Stagnation of Technology?

Is there any evidence for development of technology and increases in labor productivity over different periods?

On the military front, the technological gap between various tribes and the Romans shrank. My layman's understanding is that after the period of around 0-100 the introduction of new devices and technologies vastly reduced. If anything, the quantity of slave labor available seems to have reduced the drive for innovation.

What about mathematical and other scientific studies after 0 AD?

Technology did not appreciably develop in terms of 'scientific' advance, merely in terms of application of existing ideas (often other cultures but there you go) and some increasing sophistication. There wasn't much need for technical advance in the Roman world. As they became the dominant power they were strong enbough not to require technical advances as a means of winning domination, especially since Rome was intrinsically a conservative culture to begin with. Science as such was always a bit dodgy to the superstitious Roman mind since it was aping the powers of the gods. Also, why would a nobleman risk his reputation in a competitive cultural and politcal arena by investing in research? Surely a wealthy man demonstrates his wealth to his advantage by public largesse and the visible beneficence of slave labour? Science was also something very 'Greek' in Roman minds, and Greeks were.. well.. not to be trusted.

Science was also something very 'Greek' in Roman minds, and Greeks were.. well.. not to be trusted.

There were numerous scientific advances during the Hellenistic period prior to the Roman takeover. For example Hero of Alexandria:

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...hero+alexandria

Do you think that Roman Imperialism inhibited Greek Scientific thought, and could have there been further scientific advances if the Hellenistic had been able to resist the Romans?

Technology did not appreciably develop in terms of 'scientific' advance, merely in terms of application of existing ideas (often other cultures but there you go) and some increasing sophistication. There wasn't much need for technical advance in the Roman world. As they became the dominant power they were strong enbough not to require technical advances as a means of winning domination, especially since Rome was intrinsically a conservative culture to begin with. Science as such was always a bit dodgy to the superstitious Roman mind since it was aping the powers of the gods. Also, why would a nobleman risk his reputation in a competitive cultural and politcal arena by investing in research? Surely a wealthy man demonstrates his wealth to his advantage by public largesse and the visible beneficence of slave labour? Science was also something very 'Greek' in Roman minds, and Greeks were.. well.. not to be trusted.

Very clear answer, thanks. I suppose that's a real difference between the scientific revolution and one of the reasons it didn't happen in ancient rome. In renessiance Europe, science was a prestidgious pursuit for nobility. Not so in ancient rome.

Technology did not appreciably develop in terms of 'scientific' advance, merely in terms of application of existing ideas (often other cultures but there you go) and some increasing sophistication. There wasn't much need for technical advance in the Roman world. As they became the dominant power they were strong enbough not to require technical advances as a means of winning domination, especially since Rome was intrinsically a conservative culture to begin with. Science as such was always a bit dodgy to the superstitious Roman mind since it was aping the powers of the gods. Also, why would a nobleman risk his reputation in a competitive cultural and politcal arena by investing in research? Surely a wealthy man demonstrates his wealth to his advantage by public largesse and the visible beneficence of slave labour? Science was also something very 'Greek' in Roman minds, and Greeks were.. well.. not to be trusted.

 

Very clear answer, thanks. I suppose that's a real difference between the scientific revolution and one of the reasons it didn't happen in ancient rome. In renessiance Europe, science was a prestidgious pursuit for nobility. Not so in ancient rome.

I agree that there were several factors limiting the adoption of new technologies in the Roman period. Nonetheless, I find it compelling that the conservative Roman elites that failed to take technological advantage of Greek science were part of a slave aristocracy. This contrasts with the non-slave owning aristocracy of the Renaissance whose nobles delighted in gaining new scientific knowledge for their own and society

I agree that slavery inhibited adoption of technology, but adoption isn't the same as innovation. Was there any technology created during the Renaissance that compares with the steam engine, the Antikythera mechanism, or the invention of concrete? Maybe -- but I don't know what it would be.

Also, let's not forget the massive gains in labor productivity brought about by the specialization and trade that flourished under the umbrella of the Pax Romana. Archaeological evidence points to several such gains (and losses). Iron age tribes that had previously raised scrawny cattle now had the capacity to feed cattle during the winter months, leading to a massive increase in average size -- once the barbarians came, the cattle returned to their Iron age scrawniness. Iron age tribes that had previously lived under moldy, unhealthy thatched roofs were covered by more durable tile roofs -- until the barbarians came, and the thatched roof crept back. Same story for pottery. Covering Spain, Gaul, and Britain with all these industrial goods -- and they *were* industrial goods -- couldn't have happened unless someone, somewhere increased the number of goods they produced, and since the hours in the day didn't increase, it must be supposed that someone, somewhere increased the number of goods they produced per hour. That's an increase in labor productivity.

