4 ms·

I accept your broader point. I have a minor quibble on invention of the steam engine: First rudimentary steam engine was the Aeolipile produced in the first ce

I accept your broader point. I have a minor quibble on invention of the steam engine: First rudimentary steam engine was the Aeolipile produced in the first century in Roman Egypt. In this light one can also say China had the steam engine during the Song Dynasty(960-1279). https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2012/did-the-chinese-develop-steam-engines-prior-to-the-17th-century https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2012/did-the-chi... The point is that for steam engine technology to take off, there had to be an economic problem it solved. In a nation with prevalent slavery or abundant human labour, an early steam engine is superfluous.

rfrey 5y ago
The rest of the thread in your link is contradicting that one answer. And the fact that particular answer says the modern steam engine was invented by Watt doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the author. Hero's Aeolipile boiled water, but didn't resemble what we call a steam engine in any other way: it's just a jet. And in fact, it's very difficult to get it to work; you need modern bearings, extremely lightweight modern materials, and very large burners to give it enough power to spin itself. It's pretty unlikely it ever worked in antiquity, it was probably a concept sketch. Likewise, the illustrations of "steam engines" in China show no boilers, no pipes, no evidence of pressure vessels of any kind. A steam engine that produces useful power requires strong steel pipes and connections. It was technology gates being passed that led to the steam engine being invented and improved, not a change in economic condition. Agreed slavery can slow down technological adoption, but keeping slaves has its expenses too. It's easy to imagine there being an economic advantage to mechanical power even in a slave tolerating society.
- vkou 5y ago
  In addition to this, I would also like to point out that the British Empire - the birthplace of the steam engine - was a society formally practicing slavery between 1562 and 1833. (And that in addition to practicing chattel slavery, it had no issue with forced labour, penal labour and colonies, the Enclosure acts, etc. In short, it had no shortage of manpower.) Were all of these institutions different from what was practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome? Somewhat. But they are more similar than we often think.
  - i_am_proteus 5y ago
    The British Empire lacked one thing that was abundant in the Roman Empire - lumber - and Britain needed lumber, the heat source, more, both because Britain is colder (residential heating) but also because of high demand for charcoal needed to fire blast furnaces to smelt iron. It was for this reason that Britain began mining coal at scale (as well as harvesting peat), and found herself in need of an efficient way to de-water her mines. And when the prerequisites (metallurgy, abundant fuel, and economic necessity) converged, the steam engine emerged.
XorNot 5y ago
Slavery isn't what kept the steam engine down, it was metallurgy. The Romans had a curiousity in the form of the steam engine but it could do no useful work because they couldn't manufacture a shaft or bearings it could turn without breaking.
- phreeza 5y ago
  Did these steam engines really have that much torque? I know the Romans used waterwheels with gears and shafts, I would be surprised if these proto-steam engines were more powerful than those.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    It's more a comment on why the steam engine didn't revolutionize anything for them: they lacked the pre-requisite technologies to make it viable. You don't just go "steam engine done" - you need metallurgy to make shafts, boilers, pressure containers (specifically, you need steel - Romans had a word for something like steel, but their metallurgy is generally considered to be poor). You need clear glass to make gauges and other management equipment, and to do the chemistry to develop a reproducible metallurgy. The Romans skirted around a lot of these things, but they couldn't have known these were the things they needed: the best steel they ever produced probably wasn't very good, compared to working with bronze, and unless you knew it could get better, there was no reason to think it was revolutionary at the time - i.e. because you could make it a lot better and then get the steam engine and mechanical motion out of it.
    - phreeza 5y ago
      I guess the two things are complementary, if you don't have slaves, it creates a greater incentive to search for technologies that amplify human labor. So in a sense both explanations might be true. If there hadn't been any slaves, the question of "how can we build more durable gears" would have been on more people's mind, which could have lead to better metallurgy earlier on, even without guns/gunpowder or whatever lead to the need for better metal in the enlightenment?

rfrey 5y ago

The rest of the thread in your link is contradicting that one answer. And the fact that particular answer says the modern steam engine was invented by Watt doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the author. Hero's Aeolipile boiled water, but didn't resemble what we call a steam engine in any other way: it's just a jet. And in fact, it's very difficult to get it to work; you need modern bearings, extremely lightweight modern materials, and very large burners to give it enough power to spin itself. It's pretty unlikely it ever worked in antiquity, it was probably a concept sketch. Likewise, the illustrations of "steam engines" in China show no boilers, no pipes, no evidence of pressure vessels of any kind. A steam engine that produces useful power requires strong steel pipes and connections. It was technology gates being passed that led to the steam engine being invented and improved, not a change in economic condition. Agreed slavery can slow down technological adoption, but keeping slaves has its expenses too. It's easy to imagine there being an economic advantage to mechanical power even in a slave tolerating society.

vkou 5y ago
In addition to this, I would also like to point out that the British Empire - the birthplace of the steam engine - was a society formally practicing slavery between 1562 and 1833. (And that in addition to practicing chattel slavery, it had no issue with forced labour, penal labour and colonies, the Enclosure acts, etc. In short, it had no shortage of manpower.) Were all of these institutions different from what was practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome? Somewhat. But they are more similar than we often think.
- i_am_proteus 5y ago
  The British Empire lacked one thing that was abundant in the Roman Empire - lumber - and Britain needed lumber, the heat source, more, both because Britain is colder (residential heating) but also because of high demand for charcoal needed to fire blast furnaces to smelt iron. It was for this reason that Britain began mining coal at scale (as well as harvesting peat), and found herself in need of an efficient way to de-water her mines. And when the prerequisites (metallurgy, abundant fuel, and economic necessity) converged, the steam engine emerged.

XorNot 5y ago

Slavery isn't what kept the steam engine down, it was metallurgy. The Romans had a curiousity in the form of the steam engine but it could do no useful work because they couldn't manufacture a shaft or bearings it could turn without breaking.

phreeza 5y ago
Did these steam engines really have that much torque? I know the Romans used waterwheels with gears and shafts, I would be surprised if these proto-steam engines were more powerful than those.
- XorNot 5y ago
  It's more a comment on why the steam engine didn't revolutionize anything for them: they lacked the pre-requisite technologies to make it viable. You don't just go "steam engine done" - you need metallurgy to make shafts, boilers, pressure containers (specifically, you need steel - Romans had a word for something like steel, but their metallurgy is generally considered to be poor). You need clear glass to make gauges and other management equipment, and to do the chemistry to develop a reproducible metallurgy. The Romans skirted around a lot of these things, but they couldn't have known these were the things they needed: the best steel they ever produced probably wasn't very good, compared to working with bronze, and unless you knew it could get better, there was no reason to think it was revolutionary at the time - i.e. because you could make it a lot better and then get the steam engine and mechanical motion out of it.
  - phreeza 5y ago
    I guess the two things are complementary, if you don't have slaves, it creates a greater incentive to search for technologies that amplify human labor. So in a sense both explanations might be true. If there hadn't been any slaves, the question of "how can we build more durable gears" would have been on more people's mind, which could have lead to better metallurgy earlier on, even without guns/gunpowder or whatever lead to the need for better metal in the enlightenment?