4 ms·

I feel like singling out Rome is unnecessary here. Why Rome specifically? Civilizations existed in the mediterranean (and elsewhere) for thousands of years be

I feel like singling out Rome is unnecessary here. Why Rome specifically? Civilizations existed in the mediterranean (and elsewhere) for thousands of years before and alongside Rome. Why even assume that the industrial revolution had to emerge from a civilisation anyway. History suggests quite a lot of technology came from pastoralists, nomads, tribal agrarian societies, etc. Alexandrian inventors were more likely to have recorded their patents and have those survive to modernity. My guess is that a prototype steam engine, or even functionally useful devices, probably were invented many times in many places. The industrial revolution, seemingly, had a lot of chances to happen. Perhaps that's the answer. It was an unlikely occurrence, and that's why it didn't happen all those other times. Tracing back the specific path that led to steam engine prowess in England is interesting... but somewhat arbitrary... probably. For example, the flying shuttle doesn't really need a steam engine. It could be powered by a water wheel, windmill or muscle power. Power isn't really the bottleneck. I think what the flying shuttle actually needed from the steam engine was inspiration.

Hayvok 4y ago
Rome is "singled out" precisely because a lot of (Western) people mistakenly assume that they were on the cusp of an industrial revolution, and just ran out of time or something before the barbarians and the Dark Ages snuffed it out. They were a powerful state, populous, technologically and politically sophisticated, and we see toy devices from time to time that _look_ like tech that helped bootstrap the Industrial Revolution. There are discussions of Chinese civilization that are equally fascinating. [1] The author's point is that an Industrial Revolution requires a very precise set of conditions to occur. Those conditions didn't exist in Rome, and they weren't far enough along the tech tree to make it happen even if they did exist. [2] He does acknowledge that we have one and only one example of an I.R. happening, and that it overspread the globe before we had a chance to observe another independent example. (This stands in contrast to agriculture, where we have several.) Perhaps you are right, and there are another set of conditions that could trigger a similar result among another civilization, or a nomadic society. (Deeply skeptical though.) [1] China is probably a good argument for why the specific conditions need to exist. They were even deeper into the tech tree than the Romans, and it still didn't trigger. Maybe they just ran out of time though; we'll never know. [2] You could do a similar study on Mesoamerican cultures and the wheel. We see toy wheels, why no "wheel revolution" there? Probably because of a very similar set of conclusions.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  Rome is also the author's specialization as a historian, so it's a natural area for them to focus on.
  - dalbasal 4y ago
    OK. I also didn't mean to come off harsh. The author uses Rome largely as a stand-in for "ancient world" in any case. The reason I brought this up is because I want to push back against the frame which implies conditions made it impossible for Romans to have had an industrial revolution or that conditions made the revolution inevitable in England. If you widen the frame to include many civilizations, even many eras of roman history... it becomes more plausible that England was a fluke.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  So.. To the first point, I don't see exactly where we disagree. "Rome" is effectively used by the author as a placeholder for "ancient world." He also notes that there is/was an ongoing discussion about being on the cusp of an industrial revolution. I just pointed out that (a) Rome is not particularly unique. That's an anglocentric notion. Lots of civilization^ existed. Even Rome's empire (eg damasus) consisted of mostly ancient civilisations. Most territories across its borders (eg parthia) were also civilisations. Beyond that, more civilization (eg china). They're all candidates, even if we assume that kind of empire is necessary... though I don't see why we should. >> The author's point is that an Industrial Revolution requires a very precise set of