Speculation: Lost Treasures of Alexandria and Baghdad

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?
 
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?

I'm also interested about this...

However, my personal opinion is that we have no idea. No idea o which books were there and lost.

If anyone had another opinion/knowledge, please share.
 
The hope was that people from the board might fill in the blanks themselves if no such evidence was available. Crude antibiotics, electroplating, and perhaps otherwise 16th-century-level mechanical engineering would be reasonable.
 
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.
 
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.

This.
We'll have a hell of lot more literature (hundreds of lost Greek theatre pieces and Arabic poetic collections, for example), philosophy (particularly stuff from outside the Aristotelian mainstream), history (a whole lot of it) and probably also logic (Stoic material?) and maths, but in terms of useable technology, there is probably not much more than what we already know.
That would be interesting anyway.
 

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.
 
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.

There are butterflies however. Some different texts surviving might make different traditions survive and challenge the historical dominance of the Platonized Aristotelian paradigm in ways that could conceivably lead to an earlier more empirically oriented approach*.
It is however by no means a guaranteed or even likely outcome, especially because it was the Aristotelian/Platonic dominance that led to the loss of texts too outside the party line, more than the other way round: works that have made it are largely the ones that were influential, and therefore copied in larger numbers.
But yes, better advanced mathematics would be very good.

* I am thinking about a Medieval philosophy where Stoic and Epicurean ideas, particularly in logic and physics respectively, are taken more seriously. That could have interesting consequences.
 
Maps? Travel chronicles? Astronomical observations? Plays? Histories?

Records of flora, fauna, cookbooks, political treatises?

Now there's a speculative fiction project.
 

jahenders

Banned
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 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 :rolleyes:

One interesting example is the Byzantine Suda. I've heard somewhere that only a few parts of it survived because they were mentioned by later sources. Apparently it could have shed some light on very antique literary sources.

Speaking of Byzantium, and perhaps this escapes the scope of the thread (as OP said Alexandria and Baghdad), but perhaps if the Greek Fire's formula had been widely known after its invention in Western Europe, would it have a significant military impact before the coming of gunpowder weaponry?
 

jahenders

Banned
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?

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 :rolleyes:
 
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?

Is this a debate you genuinely want to have, or are you just making a point?
 
Top