Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire

Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire (/showthread.php?tid=5521)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - conon394 - 08-06-2006

Quote: I agree, that's really the heart of it, Peroni. The Roman Empire was very socialistic in many ways and hindered innovation - as Tarbicus quite correctly observed, IMO

I am surprised you can come to that result especially since the examples Peromi notes are basically not supportive of his conclusion. Exactly how did it (the Roman Empire) hinder innovation?

Peroni is basically repeating the very out of context and misleading use of two points of literary evidence that M I Finely used in his now canonical (and polemical) attacks on innovation and technology in the Classical World. Read the text of Seuetonius I posted I see no anti technology mindset in Vespasian.

As for the multiple variants of the â€˜unbreakable glass storyâ€™ really now unbreakable glass; call me a cynical skeptic but 2000 years later unbreakable is still a fantasy. I am sorry we are dealing with a morality story not a viable peace of evidence for Roman attitudes toward actual technology.

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Theodosius the Great - 08-07-2006

OK, I'll retract part of what I said. But I still believe the Empire did hinder technological progress due to the Romans' general attitude towards innovations. Specifically, they were just very traditionalist and conservative in their set ways - "this is how we do it and have always done it" kind of mentality. I'm not pinning this belief to any particular Roman, but that was the general attitude, IMO. Of course, this isn't to say there weren't any innovations just not rapid advancement. The Greeks were even worse - they had a MUCH more individualistic attitude that scorned any openness toward change where technology was concerned - again, that doesn't mean they didn't innovate b/c they most certainly did, we're just talking about pace here.

Just my thoughts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Tim,

I usually find it a treat to read your posts when you have something to say about the middle ages, but I think I have to partially disagree with what you said here...

Quote:Thankfully the tide is turning against this nonsense and Bryan Ward-Perkins' The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilisation makes a pretty rock solid case that the collapse was chaotic, bloody and extensive, not some multi-cultural hippy group-hug.

I don't think you can make such a sweeping statement about the whole of Western Europe. For 300 years Visigothic Spain was still a prosperous region after Roman authority collapsed in the peninsula. The Visigoths were probably the most "Romanized" of all the barbarian tribes who conquered the West - certainly more so than the Vandals. True, there were wars that took place including civil wars among the Visigoths themselves, but this didn't destroy the economy. Many if not most of them spoke Latin, all wore the same Roman clothing, used the same Roman weapons and were all Christians. And classical education survived the disappearance of the Western Empire as well. So, when the Berbers conquered Spain in 711 AD finding it still fully irrigated I think they would've said on the whole, Spain was quite a "well kept shop" - as Hitler said referring to France after it was conquered by Germany. Militarily - weak, economically - prosperous, culturally - still very Roman.

BTW, I'm reading a fascinating book on Visigothic Spain at the moment by Roger Collins.

Theo

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - conon394 - 08-09-2006

Quote: But I still believe the Empire did hinder technological progress due to the Romans' general attitude towards innovations. Specifically, they were just very traditionalist and conservative in their set ways - "this is how we do it and have always done it" kind of mentality.

But where is the proof. Look at glass blowing in particular (and glass production in general) for example.

So glass blowing was invented in the first century BC somewhere in the Palestine/Syria region, maybe Sidon since it are mentioned as being early specialists in blown glass by Pliny. So far so good, by your dictum - "this is how we do it and have always done it" the Roman should be slow at best to adopt the new technology and its possibilities But in fact the very opposite occurred.

Glassblowing was rapidly accepted in Italy, and over the course of the first century AD several key advances in glass blowing(better kilns, iron tubes for blowing, etc) and the realization you could completely re-melt and recycle glass appear to have been pioneered in Italy not the East. Glass because ubiquitous thoughtout the Empire: glass tableware was quick to supplant metal in the same roll; while other new glass items were invented like windows and glass lamps etc. Interesting Pliny notes one version of the Tiberius story, and suggests Tiberius was motivated by a fear glass will supplant gold and silver (36.66). The important thing missed by those who cite the story as has an example of negative Roman or Classical attitudes toward technology (aside from the fact Pliny dismisses the story as being widely reported, but lacking any real authority) is that Pliny observes in the next section, that in his day glass has in fact quite superseded silver and gold tableware. The Emperor might have dislike new things but apparently not Roman consumersâ€¦

Now granted some of those things like windows were often cast, but the ideal of glazed windows was Roman, widely adopted and part of a rapid overall adoption of glass and it widespread use across the Empire.

