Effects of a Roman Industrial Revolution

[robertp6165]

I've been toying with the idea of a timeline based on a Roman Industrial Revolution. Without igniting one of our trademark AH.com debates about whether such a thing is even possible...for the sake of this discussion, we are going to assume it is possible, without worrying about how, for the present...I would like to get views on what the effects would or could be. Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that the steam engine is invented in the mid 1st century A.D., and has been developed into a practical design (similar to James Watt's engine) by the early 2nd Century. By late 2nd century, automated looms and other industrial machines, powered by steam engines or in some places by water power, have been invented. Furthermore...let's assume the resultant revolution is entirely a mechanical one. There is no accompanying "electric/electronic" revolution as occurred in OTL (these were quite separate phemomena, and in OTL most of the experimentation and theory which led to it only took place in the 18th and 19th centuries). So we get steam engines, steam ships, steam trains, factories powered by steam, etc. etc., but we don't get light bulbs, radio, electric motors, electronic computers, etc., etc. My own thoughts so far are as follows...

I. Rome's Economic Collapse Possibly Averted: The causes of Rome's economic collapse are disputed, but seem to revolve around several factors. Among the more important of these are the following...

1) Debasement of the currency to fill the need for more coinage led to inflation. This was caused by, in no particular order...
a) Hoarding of bullion by Roman citizens.
b) Negative Trade balance with places like India, where luxuries were purchased and paid for in specie. Thus specie was flowing out in large amounts and little was coming in.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Large quantities of manufactured goods, made in steam and water-powered factories, could be shipped to India and sold there, eliminating the trade imbalance and the outflow of specie from the Roman economy. As specie began flowing back into the economy, the pressure to debase the currency would decline, and in turn, the urge among the population to hoard gold and silver coins would be reduced.

2) Shrinking tax base caused by high tax rates...since slaves paid no tax, people would sell themselves into slavery when they couldn't afford to pay tax anymore. The increase in the number of people in slavery exerted downward pressure on wages for freemen, which further reduced the tax base and increased the pressure for more people to sell themselves into slavery. The more slaves, the lower the tax base, which led to increased taxes, which led to more people selling themselves into slavery, etc. etc.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: As poor people gain opportunities to improve themselves by remaining free and working in the new factories, the number of people selling themselves into slavery and working the land for some rich patrician would be reduced. This, in turn, would reduce downward pressure on wages for working freemen, which would further reduce the number of people selling themselves into slavery. The tax base would be increased, which would reduce pressure to raise taxes, which would further accelerate this trend.

3) There was a huge and ever increasing number of poor on the dole in Rome and other major cities of the empire. The expense of feeding and entertaining the non-working poor was a constant and increasing drain on the empire's finances which contributed to pressure to debase the currency, which increased hoarding, which further increased the pressure to debase the currency, etc., etc.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
The non-working poor could have found work in the new factories. They would thus have come off the dole and become productive citizens and taxpayers. This would have the double effect of reducing or even eliminating the expense of maintaining the dole and increasing the tax base.

Of course, if the economic collapse is averted, the final collapse of the Roman Empire in the West itself might be averted for quite some time.

II. Possible climatic disaster. Assuming what our modern climate gurus are saying today is true, an early industrial revolution...fed by burning wood and then coal...would have, within a few centuries, led to global warming and some very nasty effects on the planet at large. This would be accelerated as Rome's neighbors were forced to join in or be overwhelmed economically and militarily by the Romans.

What are some other possible effects you can think of? Would this affect the spread of Christianity and other oriental religions in Rome, for example? Would the Romans prove more or less resistant to barbarian pressure? Thoughts?

 

[Valdemar II]

A suggestion could be that Rome adopted mercantile policies. Beside that a way to deal with debasement could be fiat money, with paper not discovered by the Romans yet, maybe using metal plate of less valued metals.

 

[TheCrow__]

Awesome I foresee a communist Spartakus lol.

 

[twovultures]

Some very big risks here could still harm the Roman Empire.

