Electricity, Rome's Near Future!

[Northern Neil]

Given that the Roman Empire, at least politically (if not culturally) carried on until 1453, I think the question is already answered.

[Primus Pilus]

Given that the Roman Empire, at least politically (if not culturally) carried on until 1453, I think the question is already answered.

 

Forgive the rather useless reply I make here... but this post is crying out for an obligatory 'touche'. It's pretty difficult to argue with that logic.

[Incitatus]

Politics doesn't invent anything, culture does!!!

[M. Porcius Cato]

Even if the Romans found a way to generate electricity, it wouldn't do much good unless they also had:

1.) a use for it,

2.) a means of delivering it, and

3.) a method of measuring and charging for it.

 

In addition to genius, effort, and a love of innovation, getting these three things takes a lot of capital up front (which was constantly being siphoned off for silly military escapades, leading to enormously high interest rates) but also a lot of people living within close proximity to one another AND who also had enough wealth to pay for it.

 

The first electric grid was laid down in Wall Street in New York by Edison's company, and the financial and legal risk was enormous. Sort of hard to see how all those elements would have spontaneously come together with only an extra 100 years added to the longevity of the Empire.

Edited December 3, 2005 by M. Porcius Cato

[eggers]

They would also have to understand what electricity was, after all the (very) ancient mesopotamians could create electricity. Wanna know how? easy, get a large clay vase, with a wooden top. In the exact centre put an iron nail (doesn't matter waht kind of iron, but in those days only soft iron would be availible). Then put a copper tube around the iron( but not touching, maybe 1-2cm in diametre, with the iron nail in the middle so it doesn't touch). Then fill the jar up with vinegar, put the copper tube with iron nail in the middle in the vinegar, and hey press-toe, u get a constant (but tiny) electrical charge where the copper copper-plates the iron.

 

The point of that is, the mesopotamians had absolutely no idea what electricity was, so couldn't use it. No one really knows what they used these vinegar "batteries" for, but u can hook they up in series and shock people, which is always fun.

 

If the roman invented it, they would have no use for it, and it sure as hell wouldn't keeps the barbarians out.

[Vespasion]

Humans naturally invent useless things for example the water pistol but if someone looked upon it they may beleive it was effective against fighting fires.

 

Art is useless; no offence; but it has no practical purpose other then a creative outlet.

 

 

Thanks

[M. Porcius Cato]

Humans naturally invent useless things for example the water pistol

 

Leaving aside art and literature, can you name any virtually useless Roman inventions? I'm always reading that Romans were deeply conservative and suspicious of innovation, but this claim seems overblown to me, and it sounds like you think it's overblown too. So what examples would you cite as counterevidence? I'm guessing the counter-examples would come from artifacts now classified as toys (which electric gadgets were too initially), but I'm just speculating...

[Sextus Roscius]

I've noticed that most of the interesting technology (with potentially practical uses) of the time was used by religious groups to perform 'miracles'.

 

Indeed, the man behind most of the miracles was Heran of Alexandria who made great discoveries but used them only to support the temples.

[sullafelix]

Hmmm.. strikes me that there is not much thinking like a Roman going on here. Roman's didn't go a bundle on technology. It was too much like trade, and those with the money to put into technology or invention were more concerned with other things. There are some exceptions like the younger Pliny, perhaps, but even his uncle who we might think of as interested in the way things worked was only really interested in the natural world. There was a great interest in the natural world, but as for technology they were happy to borrow and steal but they would not put energy into it themselves.

 

Don't bet on any great innovations. Also if they had invented electricity, they would have been more likely to use ti to do something impressive and useless in a temple than to do anything useful or industrial with it.

 

It was a totally different mindset to ours.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It was a totally different mindset to ours.

 

That's what some people say, but what about all the innovations in engineering that the Romans made? They didn't come into existence without capital, and that took someone convincing someone else that the idea was worthwhile. If they really had such a totally different mindset, how did all these innovations come to exist?

[sullafelix]

It was a totally different mindset to ours.

 

That's what some people say, but what about all the innovations in engineering that the Romans made? They didn't come into existence without capital, and that took someone convincing someone else that the idea was worthwhile. If they really had such a totally different mindset, how did all these innovations come to exist?

