Could the industrial revolution have started earlier?

[Mitchell Hundred]

The beginning of the industrial revolution is dated to about 1760 in Britain. From a sci-fi perspective you could say that was when humanity as a species reached its industrialization stage.

Could industrialization have happened any earlier than that though?

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Somethingsomething Rome was industrial somethingsomething Great Song was industrial somethingsomething.

Yes.

 

[Augenis]

Somethingsomething Rome was industrial somethingsomething Great Song was industrial somethingsomething.

Yes.

I can accept a Song industrialization, they could have reached something similar with a little bit more luck, but there was no way that ancient Rome could harbor an industrial revolution, at least in my opinion.

 

[Jan Gronvik]

Would it be possible to kickstart an industrial revolution in Alexandria in the third century BCE, under the Ptolemaic kingdom?

 

[Lalli]

I can accept a Song industrialization, they could have reached something similar with a little bit more luck, but there was no way that ancient Rome could harbor an industrial revolution, at least in my opinion.

Song Empire probably not when it should survive much longer and it has always been very difficult for Chinese dynasties.

But why not surviving/longer living Rome?

 

[Jan Gronvik]

I think one crucial thing would be to develop enough metallurgical skills to build a full-size steam engine.
Another would be to find a reliable source of energy (coal). In the mediterranean area there were deposits of lignite (brown coal),
but those have a lower heat content than ordinary coal.

 

[LSCatilina]

I think we need to define what is an Industrial Revolution there.

Are we talking of the equivalent of XVIIIth British Industrial Revolution, making it an universal model?
Or, are qe talking of manufacturial development of the late modern era?
Or, even, the pre-industrial mechanical advances?
All of these, on their own right, could be labelled as Industrial (or Proto-Industrial) revolutions, and I think lumping them in one big model doesn't help the discussion.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

, but there was no way that ancient Rome could harbor an industrial revolution, at least in my opinion.

Why do you think so? I'm interested to hear your opinion about it.

Would it be possible to kickstart an industrial revolution in Alexandria in the third century BCE, under the Ptolemaic kingdom?

Well, I think that the first to do would be to extend the blooming period of Alexandria beyond the third, beyond the second century BCE. According to some historians like Lucio Russo (The Forgotten Revolution: How Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why it Had to Be Reborn), the Hellenistic science was very modern and had reached the stage of OTL's 17th century. However, it suffered a terrific blow in 145 BCE when Ptolemy VIII Physcon purged Alexandria, inclunding the Library and the Museion, and chased great parts of the Greek and Jewish population of Alexandria. Scholars (or, according to Russo, scientists) like Apppllodorus of Athens or Aristarchus of Samothrace. Some years earlier, Archimedes had been killed by a Roman soldier during the conquest of Syracuse, and Russo claims that the endless wars between Rome and the Hellenistic states did much to strangle ancient science. It's true that the majority of Hellenistic scientists known to us lived before the Roman conquest and even before 145 BCE.

However, where I'm not following Russo is when he claims that Romans were completly opposed to science. I don't believe in nation characterizations, but I think that his argument that science was essentially destroyed by the purge of the Library of Alexandria is quite valid.

Another would be to find a reliable source of energy (coal). In the mediterranean area there were deposits of lignite (brown coal),
but those have a lower heat content than ordinary coal.

Coal in fact isn't that important. Charcoal has even more energy than coal. I made some calculations and thoughts about the steam engine here.

 

[Augenis]

Why do you think so? I'm interested to hear your opinion about it.

No agricultural revolution (not the Neolithic one, the one in 1700s Britain), thus most of the population was still locked to agriculture.
Nowhere near the technological capabilities to create the necessary machinery for, say, steam engines (not talking about the Oracle toys, talking about actual powerful engines that could replace a slave or a horse).
No scientific method.
No lucrative markets for industrial goods.
And lastly, the socio-economic factors needed for an Industrial Revolution to become an actual, widespread thing rather than just a one-off thing, they didn't exist in Rome either. What I mean is that Rome did not have an equivalent of "capitalism", that is, a driving force to seek innovation and higher profits.