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Theodosius the Great - 08-10-2006

Hi Paul,

Yes, your duplicate post has now disappeared. OK, back to the topic....

It seems that your evidence is limited to one or two industries - glass and iron tubes. That's enough to conclude that technological progress didn't go through a period of deceleration ?

Quote: So far so good, by your dictum - "this is how we do it and have always done it" the Roman should be slow at best to adopt the new technology and its possibilities But in fact the very opposite occurred

You misunderstood what I meant. I'm talking about pace - by that I mean cumulative technological progress as took place during the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century which almost happened in 2nd century Rome (AD). I didn't mean pace as in the rapid adoption of a new invention.

What you're saying, I believe, doesn't conflict with nor negate what I'm saying. I acknowledge that technological progress wasn't 100% arrested during Roman times. In fact, as I just said, they were on the cusp of igniting the Industrial Revolution a full 1,600 years before it finally happened. But since they failed to do so, they left the world to slog at a snails pace towards full mechanization.

Theo

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - conon394 - 08-10-2006

Quote: You misunderstood what I meant. I'm talking about pace - by that I mean cumulative technological progress as took place during the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century which almost happened in 2nd century Rome (AD). I didn't mean pace as in the rapid adoption of a new invention.

What you're saying, I believe, doesn't conflict with nor negate what I'm saying. I acknowledge that technological progress wasn't 100% arrested during Roman times. In fact, as I just said, they were on the cusp of igniting the Industrial Revolution a full 1,600 years before it finally happened. But since they failed to do so, they left the world to slog at a snails pace towards full mechanization.

Misunderstand perhaps, but I still disagree. No matter what I think of the Romanâ€™s proclivity for advancing technology, I would argue that the ideal of a 18th/19th style European industrial revolution in the 2nd Century in the Roman Empire was not near miss but fundimaental impossibility.

The industrial revolution of the 19th century was critically made possible by two things the Romans lacked: 1700 years (or so) of incremental progress in every field of human endeavor; and the fact that there were a lot more people around and thus a lot more potential for someone to be in the right place at the right time with an invention of insight. In addition, tangentially east-west contacts were only just becoming firm, and importantly sea-based links were relatively new. Rome thus lacked fairly easy access to Chinese/Eastern innovations. Rome also lacked the additional admixture of â€˜technologiesâ€™ from the Americas.

It seems altogether unfair to argue that ipso facto the failure of Rome to produce the 19th century industrial revolution means Rome was anti technology. Or rather if that is your criteria than every culture and society except 19th century Europe (and the US, Canada etc) is equally technologically stagnate and culpable.

Quote: It seems that your evidence is limited to one or two industries - glass and iron tubes. That's enough to conclude that technological progress didn't go through a period of deceleration ?

Deceleration how (staying with the glass example)? Glass had been kicking around since Dynastic Egypt for hundreds of years, and the world got was what, beads and a few bowls â€“ luxury items at that. Give the Romans a century and they make blown glass a common every day thing mass produced commodity, put in place continent spanning trade networks for handling primary glass production and shipping, invented glazed windows and make them a typical and regular part of there architecture, developed glass lamps that were around 2 times more efficient than ceramic ones, where is the slow down? I would say that rather than a deceleration, and given the relative small size of their inherited technological â€˜tool-kitâ€™ (vs. say the 18th/19th â€˜Westâ€™) the Romans actually accelerated technological innovation and dissemination.

If they failed anywhere is was in the Empire's relative political weakness and it failure to maintain it's stability that subsequently allowed the disruption of the vast single market space the Romans created up to the 2nd century AD.

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Theodosius the Great - 08-10-2006

I guess what really drives my belief is the fact that the Romans never capitalized on such a crucial invention, namely the steam engine.

I just don't see how anyone cannot attribute a certain lack of curiosity to the fact that the Romans failed to realize the full potential of the steam engine created by Heron of Alexandria in the 2nd century AD (see below).

