Were the Romans close to an Industrial Revolution? (Part 2)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- This second half of my two-part series explores the social and economic barriers that precluded a Roman Industrial Revolution.
Please consider supporting toldinstone on Patreon:
/ toldinstone
If you liked this video, you might also enjoy my book “Naked Statues, Fat Gladiators, and War Elephants: Frequently Asked Questions about the Ancient Greeks and Romans.”
www.amazon.com/Naked-Statues-...
If you're so inclined, you can follow me elsewhere on the web:
/ toldinstone
/ toldinstone
/ 20993845.garrett_ryan
Chapters:
0:00 Compelling introduction
0:52 Lack of research funding
2:00 Elite disdain
2:48 Caution toward innovation
3:30 Poor communications
3:59 A hidebound education system
4:23 No economic incentive
5:09 No true mass production
6:10 No entrepreneurial class
6:46 No elite financing
7:29 No industrial revolution
8:06 Stirring conclusion
The chicken-headed man who graces the middle of this video comes from a fourth-century mosaic in Brading Roman Villa (on the Isle of Wight). There are several theories about the mosaic's significance, but the most compelling one points out that the Latin for "chicken" is "gallus," and suggests that the chicken-headed man is a satirical portrait of the Caesar (that is, junior emperor) Constantius Gallus.
Hahaha I was about to ask what’s the deal with the chicken man !
It could have been the mascot for a fast food chicken place. Centurion Sanderio's Fried Chicken.
thank you for taking the time to explain this! im currently researching chicken art through history and i adore these lil bits! love your work and good luck in everything! (:
Seems it would be quite risky though having that painted onto your wall. A bit hard to hide it quickly should one of his acquaintances drop in for tea.
Very nicely done. In 1966, I learned to love history when my 11th grade World History teacher said that, in her class, the one thing more important than dates, was *_human motivation._* I was hooked. Suddenly, history had a deep, visceral meaning to me. Human motivation is the engine of change, and human perception (frequently flawed) is the regulator on that motivation.
"In their eyes, there was no opportunity to miss." Really makes you think.
I suspect that was only because they didn't know what they were missing. If they had any idea about how many and how fast they could move troops with a rail road they probably would have been interested.
@@owllymannstein7113 they didn't have the metallurgy for rail. They didn't have easy access to coal or wood to use as fuel. Most things can be moved 90% of the way on a ship or barge if they need to get someplace ASAP. They really weren't missing anything.
@@tissuepaper9962 well they had oil instead of coal
Truly, we live in a society.
In particular, it makes me think about that guy in the 70's who claimed he could run his car off of water and not fuel. Not gasoline.
But was mysteriously killed later.
I really appreciated the conclusion of this video. In this world full of rhetoric concerning constant progress and innovation, its easy for many people to forget that this is a very modern notion.
Well said!
Is it? Considering how so many green technologies such as solar and wind power aren't adopted as quickly as climate scientists would like because they're "too disruptive" to our current energy supply chain, I don't think the powers that be like progress as much as you think. And before you bring up Elon Musk, please first consider his role in the mining industry and who and what he's building rockets FOR.
Edit: wow, you folks are REALLY upset I didn't directly mention nuclear power. I did say "such as" to imply other green technologies, which includes nuclear. I just didn't mention it because it isn't as popular with most other people despite its benefits.
make that constant consumption...if anything this modern version of empire is in a regressive era.
@@pbjmochi8400 adoption to changes in energy regime usually take awhile, absent a major emergency, like say WWI, WII and the oil embargo of 1973 and subsequent energy crises throughout the 1970s.
Take solar energy as an example. While the" first practical silicon solar cell" was announced in 1954, and solar cells were used for spacecraft in the 1960s, serious work really didn't get going until the 1970s. Wasn't until 1985 that 20% efficient silicon cells were developed. It wasn't until around 2006/2007 that solar cell production worldwide really started taking off.
So relatively recent that costs dropped and performance increased like that noted in an article this January: "Due to the many advances in photovoltaic technology over recent years, the average panel conversion efficiency has increased from 15% to well over 20%. This large jump in efficiency resulted in the power rating of a standard size panel to increase from 250W up to 370W."
Meanwhile, the grid system will likely need to be upgraded in many countries.
@@pbjmochi8400 I meant in terms of the ideology of science and history. We see science and technology as progressing ever forward, and we tend to view history as a narrative of progression.
0:25 "Technological change does not occur spontaneously when a society reaches a certain level of prosperity and technical knowledge, it needs to be stimulated by a clear need or opportunity". Thank you. I wish our present day futurists, who dream of "technology levels" and "technological singularities" and so on would understand this.
The Kardashev scale is a complete fucking meme, anyone who believes in it doesn't understand history
Innovation, and respect for science and technology is only one part of the puzzle. There's an enormous amount of institutional support that was required for the UK to ignite the industrial revolution. Banking and law, for instance. You need to be able to mobilize large amounts of investment, you need to be sure that, as an investor or an entrepreneur, you can keep what you make and not have it arbitrarily confiscated. You need to be able to account for what you've made and to have confidence in such accounts. You need fair systems of taxation. Etc. The UK had all these things - an entrepreneur could be confident of keeping profits due to a reasonable fair legal system. Bankers existed who could lend and who could transmit money.
A modern day example: Russia ought to be several times more wealthy than it is (pre-war). But the first thing a Russian does when he (usually a he) makes a pile of dough is remove it and his family outside of Russia as fast as possible - because you cannot count on the govt playing at all fair.
So Russia massively underperforms. And this has always been the case - in 1900, there were two continental-scale powers in the world, both blessed with massive natural resources and a continental scale that meant they could be uniquely self-sufficient. One was the US, the other, even more blessed, was Russia. One succeeded, one failed. That happened due to the nature of their societies, the efficacy of the rule of law, etc. 1900s Russia with US-type culture/institutions would likely have succeeded far beyond what even the US managed in the 1900s. But it was cursed with extraordinarily retrograde institutions.
