Technological growth

[Germanicus]

Another unproven issue it's what drives tehnology in a traditional society (not in a industrial one!) and what impact slavery had on this factors to reduce the development of tehnology.

 

This is the only point at issue in this thread, it's been postulated that Slavery had an impact leading to a lack of technological development in the Roman Empire, as the need for labour saving devices, drives technology. The steam engine, the internal combustion engine, hydraulics, farming technology like a plough for example.

 

You clearly disagree - perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you think stunted technological growth in the Roman empire or in fact if you think it was ?

[M. Porcius Cato]

In my mind there it's a big difference between the economy of the Ancient Rome and the booming industrial, capitalist economy of XIX centruy USA with her specialized areas.

But the vast majority of 19th century USA was agrarian not industrial. Moreover, one of the largest (if not THE largest) catalysts of industrial growth was demand for labor-saving agricultural tools in the agrarian northern midwestern US (where there was no slavery) versus in the agrarian south (where there was). The example of state-to-state differences in the US is perfectly relevant to the economy of ancient Rome.

 

Of course, slaves were used in USA in farming even more then in Rome.

Not true at all. The vast majority of farming done in the US was done without the help of slaves. Slaves only pay for themselves when they're used for cash crops like cotton and tobacco, and most American farms in the 19th century grew neither.

 

And when slavery ended all Atlantic slavery centers opened to imigrants driven from their countries in Europe or Asia by population growth and unemployment caused by industry.

The number of new, non-farm jobs created by industrialization vastly exceeded the number of jobs eliminated due to obsolesence. For one, women were able to enter the workforce for the first time in large numbers. Before the industrial revolution, single women who did not marry overwhelmingly worked in either home-spinning (which sounds bucolic and innocent but was drudgery beyond belief) or prostitution. The number of jobs created by mechanization not only provided generations of women with an alternative to farm life and marriages of necessity, but also led to explosive demand for metalworks, mining, and transport. Overall, industrialization did not cause unemployment; it created employment. (BTW, in China today, there are vast labor SHORTAGES due to rapid industrialization. Ten years ago this was simply unimaginable.)

 

Another unproven issue it's what drives tehnology in a traditional society (not in a industrial one!) and what impact slavery had on this factors to reduce the development of tehnology.

This is easy. Think about the needs and resources in a pre-industrial society: manufacture of farm equipment (whether by blacksmiths versus more efficient tool-and-dies), waterworks (whether by open wells or by more efficient wind-driven pumps), metalworks (whether by ovens or by more efficient blast furnaces), mining (whether by surface mining or more efficient shaft mines), etc, etc. In every single area of pre-industrial civilization, there are small incremental steps that are more efficient and thus more lucrative. But all of these improvements require the expertise of long-term workers who can master the new, more complicated technology. Slaves--who often don't even speak your own language and whose lifespan on the farms and in the mines averaged only about 2 years--were not going to develop these labor-saving technologies because they did not have the freedom to tell their masters and overseers, "Leave me alone for a week, so I can figure out an easier way to do this!"

 

A third objection is the difference between slavery in the ancient world, with their huge difference in status and on modern Atlantic areas.

I have no idea what you're talking about or how it's relevant.

 

The last thing it's that maybe you need labour saving devices before the end of slavery not after.

After all in in late antiquity slavery was greatly reduced in Europe and tehnolgies were lost in that time rather then developed.In antiquity, in Europe, the most developed areas were those where was ample slavery and not those without slavery.

 

Quite obviously, the fall of the Roman world disrupted trade to such an extent that the benefits of also eliminating the slave trade were more than offset. Simply look at the production and distribution of pottery and tiled roofs as one example. Moreover, although slavery declined, serfdom (which is very nearly the same) was rising in the same period. It woudl be a fantastic error to think that the fall of the Roman world brought freedom to the slaves--it didn't; it brought famine, disease, death, and (at best) serfdom with no chance of manumission.

 

Finally, there is no point in drawing a line between industrial and agricultural economies in assessing the impact of slavery. Free agricultural economies consistently outproduced slave- and serf-based agricutlural economies. Free industrial economies consistently outproduced slave-based industrial economies. There is a good reason Sputnik wan't developed in one of the gulags (despite having plenty of talent there!).

[metforce]

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 ?

 

 

By the end of the fifth century slave labor was anything but "cheap". Emperors desperate for soldiers tried to force the great landowners to provide recruits from their coloni or slaves. The great landowners protested and the emperors eventually relented and allowed them to commute their recruits for fixed sums to the treasury (5 solidi or 5lbs of silver); this makes it appear highly unlikely that "slave" labor was abundant or cheap by this time.

