Technological growth

[Gaius Octavius]

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.

 

I'm pretty sure that the inventor of this machine was Heron(?), a Greek. He invented a number of steam and water driven machines well before Tiberius' time. They were mostly used in temples to relieve the poloi of their gold burden. "Deus Ex Machina"! They were also used in the theater and produced some interesting results. Obviously all of his work was lost and not re-invented until the 18th or 19th century.

[Andrew Dalby]

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.

 

Yes, O future Augustus, I realize I'm wading towards a quicksand or in a hole and still digging ... OK, 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' means literally 'after this, therefore because of this'. It sort of sums up the historical (or forensic) argument that goes 'A happened, then B happened, therefore A was the cause of B'. I saw it (rightly or wrongly!) in Germanicus's statement above. Slavery was abolished (more or less world wide), technological advances were made (more or less world wide), therefore A caused B. And I'm not saying it's false in this case. No doubt there's something in it. It's just that it's difficult to prove or disprove, because we don't have a parallel world, available for comparison, in which A didn't happen.

 

OK, you'll say, we do have the Roman Empire, look at that as your parallel world! But there are so many other differences between Rome and the 18th century world that I feel doubtful about the parallel.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Slavery was abolished (more or less world wide), technological advances were made (more or less world wide), therefore A caused B. And I'm not saying it's false in this case. No doubt there's something in it. It's just that it's difficult to prove or disprove, because we don't have a parallel world, available for comparison, in which A didn't happen.

 

Andrew is right that my one-sentence economic history of slavery is open to the charge of post-hoc reasoning. Let me add a few to show that the economic argument against slavery is not so flimsy.

 

First off, we DO have a comparison group precisely because slavery did NOT come and go worldwide. Some nations participated relatively little in the slave trade and serfdom; some abolished slavery and serfdom quite early (England); some late (Russia); some (in the Arab world) still practice it. One could make comparisons across all of these groups, but the problem is that these nations differ in many other ways that make it difficult (but not impossible) to estimate the impact of slavery.

 

Luckily, there is an almost perfect test case--the history of technology and industry in the United States, where slaves were held in southern states (like Georgia) but not northern states (like Ohio). As a result of cheap labor in the southern states, there was virtually no demand for labor saving devices. In contrast, there was an enormous demand for such devices in the north. Indeed, one of the most significant catalysts for industrial expansion in the northern states was the demand for farm equipment in the states like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Not that the industrial output was limited to making farm equipment: many other industries were created to support the farm equpment business as well, including metalworks, mining, and railways. Thus, by the time of the civil war, the number of railways crossing the lands of northern states dwarfed the number in the southern ones. What makes this particular contrast so interesting, in fact, is that states like Ohio were not even settled by Europeans until long after states like Georgia and most of the slave owning states, yet due to its strong demand for labor saving devices, sparsely inhabited territories like Ohio and Michigan were able to quickly leapfrog the old colonial states.

 

This is where one can see the real causal connection between technological backwardness and slavery. The pre-abolition/post-abolition contrast, however, should (I think) remove all doubts about the impact of slavery on technological progress. In short, after the abolition of slavery, the southern states did not wither and die (as they had claimed they would if the slaves were emancipated), but increased their total economic input drastically, enough so that some southern states today (such as Georgia and North Carolina) have higher per capita economic output than many of the states in the north.

 

This longer argument, I think Andrew will admit, is not a post-hoc argument for the link between innovation and freedom.

Edited April 2, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[PerfectimusPrime]

some abolished slavery and serfdom quite early (England); some late (Russia); some (in the Arab world) still practice it. One could make comparisons across all of these groups, but the problem is that these nations differ in many other ways that make it difficult (but not impossible) to estimate the impact of slavery.

 

Serfs and peasants demands were accommodated to some extent, but tt was hardly an abolishment of serfdom what happened in England, I think. Anyway, Arab world had far less serfs then Europe during the middle ages, and I doubt that there's exactly what I'd call serfdom in the middle east today. Serfdom and slaves are probably more of an African issue.

[Andrew Dalby]

Slavery was abolished (more or less world wide), technological advances were made (more or less world wide), therefore A caused B. And I'm not saying it's false in this case. No doubt there's something in it. It's just that it's difficult to prove or disprove, because we don't have a parallel world, available for comparison, in which A didn't happen.

Luckily, there is an almost perfect test case--the history of technology and industry in the United States, where slaves were held in southern states (like Georgia) but not northern states (like Ohio). As a result of cheap labor in the southern states, there was virtually no demand for labor saving devices. In contrast, there was an enormous demand for such devices in the north. Indeed, one of the most significant catalysts for industrial expansion in the northern states was the demand for farm equipment in the states like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Not that the industrial output was limited to making farm equipment: many other industries were created to support the farm equpment business as well, including metalworks, mining, and railways. Thus, by the time of the civil war, the number of railways crossing the lands of northern states dwarfed the number in the southern ones. What makes this particular contrast so interesting, in fact, is that states like Ohio were not even settled by Europeans until long after states like Georgia and most of the slave owning states, yet due to its strong demand for labor saving devices, sparsely inhabited territories like Ohio and Michigan were able to quickly leapfrog the old colonial states.

