If major reforms were carried out in the 2nd century and the Roman Empire survived much longer in its 2nd century glory than it did, would there be a chance of industrialization occurring before 1000 AD?
Nice autism.
It mirrors my own.
And yes.
>>1231382
I take no shame in my autism. I frequently fantasize about visiting the city of Rome 2000 years ago and seeing how an ancient city with 1 million inhabitants looked and functioned
>>1231353
The second part of the question is easy, because Romans would have continued to make leaps and bounds in technological advancement if the Pax Romana continued for centuries in a stable condition.
The first part is more difficult. The problems of succession, minimizing the damage caused by bad emperors, economic stability, hostile neighbors, etc. You'd have to enact perfect reforms at every level that can't be ruined by the fuckups of future generations. No civilization has managed that thus far.
All things, including empires, tend toward entropy eventually.
>>1231425
probably smelled bad, with open sewers and tannery shops.
>>1231353
Giant monolithic states are bad for technological advancement, generally speaking. Rome especially wouldn't have any need to industrialize. What would they need it for? They already had simplistic steam turbines, but only ever used them for oddities or toys. If you need real work done, just throw slaves at it. That doesn't work? Use more slaves. Contact with Africa, Germania, Arabia, and other regions means they have as many slaves as they could ever need.
You would have to drastically change Rome to make it industrialize.
>>1231353
>would there be a chance of industrialization occurring before 1000 AD?
No. Industrialization requires more than just coming up with the idea of mass production with advanced machinery. You mainly need to make big advancements in metallurgy and mining excavations. You need to be able to produce a fantastically massive amount of iron, steel, coal and then be able to work it easily enough and the Romans couldn't do this.
>muh steam engine of alexandria
It was big and inefficient which was okay because it was ceremonial. It was also used to open some doors and not power a hundred tons of locomotive.
>>1231552
>>1231562
Slavery doesn't hinder the process. Nothing says that slaves can't operate the machines and if they didn't it'd remove the dependency on slaves, removing nuisances like slave revolts.
>>1231623
>Slavery doesn't hinder the process. Nothing says that slaves can't operate the machines and if they didn't it'd remove the dependency on slaves, removing nuisances like slave revolts.
you don't seem to be getting the point
because slaves exist there is no reason for Rome to innovate technologically because it can all be accomplished with what they have now + a variable amount of slaves.
normally there would still be some form of innovation but when Rome is the most powerful nation in the known world (especially since the rumored chinese empire far east is only just a rumor to the romans) they didn't have any motivation to innovate greatly.
>>1231353
No. As much as I like the Roman Empire it did not stimulate technological growth at all. No slave owning culture has ever needed to industrialise. And the Pax Romana was even more stagnant than the more chaotic periods, it was just lots of small towns fighting each other to build the biggest baths and whining to the emperor when things didn't go their way.
>>1232102
Essentially this.
>>1231623
>Slavery doesn't hinder the process
Yes it does. Innovation is pointless when you can just have 4 slaves bred that can do the same thing.
