What three books or inventions/technologies lost from the Great Library and/or House of Wisdom do you think would have had the greatest impact on history?
We have a pretty good idea of the fuzzy edges of applied science at the time. THe thing is, it is unlikely that there were any ready-to-use technologies hiding in these shelves. Plenty of possibilities if the necessary R&D was done, but nothing you could just grab and run with.
I blame the traditional 'genius inventor' narrative of science history for that misconceptrion. Most often, the reason something doesn't get done is not that nobody knows about it, but that it is uneconomic, impractical, its benefits go unrealised or the information doesn't travel. So even if you carefully preserve the Museion and the House of Wisdom, without getting the information out to people who can use it (and know they can use it), it won't have much of an impact.
To be honest, among those the only one that looks like it could have a significant impact down the road is Archimedes. The canonical texts of the Bible, ancient philosophy anmd canonical literature were all created at the time the other works were accessible. Having them survive would be neat, but not particuilarly world-changing.
Higher math could be that if it got into the hands of someone who can put it to good use. There's a lot of stuff that had to be redeveloped independently by many scientists because they never knew someone else had taken the trouble.
I think detailed ancient histories would have the most lasting relevance. There might be some useful scientific tomes, but these would likely be knowledge that isn't widely spread, NOT earth-shattering discoveries.
I agree. It's interesting to note how many modern Historians specify that some historical events are known only because of the survival of a single excerpt in some en passant reference in a chronicle![]()
I recently read a book on ancient history and it amazed me how many times they said something like that, "we know this because it's indirectly referenced in a legend about the time." So, our 'history' is being divined from legend. I grant that there's often little alternative. However, it amazes me when the same document then says, "we can't accept the Bible as a historical reference because it's not an authoritative source" -- what's the difference between the two?