What could happen if the Museum(university/library) of Alexandreia was a trend in lets say 200 BC and several other museums pop up in that era. There is the example of Pergamon library but its more of a library than a museum. So what if Seleucids,Syracuse,Macedonia,Rhodes,Rome,Carthage etc builded Museums? Would that boost tech?(For example,Museum of Alexandreia gave birth to several great scholars).
WI: Museum/University trend in 3rd-2nd century BC?
- Thread starter Sersor
- Start date
1) the Museum of Alexandria is more commonly known as the "Library of Alexandria" in English. Yes, it was a lot more than merely a library, but it was closer to that than a 'museum' in the modern sense.
2) Who pays for these? You have to pay salaries, build and maintain buildings, etc.
3) Things like philosophical schools (the Academy = Oak Grove, the Stoa =porch, Pythagorus's group) were far more common and in the period Zeitgeist.
Getting more 'Musea', possibly as a source of cultural pride (the Ptolomies have one, therefore we Antigonids have to have a better one!!) might be possible, especially if the Hellenistic period survives and there are multiple Diadochid Hellenic states around.
You almost certainly have to get rid of the Romans (as we know them, anyway). With their expansion, thinking became 'slave's work' - that's what you bough Greek slaves for.
====
Another possibility would be *Christianity is very different. (By which I mean whatever religion grows up and takes over the world of the Med). If it is a Hellenized variant of Judaism (like Christianity), but with a stronger Pharisaic tradition, combining Hellenic inquiry with Rabbinical discussion, rather than OTL's preaching to the poor and uneducated, then you might get large centers of study in every major city (episcopal see equivalent).
Alexandria and Pergamum librairies were essentially prestige projects, pulled by two of the wealthiest hellenistic kingdoms in the region, the more or less rough equivalent to buy old books by height to place in your showcases and show off about how intelligent, learned and scholarly you are.
It did an philosophical part, but it wasn't nearly close of an university (as in a place where people gathered to be teached and trained in definite specialities), but rather as a philosophical foundation (in the large sense).
It was not a Sillicon Valley either : Hellenistic monarchs or even scholars couldn't be bothered about some really clear application of what was debated or exchanged. Again it was about being rich enough to undergo such thing (copy and material didn't come cheap), had an universal role (books from everywhere) and was protector of wise men (meaning far more philosophers than "hard sciences").
It changed a bit with Romans, where medecine teaching and pre-encyclopedias took a more important role, but duplication of the Mouseion's model would have cost a freaking lot. It's why only the richest cities could undergo such projects, such as Pergamos, and why only a few could afford learning from it.
Without massive changes that could lead to a more massive education, I don't think that the Alexandrine model for an hellenistic or roman university is sustainable. Even if attempted, it would disappear with the first financial crisis.
That said : I could see an emperor, with ideological ties with hellenism and Egypt attempting to build such a Library in Rome.
Nero, particularly, would be a really good exemple. The Golden House points to the plausibility of such a prestige (as well as political) project he could have launched.
If it helps, we had a similar discussion there
It did an philosophical part, but it wasn't nearly close of an university (as in a place where people gathered to be teached and trained in definite specialities), but rather as a philosophical foundation (in the large sense).
It was not a Sillicon Valley either : Hellenistic monarchs or even scholars couldn't be bothered about some really clear application of what was debated or exchanged. Again it was about being rich enough to undergo such thing (copy and material didn't come cheap), had an universal role (books from everywhere) and was protector of wise men (meaning far more philosophers than "hard sciences").
It changed a bit with Romans, where medecine teaching and pre-encyclopedias took a more important role, but duplication of the Mouseion's model would have cost a freaking lot. It's why only the richest cities could undergo such projects, such as Pergamos, and why only a few could afford learning from it.
Without massive changes that could lead to a more massive education, I don't think that the Alexandrine model for an hellenistic or roman university is sustainable. Even if attempted, it would disappear with the first financial crisis.
That said : I could see an emperor, with ideological ties with hellenism and Egypt attempting to build such a Library in Rome.
Nero, particularly, would be a really good exemple. The Golden House points to the plausibility of such a prestige (as well as political) project he could have launched.
If it helps, we had a similar discussion there
Skallagrim
Banned
I am rather more optimistic about the possibilities than some others might be. From the perspective of historical scholarship, keep in mind that the traditional view of the Hellenistic era was (very simply and bluntly put): the classical era of city-state Hellenism was a golden age, the Roman empire was great, too... and that stuff in between couldn't compare. It's just like the myth of the "dark ages" (you know, "everything from 500 to 1500 was grim and terrible and everyone was a stupid religious zealot who thought the world was flat"). Although there have always been more nuanced views, this basic premise about the Hellenistic era was just wrong. More recently, a revisionist view has emerged, which actually contends that the Hellenistic age was a time of great scholarship and scientific theory. The most prominent of these revisionists is perhaps Lucio Russo-- who is also one of its most radical claimants. We'll get back to his work and views in a bit.