conditions to occur. This is the point I am pushing back against. I mean, how do you distinguish between a conditional requirement and a post fact anecdote? Just because it happened a certain way, doesn't mean that it had to happen that way. For example, the flying shuttle doesn't really require steam engines. It's just an automated loom. You could probably power one with a foot pedal. Meanwhile, textile (like steel) is an obviously valuable trade good. You could have probably gotten rich in the neolithic with a battery of flying shuttle equipped loom. Trade goods, unlike steam power, have vast markets. You can sell as much as you can make. I'm curious about why the flying shuttle was invented so soon after the modern steam engine. The availability of engines as a power source doesn't explain it, IMO, given how little power a loom requires. I suspect that steam engines' important contribution to weaving was not the engines. It was the engineers. It was engineering. It was a mindset. Once the mindset exists, the machine is not that hard to invent. It's clever and amazing, but achievable. Motivate good engineers to automate the loom, and they will do it. The mentality to really try, hard, to invent an automated weaving machine... that's the secret sauce, IMO.
Illniyar 4y ago
It isn't being singled out, Rome is the guy's expertise, and he tends to write articles drawn from his expertise. "Bret is a historian of the broader ancient Mediterranean in general and of ancient Rome in particular. His primary research interests sit at the intersections of the Roman economy and the Roman military, "
inglor_cz 4y ago
Well, Bret Devereaux is a scholar of Rome, plus Rome had really a lot of resources under its control. The empire was huge, comparable to the modern EU, and had a good transport network both at sea and on land. Most of the other civilizations were dwarfed by Rome at its maximum extent, or at least didn't have as big internal market as Rome did.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  Is Imperial hugeness a key factor? If so, why not the Achaemenids, the Chinese? Why assume that a massive empire in necessary though? It doesn't take that empire-scale resources to build any of these. These aren't really more resource intensive than a Mill to invent or build. The steam engine, which Bret focuses on, is a pretty localized device... unlike textiles and metals which can be exported easily. Even if export is a key driver, there were plenty of small or decentralized civilisations that could have easily leveraged massive economic zones. The Phoenicians, for example, could have conceivably built the export economy Britain ultimately built in the 18th century. BTW, I didn't mean to neg on the author. I enjoyed the essay a lot. I felt it was a discussion piece, so discussing. Personally, I'm inclined to think the "when" is more important that the "where," if it isn't mostly a matter of chance. IE, if England hadn't industrialised first, another country would have. Once you have a widespread mentality that produces thoughts like: "I'm going to try building an automatic loom," I believe that many of the challenges early modern engineers overcame could have been overcome at many times. The steam engine might have required symbioses with coal fuel and coal mining needs, but metallurgy (as others point out) and weaving (the flying shuttle) don't. If you are a well resourced blacksmith you can have a crack at metallurgy. I think that in 18th century england, enough people were educated in engineering. In renaissance Italy, Da Vinci was pretty unique... and the only textbooks he had were Aristotle and such. Why are there more startups in 2022 than in 1992? The culture had yet to develop.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Hugeness maybe not, but highly developed internal market always helps. One of the overlooked factors that the author mentions briefly is metallurgy. Better metals translate to better machines. Even today, quite a lot of our technological effort is stymied by metallurgy. For example, China still struggles to develop a reliable jet engine for its fighters, and it took a lot of time for SpaceX to stop Raptor2 combustion chambers from melting in the heat. (IDK if this has been fully solved actually. But they are conducting static fires.) A steam engine needs to tolerate a lot of pressure. Ancient metals couldn't do that.