These are just the biggest factors for why I think Ancient Rome wouldn't have been able to industrialize.

 

[Tanc49]

No agricultural revolution (not the Neolithic one, the one in 1700s Britain), thus most of the population was still locked to agriculture.

Rome had one million people at its height. So we know that the Roman agricultural system was efficient enough to allow large concentrations of non-productive people

Nowhere near the technological capabilities to create the necessary machinery for, say, steam engines (not talking about the Oracle toys, talking about actual powerful engines that could replace a slave or a horse).

That I agree, I will add a lack of standardisation as well.

No scientific method.

If anything, that could be fixed "relatively" easily by a few clever guys.

No lucrative markets for industrial goods.

I have to disagree as well, you had large cities with artisans, so a middle class. That's a lot of money to be made in the internal market, not mentioning the export markets (Persia, India, some tribes in Germania? If it worked for Africa in the XIXth, it can work for Rome in Germany)

And lastly, the socio-economic factors needed for an Industrial Revolution to become an actual, widespread thing rather than just a one-off thing, they didn't exist in Rome either. What I mean is that Rome did not have an equivalent of "capitalism", that is, a driving force to seek innovation and higher profits.

Actually you had a decent banking system and a class of investors trying to get profits. You see that in a form of venture capitalism centered on maritime expeditions, a lot like the Carreira da India of the Portuguese to the Indies. Those expeditions could create the kind of super-profit to be re-injected in other stuff if those other stuff do exist.

Another factor keeping them from getting a spark would be there was no need for any kind of super industrial complex. If you want more power, throw more slaves at it until it's fixed.

Basically, you'd need some standardisation/cottage industry (with which type of goods?) to take place. I do believe a lot of the other factors are in place for something to happen.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

No agricultural revolution (not the Neolithic one, the one in 1700s Britain), thus most of the population was still locked to agriculture.
Nowhere near the technological capabilities to create the necessary machinery for, say, steam engines (not talking about the Oracle toys, talking about actual powerful engines that could replace a slave or a horse).
No scientific method.
No lucrative markets for industrial goods.
And lastly, the socio-economic factors needed for an Industrial Revolution to become an actual, widespread thing rather than just a one-off thing, they didn't exist in Rome either. What I mean is that Rome did not have an equivalent of "capitalism", that is, a driving force to seek innovation and higher profits.

These are just the biggest factors for why I think Ancient Rome wouldn't have been able to industrialize.

This is mostly right. I would change industrial goods to consumer goods. It's not an accident that textiles were one of the first goods to industrialize. With a large middle class, there is a regular demand for clothing and other textiles, the production of which benefits from industrialization. Pre-revolution "industrial goods" were more likely to be infrastructure/military related expenditures. The need to industrialize here is less because a state can gather the resources necessary for the relatively short and finite period that the project entails. Hence why shipbuilding or swords did not become the first to industrialize.

The other thing I would note is that Rome had a healthy supply of slaves, which diminishes the interest in industrializing. Why take a risk on some invention when I can buy 10 slaves to do the same thing?

 

[Deleted member 67076]

I think in a world without the Mongols the Industrial revolution would have kicked off earlier. The Mongols destroyed the Indian Ocean trade routes, retarding the development of more efficient carrier ships that would have allowed for more efficient trade and transportation. Additionally, the rapid depopulation of many areas of the world gave an immense economic blow to cottage industries- particularly towards Iran and the broader Middle East. (Further migrations from Nomadic peoples and their campaigns such as the Timurids just added further blows to the economy and population)

Oh, and the disruptions to Indian Ocean trade very much hurt the economies of coastal East Africa, as they had to compete with the Silk Road Once more.

If, much of the Mideast/Swahili Coast/China continued alongside that developmental path prior to the Mongol disruptions, I think more technological advances would have continued along that speeds up the Industrial Revolution.

 

[missouribob]

Have the Song Empire industrialize.

Rome had one million people at its height. So we know that the Roman agricultural system was efficient enough to allow large concentrations of non-productive people

What did all those Roman City citizens DO everyday anyway? Where they mostly unemployed or?

