Printable View
They had the Nile. You can sail up it and float down it. There wasn't even a need for roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
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.
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.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by keravnos
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.
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.
:juggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtwisties
Foot
Very true. Yet there may have been one more important factor?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtwisties
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foot
Heh. I sound like a cross between a socialist and Ayn Rand. I'm a mergers and acquisitions lawyer, FWIW.
But none of this explains why no-one invented the bicycle in 200 BCE. It's a greater mystery than the pyramids, methinks.
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.
Ask not, why one didn't invent, rather ask why one would invent a bike?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtwisties
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.
The first guns were just as bad...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Ahh, but guns kill people, even if it is the user, so obviously an army is going to be imediatley fasinated by them.
They were decent for psychological warfare if nothing else, at least. And cheap & easy to both make and use.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtwisties
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by horst nordfink
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CirdanDharix
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.
.......... BICYCLE CAVALRY!!!
And you thought caltrops were bad for horses...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtwisties