Romans vs. 19thcentury techs

[bob bobato]

Which was more advanced? The Roman world, or 19th century world?

 

[shortguy]

Is there any question?

Steam power, railroad, assembly line, steel, gunpowder, etc. etc.

 

[bob bobato]

Yes, there is. The roman road was the best until the railroad. Roman medicine was only equaled in the early 19th century. Some roman architecture we cant easily copy (We wouldn't be able to build the pantheon's roof with concrete; they did, and its never been replaced). A lot of roman mechanical machines were only equaled in the 19th century. The greeks invented a sort of computer; thus, the romans knew about it. Roman sanitation was unequaled until the 19th century. A greek in roman alexandria invented a self-opening door, slot machine,steam turbine, and automata. it is unkown how many of his inventions were actualy used on real things, and not just models.
The romans had a crane. Many roman developments (such as concrete,cement,and safety pins)were only rediscovered in the 19th century. The romans had flush toilets,running water and sewers. I think it would be better to say early 19th century.

 

[Warman17]

19th century brings forth a line of riflemen and a couple cannons

say bye bye to roman civilization.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It's obvious he's talking about 1800, not 1890. I think that, perhaps, yes, the Romans were the technological equals of Europe around the year 1800 or so.

The issue is not whether Julius Ceasar could have squared off with Napoleon, it is whether the technologies in their societies were similar or superior, and, with the exception of gunpowder, the Romans were far more advanced than any pre-industrial revolution society.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

This topic in itself is broad and vague. What 19th century technology are we discussing? What political or cultural entity of the 19th century are you trying to compare the Roman World to?

If your referring to the European world, then even in 1800 and in almost every field conceivable, Europe was far more advanced compared to the Roman world. I'm pretty heavily interested in Roman history but even I consider this a no brainer. A lot of the inventions you mention were not widespread or were simply oddities. For example, the Greek inventor of the steam engine you mentioned was name Heron. Although Heron of Alexanderia did invent a steam engine, for him it was a mere toy. It never went beyond a novelty. In fact, almost every single invention of Heron was never wide spread. The automated door was only seen in one temple. On the otherhand, a lot of inventions of the 19th century saw rapid application in the real world. The steam engine, for example, became a device that had applications for increasing industrial output and providing a basis modernized transportation. You should know that 19th century urban centers also made use of sewers and running water. 19th century Europeans also made use of the crane.

Edit: I must question Romans inventing a "flush toilet." In all my years I've never heard of such a claim. Do you have some source for that?

 

[shortguy]

It's obvious he's talking about 1800, not 1890. I think that, perhaps, yes, the Romans were the technological equals of Europe around the year 1800 or so.

The issue is not whether Julius Ceasar could have squared off with Napoleon, it is whether the technologies in their societies were similar or superior, and, with the exception of gunpowder, the Romans were far more advanced than any pre-industrial revolution society.

You're exaggerating. Pre-industrial Europeans surpassed the Romans in other significant ways. Metallurgy, the compass, maritime technology, astronomy, the lens, etc.

And as Riesstiu said, these things gained widespread, frequent application.

 

[Tee Kay]

Even in 1700 the technological levels of major European countries was higher than in Roman times. Even if the Romans were more advanced than early 19th century Europeans, the technology would've been available only to a few of the ruling classes.

 

[Plotinus]

I agree with Riesstiu IV. To claim that the Romans were as advanced as the Victorians because Hero of Alexandria built a toy steam engine is ridiculous. To count as a proper technological advance it needs to be something a bit more practical than that, and the metallurgical technology required to build a full-size steam engine did not exist in antiquity - even if Hero's model operated on the same principles as modern steam engines, which is doubtful.

And as shortguy said, there are a host of technologies that were widely available in early modern Europe which the Romans didn't have, especially those associated with navigation. We can also point to the advances in architecture made during the Middle Ages. The Romans might have had concrete, but they hadn't thought of the principles behind Gothic architecture.

 

[steveedster]

There are however some area were the Romans were better. One instance is in building, not better than 1800, but I would say better than 16-1700 in some large scale structures. One example is stadia, the western world in fact did not build stadia comparible to Roman stadia until the early part of the 20th century (such as Wembley in England or the early Olympic venues).

 

[Steph]

There are however some area were the Romans were better. One instance is in building, not better than 1800, but I would say better than 16-1700 in some large scale structures. One example is stadia, the western world in fact did not build stadia comparible to Roman stadia until the early part of the 20th century (such as Wembley in England or the early Olympic venues).

That's ridiculous to. Why the Western would would have build a stadium in the 18th century ? Was football or rugby popular at the time? Were they gladiators?
The Romans build stadium to fit a purpose.

 

[steveedster]

That's ridiculous to. Why the Western would would have build a stadium in the 18th century ? Was football or rugby popular at the time? Were they gladiators?
The Romans build stadium to fit a purpose.

