Why did the Roman Republic fail to become the world's first industrialized country?
>>423717
because the world isn't fucking sid meir's Civilization where you can just research techs in order.
>>423726
wood be cool though...
>>423717
Roman infrastructure is overhyped.
Infrastructure gives rise to industrialization.
>>423717
Because they focused too much on fucking each other and social rights than keeping their country safe
>>423717
Material conditions. If you're a rich roman that needs some project or another done, how would you go about it? Invest in some unproven and new technology that probably won't even work, like steam power, or just buy more slaves? Buying more slaves is the most economically sound decision by far, in those circumstances.
>>423717
Let's consider they had the technology to become industrialized, which fairly I'm not really sure.
First of all there's no need for it in an agrarian slave-holding society.
Second, the distance between the main sources of big amounts of quality coal and the Roman center was probably too much to make it pragmatical. A society like the roman one would not likely see the start of industrialization in a backwater frontier region.
>>423717
No incentive.
>>423717
You don't need to burn coal when there's perfectly good Christians to burn at the Colosseum.
Slave labor desu
>>423717
Industrialization doesn't just happen from investing enough science points into that direction and waiting several turns. It's the result of centuries, even millennia, of built up infrastructure and advances in industry before that point, as well as specific economic conditions (shortage of labor and high wages).
Because they didn't have mathematics due to their shitty numerics.
Better question is why didn't the Chinks in the 15th century industrialized
Ideological constraints;Chattle slavery led to christian serfs which was opposed to technological advances.
>>424190
>Industrialization doesn't just happen from investing enough science points into that direction and waiting several turns.
>goes on to say it's the result of exactly that
Industrialisation happened exactly once in the history of mankind. There is no reason whatsoever to believe it would have happened to every civilisation "eventually".
they didn't have the technology
>>423717
The Romans lacked a wide range of of innovations in chemistry, engineering, metallurgy, tools and even trade and commerce.
Examples might be reverberatory furnaces and a typical trading vessel of the 17th century capable of transporting over 200 tons of cargo across the North Sea with relatively minimal expense and risk. Each of which, themselves, are the result of a plethora of other innovations and crafts developed over centuries.
yeah so this >>424400
>>424297
Mongol, I think. The Song dynasty was rich as fuck
>>423717
Not enough technology and slave economy. The only nation that came close before England was Song Dynasty.
To put it simply, the Industrial Revolution requires the Scientific Revolution, which requires the scientific method, which requires Catholicism, which requires Christianity.
>>424452
it doesn't work like that, that is such a crude oversimplification
>>424452
Don't be silly,
Christianity is so anti science it caused the Dark Ages.
>>424462
It's certainly less of an oversimplification and closer to the truth than "cause they had slaves and slavery is bad mmkay".
>>424452
> the scientific method, which requires Catholicism, which requires Christianity.
Ibn al Haytham al Basri was doing experimental physics with optics back in the 11th century, so you're wrong there.
>>424452
>which requires Catholicism, which requires Christianity.
>>423717
No coal.
I've always wondered what are the circumstances that make a civilization "level up", go from hunter-gatherer to agricultural, from agricultural to industrialized etc.
>>424468
the fuck are you talking about
cheap labor from slaves means you dont need to go about looking for labor multipliers like industrial machinery to make up the labor deficit from more expensive labor
>>424467
This is such disgusting revisionism. Are you a community college student, perhaps?
>>424470
The scientific method is about a lot more than experiments.
>>424476
It does. You realise slaves cost resources to house and feed? Large scale plantation slavery in the Southern US only became viable thanks to the invention of the cotton gin which made it possible for one man to do a lot more work. Until then keeping that many slaves was just not worth the cost.
Romans wouldn't have invented the Industrial Revolution regardless of what they needed, Romans never even achieved any significant scientific progress of any sort.
>>424477
Pretty sure he was sarcastic.
>>424452
>which requires Catholicism, which requires Christianity.
>>424297
Easy, no incentive. Despite being light-years ahead of Europe technologically there was no need to China to industrialize because there was no condition that created that incentive as China was prosperous and wealthy throughout most of its history.
>>424519
>It does. You realise slaves cost resources to house and feed?
And a machine costs resources to fuel and mantain.
>Large scale plantation slavery in the Southern US only became viable thanks to the invention of the cotton gin which made it possible for one man to do a lot more work. Until then keeping that many slaves was just not worth the cost.
Are you seriously trying to compare 19th century American slavery to ancient Rome?
>Romans never even achieved any significant scientific progress of any sort.
:^)
>>423726
Oh wow i laughed way too hard
>>424462
>Bacon and D man
>ever being born elsewhere
>>423717
Because the western empire didn't last long enough for them to progress that far up the tech tree. In short, their capital was captured and thus they were eliminated from the game while they were still in the Classical Age.
