Inspired by a tangent in the Firearms thread, what bit of modern technology do you all think would provide the most benefit by taking it back to Roman times.

At this point there was quite a bit of parallel civilization and development going on in southern Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Greece, China and South America.

Feel free to transplant into your favoured location

Also feel free to interpret "benefit" to your hearts desire.

Personally, I think that electricity generation could probably have taken hold. Copper wires are relatively easy to create, and they already had the ability to make turny things (water wheels and suchlike).

There was definitely an understanding of steam power, but they appear to have been limited to gimmicky devices, as they lacked the metallurgy to make say, a steam engine.

Given what the empire did, I’m not particularly inclined to help them out though 🤣🤣

I’d have given the ancient Britons some missile launchers though. Gerrof moi laaaaand 🤣🤣

Antibiotics - but then, on the flip side, everything would be well and truly antibiotic-resistant by now, so maybe better for them but worse for us now?

Yeah, it is hard to find an invention that improves automation that would really benefit the Romans, because they didn't need it with a slave economy. The steam engine discussion has been long-running, but ultimately it probably never transferred into practical uses simply because there was no need for cheap labour and vested interests in the current system of slavery. Slave societies are not innovative when it comes to labour productivity, best highlighted in the huge disparaties in automation and industrial capacity between the antebellum US North and South.

I think electricity is likely to fall into the same category- it is competing with slave labour in most roles. That isn't to say that slaves are better, but any new technology is competing with an entrenched system whilst it is in its infancy.

Crispy78 wrote:
Antibiotics - but then, on the flip side, everything would be well and truly antibiotic-resistant by now, so maybe better for them but worse for us now?

Antiseptics and a better understanding of why soap is important would maybe be a better option. The Romans had the plumbing and industry to support this if they wanted to.

I dunno on the antibiotics.

Consider that via vaccines we’ve all but eradicated certain viruses.

Antibiotics applied on a widespread scale on a much smaller populace might achieve the same, as there are fewer people around to first be infected, second for the nasty to survive in?

I think steam engines would be adopted. Why march your army hundreds or thousands of miles, when a slave made railway system could allow you to move men and materiel en-massed in a fraction of the time? It might, conceivably, prevent the empire getting too large and widespread of effectively govern.

It's a very odd one, but semaphores might have enabled the empire to last a few hundred years more. Ultimately, the Romans had tremendously centralized power as their greatest strength, but ended up with an area too large to effectively govern from a central location.

The concept of feudalism probably would have balkanized the empire, so the best thing I can think of for them would be to improve their ability to communicate. Imagine if every city in the empire was connected by a system of semaphore towers, and messages could go from Britain to Egypt in a matter of days.

Giving them steam power and the additional technologies to enable construction of viable steam engines would not just give them steam; but a bunch of other technologies alongside that would all cause a cascade of additional advances.

Once they could get the metal production up and running their large slave workforce could allow them VERY rapid construction of an effective rail network. They were already famed for roads; rail would be a huge advance and have the additional bonus that, at least initially, they wouldn't have contest for its use.
Of course barbarians might try and mess up the rails, but in general it would allow both swifter transport of materials and troops as well as resolving communication issues over a larger empire.

It might even have helped de-centralise the empire more so by allowing easier movement and swifter movement; esp over land masses.

I wonder how quickly innovation would be kickstarted if you brought back calculus. With the underlying math already established, how fast would physics take off, and then the applied results.

Or a concept like rigorous scientific theory? Teach them how to learn better, and watch the results?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I think steam engines would be adopted. Why march your army hundreds or thousands of miles, when a slave made railway system could allow you to move men and materiel en-massed in a fraction of the time? It might, conceivably, prevent the empire getting too large and widespread of effectively govern.

than you are not introducing steam engines, you introducing rail transport

like the first commercial steam engine was used as water pump in 1700, and the first locomotive on a railroad came 80 years later, but rail transport existed already 100 years earlier
so "we" made this work as the idea of rail transport already existed and we just needed an engine for it instead of horses or workers

the Romans already knew about steam engines but they did not know about railroads and their advantages so the transition on making a steam powered rail transport system does not need the introduction of a working steam engine, it needs the railroad

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I dunno on the antibiotics.

Consider that via vaccines we’ve all but eradicated certain viruses.

Antibiotics applied on a widespread scale on a much smaller populace might achieve the same, as there are fewer people around to first be infected, second for the nasty to survive in?

I think steam engines would be adopted. Why march your army hundreds or thousands of miles, when a slave made railway system could allow you to move men and materiel en-massed in a fraction of the time? It might, conceivably, prevent the empire getting too large and widespread of effectively govern.

For a pathogen to be eradicated it has to exist solely within accessible reservoirs (such as only humans), which is why we could never eradicate tetanus. C. Tetani lives in soil, we aren't wiping it out without enormous ecological damage.

Most bacteria fall into this group- they are pathogenic or opportunistic examples of the natural flora of our environment or even ourselves. About 10% of people have Staphylococcus Aureus living on our skin normally without issue. Sometimes it gets into the wrong place and causes infections, normally it does not. Eradicating most of these is impossible, let alone with antibiotics. This is before looking at resistance mechanisms. Plus, doing so would also harm our natural flora which is otherwise beneficial to our health (probably- studying normal flora is extremely hard).

There are a small number of bacteria we could probably eradicate with antibiotics alone. Syphilis is the only example that comes to mind- it is human specific and has low levels of antibiotic resistance. But you would need very good communications to do it and I don't think it could be done in the pre-industrial era when they cannot even test for it. Meningococcal disease might be another.

Re. steam engines- as Overread says, you need a lot more than just pointing out how a steam engine can be harnessed for work. There were Roman scholars who knew about steam engines as toys, that could be converted into simple work engines with little modification. The earliest steam engines were used as static power sources for things like operating pumps or pulling ropes. All stuff that can be done with muscle power. It took some developments to get to steam locomotives which are compact and reliable enough to haul a train. In addition, plateways are probably not enough for a steam train, so you need rails, which are an engineering challenge requiring a lot of resources in their own right. Could they have done it? Maybe, but the economic incentive to do the first step with static engines just isn't there and it is a big jump to locomotives travelling long distances. Big rail networks also need a huge amount of infrastructure to support- coal powered steam trains need frequent coaling and watering stations. So building up a network outside of key routes would be very challenging. Probably most would be resource-extraction lines from a mine to a port or similar, like most historical lines were. These are not often connected into a proper network, an issue which plagues many former colonies to this day.

Honestly, I think you would get further with advancing water-powered technology, because the energy source is basically free.

Hot air balloons. Nothing amazing like a blimp, just a simple one would be enough to impact the empire in significant ways. They would be amazing scouting tools, allowing legions to spot enemies from great distances, they could put messengers on them and even use them offensively by giving the riders heavy darts and stones.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hot air balloons. Nothing amazing like a blimp, just a simple one would be enough to impact the empire in significant ways. They would be amazing scouting tools, allowing legions to spot enemies from great distances, they could put messengers on them and even use them offensively by giving the riders heavy darts and stones.

How do you power and steer them? Not needed for simple observation but definitely for the others.

 Haighus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hot air balloons. Nothing amazing like a blimp, just a simple one would be enough to impact the empire in significant ways. They would be amazing scouting tools, allowing legions to spot enemies from great distances, they could put messengers on them and even use them offensively by giving the riders heavy darts and stones.

How do you power and steer them? Not needed for simple observation but definitely for the others.

Sails.

Sail the currents of the high winds .... and freeze to death

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hot air balloons. Nothing amazing like a blimp, just a simple one would be enough to impact the empire in significant ways. They would be amazing scouting tools, allowing legions to spot enemies from great distances, they could put messengers on them and even use them offensively by giving the riders heavy darts and stones.

