What sort of POD might have led to early industrialization (for example, sawmills and water-powered textile factories) in the Roman era? Sawmills are believed to have been created in the later Middle Ages, and textiles, while considerably more complex, wouldn't need much advanced machinery, so what might lead to this? Any suggestions on how to implement other early industries that could be water-powered are also welcome.
What POD to Have Early Industrialization in Roman Period?
- Thread starter Rhomaion1
- Start date
Perhaps a shortage of slaves? With all that man power around to do the trick the romans became to dependent of slavery.
Are you suggesting a roman era Spinning Jenny in this TL?
Are you suggesting a roman era Spinning Jenny in this TL?
I am surprised, that this urban myth is always popping up again. The roman economy changed from slavery to tenancy already during the 1st century AD. Latest in the 2nd century AD, tenancy was the main business model, e.g. we can't find any hint of slavery in the new dacian mines. Same with agriculture. Columellas (empire) advises about the business model are very different from Cato (republic).
The Spinning Jenny could be something they make, I'm just asking for ideas about what sort of industries could be industrialized like that without a complete and utter technological revolution. Sawmills for instance really just need a water wheel, saw blades, and linkages, so that isn't particularly technical. Bessemer steel, on the other hand, would probably be too advanced for Rome considering how little scientific inquiry's going on at the time, unless Hero of Alexandria decides to go in a whole new direction and somehow discovers it by trial and error.
Mass printing brings literacy to the masses, more ideas get written down and shared, more breakthroughs spread instead of dying with their inventors, stronger bureaucracy with more efficient methods of governing encouraged by the Senate/Emperors as a result of power struggles leads to the nation holding together much better in the long term, providing the long term stability of a large market with relatively easy transit via the Mediterranean and the Roman road system leading to competition between producers for more efficient methods to make their goods, which over the course of a few centuries leads to widespread adoption of things like heavy plows, crop rotation, water wheel powered factories and machines, and then after a couple centuries some bright young son of a senator with more money then sense digs up some old references to a steam powered machine built by an ancient thinker, decides for whatever reason he can do it better (see more money then sense) and using the best metals he can get his hands on actually creates a working model, which although horribly inefficient quickly becomes popular in coal mines in Britannia and Germania, and from there they just get better and are used in more situations until one day, the entire society seems to run on steam or electricity produced by it.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
However, some on this forum think that the overall number of slaves didn't decrease, even during Late Antiquity. So did the number of unfree people (slaves and tenants) increase? Or do you think that the number of slaves increase? It would be nice to have sources on all these subjects.
I am of the opinion that a few key innovations in the textile industry (defining that as loosely as possible) would be enough. Every year (it seems) we discover new sites of Roman-era watermills. And there are written examples of them using them for a variety of purposes. So, if they were to develop a few key developments in the textile industry (add in paper for fun), their watermill technology would be applied to that, and, well, that should be just as big of a deal as it was in our history. I think that if you can industrialize textiles, everything else follows.
Though, that will end up making quite the bottleneck in the wool and linen sectors of the economy. An interesting twist, that.
Though, that will end up making quite the bottleneck in the wool and linen sectors of the economy. An interesting twist, that.
If tenancy became the main business model in agriculture, where 80% of the people worked, slavery must have decreased. Perhaps house slaves and state slaves were not impacted. But they got no numbers anyways. Also look at the late roman codices. For every law about slavery you got 10 laws about tenancy.
There is also a trend of concentration of capital from early empire to late empire; at least in the west. Something like 80% of all land in Gallia in the 4th century belonged to a few super-rich families. So it is a good guess, that the numbers of tenants growed even further.
But tenants were initially free people. More and more of them became heavily indebted. This way they were bound to the big landowners. But bound by contract and debts, not by law. We cannot call them unfree before Diocletian changed the law.
Furthermore, the theory, that slavery blocks innovation is not proven anyways. So who cares?
Last edited:
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Well, the law codes might be a hint, but are there any modern estimations of the number of slaves and its evolution?
Well, nobody.
Water-powered sawmills did exist in the Roman period, to cut marble tiles. Water-powered flour mills too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbegal_aqueduct_and_mill
They also had mechanical, bucket-chain pumps to transport water.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Holy crap, I did not know about Barbegal; this is practically 18th Century level mechanization and commercialization in the second century! If this is indeed accurate, then it's just mind boggling how the Roman Empire was just so, so close to an industrial shift. What do you guys think was the deciding factor that kept them from making that next step? Hyperinflation? The Crisis of the Third Century? The rise of serfdom? This is all fascinating to think about...
Possibly because there was no need for them to actually do it...
Advanced technology doesn't automatically lead to an industrial revolution. Otherwise, China would have had one.
Steam engines existed for much of the middle ages, just as advanced as Hero of Alexandria's aeolipile, if not more so, but they were just toys. They didn't take off until the early 18th century because the materials required to actually build them didn't exist until then.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I'm well aware it isn't the tech that makes an industrial revolution, it's the economics. That's why it was Barbegal in particular that I found so particularly striking; it seems to have very eerie parallels to the factories of the 18th and early 19th centuries that similarly utilized water to power assembly made manufactured goods. (Unless I completely misunderstood the documentary clip.)
The Dutch used wind-powered sawmills well before the industrial revolution.
Long-distance mechanical transmission of power were used for several centuries before the steam engine, especially in Germany and Sweden.
IMO, the Roman technology more parallels that of pre-industrial Europe.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
That's about what I'm talking about as well -- the capitalist revolution that preceded the industrial revolution. We're still talking about tech and economic practices in Roman times that took over a millenium to become prevalent in the west again.