[Image: Aeolipile_illustration.JPG]

Why couldn't they have physically adapted this technology to revolutionize naval propulsion ? Because there weren't enough people around to come up with the idea ?

I too am a believer of the dictum that says it takes quantity to get quality, but it seems to me that Rome had enough of the former. Just look at this steam engine. You have to admit they missed the boat on that one Confused

hock: Where am I going wrong with this example ?

Quote:Or rather if that is your criteria than every culture and society except 19th century Europe (and the US, Canada etc) is equally technologically stagnate and culpable.

Very true, they all are - I'm not picking on Rome. China never fell, but what have they produced in, say, the last 500 years ?

I see your examples, but I'm just not impressed with luxury trinkets - which is what the Romans regarded the steam engine to be ; now what does that say about Rome?

Why did siege technology not advance for several centuries ? The Chinese had a superior engine - the trebuchet. This invention was independently created without the benefit of Western contact.

Quote:If they failed anywhere is was in the Empire's relative political weakness and it failure to maintain it's stability that subsequently allowed the disruption of the vast single market space the Romans created up to the 2nd century AD.

I would think a certain lack of stability would spur creativity - this is where I agree with Tim about the fall of Rome having a beneficial effect for technological progress. Much was forgotten, but much was improved. Was Medieval Europe any less stable than Rome after the 2nd century ? Yes. In time, armoring techniques in Germany and Italy surpassed those of the Greeks and Romans. The world was a much less stable place during the high middle ages with a fragmented Europe, Mongol hordes, and Muslim infighting. Technology seemed to be unhindered under these much more chaotic conditions.

Theo

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Theodosius the Great - 08-10-2006

Just to illustrate my point about the beneficial aspects of instability.

The only time the Romans seemed to show any creativeness towards developing warfare technology was when they were on the ropes (i.e. the very Late Empire).

The De Rebus Bellicis written sometime around the early 5th century by "Anonymous" shows a series of proposed inventions that were never created due to their inherent impracticalities.

Here's one showing a ox-powered galley : ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And a strange looking scythed chariot :
[Image: derubis1.jpg]

And something that looks like an armored, horse-drawn "tank" :
[Image: derubis3.jpg]

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Tarbicus - 08-10-2006

Quote:Why couldn't they have physically adapted this technology to revolutionize naval propulsion ? Because there weren't enough people around to come up with the idea ?

I too am a believer of the dictum that says it takes quantity to get quality, but it seems to me that Rome had enough of the former. Just look at this steam engine. You have to admit they missed the boat on that one Shocked Where am I going wrong with this example ?

I think their engineering at the time still had limits, especially with metallurgy. Just look at the components required to make a ship's engine, and their sizes and precision engineering that was necessary.

Another thing that wasn't widely and very cheaply available - pencil and paper. All of those calculations, measurements, plans, etc, need to be written and drawn somehow. It's one thing for an 18th C. genius to have a eureka moment and get to designing his wonder machine on paper in the middle of the night, but an entirely different one for a Roman to have been able to do so.

Also, an invention is often inspired by hearing about a theory somewhere, or someone else trying to do such and such. The successful inventor often overcomes the technical problems. News travelled comparatively very slowly in ancient times.

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Theodosius the Great - 08-10-2006

Tarbicus,

I'll grant you that. But surely something could've been made from this innovation. Like a repeating rapid firing balista or something in the area of warfare technology. The larger point is that they did nothing with it - no, worse - they saw it as a toy.

That's almost as embarassing as the Chinese not realising the full potential of gun powder, IMO.

Theo

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Tarbicus - 08-10-2006

Quote:The larger point is that they did nothing with it - no, worse - they saw it as a toy.

But perhaps it just simply didn't have much puff, and to realise an engine that could drive propellers through water (an incredibly resistant substance) is another thing entirely. Look at the pressures involved with a steam engine and its boilers, they can be immense. You have to really ensure that the metal plate used is of very high quality lest you blow yourself up. For all we know someone may have tried but did die in the process, setting back the progress by a generation if he hadn't the means to record in minute detail what he had done so far. Besides, they were killed - life in ancient times could be short enough without adding that risk, when slaves or paid freemen could act as intelligent, mobile (and readily replaceable) computerised robots and engines? Even though the technology was theoretically there hundreds of years later the human race didn't harness it for mass transport or production until much later, still using the exact same means as the Romans did up until then.