Hayvok 4y ago

Rome is "singled out" precisely because a lot of (Western) people mistakenly assume that they were on the cusp of an industrial revolution, and just ran out of time or something before the barbarians and the Dark Ages snuffed it out. They were a powerful state, populous, technologically and politically sophisticated, and we see toy devices from time to time that _look_ like tech that helped bootstrap the Industrial Revolution. There are discussions of Chinese civilization that are equally fascinating. [1] The author's point is that an Industrial Revolution requires a very precise set of conditions to occur. Those conditions didn't exist in Rome, and they weren't far enough along the tech tree to make it happen even if they did exist. [2] He does acknowledge that we have one and only one example of an I.R. happening, and that it overspread the globe before we had a chance to observe another independent example. (This stands in contrast to agriculture, where we have several.) Perhaps you are right, and there are another set of conditions that could trigger a similar result among another civilization, or a nomadic society. (Deeply skeptical though.) [1] China is probably a good argument for why the specific conditions need to exist. They were even deeper into the tech tree than the Romans, and it still didn't trigger. Maybe they just ran out of time though; we'll never know. [2] You could do a similar study on Mesoamerican cultures and the wheel. We see toy wheels, why no "wheel revolution" there? Probably because of a very similar set of conclusions.

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
Rome is also the author's specialization as a historian, so it's a natural area for them to focus on.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  OK. I also didn't mean to come off harsh. The author uses Rome largely as a stand-in for "ancient world" in any case. The reason I brought this up is because I want to push back against the frame which implies conditions made it impossible for Romans to have had an industrial revolution or that conditions made the revolution inevitable in England. If you widen the frame to include many civilizations, even many eras of roman history... it becomes more plausible that England was a fluke.
dalbasal 4y ago
So.. To the first point, I don't see exactly where we disagree. "Rome" is effectively used by the author as a placeholder for "ancient world." He also notes that there is/was an ongoing discussion about being on the cusp of an industrial revolution. I just pointed out that (a) Rome is not particularly unique. That's an anglocentric notion. Lots of civilization^ existed. Even Rome's empire (eg damasus) consisted of mostly ancient civilisations. Most territories across its borders (eg parthia) were also civilisations. Beyond that, more civilization (eg china). They're all candidates, even if we assume that kind of empire is necessary... though I don't see why we should. >> The author's point is that an Industrial Revolution requires a very precise set of conditions to occur. This is the point I am pushing back against. I mean, how do you distinguish between a conditional requirement and a post fact anecdote? Just because it happened a certain way, doesn't mean that it had to happen that way. For example, the flying shuttle doesn't really require steam engines. It's just an automated loom. You could probably power one with a foot pedal. Meanwhile, textile (like steel) is an obviously valuable trade good. You could have probably gotten rich in the neolithic with a battery of flying shuttle equipped loom. Trade goods, unlike steam power, have vast markets. You can sell as much as you can make. I'm curious about why the flying shuttle was invented so soon after the modern steam engine. The availability of engines as a power source doesn't explain it, IMO, given how little power a loom requires. I suspect that steam engines' important contribution to weaving was not the engines. It was the engineers. It was engineering. It was a mindset. Once the mindset exists, the machine is not that hard to invent. It's clever and amazing, but achievable. Motivate good engineers to automate the loom, and they will do it. The mentality to really try, hard, to invent an automated weaving machine... that's the secret sauce, IMO.

Illniyar 4y ago

It isn't being singled out, Rome is the guy's expertise, and he tends to write articles drawn from his expertise. "Bret is a historian of the broader ancient Mediterranean in general and of ancient Rome in particular. His primary research interests sit at the intersections of the Roman economy and the Roman military, "

inglor_cz 4y ago

Well, Bret Devereaux is a scholar of Rome, plus Rome had really a lot of resources under its control. The empire was huge, comparable to the modern EU, and had a good transport network both at sea and on land. Most of the other civilizations were dwarfed by Rome at its maximum extent, or at least didn't have as big internal market as Rome did.

dalbasal 4y ago
Is Imperial hugeness a key factor? If so, why not the Achaemenids, the Chinese? Why assume that a massive empire in necessary though? It doesn't take that empire-scale resources to build any of these. These aren't really more resource intensive than a Mill to invent or build. The steam engine, which Bret focuses on, is a pretty localized device... unlike textiles and metals which can be exported easily. Even if export is a key driver, there were plenty of small or decentralized civilisations that could have easily leveraged massive economic zones. The Phoenicians, for example, could have conceivably built the export economy Britain ultimately built in the 18th century. BTW, I didn't mean to neg on the author. I enjoyed the essay a lot. I felt it was a discussion piece, so discussing. Personally, I'm inclined to think the "when" is more important that the "where," if it isn't mostly a matter of chance. IE, if England hadn't industrialised first, another country would have. Once you have a widespread mentality that produces thoughts like: "I'm going to try building an automatic loom," I believe that many of the challenges early modern engineers overcame could have been overcome at many times. The steam engine might have required symbioses with coal fuel and coal mining needs, but metallurgy (as others point out) and weaving (the flying shuttle) don't. If you are a well resourced blacksmith you can have a crack at metallurgy. I think that in 18th century england, enough people were educated in engineering. In renaissance Italy, Da Vinci was pretty unique... and the only textbooks he had were Aristotle and such. Why are there more startups in 2022 than in 1992? The culture had yet to develop.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Hugeness maybe not, but highly developed internal market always helps. One of the overlooked factors that the author mentions briefly is metallurgy. Better metals translate to better machines. Even today, quite a lot of our technological effort is stymied by metallurgy. For example, China still struggles to develop a reliable jet engine for its fighters, and it took a lot of time for SpaceX to stop Raptor2 combustion chambers from melting in the heat. (IDK if this has been fully solved actually. But they are conducting static fires.) A steam engine needs to tolerate a lot of pressure. Ancient metals couldn't do that.