Why wasn't Roman technology better preserved by the Eastern Empire?

From your own article "On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making them its largest party" I'm not saying that their rise to power was the most democratic event ever it most certainly wasn't. But I still think it fits into the context of the thread as I doubt any "democracy" that we'd see in the Roman Empire, China, or any other ancient Empire would be any more fair than that of Weimar Germany.
Fair enough.
 
Elfwine, whoopsie! - sorry. Normally I double-check quote sources, but not that time, apparently.


Draco wrote:
From your own article "On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the Reichstag, making them its largest party" I'm not saying that their rise to power was the most democratic event ever it most certainly wasn't. But I still think it fits into the context of the thread as I doubt any "democracy" that we'd see in the Roman Empire, China, or any other ancient Empire would be any more fair than that of Weimar Germany.
...yes, because every democracy has been just like Weimar. Oh, wait, the Roman Empire WAS high-tech for centuries when it was the (unequal, but voting and pretty free) Republic.

Draco wrote:
Because primarily the simple fact is metallurgy was not advanced enough to produce steel with the characteristic needed to do the job.
That's not the slightest bit specific. I asked for specifics.

I'm STILL waiting for a real answer on Chinese Moon rockets.

I'm done talking with you on this subject. I must say, you seem awfully uninterested in being reasonable on this thread, especially as it's progressed.



Henriksson, you're really reviewing the man whom started steam engines and gas physics as "more someone who writes about inventions made by others in the past (sometimes he didn't seem to fully understand it) when Alexandria was more advanced, than someone who actually invents stuff."? I hate to see what you have to say about Newton and Einstein.

Between that and your agreement with Draco on his wrong democracy crank, i don't think you're being any more reasonable than he is, and am also done talking with you on this thread
 
Elfwine, whoopsie! - sorry. Normally I double-check quote sources, but not that time, apparently.

It happens. For what they're worth, I'm going to respond to this with my thoughts on the subject as someone who hopefully hasn't been put on The List yet.

...yes, because every democracy has been just like Weimar. Oh, wait, the Roman Empire WAS high-tech for centuries when it was the (unequal, but voting and pretty free) Republic.
And it remained "pretty high tech" under the Empire, up to and including the Byzantine era. The powers that surpassed it were...also monarchies, not really any less so when considering you count the aristocracy holding more than its share of wealth and power with monarchical issues.

As for Weimar, if your point is that republics are more likely to produce (for want of a better word) appropriate people, one has to look at all the times they haven't.

That's not the slightest bit specific. I asked for specifics.
How much more specific do you want than "metallurgy was not advanced enough to produce steel with the characteristics needed to do the job"? A list of the characteristics necessary?

I'm kind of puzzled here on how that's not specific enough for purposes of the discussion. We're not talking about How to Build a Steam Engine for Beginners, last time I checked.

Pity, I wouldn't mind taking that as a class.
 
How widely was concrete used outside Italy where the volcanic ingredients were common? Building in stone, brick and tile continued well into the Byzantine era. I don't the Byzantines lost too much that was importent in the way of technology.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
How widely was concrete used outside Italy where the volcanic ingredients were common? Building in stone, brick and tile continued well into the Byzantine era. I don't the Byzantines lost too much that was importent in the way of technology.

What happened is that the Byzantines DID preserve much of Roman technology that had survived the social and economic collapse of the Third Century Crisis well after the Empire in the West fell.

However, after the series of plagues and invasions that decimated the Byzantine population base during the 6th and 7th centuries, they simply didn't have the resources to support a lot of the activities that required and made use of the advanced technology inherited from Classical times. And, as with most complex technology, a lot of it was 'use it or lose it', where the lack of use sees all the supporting infrastructure (tools, artisan skills, etc etc) slowly disappears without the demand necessary to sustain it all.
 
Henriksson, you're really reviewing the man whom started steam engines and gas physics as "more someone who writes about inventions made by others in the past (sometimes he didn't seem to fully understand it) when Alexandria was more advanced, than someone who actually invents stuff."? I hate to see what you have to say about Newton and Einstein.
Well, yes? I don't believe he "started steam engines and gas physics", though the idea of a universal genius of "Antiquity" is admittedly a quite romantic notion. Regarding Isaac Newton, just take one thing which everyone thinks Newton was first with. Like, say, he was the founder of the theory of dispersion. Well, I feel the most effective way to dispel that notion is to leave the word to mr. Newton:

"[...]this Bow is made by Refraction of the Sun's Light in drops of falling Rain. This was understood by some of the Antients, and of late more fully discovered and explained by the Famous Antonius de Dominis Archbishop of Spatolo, in his book De Radiis Visûs & Lucis, published by his Friend Bartolus at Venice, in the year 1611, and written above twenty Years before. For he teaches there how the interior Bow is made in round Drops of Rain by two refractions of the Sun's Light, and one reflexions between them in each Drop of Water, and proves his Explications by Experiments. [...] The same Explication Des-Cartes hath pursued in his Meteors."
- Opticks, Isaac Newton, Book I, Part II, Prop. IX, page 126-127

As Lucio Russo explains:

"Six pages later comes a report of several of de Dominis' experiments with globes full of water, which today are usually attributed to Newton. We must conclude that, despite Newton's reservations, the modern theory of dispersion did not start with him or Descartes, but with the Dalmatian archbishop. Since his De radiis was written no later than 1590 - as we know from the preface, by the editor Giovanni Bartolo, to the book's first edition, of 1611 - his optical experiments must have been started around the same time, if not earlier, than Galileo's first experiments (1586). Thus de Dominis not only pioneered the modern theory of dispersion: it seems he must be regarded as one of the founders of the "experimental method" that, in the common opinion, is exclusive to modern science.

De Dominis' work, from the title onward, uses Hellenistic terminology: it talks of visual rays, which had been abolished by the Arabs back in the eleventh century. Even more tellingly, his explanation for the rainbow had already been given at the turn of the thirteenth century by Dietrich (Theodoric) of Freiberg and, apparently independently, by the Arabic writer Kamal al-Din al Farisi, both of whom described the same experiments with water globes reported by the Dominis."

Between that and your agreement with Draco on his wrong democracy crank, i don't think you're being any more reasonable than he is, and am also done talking with you on this thread
All I really did was disagree with how Hitler was elected in a truly democratic fashion, though I see how my position could be misinterpreted. Too bad you don't want to continue this discussion.
 
Jkay, the Hellenistic world of pompous kings called. It wants its reputation as the birthplace of science back.

You're pulling facts out of absolutely nowhere. The reason the Romans caused the stagnation of sciences was not because they became an empire. During the republic when they were subduing Sicily and the like they showed little interest in the weapons and mathematics of Archimedes. It has little to do with their system of government; indeed, it lies more in their interest in more practical things. The Romans were a fairly paranoid people and didn't have time to dillydally in science and mathematics. Mind you, a lot of the innovations of the Hellenistic world are overblown. The Romans didn't stop the industrial revolution or some bollocks. They simply looked to more practical devices, and we got some great roads and architecture, as well as concrete, out of that.

Really, what stopped Roman advancement was, I don't know, the whole spiel when the crisis of the third century came and so did barbarians. It really had nothing to do with whether they were some sort of democracy or not.
 
Last edited:
As I see it, technology can advance for three reasons- because of competition, because of futurism, or because you're stealing it from somebody else, or some combination thereof. Being the remnant of Rome discourages all of these, futurinm by giving a justification for being focused on the past, and competition and stealing by giving them the idea that they're already better then everybody else.
 
As I see it, technology can advance for three reasons- because of competition, because of futurism, or because you're stealing it from somebody else, or some combination thereof. Being the remnant of Rome discourages all of these, futurinm by giving a justification for being focused on the past, and competition and stealing by giving them the idea that they're already better then everybody else.

