02-23-2013, 03:06 PM
I know that Thervingi is not the same as Visigoths at that time, hence I wrote Visigoths in brackets.
Regarding the Romans being supposedly "on the verge of an Industrial Era". This is huge exaggeration considering that the Romans had not developed nor were interested in adopting (despite the fact that some Greek inventors could and had developed such machines) practically any mechanisation of production. The best what they had were early manufactures (without use of machines - just manual production by many craftsmen and division of labour) or a kind of putting-out system.
And at least the same (if not higher) level of development (early manufactures with division of labour) was seen again in some parts of Medieval Europe (mainly Flanders and Italy) as early as the 1200s.
The difference was that the 13th century Flanders and Italy were already capitalistic societies (not even feudal), while the Romans had a society relying heavily on slavery and slave labour. At least up to some point - as later they were running short on slaves due to lack of new conquests. And that shortage of influx of new slaves was also one of factors which contributed to economic crisis.
Medieval Europe in the 1200s and especially 1300s was most likely also already on a higher level of development than the Roman World when it comes to various mechanical inventions.
We might say that Ancient Greek inventors were "on the verge of building a steam engine" - but this is irrelevant, considering that nobody was interested in using steam engines, because they had slave labour and other forms of cheap labour - all much cheaper and more reliable than some "weird machines".
It is similar situation to that in Ancient China - they also invented many amazing things, most of which remained interesting details and curiosities though, while never becoming widely used in practice.
Knowledge of a small group of elite people of science is not enough - you need certain conditions of social structure and social organization to start an industrial era - and Rome didn't have it.
===============================================
Regarding urbanisation in the Roman Empire. It was also not very developed.
Looking at a tiny handful of cities within the Roman Empire which exceeded 100,000 inhabitants (and only one which was a real giant - namely the city of Rome) can be very misleading.
Majority of Roman towns had only few or a few thousands inhabitants each. In total around 10% of population of the Empire lived in ca. 1300 towns and cities that existed within the Empire.
The remaining 90% of population of the Empire lived in the countryside.
And these numbers refer to the "Pax Romana" period of the 1st and the 2nd centuries AD. By comparison - regions of Europe such as Flanders or Northern Italy, had already much better level of urbanization in the 1200s and the 1300s, than the Roman Empire had at its peak (1st - 2nd centuries AD).
I do not think so. Do you have any proofs that the average standard of living and lifespans in the Roman Era were "much higher / longer" than in the Medieval Era and why?
I saw somewhere an Age Pyramid of population of the High Medieval Bologna (Northern Italy) basing on the actual local population census carried out in that Italian city-state.
The data was surprising - there was a large number of old people over 65 years old.
==============================================
BTW - whether modern horses can smash into solid infantry standing firm can be checked in an experiment. We need:
- an army of standing mannequins representing infantry
- horses and professional stuntmen in protective suits riding them
- special training for horses and for these stuntmen
Quote:The Romans were on the verge of an Industrial Era Society, they just had to link all their different inventions together.
Regarding the Romans being supposedly "on the verge of an Industrial Era". This is huge exaggeration considering that the Romans had not developed nor were interested in adopting (despite the fact that some Greek inventors could and had developed such machines) practically any mechanisation of production. The best what they had were early manufactures (without use of machines - just manual production by many craftsmen and division of labour) or a kind of putting-out system.
And at least the same (if not higher) level of development (early manufactures with division of labour) was seen again in some parts of Medieval Europe (mainly Flanders and Italy) as early as the 1200s.
The difference was that the 13th century Flanders and Italy were already capitalistic societies (not even feudal), while the Romans had a society relying heavily on slavery and slave labour. At least up to some point - as later they were running short on slaves due to lack of new conquests. And that shortage of influx of new slaves was also one of factors which contributed to economic crisis.
Medieval Europe in the 1200s and especially 1300s was most likely also already on a higher level of development than the Roman World when it comes to various mechanical inventions.
We might say that Ancient Greek inventors were "on the verge of building a steam engine" - but this is irrelevant, considering that nobody was interested in using steam engines, because they had slave labour and other forms of cheap labour - all much cheaper and more reliable than some "weird machines".
It is similar situation to that in Ancient China - they also invented many amazing things, most of which remained interesting details and curiosities though, while never becoming widely used in practice.
Knowledge of a small group of elite people of science is not enough - you need certain conditions of social structure and social organization to start an industrial era - and Rome didn't have it.
===============================================
Regarding urbanisation in the Roman Empire. It was also not very developed.
Looking at a tiny handful of cities within the Roman Empire which exceeded 100,000 inhabitants (and only one which was a real giant - namely the city of Rome) can be very misleading.
Majority of Roman towns had only few or a few thousands inhabitants each. In total around 10% of population of the Empire lived in ca. 1300 towns and cities that existed within the Empire.
The remaining 90% of population of the Empire lived in the countryside.
And these numbers refer to the "Pax Romana" period of the 1st and the 2nd centuries AD. By comparison - regions of Europe such as Flanders or Northern Italy, had already much better level of urbanization in the 1200s and the 1300s, than the Roman Empire had at its peak (1st - 2nd centuries AD).
Quote:Not to mention their standard of living and lifespans were much higher/longer.
I do not think so. Do you have any proofs that the average standard of living and lifespans in the Roman Era were "much higher / longer" than in the Medieval Era and why?
I saw somewhere an Age Pyramid of population of the High Medieval Bologna (Northern Italy) basing on the actual local population census carried out in that Italian city-state.
The data was surprising - there was a large number of old people over 65 years old.
==============================================
BTW - whether modern horses can smash into solid infantry standing firm can be checked in an experiment. We need:
- an army of standing mannequins representing infantry
- horses and professional stuntmen in protective suits riding them
- special training for horses and for these stuntmen
