WI the Romans had invented the heavy plough and the printing press.

Onkel Willie

So suppose the Romans invented the heavy plough. It was invented in China in the sixth century B.C., but wasn't mentioned in Europe until 643 A.D. Suppose Rome has more luck and they get it in the first century B.C or something (during the rise of Caesar). The heavy plough is useful for the more moist and heavy soil in Germania and would makle profitable agriculture there possible which could support cities. Would this make Rome take Germania (or try to) and how would it affect the Roman Empire (whether they fail or not).

Similarly, how would the early invention of the printing press affect Rome. The technology behind it is not terribly complex and it only takes butterflies to have someone invent it. It would allow for much relaying Imperial decrees much more quickly which would definitely improve the efficiency of the Empire's government.

Thoughts? Ideas? Feel free to speculate ;).
 

Cash

There have been earlier discussions of this here that the Search function will likely turn up. The Chinese had block printing and the plow before the First Century BCE, and I like the idea of a Chinese diplomatic/trade mission making its way to Rome via the Silk Road. Rome was an important market for Chinese silk and other goods, and China went through an era when it sent representatives on forays throughout the known world, although I don't believe they made it beyond modern day Turkey in the west.

So a Chinese envoy arrives in Rome, and one way or another the concepts of both printing and the plow are passed to the Romans.

Couple of problems. Rome used scriptoria staffed by slaves to copy books and official documents. Slaves were cheap. One reason there was little interest in mechanization in the Roman Empire was the availability of abundant, low-cost slave labor.

Second, there would have to be a corresponding leap forward in papermaking technology. Some source of cheap, printable media is needed. I personally like the idea of Egyptians getting into the linen rag paper business as demand rises for something besides papyrus. Egypt had linen coming out its ears in those days.
 

carlton_bach

I really, really envy the certainty that so many people have with regard to the dating of many important inventions of the first millennium.

Anyway, one problem with the first premise is that you're crediting the Romans with being far too systematic. They didn't conquer territory because they saw an opportunity to exploit it through investment. Having the heavy plough very likely wouldn't have changed their policy towards Germania, especially since recent archeology suggests they could have adopted it from the Germanic inhabitants of the Rhine frontier, but for some reason - and probably a sound reason - didn't.

Printing is far more interesting, though it still begs the question what to print on. A viable printing press in the eastern Mediterranean would get very disruptive quite soon. IIRC we've chewed through this one a few times.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=141304&highlight=printing+press+Rome

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=131411&highlight=printing+press+Rome

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=101150

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=123653&highlight=printing+press+Rome

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=115636&highlight=printing+press+Rome

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=95571&highlight=printing+press+Rome

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=9630&highlight=printing+press+Rome

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=5020&highlight=printing+press+Rome
 

Faeelin

Banned
carlton_bach said:
I really, really envy the certainty that so many people have with regard to the dating of many important inventions of the first millennium.

Anyway, one problem with the first premise is that you're crediting the Romans with being far too systematic. They didn't conquer territory because they saw an opportunity to exploit it through investment. Having the heavy plough very likely wouldn't have changed their policy towards Germania, especially since recent archeology suggests they could have adopted it from the Germanic inhabitants of the Rhine frontier, but for some reason - and probably a sound reason - didn't.
Click to expand...

A disrespect for manual labor? My understanding is that the Romans looked down upon farmers.

(Okay, I'll stop being impish).
 

Riain

Banned
The Romans abandoned the Gallic reaper, no point in having a mule and machine do the work of slaves that need to be kept busy. Personally I'd like to see the Chinese seed drill and the Gallic Reaper used in the Roman Empire more than the heavy plow.
 

Monty Burns

The heavy plough does not change the military situation, though - at least at the beginning. With years passing by greater food ressources should increase population. Nevertheless, the Romans were defeated in Germania under Augustus, and having the plough wouldn't change that. Furthermore, the heavy plough might be taken over by the Germanians as well. If this is the case, Germania Magna might profit enough from this invention so that the Romans cannot defeat them later.

The printing press is something different, though. First, education and literacy will increase substantially in the Empire. Second, if the Empire declines ITTL, the loss of knowledge is significantly smaller. We'll never see something like the "Dark Ages" where only a small minority was able to read and had access to books.
 

carlton_bach

Riain said:
The Romans abandoned the Gallic reaper, no point in having a mule and machine do the work of slaves that need to be kept busy. Personally I'd like to see the Chinese seed drill and the Gallic Reaper used in the Roman Empire more than the heavy plow.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Gallic reaper is a very highly adapted technology that depends on growing spelt wheat with ears that strip easily. Using it in a field of any other grain will do more harm than good. That means it was conceived of (and used) for a market-oriented monoculture where food safety and overall productivity were secondary to efficiency and economies of scale. It's actually designed to save labour, which is a significant cost factor. Look at Columella, not Cato, if you want to understand how a principate esate was run. A subsistence farmer can't use it because spelt wheat monoculture is extremely risky, and it won't work with maslin or any other grain.

Joachim Henning did a lot of research on this, and I sometimes wish German scholars wrote better English, or had the funds to pay for translators, because all of the work will have to be done again in ten years by an American so people outside of Germany can actually read it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top