Poll 2: Which "invention" would have benefited the Roman Empire (until 395 AD) most?

Poll 2: Which "invention" would have benefited the Roman Empire (until 395 AD) most?

  • The Stirrup

    Votes: 16 14.5%

  • The Horseshoe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The Horsecollar

    Votes: 17 15.5%

  • Zero and the Position System

    Votes: 10 9.1%

  • Germ Theory

    Votes: 18 16.4%

  • Theory of Chemistry

    Votes: 9 8.2%

  • Theory of Economics

    Votes: 34 30.9%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 5.5%
  • Total voters
    110

Jan Gronvik

I have made a new poll with both the theories and inventions you wished. Interesting to see if a theory is more worth than a practical invention.

It is also interesting that the three practical inventions are horse-related.

If you vote for Other, it would be nice if you also posted a post and told us what that "Other" is.

Personally, I voted for Germ Theory, because I think that would increase health, longevity and quality of life among the people.

So, feel free to vote and discuss! :)
 
Last edited:
Vingilótë

Vingilótë

I said theory of Economics, but what I meant by that was the development of modern economic thought from the 18th century and onwards.
 

MrL567

Wile germ theory would be useful. I voted chemical theory because that would open many routes of industrial development to Rome.
 

Hörnla

I chose economic theory for its butterflies. It would help to change Roman mentality towards being more profit-driven and flexible. This should also lead to more "inventions" in all fields.
 

Agatho

Isn't modern economic theory contingent on calculus? That seems a little out of reach for ancient Rome. I chose zero just because it is WAY more important if you want the kind of theoretical advances that could lead to practical ones.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Agatho said:
Isn't modern economic theory contingent on calculus? That seems a little out of reach for ancient Rome. I chose zero just because it is WAY more important if you want the kind of theoretical advances that could lead to practical ones.
Click to expand...
You don't need calculus to understand what inflation is, having economic theory all the way up to Ricardo would be pretty nice.
 

scholar

Banned
Still going with the Printing Press. Yes, that implies paper comes with it but not necessarily. The archaic printing presses didn't need paper, but just something to print on.

The Roman's had a concept of 0, they just didn't have a numerical representation of it. 'n' stood in for it, if what I read is accurate, as a representation for "nothing."
 

Agatho

RousseauX said:
You don't need calculus to understand what inflation is, having economic theory all the way up to Ricardo would be pretty nice.
Click to expand...

That seems fair, if it's true the Romans already had a concept of zero this seems best. But what about algebra?
 
Vingilótë

Vingilótë

Agatho said:
Isn't modern economic theory contingent on calculus? That seems a little out of reach for ancient Rome. I chose zero just because it is WAY more important if you want the kind of theoretical advances that could lead to practical ones.
Click to expand...

Not really. The basic principles of modern economic theory have their roots more in philosophy than mathematics. In fact, most early economists were philosophers as well as economists.

That's not to say that you don't use math. But for a basic economics course, for example, the math requirements are trivial. I can see one fly in the pudding; graphs come into said basic economics course a lot, and a lot of aspects become a lot more complicated without the advantage of Cartesian graphing.
 

stevep

Guys

Would agree that the printing press is probably the best option so have voted other.

Don't think Smithsian economics would fit that well with the classical mind-set but might work. Wouldn't hate them enough to inflict Ricardo's ideas on them however.:(

Steve
 

Lt.Gen 767

What Rome needed was stability. Of these inventions the one that could lead to that is economics. While germ theory would help with plagues and chemical with industry and agriculture it wasn't plagues or agricultural/industrial deficiencies that brought Rome low. So why would Economics help?
The inflations in late Roman times did a lot to weaken the Empire, economics would do a lot to help alleviate that.
A better understanding of economics would lead people to see the benefits of more stable governance, which I've already mentioned.
A richer empire will probably spur the research into the other technologies as it helps build both the capital for investment and the demand for things like printing presses and horseshoes.
And finally a richer Empire could lead to a network of trade routes throughout northern and eastern Europe, reducing the incentives of people like the Goths and the Franks to migrate into the Empire itself.
 
SlyDessertFox

SlyDessertFox

Yeah, as long as they don't lose North Africa (and 8 times out of 10, the Vandals probably won't make it to Spain and then on to North Africa) they can feed themselves fine.
 

Will Kürlich Kerl

Banned
slydessertfox said:
Yeah, as long as they don't lose North Africa (and 8 times out of 10, the Vandals probably won't make it to Spain and then on to North Africa) they can feed themselves fine.
Click to expand...

But there are still Persians to the east, Arabians to the east, the rebellious Jews, all of whom are within striking distance of Egypt.
 

wietze

Joyeux said:
Rome had the ability to feed itself quite well.
Click to expand...

the excess production would see the growth of the merchant class ( just like it did later in otl), something that would have quite some impact on roman society after a while.
the horse collar also improves the amount the horse can pull, so it also influence the load of cart and wagon, thus influencing trade.

i would choose either the stirrup or the horse collar.
the horseshoe already existed in an early form.
The problem with the theories is that you have to do something with it, and i do not see that happen. Germ theory is nice, but if you cannot do anything with it, it has no added benefit.
After all real life is not a game, in strategy games you can a certain tech with certain effects, real life doesn't work that way.
Still think that the printing press would cause most changes.
 
Last edited:

Archon of Thessaly

I would prefer germ theory, on the grounds that plagues (especially the plague of Antonine) complietly decimated the available manpower-a roman emperor, and a push on both the Marcommani and the Parthia's were postponed or abandoned due to lack of forces. Later outbreaks were nearly as bad. if these were avoided, then Rome may have more troops and be more effective at holding the line against northern and eastern invaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Plague

However, since this economic theory could possibly bring about this anyway, as well as help[ battle inflation, i voted for this.
 
SlyDessertFox

SlyDessertFox

Will Kürlich Kerl said:
But there are still Persians to the east, Arabians to the east, the rebellious Jews, all of whom are within striking distance of Egypt.
Click to expand...

North Africa was the grain/food supplier of the west. Either way, the Persians aren't likely to take Egypt (they only took it once a hundred- two hundred years after West Rome's fall), and the Arabs aren't really likely to take Egypt in 9 scenarios out of 10.

Any attempt to take Egypt while the whole of the empire is intact is going to meet a large counter-attack...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top