I'm glad someone else said it. The whole idea of 'making more energy just for the sake of it' is ridiculous.
IMO something like Warhammer 40k is just as realistic as 90% of serious sci-fi, because while futurists may understand technology the writers of 40k understand culture.
Yet we are working on nuclear fission. Ever improving batteries. Space transition. Light speed may be a fantasy, but so was flight.
Futurism suffers from the same teleological fallacy as history does, with the difference that historians actually correct themselves for it
"Regression is as natural as progress" I think this all the time. As tragic as it is comforting.
Libraries, dude. Libraries are the greatest creation of humanity, esPECILLY free public libraries.
Retired librarian, MI / US
*Apple Products
I never realised this because of the modern approach to progress. People always lament about the medieval times about "how much the society regressed" and it's always framed as a great tragedy, not a.. fact of life? It's so important to understand our past and ourselves, that not everyone, not every society, wants constant progress. And there's been a bit more awareness of that recently with people wanting to live slower lives
We are in that stage now.
@@veramae4098 libraries are not what they were, the primary location of reference materials. I’m not sure what the future of libraries will be but I think they will largely be digitalised and the process of looking down a row bookshelves to find the section of books with the Dewey number you want, will become redundant.
When looking at the origins of industrialisation, I think it's deceiving to focus on the invention of the steam engine. It really started already with non-steam machines such as the printing press and non-steam spinning machines. Steam was just the next step in an already ongoing process.
Yes, early industrialization was heavily centered around streams and rivers and the power they could provide through water wheels. It was well under way, before steam power was invented.
@@MrAstrojensen and with all early mills already located at a good source of water because of their water wheels, it was really easy to provide plenty of water to their boilers.
On top of that, a water powered mill has to use a central power shaft to drive all machines, again infrastructure that's easily taken over by a steam engine.
The steam engine kicked the industrial revolution in high gear, but it didn't start it.
Wasn't mass production of steel also one of the necessary steps?
@@thomaspriewasser6660 No, that came later, but it was the invention of mass production of steel that really kicked industrialization, as we know it, into high gear.
@@MrAstrojensen if I remember correctly, steam engines allowed for pumps to dry underground coal mines, which pushed steel production and further steam
Hero of Alexandria's steam engine reminds me of how the Aztecs developed wheels for children's toys, but never saw how they could be a revolutionary (so to speak) labor-saving device.
If any viewers have kids, take a close look at their toys. Maybe there's some potential new technology in there.
@Fred brandon I think it was not just the lack of flat land that affected the development of the wheel and similar technologies in America as a whole. The north of the region, where the so-called Bajío and Aridoamerica begin, was relatively similar to that of the steppes of Europe and Asia. The main problem, I think, was the lack of a large locomotive animal force (ex. cattle, donkeys, camels or horses) (Llamas in South America were an unlikely option). If some member of the equine species had survived in America, their domestication could have been more possible and, therefore, a more practical use of the wheel (at least in North America).
….LEGO?
Could be they didn't have the right material or technology to make a bigger axle that wouldn't wear itself down too fast.
They didn't have horses or cattle on American continent, wheels weren't that useful for them.
@Fred brandon true, besides they didn't domesticate animals of burdens. Without horses and bulls a wheeled apparatus might as well be a toy.
The anti intellectualism of the elite romans is a very interesting concept, especially given how much praise is heaped upon antiquity in comparison to the “”dark”” ages
i think calling it "anti-intellectualism" is over simplifying it a bit, as it seems to be the case that the roman elite were very much interested in philosophical, architectural and artistic progress. they simply lacked interest in one specific area of study it seems.
There are some other things that are annoyingly attributed to the ‘dark ages.’ For instance, it is still mistakenly sometimes said that the dissection of human corpses was banned in the Middle Ages. Oddly, it was actually the Romans who had banned it while people in the Middle Ages has nothing against the dissection of human corpses for medical purposes.
*Galen's interest in human anatomy ran afoul of Roman law that prohibited the dissection of human cadavers since about 150 BC.[49] Because of this restriction, Galen performed anatomical dissections on living (vivisection) and dead animals, mostly focusing on primates. His anatomical reports were based mainly on the dissection of Barbary apes.[12] However, when he discovered that their facial expressions were too much like those of humans, he switched to other animals, such as pigs…Unlike pagan Rome, Christian Europe did not exercise a universal prohibition of the dissection and autopsy of the human body and such examinations were carried out regularly from at least the 13th century.*
Dark ages was so trash. Worst part of my history course. lol
@@VolcardoReviewer
I think it’s the most interesting. It’s when the modern states of Europe as we now know them like France, England, Germany began to visibly emerge. Honestly if you want to know how our modern world emerged and why things are like they are, it’s better to have an understanding of the world after the fall of the Roman Empire than 2nd or 3rd century Rome.
@@joellaz9836 sounds almost like an argument to be made that the fundamental carry overs of Rome are over analyzed in history education at the cost of where the essence of current culture was born and developed from in the Middle Ages/ dark ages
Another reason is the absence of the printing press. The key part of science and engineering is telling everyone what you did so other people can take the idea further or apply it in a different area.
It's very interesting to imagine what would have happened if the printing press would have been realized during antiquity !
You underesimate their illiteracy.
@@anyoneofus9948 If written materials are very expensive I'd expect widespread illiteracy. Make the written word available cheaply and people will learn to read.
@@anyoneofus9948 did you bother to look up the correlation between literacy rate and the invention of the Gutenberg press? This is basic grade school knowledge.
@@explosivehotdogs There's also the definition of "literate" in Europe of that time. "Literate" meant "able to read the classics in the original". The vulgar tounges of English, French, German etc had no dictionaries and few grammar rules, all you needed to get by in reading and writing those was to know the alphabet, which isn't hard.
And, of course, the more time marches on, the more assumed historical illiteracy "moves up". I read a Tennant-and-Agyeman era Doctor Who book that just stated rural farm workers of 1908 were mostly illiterate, which is complete nonsense.
Great video. I would add that there are even more reasons why the Romans didn't industrialise however. Some of these are technical, such as: a lack of suitable fuel, inadequate metallurgy (specifically no Blast Furnace), a very limited scientific understanding limited to a very very small section of society. There's also a social reason somewhat related to those mentioned in those videos: Rome's mass production and mass markets were most developed during the Imperial era, but a centralised and autocratic regime without serious foreign rivals is never going to risk rocking the boat with such a fundamental economic and social change as industrialisation. Hence the anecdotes about Tiberius and Vespasian.
I'd say "inadequate metallurgy" was the crux of it all. Without cheap, consistent manufacturing of durable metal, you don't get the boilers, frameworks, bolts, gears, pistons, etc. necessary for steam power.
@@FrothingFanboy There is no crux. There are dozens of factors that the Romans didn't have that are required for an Industrial revolution didn't have. It's like if you keep a plant in the pitch darkness and don't water it and then ask "Was it the lack of water or the lack of light that killed it?" The answer is either would have done it, it's meaningless to raise one factor above the others.
Also of note: the Romans had a _massive_ set of water-powered grain mills, and a corresponding need for massive amounts of bread for the lower classes of Rome; similarly, they had a bulk-harvester vehicle (a variant upon two-wheeled wagons, in particular) that allowed a single person and an ox or ox team to harvest fairly massive amounts of grain- where they saw an actual need (e.g. having cheap enough bread to avoid having Romans constantly dropping in the streets from starvation) they would seek a solution, they just didn't act for increased _convenience._
Don't forget that ancient Roman and Greek philosophy was mostly on the side of things like a natural order and idea that everything in existence was the way it was supposed to be (the world of forms). This benefits the elites as it explains their position above the commoners as something that is natural and proper. Industrialization would have run counter to this ideal. It also would have led to more machines that would do the work and allow the peasants to start thinking over how unfair the current system is. \
And of course the ever present issue that also caused the Southern US to fall behind the North in the early stages of the American Republic. Slavery naturally deincentivizes development cause why waste money on tech when you can do the same thing with a dozen cheap slaves. Slaves that you want to keep to busy and tired to think or plan ways to rebel or escape. slavers only cared about tech when slaves were becoming to expensive or when tech would make slaves more profitable.
Yes, metallurgy.
Also the first steam engines was very fuel inefficient, still they was useful pumping water out of mines as it was mostly coal mines.
So even if they could build them they could not fuel them.
Water wheels become much more common in medieval times than they ever was in Roman ones granted on an less impressive scale and the Romans had floating corn mills. Think an paddle wheel boat but one you anchor in a river and have the wheels turn an mill onboard.
The other facts to consider here are that around A.D.1480 metallurgy and smelting technology began to make major advances as well as the underappreciated Second or British Agricultural Revolution beginning around A.D.1650 or so that dramatically increased their population and productivity.
Ya i also think that all those advances in other technologys lead eventualy togheter to the industrial revolution.
Yeah exactly. You can't make a steam engine without lots of high quality iron/steel and machine tools. That took a long time
The part that really got me was when you eloquently stated how the Roman’s technological advances were perfect for their needs and civilization. If we were born into the Roman world, we would look something like the industrial revolution with the same view as the society around us did. Weird to think something like industrialization that we consider normal but other civilizations would consider completely alien.
So ultimately politics. Imperial Romans didn't have the freedom Britain's had.
That "poor farmers" would not be suitable customers for mass produced goods is simply not true.
Enormous quantities of British cloth was exported to India for example, and if I recall to africa. In both places it generally outconpeted local production, which presumably also includes alot of household production.
A similar process took place in russia in the late 1800s, when cheap, mass-produced goods started replacing peasant household production because it was so cheap.
It turns out poor people make excellent consumers of industrial products, as they really can't afford to turn down a bargin. They also make perfect captive markets, since they quickly loose their self-sufficiency and are too poor to find alternatives.
And now the oceans are full of trash lol
@@janpavel1441 exactly
The same kind of thing happened with the railways. Initially the target market for passenger transport was the middle and upper class, but there wasn't as much of a demand as was thought. As soon as it was opened up to the workers and the lower classes (for want of a better term), great fortunes were made.
have you actualy prove of that? because i read the opposite, that the cloth of england was mainly exported to europe and north america while the indian market was largely closed circle as the cotton england used was derived from north america i think
India & the African territories under British control were banned from importing cotton from anywhere but England. The ordinary people there had other, cheaper options but weren't allowed to use them.
This topic was always interesting to me, thanks for making this video ❤
Rome never had a big enough middle class that would support a market for manufactured goods which would spur innovation. They also didn't have mines that needed to be constantly pumped out which would create a need for a steam pump nor a method to mass produce steel.
Probably correct on your first point. Not necessarily on your second. There was at least one very deep mine in Spain. There is evidence that batteries of human powered water wheels were used to keep the gold mine from flooding. Each wheel could only raise water by a few meters so dozens and dozens were used to drain the mine by lifting to the surface.
Middle class in 16th century England was also inexistent
@@bensongxisto2374 The adoption of steam powered engines for various applications really got going in the 18th century, with economic takeoff viewed as occurring in the 1780s depending on the Economist/Cliometrician.
@Deo nothing exceptionnal compared to ancient rome upper class, or ?
@@michaeldunne338 yes I'm talking about capitalism, not industrial revolution. Those are two different things.