Essentially, what @LSCatilina wrote about rulers and even scholars not primarily caring about the practical application of their often purely theoretical work is true... but this was a general problem in Hellenic culture. And yes, indeed, "wise men" were mostly philosophers, rather than men of the "hard sciences". The Greek approach to philosophy exalted the "pure", theoretical model, and to some extent looked down on practical inventions. That was for mere artisans, not for philosophers! But... that tendency, while present, didn't stop philosophers from being practical. It depended on the philosophy. Compare Plato to Aristotle: when trying to define the ideal constitution, Plato started with vague, otherworldly ideals, and tried to put those into a constitution. Aristotle gathered as many constitutions from various places as he could, and compared them on their various merits and drawbacks. Aristotle was also a proto-biologist etc. So certainly some thinkers were more practical than others.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the more practical side of things actually flourished in the Hellenistic age. The charge of "impracticality" that was true for the classical age of city-state Greece was actually less applicable to the Hellenistic era! (People like to say "Oh, that steam engine of Heron's was just a demonstration model. Barely a toy, really!" -- but that's hardly fair. The first steam engine invented in the modern age was also not a practical machine yet. It took time to develop it to become practically useful. And Heron was born at the very end of the Hellenistic era, not at the start of a scientific age.)
This is where Lucio Russo comes in. His theory - which he underpins with very convincing arguments and examples - shows that a lot of knowledge was lost when the Hellenistic states collapsed. Romen commentaries on Hellenistic works on mathetematics demonstrate (to modern readers) that the Romans didn't actually understand the complex math in those works, while the Hellenistic mathematicians clearly knew what they were doing. That knowledge was lost. So the classical view that the Hellenistic era was a dark age is wrong, and must be turned upside down. From a scientific point of view, the Hellenistic era was the golden age, and much was lost thereafter. To be fair: Russo often goes too far. He proves that the Hellenistic world had theory X and technology Y, and then he points to some vaguely-phrased sources and interprets them to mean that "they probably combined X and Y and thus likely also had Z"! This is very important to keep in mind when reading his work: whenever he provides concrete proof, he's great. When he starts speculating, it's better to err on the side of skepticism, and assume that he's getting carried away and that they didn't have that particular theory/knowledge/technique/technology yet.
But they did have a lot, already. A society that only used pure theory and spurned practical application would not write volumes on how to create a hydraulic pump, nor would it actually use such a hydraulic pump to send freshwater uphill through pipes. But Pergamon had that pump, and had those pipes. And other places uses similar systems.
Now it is true that the Romans were certainly more bent on practical applications than the Hellenes, typically. But as already pointed out, the Romans did a lot poorer when it came to the underlying theory. All in all, the Hellenistic era was already moving away from the "lofty philosopher"-mindset of city-state Greece. It's just that the Hellenistic era ended too soon to complete that evolution, and the successors (Rome and Persia) were less inclined to value the more theoretical scientific knowledge of the Hellenistic era.
So, if a way can be found to ensure that more cities have a great library, or a Mouseion, or any sort of centre of knowledge and learning, that certainly helps. The more knowledge is spread out, the greater the chance becomes that someone will take a theory and apply it to some practical use. The less spread-out and available knowledge is, the greater the chance that a person who might have a practical use for a theoretical model just never comes across the theoretical work in the first place.
As for the durability of these centres of learning: these were, to some extent, prestige projects. I say so what? Stanford University and the Carnegie libraries were also prestige projects, but that didn't stop them from being useful or from being lasting. Times of economic downturn (or other types of crises) would certainly affect such centres of learning, but would it make them disappear? No. It didn't in OTL. There would be lean years, and after that, there would be fat years again. That's the way it's always been. Institutions, once entrenched, can outlast their creators. That is true in all ages.
I firmly believe that the Hellenistic era was - by far - the best shot the ancient world had at fostering something like a scientific revolution. Let's say I'm with optimistic Russo about two thirds of the way. It woudn't be "ancient industrialisation", but it would be the kind of development that could bring future industrialisation far closer. More numerous development of centres of knowledge and learning would be crucial. However... the political failings of the Hellenistic Era are not solved by this. So I suspect the era would still end, and much knowledge would still be lost. We can only hope that with more centres of science existing, more knowledge would be preserved in the post-Hellenistic order, to be re-discovered and re-learned at a sooner stage than in OTL.
(Your own timeline, of course, provides a very beautiful scenario for a stronger Hellenistic world, @Sersor. Also, in your TL, the merging of Hellenism in Massalia with the more practically-minded Gauls makes for a good excuse to develop a Hellenistic culture that truly values practical applications, far more than was the case in OTL. But the point remains that "more centres of knowledge" isn't enough all by itself. You need a more fundamental change, which results in "more centres of knowledge" among other things. only then can the Hellenistic era be made to last longer-- which allows for the boost in tech you are after.)
Essentially, what @LSCatilina wrote about rulers and even scholars not primarily caring about the practical application of their often purely theoretical work is true... but this was a general problem in Hellenic culture. And yes, indeed, "wise men" were mostly philosophers, rather than men of the "hard sciences". The Greek approach to philosophy exalted the "pure", theoretical model, and to some extent looked down on practical inventions. That was for mere artisans, not for philosophers! But... that tendency, while present, didn't stop philosophers from being practical. It depended on the philosophy. Compare Plato to Aristotle: when trying to define the ideal constitution, Plato started with vague, otherworldly ideals, and tried to put those into a constitution. Aristotle gathered as many constitutions from various places as he could, and compared them on their various merits and drawbacks. Aristotle was also a proto-biologist etc. So certainly some thinkers were more practical than others.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the more practical side of things actually flourished in the Hellenistic age. The charge of "impracticality" that was true for the classical age of city-state Greece was actually less applicable to the Hellenistic era! (People like to say "Oh, that steam engine of Heron's was just a demonstration model. Barely a toy, really!" -- but that's hardly fair. The first steam engine invented in the modern age was also not a practical machine yet. It took time to develop it to become practically useful. And Heron was born at the very end of the Hellenistic era, not at the start of a scientific age.)
This is where Lucio Russo comes in. His theory - which he underpins with very convincing arguments and examples - shows that a lot of knowledge was lost when the Hellenistic states collapsed. Romen commentaries on Hellenistic works on mathetematics demonstrate (to modern readers) that the Romans didn't actually understand the complex math in those works, while the Hellenistic mathematicians clearly knew what they were doing. That knowledge was lost. So the classical view that the Hellenistic era was a dark age is wrong, and must be turned upside down. From a scientific point of view, the Hellenistic era was the golden age, and much was lost thereafter. To be fair: Russo often goes too far. He proves that the Hellenistic world had theory X and technology Y, and then he points to some vaguely-phrased sources and interprets them to mean that "they probably combined X and Y and thus likely also had Z"! This is very important to keep in mind when reading his work: whenever he provides concrete proof, he's great. When he starts speculating, it's better to err on the side of skepticism, and assume that he's getting carried away and that they didn't have that particular theory/knowledge/technique/technology yet.
But they did have a lot, already. A society that only used pure theory and spurned practical application would not write volumes on how to create a hydraulic pump, nor would it actually use such a hydraulic pump to send freshwater uphill through pipes. But Pergamon had that pump, and had those pipes. And other places uses similar systems.
Now it is true that the Romans were certainly more bent on practical applications than the Hellenes, typically. But as already pointed out, the Romans did a lot poorer when it came to the underlying theory. All in all, the Hellenistic era was already moving away from the "lofty philosopher"-mindset of city-state Greece. It's just that the Hellenistic era ended too soon to complete that evolution, and the successors (Rome and Persia) were less inclined to value the more theoretical scientific knowledge of the Hellenistic era.
So, if a way can be found to ensure that more cities have a great library, or a Mouseion, or any sort of centre of knowledge and learning, that certainly helps. The more knowledge is spread out, the greater the chance becomes that someone will take a theory and apply it to some practical use. The less spread-out and available knowledge is, the greater the chance that a person who might have a practical use for a theoretical model just never comes across the theoretical work in the first place.
As for the durability of these centres of learning: these were, to some extent, prestige projects. I say so what? Stanford University and the Carnegie libraries were also prestige projects, but that didn't stop them from being useful or from being lasting. Times of economic downturn (or other types of crises) would certainly affect such centres of learning, but would it make them disappear? No. It didn't in OTL. There would be lean years, and after that, there would be fat years again. That's the way it's always been. Institutions, once entrenched, can outlast their creators. That is true in all ages.
I firmly believe that the Hellenistic era was - by far - the best shot the ancient world had at fostering something like a scientific revolution. Let's say I'm with optimistic Russo about two thirds of the way. It woudn't be "ancient industrialisation", but it would be the kind of development that could bring future industrialisation far closer. More numerous development of centres of knowledge and learning would be crucial. However... the political failings of the Hellenistic Era are not solved by this. So I suspect the era would still end, and much knowledge would still be lost. We can only hope that with more centres of science existing, more knowledge would be preserved in the post-Hellenistic order, to be re-discovered and re-learned at a sooner stage than in OTL.
(Your own timeline, of course, provides a very beautiful scenario for a stronger Hellenistic world, @Sersor. Also, in your TL, the merging of Hellenism in Massalia with the more practically-minded Gauls makes for a good excuse to develop a Hellenistic culture that truly values practical applications, far more than was the case in OTL. But the point remains that "more centres of knowledge" isn't enough all by itself. You need a more fundamental change, which results in "more centres of knowledge" among other things. only then can the Hellenistic era be made to last longer-- which allows for the boost in tech you are after.)
