Germanicus Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 In some recent reading, the author wrote that he believed that technological advancement in terms of agriculture particularly, upon which the Roman economy was largely based, was stunted in Ancient Rome due to slavery. His basic premise was that with a surplus of free labour, the Romans had no impetus to find labour saving devices or techniques. What do you think ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 The labor wasn't exactly 'free'. One had to buy, feed, clothe and house slaves. Any device that might eliminate slave work would be welcomed if it negated the cost of slaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted March 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 The labor wasn't exactly 'free'. One had to buy, feed, clothe and house slaves. Any device that might eliminate slave work would be welcomed if it negated the cost of slaves. Why do you think Roman agriculture techniques advanced so little in so many hundred years of Empire ? Got another theory ? The Aurthor mentions that the Gauls invented a corn harvester - the Romans didn't even know the wheelbarrow. (Although he doesn't footnote his source on this, which is annoying) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullafelix Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 The labor wasn't exactly 'free'. One had to buy, feed, clothe and house slaves. Any device that might eliminate slave work would be welcomed if it negated the cost of slaves. Why do you think Roman agriculture techniques advanced so little in so many hundred years of Empire ? Got another theory ? The Aurthor mentions that the Gauls invented a corn harvester - the Romans didn't even know the wheelbarrow. (Although he doesn't footnote his source on this, which is annoying) I tend to agree with the author, although agriculture is in some ways less dependant on technology than some aspects of production or industry. It is interesting that many of the technologies Rome used she stole from conquered nations. Often she used local expertise in areas like civil engineering and imported the skills with highly trained (and I suppose valuable) slaves. So while slavery probably did stunt creativity and innovation it was often the means by which technological ideas spread through the empire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted March 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 That's interesting sullafelix, kind of importing skills rather than developing their own. The book in question is called Romans and Barbarians, by Derek Williams. The introduction is a long "levelling" of the playing field - where Williams not only discusses lack of agricultural advancement, but also a lack in areas like mathematics (lack of a zero) physics (strong is stable forms but weak in dynamics) chemistry(no notion of theoretical chemistry) and he reserves particular scorn for Roman metallurgy. I don't really know what I think of it yet as I only read the intro last night...mmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 The labor wasn't exactly 'free'. One had to buy, feed, clothe and house slaves. Any device that might eliminate slave work would be welcomed if it negated the cost of slaves. Why do you think Roman agriculture techniques advanced so little in so many hundred years of Empire ? Got another theory ? The Aurthor mentions that the Gauls invented a corn harvester - the Romans didn't even know the wheelbarrow. (Although he doesn't footnote his source on this, which is annoying) Agricultural means and productivity remained basically the same from Roman times until the 19th century and in many parts of the world is still the same today. The world remained basically the same until the 20th century. Didn't the Romans do enough? How much had to be re-discovered? The Romans didn't invent air conditioning or go to the moon, but with all their 'stealing', they laid the groundwork for the future. Their 'static' bridges laid the groundwork for today's 'dynamic' bridges. Today's surgeons could easily use their instruments as in WWI. I haven't read the book, but I wonder if he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder as Gibbon did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted March 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 I haven't read the book, but I wonder if he doesn't have a chip on his shoulder as Gibbon did. He almost certainly does - But his point is not that the Romans "should" have done anything - I think it's mostly that Romans and those they termed Barbarians, were not so different or more backward in many ways. But as we have no great Celtic or Germanic Iron age authors to read - we only know what the Romans told us, which I believe is a fair point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Given that nearly every slave-owning society increases its industrial and technological output in the 100 years after the abolition of slavery (or serfdom), it seems likely to me that the same would hold true of Rome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted April 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Given that nearly every slave-owning society increases its industrial and technological output in the 100 years after the abolition of slavery (or serfdom), it seems likely to me that the same would hold true of Rome. That, Cato - is an excellent point ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Given that nearly every slave-owning society increases its industrial and technological output in the 100 years after the abolition of slavery (or serfdom), it seems likely to me that the same would hold true of Rome. These are most certainly the End Days. We agree! :notworthy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Its also true that roman patricians viewed science with some distaste. Without their support, ideas fell by the wayside. If it made them money.... well... perhaps we'll try it and see if the gods don't get upset... Technology tended to be localised - there wasn't the great spread of ideas unless military engineers could use it. For instance, in one quarry there was a water driven stone cutter. Great. Fantastic. But as far as I'm aware, it was only used there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Dalby Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Given that nearly every slave-owning society increases its industrial and technological output in the 100 years after the abolition of slavery (or serfdom), it seems likely to me that the same would hold true of Rome. That, Cato - is an excellent point ! Hmm ... It's the kind of argument called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted April 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Hmm ... It's the kind of argument called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. Can you explain this for me ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 In some recent reading, the author wrote that he believed that technological advancement in terms of agriculture particularly, upon which the Roman economy was largely based, was stunted in Ancient Rome due to slavery. His basic premise was that with a surplus of free labour, the Romans had no impetus to find labour saving devices or techniques. What do you think ? The thing of it is, a Roman developed something like a working steam engine in the reign of Tiberius 1700 years before an Englishman did the same thing. But it was put to use opening and closing the massive doors of a temple rather than agricultural or industrial production. And the invention was forgotten ... Prof. Eugene Weber in a televised lecture insinuated that the Romans were as capable of anyone as developing technology, but the conservative cultural values of the early empire did not know how, or did not want to know, how to apply those advances for maximum effect. Professor Heather who recently visited our forums provides evidence that the late empire was productive and technologically advanced (for ancient Europe). Of course, the late empire was a time of change, when the landed aristocracy and their values had taken backseat to a new militaristic order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Given that nearly every slave-owning society increases its industrial and technological output in the 100 years after the abolition of slavery (or serfdom), it seems likely to me that the same would hold true of Rome. That, Cato - is an excellent point ! Hmm ... It's the kind of argument called 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'. Be careful A.D., M.P. Cato will retort that it is the 'scientific' method and in my not so humble opinion , he will be correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.