Song had iron/steel tech on the equivalent of europe 1500-1600's
Steel industry is one of the basic requirements for industrialization the other being powered mechanization (china could have easily used its rivers, manpower or cattle for those contraptions much like early industrial fags did), and large supply trade routes/roads which they had.
Suddenly, the mongols and china fucked up forever
Rome had a good iron industry and military roads, but lacked on mechanization and trade aspect
Would have been amazing if the song had industrialized their precarious hand cannons, would have that made a difference?
>>424452
>Christianity caused the Industrial Revolution
>>424467
>Christianity caused the Dark Ages
Both statements are equally wrong, and both are very wrong.
>muh fuggin linear progression of history
>>423717
Europe's coal was under control of the filthy bar-bars.
>>423745
>Infrastructure gives rise to industrialization.
Really? I thought it was a mix of clockwork technology, high wages, and a glut of cheap cotton.
If Aristotle was so smart, why didn't he invent the Newcomen steam engine?
CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!
>>423745
>Roman infrastructure is overhyped.
it's definitely not
>>425361
Industrialization would have still been profitable even if it was limited to the medieval wool trade which involved a volume of fiber far in excess of the consumption of a single mill and rich merchants who would have invested in a small mill that would have been far more efficient than manual labor, if they knew how.
The idea that the industrial revolution happened because of slavery and colonialism is a modern bias. It is overwhelmingly due to technology.
>>423717
>yfw Rome output almost Industrial Revolution levels of pollution
>>425410
Why put the thought and effort into the developing the flying shuttle or the steam engine if your competitors could produce all the textiles the market ever desired using cheap labor?
I didn't say shit about slavery, though a large discrepancy in regional wages was probably necessary.
>>423717
they needed more techpoints
>>425413
Is this a graph for ants?
>>423717
ill humpr you
lets say some guy visits herons workshop in alexandria and points out that if you add two pistons to the steam exit holes. attach a pole to it then put wheels on each end of the pole you create a self propelling cart. that's all well and good but its still pretty useless, you have no suspension, so riding on roads will be a nightmare. roman smelting technology was nowhere near good enough to create a railway system so that's also useless
At best you'd have an odd showpiece that could be used to maybe power an archimedean screw to drain shit or a self powered tree saw that has to be manually moved from tree to tree
>>423717
Slavery
>>423784
Its been said Roman inventors had all the implements to create an external combustion engine but failed to put them together.
>>425361
Actually the industrial revolution started with massive British ship building push for the Seven Years War, in particular the iron work for all the nails and guns.
>>425829
Humans have had ironworks for thousands of years. What specific innovations made of Seven Years War era Britain any more "industrial" than previous ironworks? The role textiles had on the industrial revolution is as plane as day.
Because they're Italians, Italians dont contribute, they steal just take a look at US police records
>>425851
The huge quantities needed. It should be borne in mind as well that these huge quantities of nails were not built by government arsenals, but ordered from private businesses, who of course wanted to maximise profit. So economies of scale and greed.
>>425872
Okay, I get that large quantities of goods were needed to be made, but the key distinction is the inventions that came from that need. The flying shuttle and the spinning jenny are examples of industrial mechanization brought about by the need to furnish an exploding world population with clothes using cheap cotton without paying out for high labor costs. The mechanization led to the greater utilization of power sources beyond human or animal muscle power. That was the heart of the industrial revoltuion.
Give me one or two examples of such inventions coming from the rise in iron demand and I will seriously consider your position.
>>424424
>even trade and commerce
Like what?
>>425851
>Humans have had ironworks for thousands of years.
Dude are you retarded? Metallurgy is a living science, we're still making progress in it, you don't just "learn" how to melt a ferrous rock and that's it, there's a shitload of physics, chemistry and shit behind it. You can't even compare early roman with late roman metallurgy, never fucking mind roman metallurgy with 18th century european metallurgy.
>>423774
This seems like the best answer.
Slavery creates a perverse and lazy incentive to not invest in new technology.
>>425905
>retarded
/his/ is too angry today. Y'all mutha fuckas need to drink some tea or something.
Anyway, you are missing the point. I acknowledge that humans have gradually added innovations to various fields. That's why I'm asking what specific innovations happened around the Seven Years War that directly led to the industrial revolution in England.
>>424452
This.
>>425966
The main reason the Industrial Revolution started in England is that Denis Papin happened to live there when he invented the steam engine.
>>425982
How was the steam engine used in iron production?
