The Romans did have some interesting technology, but one of the things to notice about it is that the highlights are all "imperial" biased: Sturdy roads, aqueducts, buildings, and military equipment are basically the things you want to have in order to consolidate and maintain power over a large area for a long period of time. One historiographical stance to take is that, rather than being a deterministic progression like a game of Civilization, a group of people can become trapped within a locally-optimal set of technologies and their attention diverted ("bread and circuses") from other possible breakthroughs while the political leaders squabble for control.
In contrast, technologies like the printing press have subversive uses and tie in directly to the political changes of the Renaissance.
The invention of the printing press is interesting.
There was a flourishing book trade in the Roman Empire, but like most everything else books were produced through slave labour, there was enough of it to go around - imagine a big room full of scribe slaves and a reader slave at the front dictating from the master copy. Even in a podunk backwater town like Oxyrhynchus you could buy mass-produced books of quality. What was different in the time of Gutenberg is that there was a demand for books again, but scriptoria couldn't keep up with it. Mass production of books just had to happen, and this time around it had to be done without a plentiful supply of literate slaves.
There is something to be said for idea that circumstances determine what inventions will be made - it seems that right now the best minds in Western civilization are hard at work at Wall Street and Facebook, as if the most pressing problems were how to work the stock market and how to make better targeted advertising.
That is an interesting thought, but actually I would say that there have never been so many people been inventing new important things at the same time.
Smartphones, new ways of communication (such as Facebook), finding information (Google, Wikipedia), artificial intelligence (such as deep learning), ... just to name a few examples from the technology field, one of many.
"Sturdy roads, aqueducts, buildings, and military equipment are basically the things you want to have in order to consolidate and maintain power over a large area for a long period of time." The first three are also the things you want to have, well, civilization. You know, clean water, the ability to conduct trade outside of your immediate area, etc. It's about economics, not control.
Strangely, policing roads is a major factor in civilization. If you can't get your goods to market in the next town because of road bandits, then the towns are effectively cut off from one another.
There's even an argument (somebody's thesis) that patrolling roads was the single greatest event (invention?) that led to the end of the so-called dark ages and the beginning of the Renaissance.
Let me see if I can remember the chain:
Safe roads led to trade, the return of currency as a valuable resource, the need of Lords for gold instead of cattle, oxen and straw which led to the rewriting of traditional peon contracts. Following that, inflation drove the Lords out of the counties to the cities, lifting the yoke of the local despots and freeing the country.
On counter though, like in a game of Civilization, a population prospers technologically when more basic needs are satisfied. It's thanks to the stability the Romans enjoyed that they were able to elevate it's society culturally and technologically.
Comments
What about roman concrete, I heard they also had the steam engine, but steam technology was regarded as useless because of the abundance of slaves.
Wikipedia seems to indicate that they were responsible for a number of technological advancements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology
The Romans did have some interesting technology, but one of the things to notice about it is that the highlights are all "imperial" biased: Sturdy roads, aqueducts, buildings, and military equipment are basically the things you want to have in order to consolidate and maintain power over a large area for a long period of time. One historiographical stance to take is that, rather than being a deterministic progression like a game of Civilization, a group of people can become trapped within a locally-optimal set of technologies and their attention diverted ("bread and circuses") from other possible breakthroughs while the political leaders squabble for control.
In contrast, technologies like the printing press have subversive uses and tie in directly to the political changes of the Renaissance.
The invention of the printing press is interesting.
There was a flourishing book trade in the Roman Empire, but like most everything else books were produced through slave labour, there was enough of it to go around - imagine a big room full of scribe slaves and a reader slave at the front dictating from the master copy. Even in a podunk backwater town like Oxyrhynchus you could buy mass-produced books of quality. What was different in the time of Gutenberg is that there was a demand for books again, but scriptoria couldn't keep up with it. Mass production of books just had to happen, and this time around it had to be done without a plentiful supply of literate slaves.
There is something to be said for idea that circumstances determine what inventions will be made - it seems that right now the best minds in Western civilization are hard at work at Wall Street and Facebook, as if the most pressing problems were how to work the stock market and how to make better targeted advertising.
That is an interesting thought, but actually I would say that there have never been so many people been inventing new important things at the same time.
Smartphones, new ways of communication (such as Facebook), finding information (Google, Wikipedia), artificial intelligence (such as deep learning), ... just to name a few examples from the technology field, one of many.
"Sturdy roads, aqueducts, buildings, and military equipment are basically the things you want to have in order to consolidate and maintain power over a large area for a long period of time." The first three are also the things you want to have, well, civilization. You know, clean water, the ability to conduct trade outside of your immediate area, etc. It's about economics, not control.
Strangely, policing roads is a major factor in civilization. If you can't get your goods to market in the next town because of road bandits, then the towns are effectively cut off from one another.
There's even an argument (somebody's thesis) that patrolling roads was the single greatest event (invention?) that led to the end of the so-called dark ages and the beginning of the Renaissance.
Let me see if I can remember the chain: Safe roads led to trade, the return of currency as a valuable resource, the need of Lords for gold instead of cattle, oxen and straw which led to the rewriting of traditional peon contracts. Following that, inflation drove the Lords out of the counties to the cities, lifting the yoke of the local despots and freeing the country.
On counter though, like in a game of Civilization, a population prospers technologically when more basic needs are satisfied. It's thanks to the stability the Romans enjoyed that they were able to elevate it's society culturally and technologically.