Was there any technology created during the Renaissance that compares with the steam engine, the Antikythera mechanism, or the invention of concrete? Maybe -- but I don't know what it would be.

Gun, clock, caravel, printing press, carriage suspension, the Indies...

Was there any technology created during the Renaissance that compares with the steam engine, the Antikythera mechanism, or the invention of concrete? Maybe -- but I don't know what it would be.

 

Gun, clock, caravel, printing press, carriage suspension, the Indies...

I'm not sure that you can really count 'the Indies' as a technological invention although it was one primary result of a series of improvements in sailing technology. As to 'carriage suspension' I would argue that early experiments in this were actually undertaken during the Iron Age into the Roman period even if they were not as technologically advanced as those undertaken during the Renaissance.

Gun, clock, caravel, printing press, carriage suspension, the Indies...

Nice examples. It doesn't really undermine my point though -- there's a distinction between invention and adoption. It could be that slavery undermined adoption more than innovation per se.

I think the slavery angle is overstated. Certainly part of it, but what was more important was the lack of 'scientific' thinking amongst Romans. It wasn't that they didn't innovate within their culture (which was composed of their conquered and annexed populations too) but that there was no incentive to do so. I saw a tv program once that pointed at marks made in stone at a quarry used in Roman times. Apparently these quarrymen were using a three bladed stone cutter powered by water. An industrial innovation which no doubt helped their profits - an important factor, if not the most vital consideration in Roman minds. Would they communicate the secret of their success? I seriously doubt it. Why help your rivals?

In order for science to develop you need to communicate ideas. Clearly the Romans weren't so inclined, so whilst the talent and inclination existed, it never took root on anything more than a local scale and then only if it worked reliably.

On the other hand, there is evidence that technology was lurking on the bottom rank of Roman mentality. Plumbing for instance ended up with a set standard for lead pipes and brass bronze joints (Sorry about the gaffe there). We read of odd contrivances such as Nero's rotating dinner hall or the triton rising out of the lake to announce the beginning of Claudius's staged sea battle. There were definitely clever people around who knew how these things were made.

It all comes back to money and making a living. If you know how these build these things, what incentive do you have to teach or show others how to do it? Those with the money to spend, such as wealthy people trying to impress the public with entertaining diversions, were generally conservative and image concious people who didn't want to be seen as patronising strange machines that fail spectacularly. So one might assume that you needed a certain level of confidence before you approached the important patrons with your ideas to begin with. A spectacular failure might end up with you taking your place in a spectacularum for the crowds edification and delight.

A failure to adopt? Certainly, but money was often driving those decisions.

The transatlantic slave trade was at it's highest during the First Industrial Revolution and technological advances like the cotton gin led to the spread and survival of slavery. And this slave trade was of course the result of scientific and technological innovations and adoptions starting with the caravel and the sugar cane.

In Antiquity the Hellenistic/Republic period had an abundance of slaves but also was more innovative then other periods including in the areas of science and technology .

I do not believe in a correlation between slavery and creativity.

The transatlantic slave trade was at it's highest during the First Industrial Revolution and technological advances like the cotton gin led to the spread and survival of slavery. And this slave trade was of course the result of scientific and technological innovations and adoptions starting with the caravel and the sugar cane.

In Antiquity the Hellenistic/Republic period had an abundance of slaves but also was more innovative then other periods including in the areas of science and technology .

I do not believe in a correlation between slavery and creativity.

And in the 20th century the Third Reich was one of the most (if not the most) technologically advanced regimes, and it essentially used slave labor to maximize productivity.

And in the 20th century the Third Reich was one of the most (if not the most) technologically advanced regimes, and it essentially used slave labor to maximize productivity.

That's demonstrably false. Looking at the radar, rocketry, computational power, aerospace and atomic power of the 20th Century, the Third Reich was a bit player, and its use of slave labor wasted more productivity than it gained.

The transatlantic slave trade was at it's highest during the First Industrial Revolution and technological advances like the cotton gin led to the spread and survival of slavery. And this slave trade was of course the result of scientific and technological innovations and adoptions starting with the caravel and the sugar cane.

In Antiquity the Hellenistic/Republic period had an abundance of slaves but also was more innovative then other periods including in the areas of science and technology .

I do not believe in a correlation between slavery and creativity.

If you don't believe in a correlation between slavery and the spread of technology, what is the argument you're making with respect to the cotton gin? If there's no correlation, what's your point?

I do not believe in a correlation between slavery and creativity.

 

If you don't believe in a correlation between slavery and the spread of technology, what is the argument you're making with respect to the cotton gin? If there's no correlation, what's your point?

I understood his point differently. I think he was trying to say that he didn't think that the institution of slavery inhibited creativity (based upon his previous statements)