>My recollection was that things kicked off with the first mechanized mills, locating along streams which used hydraulic or steam power for their energy.

That goes back to 3BC where the ancient greeks invented it, so I don't think that's a good candidate for the beginning of the industrial revolution. I get the association though, because it is a mechanical system harnessing non-animal power to do useful work.

https://www.greekboston.com/culture/ancient-history/water-mi...

No, that's true. But to add detail, this is how things kicked off in America particularly, in the late 1700s or early 1800's. The first American mills that could mass produce stuff were located along streams that used the turning of the waterwheels to do their work.

I didn't find the book I was thinking of, but I think I've identified one of the main characters I was thinking of, Richard Arkwright. You can see that his biography broadly tracks what I'm describing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Arkwright

And I think I found the line which you could call the 'origin story' of the Industrial Revolution - the invention of the Spinning Frame (a water powered automation machine, if you will).

> Arkwright and John Smalley of Preston set up a small horse-driven factory at Nottingham. To obtain capital for expansion, Arkwright formed a partnership with Jedediah Strutt and Samuel Need, wealthy nonconformist hosiery manufacturers. In 1771, the partners built the world's first water-powered mill at Cromford, which covered both carding and spinning operations and employed 200 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Arkwright

> To obtain capital for expansion, Arkwright formed a partnership with Jedediah Strutt and Samuel Need, wealthy nonconformist hosiery manufacturers.

This goes to u/qikInNdOutReply's point (cross-thread) about citizens with venture capital.

Knowing nothing about this, my hunch is there were many prerequisites.

Another interesting aspect (to me) is how some innovations (efforts) manage to avoid being snuff in their cribs. Everett's whole Diffusion of Innovation about the sociology of it all.

Mechanised mills existed in Roman times, but they didn't use them to mass produce textiles, they used them to grind flour for the local people. Similarly coal mining was around in Roman times (and they did transport that internationally) but Roman coal mines weren't deep pits pumped by steam engines. (The invention of the Newcomen engine is a good candidate for an early start date to the Industrial Revolution)

On a similar note, the Romans built quite a few canals, but "Canal Mania" in the UK involving a lot of capitalist ventures building extended transit networks across the UK is an arguable starting point for the Industrial Revolution

The romans had industrial scale water driven mills. But what you need to keep the running, when one emperor falls and another kingdom falters, is a empowered citizen ship with venture capital, that is out of reach of the king, making innovation resilient.

For me the industrial revolution started with the "familys" taking hold in the netherlands, england, germany - backing ventures, banking, becoming a powerhouse outside of the hierarchical power houses of olden times (king, serf) and not relying on militias, but lawyers, contracts and sometimes even rule of law (free cities).

Its the end of hierarchical anarchy (and yes, rome in some ways was just as anarchic if you fell out of grace with the emperor)..

What you're describing is more of a social revolution (upset of traditional societal structures). As always with history, the interesting question is whether the latter could have happened without the former.

Its a pre-requisit, as a wittness i call into court venecia, were free enterprise lead to the cities bloom and the return of the feudal ruling structure among its trade partners (osman empire) lead to the decline of this "italian" silicon valley back into obscurity.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Venice/The-commune

Which by deduction means, that you need a trade supporting eco-system, without taxation on the moving of goods. Oceans prefered. Which means, that hermit kingdoms waylaying is the biggest innovation embargo.

Walter Scheidel argues Roman Collapse started the IR. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172187/es...

> hierarchical anarchy

I have a vague idea what you're trying to describe but this phrase is completely self-contradictory.

Anarchy is the absence of hierarchies. I think you're using "anarchy" in its pejorative sense, roughly meaning "chaos" or "law of the jungle" but using it like this in a discussion about social structures is confusing at best.

I was always taught the industrial revolution started earlier than that with the work of people like Abraham Derby, the elder. For perspective, he died in 1717.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Darby_I

Jesus fuck people, the article is literally about new approaches to this.