Last edited:
But even if the Romans ruled, that shouldn't mean that the Greeks under their rule stopped continuing with their sciences. After all, many Greeks during Roman times continued doing science, right? So what if the Romans did not understand what the Greeks were talking about? Did the Ptolemy III understand what his scholars did? Did Philip V of Macedon understand their works? Did Antiochus III the Great? Does it matter if the ruling class really understood the complex maths of Hellenistic mathematicians?
What about the Greeks during the Roman era? Are you telling me that the Greeks just stopped thinking when say, the Ptolemies were no longer ruling in Egypt and the Seleucids in Syria and they were replaced by Roman governors?
Let's look at Heron. Heron was not a Hellinistic era thinker. He was a Roman era thinker living the first century AD in Roman Alexandria. And Galen worked during the second century. Did those Greeks also not understand what their ancestors wrote?
I don't think we disagree there : you did have a pragmatic approach in Greek tought, and I even think Hellenic tought tended to be more so in the IIIrd or IInd century BCE than in the V/IVth centuries, mostly on pre-encyclopedic tought (such as Aristotle, you made a good point mentioning) or medical tought. I said this change was more obvious with Romans, but admittedly, it came from an earlier tendency.
What I'd point, tough, is that these more pragmatical-minded scholars were generally outside the scope of royal-supported institutions. Aristotle is a product of Athenian non-institutional school, Galenos (while benefiting later from Pergamum and Alexandria being huge intellectual hubs) began his career outside museums.
While these museums could likely create a hub of intellectual life around them that others scholars benefited from, it may have been more a by-product than anything else : as an exemple, when (genuinly bright) geometers and thinkers were used by hellenistic kings, it was mostly on mechanical warfare (such as siege engines) and it's quite telling that not only you didn't have much advances in this field (it was mostly about making siege engines bigger*) but have an history of failing its achieved intent.
To summarize : did museums had a lasting impact? Yes, but maybe not as it was planned, and more about creating intellectual life outside the institution itself, something that came with time (and a long time).
* Probably to be tied to the mindset that make hellenistic armies more and more hard to manoeuvre due to phalange evolution being stuck in a "let's make sarissa heavier and longer" loop
Again, I agree : it fails to account for two things.
1) Science is not an universal tought, and you have as many approches than cultures. Greeks were huge on abstraction, and issuing some technical marvels to proove a point (Hero's machine or Antikythera's mechanism only to point two famous exemples). So less a toy, and more a proof.
It doesn't mean that, tought, jumping from mechanism as proof, to mechanism as goal, would have been a natural change.
2) Engeenering applications are extremely tied up to socio-economical background. In an era where craftsmanship slavery was really widespread, manufacturial changes may have been too costly or simply inadapted : for instance, heavy plough was known in Romania (mostly north-eastern Gaul and Britain) in the Ist century, but didn't made it up to the rest because it simply wasn't adapted to a mediterranean-latifundar economic model.
Both of these, rather than "Greeks were big kids", may be indeed a far better explanation.
Unfortunatly, and due to a relatively good knowledge about Hellenism in Gaul, I don't think this TL holds up on its historical extense (which was huge, really), ignore the sophistication of Celtic states (politically and economically), among other problems.
Skallagrim
Banned
I'm not saying it's all black and white, or that there was a one-day-to-the-next transition. The effects of the Hellenistic age didn't suddenly vanish, nor did Roman culture fail to produce great theoretical minds. But generally, the Romans were oriented more towards practical apllications, and the city-state Hellenes towards pure theory, and the Hellenistic thinkers more or less bridged those worlds.
Heron was living at the very end of a fading age, but he was very much a product of that age. He has far more in common with the thinkers that preceded him than with those that came after him.
As for the loss of knowledge: the Roman conquests did disrupt things. And a change in dominant attitude also meant a change in funding patterns. Knowledge was lost. Books were not copied. Buildings were burned down. Some great thinkers simply got killed. (The Roman command knew what a great mind Archimedes was, and wanted him captured alive. By chance, he got killed anyway. Such is the nature of war.)
The simple fact is that there are scientific insights from the Hellenistic era that were no longer understood during the Roman era. I don't mean they were not understood by the rulers. I mean that the commentaries, written by Roman-era scholars - often Greeks - demonstrate that in certain cases, they no longer understood the work of their predecessors. It can be inferred that certain knowledge was simply lost to history in the post-Hellenistic order.
These factors certainly play a role, and I readily admit that my arguments are mostly geared towards proving the scientific value of the Hellenistic era-- not towards proving that the achievements of the era derived from such established institutions.