 

[Tanc49]

What did all those Roman City citizens DO everyday anyway? Where they mostly unemployed or?

Not an expert, but some unemployed, some in the administration, some in companies, some slaves, some nobles, some artisans...
You know, everyday life

 

[missouribob]

Not an expert, but some unemployed, some in the administration, some in companies, some slaves, some nobles, some artisans...
You know, everyday life

How many unemployed and just on the dole though? I mean even assuming that the elderly, children and disabled didn't work (which I'm being generous) that's 700K adults. Then assuming 20 percent unemployment from that and you have 560K adults working in a pre-industrial society in a city. I mean I guess it's hard for me to wrap my head around that. Did they have small factories or workshops or something?

 

[Augenis]

Have the Song Empire industrialize.


What did all those Roman City citizens DO everyday anyway? Where they mostly unemployed or?

I think many of them were clients of the patricians.

 

[Agricola]

Historians estimated a very high percentage of slaves in the city of Rome. Perhaps 400.000. So there are 600.000 free people. 300.000 female, and 300.000 free male people. About 100.000 are male children. So 200.000 adult free men. The dole was limited to 150.000 families. So you need jobs for 50.000 free men.

Well, the dole was usually not enough to survive. So some of them worked as well and some females, too, and of course some children.

 

[Tanc49]

Historians estimated a very high percentage of slaves in the city of Rome. Perhaps 400.000. So there are 600.000 free people. 300.000 female, and 300.000 free male people. About 100.000 are male children. So 200.000 adult free men. The dole was limited to 150.000 families. So you need jobs for 50.000 free men.

Well, the dole was usually not enough to survive. So some of them worked as well and some females, too, and of course some children.

Wouldn't the slaves work as well?

I know a lot of them were "status possession" and a lot were personal servants but surely, a lot of them must have had some production based job?

Even then, the jobs they would have would later be counted as servants in XIXth Paris for example (cook, attendant, butler...) wouldn't they?

 

[DominusNovus]

Is there an opposite to a 'Catch-22?' Because, in my opinion, thats what we face in addressing the possibility of an industrial Rome.

I agree that the Agricultural Revolution was critical to Britain industrializing. However, much of this is directly possible for Rome, or simply already in existence. For example, Rome already had a massive infrastructure and vast, consolidated agricultural estates (two aspects for which the Romans are independently famous). It also had a massive trading network that was relatively free from disruption (though not completely duty-free). They lacked the expertise in selective breeding and a heavy plow, which precluded the advanced crop rotation practices of the British. These are not issues to be under-estimated, but they are concrete and conceptually easy to tackle. In fact, it could be said that a large part of the British Agricultural Revolution was a discarding of the vestiges of Medieval agriculture and a return to the best of what the Romans had to offer.

Anyway, what makes the BAR so essential to the Industrial Revolution is that the latter is, at heart, a reorganization of labor. It just happens that it was quickly followed up by breathtaking technological advances tha accentuated said reorganization so much that they became conflated with it.

Given that we're rapidly discovering more and more evidence of Roman canals and various applications of water power, and there is strong evidence that Roman metallurgy has been underestimated, I see no reason to think that the Romans, with a few nudges, could have entered into a purely hydro-industrial period, with steam power being developed on its own much later.

The heavy plow would seem to be a game changer, enabling crop rotations that could kick everything else off. That still wouldn't solve the issues of crop packages and epidemics (it might actually make the latter worse), but its a huge start.

Anyway, the point is that, since the IR isn't primarily about technology in its inception, it doesn't matter that the Romans lacked the technological base for the later stages of indistrialization.

 

[DominusNovus]

Wouldn't the slaves work as well?

I know a lot of them were "status possession" and a lot were personal servants but surely, a lot of them must have had some production based job?

Even then, the jobs they would have would later be counted as servants in XIXth Paris for example (cook, attendant, butler...) wouldn't they?

If you're an urban slave, you're likely not doing much production. You're mainly in what we would call the service sector.