Re:Why no Roman industrial revolution?
by dredmorbius on Friday August 26, 2022 @09:17PM
(#32614586)
Italy lacks coal and Rome had already deforested the peninsula. Iron takes phenomenal amounts of fuel.
The smelting could have occurred elsewhere --- the coal fields of norther Spain, France, or possibly Germany (I believe the Ruhr region corresponds to Roman conquest regions), or of course, Brittania. But then you'd need to have a far-removed high-tech industry and long-haul shipping of finished goods back to Rome or for trade elsewhere.
Common elements of industrial revolutions seem to be:
- A weak nobility and religious sector, relative to merchants and artisans.
- Extensive commerce, preferably by water.
- A stable political scene. It's interesting that island states adjacent to large continental regions feature in the rise of England / UK and Japan. Arguably the US was an "island state" relative to Europe. Madagascar, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand would be exceptions, though these lacked a well-developed neighbouring region at the appropriate time, and NZ is a long haul from the corresponding continent. Indonesia too, I suppose.
- Indigenous resource, especially of industrial inputs: coal and iron. Japan is betrayed by its volcanic geography here. Lots of mountains, relatively few minerals. (Though neighbouring China and Korea had extensive resources, generating strong interest and tumultuous history.)
Another factor for Rome was that it didn't need steel to defeat any of its enemies. Low-quality iron and bronze sufficed, along with logistics and empirical organisation, for the most part. (Until of course it didn't.)
Japan figured out steel, but was so iron-poor that its construction and carpentry are almost wholly based on wood-on-wood joinery to minimise the need for nails or screws. (Not that the latter were standardised until the 19th and 20th centuries.)
The smelting could have occurred elsewhere --- the coal fields of norther Spain, France, or possibly Germany (I believe the Ruhr region corresponds to Roman conquest regions), or of course, Brittania. But then you'd need to have a far-removed high-tech industry and long-haul shipping of finished goods back to Rome or for trade elsewhere.
Common elements of industrial revolutions seem to be:
- A weak nobility and religious sector, relative to merchants and artisans.
- Extensive commerce, preferably by water.
- A stable political scene. It's interesting that island states adjacent to large continental regions feature in the rise of England / UK and Japan. Arguably the US was an "island state" relative to Europe. Madagascar, Sri Lanka, and New Zealand would be exceptions, though these lacked a well-developed neighbouring region at the appropriate time, and NZ is a long haul from the corresponding continent. Indonesia too, I suppose.
- Indigenous resource, especially of industrial inputs: coal and iron. Japan is betrayed by its volcanic geography here. Lots of mountains, relatively few minerals. (Though neighbouring China and Korea had extensive resources, generating strong interest and tumultuous history.)
Another factor for Rome was that it didn't need steel to defeat any of its enemies. Low-quality iron and bronze sufficed, along with logistics and empirical organisation, for the most part. (Until of course it didn't.)
Japan figured out steel, but was so iron-poor that its construction and carpentry are almost wholly based on wood-on-wood joinery to minimise the need for nails or screws. (Not that the latter were standardised until the 19th and 20th centuries.)