View Full Version : Bizarre allohistorical speculation
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 16:43
Slow communications and travel made overly-large empires ungovernable. I mean, there's something almost deterministic about the fragmenting of the Mongol Empire. But what if someone had invented the bicycle in 200 BCE?
A good horse and rider team can cover 150km in a day. A fit ultracyclist can cover 750km, or 5000km in a week. Even allowing for lower quality materials, it doesn't seem unreasonable to suppose that an ancient cyclist could have covered at least half that distance.
If it had been possible for a Persian army to travel from Susa to Sardis inside of a fortnight, or for a Babylonian force to reach Gaul in a couple of months, surely history would have been different? I mean, apart from ancient warriors looking more ridiculuous than they actually did. Centralised bureaucracies could have exerted direct control over larger areas. Mobilisation of forces could have taken place more swiftly. Julius Caesar could have called his memoirs "the Tour de France". "All Gaul is divided into a number of stages," he would have written...
My point is, the "for want of a nail" poem should have been called "for want of a bicycle". Also, historical determinists can go jump in a lake (provided they have a bike and said lake is within 750km).
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 16:55
That said, it'd be kinda embarrassing if your grand imperial army was having lunch and someone nicked all your bicycles. "They were just here".
CirdanDharix
12-02-2007, 17:30
Off-hand, I'd say there probably was a reason why the bicycle wasn't invented in 200BCE. Probably something to do with the fact that the mechanics used to propel the bicycle were not yet invented, and the difficulty of mass-producing pieces that require precision metallurgy. Oh, and really, even if they'd gotten all the gears and chains right, not to mention the tires, a soldier having to carry equipment and supplies, on a heavy, non-aerodynamic bicylce built with period materials, would be quite a bit slower than your fit ultra-cyclist.
Nah, just think of all the extra casulties resulting in spears getting stuck in the spokes, or your toga getting caught in the chain.
Not to mention, i'm sure all you cyclists have at one point slipped off the saddle onto the cross bar and hurt you meat and two veg...just imaging carrying you sword or long dagger on your belt and doing that....*shudders*
It was the ball-bearing, the most impressive invention, imo, that allowed bicycles to actually move at any pace at all. Before, friction would have made cycling any distance a far more tiring experience.
Foot
Pharnakes
12-02-2007, 19:04
Am I correct in thinking that you are a cyaclist, Foot?
OT, Before WW2, IIRC the Belgians had a regiment of troops on bicyles, don't think they ever got a chance to be used, though.
A militant one. Though at the moment I just ferry supplies to comrades in arms. One day I shall pick up my weapon and cycle with my fellows to victory against the transport industry. Viva la revolucion!
Foot
OT, Before WW2, IIRC the Belgians had a regiment of troops on bicyles, don't think they ever got a chance to be used, though.
During WW2 the Japanese had large amounts of troops on bicycles, which proved very successful in their rapid advance through Malaya.
During WW2 the Japanese had large amounts of troops on bicycles, which proved very successful in their rapid advance through Malaya.
Didn't the rattle of the wheels give the fright to the allied forces because they sounded distinctly like a large formation of tanks?
Foot
antisocialmunky
12-02-2007, 19:47
Well, I'll put it this way: I'll bring the bike and you build and maintain the roads.
Well, I'll put it this way: I'll bring the bike and you build and maintain the roads.
In response to whom?
Foot
antisocialmunky
12-02-2007, 19:55
It was dierected at the original poster.
Having bikes might be nice but the infrastructure needed to maintain it would have been very hard to build up. In the end, the horse is a better option simply because its self contained, just needs some food and some basic care and it'll do the job. Also, you're not the one who's expending energy, so you get to the field relatively fresh.
Bikes were to become standard U.S military equipment until the motorcycle was invented, which was (obviously) a superior machine.
Tellos Athenaios
12-02-2007, 20:59
Actually, not really. Bicycles + 'training' (i.e. you use them all your life) means that especially in cities you are surprisingly agile and quick. Where I live bicycles are the quickest way to get to and from the town - just 7 minutes if you hurry over a distance of about 3,5km.
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 21:09
I'm going to do the whole point / counter-point thing.
Off-hand, I'd say there probably was a reason why the bicycle wasn't invented in 200BCE. Probably something to do with the fact that the mechanics used to propel the bicycle were not yet invented, and the difficulty of mass-producing pieces that require precision metallurgy.
It was the ball-bearing, the most impressive invention, imo, that allowed bicycles to actually move at any pace at all. Before, friction would have made cycling any distance a far more tiring experience.
These are very good points. I guess a good litmus test is whether it would have been possible to produce large quantities of chainmail ball bearings in classical times.
