Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.