Alternative Ages

[flyingeye76]

What comes after the Iron Age?

Generally we think of human history being divided by such terms and the Stone, Neo-Stone, Copper and or Bronze, and Iron Ages. However I started realizing that when we apply our common system to non-Eurocentric histories, terms such as Dark, Medieval, Renaissance, and Colonial, start to become problematic. That's because I realized that the latter were events, not stages of development. After all, are we to say that every non-western or even potential civilization has headed into a dark age right after an iron age? There's even evidence that Rome had unknowingly been on the cusp of inventing the steam engine and thus sliding right into the Industrial age. In fact it isn't even until we get into the Industrial age and later Communication that these ages start to again signify developmental periods in society. So the question remains, what comes after the Iron age?

There are other alternatives. One of the most famous is the Kardashev Scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale. However due to it's scale, the K-Scale only becomes a practicle measurement of modern history and or development via Carl Sagan's division of the 0-Type Civ. Also it assumes that an advanced people need to harness that much raw power. Does the Q really need to harness the energy of an entire galaxy?

Another scale I came up with is one based on the range of a people's unified influence (generally individual governments) barring one way migrations. Levels of such a scale could include Tribal, Communal, Civic, Regional, Continental, Global, Orbital, Solar, Stellar, Galactic, Inter-Galactic, and beyond. But even this has limitations. Maybe it's just me but I can't justify Scandinavians (or whatever the group is being called-don't drag me into that mess of a debate) being considered a more advance civilization than the Egyptians.

So the question is now, what is the best time scale to employ when measuring a Civ's technical stage?

 

[Lord Baal]

What comes after the Iron Age?

The Fold Age. Before that, the Wash and Dry Ages.

Generally we think of human history being divided by such terms and the Stone, Neo-Stone, Copper and or Bronze, and Iron Ages. However I started realizing that when we apply our common system to non-Eurocentric histories, terms such as Dark, Medieval, Renaissance, and Colonial, start to become problematic. That's because I realized that the latter were events, not stages of development. After all, are we to say that every non-western or even potential civilization has headed into a dark age right after an iron age? There's even evidence that Rome had unknowingly been on the cusp of inventing the steam engine and thus sliding right into the Industrial age. In fact it isn't even until we get into the Industrial age and later Communication that these ages start to again signify developmental periods in society. So the question remains, what comes after the Iron age?

I've never heard of a "Neo-Stone" Age. Do you mean Neolithic?

The Romans actually did invent a steam engine - though it was a Greek, Hero or Heron of Alexandria who did so - but it was hoplessly impractical. Even if it were practical, an Industrial Revolution requires an Agricultural Revolution to precede it, and Rome didn't have one of those. And it didn't need one either, as the situation in Rome was considerable different to that of Medieval Europe.

As for what comes after the Iron Age, you've got it completely wrong. After Iron comes Classical, Medieval, Modern, and now Post-Modern. The Renaissance; colonialism; etc.; aren't 'Ages' in the developmental sense, they're merely certain periods of time in which certain things happened. Since those things were more in the area of politics and art, they don't have any bearing on technological development, which is what the term 'Ages' implies. Unless I've been reading the term wrong my whole life.

There are other alternatives. One of the most famous is the Kardashev Scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale. However due to it's scale, the K-Scale only becomes a practicle measurement of modern history and or development via Carl Sagan's division of the 0-Type Civ. Also it assumes that an advanced people need to harness that much raw power. Does the Q really need to harness the energy of an entire galaxy?

Another scale I came up with is one based on the range of a people's unified influence (generally individual governments) barring one way migrations. Levels of such a scale could include Tribal, Communal, Civic, Regional, Continental, Global, Orbital, Solar, Stellar, Galactic, Inter-Galactic, and beyond. But even this has limitations. Maybe it's just me but I can't justify Scandinavians (or whatever the group is being called-don't drag me into that mess of a debate) being considered a more advance civilization than the Egyptians.

Technologically, the Scandinavians are most definitely more advanced than Egypt.

So the question is now, what is the best time scale to employ when measuring a Civ's technical stage?

Thwe one we've got now does well enough, though it does admittedly have its problems. The main problem is, as you said, that it's Euro-centric. That's nothing that a decent historian couldn't fix if he had the time.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

The Romans actually did invent a steam engine - though it was a Greek, Hero or Heron of Alexandria who did so - but it was hoplessly impractical. Even if it were practical, an Industrial Revolution requires an Agricultural Revolution to precede it, and Rome didn't have one of those.

Actually the steam engine invented by Hero(n) of Alexandria (as he was the first person we know of to have made a steam engine he is credited as inventor, even though his manuscripts mention earlier engines) was as practical as anything during the Industrial Revolution up to the impprovements made by James Watt in the 1770s. The engines created in Roman times were quite complicated but they were not used for practical purposes.

This is quite suprising really if you think about it, the Roman Empire had a large industiral base, with a substantial rail network built up around its minig areas (which were also extensive), an engineering capability which would have solved most of the practical problems associated with building up a Europe wide railway network, but they never put it all together.

 

[Lord Baal]

Actually the steam engine invented by Hero(n) of Alexandria (as he was the first person we know of to have made a steam engine he is credited as inventor, even though his manuscripts mention earlier engines) was as practical as anything during the Industrial Revolution up to the impprovements made by James Watt in the 1770s. The engines created in Roman times were quite complicated but they were not used for practical purposes.

This is quite suprising really if you think about it, the Roman Empire had a large industiral base, with a substantial rail network built up around its minig areas (which were also extensive), an engineering capability which would have solved most of the practical problems associated with building up a Europe wide railway network, but they never put it all together.

Hero's steam engine was a toy, as were his other inventions. While Hero (or someone else) may have been able to adapt the technology to a more useful purpose, as it was it was quite inefficient. A large amount of the steam escaped, for crying out loud. Not a terribly smart design, though credit must be given for thinking of it in the first place.

Rome didn't need to put it all together. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say, and there was no necessity in Rome's day. Why build combine harvesters if you have farm-slaves? Why bother with automated spinning looms when there's massive amounts of labour? Many of the advances of the Industrial Revolution came about as a result of a desire to save money or increase profits, whereas an empire like Rome, when stable, actually decreases the desirability of innovation.

 

[Plotinus]

Oh, good! Another argument about whether the Romans had a steam engine!

Lord Baal is right. They didn't.

I must also add that the term "Dark Ages" is not used by modern historians since it's unnecessarily pejorative. Moreover, the term itself does not refer to a supposed collapse in civilisation, but merely the fact that relatively little was known about that period (it is "dark" in the sense that the dark side of the moon is).

The obvious answer to the question is that when you get beyond basic categories such as whether a civilisation is using bronze or iron, you cannot rank technological achievement on a simple sliding scale, because there are so many different elements to technological achievement. And that is why that ranking, by common convention, stops at the iron age.

 

[Masada]

Thwe one we've got now does well enough, though it does admittedly have its problems. The main problem is, as you said, that it's Euro-centric. That's nothing that a decent historian couldn't fix if he had the time.

We have a winner!

Oh, good! Another argument about whether the Romans had a steam engine!

Lord Baal is right. They didn't.

It's a steam engine, it isn't a very good one, but its still recognizably a steam engine. They therefore had one.

The Romans actually did invent a steam engine - though it was a Greek, Hero or Heron of Alexandria who did so - but it was hoplessly impractical. Even if it were practical, an Industrial Revolution requires an Agricultural Revolution to precede it, and Rome didn't have one of those. And it didn't need one either, as the situation in Rome was considerable different to that of Medieval Europe.

Why is an agricultural revolution a necessary precondition of an industrial one?

Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say, and there was no necessity in Rome's day. Why build combine harvesters if you have farm-slaves? Why bother with automated spinning looms when there's massive amounts of labour?

It might have significantly more to do with an inability to construct everything you've just mentioned rather than anything else. The Romans were willing to innovate in agriculture for instance, they were noted for their grafts for instance, and were capable of introducing mechanical innovations as well which they often did. Remember also that the Empire wasn't wholly reliant on large landowners with plantations nor did all major landowners hold slaves, in-fact you will find that there was a large period where slaves passed out of use as the conquests dried up.

Many of the advances of the Industrial Revolution came about as a result of a desire to save money or increase profits, whereas an empire like Rome, when stable, actually decreases the desirability of innovation.

That isn't true. Stability is a necessary precondition for profit, savings, the raising of capital, the cost of capital and a whole host of other factors. Innovations have been more often made in peaceful countries than in war-torn ones.

 

[Lord Baal]

We have a winner!

It's a steam engine, it isn't a very good one, but its still recognizably a steam engine. They therefore had one.

Also vending machines. No Coke, unfortunately.

Why is an agricultural revolution a necessary precondition of an industrial one?

Population density. An industrial revolution requires a large idle labour force, which requires either an agricultural revolution or some fantastically arable land. At least the first time. Once it's happened once, the idea can be exported and adapted, but that labour force still doesn't crop up on its own.

It might have significantly more to do with an inability to construct everything you've just mentioned rather than anything else. The Romans were willing to innovate in agriculture for instance, they were noted for their grafts for instance, and were capable of introducing mechanical innovations as well which they often did. Remember also that the Empire wasn't wholly reliant on large landowners with plantations nor did all major landowners hold slaves, in-fact you will find that there was a large period where slaves passed out of use as the conquests dried up.

The latter-day Romans actually had some primitive harvesters, which is why I mentioned them. The reason those harvesters were developed towards the end of the Empire was the one you mentioned - lack of slaves. One major reason for the relative speed of agricultural innovation in the so-called Dark Ages was the small plots and limited workforce. Rome had larger plots on average, and a larger workforce. This didn't prevent them from making innovations, but it certainly reduced the necessity to go looking for them.

That isn't true. Stability is a necessary precondition for profit, savings, the raising of capital, the cost of capital and a whole host of other factors. Innovations have been more often made in peaceful countries than in war-torn ones.

Allow me to clarify. A relative degree of stability is necessary for those factors you mentioned. But too much stability and too little competition can lead to a slowing of innovation. China also had this problem. Great innovations during relatively stable periods, but a much slower pace whenever the empire was either in upheaval, or united and peaceful.

 

[Plotinus]

It's a steam engine, it isn't a very good one, but its still recognizably a steam engine. They therefore had one.

An engine does something. Hero's device didn't (and couldn't) do anything - it wasn't an engine, simply a demonstration of the fact that when you boil water, steam comes out, and if you enclose it, the steam comes out in jets. That's all.

Besides, whatever Hero made, he was the only one who made it. To say that "the Romans" (or even "the Alexandrians") possessed any technology on the basis of a single model made by a single man is pretty tenuous, no matter how brilliant the model.

 

[Lord Baal]

An engine does something. Hero's device didn't (and couldn't) do anything - it wasn't an engine, simply a demonstration of the fact that when you boil water, steam comes out, and if you enclose it, the steam comes out in jets. That's all.

Besides, whatever Hero made, he was the only one who made it. To say that "the Romans" (or even "the Alexandrians") possessed any technology on the basis of a single model made by a single man is pretty tenuous, no matter how brilliant the model.

To be fair, Hero did apparently copy someone else's design. Presumbly the idea was at least written down in the library, and therefore available to anyone with the time to read it, so long as they knew which of the many books it was in.

 

[Masada]

Population density. An industrial revolution requires a large idle labour force, which requires either an agricultural revolution or some fantastically arable land. At least the first time. Once it's happened once, the idea can be exported and adapted, but that labour force still doesn't crop up on its own.

That doesn't follow terribly well, surplus labour makes labour cheaper and in consequence it makes capital relatively more expensive. This would seem to imply that capital intensive solutions would not have been the preferred option. Which is a thorny question for economists, which came first the population or the capacity to employ them? Push or pull. And for the record I find the former highly unlikely.

The latter-day Romans actually had some primitive harvesters, which is why I mentioned them. The reason those harvesters were developed towards the end of the Empire was the one you mentioned - lack of slaves. One major reason for the relative speed of agricultural innovation in the so-called Dark Ages was the small plots and limited workforce. Rome had larger plots on average, and a larger workforce. This didn't prevent them from making innovations, but it certainly reduced the necessity to go looking for them.

There's an one about small farmers that I always remember, they don't innovate because if they fail they starve. If your property is large you can spread the risk, if your property is small you can't. Necessity is a poor motivator in subsistence economies. I know from experience.

Allow me to clarify. A relative degree of stability is necessary for those factors you mentioned. But too much stability and too little competition can lead to a slowing of innovation. China also had this problem. Great innovations during relatively stable periods, but a much slower pace whenever the empire was either in upheaval, or united and peaceful.

States are not unitary organizations. Internal competition is an entirely valid substitute for foriegn competition and in that period of history probably a better one - its capacity to cheat is reduced.

An engine does something. Hero's device didn't (and couldn't) do anything - it wasn't an engine, simply a demonstration of the fact that when you boil water, steam comes out, and if you enclose it, the steam comes out in jets. That's all.

Why does an engine have to do something? In any case, it did something, it turned. Savery's engine which is arguably the first modern attempt at a steam engine operated under much the same principles as Hero's. It also leaked like a sieve.

 

[Tabster]

Savery's engine which is arguably the first modern attempt at a steam engine operated under much the same principles as Hero's. It also leaked like a sieve.

By "Savery's engine", do you mean the pump he built for mine drainage? or do you mean something else ? It just that I've not heard it called this before.

If I understood the idea behind the miners pump correctly, it used condensing steam to create a vacuum which drew water up a pipe which was discharged through a valve into a drain. Which really makes it more like the latter steam engines (power from steam expanding/condensing) , than Hero's engine in principle (which gets all it's power from steam expanding) .

A Frenchmen, Papin, did attempt to build an earlier engine than Savery's engine/pump but without any real success.

Generally, I think of engines having a 'cycle' which produces work. So, I have to say, IMHO Hero's engine isn't an engine.

 

[flyingeye76]

Ok, I'm venturing into grounds that I can in no way call myself an expert, however I have made an observation.

Two of the reasons against Rome developing an industrial age was that 1- The abundance of cheap slave labor eliminates the need for automation. 2- The industrial age needs a large body of idle, cheap labor. Seems to me that 1 and 2 solve each other's problems.

I can see resistance on the field, where a land owner would rather keep his slaves than invest in expensive new machinery. However in the factory it might be a different story. If we look to the Industrial age of the mid-1800's to the early 1900's, we see a society that view human industrial labor as "cheaper the better". Many of the workforce were underpaid women and children forced in dangerous and repetitive work. How many factory owners would of loved to have true slave labor to better impact their bottom line?

I think the main ingredient from Hero's invention wasn't a more robust design, but rather an imaginative entrepreneur who could realize it's potential. Rome also had two other conditions that would've made an industrial revolution possible. Besides an extensive trade network for both acquisition of materials and markets for export, Rome also had the PaxRomana to ensure a stable trade.

Considering that Rome was an iron age society could we say that a steam\industrial age would've been the natural step?

 

[Dachs]

Natural step given what? What are you changing to get to a Roman industrial age? Irrespective of the metallurgical aspect, of course.

 

[Masada]

A Frenchmen, Papin, did attempt to build an earlier engine than Savery's engine/pump but without any real success.

I might have been thinking of Papin.

Generally, I think of engines having a 'cycle' which produces work. So, I have to say, IMHO Hero's engine isn't an engine.

The problem with that definition is that you then have to discount most of the early attempts which didn't work and some which didn't have a recognizable cycle.

Considering that Rome was an iron age society could we say that a steam\industrial age would've been the natural step?

No. It wasn't possible, it doesn't have anything on the pull side to provide the incentive to innovate. It doesn't have to crack large amounts of sugar cane or spin large amounts of surplus cotton.

 

[Tabster]

Roman steam engines -

I've been thinking about this, basically to get a useful working steam engine you need to understand that gases expanding and contracting can both do work, to get a working cycle you need recognise this. Hero's engine spun because of the work done by the steam expanding.

To understand that contracting gases can do work, you really need to have the idea of gases and understand the relationship between temperature and pressure. It's really the air pressure outside the cylinder that moves the piston when the steam condenses.

Now, I might be wrong here but didn't the Romans have a poor understanding of the nature of gases/air. Also didn't they refuse to except this possible existence of a vacuum for example ? This, I would have thought, would seriously damage their chances of making a working steam engine.

The steam engine came about largely due to the need to drain mines, which had started to be a serious problem in Europe around 1500-1700. The Romans would have had about a thousand years of mining easier deposits (closer to the surface) before facing the same problem.

@ Masada
Yes, I thought you were refering to Papin, who just like Hero realised expanding steam could be used to do work. IIRC, his problem was the fact he could use steam to move a piston in a cylinder, but couldn't move it back, to begin the work cycle again. If he had poured cold water on the cylinder as Newcombe did, he could have invented the steam engine.

Newcombe combined the 'expantion' action of Papin's machine with the 'condensing' of Savery's pump.

 

[Plotinus]

I'm not sure that the Romans didn't accept the possibility of vacuums. However, one could disallow the possibility of a vacuum but still accept the notion of more or less density of gas, which is all you need for the steam engine. A Cartesian or someone else who denies the existence of vacuums can even accept the existence of a region that contains no air - provided it contains something even thinner than air (ether, for example). The Cartesian would say that just because a space contains no air, that doesn't mean it contains nothing at all - just as the fact that a space contains no solid objects doesn't mean it contains nothing at all. Just as, in the absence of solid bodies, there is air, so too, in the absence of air there is ether.

 

[Tabster]

@ Plotinus

Yes, you're correct about not needing knowledge of a vacuum to create a working steam engine.

I was trying to use it as an example of the lack of understanding of gases in general, by the Romans. Not that I thought that the Romans would be hindered in building a steam engine, purely by their views on vacuums. I phrased it badly, sorry.

 

[Vertinari118]

Hang on. You define a steam engine as a steam-powered device that operates in cycles and does work. Well the Romans (and or Greeks I can't remember which) had automatic temple doors that could be opened by burning an offering to the gods, useful for impressing the masses, before you went in prayed and probably left another offering on the alter, useful for lining the priests pockets. So either the Romans or the Greeks did have a steam-powered device that does work and possibly operates in cycles, I'm not sure on that though. Ergo the Romans/Greeks had a near useless steam engine that does do work and therefore is valid as a steam engine. It should also be noted that texts have been recovered hinting at some kind of weather prediction device based off a steam engine, whether it is true or not we do not know. Beyond that we know nothing about Roman steam engines, how good they were, how they operated etc. The Romans also had a railway which connected two settlements somewhere in Egypt and was powered by slaves. There is nothing saying that a railway must use a stream engine and the early ones, even in Renaissance Europe, used horses not steam. A railway is just a road consisting of two rails rather than a hard, or gravel, surface. Oh and bearing in mind the fact the Romans had access to steel there is nothing to say a Roman inventor and entrepreneur might have developed metallurgy techniques to refine steel and then another one could have come along and made a proper steam engine. The Romans had the know-how nearly in their grasp but no need to make a steam engine, at least as far as I understand.

 

[Tabster]

Hang on. You define a steam engine as a steam-powered device that operates in cycles and does work. Well the Romans (and or Greeks I can't remember which) had automatic temple doors that could be opened by burning an offering to the gods, useful for impressing the masses, before you went in prayed and probably left another offering on the alter, useful for lining the priests pockets. So either the Romans or the Greeks did have a steam-powered device that does work and possibly operates in cycles, I'm not sure on that though. Ergo the Romans/Greeks had a near useless steam engine that does do work and therefore is valid as a steam engine.

I have heard of these temple doors before, but not in detail, I can imagine them being powered by Hero's engine in the way you describe. Large doors can be balanced in a way so they can easily opened by a light touch. A Hero's engine could certainly provide the power to do this, but so could a counterweight or a spring.

That Hero's engine could do work I'm not disputing, but what I mean by an engine using a cycle is that it returns too it's begining position and is ready to repeat the process. You would have to manually refill Hero's engine when it run out of water. then wait for the water to boil. This would be ok for the temple doors but no good if you were trying to drain a mine for example. Hero's engine is releasing stored energy, like battery or a spring does, this doesn't make it an engine.

Roman inventor and entrepreneur might have developed metallurgy techniques to refine steel and then another one could have come along and made a proper steam engine.

I may well be mistaken but I would have thought Newcombe would have made his engine largely from wrought iron and brass.

A small amount of steel is perhaps needed for use in tools for example. But I'm not sure it's necessary in large amounts for the development of a steam engine.

Anyway, I feel like I'm dragging the thread off course so perhaps I'll leave it at that.

 

[flyingeye76]

Natural step given what? What are you changing to get to a Roman industrial age? Irrespective of the metallurgical aspect, of course.

I'm asking, what would've been the next age of development that Rome (including Greece and the entire empire) could've attained if it and Western Rome had not fallen into the dark ages? Or in other worlds, what follows an Iron Age? If Rome was on the potential cusp of an Steam\Industrial age then maybe it shows that it is the next stage up from the Iron Age? If not, then does that mean there are one or more levels of development need to obtain a Victorian level civilization? Another indicator of Rome's potential Industrial society is through the medical works of Galen. According to a program on the History Channel, his level of medical practice and knowledge wouldn't be matched until WW1!

Finally a few questions. First does any one know if Rome was close to developing gunpowder and or some type of wire communication such as the telegraph? Second, does a civilization need steam power or a combustion engine to develop an industrial society, or can it use the principles of mass production (say assigning slaves to do one specific task) to be considered industrialized?

Finally, what age are we in? Are we in a Communication Age where mass media and interaction such as the internet has seemingly replaced industrial endeavors? Is it the next step, just an era, or a false perception?

No. It wasn't possible, it doesn't have anything on the pull side to provide the incentive to innovate. It doesn't have to crack large amounts of sugar cane or spin large amounts of surplus cotton.

Wouldn't transportation, particularly of troops, be incentive to build a steam powered railroad? After all the Romans spent a lot of their energy in building a large road network for such a purpose.