 

This is where one can see the real causal connection between technological backwardness and slavery.

 

Thank you, Cato, you make a strong case there. Not being familiar with US history I wasn't aware of the north-south variation in industrial development. I'm persuaded.

[Primus Pilus]

What I find interesting in this conversation though is not necessarily the impact of slavery on Roman technology, which over the course of 2 millenia was obviously quite limited in advancement, but what impact the emancipation (or non existence) of slavery (and serfdom) may have had on the Ancient/Roman world at an earlier date. We know that technology is easily capable of supplanting slave labor, but could technological advancement have kept up with the rapid spread of Rome? Consider also that had the Romans not taken slaves, yet still continued along a similar course of conquest (even if circumstances may have been altered from the immediate impact that slavery had on personal and 'state' wealth to the slower but steadier increase in technology over time), the change in the racial/ethnic/tribal landscape could have been enormous. Had the Romans not taken slaves, and instead slaughtered their enemies (beyond even what they were at times reported to have done), or had the Romans been limited in the ability to spread by the pace of technological advancement, the potential is quite astounding.

 

I apologize as I don't mean to turn this into a focal point of the conversation, but was simply 'thinking out loud' regarding something I have quite frankly never put much thought into.

[M. Porcius Cato]

We know that technology is easily capable of supplanting slave labor, but could technological advancement have kept up with the rapid spread of Rome?

Sure, why not? If anything, the rapid spread of Rome allowed her to take new solutions home to Rome, to bring Roman innovations to places they did not exist, and expansion provided the *potential* for combining the two into an open-ended number of new innovations.

 

Consider also that had the Romans not taken slaves, yet still continued along a similar course of conquest (even if circumstances may have been altered from the immediate impact that slavery had on personal and 'state' wealth to the slower but steadier increase in technology over time), the change in the racial/ethnic/tribal landscape could have been enormous.

 

The effect of slavery on the tribal landscape was to disperse ethnic groups. The same effect could be accomplished by other means, such as resettlement with a limited, bonded term of service. As best I recall, these were terms under which Americans like Ben Franklin got their start in life.

[Primus Pilus]

The effect of slavery on the tribal landscape was to disperse ethnic groups. The same effect could be accomplished by other means, such as resettlement with a limited, bonded term of service. As best I recall, these were terms under which Americans like Ben Franklin got their start in life.

 

Sure that effect could have occurred in a similar vein to how the Romans incorporated auxilia. If not for the Germanic wars of Marcus Aurelius for example, Sarmartian cavalry would never have been sent to Britain. Still I find it hard to see the Romans relocating civilian populations on a massive scale if they served no military purpose. Provided technology could've been developed to supplant the need for more working bodies, I don't see the motivation for relocation of conquered peoples. If the technology was not there, then such relocation would've essentially been a form of slavery/serfdom necessitated by need anyway.

 

Perhaps I am missing an integral part of the equation, but somehow I find it much more likely that more conquered people of Rome would've been slaughtered in lieu of slavery, rather than be incorporated into the empire. I am not suggesting that the historical Rome placed all captured populations into slavery as this was obviously not the case. While many Carthaginians were taken as slaves, many more were incorporated. However, not only did slavery provide an economic incentive for Rome to spare human lives but it also provided an example to all of what would happen when conquest was resisted. As the need to set an example would've still existed, the potential for human slaughter as a replacement for bondage very well could've increased exponentially.

 

I apologize for going way off topic, but the implications are fascinating my curiousity.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Perhaps I am missing an integral part of the equation, but somehow I find it much more likely that more conquered people of Rome would've been slaughtered in lieu of slavery, rather than be incorporated into the empire.

 

Well, what's the equation? There's the cost of slaughter (nearly zero) versus its benefits (nearly zero). Then there's the cost of transporting a bonded servant (or slave or serf) versus its benefits (almost invariably higher than the costs because demand for new products and services is only limited by supply, which depends on human effort and creativity). So if there were tradesmen who were on hand to take captured men and women and turn them into slaves, there is no reason why the same tradesmen would give up their profession if they could only sell 10-year bonded servants.

 

I'd also point out that although the financial cost of slaughter is nearly zero, it's not zero. It's a lot easier to defeat an enemy who believes he has a chance of surviving if he surrenders. Given this fact, it seems also likely that an enemy would be more likely to surrender if he knew he only faced 10 years of limited bondage rather than a lifetime of slavery. The difference between bonded servitude and slavery might have been a military asset to Rome.