Now, can you arrive to a similar conclusion about Carthage? Their society was more "entrepreneur oriented", and they had some interesting mass production is ships
Do you think Carthage would have industrialized if they'd not been subjugated by the Romans?
@@dard1515 I once saw a comment in a "alternate history hub" video about it, and it has been bugging me ever since... I do think that the Carthaginian idiosincrasy was somehow more fitting to it, as Carthage was a very profit oriented society. If it somehow would have been intermingled with greek and Egyptian inventions, I believe there would be a very decent chance for it.
@@dard1515 only if they crossed the Atlantic and discovered Cuba.
Lucio Russo, "The Forgotten Revolution" - perfect book for anyone interested in how developed was the Greco-Roman world.
Professor: Would it be reasonable to assume that Roman society saw itself at the pinnacle of development? Could we be prejudiced by our modern assumptions about democracy, socialist utopianism, and a science that has produced the smartphone, AI, and industrial automation?
I know you are very busy teaching and writing. I do find this video extremely fascinating, however. As an American, I am taught to believe in American exceptionalism. But there are people, right now, in different parts of the world, who live as happily, that are agrarian. If one wanted, they could make a case for why their culture is better than ours.
Thank you for your scholarship. I can't afford school. I am a bartender in Chicago. I bought your book on Amazon. And I read it last summer. Now I am trying to learn Latin and read as much as I have time for. Which isn't very much, unfortunately. It is really cool that you offer all this for free.
Thank you.
*"If one wanted, they could make a case for why their culture is better than ours."*
You ask a very good and a very uncomfortable question. Maybe we need to humble ourselves and think that we maybe are not the best generation that have existed so far with superior knowledge and morality.
Maybe our morals are only suited for our time period and not other time periods. Maybe it is we who have the wrong view upon slavery, and not the Romans?
How do we know that we are right and they were wrong regarding slavery?
Maybe slavery will live on the next 6000 years, and our short 200 time period of abolishing slavery will be seen as an odd short time period in history, and not some new state of normal.
And regarding other moral issues I think that we likewise can see similiar problems. How do we know that people of our time knows best?
@@nattygsbord you volunteering to be a slave then?
That is why the Romans privileged philosophy over material technologies. They knew that you could have everything and have a shit life, or have relatively little and be happy. They definitely grappled with those ideas as much as we do, though. I think they were a little more clear eyed as to the true benefits and detriments of wealth.
@@pony_OwO I think you missed the point. I was talking about whats best for society and what is best for the world, and not what is best for the individual.
Personally I do not really believe there exist such a thing as an immoral action. There are no bad actions, only bad people.
Is it right or wrong to kill half a million innocent people?
- I don't believe there is such a thing as an immoral action. It all depends on things like circumstances and such.
Personally I think it was right to nuke Japan. Dropping the bombs were not done by evil men as I see it.
Rather it was a calculated desicion that saved more lives than they took. Had they not nuked Japan and invaded the country instead, then it would likely have meant 1 million dead American soldiers, and perhaps 5 million dead Japanese soldiers and 20 million dead Japanese civilians.
So 26 million dead vs. 1 million dead people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
I think the bombs saved many lives.
Its of course not fun for those poor people who died in those cities. But for humanity as a whole I think this outcome was the best one that could have happened. Realisticly speaking.
Thanks for this informative essay. There are a whole lot of themes touched here. The theme of an aristocratic class endlessly turning capital into wealth has been repeated throughout history. The industrial revolution broke that mould, in Britain, if not in and was unique for that reason. Keep them coming, Garrett. BTW, I enjoyed your book. When can we expect the next one?
I'm very glad you enjoyed the video. My next book - a sequel to "Naked Statues" - will be published in Fall 2023.
The industrial revolution definitely helped with progress but it isn't the end all be all. The profit incentive for aristocrats is still there.
@@janfungusamon4926 the difference is that aristocrats turn profit into personal wealth . They tend to build extravagant villas or castles fortheir pleasure rather than to create more profit. Capitalists, since the industrial revolution, while often hugely wealthy, turn most of the profit from industrial output into prodcutive capital. That is, profit is overwhelmingly invested into expanded or new production and profit-earning enterprises. That's the economic transformation that drove the industrial revolution. It was a leap that the Romans did not make, and no-one else did either before 19th century English industrialists. The big question why did they act differently and what was it about their time and place that enabled it? It is a world changing phenomenon that historians, sociologists and economists still ponder 150 to 200 yesrs on.
@@damienanderson9389 but what about other factors like population amount, available resources, wars, skilled laborers, and wealth per capita
@@ajones3038 undoubtedly, they're all factors. 100 years ago, Max Weber was wondering why it happened in England and, with somewhat similar conditions, it didn't happen in Germany. These things, together with an essentially reactionary slave based economy, ensued Rome was never going to tip over into industrial revolution.
The first examples of real break-through technologies tend to be so fantastically expensive that the will not be built unless there is some niche market that can support them. For example, the first steam engines were so profoundly inefficient that it was only cost-effective at using them to pump out coal mines. Coal was so cheap at the minehead that the mine owner could afford the inefficiency of the engine.
In the same way, that new-fangled gizmo called a "computer" was fantastically expensive. It was only the nich application of breaking Nazi codes to win the Second World War that motivated the British government to give an unlimited budget to geniuses such as Alan Turing to build the first computers.
The Roman Empire did not have any of the niche markets that justified developing the machines of the Industrial Revolution. That is why they did not do so.
The computer probably did well out of the 'niche market' of biometrics and demographics, such as
IBM provided to the third reich
@@malkomalkavian The machines that IBM sold the Germans were more like giant mechanical calculators, not capable of logic/loops/etc.
Wood, coal, etc were all very expensive in Rome, Wood had to be imported from Germany. Power from steam would have been very expensive to them. Coal fields were in England far from Rome.
