Rome and the Industrial Revolution

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-08 10:18pm

so basically the whole reason the industrial revolution didnt happen is because they didnt develope technology well enough to be capable, and had no economic need.

if thats not an example the modern world should take to heart i dont know what is..

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-08 11:13pm

It all goes back to not having the proper scientific mindset. The era we live in is an aberration. A Neolithic man might have been awed by Rome's cities and temples, but once he got over the shock, he would have understood swords and oxcarts and stone roads. A jet airplane would be just as alien to either one of them. Science has utterly changed man's relationship with the world forever.

A lesson for the modern world indeed.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-03-09 03:58am

Another not so obvious factor in the early years of the industrial revolution was availability and accessibility of raw materials in an era of poor transportation. Britain got the early lead because her coal and iron ore deposits were fortuitously very near each other. This made it easier and cheaper for Britain to make iron and steel and turn out manufactured goods from them. Don't underestimate the importance of that in an age when overland transport was limited to horse or ox drawn carts. Water transport was easier, but if the iron ore and coal are not near a seacoast or a river, then you are left with that difficult overland transport again.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-09 08:57am

Perinquus wrote:Another not so obvious factor in the early years of the industrial revolution was availability and accessibility of raw materials in an era of poor transportation. Britain got the early lead because her coal and iron ore deposits were fortuitously very near each other. This made it easier and cheaper for Britain to make iron and steel and turn out manufactured goods from them. Don't underestimate the importance of that in an age when overland transport was limited to horse or ox drawn carts. Water transport was easier, but if the iron ore and coal are not near a seacoast or a river, then you are left with that difficult overland transport again.

That's a bit of a nonfactor. The romans could have used britain if they wanted. They did own the place after all. It comes down to mindset IMO.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-09 01:09pm

NecronLord wrote:
Perinquus wrote:Another not so obvious factor in the early years of the industrial revolution was availability and accessibility of raw materials in an era of poor transportation. Britain got the early lead because her coal and iron ore deposits were fortuitously very near each other. This made it easier and cheaper for Britain to make iron and steel and turn out manufactured goods from them. Don't underestimate the importance of that in an age when overland transport was limited to horse or ox drawn carts. Water transport was easier, but if the iron ore and coal are not near a seacoast or a river, then you are left with that difficult overland transport again.
That's a bit of a nonfactor. The romans could have used britain if they wanted. They did own the place after all. It comes down to mindset IMO.

No, it's a big factor. It would have made exploiting those resources hideously expensive. The Romans wouldn't have bankrupted themselves developing new technology to replace what worked just fine for their needs. Progress happens because it fufills some need for a reasonable expenditure of effort, not just because it'd be cool.