This is very true. Rome had no competition that came close nearer than Persia, and even then, Rome generally had the upper hand during its zenith. Unlike in Early Modern Europe or the Hellenistic world, no one was really on the level that Rome was on, and it didn't see any competition. Without that, there's really no point to invest in some technology that would have sounded outlandish at the time.

Basically, while the Hellenistic world was one of seeing who had the biggest siege engine/ship/whatever, and Early Modern Europe was one of 'If I don't get some better guns my neighbors will kill me' Rome had no challengers on the technological side of things.
 
As I see it, technology can advance for three reasons- because of competition, because of futurism, or because you're stealing it from somebody else, or some combination thereof. Being the remnant of Rome discourages all of these, futurinm by giving a justification for being focused on the past, and competition and stealing by giving them the idea that they're already better then everybody else.

Rome never had a problem with borrowing good ideas from elsewhere, though more so in the military field than elsewhere.

And focus on the past...the Empire changed too much over the years for that to be a problem.

ImmortalImpi: The ERE saw so much competition from Justinian onward that if anything, it died of an excess.
 
That's not the slightest bit specific. I asked for specifics.

There are two things necessary for a useful steam engine that immediately come to mind:

1) Pressure Vessel - by producing steam, you produce pressure, which you can use to do volumetric work which can then be translated into mechanical work. You need a cylinder to hold that pressure and to do so reliably over thousands of cycles. I don't think bronze castings would be up to the job.

More importantly:

2) Valves - you need to contain the steam while pressure builds up and then release it to do work. Impossible to build with the required fine tolerances before the invention of the micrometric screw. (17th or 18th century)
 
ImmortalImpi: The ERE saw so much competition from Justinian onward that if anything, it died of an excess.

Well, there's a thing called too much competition. When a state is thrashed around so much that it constantly loses infrastructure and has most of its treasury devoted entirely towards surviving, there's little room for technological advancement.
 
Well, there's a thing called too much competition. When a state is thrashed around so much that it constantly loses infrastructure and has most of its treasury devoted entirely towards surviving, there's little room for technological advancement.

This is true. I'm just pointing out that its not a shortage, since your statement was about Rome in its days of "we have no rivals", the other half has to be included to cover the ERE/Byzantine state specifically.
 
...yes, because every democracy has been just like Weimar. Oh, wait, the Roman Empire WAS high-tech for centuries when it was the (unequal, but voting and pretty free) Republic.
The Roman Empire was NEVER a truly democratic state its pure fantasy to think otherwise. And if you think for a second an entity during that time of the size of the Roman Empire could ever hope to be more democratic than say the failed Wiemar Republic your off in la-la land.

That's not the slightest bit specific. I asked for specifics.
What do you mean specifics I clearly stated that their steel manufacturing techniques were not up to snuff what more do you want just because you don't like the fact that steam power simply wasn't practical during this time period doesn't make it any less true.
I'm STILL waiting for a real answer on Chinese Moon rockets.
Again I've clearly stated that going from black-powdered rockets to launching a man to the moon requires several centuries of technological development and refinement. I've also clearly stated that the Tang dynasty and the Song Dynasty were in fact innovation friendly. To suppose a truely fair democratic state where the main electorate is illiterate farmers would pump more into R&D is crazy. Look at the Modern day USA where stem cell research space exploration and funding for alternative energy have all languished because of lack of public support.

I'm done talking with you on this subject. I must say, you seem awfully uninterested in being reasonable on this thread, especially as it's progressed.
If by reasonable you mean going along with pure fantasy then I'm sorry that I'm not more obliging. I would also point out that for all your bluster you really haven't provided any details or facts about your presumptions simply gotten pissy when no one agrees with you.



Between that and your agreement with Draco on his wrong democracy crank, i don't think you're being any more reasonable than he is, and am also done talking with you on this thread
LOL he only agreed with me on the fact in Wiemar Germany a state with a badly thought out government system and no strong tradition of democracy did in part allow Hitler some measure of power through democracy. He'd have to completely ignore reality to say anything else.
 
