Submitted by Magister_Xehanort t3_xunphx in history
AgoraiosBum t1_iqxb856 wrote
I'd say to sum up, it was from being an agrarian slave state vs a proto-capitalist merchant state with heavy interest in scientific advancement.
doctorcrimson t1_iqzg2wt wrote
Not to mention they were destroyed by mobs of barbarians, no offense to the French and Germans, and lacked much of the mathematics and scientific understanding to progress.
AgoraiosBum t1_ir1oyjf wrote
That didn't matter; the Romans weren't on the verge of a big tech or science breakthrough by 200 AD.
That's the point of the article; it took the confluence of a whole bunch of unique factors to make the creation of an engine and then decades of further investment to refine it even worthwhile.
doctorcrimson t1_ir2yhj8 wrote
I don't think engines have any real place in this discussion. Almost completely nonsequitur, a better example would be things like even the basics of modern chemistry, efficient manpowered or mill powered machinery, or architecture. Not to say romans were bad builders or that their food preservation was poor, far from it, they simply hit their limits far before what would imply an industrial revolution of the time period.
bjornbamse t1_iqzj53i wrote
Yeah, Roman math sucked. Indian math was really good and it was really the foundation of the math we use today.
But Romans were really good at logistics and manufacturing. That's something that India lacked.
War_Hymn t1_ir3rwsq wrote
India was one of the largest manufacturer in the world up until the late 1700s, I will think they were on par with the Romans in terms of craftsmanship know-how during the relevant time. The 5th century Iron Pillar of Delhi is a testament to this, a 6-tonne monument of forged iron that even the Romans would had been hard pressed to create.
[deleted] t1_iqz0b5f wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iqzb8m5 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments