WI : Ancient Romans used "wooden-ox" type wheelbarrow?

I once read a timeline about Roman bicycles on this forum and realised that Romans hadn’t wheelbarrows.

The wooden ox (木牛流馬; lit. wooden ox and flowing horse) was a single-wheeled cart with two handles (i.e., a wheelbarrow) whose invention within China is sometimes credited to Zhuge Liang while he served Shu Han around the year 230 CE. The wooden ox purportedly allowed a single man to transport enough food to supply four others for up to three months, and this allowed for the feeding of large armies in the field. The basic device, however, appears to have been recorded centuries earlier in stone carvings dating from as early as 206 BCE.

Wheelbarrows in China came in two types. Prior types were universally front-wheeled wheelbarrow, similar to the western design. The more common type after the third century has a large, centrally mounted wheel with shafts pointing forward (so that it was pulled). With central-wheeled wheelbarrows, the weight of the burden is distributed equally between the wheel and the puller.

Such design enables them to hold large amounts of heavy baggage. By placing a large wheel in the middle of the vehicle instead of a smaller wheel in front, one could easily carry three to six times as much weight than if using a European wheelbarrow. In other words, when the load is 100 kg, the operator of a European wheelbarrow carries a load of 50 kg while the operator of a Chinese wheelbarrow carries nothing. He (or she) only has to push or pull, and steer.

The civilian version of this one-wheeled vehicle appeared around the time the extensive Ancient Chinese road infrastructure began to disintegrate. Instead of holding on to carts, wagons and wide paved roads, the Chinese turned their focus to a much more easily maintainable network of narrow paths designed for wheelbarrows. The Europeans, faced with similar problems at the time, did not adapt and subsequently lost the option of smooth land transportation for almost one thousand years.

4E7E09ED-C7AC-452B-84BF-F145968D9D36.jpeg


The Chinese wheelbarrow - which was also widely in use in present-day Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos - originally appeared in two basic variants. One was originally termed the "wooden ox" ("mu niu"), which had the shafts projecting in front (so that it was pulled), while the other was termed the "gliding horse" ("liu ma"), which has the shafts projecting behind (so that it was pushed). A combination of both types was also used, being pulled and pushed by two men. From these two basic types, many variations evolved. Later, the Chinese also used western-style wheelbarrows alongside their own design.

Big central-wheeled wheelbarrows were also is one of the common means of transporting people, especially Chinese women, and four, six and even eight may be seen riding together, propelled by a single wheelbarrow man.

This website is highly informative :
- https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/12/the-chinese-wheelbarrow.html
 
Last edited:
How easy is to balance such a wheelbarrow?

Easy enough for a Roman soldier to handle it, is my bet. That being said, I'm pretty sure that the limiting factors on Roman engineering and logistics were never in areas like this, so th I'm not sure what impact itllbhave.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
How easy is to balance such a wheelbarrow?

In OTL, people can literally run while handling these things (loaded), so while moving, it's obviously no problem. As for standing still: the picture indicates that it's easy to put a kickstand-like bit on it. Balancing the thing when standing still (and unattended) should be no problem, either.


Anyway, as to the question of the OP: such wheelbarrows could be a boon in the late stages of the Dominate (when the Empire was crumbling and the infrastructure was being increasingly neglected) and in the Middle Ages. They could be used in situations where carts, wagons etc. are unpractical (because of their size/width), and they are more effective means of transporting a lot of stuff than European wheelbarrows and other means of hand-carrying goods are.

I have my doubts about it having truly staggering consequences, but I can also think of obvious examples when OTL European baggage trains were (near-)impossible to move at any speed, and where such wheelbarrows would have been able to do the job more effectively. Overall, it would provide all of Europe with a minor, but (over time) cumulative logistics advantage. This would be in Europe's general favour. Since I assume everyone would have access to the (rather simple, once you've seen it) tech, I don't think it will give us any overall 'winners' compared to OTL. About the only specific changes are those instances where particular parties were disadvantaged in OTL because their logistics failed (and would not have if they'd had these wheelbarrows available).
 
In OTL, people can literally run while handling these things (loaded), so while moving, it's obviously no problem. As for standing still: the picture indicates that it's easy to put a kickstand-like bit on it. Balancing the thing when standing still (and unattended) should be no problem, either.


Anyway, as to the question of the OP: such wheelbarrows could be a boon in the late stages of the Dominate (when the Empire was crumbling and the infrastructure was being increasingly neglected) and in the Middle Ages. They could be used in situations where carts, wagons etc. are unpractical (because of their size/width), and they are more effective means of transporting a lot of stuff than European wheelbarrows and other means of hand-carrying goods are.

I have my doubts about it having truly staggering consequences, but I can also think of obvious examples when OTL European baggage trains were (near-)impossible to move at any speed, and where such wheelbarrows would have been able to do the job more effectively. Overall, it would provide all of Europe with a minor, but (over time) cumulative logistics advantage. This would be in Europe's general favour. Since I assume everyone would have access to the (rather simple, once you've seen it) tech, I don't think it will give us any overall 'winners' compared to OTL. About the only specific changes are those instances where particular parties were disadvantaged in OTL because their logistics failed (and would not have if they'd had these wheelbarrows available).
Where I can see this technology making the most difference in pre columbian america. Imagine aztecs and more importantly Incas with this. This could solve some of the infraestructure problems of the only continent of the world without pack animals.
 
Where I can see this technology making the most difference in pre columbian america. Imagine aztecs and more importantly Incas with this. This could solve some of the infraestructure problems of the only continent of the world without pack animals.
upload_2019-4-10_4-22-39.jpeg
 
Never mind the army, this would be a real boon for trade. The small tradewr or huckster wouldn't even need to own a donkey, he can simply pull or push his barrow laden with wares from place to place. One stage up, the small merchant doesn't need the expense of a donkey cart or ox wagon; he simply rides his donkey while his servant runs alongside pulling the barrow. (If he hasn't got a donkey he can ride on the barrow, with the servant pulling him as well as the goods.)

In any ATL about closer interaction between Rome and China, this is a Chinese innovation that should come west, alongside paper and silkworms - perhaps more valuable tha either of them.
 
Last edited:
In any ATL about closer interaction between Rome and China, this is a Chinese innovation that should come west, alongside paper and silkworms - perhaps more valuable tha either of them.
In what world would the Chinese willingly give up their monopoly on silk production?
 
Since I assume everyone would have access to the (rather simple, once you've seen it) tech, I don't think it will give us any overall 'winners' compared to OTL.
Well, IOTL the wheelbarrow was not used often in Western Europe until the late Middle Ages, and the wheelbarrow did not spread to Russia until the reign of Peter the Great.
 
Well, IOTL the wheelbarrow was not used often in Western Europe until the late Middle Ages, and the wheelbarrow did not spread to Russia until the reign of Peter the Great.
What? Russia why? It seems so weird to get such a tecnology so late for a country like russia. I mean is not like a basic wheelbarrow was something obscure in any of their neighbours.
 
What? Russia why? It seems so weird to get such a tecnology so late for a country like russia. I mean is not like a basic wheelbarrow was something obscure in any of their neighbours.
Entrenched serfdom and an endless amount of low quality arable land will do that. Agricultural and mechanical innovations of the Middle Ages, like the wheelbarrow, the three-field system, the mouldboard plough, and using horses instead of oxen, were just barely filtering into Russia into the 18th and 19th centuries.

Eastward diffusion of the technology was uneven and not especially fast: the wheelbarrow was still unknown in Russia and its neighbors as late as the reign of Peter the Great. The conscript laborers who dug millions of cubic yards of earth to create the city of St. Petersburg--with its extensive system of canals and the levees and embankments required to keep the city dry--carried dirt either in handbaskets or the fronts of their long, tunic-like shirts. On the occasion of Peter's first visit to England, the young tsar and his traveling companions found a wheelbarrow in the garden of the house where they lodged; not knowing its purpose, they used it for drunken wheelbarrow races.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelbarrow#Medieval_Europe

As for agricultural technology, here are some relevant bits from Lord and Peasant in Russia by Jerome Blum.

"In the great steppes that reached to the south and east [of European Russia], field grass husbandry was in general use until the end of the eighteenth century. This wasteful technique, in which a field was cropped continuously for several harvests and then left untilled for as much as seven years or more before being worked again, was possible as long as these regions were thinly populated. As they filled up, field grass husbandry gave way steadily to the less wasteful -- albeit still inefficient -- three-field system." (p. 337)

"Because of its weight and inefficient design [the sokha] could only cut a shallow furrow, and could not turn over large clods nor thoroughly tear up weed roots. It was a poor tool at best, and it was particularly unsuited for working the heavy chernozem. Yet it continued to be used because it was cheap and easy to make and, most important, because the usual peasant lacked the animals needed to pull a heavier and more efficient plow. A somewhat better implement called the kosulia, midway in design between the sokha and true plow, was employed to a limited extent in the north and non-black earth center. Heavier than the sokha, but still able to be drawn by one horse, it cut deeper and was more effective in turning and breaking new land. In Little Russia (Kharkov, Poltava, Chernigov) the peasants used a heavy wheeled plow, called the saban, drawn by two or four horses, or four, six, and even eight oxen. In light soils, however, the Little Russians used the sokha, including a two-wheeled version of that implement. Heavier plows were also used in districts bordering Little Russia, and in New Russia and along the Middle Volga, where, probably, they had been introduced by the German colonists." (p. 339)​

