Would the Roman Empire had started an Industrial Revolution had it continued?

Would the Roman Empire had started an Industrial Revolution had it continued?


  • Total voters
    53

Maoistic

Banned
What the title says. This is one of the most hotly debated issues I've personally come across in historical debates. Basically, the argument generally goes that had the Roman Empire not broken into two halves and the Western half hadn't fallen (many adding a lack of conversion to Christianity as well), the Roman Empire would have started the Industrial Revolution early on like England did in the 18th century.

To be more specific, assume the basic conditions:
-No 3rd century crisis
-No splitting of the empire
-No conversion to Christianity

So, is there an Industrial Revolution or not?

Edit: The Roman Empire has only the early Middle Ages (3rd to 10th centuries) to industrialise.
 
Last edited:
Under the assumption that you mean it survives to the present, probably eventually, but I wouldn’t take it as a given.


-Europe is closer to the America’s than Rome’s potential competitors, making Rome much more likely to be able to benefit early (or at all) from American goods, American loot, trade with American colonies, and exploration inspired by the discovery of the America’s.

-Rome has a gigantic coastline, which is very good for trade, travel, and communication. So do several areas they might conquer.

-Rome has several convenient coal sources. So do several areas they might conquer.

-Rome was influenced by Greek philosophers, converted to Christianity, and influenced by... itself. OTL Britain was also shaped by Ancient Greece, Rome, and Christianity. This doesn’t mean that things will intellectually develop the same way they did in OTL Britain to create the overall climate needed for industrialization, but it still puts Rome closer to Britain’s OTL culture/traditions/legal codes than anywhere else.

-Rome was slightly richer than the rest of the world and had the biggest city.


It’s possible someone else does it first, but IMO Rome has more advantages on paper, not surprisingly given that it was later a part of Rome that led the Industrial Revolution and holds most of England’s OTL advantages as a result.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Under the assumption that you mean it survives to the present, probably eventually, but I wouldn’t take it as a given.


-Europe is closer to the America’s than Rome’s potential competitors, making Rome much more likely to be able to benefit early (or at all) from American goods, American loot, trade with American colonies, and exploration inspired by the discovery of the America’s.

-Rome has a gigantic coastline, which is very good for trade, travel, and communication. So do several areas they might conquer.

-Rome has several convenient coal sources. So do several areas they might conquer.

-Rome was influenced by Greek philosophers, converted to Christianity, and influenced by... itself. OTL Britain was also shaped by Ancient Greece, Rome, and Christianity. This doesn’t mean that things will intellectually develop the same way they did in OTL Britain to create the overall climate needed for industrialization, but it still puts Rome closer to Britain’s OTL culture/traditions/legal codes than anywhere else.

-Rome was slightly richer than the rest of the world and had the biggest city.


It’s possible someone else does it first, but IMO Rome has more advantages on paper, not surprisingly given that it was later a part of Rome that led the Industrial Revolution and holds most of England’s OTL advantages as a result.
I should have specified if the Roman Empire would have industrialised in the early Middle Ages (between the 3rd and 10th centuries CE, roughly the "Dark Ages"). It only has until then to industrialise.
 
I should have specified if the Roman Empire would have industrialised in the early Middle Ages (between the 3rd and 10th centuries CE, roughly the "Dark Ages"). It only has until then to industrialise.
Ok. I’m changing my vote to no then. They aren’t going to realistically advance that far in such little time.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I think what the empire needs is a good reason to make the jump to mechanization. Which of course would start with steam and the like.

It also would likely need some sort of scientific revolution.

A Roman Empire that industrializes would not lack for resources-most likely such an empire would be more expansive and populated than the OTL Roman Empire at its height.

Assuming a roughly similar path of technological development and no division, I'll try to create a rough outline.

-The empire doesn't suffer the crisis of the third century or has a different emperor post Trajan.
-population growth continues and the empire expands into some of the peripheries such as Caledonia and Mauritania.
By the beginning of the second millennium AD the empire has conquered Scandinavia(or at least the southern half or so), has reached the source of the Nile and conquered Yemen, Kush, and Ethiopia, it has also expanded deep into Germania reaching the Baltic and OTL eastern Poland.
-by 1200 AD it has decisively defeated the persians(whatever dynasty that may be) and is expanding towards India and Central Asia.
-by 1250 ship building and navigation technology have advanced to the point that the Americas are contacted with legionaries conquering large swathes of the east coast and Caribbean.
-by 1400 the Roman Empire has conquered a substantial part of the Americas and has a direct border with northwest India. At this point ship building technology is far more advanced and regular contact exists with China and the rest of east Asia.
-by 1500 multiple universities have been established throughout the ever richer ever more prosperous empire that by now has a stable succession law and civil wars are unheard of-having not happened for 800 years.
-by 1600 windmills and river power are spreading throughout the empire and productivity is increasing. The dnieper River is likely reached 200 years prior to this-so by now rome has conquered and fully romanized all of continental Europe. And the Ural Mountains are likely officially under Roman control by this point as well.
-development of steam power alongside other innovations of the OTL Industrial Age concurrent with a philosophical and scientific revolution.
-by 1700 the Roman Empire controls half or more of India and the empire is a sprawling Eurasian hyperpower that controls most of the Americas as well.
-by 1800 the Roman's lose India but as technological innovations have spread. China now controls Japan, Manchuria, Korea, the OTL Russian Far East and most of Siberia and south east Asia-as well as New Guinea and Australia. And likely has a foothold on the west coast of the new world maybe with a border at the Rockies between Roman and China controlled North America.
-in the proceeding 3 centuries wars between Rome, various Indian principalities and Chinese dynasties have led to massive military technological and tactical developments.
-by 1900 a level of tech anywhere from OTL 1870 to OTL 1920 has developed and the Roman's control most of the world.
-we'll say that the in the last few centuries of the second millennium given the social and political instability brought about by the technological and social changes-the Roman Empire experienced a series of convulsions, massive military defeats, civil wars, plague, drought, unrest etc...
-by 1900 however the world situation has stabilized with Roman, Chinese and perhaps Indian spheres of influence.