How do you power and steer them? Not needed for simple observation but definitely for the others.

Sails.

Sail the currents of the high winds .... and freeze to death

I was thinking seriously about why this isn't done until I realised you need a keel in water for sails to work on ships

From a baloon to a blimp isn't the problem. The problem is the material required to make a baloon.

On the subject of sails, that would actually be a great technology to introduce- lateen sails, especially in combined lateen/square sail rigs.

Roman* vessels only had square rigs and relied on oars for travel into the wind. Lateen sails allow a vessel to sail into the wind by tacking and massively increase the range and versality of ships. Not so useful in the Mediterranean, but would allow more exploration and trade beyond it.

I'm sure there are some other ship-building techniques that would be very useful, maybe clinker building techniques.


*Probably should have a disclaimer of "up to the fall of the Western Empire" for this whole thread. The Eastern empire had lateen sails by the 15th century.

 Nevelon wrote:
I wonder how quickly innovation would be kickstarted if you brought back calculus. With the underlying math already established, how fast would physics take off, and then the applied results.

Or a concept like rigorous scientific theory? Teach them how to learn better, and watch the results?

There were already pretty good centres of learning in the early empires. The issue may have been getting more people with free time to do the actual learning. Steam engines also beget traction engines and tractors, leading to mechanisation of agriculture.

I think there’s two things that would make a fundamental difference to the history of the Roman Empire; one is modern medical concepts of hygiene and vaccination. Germ theory and Jenner’s smallpox vaccine are both readily accessible without other technologies. Given that the Empire was frequently rocked by plagues and ultimately the Western half collapsed in part because it just didn’t have the manpower to fend off literal hordes of “barbarians” (they literally lost the numbers game), having a bigger, healthier population would make a huge difference.

The second, and more insidious one, is modern economic concepts. Another significant reason for the collapse of the Western Empire was that they simply couldn’t pay for the army that they needed to defend themselves.

If you look at the development of the modern world it comes off the back of the agricultural revolution resulting in a bigger, healthier population and then the global trade system running off of the Industrial Revolution. As others have pointed out, the Roman slave-based system can actually stand in for the Industrial Revolution, at least in the medium term, because they had substantial agricultural and economic production capacity, so it’s the other two areas that need the boost.

Of course, increasing the strength of and perpetuating an autocratic, corrupt, slave-based regime would not be a good thing, but it’s an interesting discussion!

Jadenim wrote:Of course, increasing the strength of and perpetuating an autocratic, corrupt, slave-based regime would not be a good thing, but it’s an interesting discussion!

Very true. And if anyone thinks giving the advantage to any one of or some of Rome’s enemies would be better? I’m pretty sure any culture back then would be up for a bit of empire building and all the awfulness that comes with it.

Yet…some hope? The British Empire eventually outlawed slavery within itself, despite having profited handsomely, as did the USA.

So perhaps there’s an argument that once enough wealth is gathered that the general standard of living increases, there’s a general move away from slavery?

Eh, I don't know if improving the standard of living is enough.
The Romans weren't Christians, so they didn't have a moral obligation to ban slavery. Remember that many of the abolitionist movements were basing their ideals on the bible, on the grounds that slavery was against both God and the rights of men.

I'm not sure if the Romans followed such a moral framework, operating on a more "might makes right" mentality.

The British Empire and the Roman Empire simply aren't comparable culture wise. The British Empire didn't even allow slaves in England; whilst it did profit from the slave trade, slavery itself was not recognized by English law.

You're comparing a empire that had a long history of actual slavery with a religious system that encourages strength to an empire that hasn't legally had slavery since the Norman conquest with a religious system that encourages compassion. Increasing the standard of living is not enough of a factor.

Worth noting that Christianity only outlawed the enslaving of other Christians. Other religions were fair game and galley slaves were common in Christian ships in the Mediterranean.

Also worth noting that the pro-slavery movements also based their ideals on the same bible, with rather more - or at least more direct - justification.
Also Rome had kind of a hard-on for Greek philosophy which did include one of the first (to my knowledge, and restricted and imperfect) slavery abolishments in history in Athens.

As with all such historical shifts, there's no singular simple cause-and-effect relation to be had; neither slavery nor its abolition are solely the result of christianity or any one kind of
progress elsewhere, whether societal or technological.

 Haighus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Hot air balloons. Nothing amazing like a blimp, just a simple one would be enough to impact the empire in significant ways. They would be amazing scouting tools, allowing legions to spot enemies from great distances, they could put messengers on them and even use them offensively by giving the riders heavy darts and stones.

How do you power and steer them? Not needed for simple observation but definitely for the others.

Good question. Maybe a propeller? That's what boats use.
I'm assuming they'd be powered by what used to power the original ones made by the Montgolfiere brothers. The thread's topic does concern modern technology being send back to the ancient world, after all.
The real problem would be to create the infrastructure to produce them, which would necessitate the introduction of yet more technology.

Assuming that infrastructure is not a problem, radios would also be incredibly useful for the Romans. Being able to transmit orders instantly across long distances is an incredibly powerful strategic and tactical tool.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bran Dawri wrote:
Also worth noting that the pro-slavery movements also based their ideals on the same bible, with rather more - or at least more direct - justification.
Also Rome had kind of a hard-on for Greek philosophy which did include one of the first (to my knowledge, and restricted and imperfect) slavery abolishments in history in Athens.

As with all such historical shifts, there's no singular simple cause-and-effect relation to be had; neither slavery nor its abolition are solely the result of christianity or any one kind of
progress elsewhere, whether societal or technological.

Weren't they a minority compared to the anti-slavery groups though? To me it would seem that overall Christianity has been anti-slavery.
Whilst it may not have been the sole factor (economics, as always, certainly played a role), it would seem that it was still a major contribution to its abolition in the western world.

The Bible and interpretation of the Bible and indeed most religious texts, changes considerably over time. At one point eating meat on a Sunday sent you to hell.


So you can say its a "force for X" and that's probably true - for one denomination at one point in time. So it was both anti and pro slavery at different points, places and interpretations in history. Same for things like wars - for every anti-war based on the Bible there are many pro war situations (and even a few they organised themselves).




That said I think if you gave the Romans a good concept of hygiene and disease it might not stop the use of slavery, but it might well raise the living standards of slaves considerably. Perhaps not out of direct care for them, but because you can save yourself having to buy more slaves and also save yourself directly because your slaves won't go down with disease that will spread to yourself.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Weren't they a minority compared to the anti-slavery groups though? To me it would seem that overall Christianity has been anti-slavery.
Whilst it may not have been the sole factor (economics, as always, certainly played a role), it would seem that it was still a major contribution to its abolition in the western world.

Not really. Certainly not at first. Pretty much everyone in the relevant countries was Christian at the time, including both sides of that issue. I mean, the US Bible Belt is pretty much exclusively comprised of former slave states. No lack of Christians there, then or now.

An argument can be made that abolition was the result of cultural shifts in attitude across society (eg the Enlightenment) and that many Christians on both sides simply (possibly subconsciously) used the Bible to justify the position that they already arrived at independently.