Last edited:
How come he was able to build even a prototype, then? Maybe you should read his wiki page, and about the aeleopile, at least, before coming to conclusions about his limitations.

And, why couldn't a China with a better constitution have made space or even Moon rockets well before the West did? After all, they started earlier.


Elfwine, you've misunderstood me, I think. I believe it's systemic fail, not personal kingly antitech, and gave three reasons. Repeating: That's a third because less than half of people chosen by birth are good, a third because too much money centralizes to the king and other aristocrats, and a third because kings are paranoid of rivals arising, and so hard on the smart.

Alot later, in the late Empire, we find Roman elites having to make sure their ideas were seen as old, rather than new, to have them accepted. But, most of the Caesers weren't like that, so the worst troubles had already appeared before the cultural anti-inovation showed.

Hi. I know there's been an argument here, but I wanted to clarify two things--1, that the aeoliphile really didn't work, techwise. Much like all of Heron's other admittedly cool inventions, it was really nothing but a toy for Roman aristocrats to play with. 2--It's only years of the pro-democratic propaganda that we receive in the West (including Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, S Korea) that's got you thinking that way. Don't get me wrong, I believe anarchocommunism--the most basic form of democracy--is the best way to organize society. But however you may hate authoritarian regimes, you cannot deny that those that want to advance science far more than any democrats ever could. Look at the USSR. Look at the PRC. Look at the Nazis, hell, look at the pre-1900 USA (which uncannily represented the Roman Republic in some ways). They all violently shoved or are shoving the boundaries of science forward, in the name of their sick aims. They did get results.
 
For the record, I don't think you *can* use gunpowder for moon-rockets simply because it's not powerful enough. Well in theory you could, but it would require enough gunpowder to wipe most of Sichuan off the map, which is not likely to fly given the odds of a large rocket being closer to a giant bomb.
Back on topic: Another thing that probably hurt perserving technology was the use of papyrus, which is notably fragile and ensured that any manuscripts that weren't in Egypt somewhere would be lost quite quickly if things went to pot. If parchment were cheaper or if someone invented paper earlier, it might allow more manuscripts to be made and survive. Although this doesn't really help with a lot of things that were never written down, it at least would mean that manuscripts can survive and/or pass into the hands of people who can use them.
 
For the record, I don't think you *can* use gunpowder for moon-rockets simply because it's not powerful enough. Well in theory you could, but it would require enough gunpowder to wipe most of Sichuan off the map, which is not likely to fly given the odds of a large rocket being closer to a giant bomb.
Even in theory its impossible as the weight to thrust ratio simply isn't there which is kind of the point I was aiming for with the analogy as the leap from aeoliphile to practical steam engine while not quite as severe of a leap as black powder rockets to moon rockets I was hoping it was sufficient enough to get the point I was trying to make across.
Back on topic: Another thing that probably hurt perserving technology was the use of papyrus, which is notably fragile and ensured that any manuscripts that weren't in Egypt somewhere would be lost quite quickly if things went to pot. If parchment were cheaper or if someone invented paper earlier, it might allow more manuscripts to be made and survive. Although this doesn't really help with a lot of things that were never written down, it at least would mean that manuscripts can survive and/or pass into the hands of people who can use them.
Paper would help some but being that a fair amount of the overall technological know how was held by at best semi-literate craftsmen who tended to guard their craft secrets pretty jealously it wouldn't be as much of a boon as one would like.
 
For the record, I don't think you *can* use gunpowder for moon-rockets simply because it's not powerful enough. Well in theory you could, but it would require enough gunpowder to wipe most of Sichuan off the map, which is not likely to fly given the odds of a large rocket being closer to a giant bomb.

With lh2/lox 400-450 s isp you can get to orbit with a mass ratio of about 10(theoretically). Gunpowders about 80s, 1/5 as much, so a mass ratio of 100,000. At best.
 
Top