One of the problems with Rome was that by using slaves, the rich didn’t value work. People are more productive if they are compensated according to their productivity. Also the rich didn’t systematically reinvest their capital in the most productive way as capitalists do nowadays, instead they bought titles/positions, land or married their children.
That’s something I really want to explore. If Rome had an industrial revolution, where progress didn’t rely on slaves anymore, it could lead to big political conflicts. You’d have the old guard trying to hold on to power, and a new group pushing for change, a la American Revolution.
The "Who invented the steam engine?"[0] section of "The Book of General Ignorance" refers to a "brilliant essay" by Arnold Toynbee that imagines a global Greek empire enabled by a rail network derived from combining the aeolopile and the Diolkos. I'd love to read that essay but they don't cite it and I have yet to come across it myself.
Honestly I thought industrialization was more about the relationship between labor, commodity and manufacturing than any particular technology.
It's a mode of production more than anything.
For China you had river power which also served as a major trading round.
One of the big blockers was that trading and banking was seen by many cultures as only moral if exercised without profit. Intentionally profiting was often seen as a form of theft so you needed the moral reclassifications of these social relationships before industrialization was incentivized.
So without moral judgment approving accumulation, your assembly line is just a logistical curiosity and not a revolutionary device.
Absolutely. One of the reasons I chose ancient Rome over other settings is simply because, while I’m no expert, it’s the one I know the most about.
One of the problems with Rome was that by using slaves, the rich didn’t value work. People are more productive if they are compensated according to their productivity. Also the rich didn’t systematically reinvest their capital in the most productive way as capitalists do nowadays, instead they bought titles/positions, land or married their children.
That's not true! We see the invention and diffusion of labor-saving devices throughout the entire history of the Roman Empire!
That’s something I really want to explore. If Rome had an industrial revolution, where progress didn’t rely on slaves anymore, it could lead to big political conflicts. You’d have the old guard trying to hold on to power, and a new group pushing for change, a la American Revolution.
1 reply →
Nah they were too centralised. Actually I think the Greeks were closer by having city-states and inventing the aeolipile.
The "Who invented the steam engine?"[0] section of "The Book of General Ignorance" refers to a "brilliant essay" by Arnold Toynbee that imagines a global Greek empire enabled by a rail network derived from combining the aeolopile and the Diolkos. I'd love to read that essay but they don't cite it and I have yet to come across it myself.
[0]: https://books.google.com/books?id=1Mjd2GCRPmAC&newbks=1&newb...
The essay you're looking for is "IF ALEXANDER THE GREAT HAD LIVED ON" in Part IV of Some Problems of Greek History, Arnold Toynbee 1969.
1 reply →
Honestly I thought industrialization was more about the relationship between labor, commodity and manufacturing than any particular technology.
It's a mode of production more than anything.
For China you had river power which also served as a major trading round.
One of the big blockers was that trading and banking was seen by many cultures as only moral if exercised without profit. Intentionally profiting was often seen as a form of theft so you needed the moral reclassifications of these social relationships before industrialization was incentivized.
So without moral judgment approving accumulation, your assembly line is just a logistical curiosity and not a revolutionary device.