As before, I think that's a gross oversimplification, but at the same time that doesn't make it wrong.

if we talk in context of the Romans, what the bible was used for in 2000 years by various political groups does not really matter

for most of its existence christianity was a driving force behind science, and it was not until the last 200 years were a conflict was made up by specific groups to use it for politics

For the Romans the main reason why christianity became the official religion was to control and shift it away from the original teachings as this was a threat for society.
Same as killing them in the early years and bringing up new pagan religions to fight them, but that did not really work out (hence taking it over)

simply because teaching that all people are brothers and sisters as well as pacifism was a big problem for a state that was built on slave labour and conquest.

a lot of things that should not be ok but are fine later on are based on the roman political influence of that time, also that change must happen slowly and cannot be forced on a society

anti-slavery, equality, and treating slaves and woman as human beings was something very new brought in by christianity to the romans
and even if you give the Romans modern medicine, slaves would not have higher living standards as they were not seen as humans that need care

most people don't know how much roman society changed over the influence of christianity in 300 years and that changed won't have happened without it

 kodos wrote:
if we talk in context of the Romans, what the bible was used for in 2000 years by various political groups does not really matter

for most of its existence christianity was a driving force behind science, and it was not until the last 200 years were a conflict was made up by specific groups to use it for politics

For the Romans the main reason why christianity became the official religion was to control and shift it away from the original teachings as this was a threat for society.
Same as killing them in the early years and bringing up new pagan religions to fight them, but that did not really work out (hence taking it over)

simply because teaching that all people are brothers and sisters as well as pacifism was a big problem for a state that was built on slave labour and conquest.

a lot of things that should not be ok but are fine later on are based on the roman political influence of that time, also that change must happen slowly and cannot be forced on a society

anti-slavery, equality, and treating slaves and woman as human beings was something very new brought in by christianity to the romans
and even if you give the Romans modern medicine, slaves would not have higher living standards as they were not seen as humans that need care

most people don't know how much roman society changed over the influence of christianity in 300 years and that changed won't have happened without it

Pretty much, a lot of modern day Western moral axioms that people take for granted as self-evident were based upon Christian principles and how much of Western civilization is structured around its influence, hence the idea that many Westerners are "cultural christians" even if they don't believe in the Christian God. I mean you have people like even Richard Dawkins admitting being this and I think it's something people have started recognizing more ever since the New Atheist movement in the early 2000's ran out of steam and things have been coopted into the new identity politics stream.

While I don't deny that Christianity was massively impactful on western civilization historically, trying to claim everything beneficial as a consequence of it is just as wrong as saying it was only ever a bad thing.

Take science for example. At best christianity (indeed, religion in general) is indifferent to it - generally when it doesn't contradict its teachings. When it does, on the other hand, at best it simply rejects the new knowledge, at worst it outright suppresses it - sometimes violently.
And no offense to Dawkins, but I think he's wrong on this one. Not that we've completely thrown everything Christianity ever taught out the window, but most of the foundations of western thought go back to before Christianity. Some of them it kept alive, some it mindlessly cast aside, some it actively tried to suppress.

Science is a bad example, simply because christianity in the early centuries was a driving force behind it as understanding gods creating was a big part of it, as well as the clergy being the only one having the time to do studies that would last more than a single person's life

that science cannot contradict religion is much more modern and came up past medieval time when taking the bible literally was in important argument between the religious groups and also the scientist took the teaching literal (the arguments against Darwins theory did not came from the church but other scientist)

in the medieval period religion was not the problem for science but antiquity was, as ancient Rome and Greece was seen as superior and anything that those found was right (it was the Greek who did not opened human bodies but described the body by studying pigs, yet everything that was different was seen as rare mutation later as the Greeks cannot be wrong)

no one really claimed everything beneficial came from it, and the question is what "everything" is and what are western thoughts

democracy already exited prior but in a very limited way and killing opposition or people whose opinion the ruler did not like something normal
slaves being seen as humans and not just things or woman having rights, not so much

Not to forget all the contributions to modern knowledge that came from outside the Christian world too. Plenty of insights came from East Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and the Middle East. There are plenty of important contributions from the pre-Christian world too, like in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds.

Dawkins was dog-whistling. He is just othering a culture he is not familiar with. Most people prefer to live in the culture they grew up in.

My first thought would be a very basic water filter made with materials they would already have.

 kodos wrote:
Science is a bad example, simply because christianity in the early centuries was a driving force behind it as understanding gods creating was a big part of it, as well as the clergy being the only one having the time to do studies that would last more than a single person's life

that science cannot contradict religion is much more modern and came up past medieval time when taking the bible literally was in important argument between the religious groups and also the scientist took the teaching literal (the arguments against Darwins theory did not came from the church but other scientist)

in the medieval period religion was not the problem for science but antiquity was, as ancient Rome and Greece was seen as superior and anything that those found was right (it was the Greek who did not opened human bodies but described the body by studying pigs, yet everything that was different was seen as rare mutation later as the Greeks cannot be wrong)

no one really claimed everything beneficial came from it, and the question is what "everything" is and what are western thoughts

democracy already exited prior but in a very limited way and killing opposition or people whose opinion the ruler did not like something normal
slaves being seen as humans and not just things or woman having rights, not so much

Except that most of that is wrong. Except the bit about the clergy being the only ones with the time and resources. Everyone else was kept too poor or ignorant. But a couple of priests and monks doing a bit of research in their spare time (and discarding results that didn't fit their belief system) doesn't exactly qualify as "driving scientific research". Glorifying God was much more important.

While most people did look back on Rome as a past Golden Age, according to the church, there couldn't possibly have been any significant knowledge (particularly moral) prior to Jesus - so any ancient Greek manuscripts of say Plato pertaining to it that were discovered were destroyed.
Not to mention thoughtless destruction - paper was rare, so it's not unheard of for monks to have erased priceless treatises by for example Aristotle in favour of a hymn or poem praising God.

The reason we still have as much Greek and Roman philosophy as we do isn't Christianity, it's Islam. After the Reconquista their scholars left behind a bunch of (copies of) ancient Greek and Roman documents that was in part responsible for the revival of interest in those areas in Europe.

I think its also important to highlight how simplified we are trying to make this discussion. Compressing thousands of years of Christianity and wide geographic spread as well into very short concepts is never ever going to work.

There will be periods of history when regions of Christianity were pro science and regions where it was anti science. Even with wide dictates from a central source you'd still have local variation, interpretations and so forth.


We'd have to actually drill down into specific regional and timeframe slots to start unjumbling it all; otherwise we can all make quite large blanket statements which will be "true" for different spots.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Science is a bad example, simply because christianity in the early centuries was a driving force behind it as understanding gods creating was a big part of it, as well as the clergy being the only one having the time to do studies that would last more than a single person's life

that science cannot contradict religion is much more modern and came up past medieval time when taking the bible literally was in important argument between the religious groups and also the scientist took the teaching literal (the arguments against Darwins theory did not came from the church but other scientist)

in the medieval period religion was not the problem for science but antiquity was, as ancient Rome and Greece was seen as superior and anything that those found was right (it was the Greek who did not opened human bodies but described the body by studying pigs, yet everything that was different was seen as rare mutation later as the Greeks cannot be wrong)

no one really claimed everything beneficial came from it, and the question is what "everything" is and what are western thoughts

democracy already exited prior but in a very limited way and killing opposition or people whose opinion the ruler did not like something normal
slaves being seen as humans and not just things or woman having rights, not so much

Except that most of that is wrong. Except the bit about the clergy being the only ones with the time and resources. Everyone else was kept too poor or ignorant. But a couple of priests and monks doing a bit of research in their spare time (and discarding results that didn't fit their belief system) doesn't exactly qualify as "driving scientific research". Glorifying God was much more important.

While most people did look back on Rome as a past Golden Age, according to the church, there couldn't possibly have been any significant knowledge (particularly moral) prior to Jesus - so any ancient Greek manuscripts of say Plato pertaining to it that were discovered were destroyed.
Not to mention thoughtless destruction - paper was rare, so it's not unheard of for monks to have erased priceless treatises by for example Aristotle in favour of a hymn or poem praising God.

The reason we still have as much Greek and Roman philosophy as we do isn't Christianity, it's Islam. After the Reconquista their scholars left behind a bunch of (copies of) ancient Greek and Roman documents that was in part responsible for the revival of interest in those areas in Europe.