The first is environmental damage that would be far more immediate (and obvious) than global warming. The Romans may have been very pro-hygiene, but unless this cultural trait manages to overcome greed for profit, you're going to get a lot of factories spewing out fumes near major population centers. Depending on how factory workers are treated, they could have very high mortality rates that may have been unsustainable for the population at the time. Combine this with landslides caused by industrial-scale mining, and you have a period that would be very unpleasant to live in.

The second is imperial overstretch. If the Romans are not able to overcome their lust for conquest, they may use their new tech to create new weapons that render the old obsolete. Invading the Parthians would probably be a popular move for a Roman leader to make. After that, why not India? Why not China? Rome may find itself trying to control all of Eurasia, which would strongly tax its resources.

The third is competition. The Parthians or (eventually) the Chinese could learn about Roman tech and use it in their countries. The Romans would see this as a terrible thing; Our enemies, catching up to us! However, this could also be good for them. Economic competition may force them to improve their goods and keep innovating. Developing trade with rival powers may also promote peace between the empires.

 

[Thingymebob]

Assuming that the Romans can pull off a steam/mechanical industrial revolution, I think the following would happen.

1: Readdressing the trade balance with the East. This would take some time as shipping or overland transport would have to improve for the volume of the cheap bulk goods the Romans are selling to grow to a point where they earn enough money to balance out the costs of importing more expensive (by weight) Eastern goods like silk and species. However, the Romans could make good money by selling industrial equipment like steam engines to neighbouring nations so long as political climate was right (this is based on the fact that British engineers made vast sums of money helping to construct railways and canals across the Americas).
I think most of the market for goods would be domestic at first; suddenly dyed cloth and cheap pottery can be afforded by almost everybody.

2 and 3: As well as the need for workers in the factories there would be an increased need for coalminers and such to supply the factories. Due to the risks involved in mining, the baulk of Empire’s slave population ends up working here. Roman slavery could become more brutal.
People selling themselves in may be reduced as cheep manufactured goods are more easily affordable by the poor thereby reducing the number of people going bankrupt.

4: Global warming could be a problem in later generations. However, there has been no agricultural revolution so the world’s population would be smaller (less than a billion), so the effects wouldn’t be so bad.
However smog may force the Romans to outlaw factories in cities (Julius Caesar outlawed funeral pryes in Rome because it was considered unhygienic).

I could also see an increase in the strategic importance of places, like west Germania and Britain, with large deposits of coal and iron. This could make the western Roman Empire as rich, possibly richer, than the eastern Roman Empire. I'm not sure what this would mean long term, I'll leave that to those a lot more about the Roman Empire than me.

 

[robertp6165]

A suggestion could be that Rome adopted mercantile policies. Beside that a way to deal with debasement could be fiat money, with paper not discovered by the Romans yet, maybe using metal plate of less valued metals.

That could be. They could go to base-metal coins and couple it with some form of ancient "legal tender act"..."You WILL accept these coins as payment of all debts, public and private, or you WILL be the feature attraction at the Circus Maximus," or something along those lines.

Some very big risks here could still harm the Roman Empire.

The first is environmental damage that would be far more immediate (and obvious) than global warming. The Romans may have been very pro-hygiene, but unless this cultural trait manages to overcome greed for profit, you're going to get a lot of factories spewing out fumes near major population centers.

Most likely true. Rome might find itself shrouded in a fog of coal smoke like old London used to be.

Depending on how factory workers are treated, they could have very high mortality rates that may have been unsustainable for the population at the time. Combine this with landslides caused by industrial-scale mining, and you have a period that would be very unpleasant to live in.

True again.

The second is imperial overstretch. If the Romans are not able to overcome their lust for conquest, they may use their new tech to create new weapons that render the old obsolete. Invading the Parthians would probably be a popular move for a Roman leader to make. After that, why not India? Why not China? Rome may find itself trying to control all of Eurasia, which would strongly tax its resources.

Quite likely they will expand because they will need more resources. And if they are following some version of mercantilist policy, they will want "colonial" possessions (i.e. newly conquered provinces) which they can exploit for their resources and as a market for finished goods.

The third is competition. The Parthians or (eventually) the Chinese could learn about Roman tech and use it in their countries. The Romans would see this as a terrible thing; Our enemies, catching up to us! However, this could also be good for them. Economic competition may force them to improve their goods and keep innovating. Developing trade with rival powers may also promote peace between the empires.

Not sure that trade will promote peace, at least not for a while. Living peacefully with one's neighbors...especially if that neighbor happened to be rich...was not to much part of the mindset of kings and emperors in the ancient world.

Assuming that the Romans can pull off a steam/mechanical industrial revolution, I think the following would happen.

1: Readdressing the trade balance with the East. This would take some time as shipping or overland transport would have to improve for the volume of the cheap bulk goods the Romans are selling to grow to a point where they earn enough money to balance out the costs of importing more expensive (by weight) Eastern goods like silk and species.

Well, they had a viable sea route from the Red Sea coast of Egypt to India, using the monsoon winds to carry them there. And they were quite capable of building enormous cargo vessels. Given impetus by the desire to expand trade with India, I think they will make it happen. Also, if they should finally be able to put down the Parthians/Persians, they could build a railroad connecting India with the Empire.

However, the Romans could make good money by selling industrial equipment like steam engines to neighbouring nations so long as political climate was right (this is based on the fact that British engineers made vast sums of money helping to construct railways and canals across the Americas).

Again, it's not really the right mindset for the period. They might eventually do it, but I wouldn't expect much attempt at cooperation for a while.

I think most of the market for goods would be domestic at first; suddenly dyed cloth and cheap pottery can be afforded by almost everybody.

Undoubtedly. But that won't help the problem of specie flowing out of the Roman economy into foreign hands.

2 and 3: As well as the need for workers in the factories there would be an increased need for coalminers and such to supply the factories. Due to the risks involved in mining, the baulk of Empire’s slave population ends up working here. Roman slavery could become more brutal.

Yes, I can see that. I can also see it fueling a wave of Roman expansionism as they conquer new lands seeking slaves. Possibly you might even see an early opening of the African slave trade...

People selling themselves in may be reduced as cheep manufactured goods are more easily affordable by the poor thereby reducing the number of people going bankrupt.

Well, historically, it was the high rates of taxation rather than the cost of living which tended to drive people into slavery. But every denarius helps.

4: Global warming could be a problem in later generations. However, there has been no agricultural revolution so the world’s population would be smaller (less than a billion), so the effects wouldn’t be so bad.

True. However, the industrial revolution might well be accompanied by an agricultural revolution. And even if it's not, the mere fact that the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere will be increasing will, over the short term at least, tend to lead to greater crop yields. As I said in the OP, it will be several centuries before the global warming effect takes hold...unlike the less than 200 years it has taken us in OTL to get to the point we are at.

However smog may force the Romans to outlaw factories in cities (Julius Caesar outlawed funeral pryes in Rome because it was considered unhygienic).

Quite likely.

I could also see an increase in the strategic importance of places, like west Germania and Britain, with large deposits of coal and iron. This could make the western Roman Empire as rich, possibly richer, than the eastern Roman Empire. I'm not sure what this would mean long term, I'll leave that to those a lot more about the Roman Empire than me.

That's true. Britannia, for example, could be transformed from a relative backwater to one of the industrial hubs of the Empire, simply by virtue of the resources of coal and iron which are available there.

 

[Mikestone8]

Britannia, for example, could be transformed from a relative backwater to one of the industrial hubs of the Empire, simply by virtue of the resources of coal and iron which are available there.

Indeed, In an industrialised "Rome" aren't Britain and NE Gaul about the only areas worth having? The area round Mediolanum would also have some factories, but Hispania, Peninsular Italy, the Balkans, Africa and the East won't amount to squat where industrial power is concerned. You might as well let the Barbarians have them.

"Hail Carausius!"

 

[Paladin]

\ The first is environmental damage that would be far more immediate (and obvious) than global warming. The Romans may have been very pro-hygiene, but unless this cultural trait manages to overcome greed for profit, you're going to get a lot of factories spewing out fumes near major population centers. Depending on how factory workers are treated, they could have very high mortality rates that may have been unsustainable for the population at the time. Combine this with landslides caused by industrial-scale mining, and you have a period that would be very unpleasant to live in.

Big problem, there, given the Roman's rather abysmal environmental record (wide spread desertification, resource depletion, extinction of several species, etc). Rather impressive, actually, for a pre-industrial society.

 

[cw1865]

Pre-Revolution

I don't particularly see an early industrial revolution as altogether implausible. Quite a few of the precursors existed. They were using concrete, had mines, had water mills, etc. Of course what they really need is a steam engine. Obviously they were also heating the water in the baths that they had. Furthermore, they at least had some devices that relied on water pressure. All you need is that one eureka moment; an inventive Roman engineer trying to keep water out of a mine, a mill which can't run during a drought.

The ramifications for this would be enormous, a Roman empire connected by rail turns a far flung Empire into a more manageable one. The breakup of Vulgar Latin into the current Romance languages obviously caused by the relative isolation of the linguistic communities does not occur.

There's no reason to believe that the Romans wouldn't have had a massive technological advantage over pre-industrial societies much like the Europeans faced during their colonial era. I would suggest that the greatest threat to its continued existence would be internal (political instability, revolutions, Civil War, etc.)

 

[Historico]

I completey endorse the idea of you coming back home to Ancient Alternate history with this POD and I think you hit the nail pretty much on the hammer on your theories on how it may develop. I do agree with cw that a Rome united under the Steam Engine, producing Railroads, Textille Mills and Steam Boats would become much more manage. Correspondance would be hell of a lot faster and could even make the Roman System of Heliographs much more efficent. It could also potentially be a more effective way of assimliating the Germanic tribes who ultimatley caused the death blow to the Empire IOTL? Why sit on your fridgid farms and starve, when you can move into the Rome and get work in the new factories and earn a decent day's pay. This would ultimately lead to an even more pronuced Class Warfare than IOTL, especially if the centers of Industrialization aren't even spread amongst the other provinces of the empire.

But what effects might Steamships have on overseas trade and Contact? Might they eventually stumble upon the New World? How will other nations such as The Sassanid Empire, The Gupta Empire, China and other reginal powers adapt to such rapid changes in their worlds? It really could have some huge but wickedly interesting Butterfiles to say the least

 

[jkay]

You Need a Better Roman Constitution

You Need a Better Roman Constitution

I've been studying this question, and I say it's not completely impossible (it's been done a few times here), but not so easy, either. You'd have to find a way to get to a better ending constitution than the Roman Empire had, which was a covert absolute monarchy. You need at least one or two checks and balances.

After all, in OTL, Hero of Alexandria's inventions of steam gadgetry and binary state tape went unfollowed-up for a millenia and a half because the Empire was the Empire. Such a better gummint would probably still see developments somewhat slower than OTL post-Renaissance because Rome was a strictly military specialist.

The Roman REPUBLIC was unusually steadily successful at war for century after century. In its enterpreneurial and innovative Republican phase, freedom let war-specialized innovation brought Rome to the lead in miltech and kept there for century after century. Elections chose generally good leadership. The Republic was a wank personified.

Under the Caesars' monarchic rule, all those advantages went away. The man who failed to conquer Germany was a chosen more for his buddyhood to Caesar than his ability to win a vote. By a century or two later, their neighbors had caught up with them in miltech; Roman turf went from quickly growing to slowly decaying; though the borders moved around and even very temporarily grew under Justinian, they overall shrank to nothing. Roman society similarly decayed, growing more static with the centuries. By its fall, it had grown so Talibanesque, its fall was, IMHO, truly a gain to the world.

It ended with their second capital city, Constantinople, being taken by the Turks by better technology - cannon. The cannon were developed by a Christian engineer whom had come to save the city. But the emperor and his court lacked the basic wisdom to value an inventor and treat the cannonmaker decently, and off he went in fury to the much more reasonable Ottomans, and it was bye-bye Roman Empire. That was quite the opposite reaction the high-tech Roman Republic would've had.

So, it can't be done with the kind of Roman Empire we had. You at least need some checks on the Emperor's power, a constitutional monarchy like Rome started with. Better still, IMHO, is to have the much-better, but vulnerable in Caesar's day, Republic-style constitution survive, especially if you want it expand much. The Republic was amended unwisely to allow a more suitable number of men to serve by one Marius, opening up a hole for warlordism (Sulla). Julius Caesar conquered the Republic out of its warlord misery, whille nephew Octavian turned it to absolute monarchy with Republic-like fronting. The Caesars are probably bad material to work with to get a better Rome, since they OTL liked absolute power just fine.

IMHO, it gets pretty improbable to have the constitutional change, whatever it is, happen much after a century after the Octavian Caesar started the Emperor's absolute rule. Back then, there was a feeling that Romans were worse off than under the Republic, but nobody saw a way to get back. Later, people saw the absolute Empire as natural, and the interest in the Republic vanished.

Here are some nice, long threads on how the well=checked Roman Republic fared after it went to unchecked monarchy. Enjoy!

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

If I could take jkay's (interesting) point, and turn it on its head: what's the plausibility that this kind of mass industrialization leads puts pressure of the Roman political system, and maybe bringing back a republican restoration?

 

[King Gorilla]

The problem with so many roman industrialization scenarios, is the fact that the economic basis for supporting an industrial revolution didn't exist yet. Not to mention that having a slave based agrarian economy perhaps insn't the best route for innovation. However I review the biggest problem with Rome, was the tendency for there to be a civil war a decade.

Personally I'd start the scenario with Diocletian's reforms being successful, with the empire being broken down into to more managable components, and a clear line of succession gradually being established throughout them. The Germans continue to arrive as before, but the regional empires are better capable of dealing with local threats in multiple areas. Given that the Germans weren't all vicious raiders, many wanted to settle, trade, or serve as auxiliaries. The raiders are dealt with, the soldiers and settlers romanized, and those fearful enough to demand and receive tribute eventually consolidate power. Once again the dividends of peace emerge. Someone invents the moldeboard plow, and farming in northern and central europe becomes much more effective. A series of romanized germanic kingdoms eventually emerges, as Germania becomes open to widespread cultivation. The states provide the Roman statelets with both rivals, and trading partners. However they serve as crucially important buffers from the North and East. Whats more their food surpluses, become the means of creating the all important labor surplus needed for industrialization.

Over the course of centuries the ancillary technologies of industrialization are invented, be they in metallurgy, mechanics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. The ties with the East remain as kingdoms, dynasties, and rivals rise and fall. Roman trade becomes more sophisticated as capital continues to accumulate, and in turn be reinvested in additional enterprises. Eventually the "Roman" world has advanced enough where they could see the use of the energies provided by an aeliopile such as Hero's.

 

[Mikestone8]

I don't particularly see an early industrial revolution as altogether implausible.

Why put it in Rome though?

Why not ancient Japan, which had the coal etc that formed the basis for the actual IE, which a later Japan did a good job of copying in the 19C? By contrast, the Ottoman Empire, which covered an area not too dissimilar to the Roman, never showed the slightest sign of industrialising, despite having Europe right next door as an example to copy. Is there some reason to expect the Romans to be different from the Turks on this point?

 

[Mikestone8]

If I could take jkay's (interesting) point, and turn it on its head: what's the plausibility that this kind of mass industrialization leads puts pressure of the Roman political system, and maybe bringing back a republican restoration?

As in 19th Century Germany or Japan?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

As in 19th Century Germany or Japan?

Yes, now that you mention it -- especially in Japan, the government found that modernization required a form of government that could respond quickly to new needs, hence the Diet.

OTOH, both tended toward a more centralized authority with powerful monarchs; so, AAR, I don't think the emperor is going anywhere in TTL.

 

[cw1865]

The problem with so many roman industrialization scenarios, is the fact that the economic basis for supporting an industrial revolution didn't exist yet. Not to mention that having a slave based agrarian economy perhaps insn't the best route for innovation. However I review the biggest problem with Rome, was the tendency for there to be a civil war a decade.

Well, Rome had civil wars, this doesn't help them, but Europe still suffered from intermittent warfare both before, during and after the Industrial Revolution. The productive potential of mankind consisting of manual labor and domesticated beasts of burden changes little UNTIL the Industrial Revolution. Take a quick peak at the timeline of the implementation of the steam engine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_steam_power#Early_examples

Essentially, England goes down the learning curve in about 100 years.

Some Roman metal skills are very impressive: http://www.ourpump.com/2010/01/roman-bilge-pump-bearing/

http://100falcons.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/a-roman-pump-in-perfect-condition/

And of course, they had sawmills going.

Yes, the Roman economy was agrarian based - as ALL pre-industrial societies were (even as late as 1900 I think something like 40% of all Americans were still farmers), but the key is that they had enough of an agricultural surplus to produce a city the size of Rome (surplus labor)

Why put it in Rome though?

Why not ancient Japan, which had the coal etc that formed the basis for the actual IE, which a later Japan did a good job of copying in the 19C? By contrast, the Ottoman Empire, which covered an area not too dissimilar to the Roman, never showed the slightest sign of industrialising, despite having Europe right next door as an example to copy. Is there some reason to expect the Romans to be different from the Turks on this point?

I don't see it so much a function of culture as much as the product of genius - the work of the goldsmith will then become the work of the tinsmith. If these societies are turning water wheels, have enough metal skill and access to fuel, the steam engine is at least a POSSIBILITY. I don't see any reason the Romans, Han, Japanese or the Turks (who come onto the scene later) couldn't have done it

 

[Mikestone8]

I don't see it so much a function of culture as much as the product of genius - the work of the goldsmith will then become the work of the tinsmith. If these societies are turning water wheels, have enough metal skill and access to fuel, the steam engine is at least a POSSIBILITY. I don't see any reason the Romans, Han, Japanese or the Turks (who come onto the scene later) couldn't have done it

They might invent the steam engine, but would their society do anything with it?

Invention per se isn't all that important. Afaik, the Japanese never invented steam engines or the like, but that didn't stop them copying European ones after learning of their existence in the 19C. By contrast, Turkey was right next door to Europe but made next to no use of the innovations there.

Is there any reason to suppose that there were fewer Turkish geniuses than European ones? Given that Medieval Islam had led the world in chemistry, astronomy, metallurgy and much else besides, there seems no reason to think so. More likely, the geniuses existed but just found no "market" for their ideas. Similarly, Chinese were (and are) probably just as bright as Japs, but 19C China didn't do what 19C Japan did. Industrialisation just didn't suit the vested interests there. Would the vested interests in Rome have been any different?

 

[Valdemar II]

I don't see it so much a function of culture as much as the product of genius - the work of the goldsmith will then become the work of the tinsmith. If these societies are turning water wheels, have enough metal skill and access to fuel, the steam engine is at least a POSSIBILITY. I don't see any reason the Romans, Han, Japanese or the Turks (who come onto the scene later) couldn't have done it

The problem are it's not a product of genius, the stream engine was a product of cheapness. The problem with the Roman Empire develop the stream engine are one; fuel. The Mediterranean had a large level of deforestation which mean that any early stream engines will only be a toy, it's simply cheaper to use slaves or animals to any early stream engine. You need a large supply of some kind of high energy fuel for it, and crude oil won't work. So what you need are a extented mining of coal in areas where they tends to be flooded.

 

[Faeelin]

I. Rome's Economic Collapse Possibly Averted: The causes of Rome's economic collapse are disputed, but seem to revolve around several factors. Among the more important of these are the following...

1) Debasement of the currency to fill the need for more coinage led to inflation. This was caused by, in no particular order...
a) Hoarding of bullion by Roman citizens.
b) Negative Trade balance with places like India, where luxuries were purchased and paid for in specie. Thus specie was flowing out in large amounts and little was coming in.

Hrmm. Is there any evidence that the trade with India was so extensive? Rome did export some things; wine, art, etc. And it has plenty of silver lying around; Dacia, Bohemia, and Germany (where it didnt' get to it OTL).