There is a distinction to be made between the very gradual technological and infrastructural progress leading up to the industrial revolution and the select few innovations that sparked the rapid progress that followed. The iron industry in England sounds like more of the former and the textile industry the latter unless there were mechanization involved involved in iron production during the Seven Years War that wasn't used previously.
>>425966
I'm not that guy, but less innovations, as a widescale distribution of a key skillset.
Things like the spinning jenny, etc. come out of having a wide base of metalurgical and carpentry craftsman.
So at the very least, it produce the human capital necessary for later innovations.
>>425966
>That's why I'm asking what specific innovations happened around the Seven Years War that directly led to the industrial revolution in England.
One important matallurgic innovation was mass produced crucible steel: that alone improved efficiency in steam engines immensely both by lowering price, and improving performances.
Rome was an industrial power you fucking idiots, and they weren't even the first.
>>423745
Once infrastructure is built up, it works against change. Industrialization requires a specific type of infrastructure, and Roman infrastructure was oriented towards slave-based agriculture.
Early industrialization had advantages of lots of undeveloped colonial land, plus the early inventions which saved enough energy to "bootstrap" society for the big task of tearing down the old and building up the new.
>>425077
They had mass production of iron tools based on river power. Ancient Discovery has a whole episode on song industrial inventions
>>423717
The first and foremost barrier was the attitude. Rome was agricultural to the core. Agriculture was the basis of life and the ideal citizen was a landowner. Everyone who became rich, used his wealth to acquire land. People enlisted into the army to receive agricultural land. There was absolutely no incentive to reinvest capital to increase profits by innovation. The senatorial class was even banned from engaging in activities other than agriculture. This also fucked the Song, not Mongols. Song were already stagnating even before Ghengis was born.
Secondly, there was no diffusion of scientific knowledge. The scientific community was tiny and extremely unstable. Philosophers were few and they completely depended on support of superwealthy patrons to whom they were hardly different from court jesters. Knowledge was a hobby, nothing else. Absolute majority of population lived in utter ignorance and without any possibility to gain any education. While the fedora brigade might scream otherwise, it was only in the medieval times that Europe finally produced a social class largely dedicated to education and spread of knowledge - the clergy.
Finally, the slaves. There was absolutely no incentive for innovation if you have slave. Innovations pop up when you need to save labour, resources or time. All those needs are irrelevant if you can buy cheap slaves. And the well-being of slaves was never a priority. They were worked to death and noone cared, because you could always buy more slaves.
>>423745
>Roman infrastructure is overhyped.
Are you high? people still benefit from Roman infraestructure in 2015
>>424452
>the Industrial Revolution requires Catholicism
>>426354
Why do you underestimate the power of memes? In Rome in order to have respect, you ought to be a landowner. Thus everyone aspired to be one.
>>424452
>>424467
leave this board now
>>423717
Because Romans were inept bureaucrat who just stole all original ideas (not related to military, administrative or law) from Greeks and Etruscans.
>>426242
>Roman infrastructure is over rated
>Roman invention concrete is still the primary building material of the modern world
>Roman style cobble stone streets are still in use, some dating all the way back to the republic
>like every single major american city steals idea from Roman city planners
Holy shit imagine if Roma discovered the steam engine in 100 b.c.
imagine.
>>426432
They invented the steam engine in the first century AD. They opened some temple doors with it, and that's it. Slaves did the job better, and you could abuse them sexually too. So they kept using slave labor instead.
>>426451
>Slaves did the job better, and you could abuse them sexually too.
>implying I don't sexually abuse my boiler
>>424382
>Industrialisation happened exactly once in the history of mankind.
Wait, what?
You know there were two industrial revolutions, right?
>>426469
>Using the term "industrial revolution"
>>423717
There's a book I read once which kinda came at this question from a different angle, asking "why did Medieval Europe transform into a collection of global empires and then eventually industrialize?"
The book, "The Pursuit of Power" by William H. McNeil, argues that industrialization rose out of military competition between warring European powers. McNeil argues that most other human societies in history, from the Romans to the Chinese to the Mayans, were some form of tribute-collecting empire who had already "won" and therefore did not have a chronic incentive to advance technology.
In Europe, between the feuding peoples, such an incentive was present for many centuries, in the form of constant military competition. The desire for military supremacy spurred the centralization of governments and the expansion of economies to better accommodate the war machine, resulting in frequent technological, economical, social, and political advancement. McNeil argues that Europe's entire colonial era was just a way for the various European powers to fund and supply their armies at home so the competition didn't rub them out.
>>425966
How dense are you?
>>426087
gibe link pls
>>424297
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_equilibrium_trap
Chinese society had reached a metastable position. Europe, on the other hand, was so warlike it never came close to stability. Had one country ever *won* Europe, industry would've stagnated or even regressed (as happened in China).