That is also just not true from a religious doctrine standpoint either even going Off the western Roman church which evolved into the catholic one considering the stance of "virtous pagans".
To the contrary a Lot of sophistry and greek philosophy was kept around in catholic cannon and treatises.

Solar powered pocket calculator.

 Overread wrote:
I think its also important to highlight how simplified we are trying to make this discussion. Compressing thousands of years of Christianity and wide geographic spread as well into very short concepts is never ever going to work.

There will be periods of history when regions of Christianity were pro science and regions where it was anti science. Even with wide dictates from a central source you'd still have local variation, interpretations and so forth.

We'd have to actually drill down into specific regional and timeframe slots to start unjumbling it all; otherwise we can all make quite large blanket statements which will be "true" for different spots.

Completely agree. Christianity, like all long-lived cultural expressions, has been many things to many people over the centuries. Probably at least as many as there have been Christians.

We can argue about historical periods and who did what to whom and when all day long, and still not get at the crux of the issue.
What I've been trying to get at using history as an example is the more philosophical (but no less important) underlying issue that faith and reason simply do not mix.

But I think we've hijacked the thread into Dakka shady if not outright no-no territory enough. I'll bow out now. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, let's take it to PMs or another thread assuming the mods will let us.

why should they not mix?
because believing in a god somehow prevents reason, did Galileo's faith in god prevented him from doing his research?

Bran Dawri wrote:
Except that most of that is wrong.

well, first of all you mean parchment, not paper as paper was available but did not last very long
hence it was one of the main reason for the loss of writings between der 3rd and 6th century, as to keep things there was the need to copy it on new paper on a regular basis and with the end of the Roman Empire also the system of constant copying broke down
and it was the church that copied everything they could on parchment as that is the one that lasts but also is very expensive, like chain the books to the shelf expensive
(and was mainly used in central and northern Europe, while southern Europe used paper)

and no, Plato was not destroyed but it was the church that collected all the writings into 2 books that made the basis for all further copies and why we still know about his writings
in addition it was the other way around, bible texts were scratched off parchment to use for something more important (hence why we know about the difference of very early bible texts, as those were found underneath newer texts)

for the scientific research, it surbased antiquity already in the 8th/9th century on all fields, acting like there was no science done because the church did not like it is more a myth of the 19th century, like even Kupernikus was part of the clergy and saying that his work does not qualify as driving scientific research is just wrong
it was the church that came up with the idea of universities and developed what we call modern education

or what to you think science developed from, that in 1500 by a miracle they made 1000 years worth of research within 50 years just because the Italians read books they thought were lost in northern Europe, or the Spanish found arabic books writing about Plato

Bran Dawri wrote:

But I think we've hijacked the thread into Dakka shady if not outright no-no territory enough. I'll bow out now. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, let's take it to PMs or another thread assuming the mods will let us.

That is a good idea, though not a new thread as discussion of Religion is not allowed here as stated in the sticky at the top of the forum

 kodos wrote:
<snip>

Look man, I already said I'm bowing out because Dakka rules.
You want to have a conversation about this, send me a PM and we'll take it from there.

Assuming you're interested in a civil conversation. The tone of your writing here was kinda confrontational. I can do that, but I'd much rather have a normal talk.

Would the Romans have been able to make black powder? I don't mean for firearms, I mean just for mining and demolition purposes.
I think they would have as the method to make it doesn't seem too complicated, but I could be missing something.

Black Powder weaponised would certainly have given them a military edge. Even if you are only thinking of using it as a blasting charge, get some of that in a lit munition and load it into a mangonel and boom you've got flying bombs to disrupt your foes.

Yeah, blackpowder would be a good one.

I'm going to go with the scientific method in general though. Romans were pretty smart. Methodical too. Introducing methodological naturalism should be like taking a fish to water.

As a bonus? A case can be made that it was at least in part the economic and scientific progress that occurred after the Black Plague that made slave labour obsolete and finally allowed basic decency and empathy to take the reins and end slavery - at least in Europe and the Americas.

 Overread wrote:
Black Powder weaponised would certainly have given them a military edge. Even if you are only thinking of using it as a blasting charge, get some of that in a lit munition and load it into a mangonel and boom you've got flying bombs to disrupt your foes.

I reckon they would use black powder for mines rather than as shells. Explosive shells are really challenging, there is a reason that solid shot was the norm for so long, reliable shells are tricky. They were used in sieges because solid shot is much less effective out of a mortar but it is only in the 19th century that round shot is phased out for field guns.

Whereas undermining was already a standard tactic that black powder makes much more efficient when creating the breach. A similar use would be placing black powder charges at weak points (like gates) using a cat. Both of these would be very simple to implement into existing Roman military doctrine. A legion is a combat engineer unit and I'd expect gunpowder to be used by them in the manner used by combat engineers in later eras.

Black powder would also be a powerful advancement for industrial applications; that’s one area where it’s a real step change from human power. Hundreds of slaves and several months to dig this tunnel, or BOOM, and the rock is gone? Not really a choice.

Also lets face it, many of these inventions are not simply one concept on their own. They are a bunch of things that go with them.

You don't just get Black Powder - you get a bunch of methods for locating, extracting, refining, producing, transporting, utilizing and so forth.

Of course the Romans could have made black powder. Its just saltpeter, charcoal, and Sulphur. Its one of those things that you just have to accidentally discover the magic combo.

If they had, I have no doubt that firearms would have been made soon after. The military potential is too obvious, and unlike China where it was historically discovered the Romans have better metallurgy AND the constant demands of external warfare to make someone think of more creative ways to use it.

Speaking of metallurgy? How much difference would giving the Romans modern steel have made, if any?

I understand they had some knowledge of steel, but not very high quality? And again, shaky knowledge suggests it was improvement in the quality of metals, and a wider availability, which hastened the Industrial Revolution?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Speaking of metallurgy? How much difference would giving the Romans modern steel have made, if any?

I understand they had some knowledge of steel, but not very high quality? And again, shaky knowledge suggests it was improvement in the quality of metals, and a wider availability, which hastened the Industrial Revolution?

Considering the size of their army and the fact that steel has less attrition than iron and more applications.... and considering they were pretty much one of the most enginerically focused civilisations we ever saw. I dare say a whole lot. Lower military upkeep, better tools, better buildings. that is going to have knock on effects that would be massive.

Depends on what you mean by high quality. Compared to the 1900s, no. Compared to the rest of the world at the time, yes.

The thing need to start understanding is that steel vs iron is not a black and white thing. Its simply a gradient. Pretty much all iron tools have carbon content in the metal, and thus are actually a form of steel. Steel has technically been made since the late bronze age when iron forging became a thing. And by the time of the Roman empire forging techniques were being used that deliberately control the carbon content. So while nobody knew what was going on at a chemical level, they were being deliberate about what they were doing. So you can properly say they were making steel.

You could of course easily give the Romans technology to make blast furnaces, as well as designs for some lightly mechanized forges. Possibly reliant on water wheels or animal power. The main thing is you need to improve production quantities to really make industrialization possible. You can make small amounts of high quality steel even with fairly primitive forges, the issue is its tough to scale it up while maintaining the primitive production line. This is where anecdotes of particular smiths or regions making high quality product comes in. That region or particular smith has his own method which is making higher quality steel tools, but its their own technique that isn't readily shared and there isn't a knowledge of the underlying chemistry to reinforce it.

That leads me to a historical rabbit hole question of “when did we figure out what makes good steel good, and how”.

Which isn’t the purview of this thread, so I’ll look into it online, see if I can find reputable sources.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That leads me to a historical rabbit hole question of “when did we figure out what makes good steel good, and how”.

Which isn’t the purview of this thread, so I’ll look into it online, see if I can find reputable sources.

