What POD to Have Early Industrialization in Roman Period?
- Thread starter Rhomaion1
- Start date
I think you might find the industrialisation may not happen there.
Take the UK vs the Roman Empire.
The North got the biggest boost in Industrialisation, even if the wealth (largely) went south to London.
In Roman Terms? The Western Empire will Industrialise, but the money will flow to the east. I'm not saying you won't find any industries in the East, but the Western Empire will probably use this for urbanisation.
---
But the biggest deal we keep overlooking, is that the Industrial Revolution was preceded by an agricultural one.
---
My ideal PoD is the creation of a method to make high-quality, affordable paper, and the mass publishing of books. Particularly agricultural texts.
Have these take root in the north of Gaul and Britain, and have them develop cold-weather agriculture techniques to boost food production there. Repeat this, so many times.
Throw in some politics that leads to co-operative latifundia, so that land is consolidated faster, but not just under the senatorial class.
If the Romans can introduce an agricultural revolution or three, early, then the percentage of the population involved in agriculture drops, causing urbanisation in the west. If it can kick off in N.Gaul, and Britannia (AFAIK two of the worst provinces in the Empire), and you upend the Roman Empire, and can urbanise in those regions through increased population. Suddenly there are a lot more Romans in the West.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Oh, it could be launced from Britain too, since Britain was part of the Roman Empire.
I didn't know the medievals had printing presses or had developed modern financial systems, either.
Plus, you can follow the old-faithful version, textiles. Take all that lovely wool, and some coal - mix em together with the right hardware, and boom - textile revolutions.
That in itself would change so many things (for the better, I would argue), and it would help consolidate agriculture for sure, but it`s also a bit utopian, isn`t it?
I developed the idea of such "Synergeia" in my first timeline, but I wouldn`t claim a high probability. A general co-op system has the benefit of those in control of the latifundia having a strong incentive to increase productivity: it eases their work, and the greater profits are still theirs. But does the Roman world know this structure at all? I guess they were aware of "tribal" forms of land ownership, but those were for subsistence, not geared towards the market.
Of course not. But we should not forget the 300 years from 1500 to 1770. A lot was developed, which finally helped industrialization.
Last edited:
Double entry bookkeeping, c. 1200s.
Modern international banking descends from medieval North Italian practices.
Oh, of course it is utopian. It is a belief, and if politics is not the system in which we create that which we believe should be the case, what is it?
/GE Cap off
- There are precedents, at least with the Samnites, but I would be flabbergasted that two farmers haven't gone "You know what neighbour, I know you like your sundays off to enjoy the sun, and I'm more eager to get tuesdays off to recover from monday night cards (forgive the anachronisms) - it only takes about half a day for each of our farms. How about I deal with your stuff on Sunday as well as me own, and you handle mine on tuesdays" - starts off as favours, and then develops. It just needs someone who can turn supporting peasant farmers into a big political opportunity.
Faeelin
Banned
But this is the boondocks of the empire. I get as Westerners we're all convinced the Empire should have steamships In the Atlantic leaving Londoninium, but the Dirty Little Britons, as the Romans called them, don't seem to be the ones to take the lead.
Can we apply the high-level equilibrium trap to the Roman Empire? I had an interesting ideia, if the Romans develop new technologies to revolutionize Northern Europe agriculture it can break the Mediterranean equilibrium (the Pax Romana) and shift its power base mostly to Europe. A more European Roman Empire would also prevent civil unrest and barbarian invasions, since the empire would be much more aristocratic than militaristic and have a stable border. A larger amount of food comes from Northern Europe to the urban areas of the Mediterranean, wages start to rise and - boom - Industrial revolution. What do you guys think?
I would prefer Burdigala or Gesoriacum to be honest
I'm amused by the image of Steamships in Londinium, but I only target that region as it is the one with the most potential in the Empire for agricultural change. It has more land that could be made arable, and as such less entrenched practices. Its easier to change things where the old ideas aren't as effective.
I think you have something here. I may think that industrialisation may be more likely in the west, but I might have some bias. However, I expect that rather than make the Empire more European - I think it'd change how the Empire is divided 'next time'. Rather than an East/West division, you'll see a Med/Atlantic division - the ERE getting Africa and Italia, but the Emperor of the 'West' being based near the mouth of the Rhine. Simply to be closer to the new theoretical economic centre of the West.
Are they still Hindu at this point? Hmm. (This is yet another reason I think that transmission of knowledge is the most important. Gotta speed that up - peaceful trade is one thing that helps, but sharing what is learnt is equally important).
Faeelin
Banned
Not at all! But my point has been consistently that more advanced societies didn't industrialize. But we're somehow assuming the Romans can do it.
Faeelin
Banned
I'm just going to point out that medieval Paris had hundreds of thousands of people. The greatest cities in the Roman West had a fraction of this. Again, the boondocks.