What POD to Have Early Industrialization in Roman Period?
- Thread starter Rhomaion1
- Start date
Debasing the currency to pay the troops. No way that could possibly go wrong...
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Incidentally, this is why I actually have such a high opinion of Emperor Tiberius, despite the whole Sejanus fiasco -- he's one of the only emperors who actually seemed to have a sensible fiscal policy, even if Rome ended up hated him for it.Debasing the currency to pay the troops. No way that could possibly go wrong...
Unfortunately for the Romans, their policy was more about (a) keeping the people of Rome happy, and (b) keeping the army happy. Fiscal discipline was much less important, despite the theoretical wealth of the empire.
There have been many threads on the subject, and often they remain below their potential because either people`s Rome-wanking fantasies go wild, or other people just say that it´s all impossible. Also, discussions about slavery and tenancy like the one that`s started here are really interesting, but they tend to derail a discussion which might focus on technological advances which didn`t happen IOTL have the greatest probabilities of happening.
As @Analytical Engine has pointed out, there HAVE been water-powered sawmills and grain mills in the Roman Empire. Barbegal, Hierapolis, they existed in very different places across the Empire. So, what could have been the next steps?
Although I have dabbled with it, too, in my Res Novae Romanae timeline, textile industry really isn`t the most likely route, I fear. It was how we came closer to industrialisation IOTL, true, but
a) automated textile processing and manufacturing has a high threshold because you have three different processes you would like to automate: carding, spinning, and weaving. If you only automate one of them, it only makes sense under certain socio-economic circumstances, even if you automate two of them, a big latifundial enterprise wouldn`t go to the trouble because you still have the third process as bottleneck. It made sense IOTL because
b) OTL`s medieval textile manufacturing socio-economics was very decentralised (as was OTL`s Roman, of course), but at the same time done to a great degree by the weak gender of the whole core population, and ALL socio-economic structures were decentralised IOTL. In antiquity, textile manufacturing was, to a great degree, something which peripheral groups (in Anatolia for example) did, and at the same time, Roman economy had, on average, a greater degree of concentration and specialisation.
Long story short: let´s have something other than textile be industrialised.
1) Since there wwere already sawmills and grainmills, and the Romans already operated oil mills mostly with animal or slave power, a good idea for spreading milling technology would be to automate oil milling across the empire.
2) Then, there are lots of advances in watermilling IOTL, most of which had something to do with where the water entered the wheel and which of the physical forces were harnessed in which way (only falling kinetics, or also weight?). Here, Roman mills could have taken a few leaps.
3) Also, windmilling looks like a next logical step, making milling feasible in a lot more places.
4) Water-pumping is something the Romans often had to do in mines, and the Archimedan screw was often used. Have that be wind-powered!
Also, another thought I had back when I wrote my TL: We´re always focussing so much on physics, but what about chemistry? You can have massive productivity leaps from chemical advances, too. The Roman Empire was its age`s world leader in glass manufacturing, and it had a very alcohol-friendly environment, so why not start things with widespread distilling practices? From distilling wine or fruitwine into brandies, it´s only a short leap towards distilling herbal medicines, and the related specialised crafts of glassmakers and distillers could easily bring forth a combined profession, let´s call them chemists, who`d be experimenting with lots of materials both for the containers, and for what is brewed in them, which might further understanding of substances. Fast-forward a few centuries, and you could have great advances in agriculture and weaponry, couldn`t you?
As @Analytical Engine has pointed out, there HAVE been water-powered sawmills and grain mills in the Roman Empire. Barbegal, Hierapolis, they existed in very different places across the Empire. So, what could have been the next steps?
Although I have dabbled with it, too, in my Res Novae Romanae timeline, textile industry really isn`t the most likely route, I fear. It was how we came closer to industrialisation IOTL, true, but
a) automated textile processing and manufacturing has a high threshold because you have three different processes you would like to automate: carding, spinning, and weaving. If you only automate one of them, it only makes sense under certain socio-economic circumstances, even if you automate two of them, a big latifundial enterprise wouldn`t go to the trouble because you still have the third process as bottleneck. It made sense IOTL because
b) OTL`s medieval textile manufacturing socio-economics was very decentralised (as was OTL`s Roman, of course), but at the same time done to a great degree by the weak gender of the whole core population, and ALL socio-economic structures were decentralised IOTL. In antiquity, textile manufacturing was, to a great degree, something which peripheral groups (in Anatolia for example) did, and at the same time, Roman economy had, on average, a greater degree of concentration and specialisation.
Long story short: let´s have something other than textile be industrialised.
1) Since there wwere already sawmills and grainmills, and the Romans already operated oil mills mostly with animal or slave power, a good idea for spreading milling technology would be to automate oil milling across the empire.