That is quite a broad question with different tiers. Nowadays we know about the role of impurities in the structure of the alloy. We've not had an understanding of elements and compounds for all that long. But you don't need that level of knowledge to know basic info about how different processes change the properties of the output, although the output is likely to be less consistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Re. blast furnaces- I think the earliest were in Bengal, which was probably the global leader in steel production for hundreds of years. It is thought that most "Damascus" steel* used Wootz billets traded from India, although some has been traced to local mines.


*Actual Damascus steel, not the type of pattern welding commonly marketed as such today.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 kodos wrote:
Science is a bad example, simply because christianity in the early centuries was a driving force behind it as understanding gods creating was a big part of it, as well as the clergy being the only one having the time to do studies that would last more than a single person's life

that science cannot contradict religion is much more modern and came up past medieval time when taking the bible literally was in important argument between the religious groups and also the scientist took the teaching literal (the arguments against Darwins theory did not came from the church but other scientist)

in the medieval period religion was not the problem for science but antiquity was, as ancient Rome and Greece was seen as superior and anything that those found was right (it was the Greek who did not opened human bodies but described the body by studying pigs, yet everything that was different was seen as rare mutation later as the Greeks cannot be wrong)

no one really claimed everything beneficial came from it, and the question is what "everything" is and what are western thoughts

democracy already exited prior but in a very limited way and killing opposition or people whose opinion the ruler did not like something normal
slaves being seen as humans and not just things or woman having rights, not so much

The reason we still have as much Greek and Roman philosophy as we do isn't Christianity, it's Islam. After the Reconquista their scholars left behind a bunch of (copies of) ancient Greek and Roman documents that was in part responsible for the revival of interest in those areas in Europe.

This is not entirely true. The revival of interest in those areas came first from the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders during the 4th Crusade.

The crusaders took everything they could (= they pillaged the city), including lots of old books and documents talking about those areas of interests. After that, when the crusaders came back in Europe (mainly through Italy), their influence spread to the Italian peninsula, which became the pinnacle of christian/european civilization for many european intellectuals. As a result, the other european christian kingdoms began a fierce competition to copy and surpass the Italian peninsula.

Islam and al-Andalus also played a role, no doubt about it. But their role was more in preserving the texts than in disseminating them or reviving their interest in the european christian world.

Fair enough. In neither case was the source or cause of preservation of the documents Christian (particularly Catholic) monks in Europe (Constantinople IIRC was the Vatican equivalent to Eastern Orthodoxy at the time) or a perceived reverence for ancient Greek thinkers though.

But again, off-topic and a Dakka no-no.

Dunno, in a purely historical context of who had stewardship at a given time and contributed to the preservation, it’s fascinating.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Fair enough. In neither case was the source or cause of preservation of the documents Christian (particularly Catholic) monks in Europe (Constantinople IIRC was the Vatican equivalent to Eastern Orthodoxy at the time) or a perceived reverence for ancient Greek thinkers though.

But again, off-topic and a Dakka no-no.

Indeed.

One last thing about the Eastern Roman Empire (to stay a bit on topic ), but the history of how the hatred between the western catholics and eastern catholics came to be is at the same time fascinating and absolutely sad. Forget religions entirely (the schism wasn't even that bad), its all politics and it was mainly plotted by one single crusader during the first crusade that hoped to one day rule the Byzantine Empire : Bohemond of Tarento (first prince of Antioch). To be fair, conquering lands and dynastic considerations were pretty fething important almost everywhere back then.

It's fascinating because his ambitions started with his father and because of how much a donkey-cave/genius he was regarding politics. His literally Machiavellian use of the role of frankish chroniclers during the first crusade and his political cunning combined with "modern" (for the time) means of propaganda (also used against other leaders of the crusade) are responsible for seeding the seeds of hatred between western and eastern catholics for many centuries to come.

Even though he ultimately failed at conquering the Byzantine Empire, his actions will have very long lasting consequences to the point that even in the late 1700s many western historians thought that the Byzantine Empire only got what it deserved.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course the Romans could have made black powder. Its just saltpeter, charcoal, and Sulphur. Its one of those things that you just have to accidentally discover the magic combo.

If they had, I have no doubt that firearms would have been made soon after. The military potential is too obvious, and unlike China where it was historically discovered the Romans have better metallurgy AND the constant demands of external warfare to make someone think of more creative ways to use it.

That's what I thought, and yet they hadn't. I guess it was just bad luck or they didn't have the opportunity to stumble on that discovery?

Make-up products not made of lead?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Of course the Romans could have made black powder. Its just saltpeter, charcoal, and Sulphur. Its one of those things that you just have to accidentally discover the magic combo.

If they had, I have no doubt that firearms would have been made soon after. The military potential is too obvious, and unlike China where it was historically discovered the Romans have better metallurgy AND the constant demands of external warfare to make someone think of more creative ways to use it.

That's what I thought, and yet they hadn't. I guess it was just bad luck or they didn't have the opportunity to stumble on that discovery?

More or less.

According to legend, the way black powder was discovered in China was with alchemists who were trying to make an elixir of immortality for the Emperor. Whether or not this is actually true, China did/does have a very long tradition of alchemy, folk medicine, mixing up random stuff and see what it does... While Alchemy did exist basically everywhere in the past, it was particularly noteworthy in China.

Its also worth noting that the discovery of Black Powder in China goes way back, long before anybody weaponized it. It was first mentioned in an alchemical text from around 142 AD, but using it as a weapon specifically didn't show up till nearly 1000 years later. So even after discovering it, it seems using it as a weapon or in fireworks may have taken a long long time.

Ancient times are always a bit of a mix when it comes to technology

On the one hand we know that trade was extensive the world over. There are loads of interconnected networks of trade, which can move goods and ideas over vast distances. Even if no one person on the chain really recognised how far a thing had gone nor how far it was going to go, the links let things move around a lot.



At the same time with things like guilds and the general greater segmentation of education and so forth; a good amount of knowledge sat in the minds of very few people. It was likely much easier to keep knowledge restricted when there's no War Thunder forum to post the secret documents on for the world to see

We made the assumption in this thread that we'd give the Romans as a whole nation/people a knowledge - however if you had a time machine and went back to give it to one person; that person could die (and the knowledge vanishes with them); or they could greatly restrict access too it.

Maybe they take that metallurgy knowledge and use it to make really good frying pans. A secret that they pass down father to eldest son and that the family protects because it brings them wealth (doesn't have to be insane wealth either, just has to be wealth etc).

So it never gets used for swords or to develop a myriad of other reliant technologies and discoveries because its never allowed out of a very limited population and with limited originality/inventiveness at its use.

Oh, absolutely! Indeed, you often find erroneous causation attributed to the end result.

Even centuries after the Romans, when the medieval smiths were making case hardened steel, they believed what was really doing the work was the quenching of the hot blade.

Specifically, according to Theophilius in 'Divers Arts', the best steel came from quenching in the urine of a red headed boy. And that was as late as the 1100s!

It is a very safe bet that any technology, while practically applied and understood, would have its underlying principles misinterpreted.

 Haighus wrote:

Antiseptics and a better understanding of why soap is important would maybe be a better option. The Romans had the plumbing and industry to support this if they wanted to.

Though on that note, not making the plumbing out of lead would've been useful advice for them.

While certainly not a great idea, lead pipes are far less of an issue than using it as a damn sweetener.

Voss wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Antiseptics and a better understanding of why soap is important would maybe be a better option. The Romans had the plumbing and industry to support this if they wanted to.

Though on that note, not making the plumbing out of lead would've been useful advice for them.

Given that I saw an article recently about the continued use of legacy lead piping in large areas of the US, because there’s no (or lax) regulation on the concentration of lead in public drinking water, I’d be careful about pointing fingers in that regard!