Its not ridiculous its fact. We did not build stadia of such scale until the turn of the 20th century. So one can argue that Romans were better at building them up until that time. I have no doubt that we could build stadia on a large scale in the 1800's however we didnt build much other than timber based structures on a smaller scale. Also we did have football, rugby and cricket in the 1800's.

The fact remains that Roman stadia were not surpassed until the 20th century.

 

[Steph]

Its not ridiculous its fact. We did not build stadia of such scale until the turn of the 20th century. So one can argue that Romans were better at building them up until that time. I have no doubt that we could build stadia on a large scale in the 1800's however we didnt build much other than timber based structures on a smaller scale. Also we did have football, rugby and cricket in the 1800's.

The fact remains that Roman stadia were not surpassed until the 20th century.

You can't compare that. The Roman culture gave a prupose to large stadia where large crowd would gather to watch gladiators.

We started to build large stadia in Western Europe only after the sports became popular enough to have a large public, and there was a need for such large building.

On the opposite, we built cathedrale which were good example of the architecturale possibilities, because at the time there was a "spiritual need" to build such structure.

 

[steveedster]

You can't compare that. The Roman culture gave a prupose to large stadia where large crowd would gather to watch gladiators.

We started to build large stadia in Western Europe only after the sports became popular enough to have a large public, and there was a need for such large building.

On the opposite, we built cathedrale which were good example of the architecturale possibilities, because at the time there was a "spiritual need" to build such structure.

Cricket was popular from the 1850's and rugby/football in various forms from the 1860's, however stadia of high quality were not built until around the turn of the century. I do see your point, and no doubt they 'could' have built large stadia earlier that were of the same size and quality that the romans built, however they did not. in my opinion we did not get as good as the romans at building them until the end of the 19th/start of the 20th centrury.

 

[Steph]

Cricket was popular from the 1850's and rugby/football in various forms from the 1860's, however stadia of high quality were not built until around the turn of the century. I do see your point, and no doubt they 'could' have built large stadia earlier that were of the same size and quality that the romans built, however they did not. in my opinion we did not get as good as the romans at building them until the end of the 19th/start of the 20th centrury.

So, if they could have, why didn't they?

 

[MCdread]

Cricket was popular from the 1850's and rugby/football in various forms from the 1860's, however stadia of high quality were not built until around the turn of the century. I do see your point, and no doubt they 'could' have built large stadia earlier that were of the same size and quality that the romans built, however they did not. in my opinion we did not get as good as the romans at building them until the end of the 19th/start of the 20th centrury.

Yes, but were governments or wealthy citizens interested in funding sports venues? On the other hand there are several opera houses and theatres in Europe much older than that (La Scala for example is from the XVIII century), and certainly better than the equivalent roman venues.

For many centuries in Europe, only religious and military buildings were given enough funding to become significant architectonic landmarks, and as Plotinus said above, the gothic cathedrals from the XII and XIII century are already in many ways great improvements over the roman temples and ancient churches.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say that in several areas, the late Middle Ages in Europe were technologically more advanced than the Roman Empire: the use of mechanization (the european windmill, the mechanical clock), navigation (extensive Atlantic trade sailing in open seas: the vikings and the Hansa ships in north atlantic, moors and genovese in the african coast and the portuguese later on all the way to the Cape and south atlantic; also better instruments: the compass, the sextant, improved cartography), banking and finances (the birth of modern banking in Italy and then the Low Countries), science (algebra, botany, optics - glasses became available and common in that period), military technology (gunpowder becoming available, much improved cavalry technology). And by the early XVI century, books were being printed on a large scale, european ships were travelling from the Caribbean to the dar East, loaded with cannon guns, etc.

 

[steveedster]

So, if they could have, why didn't they?

No doubt to to several reasons, one of which is the lack of previous experience in building such structures, which is why it probably took 30 to 40 years to start building major stadium works of permanent quality and of durable size after the need for such venues first arose due to sports and events. Indeed in mid victoian England such venues were built but as stated before out of timber structure and not of imposing scale.

 

[Steph]

one of which is the lack of previous experience in building such structures, which is why it probably took 30 to 40 years to start building major stadium works

How many years the Romans needed to maje a major stadium, after they tried to do the first?
From large castle, cathedrals, fortification, I think the Western world could have build large stadium relatively easily.
I don't consider a stadium to be extreamly difficult to build compare to a cathedral.
They just were little points to do it.

 

[steveedster]

I totally understand your arguments here, and agree with many of your points, however the Romans did build better and more advanced stadia than victorian/pre viictorian modern western society this is historical fact, there are many reasons for this, however i think we can give one up to the romans on this count.

 

[Steph]

Ok. The Eskimos are making igloos. The Egyptians didn't. That clearly demonstrate Eskmos' architecture is far superior to Egyptians'.