be enough to afford machinery. The owners of large (by Roman standards) estates of 60-120 acres, on the other hand, with processing and storage facilities, additional income from renting them, and access to credit, would be well placed to invest.

I doubt irrigation is a good use for steam power, though. The cost of fuel and maintenance is considerable, and the benefit marginal compared to whatz more conventional techniques will get you. Roman engineers preferred not to work with water under pressure if they could avoidf it - something we today consider strange but that makes perfect sense in a world of limited technical skill sets, expensive metals, and plentiful unskilled or semi-skilled labour.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Re the irrigation idea - it wouldn't seem that practical to have a large wood or coal fired steam engine powered irrigation project although if anyone can point me to an example of such from the early industrial era then I would be greatful

 

[Valdemar II]

A lack of trees?

Wasn't it that that forced the British to turn to coal and charcoal for smelting?

Yes it was that turned them toward coal for smelting and heating and everything you need fire for.

 

[Valdemar II]

Couple of things: the Printing Press may have been invented later, but the techniques needed to invent it were already around (IIRC). Furthermore, the printing press had an immediate impact on history, unlike gunpowder, which was around for several centuries before it became in anyway useful beyond entertainment.

To make the Printing Press useful you need large quantities of a cheap writing material, so you need to discover paper first.

And the age of knights would have ended with or without gunpowder, there were social causes behind it as well as military, and the crossbow was probably just as deadly as gunpowder.

I agree.

 

[f1b0nacc1]

Carlton,

I suspect that you are overstating the cost of a newcomb model steam engine, but then again, you make a very compelling argument that I may be overstating the fiscal reach of a smallholder. In fairness, I believe that I will concede the point to you (grin)...

With that said, I am still comfortable with the mining angle. Most of the sort of miniing that a steam engine would be best suited for (iron, silver, gold...) was largely concentrated in areas with coal deposits, as well as plentiful forests. Certainly firewood would be the best way to begin, but coal would be easy enough to 'slip in' to the process at a later date. As a side issue, this might also allow for the development of the technology a bit to bring down costs.

As for irrigation, it was attempted in the US and in Britain during the early steam era, though I will again concede that the costs might be a factor. Of course this could be overcome if the potential for whatever crop was under consideration was sufficient.

 

[MNP]

Probably not, but then again, I would not be surprised if one turned up in the archeological evidence- Conventionally, windmills are considered a Central Asian invention and dated to sometime before 1000.

Yes, either Persian or Afghan pick your poison. (I only mean the denizens of whichever country you don't pick will malign you.)