>>426432
>Roman invention concrete is still the primary building material of the modern world
I thought the recipe of Roman concrete was forgotten and a recipe of the same quality was never invented again after.
>>426432
>modern concrete comes from mediterranean volcanoes
>>423745
Civ eng fag here, and no my friend, is not over hyped
>>427476
Not him but could you give any insight? As a civ engineer.
>>424452
It's statements like these from which we can differentiate the plebians from the patricians.
>>425856
t.butthurt carthraginian
>>426432
the greeks made this which was pretty cool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
but they didnt seem to see it's potential as an engine
>>424505
The scientific method as we know it originated in the Arab world.
>>423717
Didn't have capitalism and democracy
>>423717
it wasn't a small, homogenous, rich and market oriented country as Britain was in the 1700s
also slaves
>>426432
Was humanity unlucky not to have industrialized much sooner, or are we lucky we managed to industrialize at all?
>>426174
>Secondly, there was no diffusion of scientific knowledge. The scientific community was tiny and extremely unstable. Philosophers were few and they completely depended on support of superwealthy patrons to whom they were hardly different from court jesters. Knowledge was a hobby, nothing else. Absolute majority of population lived in utter ignorance and without any possibility to gain any education. While the fedora brigade might scream otherwise, it was only in the medieval times that Europe finally produced a social class largely dedicated to education and spread of knowledge - the clergy.
There is absolutely zero evidence the Romans had no interest in science. To the contrary, from the writings of Latins like Seneca and Pliny, the assumption was not only that nature could be understood (especially through science) but that it was our moral obligation to seek to understand it. When they did, they usually wrote in Greek since all well-educated Romans were bilingual. Ptolemy, Hero, Dioscorides, Menelaus, and Galen, some of the greatest scientists in antiquity, were all Romans.
>>426174
>Finally, the slaves. There was absolutely no incentive for innovation if you have slave. Innovations pop up when you need to save labour, resources or time. All those needs are irrelevant if you can buy cheap slaves. And the well-being of slaves was never a priority. They were worked to death and noone cared, because you could always buy more slaves.
>Romans never invented any labor saving technology guys!
>>424467
Are you fucking retarded or you just happen to know nothing about history?
>>430081
>Are you fucking retarded or you just happen to know nothing about history?
Like the time a monk destroyed Archimedes work on infinitesimals and combinatorics in order to find enough parchment for a prayer book?
>>430784
Or the time the only reason work like that was preserved was because churches looked after it?
Scribes could recover a lot of classics by reading the imprint left by scraped off ink, for prayers like you said. But without those monks, you wouldn't have preservation in the west at all. Read a book.
>>425505
Semitic ants too, it seems
>>430818
>Or the time the only reason work like that was preserved was because churches looked after it?
No they didn't. They preserved only a tiny fraction of it, only barely, and much of it incorrectly. Nearly everything that survives only survives in one or a few manuscripts, fragmented, widely scattered and poorly kept. We are lucky anything made it to the age of printing. By contrast, the Bible, and Christian writings about God, theology and other religious matters, were widely copied and preserved, thus demonstrating they had the means to do far better on science than they did but simply chose not to. Only a very few Christians thought it worth the bother, and for only a very few treatises, like the medical works of Galen that constitutes fully a fifth of all ancient Greek preserved, but even the best preserved authors still manage to be riddled with gaps.
>Scribes could recover a lot of classics by reading the imprint left by scraped off ink, for prayers like you said. But without those monks, you wouldn't have preservation in the west at all. Read a book.
The only known copy of "Stomachion", "The Method of Mechanical Theorems" and "On Floating Bodies" was discovered only after UV, infrared and X-ray scanning technology that was developed in the 20th century.
>>430784
>TFW we could have had calculus centuries earlier if it wasn't for a lazy monk.
>>423717
Because they already had all the slaves they could ever need. Industrialization only happens when labor becomes expensive. In Europe it happened because the plague made it impossible to maintain a feudal society. Rome was too successful to ever need advancement.
They were.
The Romans and Greek used complex machines powered by things other than human muscles. They knew of steam power and clock work. Greeks even made a computer of sorts.
It was a cultural thing that kept them from industrializing. Slave and plebeian labor was just so cheap and easy to get.
>>424452
Then why didn't the Roman Empire do it?
>>432430
>computer
niceme.me
>>424452
>>432455
Because you actually need protestantism, specifically calvinism, not catholicism
>>423717
Why the fuck you a Roman put in all that effort and money when you could just get a slave? Why do you think the industrial revolution started in Britain?(Hint: The Magna Carta has some stuff to say about slavery)