The scum that found the Ancient Roman technology stole it and couldn't figure out how to use it, that's why the "first" steam engines were so bad. #Facta
@@richardkocksworthy8423 The early English steam engines were bad too.
I enjoy the off the cuff humour in your videos.
Not that I thought you were wondering how I felt.
fantastic video garrett, one of my favorites of yours lately. i think another reason this never happened is simply because the average people of rome lacked the "factory mindset" that was necessary to start the industrial revolution in britain - for better or for worse. from Andreas Malm's "Fossil Capital":
"But the factory system also required ‘many work-people’ - with Farey - of a rather peculiar training. *A weaver, smith or farmer working in his own home, shop or field maintained a pace of his own choosing* and performed the moments of production as his own skills instructed him. *In the factory, the labourer had to conform to the motion of the central prime mover. She was under obligation to keep pace with it, carrying out the actions directed by its array of machines in unison with a whole team of operatives who had to begin, pause, restart and stop at signals.* She must submit to the command of the manufacturer and his overlookers, who enforced compliance with the rules laid down; the hands - as they were so tellingly known - should know how to exert consistent effort, respect tools as the property of others, bow to strangers, work in a closely contained crowd.
The water mill called forth the regime of factory discipline, which was, when it first appeared, intensely repugnant to most. Who could possibly be persuaded to enlist in these barracks? ‘It is hard for one born in a mature industrial region, inhabited by patient and disciplined factory workers,’ economic historian Arthur Redford wrote in 1926, ‘to realize the difficulties involved in the deliberate formation of a factory community.’ The traditional culture of relatively free work, cherished not as a distant utopia but as the only known way of life, made even the destitute hesitate at entering the factory, whose architecture and regimentation resembled those of a workhouse. *Even if hands did show up at the gates, there were no assurances that they would continue to turn up the next day, keep up the rhythm of work or execute the orders in due order* : recruitment of workers acquiescing to the discipline soon proved to be a persistent headache for the first industrial capitalists.
...
Well underway already in the seventeenth century, the exodus from the English countryside gradually accelerated before culminating in the early nineteenth, when the human flows were dominated by ex-farmers abandoning their villages for the new conurbations of Lancashire. *In the forty years from 1776 to 1816, most of the increase of the urban population materialised through this steady drain of people bidding farewell to their valleys and moors. Such newcomers would hardly have been more apt to perform factory labour than if approached in their original homes, perhaps not too far from a waterfall, but they soon begot their own children.* The manufacturing towns were disproportionately brimming with youth, the age cohorts most inclined to pack up and move, and all those young women and men - also the most fertile segments of the population, for whom reasons to postpone intercourse tended to disappear in cities - set about reproducing. Immigration gave way to natural increase as the largest source of urban population growth; as it happened, the shift occurred precisely in the 1810s and 1820s.68 From this point onwards, *the ranks of urbanites swelled primarily with second generations: young boys and girls born and raised in towns with no personal memories of other forms of social existence. Now this offered manufacturers an unrivalled - both quantitatively and qualitatively - reservoir of labour power.* "
when the industrial revolution began there was not yet a widespread proletarian mindset - people rebelled at the repetitive and mechanical nature of their new work because it was so different from their normal upbringings. it required a generation of people who knew nothing else to fully kickstart the revolution. *This is what Marxists mean by human behavior being shaped by the mode of production.* The romans had no need or desire for this.
The examples you depict - the Anticythera Mechanism or Computer and the whirling steam engine for example - are by Greeks in the Hellenistic era or Greeks in the Roman era. It seems that some Greeks were more innovative than the Romans tended to be. Could it be that the Greeks who were educating the Roman elites were directed to teach certain conservative classical themes and stay clear of others? However, Roman leaders were always on the prowl for innovative 'war machines' and weaponry to destroy their enemy. I always enjoy you videos - thank you so very much.
More likely they had extreme interests in statecraft and anything supporting it. That’s why we today have civil law and other statecraft ideas from Rome, they had advanced infrastructure development such waste plumbing, public bathhouses, moving fresh water in aqueducts, extremely straight roads and advanced warfare tactics.
Roman society was selective in what it took from Greece in the same way that post-Nazi America was selective in what it took from its Jewish refugee academics. Einstein's physics was seized with both hands by universities and industry. Freud's psychoanalysis became a new orthodoxy for a generation of American psychiatrists, who were "more Catholic than the Pope" in their reaction to Europe's Post-Freudians.
Whereas modern thinking on religious and social matters has made much less of an impression and is actively combated as "Cultural Marxism." Adorno and the Frankfurt School also came to the USA, but talk of them makes American matrons clutch their pearls.
Yeah, he keeps calling them Romans when in actuality they were Greek...
They were from the Roman period. Hero of Alexandria is the twirling ball guy. He made several inventions. One was a holy water vending machine. Another was like what was described here but the action was opening the temple doors not turning a ball. The sacrifice to the god on the alter would hear water. Large sacrifices produced enough heat. This was on the temple of Artemis in Ephesus one of the seven wonders. Ephesians from the Bible was written to Christians in Ephesus.
Would abolishing slavery have had the effect of making labour more valuable, thereby creating more wealthy consumers for more industrially produced goods?
Yes. It would also have been unthinkable.
Maybe a land reform. If a crazy popular emperor managed to create a ""middle class"" of landowners and maybe a kind of university then i guess it could help
Very relevant question. With the rise of Christianity, slavery was gradually abolished, and we can see the results that had, in concert with other factors. Moral considerations aside, slavery has been recognized as very inefficient by the field of economics.
That is a theory very popular in Marxist thoguht.
As it is however, it was not slavery that kept labour costs down. On the contrary, slaves were very expensive to mantain more expensive even than the avarge worker in late 18th century London, when thousands of unemployed flooded the city from the countryside.
