Creating energy, but only in specific locations, doesn't have the broader social impact.
And similarly, many applications require a minimum level of power (say, 2x horse) before they're fundamentally transformed.
The industrial revolution was, from my perspective, an ouroboros of the means to produce power increasing our means to produce those means, and out of novel raw materials.
Or, in other words... at some point the Romans had deforested their environs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Rom...
In 1840 the amount of steam power per worker in England was the same as in 1750. Total horsepower from steam only just matched water power in 1830.
And that was in the country using the most steam by far.
1. https://daviskedrosky.substack.com/p/a-study-in-steam
I recommend Dr. Kedrosky's blog in general, if you are interested in material progress.
That does not mean that innovations like the train and motors didn't transform society.
Once you have a steam engine you can spin cotton, you can have trains, steamboats and later, turbines connected to generators in power plants.
It's a big upgrade from windmills, horses and mules.
And you cannot have a steam engine without knowing about the gas laws, laws of motion, etc. So advances in math, physics and chemistry to extends that were unknown to the romans were necessary to get to a steam engine.
You also cannot have an steam engine without having pistons, crankshafts, etc. Some of them were known to the Islamic civilization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ingenious_Devices
So... no! Steampunk romans could not have been a thing.