I mostly think that the institutions are very important as repositories of knowledge, thus making that knowledge available to anyone who can think of a use for it. (And also hopefully meaning that many copies of works exist, in many locations, reducing the chance of works being lost in case of war, fire, flood, earthquake etc.)
I agree with you. There are still, however, observed instances of such proofs simply, ah... proving useful. And thus being applied more widely. One has a theory on hydraulics. One invents a pump. One describes the pump in detail. And someone who needs to get water uphill comes across this description (or hears about the pump and seeks out the description) and has that pump built-- knowing that one pump, manned by a few slaves, and a big pipe, can basically do the same work as countless slaves carrying waterskins or vases or something uphill all day long. Even if you have slaves, the supply is still not infinite, and if you have that pump, you can use your slaves for something else.
Of course a slave economy has limits, but there's still room for useful technology. Another example: imagine an ongoing Hellenistic era (for whatever reason), and someone like Heron invents that steam engine. If that has time to be worked out, like that pump, chances are someone is going to figure out (as happened much later on in OTL) that a steam engine can power that pump. That you can use it, for instance to do what slaves can hardly manage: keep a mine from flooding by continually pumping out water. We know the Hellenes used slave-powered cranes to lift heavy loads when building or mining. There, too, a steam engine could be attached. I'm not saying that's going to happen right after Heron invents the first one, but later on... why not?
That sort of thing, I can see happening in a hypothetical "ongoing/strengthened Hellenism" scenario.
While I think the Roman take on Hellenistic tought was more pragmatic and more following the general trend of Hellenistic Age, there's a point to be made there : disregarding the possibility of engineering application, there's a distinct lack of competent non-Hellenistic Roman thinkers in several scientific branches including social sciences up to the IInd century CE (some other branches, tough, flourished such as agronomy). Almost all Roman-era significant historians (except Tacitus and Livius, frankly, what we have are more chroniclers than historians and not very good ones with that), geographers, ethnographs, medicus etc. were Hellenic scholars.
Does that means that Roman era disregarded scientific scholarship...I wouldn't go that far : one must remember that hellenization was a key feature of Romanisation on half of the imperium, and that you had a constant attraction (political and cultural) to Hellenized part of the Empire from Roman elites.
But, culturally, there's a trend at work : doesn't mean classical Romania was anywhere close of a scientific "dark age", of course, but indeed there was a lack of incitative that I think was social-economic at hearth. Far less urban centers in the West (a city in Roman Gaul have 2.000 people on average, for instance), less scholarly structures (even if, using Roman Gaul exemple, rethorician schools were booming including with all it means politically), lack of real economic incitative to mechanize production, etc.
A comparison could be made with medieval copies of Latin and Greek texts in the Middle-Ages : it served as a save-guard of several books and ideas, but didn't that played before the XIIth century Renaissance.
You'd have, IMO, to see both a repository of knowledge and adequate social-economical context to see a pre-industrial age blooming.
I don't think it was really enough : the mechanical harvester present in Gaul never made it, in spite of being at last as efficient and clearly quicker than slave-made work. One could think
It could as well have been : even if slaves in Romania knew an high-point after the big conquest of the Late Republic, slavery cost remained fairly cheap well into Late Antiquity, provided by Barbaricum traders. Read Cicero on how to run a latifundia, and it's quite crystal clear : don't bother feeding old slaves and buy new ones.
To seek technological improvements in classical Romania, it's better to see how it fits with the current social-economic model (as did the huge number of hydraulic mills in Romania, often placed near great centers of production and consumption), because historically, everything that didn't fit didn't blossomed before slavery itself became economically uninteresting.
I don't say it couldn't have happened : but besided obvious political changes, social-econic changes are the key to a post-Hellenic age with some pre-manufacturian take.
I think it was really close to what we now call university.
A quick copy/paste from Wiki:
This original Musaeum("Institution of the Muses") was the home of music or poetry, a philosophical school and library such as Plato's Academy, also a storehouse of texts. It did not have a collection of works of art, rather it was an institution that brought together some of the best scholars of theHellenistic world, analogous to a modern university.
It did have a room devoted to the study of anatomy and an installation for astronomical observations. Rather than simply a museum in the sense that has developed since the Renaissance, it was an institution that brought together some of the best scholars of the Hellenistic world, as Germain Bazin compared it, "analogous to the modernInstitute for Advanced Study in Princeton or to the Collège de France in Paris."[5] In the 21st century, the nearest equivalent is a university.
More than 1,000 scholars lived in the Mouseion at a given time. Staff members and scholars were salaried by the Mouseion and paid no taxes. They also received free meals, free room and board, and free servants.
The Mouseion's scholars conducted scientific research, published, lectured, and collected as much literature as possible from the known world. In addition to Greek works, foreign texts were translated from Assyrian, Persian, Jewish, Indian, and other sources.