What was lacking was demand for labour and increase in output. Eventually as demand for output increased, a full level of employment was quickly reached, and still, demand for cheaper and more productive labour was costant as share holdsrs of the first modern firms demanded return on investment, so that they could invest their profit to generate more profit still.
In ancient Rome this demand did not exist. Nobody was seeking increase in output. Hence the cost of labour didn’t matter to Roman aristocrats.
@@leonardodavid2842 most of what you are saying was also considered true by Marx
Excellent content, as always. I learn so much from these videos that aren't covered anywhere else.
Just when you thought the city of Rome couldn’t get any more squalid…
Imagine the horrific smokestacks of 19th century England rising above the Aventine, the temple of Castor and Pollux is caked with soot and just living in the polluted city is like smoking a pack a day.
It wouldn't have taken place in Rome but rather in Romania, where both metals, coals and oil is abundant, with the products easily delivered to Constantinople. Constantinople itself wouldn't have allowed industrial construction in its precinct but they would have bought coal to spare their too rare trees.
@@MrMirville Romania would have the resources, but would it have a high enough urban population of craftsman to work the factories?
@@thenoblepoptart There were a lot of miners in Dacia many of them prisoners doing time on forced labour. It would have been tempting to use them for steel making and metal work.
Thank you for the content. This stirred me out of an underwhelming professional day and gave me the drive to return to productive tasks. Cheers.
love it when you post a new one - cheers mate
It's funny because innovation is stifled now by many similar processes. The modern lightbulb for instance is designed to have a limited lifespan because very early on in it's development, a method to make them last for over centuries had been developed. Since that would make their manufacturing not profitable, the major lightbulb companies made an agreement to not make lightbulbs that survive over a certain threshold. There is even a current fire department that uses a bulb right before this agreement had occured that has been ON since 1901 and still hasn't gone out. Manufactured obsolescence seems to have been a very common practice since even the late bronze age, and possibly earlier.
the modern lightbulb is led and has a lifespan comparable or longer than the ancient lightbulbs that were discarded because they were too power consuming and dim
Ma and
Ma and
i have an important aviation/flying examination tomorrow morning and toldinstone's vids always manage to mellow me out before bed while filling my brain with fascinating gems of knowledge about our ancient relatives. keep up the good work!! 💜
I have been watching a lot of your videos, and they are consistently interesting and engaging. However, I wanted to make a comment to a slightly fringe aspect of what makes your videos so enjoyable to me. The audio is so clear and free of artifacts that I only realized after listening to you how cluttered and unclean the audio of almost every other youtube video is. I don't know much about the technical side of audio, but for me, whatever you do with yours, works. It's like a soothing silent balm compared to the noise of so many other youtube videos.
This is one of the most interesting of all your videos. I had never thought of the issue it deals with. Thanks for enlightening your audience.
Great video series with a fascinating perspective, well done!
Thanks for the video. This looks like the ultimate end point for any kind of trickle down economics.
These are so good I've started putting them on when I do my marital duties
This is good. Thank you for creating and sharing.
Industrialization is partially a product of labor saving. During the Roman era, when labor savings made economical sense, the Romans did produce what could be referred to as industrialization, as you mentioned in mining and production of clay fired storage containers.
In mining, the more people working in a mine, the more opportunity for theft, so reducing the number of workers is valuable, and no amount of workers can compete with hydraulic pressure mining. EVERYTHING transported in the Roman era relied at some level of storage containers, so there is always a demand. The more inexpensively made, the more the profit, and as you stated, Slaves are actually expensive.
In almost all others areas, there is little incentive to save labor, as Rome already had a surplus of unemployed, and little middle class to buy products. Gold and other metals are always in demand by everyone, as are items related to shipping and trade, anything has little to gain from labor savings.
This was fascinating. Keep up the good work!
great video, as usual. very interessting topic and well presented. great voice to teach!
Fantastic choice of paintings...excellent channel
got your book thanks, it's well put together.
Thanks Garrett, i really enjoyed this 2 part series , clear.concise and well reasoned , liked and subbed .
Please make more videos like this about roman economics. Also please make longer series like this where you can go indepth about things. Also make more videos on precious metals and trade and coins. Thanks. Love your videos
love your presentations!
Fantastic exploration and analysis!
I have been literally been waiting everyday for this since I watched the first one lol. Great videos!
Same here, but the second video ended up being a letdown...
Just awesome man!
I'm suprised you had not mentioned the consideration of military industrialization, especially since it has been the primary driver of technological innovation within the last century or so. Mass produced arms and armour surely would have allowed rome to field more troops with their limited budget in the the late empire.
One of the drivers ? Yes. THE driver ? Rather not. ;)
Roman arms and armor basically needed to be hand-made. The Romans, like many other pre-modern societies, had factories and workshops to mass produce arms and armor. But there's no way to "industrialize" the process because they had no way to allow a single smith to hammer 8 different bars of metal into the proper shape all at once, or a single carpenter to cut a log into 8 2x4 at the same time. Their technology was simply too primitive to allow such technological inventions.
Not to mention that the Romans' processes were likely enough for their needs. A society simply could not mobilize more than a few percent of the population for war for any long period of time, since one person fighting is one person not farming or manufacturing or book-keeping or doing other things, and there's nothing to suggest that the Roman's method of production was inadequate to supply the military that they could mobilize. Producing significantly more arms and armor would've done no good if there's no people available to use them, or if the people were pressed into service no food to feed them or clothes for them to wear. In addition, Roman workshops and factories would've already given them an advantage in this area over many of their less organized foes, so there's no real need to be more efficient.