2) Then, there are lots of advances in watermilling IOTL, most of which had something to do with where the water entered the wheel and which of the physical forces were harnessed in which way (only falling kinetics, or also weight?). Here, Roman mills could have taken a few leaps.
3) Also, windmilling looks like a next logical step, making milling feasible in a lot more places.
4) Water-pumping is something the Romans often had to do in mines, and the Archimedan screw was often used. Have that be wind-powered!
Also, another thought I had back when I wrote my TL: We´re always focussing so much on physics, but what about chemistry? You can have massive productivity leaps from chemical advances, too. The Roman Empire was its age`s world leader in glass manufacturing, and it had a very alcohol-friendly environment, so why not start things with widespread distilling practices? From distilling wine or fruitwine into brandies, it´s only a short leap towards distilling herbal medicines, and the related specialised crafts of glassmakers and distillers could easily bring forth a combined profession, let´s call them chemists, who`d be experimenting with lots of materials both for the containers, and for what is brewed in them, which might further understanding of substances. Fast-forward a few centuries, and you could have great advances in agriculture and weaponry, couldn`t you?
One important reason the Industrial Revolution started in textiles was it was an excellent commercial product and job creator. Everybody needs more of it, it doesn't spoil, it's easy to ship, and it replaces lots of low income jobs with lots of higher income jobs. Even today we have national economies based on exporting textile products, and no economy based on food processing. The fact is you have only so much food in need of milling. If you do this with water or wind power instead of donkey and oxen you save a lot of animal feed but that's as far as it goes. I don't see how this leads to new industries.
Now you can industrialize food of course. Canning is a significant industry. This would require pasteurization and mass production of canning jar. But this industry never took off until the more reliable and sturdy tin plated iron can was invented. Even so it was initially quite expensive and used for special applications like naval supplies.
Now you can industrialize food of course. Canning is a significant industry. This would require pasteurization and mass production of canning jar. But this industry never took off until the more reliable and sturdy tin plated iron can was invented. Even so it was initially quite expensive and used for special applications like naval supplies.
Last edited:
As an addendum to the utility of a textile driven economy is that it is one of those industries where not only does everyone need the product, but the cheaper the product is, the more people buy. Consider how many changes of clothes an average poor person has today. Consider also how willing people are to keep up with fashion, or to simply discard old clothing.
Not to mention that clothing is not the only purpose of textiles. Anything made of cloth; ship sails and cloth awnings (like for the amphitheaters) come to mind.
As to the bottlenecks, one of the key drivers of the industrialization of the different bottlenecks was indeed the industrialization of the other bottlenecks. Once you either can't keep up with the demand for your spun wool, or don't have enough spun wool, someone is going to figure it out. I would actually say that it is that dynamic that makes textiles so industrialization friendly.
Not to mention that clothing is not the only purpose of textiles. Anything made of cloth; ship sails and cloth awnings (like for the amphitheaters) come to mind.
As to the bottlenecks, one of the key drivers of the industrialization of the different bottlenecks was indeed the industrialization of the other bottlenecks. Once you either can't keep up with the demand for your spun wool, or don't have enough spun wool, someone is going to figure it out. I would actually say that it is that dynamic that makes textiles so industrialization friendly.
@Richard V and @DominusNovus
while your points are valid and indicate just why OTL´s industrialisation took this course, I honestly doubt that this is the likelist path for Roman technological progress.
As for food industry, tin cans are indeed out of Roman metallurgical reach. But olive oil was shipped around by the hectolitres, seeing as it was used for anything from cooking to lighting, and mechanised olive oil presses save the costs for animals or slaves running them, as Richard pointed out. That´s maybe not much, but it´s what`s within Roman reach without us going into the dangerous waters of wishful thinking.
Bottlenecks were a driver for innovation IOTL because the whole mechanisation process had begun. The problem with the Roman economy and society is to begin the process. Textile products and semi-finished produce were, for the most part, provided by groups living on the fringe of the Empire`s society (Anatolian shepherds and their families, Thracian and Moesian ones, too). Developing a carding machine, or a water-frame, or a spinning jenny is not something I´d expect to arise from the semi-tribal and not extremely well-connected or integrated parts of Roman society, if we want to consider them as such. I´d say capital-heavy innovations are likely to arise where the landed Roman aristocracy runs the whole show because they have both the money and the trading connections.
while your points are valid and indicate just why OTL´s industrialisation took this course, I honestly doubt that this is the likelist path for Roman technological progress.
As for food industry, tin cans are indeed out of Roman metallurgical reach. But olive oil was shipped around by the hectolitres, seeing as it was used for anything from cooking to lighting, and mechanised olive oil presses save the costs for animals or slaves running them, as Richard pointed out. That´s maybe not much, but it´s what`s within Roman reach without us going into the dangerous waters of wishful thinking.