Look at today. We know we can make computers faster, smaller, and actually intelligent. But, we don't have the technology to do it yet.

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - conon394 - 08-10-2006

Some more thoughts later, but quicklyâ€¦

Quote: Why did siege technology not advance for several centuries ? The Chinese had a superior engine - the trebuchet. This invention was independently created without the benefit of Western contact.

You lost me on this one; the traction trebuchet was superior to Roman twin armed torsion devices? I would argue rather that the Romans get the last laugh here, the Byzantines by introducing the composite trebuchet (traction and counterweight) were likely the ones who provided the actual innovation that but the trebuchet ahead of the classical Roman torsion engines.

Nor was torsion artillery development stagnant. The Hellenistic world aggressively improved the devices, experimented with alternate springs, automation, etc. The Romans were hardly static inheritors either, they seem to have continued to refine and improve the system.

Quote: I see your examples, but I'm just not impressed with luxury trinkets

I donâ€™t see how glass is a luxury trinket or rather solely so. The invention of glass lamps and glazed windows were significant improvements in lighting. Glass also provided a cheep effective non-reactive non-porous storage medium for foods and whatnot.

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Theodosius the Great - 08-10-2006

Tarbicus,

Quote:But perhaps it just simply didn't have much puff, and to realise an engine that could drive propellers through water (an incredibly resistant substance) is another thing entirely. Look at the pressures involved with a steam engine and its boilers, they can be immense.

I've conceded that perhaps it could not have been made into a propulsion device. As for having enough "puff" - this invention was really small so I would guess making a large scale version would be the way to go - like those huge onagers the Romans had (which were over 15 feet tall ?) And as for boilers, the Byzantines used boilers to spray their "Greek fire" which was highly dangerous, especially on their wooden ships. I'm sure there were accidents, but they didn't shirk from danger.

Paul,

I read that the Chinese had the trebuchet at least 800 years (perhaps even 1,000) before it was introduced to Europe. It had far superior range, accuracy and devastating effect than any balista, catapult, or onager.

But you're saying the Byzantines made it happen ? I've never heard that one before, but I don't doubt they made refinements to it.

Theo

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - conon394 - 08-10-2006

Quote: I read that the Chinese had the trebuchet at least 800 years (perhaps even 1,000) before it was introduced to Europe. It had far superior range, accuracy and devastating effect than any balista, catapult, or onager.

There are essentially 3 devices in question the traction trebuchet, the hybrid-traction trebuchet that added the counterweight principle, and the finally the trebuchet of your picture the counterweight-only trebuchet

The Chinese did indeed invent the traction trebuchet, but they did not invent or developed the counter-weight principle that produced the highly effective evolution in the West the ended with the counter weight only weapon. The hybrid device was likely an Arab/Islamic innovation of the 8th century.

The traction device is not anywhere near as impressive as the pure counterweight engine, and because the arm is motivated by a crew of pullers it requires a very large crew to with anything other than a small load.

From J. Needham â€œScience and Civilization in Chinaâ€

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Theodosius the Great - 08-10-2006

I'm forced to retract my trebuchet example, then. Seems I was a little sloppy myself :wink: The traction trebuchet was utterly unknown me. Thanks for posting the range data. I won't submit the Chinese crossbow as an example since it was also developed independently by the Greeks in the form of the ballista before the Hellenistic Age. The Chinese feat was just one of miniaturization long before the Romans accomplished it around the late 2nd century AD.

BTW, here's another photo of the ox-powered galley mentioned in the De Rebus Bellicis except this looks like a modern diagram.

[Image: derubis4.jpg]

Looks like it might work, but who's gonna clean the dung off the deck ? :lol:

Theo

Re: Lack of technological progress in late Roman Empire - Endre Fodstad - 08-11-2006

conon394\\n[quote]
â€œThe Invention of the Counterweight Trebuchet: A Study in Cultural Diffusionâ€