The Mouseion featured a roofed walkway, an arcade of seats, and a communal dining room where scholars routinely ate and shared ideas. The building was filled with private study rooms, residential quarters, lecture halls, and theaters
Notable scholars
The following scholars are known to have studied, written, or performed their experiments at the Musaeum of Alexandria.[11]
- Archimedes – father of engineering/ Studied at Museum of Alexandreia
- Aristarchus of Samos – proposed the first heliocentric system of the universe
- Callimachus – a noted poet, critic and scholar
- Erasistratus – physician and co-founder of the Academy of Medicine in Alexandria along with Herophilus
- Eratosthenes – argued for a spherical earth and calculated its circumference to near-accuracy
- Euclid – father of geometry
- Herophilus – notable physician and founder of the scientific method
- Hipparchus – founder of trigonometry
- Pappus – mathematician
- Hero – father of mechanics
Yes they where really expensive, but that wasn't a problem for the rich Hellenistic states.
I agree but as all ready mention we are now in a new era not in clasical Athens. You can say its a normal "upgrade".
Noted and totally agree. Thanks again for your nice analysis and suggestions.
As i all ready posted i think they were really close to what we now call universities. I agree that were prestige projects but were also part and "upgrade" of the greek culture/tradition of academies etc.
Totally agree.
Again well said.
THIS.
Thank you again for your kind words! I am not after tech boost really but i think a more Hellenistic world would go faster in Tech than OTL. Thats why i made this thread, to hear opinions about this WI scenario.
I agree also.
I ll have to disagree. Archimedes for example, was a product of Museum of Alexandreia...
Ill have to disagree again. They were more than "lets make bigger siege engines". Would you say the same for the first Medieval universities in 1100-1300 AD?
I agree.
I also have a relative good knowledge about Hellenism in Gaul. So can you be more specific in your claims? I always enjoy a constructive criticism backed by a
detailed thesis
Again i totally agree.
Noted. Thanks again for all your nice analysis and suggestions.
Noted. I agree social-economic are the key to a post Hellenic age. Thanks for your nice analysis and suggestions.
That only Alexandria and Pergamon actually managed to pull such project efficiently, points that it was really costly to pull out : Seleucids, in spite of their geopolitical importance, didn't went this way. It's not because they could have technically did so, that they felt it was bound to spend much money and resources on an almost exclusively prestige project, critically for a goal they knew wouldn't come off after some generations.
I strongly disagree. Among other differences, three stand out as particularily important.
- No defined and standardized disciplines : study was often more or less individual or in very small group (and usually from a really restricted social strata). It implies a very personal take on such and such discipline, and the lack of a sense of community between two scholars that didn't studied litteraly together, but rather identity with land-owning or political elite. Basically it couldn't create an intellectual middle-class (as, for exemple, medieval universities managed to) that could provide an intellectual structure for states (contrary to Roman rethoricians, or medieval students)
- No independence : politically and financially, it depended from royal good will, contrary to universities that had a really large autonomy.
- No utilitarianism : not that ancient librairies couldn't pull off actual applications...But it really wasn't their goals. Would it be only on legal or medical studies, it was let aside to (actual) schools, the library being more or less a repository when it come to this : not a center of "knowledge redistribution" (it's why a number of Ancient texts vanished).
I think you may be mistaken by the word "academy" there. Platonic Academy is essentially a gathering of philosopher, where philosophy get translated in symbolically relevant matters, especially geometry. You probably didn't have teachers or students, being more close of XVIIIth "salons" : important when it come to forge the new philosophical (and political) mindset, but nowhere close to an university.
First, while he probably went to Alexandria (nothing certain about it), it was more to study books and exchange with scholars of Alexandria, than be teached his skills. If you allow me the comparison, it would be like considering Karl Marx a product of the British Museum because he used extensively BM's resources to pull out Das Kapital.
Then, Archimede is the perfect counter-exemple of what Alexandria Library was there for : his mathematical treaties weren't that taken in account before the Late Antiquity and Middle-Ages. Among other reasons because Alexandria Library wasn't an independent institution, and had no real qualm about pulling deeper community studies : one individual used the ressources of it, and you could quote him eventually if his books were part of the repository.
For the aforementioned reasons, medieval universities were nowhere like Alexandrine or Pergamine librairies : absence of an intellectual middle-class, absence of a stratification, and absence of independent of tought and application.
I also have a relative good knowledge about Hellenism in Gaul. So can you be more specific in your claims? I always enjoy a constructive criticism backed by a
detailed thesis
The main problems I saw were Massalian ressourcex exagerated, a differenciation between Celto-Ligurians and Celtic entities that is considered relatively out-of-date now, a seemingly underestimating of their own resources, etc. I admit I didn't went too far into the TL.