Found it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67585011

Voss wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

Antiseptics and a better understanding of why soap is important would maybe be a better option. The Romans had the plumbing and industry to support this if they wanted to.

Though on that note, not making the plumbing out of lead would've been useful advice for them.

I read somewhere that Romans were aware that lead was unhealthy, but they didn't have any other options to line the pipes with.
Don't know how that squares with using it as a sweetener; perhaps they found out it's bad afterwards.

People do lots of things they know are bad for them in the long run for short term effects. Look at the use of arsenic as make up.

I mean just look even at today with smoking and drinking, health is sacrificed pretty easily for the sake of getting a hit or buzz of some kind.

I avoided addictive substances because they sap the choice out of the situation. Most people who smoke start before the age of 18 (when they are not legally thought to be competent to make that choice) and are then chemically and psychologically addicted. Alcohol less so but smoking is often considered a paediatric epidemic. It just takes the next 50 years to actually disable and/or kill you.

It isn't an accident either, tobacco companies have worked very hard to get kids interested in their products, most recently in vapes.

We already have "quit vaping" ad campaigns now.

 Overread wrote:
We already have "quit vaping" ad campaigns now.

Having just taken delivery of this month’s vape capsules? Rightly so there should be quit vaping campaigns. And yes, they are targetting children.

Remember those cola flavour ice poles from when you were a kid? Cola flavour vapes taste exactly the same.

Tabs at least smell and taste rank. But vapes are sweet, and come in wider varieties.

Sure, vaping is better for me than tabs, at least so far as anyone is aware (they’ve not been around long enough for long term study). But it’s still an addiction to a pretty pointless drug.

I mean, booze gets me tiddly and can genuinely help one to unwind. And it’s pretty sociable when you’re out for food and drinks with friends. Heroine, Coke, MDMA all have tangible effects on your brain chemistry and make you feel good until the comedown, and a need to constantly increase your dose to chase the high.

But nicotine? Well, once addicted it makes you an intolerable anus when you don’t get it. But it doesn’t actually do anything.

The UK government is (was? It’s election year, so who knows) looking at banning flavoured vapes. And I’m absolutely in favour of that. The addiction is bad enough without adding fruity tasty flavours.

Yeah Vaping is big business and I can see a good many big smoking firms are pushing it and getting behind it because they can see that traditional smoking is being pushed out more and more and Vaping got an early free pass because it was one of the big "help you quit smoking" methods.

So the quit-vaping has a big uphill battle to fight to get there. I've also heard stories that some kids end up buying illegal vaping flavours which are like drugs - not overseen nor approved and can include nastier chemicals than standard.



I could certainly see a ban on flavoured vapes being a big help in cutting its popularity dramatically.

Cool. I've had limited opportunity to keep up with this thread, and its super-interesting to see where its led so far

Focus has definitely been on the romans due to my poor labelling. Are there any fundamental differences in how the Romans could have used the below compared to other early civilizations from elsewhere in the world?

There are some interesting groupings turning up.

Engineering based:
- Steam power
- Metallurgy (independently, and as part of other things like steam power)
- Balloons!
- Electricity
- Improved sail/ship design
- Solar powered calculator... (implicitly including electricity, microprocessors and LCD screens, which might be a bit of a stretch to maintain a logistics train for )
- Black powder
- Industrial metal production

Public health:
- Antibiotics
- Antiseptics/germ theory
- Safe water supplies
- Chemical safety in food and personal items (I would also add that things like asbestos have always been known to be hazardous, but they were used anyway as their benefits outweighed the perception of hazard at the time)

Communications/logistics:
- Semaphore
- Rail travel

Theory-based improvements:
- Scientific method
- Calculus
- Economic theory
- Abolishment of slavery

Not much on agriculture I note. I wonder if thats a symptom of the specialities and leanings of Dakkaites

I would therefore maybe add crop rotation (unless that was already known in antiquity and just rediscovered in the 17th century) and nitrogen fixing theory as a prelude to discovering synthetic or industrial production of fertilisers. Even in a slave owning society this should lead back to less effort required to feed the populace and therefore more people can spend more of the time thinking about things. There is even potential that the lower labour needs reduces the need to constantly source slaves, leading to pressure to stop the trade entirely.

A lot of the engineering examples above kicked in with the industrial revolution that was in turn fed by the agricultural revolution.

Definately agree with the possibility of knowledge being held secret and not being available to develop through group effort, so I will modify my OP conceit to consider this is effectively the development of a technical university intended to train successive generations of antiquitans.

The agriculture thing might be because we're all techy nerds, but as far as I know the Romans had a pretty good handle on agricultural productivity (certainly for the time), so I think it's just lower down the priority list.

 Jadenim wrote:
The agriculture thing might be because we're all techy nerds, but as far as I know the Romans had a pretty good handle on agricultural productivity (certainly for the time), so I think it's just lower down the priority list.

Ehh, still pre americas and therefore an improvement in agriculture wouldn't hurt.

Also slave based economy that morved into serf based economy isn't great for an empire, far too many hands on plows.

Improving their agriculture could actually be a bad idea if you don't also add other means of industrialization. Lots of unemployed former farm workers flooding the cities without any jobs for them to fill would be a recipe for disaster.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Improving their agriculture could actually be a bad idea if you don't also add other means of industrialization. Lots of unemployed former farm workers flooding the cities without any jobs for them to fill would be a recipe for disaster.

I don't think this would be a huge issue for the Romans.

Firstly, most of the agricultural labour (at least in the heartlands) was property, so in the worst case scenario they could just sell all their slaves to the gladiator pits.

Secondly, the Roman empire would probably try and recruit excess labourers into the military and use them on civil engineering projects. Very FDR when I think about it...

 Grey Templar wrote:
Improving their agriculture could actually be a bad idea if you don't also add other means of industrialization. Lots of unemployed former farm workers flooding the cities without any jobs for them to fill would be a recipe for disaster.

Well, the plagues took care of that beforehand considering the collapse of the WRE.

 Haighus wrote:

I don't think this would be a huge issue for the Romans.

Firstly, most of the agricultural labour (at least in the heartlands) was property, so in the worst case scenario they could just sell all their slaves to the gladiator pits.

Secondly, the Roman empire would probably try and recruit excess labourers into the military and use them on civil engineering projects. Very FDR when I think about it...

It would definitely be an issue for the empire, which was rich but constantly battling the weight of the size of its own economy. A big reason why they started paying frontier tribes to do the task of defending their borders for them was because they couldn't afford to do it themselves.

A big issue with a lot of more modern farming practice is that its focused on high yield high intensity farming. It relies on a whole bunch of other technologies to actually work in a sustainable way for longer than a few years. In fact in some areas (tropical) western style farming doesn't even work long term at all.

Transport would be a huge bottleneck. Sure you can make loads more food, but you still have to move it around to make it effective.

That said a lot of the lower densities of farming workers is based on the use of machinery. So if you gave them enough that they have farming machines and tractors then there's the ground roots right there for a transport revolution at the same time.

Otherwise if you don't give them mechanised farming then a LOT of the farming work is still labour intensive.

Just watching SG-1, and they’ve met the Tollan for the first time.

Daniel Jackson points out the Dark Ages, at least in Europe, held society back under a pall of religious oppression for around 800 years. And without that, we might already be exploring the galaxy.

Now artistic license aside, what could we have given The Romans that might help avert the Dark Ages?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just watching SG-1, and they’ve met the Tollan for the first time.

Daniel Jackson points out the Dark Ages, at least in Europe, held society back under a pall of religious oppression for around 800 years. And without that, we might already be exploring the galaxy.

Now artistic license aside, what could we have given The Romans that might help avert the Dark Ages?

The big problem with the Dark Ages is its not actually a time of primitive technolgy. It's just a period in history where written records are less well preserved and archived after the Roman era that was both insanely well documented and preserved on material that survived. Couple that to a few decades of media presenting it as a "dark age" and even the name itself. It's a quirky thing because its also the time King Arthur is supposed to be around which is always shown as an age of enlightenment, but "the Dark Ages" and "King Arthur" tend to be fairly well separated in common media presentations and such.

I'd also argue that the Dark Ages is a time of smaller empires than the vast Roman Empire that came before (even though there still major empires/kingdoms and so forth).




Also in Stargate terms they "could have" advanced into space in those 800 years but I suspect he's including "Because we discovered the Stargate centuries earlier and so forth" in that as well. Then again SG Dark Ages also has the Alien Merlin and super-tech rocking around so it gets a bit messy.



As for averting the Dark Ages and the fall of the Roman Empire, you likely have to go a long way back into it to help stop the eventual corruption/breakdown and so forth that happened over multiple generations that led to the weaknesses and fragments that eventually broke apart through internal pressure; and also to conquer and push out more so that the external threats were weaker

There was suppression and oppression of new ideas, where it seems the Greeks and Romans welcomed such advancements, or at least didn’t actively persecute someone for suggesting a heliocentric model etc.

That of course has to be balanced with widespread basic education being one of the reasons we’ve advanced so quickly in the past 150 or so years, and before that the wealth created by the agricultural and industrial revolutions (and the exploitation of worldwide empires) that allowed ever more young men to go off to University, spreading and building ever more knowledge.

So…perhaps the lessons of the Agricultural Revolution would pay dividends? After all, if your populace is well fed, they’re less likely to be disgruntled. And with agricultural labour pools reduced due to innovation and technology, we might see those workers redeployed to dig canals, build bigger road networks etc, to help better distribute the agricultural bounty?

I think the "Dark Ages" have been so heavily debunked as a concept that the name is avoided and the time period is generally referred to as the early medieval period now.

 Jadenim wrote:
The agriculture thing might be because we're all techy nerds, but as far as I know the Romans had a pretty good handle on agricultural productivity (certainly for the time), so I think it's just lower down the priority list.

There’s some kind of plow invented in China that doesn’t make it to Europe until the age of explorers that more than doubles the productivity of the oxen pulling the plows (ploughs?). Bringing that over a thousand or more years earlier could have huge ramifications for labor, possibly even starting g something like an Industrial Revolution.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
There was suppression and oppression of new ideas, where it seems the Greeks and Romans welcomed such advancements, or at least didn’t actively persecute someone for suggesting a heliocentric model etc.

Eh.

In which way? The Late Empire was basically just reaching back and applauding Plato as the best around. Is that really a 'new idea?' Education throughout the Roman period wasn't worth praising much. I mean their system basically consisted of Grammar, Grammar, and more Grammar. They didn't actually teach much else in general, and it remained Greeks who were largely responsible for many of the artistic and cultural achievements of the age. There's a reason the Eastern Empire became increasingly more Greek than Roman through the Middle Ages, though they still called themselves Romans.

The suppression and oppression narrative is largely a product of the Enlightenment and the Protestant reformation, who ascribed to the Catholic church of the early Middle Ages a level of power and influence the church would not possess for centuries after. But it was a version of events that people of the 16th and 17th centuries found very compelling for contemporary reasons and persists especially in the Anglophone world especially as a result of cultural momentum.

Was there a downturn in 'high culture?' Yeah, but it's a bit presumptuous for us to assume any culture that isn't high culture is inherently less valuable. If something set Western Europe back, it wasn't backwards thinking but economic strangle preventing the investment of significant resources into those pursuits, which would persist until the High Middle Ages. The 'dark age' was not the product of the people being backwards, but of a lack of opportunity to engage in the same forms of conspicuous consumption that defined the Empire's height.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
There’s some kind of plow invented in China that doesn’t make it to Europe until the age of explorers that more than doubles the productivity of the oxen pulling the plows (ploughs?). Bringing that over a thousand or more years earlier could have huge ramifications for labor, possibly even starting g something like an Industrial Revolution.

Also the mighty swine. Scale cultivation of pigs took time to fully set in in the western world and finally coincided with the aftermath of the Black Plague. Pigs made the production of meats much more accessible and affordable for commoners and the wealthy alike.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just watching SG-1, and they’ve met the Tollan for the first time.

Daniel Jackson points out the Dark Ages, at least in Europe, held society back under a pall of religious oppression for around 800 years. And without that, we might already be exploring the galaxy.

Now artistic license aside, what could we have given The Romans that might help avert the Dark Ages?

The problem with that is it’s massively Western biased. Even if you subscribe to the “Dark Ages” concept (which most archaeologists now do not, as others have observed), it didn’t happen in China. Or Japan and Korea. Or the Middle East, which actually ends up preserving a lot of the knowledge of the Classical World. Or even the Eastern Roman Empire, which keeps knocking around for another thousand years or so. Etc., etc.

The Roman Empire was unique in terms of its size and diversity, but not particularly in terms of technology or learning. There have been plenty of advanced civilisations over the millennia, but it’s only the last 300-years or so that we’ve pushed beyond them. That suggests that the Industrial Revolution was more of a fluke confluence of events than an inevitable progression.

Technologically, the "Dark Ages" actually saw basically no regression other than the loss of roman concrete.

It was really nothing more than a political fracturing which in retrospect was believed to be a dark age.


If you want a real Dark Age, the time after the Bronze Age Collapse would be a true one. An actual loss of technology and learning, though there was still some progress. We likely would not have gotten better at iron working for a long time if the Collapse never happened.

Well, do the Romans need improvements to their agriculture?
They were already a heavily agrarian society. Most of the improvements to our agriculture today came from the Industrial Revolution, which was, well, engineering.

So if you give the Romans tractors to increase their carry capacity, you're just giving them another bit of engineering.

I'm just not sure what we could offer them farming wise, given that they already seemed to have been doing just fine with what they already had.

The rise in agricultural pressures we have today is a direct result of improved living and health standards and access. Basically because we now have an insane population boom we need more food. It's often humbling to think that these grand ancient times had populations VASTLY smaller than we have today.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well, do the Romans need improvements to their agriculture?
They were already a heavily agrarian society. Most of the improvements to our agriculture today came from the Industrial Revolution, which was, well, engineering.

So if you give the Romans tractors to increase their carry capacity, you're just giving them another bit of engineering.

I'm just not sure what we could offer them farming wise, given that they already seemed to have been doing just fine with what they already had.

Food preservation, distribution, crop rotation to improve yield.

The more food you can produce, the better you can preserve it, and the more able you are to distribute it all helps mitigate the risk of localised famine or drought and social unrest that might arise from that.

It also benefits trade, as you can flood the market, lowering international prices, potentially impoverishing rivals and giving you the upper hand economically, or use food relief as a negotiation tool - especially handy if you’re expanding, and need to persuade at least some natives you’re the bees knees and to fight for you, because they’re guaranteed full bellies and as such healthier, longer living family members and children.

I'll give you crop rotation, but preservation and distribution requires industrial techniques and technology. You'll have to give them an entire technology base for those.

Hmm, I reckon that canal technology could be reasonable to provide the Romans for distribution.

Romans had a lot of hydro engineering know how and a lot of civil engineering capacity. An early Victorian level of canal engineering should be doable. That would allow better distribution of bulk goods including grain.

The Romans already knew how to build canals, I think. So any minor improvements and techniques would probably appeal to them and be easy to integrate.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I'll give you crop rotation, but preservation and distribution requires industrial techniques and technology. You'll have to give them an entire technology base for those.