 

I would have to say what innovations? Their inventions were taken from the egyptians and the greeks, in the main and there is increasing evidence that some was taken from the western end of the empire too. Much of Italy was Greek well before it was roman. Even where you get overt mention of engineering etc you often find that the engineer is Greek or Asiatic. What the Romans were good at was scale, but they were not innovators. I would challenge you to find much that we can safely say that they did invent. On the other hand there is lots we know that was Greek, for instance water pumps, cogwheels..the list goes on.

 

 

Sullafelix

[eggers]

I would have to say what innovations? Their inventions were taken from the egyptians and the greeks, in the main and there is increasing evidence that some was taken from the western end of the empire too. Much of Italy was Greek well before it was roman. Even where you get overt mention of engineering etc you often find that the engineer is Greek or Asiatic. What the Romans were good at was scale, but they were not innovators. I would challenge you to find much that we can safely say that they did invent. On the other hand there is lots we know that was Greek, for instance water pumps, cogwheels..the list goes on.

 

 

Sullafelix

 

I thinks that not only were romans good at scale, they were good at "adapting" technology and ideas. For example the screw thread is a greek design, but the roman inovation was to use the giant screw to apply pressure. Sure it wasn't their idea, but it takes some inventive thinking to change an idea to a practical application. Also look at their army. The very early army used phalanx till the gauls paid a visit and sacked rome. It would have taken some inventive thought to creative the maniple system. So the romans were inventive, they just needed some "encouragement", and more often then not an idea to borrow and manlipulate.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The claim that Romans merely adapted and didn't innovate strikes me as disingenuous. By this reasoning, everything we write would be 'merely an adaptation' since we use letters invented by the Phoenecians. By this reasoning I could charge, "You've not said a single new thing! Every word in your statement you learned from your parents!"

 

The reasoning rapidly descends to absurdity--why not claim that the inventor of the typewriter was merely adapting Phoenecian technology, or that the inventor of the word processor was merely adapting one of its adaptations. Or, for that matter, that Shakespeare was merely an adaptor of what his mother had to say?

 

As far as I can tell, the innovation/adaptation dichotomy is meaningless. ALL innovations are adaptations, and this is particularly true of complex machinery (and language), which are combinatorial by their very nature and therefore require something old to be combined.

 

If there were, say, heated swimming pools in ancient greece, fine--not a Roman innovation. But there weren't, and the Romans loved those things with a passion--they were the iPod of their day, and I think this innovation (among others) belies the notion that Romans were inherently distrustful of innovation. Generally, I think the Romans seemed pretty open to new technology.

[eggers]

The claim that Romans merely adapted and didn't innovate strikes me as disingenuous. By this reasoning, everything we write would be 'merely an adaptation' since we use letters invented by the Phoenecians. By this reasoning I could charge, "You've not said a single new thing! Every word in your statement you learned from your parents!"

 

well i like to think more from school and tv

 

why not claim that the inventor of the typewriter was merely adapting Phoenecian technology, or that the inventor of the word processor was merely adapting one of its adaptations.

 

I don't have to, we already knew that. An adaption takes alot of thought too though so im not sure why ur getting so upset about that. To take a screw thread, which the greeks used to measure very small increments, and change it to press grapes is ingenious in it's self. The point it's not new technology is not important and not alot of existing technology today is not "new technology", as u point out.

 

As far as I can tell, the innovation/adaptation dichotomy is meaningless. ALL innovations are adaptations, and this is particularly true of complex machinery (and language), which are combinatorial by their very nature and therefore require something old to be combined.

 

well not all innovations are adaptions, sometimes technology can be brand new and unthought of before that point. But most aren't. Most are just stolen from elsewhere, re-painted and sold as a new idea for more money.

 

I think this innovation (among others) belies the notion that Romans were inherently distrustful of innovation. Generally, I think the Romans seemed pretty open to new technology.

 

Actually the romans were very conservative. Although there were alot of 'innovations' throughout it's history, they usually took an absolute ice age to impliment. Romans were very much "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" people. Even when marius made his famous reforms to the army and saved rome, it still took 3 years before senate was truely convinced.

Edited December 8, 2005 by eggers