In order to not derail the thread, I propose you to send me (by Private Message) a summary of your TL and the goals reached. I'll look into it and try to make constructive criticism as soon as I can.
Yes i agree. One of the reasons that only Alexandria and Pergamon actually managed to pull such project efficiently, points that it was really costly to pull out. But thats not what i am asking in this thread. I am asking about opinions WI Museums become a trend and not what are the chances to become a trend…
More or less individual study? Lack of a sense of community?It couldn’t create an intellectual middle class and Rome and first Medieval universities could? Ok i respect your opinion but i strongly disagree.
Ill repeat some facts about Museum of Alexandreia:
- More than 1,000 scholars lived in the Mouseion at a given time. Staff members and scholars were salaried by the Mouseion and paid no taxes. They also received free meals, free room and board, and free servants.
- The Mouseion's scholars conducted scientific research, published, lectured, and collected as much literature as possible from the known world. In addition to Greek works, foreign texts were translated from Assyrian, Persian, Jewish, Indian, and other sources
- The Mouseion featured a roofed walkway, an arcade of seats, and a communal dining room where scholars routinely ate and shared ideas. The building was filled with private study rooms, residential quarters, lecture halls, and theatres
I am not mistaken at all. I am surprised you say that! The Platonic Academy has been cited by historians as the first higher learning institution in the Western world . Never the less ill agree with you to a point, that at least at Plato’s time was more of a Academic club. But in general Academies,Lyceums,younameit, had students and the museum of Alexandria was an upgrade that was evolved partly from those “schools” and Hellenistic/Greek culture in general. After all, people from all over the known world were coming to Athens for higher education.
It is highly likely that, when he was a young man, Archimedes studied with the successors of Euclid in Alexandria. Certainly he was completely familiar with the mathematics developed there, but what makes this conjecture much more certain, he knew personally the mathematicians working there and he sent his results to Alexandria with personal messages. Archimedes published his works in the form of correspondence with the principal mathematicians of his time, including the Alexandrian scholars Conon of Samos and Eratosthenes of Cyrene. Even if he went there to study books and exchange knowledge with the scholars that also important. You can say he went there for his final studies.
Your aforementioned reasons are weak in my opinion. The first medieval universities were independent institutions with deeper community studies than museum of Alexandria? Well i don’t think so. Honestly i don’t follow you.
Since you didn’t went too far into my ATL, i would suggest you to read it first before you critize it. You mention about political and economical among other problems. Can you back up your saying? I used OTL facts in my ATL. Can you counter them? But as you said in order to not derail this thread i suggest you to read my ATL and message me with any constructive criticism.
You can't really disregard the question tough : how much it becomes a trend depends a lot on how the obvious issues about being more widespread are resolved.
Indeed : studies weren't made by classes, with a clearly definied teacher/student relation but rather as individuals studying texts and beneficing from the presence of scholars there to learn trough exchanges. On this regard, it didn't created a real rupture from previous schools such as Academy.
Yes. While ancient schools on Greece and rethorician schools in Rome could achieve the sense of a community, which implies social and philosophical solidarities (it's why we can adress some groups as Platonicians, Pythagoricians, etc. but not as Alexandrines), Alexandrine studies mostly focused on individual development : two students of the Academy could see themselves as part of the same group, two students in Alexandria could pretty easily don't keep ties including philosophically : the Alexandrine ideal is individual.
It didn't : while Roman rethorician schools pretty much formed the bureaucratic strata of the empire, and that medieval universities issued an armada of legalists and public servents; Alexandrine and Pergamum librairies weren't about creating an intellectual/bureaucratic middle-class or public servents, but to serve as a repository where elite intellectuals could blossom. More close of a scientific foundation than an univerisity, if you prefer this comparison.
Which makes an interesting point, giving College de France is not an university : rather, it's an agglomeration of various institutions that are focused on research and libraries, not teaching (no degrees issued, for instance) but adressing to an already existing intellectual strata
Since you didn’t went too far into my ATL, i would suggest you to read it first before you critize it.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to be blunt, but I didn't go too far save the three first pages, because it increasingly relied on ASB to make it work. The problems I saw prevented me to be interested going more deeply into your TL. I would gladly discuss these issues by PM, but frankly, I don't want to go even more deeply in a TL where the first events (for exemple, the massaliote-bukkake in southern Celtica) seems to me to be highly implausible.
I believe that in a more “Hellenistic world” than OTL, couple of more museums/universities is a more than a plausible scenario. After all we are in an Alternative history discussion forum.
Although we refer to this learning center as The Library of Alexandria or The Library at Alexandria, it was more than just a library. Students came from all over the Mediterranean world to learn. It cultivated several of the ancient world's most renowned scholars.
Here is some teachers of the museum of Alexandria:
Erasistratus: he lived for some time at Alexandria, which was at that time beginning to be a celebrated medical school,
Eratosthenes created a whole section devoted to the examination of Homer, and acquired original works of great tragic dramas of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides.