Bottlenecks were a driver for innovation IOTL because the whole mechanisation process had begun. The problem with the Roman economy and society is to begin the process. Textile products and semi-finished produce were, for the most part, provided by groups living on the fringe of the Empire`s society (Anatolian shepherds and their families, Thracian and Moesian ones, too). Developing a carding machine, or a water-frame, or a spinning jenny is not something I´d expect to arise from the semi-tribal and not extremely well-connected or integrated parts of Roman society, if we want to consider them as such. I´d say capital-heavy innovations are likely to arise where the landed Roman aristocracy runs the whole show because they have both the money and the trading connections.
You're being difficult to these poor people, clearly to make some sort of point. What would you say that point is? After all, Stonehenge is just a big pile of rocks, nothing special there.
I've been around long enough to remember some of your old timelines, one of which I swear involved some economic innovations in Rome...
Faeelin
Banned
Water mills aren't Industrialization. People haven't explained clearly why these mills are better than the medieval system of mills.
The medieval system of mills was of utmost importance for productivity, and it came about from the 12th century onwards in Europe (earlier in the Middle East).
Having all that a millennium earlier is a BIG deal.
Faeelin
Banned
If you are positiviting, say, a Roman renaissance (printing, more water wheels, etc), I think that this is plausible. But I don't want to ignore that the middle aged, especially by 1200s were more advanced than Rome in most ways.
Absolutely agree. Which is why I'm thinking about ways for Rome to reach, in some domains, "1200" and "1500" early. From there, things would take their time, too, but maybe on different paths from OTL.
Well, first, the resurgence of watermills in the Middle Ages was something of an industrial revolution in its own right. I think the key difference, however, between a greater use of wind and water power, and a true industrializing economy, is the scale. Not just the 'watermills everywhere' scale, but a vertical scale, such as with (to beat a dead horse) textiles.
Compare that production to, say, grain production. The only real industrial part of that is the milling itself. Yes, you can mechanize much of a farm, but even then, you've only increased productivity on two steps of production. You simply can't industrialize the rest of the production chain until you get refrigeration (unless you're making liquor).
With textiles, there are so many more steps that can be industrialized, and since efficiency gains in one production step puts pressure on the other steps, they feed off esch other. Add in the detail that many of the mechanized components can be used in other steps, and there's further feedback.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
The tricky thing about moving toward an Industrial Revilution in Roman times, to my mind, is that (unless they're really far along by then) they're still going to run into a cooling climate. (Little unclear on details -- worst could be as early as the third century, but no later than the 6th.)
EDIT NOTE: Now AIR, the worst of the climate cooling did start in the 6th Century; there was cooling in the 4th and 5th Centuries, but that had more to do with migrations than Roman agricultural productivity.
EDIT NOTE: Now AIR, the worst of the climate cooling did start in the 6th Century; there was cooling in the 4th and 5th Centuries, but that had more to do with migrations than Roman agricultural productivity.
Last edited:
Mechanization does not equal industrialization imo. The industrial revolution requires the creation of exponential demand for a product, driven not by population increase but industrial methods. Labor saving olive oil press machine would not alone do this, people are not going to use multiple times more olive oil just because it's cheaper. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Romans DID use water power for olive oil manufacture and we just have no archeological evidence for it.
However the olive oil idea does have promise if the Romans came up with new uses for it. I would propose olive oil soap. The Romans didn't like soap, which was something the Germans and Gauls invented. They preferred cleaning themselves with olive oil itself, and soap back then was animal fat based and not very nice. IIRC it wasn't until the 16th century that olive oil soap came out of Castille, the original ivory soap. Which had something to do with Muslim contribution to industrial soap making. Something to do with alkali production.
If the Romans invent liquid soap as well it wouldn't just be great for personal hygiene, but used for washing laundry, dishes, windows, cleaning floors and bathrooms. The point is expanding demand for a product, and increasing supply with technology is the key to industrial revolution, not the technology itself.
Come to think of it, it's astonishing liquid soap wasn't invented until the 19th century, good old Palmolive.
Last edited:
The mills are not that different. It is the water.
The romans were able to bring water to every place: where you need it, when you need it, and what volume you need.
Way beyond of the imagination of a medieval engineer.
Faeelin
Banned
The mills are not that different. It is the water.
The romans were able to bring water to every place: where you need it, when you need it, and what volume you need.
Way beyond of the imagination of a medival engineer.
Why? Medieval engineers built the Naviglio Grande; there were water powered forges in 14th century England, which the Romans never had as far as we can tell.
Looks like the Chinese had water-powered trip-hammers and bellows, though.
This list is pertinent (scroll down a bit).
Watermills were being used all over post-Roman Europe.