@@ParallelPain I find it hard to believe that a Roman quartermaster would have rejected swords, shields, armour etc as a cheaper price. I find it hard to imagine that a legionnaire would have rejected cheaper shoes, etc
@@WagesOfDestruction Of course they would've welcomed cheaper equipment, assuming the same quality. That's why pre-modern societies had workshops and factories for centralized arms and armour production. The Romans called theirs the *fabrica*. However, as already mentioned, these could only improve efficiency through organization and standardization. Consider with modern auto-thermometer controlled furnaces, hydraulic press and hammer, and computer controls we might finally be able to make a factory that made swords from machines, and you can see how there is basically no way for any single Roman, no matter how much money he could throw at the problem, to make such a factory.
Now if he threw a heck of a lot of money at the problem, he might be able to, for instance, invest in many many new iron mines and foundries to make a flood of supplies and make iron cheaper for a few years until market supply and demand catch up or the iron mines dry up. But in that case, it's likely cheaper for him to just spend that money and order more arms and armour from the *fabrica*.
@@ParallelPain A bigger forge that produces more iron would be a big step. Shoes as I stated could be mass produced.
Thank you king sir, that's another subscription in your box.
Ur vids are so good :D
Great part 2! It points out that the economic reasons why they didn't want/need to industrialize.
Economy is an essential, if not irreplaceable factor for mass adoption of new technologies.
And alongside it some sort of merchant/burgeoisie/trader class interested in it.
Because this way there's a huge incentive for improving production beyond hard low level limits such as labor pool and capacity; the Spanish and Portuguese weren't as keen in innovating their produce due to similar reasons than the Romans.
Too much of a ruling aristocracy happy with their lot and interested in personal luxury or higher arts than machine thinking and applying it en masse to improve things.
Things could be different if say, the upper classes were some sort of scientist caste keen on making it all readily available, improving production and replacing labor with tools.
Accumulated knowledge is also essential. The classic world was in many ways advanced but not space age compared to the medievals, and let's not forget that from the end of antiquity up to the industrial era there were many innovations including calculus, basic physics, better metallurgy, the blast furnace.
All of which helped a lot bringing forth the industrial paradigm.
Before the 19th century or so, iron was also really expensive to produce. Even if they had wanted to industrialize, they would've had to invent a way to make iron in quantity for cheap.
I think you will find that iron although expensive was cheaper in the 1800s then the Roman era
This was lovely :)
Great video!
Before you can have a steam based economy, you need an abundance of coal. I do not think the Italians were too keen on stripping their landscape bare of trees, in order to produce turning power already available through use of water wheels.
True. Does Italy have any coal deposits? Britain, of course, has (well, had) tons.
Nice work
Great content thanks
YAY PART TWO
Yay! A dismissal of teleological thinking! Nice video, thankyou :)
A very apt closing quote. It's easy to frame and dismiss the past for what they missed. But it isn't really fair since there would be nothing for them to truly miss.
Very interesting topic, and pretty great point of view in this video. Your ability to present your point is really invaluable.
Though, and this is really not a critic at all, the usual consensus is that the roman "culture" kind of sourced what would enable later on the industrial revolution, and i'm talking here about the renaissance. The renaissance was this kind of self reflection that lead to all those inventions, and the state of mind that permitted them. Maybe the shock itself from rediscovering such a magnificent culture was part of that too, with all the inventions you listed that seam quiet amazing for this period of roman history.
“Stirring conclusion” indeed!
I really liked what you said at minute 4:10, I believe that is happening now
As I'm commenting, I'd obviously be a fan of the topic covered so pleasantly with illustrations here. That, or, a troll; which I am not - here - for... ;)
Much appreciated is the easy access lectorial composition and elocution.
This is an interesting topic and I appreciated this two video series. I can understand how culturally the Romans did not appreciate the sort of studies, art and practice leading to developing mechanics, practical physics, that only came later in the First Industrial Revolution. The one missing kingpin that might have made them focus on the industrial technologies that only came a millenia later COULD have been science and applied mechanics to the instruments of warfare, since they would have easily appreciated developments related to their main source of national influence. They had so many other inputs to have possibly encountered those break-thrus, such as the need for mass food production and distribution, the bronze - iron hand weapon transition, the need for accurate clocks and navel navigation. They really were so close it is still just in the realm of an accidental miss that they did not discover and employ more of the early industrial revolution technologies.
Excellent.
really great video btw. Helps understand why the industrial revolution, only came 200 years ago
Come for the history, stay for the Gil Scott-Heron references
Very interesting!
For those who would have loved some references for this series; Finley's classical work on the Roman Economy or Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy are great starting points that likely (directly or indirectly) informed the views in this video. There's other great books out there on the Roman economy; Hawkin's 'Artisans and the Roman Economy' or Erdkamp et al's 'Capital, Investment, and Innovation in the Roman World' spring to mind.
Been excited for this
Good stuff
Regression is as natural as progress. Great statement
I really like the last 2 lines
well done
Glad to see it and you even uploaded at a good time for us Kiwis
2:30am in Perth , sleep can wait
You are absolutely spot on with the point about the relative market sizes of the Roman empire and Britain at the dawn of the industrial revolution. The wealth of the world was already flowing into Rome, it didn't need any help getting there. Britain could see the wealth of the world outside it and, at least in Europe, it couldn't just go and take it.
The development of mathematics in the fourteen odd centuries was also pretty handy for the budding engineers out there.
Fear of new technology is one of the worst symptoms of decline in a culture. It is neat to get a more nuanced view on the long-lived Romans, who probably had their ebbs and flows in this regard.
The fact that you said that makes me really scared about today where I have heard people brag about being uneducated.
Or how this is being made worse as more and more scientific research is being used by and funded for large corporations to advertise and legitimize their products. Like how the old food pyramid was influenced by food manufacturers who wanted people to by more bread and dairy. Or how large amounts of sugar is terrible for you but food manufactures made the focus of American's fear of unhealthy food on the less dangerous fat instead of sugar; though fat is still something you need to be moderately aware of. I focused on food but this happens in other industries as well; like the tons of bunk science that supplements and essential oils use to push back against actual medicine.