Blum, J. (1971). Lord and peasant in Russia: From the ninth to the nineteenth century. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
 
Last edited:
- wheelbarrow different requirement for road (small dirt road) might affect roman road building practice (which optimized for marching soldier and horse Cart)
- in region too hilly for horse cart, it might push for more developments
- in mountainous and roadless region (Alps?) It wouldn't change anything
 
After posting this thread, I decided to read a book on the subject : Traffic and Congestion in the Roman Empire by Cornelis Van Tilburg. This book is an academic goldmine on Roman road network and its economy. It does introduce the readers to the complicated hierarchy of Roman roads through a lot of various statistics including their average width or the construction and legal differences between the various via up to the mountain and even private roads. There is a chapter on Roman traffic laws (highly informative) and others on wagons and animals. By the way, the most important information is the fact that Roman main roads were often empty, as they were almost exclusively used by the state (cursus publicus and the military). Reading about the cursus publicus opened my eyes on a few conventional wisdoms about Roman trade and the role of the state.

I also found interesting sources on Roman military and its supply trains, but I need to dig deeper before focusing on this logistics problem.

- https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/index.php
- http://www.romanarmy.info/
- and various military history books

A lower number of pack animals and the possibility to walk with lighter (or without) marching packs (sarcina) on main roads and lesser ones, already seems to be a great advantage against an opponent avoiding those roads or moving in the "wilderness". Of course, "Marius mules" would carry their sarcinae during operations, far away from the roads or camps.

- Move to your operation zone using roads or ships.
- Establish or use a main supply base of operations (camp), close to the road, a coast or a city.
- Operate from this camp with sarcinae and pack animals or wheelbarrows, if roads permit it.
- From there, build a network of supply roads and lesser supply camps.
- Locate, fight the enemy and win.

Though I still have to read more about the marching speed of Roman troops and the average size of their units from Legions to vexilatores. Same problem for the size of their baggage trains, camps, and their supply systems. It doesn’t seem to have been well documented or studied by military specialists, instead of historians.

According to Traffic and congestion in the Roman Empire, Roman cities were situated along the coasts or near rivers. Most goods were thus transported by ships. The commercial use of roads was limited due to travel duration (freshness of goods) and risks associated with rebels and criminals. Local economies were heavily developed around cities and villages, but rarely expanded to the remote countryside (on the opposite of Gallic economy prior to Roman conquest).

Traffic congestions often occurred at the city doors and inside cities due to narrow streets and Roman urbanization. Wheelbarrows would be perfect as they could easily move in such environments and democratize the use of main roads between cities.

Historians have long argued that the ubiquity of the chattel slavery was an insurmountable barrier to the adoption of labor-saving technology. Wheelbarrows would reduce the need of slaves and could limit or hinder the economic monopoly of latifundia, helping smaller farmers to compete against them or at least to survive. I won’t speak of the advantages of wheelbarrows for workers, construction, mining, ... or imagine early public transports.

If you add the fact that wheelbarrow was one of the major inventions leading to the medieval industrial revolution, I think that a question must be asked.

Could the Chinese and western wheelbarrows lead to an industrial/social revolution in the Roman Empire and to a trade boom?
 
Last edited:
Where I can see this technology making the most difference in pre columbian america. Imagine aztecs and more importantly Incas with this. This could solve some of the infraestructure problems of the only continent of the world without pack animals.

Or tropical Africa. But even places closer to China like India or AFAIK the Philippines did not have the long range wheelbarrow.
 
Low Tech Magazine, meet No Tech Magazine :p

Here's some pictures of the middle-wheel-barrow in use in Angola. The name "roboteiro" seems to refer both to the wheelbarrow and the porters who use them:
https://www.notechmagazine.com/2012/02/chinese-wheelbarrow-lives-on-in-angola-africa.html

I do wonder, though-- with the wheel in the middle of the wheelbarrow, wouldn't it be a lot harder to control? Especially if you're resting a lot of weight on it? I'm trying to imagine using one and I feel that if I were going downhill way too fast with a front-wheel-barrow I could try using the two legs on the back part to brake, but if I lose control of a middle-wheel my options may be far more limited.
 
Top