 

I believe in reality the late roman economy was quite complex. Keep in mind most of the food grains were grown in Africa or Egypt then transported north. Much of the land in Italy was probably pasture or vineyards. Why, because those crops brought in more money than grain crops. There must have been some economic driver which made the lands in Africa and Egypt more economically suited to growing grains, possibly more fertile lands thus greater production over a smaller area thus requiring less labor. In my opinion this is quite an advanced system.

 

Lack of technological advancement may have been due to a lack of desire by the top rungs of Roman society. Most of them seemed quite happy to live on their estates or travel between their many scattered holdings, exchange letters with their friends and maybe serve for a couple of years in the government to increase their status (or their family's status). If they did happen to come to a windfall they most likely bought more lands or held some public games to increase their status. I also wonder about the assertion that Rome lacked technological advancements. Most large Roman cities had running water and public sewers; pretty advanced in my book, considering it would be almost one thousand years before that would happen again.

[M. Porcius Cato]

By the end of the fifth century slave labor was anything but "cheap". Emperors desperate for soldiers tried to force the great landowners to provide recruits from their coloni or slaves. The great landowners protested and the emperors eventually relented and allowed them to commute their recruits for fixed sums to the treasury (5 solidi or 5lbs of silver); this makes it appear highly unlikely that "slave" labor was abundant or cheap by this time.

These prices tell us almost nothing without knowing the price of free labor. As it is, even if the worth of a slave was 5 solidi, this cost has to be divided over the working life of a slave.

 

Lack of technological advancement may have been due to a lack of desire by the top rungs of Roman society.

 

Given that most technological advances have not been at the hands of aristocrats during any era, how can the lack of desire by Roman aristocrats explain the fact that the growth rate in the Imperial period was less than that experienced from the era of the Enlightenment to the modern age?

[caldrail]

Truth is, the romans had an easy life and never felt the need to introduce labour saving devices. I know this sounds like I'm a bit hypocritical, but the difference is that it wasn't actually the slaves that caused the lack of progress. The owners, the people with cash to invest, would have thought it better to keep up with the joneses. After all, if your neighbour suddenly frees 99% of his slaves and builds a large wooden contraption instead you'd think him a little odd wouldn't you? Don't know about you, but if there's a drought this year and that spring dries up we'll know who to blame, hmmm?

 

You're right, it does sound a bit hypocritical - what you seem to be saying is that the salves themselves didn't cause the problem, but that slavery and it's functions did, which really means we agree.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. There was no single reason for the failure to advance. Actually the romans were quite sophisticated in many fields, largely driven by military pressure. Were it not for superstition and the senatorial desire for the status quo, sooner or later someone would have made a discovery that put two and two together. The technological pot was simmering, not coming to the boil. The wealthy classes simply had no reason to adopt machines wholescale because life was too easy. Once the roman west declined (or struggled as in the case of the 3rd century AD) the heat came off. Something similar nearly happened in late medieval times - the monasteries were beginning to take the first steps toward an industrial society, brought crashing to a halt by Henry 8th when he closed most of them for personal gain.

 

It seems the natural progression of ideas and concepts requires a receptive, calm, and competitive society to succeed. The romans never quite attained that, and the decline took away their chance to become a truly industrialised culture.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Truth is, the romans had an easy life and never felt the need to introduce labour saving devices.

 

The wealthy classes simply had no reason to adopt machines wholescale because life was too easy....It seems the natural progression of ideas and concepts requires a receptive, calm, and competitive society to succeed. The romans never quite attained that, and the decline took away their chance to become a truly industrialised culture.

 

Huh? Life was too easy but not receptive, calm, and competitive enough? This explanation makes no sense at all.

[caldrail]

Competitve? Yes. Calm? Are you kidding? Keeping the peace was nearly impossible with riots and plots bubbling away. Receptive? As I said, the men with wealth to invest didn't have much time for foolish notions that didn't fit their class society.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Competitve? Yes. Calm? Are you kidding? Keeping the peace was nearly impossible with riots and plots bubbling away. Receptive? As I said, the men with wealth to invest didn't have much time for foolish notions that didn't fit their class society.

 

At various points during its history, Rome was as competitive, calm, and 'receptive' as was most of western Europe from the Enlightenment onward. Take a look at the various inventions of the 18th-20th centuries. Many of the earliest inventions during this period (maybe most) were developed by non-aristocrats and by men of no considerable wealth at all during periods of revolution and even civil war. Your list of necessities for invention are anything but necessary.

[caldrail]

But you still require a connection between ideas to bring technology forwards. Roman communication wasn't geared for that. Also, as I've already stressed, roman conservatism didn't really provide a society receptive to technology. Except of course, when it helped them win battles. But even then the generals would have raised an eyebrow at some schemes. There was a way of doing things, and that was the roman way

[Kosmo]

US agriculture in NW benefited from all aspects of an industrial economy: mechanized transportation by railway and steam boat, complex banking, scientific approach to agriculture, free labour and an intercontinental network of free trade that promoted regional specialization. Not to mention a lot of land and lots of labour.