I think that's not true at all. Technology can have bad effects and it's hardly bad to worry about them. Fetishising new technologies as good without a second thought is much more dangerous I feel.
@@alicev5496 Well, you're arguing against a feeling and you're doing so with very strong language. In less strong language, you seem to be arguing against blind faith in a good idea, which is pretty fair. But I can just as quickly turn around and argue against blind faith in conservative instincts. My preference is to err on the side of progress and optimism, but skepticism is important too.
A simple yet moral society far outweighs an advanced but degenerate one.
Blind celebration of technological progress is done by those who can't comprehend it.
Great video and awesome topic as usual!! Let's hear about that chicken man now 🐔😂
I haven’t finished watching yet, but it’s difficult to imagine the Industrial Revolution evolving without cheap, locally available coal to power it. Petroleum wasn’t really considered as a basic fuel until the late 19th C., but wider availability of it in England might have provided an alternative to coal power.
I LOVE this video,
We’re military items--swords, mail suits, helmets, shoes/boots, pila, shields--mass produced. They were standardized, and a large number were needed. Sounds like an ideal opportunity for Adam Smith’s division of labor to be effective.
"Regression is natural as progress" that is refreshing to hear. Are you familiar with any of the works of John Michael Greer, such as "The Long Decent" or "After Progress"?
Don't forget the importance of shipping. Mass production means nothing if you can't distribute the goods to potential customers affordably. Maritime technology advanced greatly in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Ships got bigger, sails and rigging improved, there were advances in navigation.
I've noticed that when dealing with the economic or technological history, most people put too much emphasis on production, and not nearly enough on distribution.
5:04 now i NEED to know about the chicken headed man
The British industrial revolution was really the same continuing revolution from water-wheel to steam, then to internal combustion that the Romans had been unable to make the leap to, because in Roman times they had a virtually endless amount of land and water to build more and more water mills on. They could continue to expand by building more wheel powered mills. In England they began to run out of running water and space to build more mills so they needed to make a leap due to a lack of ability to continue expanding without some kind of advancement.
Limitations breed creativity
Nice paintings
I would like to ask about three things.
1. The rail-like structure running from the house on the chicken-man mosaic.
2. Is it pillows that are being displayed in the relief later on?
3. Is there a crane on the building on the mosaic (even) later?
Very interesting. I wonder if you have any 'further reading' suggestions?
Industrial revolution would not have been possible without some medieval inventions like banking, mechanical clocks, blast furnances and many more we oftwn take for granted.
The Romans didn't have banks? But the senators made their money through usury.
Blast furnace is chinese invention
@@HenkdeUA-camsteen But it reached Europe in the middle ages. Just like gunpowder, another Chinese invention that, let's say, had some impact on European history.
@@HenkdeUA-camsteen that the Europeans learned and made 10x better, then conquered China.
@@HenkdeUA-camsteen the blast furnace invented in ancient China produced much lower temps and would make cast iron and so they had to make crucible steel by extra processes... Europeans utilized a method called cold blasting, the reduced moisture in low temp winter air produces higher quality and higher carbon iron and thus better steel and right from the bloom this streamlined the process and is why Europe took off. Asian/Middle east iron workers were more known for making crucible steel which was a longer process and they had to do it because there blast furnaces were nowhere near as efficient so they would have to make crucible steel, crucible steel was eventually learned in Europe but was far more likely in Asia.
I came across your videos and have to ask: are you related to a certain Lawrence Ryan? He (now deceased) was my Latin teacher in high school in NY and I believe had a degree in the classics from Cornell. I miss him, he was a great teacher.
I would argue that gunpowder (invented by the Chinese, reached Europe in the late middle ages) and the Ottoman taxation of trade with south and east Asia were the two main factors, respectively enabling and forcing Europeans to establish colonies which in turn fueled industrial growth. The cotton that fed the industrial gins in Manchester came from the vast slave plantations in the (former) British colonies and the demand for finished fabrics came from the forced market of colonial India. The first wave of colonization planted the seed of the first industrial revolution.
It makes it cheaper to make roads, mines for coal, etc too.
This series showed me things I never even thought of when it comes to industrialization
Nice video
Consider: Early American industrial plants didn’t use steam engines. They were built on rivers, often near waterfalls. A waterwheel was used to turn an overhead shaft which ran the length of the factory. Multiple machines took power from the spinning shaft with pulleys and leather belts. Rome had the power source. What they lacked was mechanical/industrial engineers to design power looms, lathes, milling machines, drill presses, etc. They were so close but failed to take the next step.
One often overlooked influence on technical development in western europe is the rise of many mid sized nation states in close competion,any state that laged behind was almost certain to be eaten by its neibours.
Every single time you said "Industrial Revolution" I instinctively said "and it's consequences" to myself
Could you do a segment on the Gemonian Stairs in Rome? There is such limited information on it.
One key innovation that the Romans didn't have was the printing press which was a stimulus to the enlightenment about 100 years later and then industrial revolution 100 years after that.
Wonderful analysis of the possible reasons for the lack of advancement in production of durable goods. Not much of a market. They had wood lathes, wheels and potters wheels, but why spend the time and investment figuring out all the requirement of metal turning producing goods (weapons) only kingdoms could afford when blacksmiths sufficed? There were probably small crude metal lathes, but it may have been a guarded secret lost over one generation by those few that somehow were supported sufficiently to spend their years working it out. Well we should be happy. Had the wheels of industry caught traction a few centuries earlier, we may well not be here now, given what a gob smacking great job we've done applying technology for long term survival as opposed to market pressures.