Victorian era knowledge of steam engines is given to the early imperial Romans. Would they be capable of using it optimally? How would this affect history?
They wouldn't care because they used slaves. The Romans had steam engines but it was never anything else but a curiosity.
>>966458
They'd probably have trouble applying them unless you bundled some knowledge of mechanics in there too
>>966458
they don't have everything else that was necessary to use steams engines. There is a large chance nothing happens and small chance everything changes if people with sufficient power can see its usefulness and build the infrastructure necessary
There would be Mars temples on Mars today.
The degree of metallurgy required for advanced steam engines is pretty high. Something like the Newcomen engine may have been feasible, but it would have to be utilised to give impetus for improvements for metallurgy, skilled gunsmithing was probably also important for the development of steam engines.
>>966479
Nah. It wouldn't have made a difference. The Romans didn't have anywhere near the scientific and engineering capablities to effectively utilize it. The romans OTL did actually experiment with simple steam engines such as the Aelopile but nothing of use was ever created with them.
Also the Romans, like the Chinese had massive labor forces which underminded the need for automation.
>>966463
Dunno about that; the Romans were probably one of the most mechanically inclined cultures ever.
>>966532
Not compared to Western Europe in the 1700s
They use it for their mining operations. Lots of slaves have no use now. Romans being assholes just stop feeding them resulting in a rebellion. Slaves win, Rome collapses early.
>>966458
they have absolutely no use for it
>>966458
yes, but not because of the steam engines (to begin with)
In order to build a steam engine you need a vast array of background knowledge about all the supporting industries needed to produce the different parts, in particular the precision pistons which were themselves founded on centuries of development in the production of cannons. I assume this is all included in "Victorian era knowledge of steam engines".
The Roman economy wouldn't start using steam engines immediately except as a novelty for show. Instead would use the vast background knowledge to help other areas of the economy develop first, then once they have the infrastructure they could start to use steam engines to drain mines or run the mills. Realistically it would take decades.
>>967160
You have a very skewed understanding of the amount of mining slaves held by the Roman Empire. It wasn't 300,000 Slaves to ten thousand Free Men, As it was in the Americas.
Also, Romans would just use them for something else. Farming, Crafting, Anything really.
>>966461
They did not have steam engines that could develop any torque. The little spinning devices were just releasing steam like letting an untied balloon go. No use at all.
Slavery indirectly led to the downfall of Roman civilization and is the reason they never would have adopted the steam engine.
>>966458
Not without additional knowledge of how to dig up enough coal that heating enough water to make them practical was around.
>>966532
Didn't the Romans have the knowledge on how to build windmills while barely building any at all?
>>970371
>how to dig up coal
Coal was laying about forever and people were using it long before the industrial revolution.
>>970449
I blame slavery.
The biggest problem would also be metallurgy and making the Romans produce metallical parts that will both fit and won't break so easily.
>>970470
I may be wrong now, but didn't the amount of windmills in europe after rome surpass the amounts during roman empire rather quickly?
>>970464
Not in industrial quantities. It's one thing to use a bit of coal for a backyard forge. To get hundreds of tons a year, which you'll need with steam turbines, requires digging way deeper into the earth than the Romans were capable of.
>>970509
IDK, I would think so, especially when people started colonizing the low countries.
>>970648
>Not in industrial quantities.
Exactly. The problem isn't access to coal, it's demand.
If anything it was difficult to access coal deposits that led to the industrial revolution in England. China had plenty of coal but they could just dig it up no problem. Only the English had a pressing need for pumps, and the need for pumps led to a higher demand for mechanization.
>>970684
I have an theory that the power of the Roman state added to it. When you are a big strong boy with no outer threats yhe interest in keeping stability surpasses the interest in technological progress.
>>970728
I agree with that. I believe asymetric power distribution leads to stagnation. Progress happens the quickest in regions with a lot of competition between nations of relatively equal power. That's why Europe shot ahead of the rest of the world after the fall of the Roman empire. Europe was constantly at war but nations generally acknowledged the right of other nations to exist thanks to the church arbitrating disputes and the interconnectedness of European royal families.
>>966458
Eh, as has already been pointed out, the Romans/Greeks had very little incentive and opportunity to build upon their steam-powered toys to create anything like an industrial revolution. They had a handful of rare geniuses with the curiosity and inventiveness, but they had slaves, which removed much of the incentive for those with $$$ to invest in steam and draw others to develop related technologies.
I think more importantly, the classical world didn't have a continental network of universities (based on the scientific method) to nurture curious minds to push the existing technologies, and chance upon new ones.