This is hardly the case of Rome were Annona was based on forced contributions from provinces, the transport was expansive, there was no proper banking and a traditionalistic agriculture.

 

Of course, most agriculture was made in US by free man and in Rome by colons and peasants.

 

Industry did not led to unemployment in industrial countries, but in agricultural societies like eastern Germany, South Italy, Ireland, China etc. They forced the former craftsman out of bussines and destroyed the home industry that was an important source of income for peasants.

 

"Think about the needs and resources in a pre-industrial society: manufacture of farm equipment (whether by blacksmiths versus more efficient tool-and-dies), waterworks (whether by open wells or by more efficient wind-driven pumps), metalworks (whether by ovens or by more efficient blast furnaces), mining (whether by surface mining or more efficient shaft mines), etc, etc. "

None of those things evolved greatly in W Europe in the Middle Ages (except water and wind mills and a greater use of the horse in agriculture), but tehnology evolved in other areas, like I already pointed out, many from import and development of tehnology (silk, glass, paper, gun powder, carpet weaving) and other by local development (clockmaking, full plate armors, arch arhitecture, map making, submerged rudders etc.)

Only in Reinessance we see small improvements in agriculture (first in Italy, then in Holland), but many in mining and metalurgy (a metal revolution with large efffects on everything) shipbuilding, printing, textiles, carriages etc.

There is no major difference between the gold mines made by dacians and later by romans in the Carpathians and those made by saxons in the middle Ages in the same areas.

[Kosmo]

The most important reason for the relative stagnation of Rome was the unity of her civilisation. Conflict and competion are the engines of development, but after conquering all of the civilized and half civilized world Rome found herself alone with no one to compete with.

No serious threat and no exterior model was presented to Rome.

 

In Middle Age Europe a civilisation as large as the empire of Rome was made from thousends of competing kingdoms, sovereign nobles, cities and church possesions. To survive one had to adapt to ever changing conditions and to develop new ways to defend, to attack or to enrich what he had. This competion was inside a civilisation that shared language, religious beliefs and ierarhy, art, miths, laws and customs making communication and adoption extremly easy. For a city like Venice things like glassmaking, shipbuilding and mapmaking were vital. Any new tehnolgy, regardless how small, was rewarded and coveted by other cities. It's well known how the glassmaking tehnologies were protected and how the secrets of Murano were stolemn and taken to Cehia.

 

Other remarcable civilisations had a similar history of superiority over the neighbours and stagnation. Ancient Egipt and China are the most obvious examples of advanced civilisations that close themselves from the outside focusing to the inside because it's nothing important around them. Until they are conquered by some barbarians.

This isolation leads to stagnation and conservatorism, so to a slow rate of development of any kind.

Rome had unified the Mediterranean and spread tehnologies, plants, methods, crafts and arts from one end to the other. After this it was unable to create new tehnologies, but it created new religion, philosphy, ethics and art.

 

More advances were made in science during the troubled times of the hellenistic kingdoms then during the "pax romana" This it's another evidence that human creativity it's better in times of change and conflict then in times of quiet peace.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm rapidly growing weary of discussing this topic, but I want to add one final point.

 

Due to the fragmentary evidence available, reconstructing the ancient world is difficult. However, this reconstruction is vastly easier once you know what to do with the evidence you do have, and for that you can turn (and ought to turn) to modern sciences, such as economics.

 

On the issue of technological growth, for example, we have hundreds of years of data on the causes and consequences of technology. Using this knowledge to constrain your hypotheses about the ancient world would make a lot of sense, as it would prevent you from putting forward some of the contradictory, hare-brained ideas that have been expressed in this thread.

 

Alternatively, you could keep making it up as you go along--but I'm finished refuting arbitrary hypotheses with no basis in more general knowledge about the growth of technology.

[caldrail]

You're not a scientist then?

[Kosmo]

What makes my hypotheses more "hare-brained" then yours?

You did not used your vast knowledge of "hundreds of years of data on the causes and consequences of technology" to prove anything. You just made a statement (that I find impossible to accept because it compares different things and draws conclusions from a particular case) and stopped.

 

And this was the first time when I clearly presented my hypotheses, so you grew weary from the begining not as I go along.

 

To go back on topic one fine (and classic) example of how political and economic rivalry between Europe's states directly led to developement of science and technolgy it's the history of navigation and shipbuilding from the times of Prince Henry of Portugal onwards.

[caldrail]

So then - The mother of invention is necessity. Without military threat, the need to compete in technology lessens. In commercial terms however the romans failed. Although they became brilliant organisers and experts in logistics on a grand scale, they didn't evolve technology except on a local level, as a result of applied engineering. So we see clever pumps for raising water, or water driven stone-cutters, or similar things that are used in one locality but not generally adopted.