You know, there is a technique that would be extremely easy to port back tothe Romans, and revolutionize their food preservation. Canning. They've already got amphora to spare, and can create airtight seals. All you need is the knowledge to boil the cans and bottles for long enough, and it will be preserved for a much longer period of time. Granted, they won't be up to modern standards, but that would advance food preservation by centuries. And even if fired clay wouldn't work, Romans had plenty of metal working industry. You don't even need to explain the germ theory, just show that it works and you're set.

Food preservation's a big one. The Romans were able to get vast quantities of food to the urban areas, but then had to organise vast food orgies to consume it all before it spoiled. That's why the word "vomitorium" exists. In Latin, anyway.

That one seems to have been debunked

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/vomitorium

Yeah, they did not actually eat to the point of vomiting just so they can eat again. That's an old myth.
I'm pretty sure they already used amphora and salt for food preservation, but I can see them taking the concept of canning and adapting it to their use.

Canning is also pretty simple to do. Granted, making the tins/cans isn’t something just anyone can do. But given canning was done on the American Frontier, Roman farms being considerably better established would most definitely have been able.

Even just making canned food last 12 months would be a major development I’d imagine.

Basic germ theory, like pasteurisation would pay dividends as well, as it helps ensure a healthy workforce, which is a productive workforce, whether you pay them or not.

Now I wonder if Rome had thermometers, and if not, when were those invented.

I love this thread!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Canning is also pretty simple to do. Granted, making the tins/cans isn’t something just anyone can do. But given canning was done on the American Frontier, Roman farms being considerably better established would most definitely have been able.

Even just making canned food last 12 months would be a major development I’d imagine.

Basic germ theory, like pasteurisation would pay dividends as well, as it helps ensure a healthy workforce, which is a productive workforce, whether you pay them or not.

Now I wonder if Rome had thermometers, and if not, when were those invented.

I love this thread!

Conceptually it's been around for a while. Galen was the one who proposed that hot and cold could be measured on a scale, and Philo of Byzantium created a pneumatic device that moves liquid in response to a vacuum formed by heat as part of an experiment, that was later expanded upon by Hero of Alexandria (who was also arguably the inventor of the first steam engine, funnily enough).

However, the thermometer that we know of today, that is, a sealed glass tube with a liquid inside that responds to temperature with precise measurements, was developed in the mid-17th century.
Prior to this you had thermoscopes, which are basically just thermometers except they didn't give precise values and just showed temperature differences. Those were invented in the late 16th century by Santorio.

Canning can be tricky. Get it wrong and its the ideal environment for botulism to develop, which is invariably fatal before the development of ventilators.

Canning would require the ability to make cans, or some analog like glass jars, in quantity. Even today canning has a moderately high failure rate, and that is with well made jars/cans, it would be pretty bad if you were making it artisanally.

Once you have cans and lids you can do it anywhere you can boil water, but making cans/glass jars and lids that could do a proper seal would be very difficult and expensive.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Canning would require the ability to make cans, or some analog like glass jars, in quantity. Even today canning has a moderately high failure rate, and that is with well made jars/cans, it would be pretty bad if you were making it artisanally.

Once you have cans and lids you can do it anywhere you can boil water, but making cans/glass jars and lids that could do a proper seal would be very difficult and expensive.

Yes, hence why I think rather than actual canning, it is more likely that they will use the concept of canning to make better amphora. Like, boil the jar so that it creates a vacuum seal or something.

It’d a horrible thought, but in terms of industry are we underestimating the application of manpower? Specifically unpaid, except for bed and board, slave labour?

Where we use a machine to stamp shapes into sheet metals, such a press could be man powered when you’re not having to worry about labour costs?

Romans had water power. With some updates to water-powered machinery, they could get basic industrialised stamping. But you'd need to bring that tech schematic back too.

 Haighus wrote:
Canning can be tricky. Get it wrong and its the ideal environment for botulism to develop, which is invariably fatal before the development of ventilators.

That is a very good point. Are there any ways to identify food that has become infested with botulism? I know we look for dents in cans, and especially deformed ones, but is there a distinct smell or taste?

Also, is there specifics on what needs to have been done wrong there?

For instance, not sterilising the receptacle, or undercooking the contents, not letting the contents cool before canning?

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
Canning can be tricky. Get it wrong and its the ideal environment for botulism to develop, which is invariably fatal before the development of ventilators.

That is a very good point. Are there any ways to identify food that has become infested with botulism? I know we look for dents in cans, and especially deformed ones, but is there a distinct smell or taste?

No, that's what's terrifying about it. Botulism infected foods taste and smell normal. You don't know until you know.
It's why you have to be very careful with cans of food; if there's deformation it could be a sign of bacteria growth, as botulism bacteria does release gas, iirc.
Botulism is also anaerobic, so perfectly sealing the can isn't going to stop its growth.
You have to make the receptacle completely inhospitable to it, which is why salting is so effective and as such has been a way to preserve food for millennia. It also cannot grow in dry mediums; it needs moisture to survive and spread.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, is there specifics on what needs to have been done wrong there?

For instance, not sterilising the receptacle, or undercooking the contents, not letting the contents cool before canning?

Letting the contents cool before canning is how you encourage it. Undercooking is the other issue

Canned food goes in hot and sterile, and is sealed that way. If the seal breaks, it can be contaminated, but as Cthulhu mentions Clostridium Botulinum is strictly anaerobic and dies in normal air, so very unlikely to form simply from a seal break. You will get normal nastiness though.

The other common cause traditionally is sausages. Botulism as a word derives from the Latin for sausage.

Very useful bacteria though. Even though it produces the deadliest toxin known to mankind, that toxin has loads of medical uses as botox. In truly miniscule doses of course.

Mad props for getting “as Cthuhlu mentions” into your response

So laid back and conversational an eldritch terror, so he is.

It gets lonely in R'lyeh. I just like to chat about history.

IIRC the actual cause of botulism is if contaminated food is improperly cooked prior to canning. So not high enough temperature or it cools after cooking and is then sealed in the anoxic environment of the can. The botulinum bacteria itself is not toxic, it is the waste products it produces while it is growing. IE: It poops poison, the longer it grows the more poison will be in the can. The bacteria is killed by cooking, the poison is not.

Food like this is safe to eat if consumed soon after canning before the botulinum can start growing. Its just RNG of if the food is both contaminated, improperly cooked, AND allowed to sit in the can for enough time as botulinum is very slow growing. All 3 have to happen for it to occur.


Assuming a modern can of food is properly cooked, and thus sterile, and the can never gets damaged while it is being stored the food inside will remain edible basically indefinitely. It'll only be palatable for a few years and the nutritional value of the food will degrade, but the Fallout experience of finding 200 year old canned food that is still edible is perfectly plausible.

You can think of it like an RNG roll every time a can is made.

You roll for if the food is contaminated prior to cooking, and what it is contaminated with. You roll for if the food is properly cooked. You roll for if the can is free of defects and is itself properly sterilized. You roll for if the food is placed and sealed in the can correctly.

If all of those are successful, the food will remain sterile and edible basically indefinitely assuming the cans are not disturbed till opened for consumption. Botulinum happens specifically when the food is both randomly contaminated with botulinum AND the roll for proper cooking is also failed, but the remaining two rolls also have to succeed to keep oxygen out of the can.

 Grey Templar wrote:
. The botulinum bacteria itself is not toxic, it is the waste products it produces while it is growing. IE: It poops poison, the longer it grows the more poison will be in the can. The bacteria is killed by cooking, the poison is not.

Correct, it is an example of true food poisoning (which is surprisingly rare compared to a GI infection). You don't need a lot of botulinum toxin though.

Its closely related to tetanus, which is also caused by a neurotoxin produced by Clostridium Tetani.