Submitted by Magister_Xehanort t3_xunphx in history
DoktorSpengler t1_iqysny9 wrote
Did they have the population for it?
Were they really there? I thought they made it to the point of being equivalent to the 15th century but never got any further technologically.
But they never found the Americas, so they didn't really have an Age of Empires
War_Hymn t1_ir3vp08 wrote
It's not just about population - China by the 1800s had a population approaching half a billion, but they had almost no industrialization compare to the Europeans at the time.
>Were they really there? I thought they made it to the point of being equivalent to the 15th century but never got any further technologically.
In terms of metallurgical technology, they were closer to 13th century Europe-level. Just looking at iron production, the Romans of the late Empire were still running dinky bloomery furnaces to smelt iron- not much different from the ones their forefathers were operating when their city was found.
Historic and archeological evidence suggest the Romans never produced more than a hundred pounds of iron from their furnaces, while European smelters by the time of the 1200s were already producing nearly a ton of iron per run from their larger furnaces (which were more efficient in terms of manpower and fuel consumption). By the 1300s, they were able to produce a few tons of iron from each furnace operation, which spelled out to a greater and cheap iron supply that helped pushed the adoption of plate armour, and then gun artillery.
DoktorSpengler t1_ir5tkcn wrote
Presumably, there is some minimal population that is a necessary condition for industrialization.
Thanks for all this information about their relative achievements. This is exactly what I was wondering about. Where did you learn all of this?
War_Hymn t1_ir7iqad wrote
>Presumably, there is some minimal population that is a necessary condition for industrialization.
On the Italian peninsula alone, the Roman population was at least 14 million by 200 CE - compare to Great Britain in 1800 CE at around 10 million.
> Where did you learn all of this?
Just stuff I've read over the years from various sources, I have a particular interest in industrial technology and history.
DoktorSpengler t1_ir7mbln wrote
>Just stuff I've read over the years from various sources, I have a particular interest in industrial technology and history.
What are you working for a think tank in Oakland? Stay strange, but stay sane.
Dahvtator t1_iqz4cts wrote
I think plagues and wars continually came around keeping the population down. As well as loss of their best arable lands. By the time the eastern roman empire was the only part left much of western europe had become much more productive and their populations were able to grow bigger.
Also i think your last point is a big factor. While rome was wealthy throughout its times the increase of wealth to the powerful western states by their access to the americas was massive. Constantinople finally fell in 1453. Columbus did his thing in 1492. Sadly rome never knew that the americas existed.
Reggie222 t1_ir0by2d wrote
Au contraire, they made it to the Americas twice that we're aware of, although there's no record of Romans returning from the new world. The ships that were found were most likely blown across the Atlantic by storm.
DoktorSpengler t1_ir13p7m wrote
Where is the evidence for this? I've never seen anything definitive.
Reggie222 t1_ir1e6wb wrote
I found it in a book called Ghosts of Vesuvius by Pellegrino.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments