If Rome never fell - Technology related

Andrew Dufresne

3:34p, 11/6/23

I've heard speculation that if the Roman Empire hadn't fallen that the Industrial Revolution would/could have happened 2 or 3 centuries prior?

Do y'all think such a timeline would have been possible?

People having access to personal computers in the 1700's is fascinating to think about.

Belton Ag

8:24p, 11/6/23

What was the reasoning?

BQ78

9:00a, 11/7/23

In reply to Andrew Dufresne

Rome had become decadent and soft, like us. I doubt it.

The ability to make uniform components through machines is a big reason why the Industrial Revolution occurred, don't see the Romans accelerating that.

aggiedata

12:29p, 11/8/23

Old School Rucking

4:01p, 11/8/23

You should read Escape from Rome: The Failure of Empire and the Road to Prosperity by Walter Scheidel (or at least listen to a podcast where Dr. Scheidel discusses his work).

I agree with his view that the fall of Rome and fragmentation of Europe was a prerequisite to Europe's economic rise and technological innovation.

James Forsyth

4:55p, 11/8/23

In reply to Andrew Dufresne

Andrew Dufresne said:
I've heard speculation that if the Roman Empire hadn't fallen that the Industrial Revolution would/could have happened 2 or 3 centuries prior?

Do y'all think such a timeline would have been possible?

People having access to personal computers in the 1700's is fascinating to think about.

I think it's quite possible. The Romans had plenty of technology, it seems widespread slavery stifled some mass adoption.

Medieval Europe had its own Industrial Revolution. Jean Gimpel's "The Medieval Machine" is a great read. https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Machine-Industrial-Revolution-Middle/dp/0140045147

Aggie_Journalist

1:01a, 11/9/23

The Roman Empire existed for 500 years. How much did technology advance during its lifetime compared to other 500-year stretches?

If anything, I often wonder why Rome didn't see more technological advances. Great architectural engineers, sure, but what about the other sciences?

Thanks and gig'em

jwoodmd

11:02a, 11/9/23

Advances likely would have been more rapid, however, the significant advances toward industrial revolution and computers would have been hindered without the introduction of the concept of 0 (zero) and Arabic numerals. A standing Roman Empire could have slowed those advances thus the mathematics would have been slowed.

It is a fascinating thought process - a physics professor of mine once said if the Greeks had continued on that we'd have interstellar travel by now. Who knows - but it's fun to think about/debate.

nortex97

6:59a, 1/23/24

Rome fell over and over, but the Robin Pierson podcast series "The History of Byzantium is still going strong. I recommend it to anyone remotely interested in the longer-lived portion of the Roman Empire.

Episode 280 – The New Roman Empire with Anthony Kaldellis. Part 3 – Narrative: https://t.co/M477R8Q3Yc
Exploring captivating topics in our third chat – from the birth of Constantinople to Justinian's charisma, Heraclius' triumphs, and life under Sassanian rule pic.twitter.com/MA6vnRTEfi
— Robin Pierson (@byzantiumcast) January 23, 2024

Sapper Redux

7:36a, 1/23/24

In reply to BQ78

BQ78 said:
Rome had become decadent and soft, like us. I doubt it.

The ability to make uniform components through machines is a big reason why the Industrial Revolution occurred, don't see the Romans accelerating that.

How exactly had Rome become "soft"? Byzantium survived for another 1000 years and was made up of the "softest," wealthiest parts of the empire. How did they survive?

BQ78

9:33a, 1/23/24

In reply to Sapper Redux

The Byzantines were more Greek influenced, cultivated allies around them through trade and built a wall around their capital.

The Romans went to a dictatorship of Joe Biden, Err excuse me Caligula and Commodus, the people around them that they could have cultivated as allies hated them and they were a more base people than the Byzantines. While also soft, the Byzantines were smart!

Sapper Redux

9:43a, 1/23/24

In reply to BQ78

They were part of the same empire. The same bureaucracy and social system that defined Rome defined the eastern Roman Empire. The same military system.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton

9:52a, 1/23/24

In reply to BQ78

BQ78 said:
The Byzantines were more Greek influenced, cultivated allies around them through trade and built a wall around their capital.

The Romans went to a dictatorship of Joe Biden, Err excuse me Caligula and Commodus, the people around them that they could have cultivated as allies hated them and they were a more base people than the Byzantines. While also soft, the Byzantines were smart!

And they had most of the wealth, correct?

If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.

Jabin

9:59a, 1/23/24

In reply to Sapper Redux

Sapper Redux said:
BQ78 said:
Rome had become decadent and soft, like us. I doubt it.

The ability to make uniform components through machines is a big reason why the Industrial Revolution occurred, don't see the Romans accelerating that.

How exactly had Rome become "soft"? Byzantium survived for another 1000 years and was made up of the "softest," wealthiest parts of the empire. How did they survive?

Interesting points. Why do you think Rome itself fell 1000 years before Constantinople? What factors caused Rome to fall so "early" and what different factors caused Constantinople to survive?

Very interesting. Thanks for making the point.

BQ78

10:00a, 1/23/24

In reply to Sapper Redux

I don't know that they had the same social system as the west. After all they did speak Greek in the east, while they spoke Latin in the west. My viewpoint and limited reading is they were different societies. I know you won't like this answer but Christianity was more entrenched in the east versus the west and that was an influencer for the good. And as Ghost points out more of the big time wealth was in the east. And the reason for that is they saw their neighbors as a source of trade and commerce and not people to be subjugated.

Sapper Redux

11:34a, 1/23/24

In reply to BQ78

Quote:
And the reason for that is they saw their neighbors as a source of trade and commerce and not people to be subjugated.

You sure about that? And Christianity more entrenched? Do you have a source on that?

Sapper Redux

11:50a, 1/23/24

In reply to Jabin

Jabin said:
Sapper Redux said:
BQ78 said:
Rome had become decadent and soft, like us. I doubt it.

The ability to make uniform components through machines is a big reason why the Industrial Revolution occurred, don't see the Romans accelerating that.

How exactly had Rome become "soft"? Byzantium survived for another 1000 years and was made up of the "softest," wealthiest parts of the empire. How did they survive?
Interesting points. Why do you think Rome itself fell 1000 years before Constantinople? What factors caused Rome to fall so "early" and what different factors caused Constantinople to survive?

Very interesting. Thanks for making the point.

The wealth of the east meant power moved there, but it was the existing power structure, not something new or innovative. What changed was corruption that weakened the military and a growing xenophobia that refused to absorb or protect groups on the frontiers who offered their services to the empire. In other words, they were used for the legions but held back from being provided the benefits they requested, meaning there was a trained but disgruntled population on the frontiers.

BQ78

11:50a, 1/23/24

I am certainly talking in generalities. I could say the US has been a country that cultivates commerce with its neighbors like Byzantium but then would have to explain an anomalies like the War of 1812 and the Mexican War. But in general the statement is true. Christianity came out of the middle east and found acceptance earlier and quicker in the east than in Rome, to the point that Christianity became the state religion of Byzantium but not in the Western Roman Empire.

I guess my biggest influence on these concepts came from my old Western Civ textbook, out Of Princeton U, The Course of Civilization.

If my knowledge is too shallow or incorrect, I'm open to reading suggestions.