[Primus Pilus]

I'd also point out that although the financial cost of slaughter is nearly zero, it's not zero. It's a lot easier to defeat an enemy who believes he has a chance of surviving if he surrenders. Given this fact, it seems also likely that an enemy would be more likely to surrender if he knew he only faced 10 years of limited bondage rather than a lifetime of slavery. The difference between bonded servitude and slavery might have been a military asset to Rome.

 

Indeed. Not only was the potential for one's own freedom a factor aiding in pacification, but the potential for the freedom of one's children and continuing descendents certainly played a role. Although... I suppose the generalization of this collective resiliency can never truly be measured. Arguments for either case (subjugation by slavery or elimination) can be made in individual cases and in certain circumstances which could make either seem more effective. (ie the slavery of the Epirotes vs. the campaigns of Scipio Aemilianus in the Third Punic War)

[Germanicus]

Do you think the relatively low social status of artisans, craftsmen and trade proffessionals under the Empire also served to limit technological advances ?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Do you think the relatively low social status of artisans, craftsmen and trade proffessionals under the Empire also served to limit technological advances ?

 

Well, we're moving quickly afield of topic! Still, I can't help but add my two cents (no surprise there).

 

On the one hand, I'd say No. Artisans, craftsmen, and trade professionals have never enjoyed as much status as doctors, lawyers, and the landed aristocracy. See particularly the persecution of ethnic minorities that make their living by trade (e.g., European Jews, the Chinese in the Phillipines, etc). Presumably because the economic value of the middleman is invisible, he tends to be viewed as akin to a parasite and is despised even when sought out for the goods he can find and deliver. The ancient Romans didn't appear to be much different in terms of their attitudes toward traders and craftsmen, yet their rate of innovation seems much slower than the rate of innovation after, say, 1688.

 

It seems to me that one very important factor in the increase in technology was the protection of intellectual property via copyright and patents. As far as I know, these had no ancient world equivalent, and so there was very little incentive to make the necessary investments into testing new technology.

 

On the other hand, I do think that the status of different professions during the ancient world bore very little relation to the actual benefits provided to improving people's lives. How is that we know the name of Caracalla's kid brother despite every effort to wipe out his memory, yet we have no idea who invented the arch? or the grommet? or discovered that volcanic ash added to quicklime would allow cement to dry underwater? Perhaps if the Romans celebrated these acheivements half as much as they celebrated the conquest of a backwater like Judaea, they might have gone further (though still I think patents would be much more valuable).

[Germanicus]

The patent/copywrite thing is an interesting point, something I'd never considered before. I wonder what the attitude was, or if indeed there was an "attitude" to writers that copied word for word from earlier ones ?

 

I also edited the topic, feel free to continue discussion of anything that may/may not have impeded technological advancement.

[Kosmo]

Roman law stated "auxilia seguitur principale" secondary object it's attached to the main object like the trees to land or like the belt to the watch and this was interpreted as that what was written in a book it's secondary to the papyrus on witch is wrriten. So, no copyrights for roman writers.

 

About slavery and development: I think that it's more complex than to say "free the slaves and growth will come".

For example Jamaica (and other colonies from the Caraibean) experienced a quick economic colapse after the end of slavery while other sugar producing areas like Cuba and Brazil kept slavery for another 50 years with great profits.

Jamaica unlike Haiti kept it's profitable colonial status and was not destroyed by war, but what was a very important economic area was reduced to stagnation by the liberation of slaves.

Maybe if all slaves in Rome became free an economic collapse will follow because there was no labour market.

[M. Porcius Cato]

About slavery and development: I think that it's more complex than to say "free the slaves and growth will come".For example Jamaica (and other colonies from the Caraibean) experienced a quick economic colapse after the end of slavery while other sugar producing areas like Cuba and Brazil kept slavery for another 50 years with great profits.

 

My first response would be that there was a general secular decline in the demand for sugar during the 100 years after the liberation of the slaves in Jamaica. This would have have decimated the old plantation economy, but due to liberation, the free peasant farmers had moved from a pure cash crop economy to a more diversified basket of goods, including coffee, lumber, and bananas.

 

More honestly, though, we don't have GDP figures for this time (well, I don't; does anyone?), and lacking those, there's no way of knowing whether the more diversified economic base (1) saved Jamaica from ruin, (2) led to Jamaican growth, or (3) led to "economic collapse".

 

So, this is hardly a counter-example--just counter-speculation.

 

If we reason only from the hard facts we do have, the economic history of the American north and south (which have been subject to intensive historical econometrics) suggests that my thesis is right. Provide hard data showing otherwise, and I'll change my mind.