Now, we know that Caligula's pleasure ships on Lake Nemi made use of bronze ball bearings and wooden needle bearings. These probably wouldn't have been Shimano's first choice so far as quality of workmanship goes, but in our times it was the invention of the bicycle and other uses for ball bearings that drove refinements in the quality of the manufacture of bearings, not the other way around. Perhaps the same causal chain could have played itself out in ancient times?
I'm not saying it definitely would have happened, but perhaps it could have. Wasn't cold-stamping used in the manufacture of some kinds of chainmail? If you can do cold-stamping and grinding, you can manufacture ball bearings.
Well, I'll put it this way: I'll bring the bike and you build and maintain the roads... Having bikes might be nice but the infrastructure needed to maintain it would have been very hard to build up.
As Folgore mentioned, 50,000 Japanese bicycle troops in Malaya managed to advance over a variety of terrain types, completely flummoxing the Allies because they moved so quickly. Bicycles were also used along the Ho Chi Minh trail, which was the exact opposite of a smooth, well-maintained road. It's as if they knew I'd make this post and were trying to provide evidence for their usefulness across varied terrain.
There's actually been an extensive use of bicycles militarily, and they have been preferred to horses for many horsey-type functions. They don't need food or the same level of care, they're faster, and bicycles don't get tired. If you look at the Tevis Cup Endurance Ride, it is extremely tiring for both a horse AND rider if they're trying to travel 150km in a day. By contrast, an experienced rider could cover that distance before mid-morning and barely crack a sweat.
Bicycles FTW!
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 21:12
Of course, one problem with having bicycles in ancient times would have been all the "bicycle Gaesatae are overpowered" threads on this forum. Not to mention the difficulty of, er, animating their, uh, movement.
Horst Nordfink
12-02-2007, 21:47
A militant one. Though at the moment I just ferry supplies to comrades in arms. One day I shall pick up my weapon and cycle with my fellows to victory against the transport industry. Viva la revolucion!
Foot
WARNING! MILD RANT IMMINANT!
Don't take this personally, but I can't stand cyclists! Well, that's not technically true. I don't mind cyclists on a cycle track where they belong. Out of the way of proper road users. On a road they're just a damn nuisance!!
Where I live, the roads aren't as wide as in some other parts, and most cyclists just refuse to stay near the damn kerb, which means they're in the middle of the fr!gging lane! Which means there's no room to get round them if there's a steady stream of traffic coming the other way.
*Awaits the inevitable hippy backlash*
You make it sound easy to cover 150km over rough-terrain, before midday too eh?? I bet you've never done it, and I would like to see you try!
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 22:06
You make it sound easy to cover 150km over rough-terrain, before midday too eh?? I bet you've never done it, and I would like to see you try!
Mid-morning, I said. But you're right, not over rough terrain, I'm a road cyclist.
The Freedom Challenge racers travel something like 2500 km cross country in 16 days. That's not too bad / totally incredible.
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 22:16
It is difficult to share the road, Horst. Cyclists can't hug the kerb for fear of getting "doored" by someone getting out of a parked car, and as a motorist I know how frustrating that is. But I trust you're not one of those loonies who swerves in close to cyclists to give them a bit of a scare. There are a lot of them out there, and as far I'm concerned they all ought to be charged with attempted manslaughter (which isn't an actual crime per se, but you get what I'm saying, right?).
TWFanatic
12-02-2007, 22:18
*Mrtwisties walks into the theater and sits down. After a short skirmish with his chair in which it attempted to close up on his arse, he manages to sit down comftorably and starts munching on popcorn and sipping coke. The screen lights up and the narrator begins*
The Mongol Horde. Fierce, savage, indomitable and implacable they road their mounts from their homeland of the Mongolian steppe across all of Asia: killing, raping, pillaging and burning everywhere they went. If you managed to one, two more would spawn from the very gates of hell whence they came. Their leader was a warrior like the world had never seen before. At the head of a nation, he lead them atop their swift steeds on a conquest greater than any the world had ever seen or would ever see again. His name...was Genhgis Khan.
*Genghis rides by atop a bicycle, squeeking his little horn. The Mongolian warriors squeek their horns*
That is why horses were the preferred method of transportation for armies. Much more...dignified.:charge:
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 22:26
:)
Now there's a bizarre allohistory - a world where cycling wasn't so damn geeky. It'd be a world where lycra was never invented, for one thing.
Horst Nordfink
12-02-2007, 22:28
Most of the roads where I live don't have cars parked alongside them, they are country roads, so there is no chance of a car door opening on them. But that is by the by.
Of course I try to avoid the cyclists, but most of the time there is only so much space you can give them with cars coming the other way.
I think that cyclists should pay road tax and insurance if they want to drive on the roads like motorists. My car was struck by a cyclist once, unfortunately he was uninjured, but the wing of my car was damaged. I couldn't claim insurance from the foolish hippy and he refused to pay for his mistake.
keravnos
12-02-2007, 22:35
The question I would be asking is why didn't Ptolemaioi make a RailRoad?
They had Ironsmiths, they had the technology, and I don't seriously think they had any philosophical issues about using a machine to do a mans' work.
(The original steam engine they produced was used to open/shut the heavy doors at a big Temple).
They had even created a friggin coin-op (mechanism in a temple in which you popped a coin for some "holly water").
Hellenistic Industrial Revolution... why didn't it happen? :wall:
-no, I DON'T blame Rome for that- :laugh4:
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 22:38
[Still Off Topic]Bikes were on the roads long before automobiles, and we'll still be there long after the oil runs out. Motorists only have to pay road taxes because they cause significant wear and tear on our roads.
I take your point about insurance, though, and I'm sorry about your car.[/SOT]
mrtwisties
12-02-2007, 22:48
Hellenistic Industrial Revolution... why didn't it happen? :wall:
Tell me about it. :laugh4:
I always thought it was a combination of ancient metallurgy producing iron that was neither cheap nor strong enough for railways, and slave labour rendering early-stage industrialisation uneconomic. Unfortunately, you can't have late-stage without early-stage.
There's also an interesting argument that the early stages of the British Industrial Revolution only kicked off because the way in which they ruled India created perverse incentives in favour of mechanisation.
Horst Nordfink
12-02-2007, 23:02
And all the genii that happened to be inhabiting Britain between 1600 and 2000?!
Pharnakes
12-02-2007, 23:07
The greeks had their fair share of genii as well, you know. Probably more than their fair share.
Horst Nordfink
12-02-2007, 23:15
Indeed. But they didnt have almost 2000 years of other genii to call on.
I wasn't trying to take anything away from the Greeks. I was just saying that it wasn't just because we needed a way to exploit India more.
Although necessity is the mother of invention.
So maybe...........
Long lost Caesar
12-02-2007, 23:21
Going back to the overpowered idea, I think it'd be great to see skirmishers doing drive bys on your army, as long as the flag bearer has uber bling and a boom box blaring gangsta rap out. oh and instead of chevrons, they get bronze silver and gold chains.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
12-03-2007, 00:20
The question I would be asking is why didn't Ptolemaioi make a RailRoad?
They had Ironsmiths, they had the technology, and I don't seriously think they had any philosophical issues about using a machine to do a mans' work.
(The original steam engine they produced was used to open/shut the heavy doors at a big Temple).
They had even created a friggin coin-op (mechanism in a temple in which you popped a coin for some "holly water").
Hellenistic Industrial Revolution... why didn't it happen? :wall:
-no, I DON'T blame Rome for that- :laugh4:
They had the Nile. You can sail up it and float down it. There wasn't even a need for roads.
And the steam inventions occured after the fall of the Ptolemaioi. Heron of Alexandria created the invenstion for pagan temples who were trying impress the plebs with 'miracles' because they were loosing so many followers to Christianity.
antisocialmunky
12-03-2007, 04:44
He created the fastest man made object for the next 1800 years too I believe: The Steam Ball.
To be honest, the Romans could have kick started industrialization like what happened in China where they could mass produce steel by the AD years. They had the mechanical know how but only seemed to apply it in the absense of cheap slaves. They managed to build mechanical pumps in mines and giant water powered mills but they never seemed to seriously look at it.
Dyabedes of Aphrodisias
12-03-2007, 05:05
The question I would be asking is why didn't Ptolemaioi make a RailRoad?
They had Ironsmiths, they had the technology, and I don't seriously think they had any philosophical issues about using a machine to do a mans' work.
(The original steam engine they produced was used to open/shut the heavy doors at a big Temple).
They had even created a friggin coin-op (mechanism in a temple in which you popped a coin for some "holly water").
Hellenistic Industrial Revolution... why didn't it happen? :wall:
-no, I DON'T blame Rome for that- :laugh4:
Heron worked with steam power (he made a ball that spun by steam power), and he worked with pistons (he made a few things involving simple ones), but he just didn't make the connection...that would be one of my wishes if I had any - to know what the world would be like had he made the simple connection...dumbass...
And MarcusAureliusAntoninus is right; he was after the Ptolemaioi to my knowledge.
Why no bikes, trains, autos? Let me run a quick cost-benefit analysis.
Right,OK.
My brief analysis lists these factors; the Mediterranean Sea, center of urban development, and adequate naval transport.
mrtwisties
12-03-2007, 07:38
Of course, because rather than riding a bicycle to work the average Mediterranean resident would rather jump on a galley and row there. :)
I get what you're saying, though. The ancient Mediterranean world seems to have gotten stuck in a stasis phase in the punctuated equilibrium of technological development. The availability of slave labour and (comparatively) cheap naval transport may have undermined significant economic innovation.
I get what you're saying, though. The [modern, industrial] world seems to have gotten stuck in a stasis phase in the punctuated equilibrium of technological development. The availability of [fossil fuels] and (comparatively) cheap [personal] transport may have undermined significant economic innovation.
:juggle2:
Foot
Of course, because rather than riding a bicycle to work the average Mediterranean resident would rather jump on a galley and row there. :)
I get what you're saying, though. The ancient Mediterranean world seems to have gotten stuck in a stasis phase in the punctuated equilibrium of technological development. The availability of slave labour and (comparatively) cheap naval transport may have undermined significant economic innovation.
Very true. Yet there may have been one more important factor?
Right, maybe two more, important factors?
Please if you can find, and read up on Ostia. Here the Romans had big problems maintaining Rome's population with an adequate food supply.
mrtwisties
12-03-2007, 10:14
:juggle2:
You're preaching to the choir, brother. Short term gain often traps us in behaviours that go against our long term interests. This is true on both a personal level (otherwise people wouldn't get fat) and an economic one (otherwise fields would never become saline). And that craziness is just because of the high rate at which we discount future gains. Factor in perverse incentives arising from government or market failure, and things get even worse.
Heh. I sound like a cross between a socialist and Ayn Rand. I'm a mergers and acquisitions lawyer, FWIW.
mrtwisties
12-03-2007, 10:18
But none of this explains why no-one invented the bicycle in 200 BCE. It's a greater mystery than the pyramids, methinks.
Watchman
12-03-2007, 10:26
Er... do you know what the first bicycles were like ? Good luck getting an army interested in those unstable horrors... and that was Industrial Revolution tech and R&D infrastructure.
But none of this explains why no-one invented the bicycle in 200 BCE. It's a greater mystery than the pyramids, methinks.
Ask not, why one didn't invent, rather ask why one would invent a bike?
Now say that three times, quickly?
I also have what I call my fall-back theory. When I can't explain something in the archaeological record I use it. I call it the NUPoS (Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid) theory.
mrtwisties
12-03-2007, 10:39
Er... do you know what the first bicycles were like ? Good luck getting an army interested in those unstable horrors... and that was Industrial Revolution tech and R&D infrastructure.
The first guns were just as bad...
Pharnakes
12-03-2007, 11:03
Ahh, but guns kill people, even if it is the user, so obviously an army is going to be imediatley fasinated by them.
Watchman
12-03-2007, 11:10
The first guns were just as bad...They were decent for psychological warfare if nothing else, at least. And cheap & easy to both make and use.
CirdanDharix
12-03-2007, 15:24
I wasn't trying to take anything away from the Greeks. I was just saying that it wasn't just because we needed a way to exploit India more.
Actually, industrialisation didn't occur to help exploit the colonies--the colonies occured to supply industrialisation with raw materials, and arguably more importantly, to buy the finished products. Famously, in India the British taxed the local textile industry almost out of existence, so that English textile mills would have a captive market.
antisocialmunky
12-03-2007, 15:29
Actually, industrialisation didn't occur to help exploit the colonies--the colonies occured to supply industrialisation with raw materials, and arguably more importantly, to buy the finished products. Famously, in India the British taxed the local textile industry almost out of existence, so that English textile mills would have a captive market.
QFT, one of the reasons why colonialism didn't work out so well was that people started getting really annoyed that they couldn't develop local industry and instead had to buy the finish product from the Europeans.
Watchman
12-03-2007, 15:35
Oh, it was actually even better than that. The finished textiles the Brits shipped in ? They were made from Indian cotton the locals were basically forbidden to make much anything out of themselves... Instead the stuff was shipped off to be worked in British factories and whatnots. :dizzy2:
Not hard to see why those sorts of arrangements started to rankle the natives over time.
Jaywalker-Jack
12-03-2007, 16:30
.......... BICYCLE CAVALRY!!!
Watchman
12-03-2007, 16:46
And you thought caltrops were bad for horses...
Geoffrey S
12-03-2007, 17:00
But none of this explains why no-one invented the bicycle in 200 BCE. It's a greater mystery than the pyramids, methinks.
Not really. A bicycle, and as has been pointed out definitely the earliest ones, require decent infrastructure and flat surfaces to use. Sure, we've got mountain bikes now, but even they are limited to certain terrain and are beyond ancient technological means. Similar to why wheels didn't work in South America: they had the technology, but it remained in toys since wheels wouldn't function well on the terrain.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.