Roman technical innovations had the Roman Empire stayed whole well into the middle-ages

If the Roman empire didn't split into separate east and west and remained whole through the early middle-ages and beyond what kind of innovations would we have seen technical, military, agricultural assuming there was no western collapse?
 
Printing, firstly by block, then by moveable type. They wouldn't even need to develop modern paper at first, since I believe the higher grades of papyrus were serviceable for print. Coupled with the change in book format from scroll to codex, which was happening anyway, this could have a major effect on society:
  • in administration, both record keeping and contact with and between distant parts of the empire
  • development of 'newspapers' . The City of Rome already had notice boards on which were pinned reports of current events ('Acta Diurna') These would be extended, leading to printed sheets or papers which can be distributed or sold. At first a state activity, later perhaps taken up by rich individuals.
  • mass popular religions, both Christian sects and other cults, and philosophical schools, will use it to disseminate scriptures and polemics. Printing itself could help to normalise the texts of religious scriptures. Later I could see Christian monasteries becoming centres of the printing press.
 
The issue is that the Empire is just too big to be ruled on a single Emperor. Hence from circa 250 CE it is more typical to have an east-west separation. Far more significant (for Western Europe) is the connection between North Africa and Italy. This provides the main source of grain to Italy. Once North Africa falls to the Vandals the economy of the Western Empire collapses within a single lifetime. That said, I am not sure the continuation of the Empire in the west leads to explosive economic growth. For example, Heron of Alexandria developed an early steam engine but it was never put to any purpose. Empires seem to stifle growth. Instead economic growth typically occurred in relatively small polities (Italian city states, England, the Netherlands).
 
Just holding onto Roman concrete would be huge.
We actually know how to make Roman concrete today we just don’t use it because it’s more cost-effective to use concrete that needs to be replaced every few years rather than Roman concrete which could last for hundreds to thousands of years.
 
We actually know how to make Roman concrete today we just don’t use it because it’s more cost-effective to use concrete that needs to be replaced every few years rather than Roman concrete which could last for hundreds to thousands of years.
I'm not sure he's referencing the present era but instead the ~800 years between 500-1300 when concrete was basically never used and the ~300 years after that when concrete was slowly reintroduced.
 
We actually know how to make Roman concrete today we just don’t use it because it’s more cost-effective to use concrete that needs to be replaced every few years rather than Roman concrete which could last for hundreds to thousands of years.

I think it has to do more with the fact that Roman concrete is insufficiently strong for modern purposes... it is resillient, yes, and can last for thousands of years, but you definitely cannot build a skyscraper out of it.
 
IMHO one "problem" with the idea of more and better Roman technology if the Empire does not collapse is the lack of the scientific/experimental model. The use of this way of thinking was key to the rapid advances we saw after the 17th/18th centuries. Jackleg trail and error and a practical bent can produce results, and not having a lot of Roman techniques vanish with the fall of the Empire means you are slowly building on a better base. Another difficulty is math, replacing Roman numerals with Arabic ones allows for much better and faster arithmetic for starts.
 
Just holding onto Roman concrete would be huge.
The problem with this is that keeping the Empire togheter doesn't prevent the technology from being lost. Already by the 4th Century Roman concrete pretty much dissapears in its traditional form. While the Romans could make similar structures to the Pantheon, such as the Hagia Sophia, it didn't use Roman concrete.

Overall, I think with a single Roman Empire surviving well into the Middle Ages technology would progress more slowly, atleast in Europe. Rome was never the most technologically innovative society, they were highly conservative overall. They made contributions to engineering, infrastructure and civics, but overall their legacy is somewhat hit-or-miss.

Just look at Roman shipbuilding technology for example. The Romans had a dominant hold on the Mediterranean, so they thus had no real reason to want innovation. Roman ships in the 6th Century are pretty much identical to Roman ships in the 1st Century. When you have a single dominant Empire, with an economic and cultural stranglehold on a scale like Rome, there is little need for competition. Why would you want the most advanced weapons for example, when you can crush all your enemies by sheer numbers or economic might alone?

Rome wouldn't stagnate technologically, but I think they would "progress" at a much slower rate than Europe/the Middle East IOTL.
 

Marc

Donor
I think that technological conservatism was largely the norm in the Eurasia ecumene. There are sound reasons why the expression, "If it ain't broke don't fix it", was considered a truth in the overwhelmingly agricultural societies of the past; the risk is obvious, failure can lead to starvation. More urban cultures have the luxury of playing around with technology, but it does tend to be at the margins of utility. The discovery of how to produce silk for example, is a very good and profitable thing, but it doesn't have game changing consequences - for good or ill.
 
I think it has to do more with the fact that Roman concrete is insufficiently strong for modern purposes... it is resillient, yes, and can last for thousands of years, but you definitely cannot build a skyscraper out of it.
The other question is how many Roman concrete structures failed within a few years or decades because of the inherent variability of building with natural materials without any understanding of how they actually interacted. Just because there are thousand-year old wooden buildings in existence it does not mean all wooden buildings are capable of lasting a thousand years....
 
I'd assume, under a stable empire, elements that can only be done as massive projects of huge empires (massively huge walls, enormous roads/canal networks, super sized ships, and so on), or which are necessary to finance large empires (paper money and debt, once they get it?), or which involve large markets (long distance trade and luxury goods refinements like better pottery or textiles or finer vinegars, alcoholic beverages, wines and colatura/garum) would probably all be a little quicker.

Everything else wouldn't change too much, I'd guess - they wouldn't drastically use energy sources and mechanisms in a different way that hugely boosts economic productivity (the industrial revolution), or have an agricultural productivity revolution (Dutch Agricultural Revolution), or reach a scientific revolution more rapidly in any significant way.
 
I don't think that the presence of a big slave market would be so great for technology.
Agreed. Many of Rome's successes in city-building and public hygiene were not due to some sort of intelligence or reasoning that was not present in the Middle Ages, but because the Roman government had vast numbers of slaves at their disposal. Hordes of cheap/free labor are good up to a point, but it ends up stifling economic growth and innovation in the long run (China and India are good examples).
 
Top