There might be Roman breakaway states in the Americas or Indian colonies in Africa-but by 2000 the world is more advanced than it is in OTL. Perhaps by as much as 50 to 100 years.
 
What exactly does it mean to industrialse? Or, to industrialise "like England did in the 18th century"?

Rome certainly isn't going to industrialise "like England did" until 1000 CE. Lots of explanations can be given for why this is not plausible.
I'll just add the one which I think is most palpable:
English industrialisation was based on the exploitation of steam power. This doesn't necessarily require a scientific revolution, and it doesn't mean coal has to be the predominant fuel of that society already. But it requires ironworking technologies difficult to reach for the Romans.

What I_could_imagine (and have already dwelt upon in one of my timelines) is a continuing increase in the use of waterpower, combined with mechanisations of the various steps in the production of textiles, which could ultimately combine to a water-powered Roman textile industry.
 
So, is there an Industrial Revolution or not?

No.

The industrial revolution was the product of British society in the late 18th century. It built upon a history of developments in northern Europe over the previous several centuries.

The Roman Empire was a drastically different society, operating in a wholly different context. None of the factors that gave rise to the industrial revolution existed, nor could they have given the inherent context, namely the existence of the Roman Empire.

You are asking two mutually incompatible things. Asking for an industrialised Roman Empire is like asking for fire and water to exist in the same place at the same time. The very fact of the empire's existence precludes an industrial revolution.
 
By the 10th Century CE, almost certainly not. The Industrial revolution had a lot of things that it would need Rome did not have.

One is of course better Metallurgy, metallurgy is one of those things that kept improving despite the fall of Rome. You need good metallurgy to make steam engines and industrial machinery in quantity, Rome may be able to have the occasional toy made by a master craftsman, but large scale production is tougher. Getting useful steam engines even with 17th century metallurgy was not easy

Agriculture is another thing, it also kept improving despite the fall of Rome. Agricultural productivity is what is needed to free up the labor force to work any factories. Industrial revolution had over a thousand years of constant slow improvements to agriculture, selective breeding as well as innovations like better crop rotation. It also benefited from the Columbian exchange introducing a lot of new crops that also raised productivity. You can't really rush some of this, though you could have an early Columbian exchange, the issue is that ocean going ships are descended from the North European style of shipbuilding, not the Mediterranean the Romans use, so would need them adopt those, and then innovate enough to get ships that could regularly make the voyage early enough to bring back the crops in time to have an effect, which would impose a much tighter deadline

Also need quite a bit of wealth, need enough surplus capital to both invest in creating Industry and to buy the goods of that industry. It may not look it but I've heard it claimed both Britain and France at the time of the Industrial Revolution were about as rich as the Roman Empire, with a smaller population meaning that their wealth was more concentrated and a bigger surplus existed to invest/purchase

There were other things, more developed finance system, better seaborne transportation, mass literacy, etc. that contributed
 
the issue is that ocean going ships are descended from the North European style of shipbuilding

I agree with most of what you said but this is the part I gotta call out, other than the cog most of the 15th to 17th century long-distance Caravels and Carracks were descended from Iberian designs and innovations which themselves were inspired by Italian/Byzantine and Arab designs.

Northern European ships did have great possibility though, the various merchant and warships of the Norse period of expansion is proof as well as later cogs which spread all over the North Sea and the Baltic.
 
One thing to note is that because something happened in OTL we don't have to try to find a corollary in ATL. Why do we need an industrial "Revolution" when potentially, under the Empire, we could have had a continuing steady development, that could have reached the same point by the same time, but in a fashion that had some of the major inventions happen a few centuries earlier, but then develop to their limit before the next stage happened, whereas in OTL the developments built swiftly upon themselves?
 
I agree with most of what you said but this is the part I gotta call out, other than the cog most of the 15th to 17th century long-distance Caravels and Carracks were descended from Iberian designs and innovations which themselves were inspired by Italian/Byzantine and Arab designs.

Northern European ships did have great possibility though, the various merchant and warships of the Norse period of expansion is proof as well as later cogs which spread all over the North Sea and the Baltic.
Yes, but their style of construction, keel and frame first, planking later is, in the period of the Roman Empire, limited to North Europe, the Romans using planking first frame later method, which was not as strong or light. The sail plan of course is Middle Eastern in origin brought by the Muslims but that is less fundamental than the hull itself. Have to go back further than Islamic Iberia, before Iberia was conquered by the Muslims it had been owned by Germanic tribes from North Europe for several centuries
 
Top