Herophilos was born in Chalcedon in Asia Minor, c. 335 BC. Not much is known about his early life save his moving to Alexandria at a fairly young age to begin his schooling.
As an adult Herophilos was a teacher, and an author of at least nine texts ranging from his book titled, On Pulses, which explored the flow of blood from the heart through the arteries, to his book titled Midwifery, which discussed duration and phases of childbirth. In Alexandria, he practiced dissections, often publicly so that he could explain what he was doing to those who were fascinated. Erasistratus was his contemporary. Together, they worked at a medical school in Alexandria that is said to have drawn people from all over the ancient world due to Herophilos' fame.
Heron
It is almost certain that Heron taught at the Musaeum which included the famous Library of Alexandria, because most of his writings appear as lecture notes for courses inmathematics, mechanics, physics, and pneumatics
Hypatia
Hypatia (A.D. 355 or 370 - 415/416), the daughter of Theon, a teacher of mathematics at the Museum of Alexandria, was the last great Alexandrian mathematician and philosopher who wrote a commentary on geometry and taught Neo-platonism to her students
I strongly disagree. Museum of Alexandria was a huge campus with lots of sub categories/schools.
I find hard to believe that students from the museum of Alexandria didnt take bureaucratic position within the Ptolemaic kingdom...
For me Museum of Alexandria was a scientific foundation/proto-university. The museum had scholars,Teachers,library and Lectures and experiments were held frequently. How would you describe this?
You nitpick. He also said that was the nearest equivalent is a university.
Its your right to don't like my ATL or find it ASB. But when you make criticism its good to provide some facts to support that and be ready to accept criticism also. Why the events of first years are highly implausible? I think they were highly plausible and based on OTL stats and facts. After all dont forget that this is a ATL. Things ofc will be different than OTL.
Anyway, i think we agree that we disagree
I find it quite annoying that "Alternate History" concept is used to prevent discussion this way "how it's not history so, every thing could have happened". Critically when I provided ideas (that you may disagree with) on how you could have more.
Which I never ever contested : I litteraly said they were not just librairies, but some kind of scientific foundation, and that they provided intellectual hubs. Just not universitaries : please don't pull a strawman.
Every exemple you provided points that most bright students didn't, at the contrary of what happened in rethorician schools. Librairies weren't made to create an intellectual middle-class, but were about deepening the intellectual (and often wealthy) elite that produced some scholars.
Then he's wrong : because saying that it was both akin to the Collège and a modern university is a contradiction.
*loud sigh* I, several times, proposed you to send me a PM about your TL, these OTL stats and facts, and where you wanted to go with it. I, again, several said I'll look into this and have an as much constructive discussion I could have.
You didn't answered this, just continued saying "I did something plausible" : it's your entiere right if you don't want to discuss this, but please don't imply I didn't want to discuss it : I said neither there (to not derail the thread) and not without a more general summary of what you intended to do with your TL.
End of this precise point for what matters me : either we go to PM for this (and, not to sound arrogant about this, but the people I helped with their TL on PM never complained about me being constructive), either we stop talking about it.
Certainly : I'd just appreciate if we could do this without being mischaracterised.Anyway, i think we agree that we disagree
Yes i find it annoying also from time to time, but going on the complete opposite direction and stereotyping is frustrating also.
What examples ? You mean the scholars/teachers i posted as facts, that there was schools/teachers and students in the museum of Alexandria?
Here is some infos/facts about bureaucracy in Ptolemaic Egypt:
According to historian John Hicks, the ancient world provides two examples of what he calls ‘classical bureaucracy’: Egypt and China.
These two systems, unlike virtually every other we know of, show similar patterns in maintaining a general state framework regardless of who the king or emperor actually was. To be more thorough, there are a huge variety of factors that surely point to a large Ptolemaic bureaucracy and increased literacy: proliferation of contract forms, the employment of a huge scribal infrastructure (not just notary scribes, but also tax accountants and auditors), a new banking sector (with associated paperwork), and an evident emphasis on written rules of bureaucratic procedure and conduct (professional and social). So in conclusion i find it hard to believe that in this system there were not any students from the Museum.
.
The museum had scholars,teachers,library and Lectures and experiments were held frequently. How would you describe this? What because they didn't give diploma was not a proto-university?
Well i am the open book here. You made the criticism that need to be backed by facts/stas. I have my ATL here where everyone can say his opinion/criticism. I have all stats and facts there. Please i would love to discuss it over there or by PM. Read only version here.
Frankly i find your proposal to make a summary/goals reached of my ATL and send it to you to check it sounds kind of rude( i don't say you did it on purpose).
Anyway no hard feelings. I enjoyed our talk
We agree that we disagree. Because we are carried away from the subject so i think is better to end this.
Last edited: