Helenistic Greek science, what if...

[sebanaj]

Would those sciences and techniques, that discovered many of the things that were discovered later in the Renaissance, reached our current reality by the VII century, if it wasn't by the Romans and Christianity?
Then, we would be, in actual times, XIV centuries advanced than we're in reality.
Probably there would have been cars, tanks and planes already in the VII century.
What do you think about it?
Thanks.

 

[Xen]

depends- its know for a fact that alexandrian scietists invented a prototype steam engine- but they never thought of the possibilites of its use... hell, if the ROmans had made use of it, it probabley would have meant the industrial revolution a few centuries early

 

[Knight-Dragon]

However the fact that the Romans used slave labour rather lowers the societal conditions/pre-requisites necessary for an industrial economy IMO. Even with such steam machines around, they'll be viewed as little more than toys, if the Romans continued to have no lack of abundant and cheap slave labour to work their economy.

 

[sebanaj]

Slavism meant the freedom of citizens from doing anything non-intellectual.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by XIII
However the fact that the Romans used slave labour rather lowers the societal conditions/pre-requisites necessary for an industrial economy IMO. Even with such steam machines around, they'll be viewed as little more than toys, if the Romans continued to have no lack of abundant and cheap slave labour to work their economy.

in some ways I agree, slavery was more then likelly just two powerful to let industiralization go- in most ares at least, after all, its a fact that philosiphers had been distesting slavery from the days of ancient Athens...Roman philosiphers were not much differnt

I suppose, if ROme had, it would have required two things for the area it happend, those thing being that the area would need of course some philosiphers, and a lack of slave labor, and the gathering of scietific minds to make it happen, IMO, it would have been Alexandria... but thats a mute point, its interesting to ponde rover though...

another question is, would the above statement be right after all, a common argument by the U.S south was the the free, paid workers of the Northern cites wer eofter treated no better- somtimes WORSe then the southern slaves...

 

[Pariah]

Roman science and engineering were severely inhinbited by their clumsy number system. It may have been good enough for the architects and civil engineers of the day - and their achievements were amazing, no-one can deny. But I doubt that advanced physics, electrical and modern-type mechanical engineering could have emerged using Roman numerals. I should think calculus would be quite impossible, certainly.

 

[Chauliodus]

in some ways I agree, slavery was more then likelly just two powerful to let industiralization go

Don't forget addictive and stagnant.

 

[Pariah]

Then again, if new machine technology had become available to replace slave muscle-power in Classical times, it would have meant far less food and shelter for the masters to pay for. Machines don't tire and need to be whipped; they don't revolt, either (unless they develop into SkyNet or the like). Surely, slave-based industry was more of a burden to their owners than mechanical industry would have been.

 

[Chauliodus]

Then again, if new machine technology had become available to replace slave muscle-power in Classical times, it would have meant far less food and shelter for the masters to pay for. Machines don't tire and need to be whipped; they don't revolt, either (unless they develop into SkyNet or the like). Surely, slave-based industry was more of a burden to their owners than mechanical industry would have been.

If it became available to enough suppley yes, however the level that Rome and Greece relied on slavery would discourage it. Why switch to mechine labor when you have an unlimited supply of slaves, something not getting done fast enough, throw more slaves at it! Oh no! My slave died, well they only cost pennies anyway. Mechines would be far far to expensive for everyone to use let alone switch to.

 

[Xen]

actually, alot of what you said is wrong slavesd were a MAJOR investment- the cheepest I have ever heard of from the Roman era was a steep 800 sessertirii, and as such, are more comparable to a car then an ever replaceable commodity- and even the commidity sometimes became a relitive rareity- if it hadnt, then the Roman economy would not have collapsed, which means that all the expensive armour and training, and upkeep for the legions would have continued...

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Chauliodus


Don't forget addictive and stagnant.

addictive? we seem to have overcome the 'addiction"of slavery here in modern times- after all, before machinery comes into play, you really dont have a choice for your means of cheap mass-production, which the major empires of old needed to continue on a daily basis

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Pariah
Roman science and engineering were severely inhinbited by their clumsy number system. It may have been good enough for the architects and civil engineers of the day - and their achievements were amazing, no-one can deny. But I doubt that advanced physics, electrical and modern-type mechanical engineering could have emerged using Roman numerals. I should think calculus would be quite impossible, certainly.

I dont know if it would be possible or not, but then I have never studied calculus, so I dont really know what would be involved- or if it was done by the greeks or not...

the entire fact that, while very optimistic when you think about it, the fact that Greece, and ROme had no numerical symbol for nothing ( the symbol today being of course, the zero-0) it seems they were able to practice Geometry, and the like subjects just fine...

 

[sebanaj]

Some books said the slaves were cheap, and lower class peasants could have them

 

[Pariah]

Back to the original subject: the Greek scientists had a strong logical focus and good ideas, but they never really got the knack of putting theory into practice. Plus, a lot of the time they clung to their ideas even if the evidence seemed refutery: look at Aristotle, who adjusted his geocentric model of the Universe but never considered an alternative. He built what one could truly call a castle in the sky, a fantastically intricate theoretical mechanism which allowed all celestial bodies to orbit the Earth and account closely for their observed motions. It's a shame he was working on an erroneous premise. The idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun had already been mooted.