Technological growth

[metforce]

By the end of the fifth century slave labor was anything but "cheap". Emperors desperate for soldiers tried to force the great landowners to provide recruits from their coloni or slaves. The great landowners protested and the emperors eventually relented and allowed them to commute their recruits for fixed sums to the treasury (5 solidi or 5lbs of silver); this makes it appear highly unlikely that "slave" labor was abundant or cheap by this time.

These prices tell us almost nothing without knowing the price of free labor. As it is, even if the worth of a slave was 5 solidi, this cost has to be divided over the working life of a slave.

 

Lack of technological advancement may have been due to a lack of desire by the top rungs of Roman society.

 

Given that most technological advances have not been at the hands of aristocrats during any era, how can the lack of desire by Roman aristocrats explain the fact that the growth rate in the Imperial period was less than that experienced from the era of the Enlightenment to the modern age?

 

 

The price wouldn't be the value for the slave but for the recruit. If anything this would seem to support my assertion that the laborer was quite valued by the land owner (that he would rather exchange gold for the work of a slave or coloni on his estate). I would also think that the slave value would be greater if he/she possessed some type of needed skill. This doesn't seem to support the "cheap" labor argument, otherwise the estate owner would gladly turn over his coloni or slaves because they could be easily and cheaply replaced.

 

Whoa on the second comment. Example: Ben Franklin was a wealthy gentleman (self made I'll admit). His experiments with electricity and observations of the weather lead certainly advanced our understanding of the natural world. Many of the founding fathers of America tinkered in the sciences. If you read Sidoneous' letters you get the impression that he just wasn't interested in many things other than writing long letters and enjoying his estates with his family and friends.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Given that most technological advances have not been at the hands of aristocrats during any era, how can the lack of desire by Roman aristocrats explain the fact that the growth rate in the Imperial period was less than that experienced from the era of the Enlightenment to the modern age?

Whoa on the second comment. Example: Ben Franklin was a wealthy gentleman (self made I'll admit). His experiments with electricity and observations of the weather lead certainly advanced our understanding of the natural world. Many of the founding fathers of America tinkered in the sciences. If you read Sidoneous' letters you get the impression that he just wasn't interested in many things other than writing long letters and enjoying his estates with his family and friends.

 

Ben Franklin is almost a perfect case for my point. He wasn't an aristocrat, but initially an indentured servant. Only after he left indentured servitude did he begin his remarkably productive career, and it was his free and creative labor that created his wealth. Moreover, as he became wealthier, he didn't increase the rate of innovations, as your account predicts. I'd also point out that there is a huge difference between tinkerers and innovators. Jefferson, for example, was a magnificent tinkerer, but I can't think of a single product that he invented that he saw through to completion--i.e., actual, widescale manufacture. In contrast, people like Eli Whitney and Josiah Wedgwood (not aristocrats) not only invented new products and methods, but put them to use and to market.

[metforce]

Given that most technological advances have not been at the hands of aristocrats during any era, how can the lack of desire by Roman aristocrats explain the fact that the growth rate in the Imperial period was less than that experienced from the era of the Enlightenment to the modern age?

Whoa on the second comment. Example: Ben Franklin was a wealthy gentleman (self made I'll admit). His experiments with electricity and observations of the weather lead certainly advanced our understanding of the natural world. Many of the founding fathers of America tinkered in the sciences. If you read Sidoneous' letters you get the impression that he just wasn't interested in many things other than writing long letters and enjoying his estates with his family and friends.

 

Ben Franklin is almost a perfect case for my point. He wasn't an aristocrat, but initially an indentured servant. Only after he left indentured servitude did he begin his remarkably productive career, and it was his free and creative labor that created his wealth. Moreover, as he became wealthier, he didn't increase the rate of innovations, as your account predicts. I'd also point out that there is a huge difference between tinkerers and innovators. Jefferson, for example, was a magnificent tinkerer, but I can't think of a single product that he invented that he saw through to completion--i.e., actual, widescale manufacture. In contrast, people like Eli Whitney and Josiah Wedgwood (not aristocrats) not only invented new products and methods, but put them to use and to market.

 

Good points for sure. History seems littered with individuals who showed some signs of our modern age. It just seems that we as a culture have spawned this insatiable appetite for "getting more for less". Not sure what makes this difference in philosophy between those of us who dwell in the modern age and those who are ancient history. Maybe it's just something more esoteric, I don't know. I'm just not convinced the ending of slavery or serfdom caused the great leaps in technology and understanding. I would hope that it was the other way around; that we've advanced so much that we've outgrown the confines of ancient thought. A bit philosophical but when it comes down to it are we actually happier than those who lived in ancient times?

[caldrail]

No, we're not, especially from the perspective of the romans. Its true there was terrible poverty back then just as now, but life was usually simple. I think people were often friendlier in day to day dealings too. The flip side of course, is that life was often bloodier and always a great deal shorter.

[eggers]

Please tell me if i'm being naive, but isn't one of the best drives for technological advance just sheer competition. In an imaginary world say you we a farmer, ploughing away with oxen, when the farmer next door suddenly pulls past in a tractor, you going to not let that pass, u want one too, and so you and ur next door neighbour start having an arms race of sorts etc etc.

I'm aware that this is an incredible over over over simplication, but couldn't it be possible, that the romans never really were stuck in a cold war situation where the best technology wins. I'm aware of their various enemies, and that some were very technologically advanced for there time. But in Romes case (as far as my limited knowledge allows me to see, i'm very busy so i don't swot up much on history anymore) If the roman wanted something someone else had, they stretched their military arm a grabbed it. Well not in late roman empire so much, granted. But my point is simple, if there is no enemy constantly threatening you with new technology every month or so, the drive to create new technology stagnates too. So maybe it's not so much a slave vs machine, just if theres nothing upsetting the status quo, why upset it yourself (if your rich).

tell me if im terribly wrong here peeps, i'm here to learn after all.

[metforce]

Please tell me if i'm being naive, but isn't one of the best drives for technological advance just sheer competition. In an imaginary world say you we a farmer, ploughing away with oxen, when the farmer next door suddenly pulls past in a tractor, you going to not let that pass, u want one too, and so you and ur next door neighbour start having an arms race of sorts etc etc.

I'm aware that this is an incredible over over over simplication, but couldn't it be possible, that the romans never really were stuck in a cold war situation where the best technology wins. I'm aware of their various enemies, and that some were very technologically advanced for there time. But in Romes case (as far as my limited knowledge allows me to see, i'm very busy so i don't swot up much on history anymore) If the roman wanted something someone else had, they stretched their military arm a grabbed it. Well not in late roman empire so much, granted. But my point is simple, if there is no enemy constantly threatening you with new technology every month or so, the drive to create new technology stagnates too. So maybe it's not so much a slave vs machine, just if theres nothing upsetting the status quo, why upset it yourself (if your rich).

tell me if im terribly wrong here peeps, i'm here to learn after all.

 

 

That's actually a good point (about competition). I would counter that the Romans did have a huge rival (the Persians) during most of their history. The driver in this point was warfare, which the Romans excelled at. The adoption of calvary in the late Roman period war a response to the heavily armored Cataphract the persians employed. In the relm of commerce there didn't seem to be this driver. Most of the Roman nobility was content to run their estates as their ancestors did. While commerce had its rewards it seems that most of the wealthy frowned on it. Your arguments have merit, I just don't think the Roman culture really grasped the concept.

[Pertinax]

I was wondering about this very thing, but in a more abstract way-in fact its so abstract im not sure its an articulate point-what was the Persian world view? What was their consciousness in relative standing to the Romans? Were they as firmly centered in notions of law/religious certitude and martial excellence? Did they have an Imperial mind set? This was something I was going to put forward in the " ask the expert " arena but I feared that it was too tenuous a topic...any Parsii/Persian/Iranian experts out there?

 

I have a longstanding fascination with the Clibanarius as a pre-Medieval "knightly" figure in terms of prestige/honour in a clan setting.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...&cmd=si&img=575

[caldrail]

I was wondering about this very thing, but in a more abstract way-in fact its so abstract im not sure its an articulate point-what was the Persian world view? What was their consciousness in relative standing to the Romans? Were they as firmly centered in notions of law/religious certitude and martial excellence? Did they have an Imperial mind set? This was something I was going to put forward in the " ask the expert " arena but I feared that it was too tenuous a topic...any Parsii/Persian/Iranian experts out there?

 

I have a longstanding fascination with the Clibanarius as a pre-Medieval "knightly" figure in terms of prestige/honour in a clan setting.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...&cmd=si&img=575

 

I'm not a persian expert, but....

 

The clibanarii did not have the same 'knightly' worldview as the noble cavalry of medieval times. They were only common soldiery, although a certain amount of status and prestige always follows men who go to battle protected better than their comrades.

 

Martial excellence was important to persians, but on an individual level as opposed to the romanic organised approach. Archery was a vital component of the persian arsenal and generally speaking they were very very good at it.

 

I think the persians get ignored sometimes - they deserve better. After all, they kept the romans busy for centuries.

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

After a little reading on these people, I am struck by the resemblance of their society to the western medieval, albeit with an oriental flavour. They were every bit as cruel as the romans, possibly more so in their dealings with peasants. Apparently they were quite good at siegecraft too.

Edited May 14, 2006 by caldrail

[M. Porcius Cato]

Please tell me if i'm being naive, but isn't one of the best drives for technological advance just sheer competition.

Yes, competition is a huge incentive to adopt and invent new technology, but only if the technology is labor-saving. Some technology is purely for luxury (e.g., heated pools). I suppose you could argue that heated pools spread like wildfire throughout the Roman world because everyone wanted to keep up with their neighbors, but I suspect that the intrinsic value of a heated pool would be sufficient to explain why Romans adopted them so quickly.

 

But my point is simple, if there is no enemy constantly threatening you with new technology every month or so, the drive to create new technology stagnates too. So maybe it's not so much a slave vs machine, just if theres nothing upsetting the status quo, why upset it yourself (if your rich).

 

Again, military technology is only a small part of the technological world. There were plenty of advances in daily life that spread throughout the Roman world--advances in the mass production and delivery of pottery, tiled roofs, mining, agricultural equipment, and so forth. For example, the screw-press crusher of grapes was a Roman advance that held enormous practical benefits for the production of wine, and once invented in Italy it quickly eclipsed the Greek press throughout the Mediterranean.

[Kosmo]

Finley did it!

He said that technolgy did not evolve and he was convincing, so, I believed him. Roman technolgy evolved in all aspects of life until the end of the empire. Many innovations that were claimed to be made in Middle Ages were already in large scale use in the roman empire.

And rich people wanted to get richer. as always, especially as status depended on wealth more then in other civlisations.

Regarding slavery I must point that it was not in contradiction with innovation as the later development of cotton gin and the use of steam engine in Caraibeean sugar plantations proves.

If we say that a strong motif to develop technology is to need labour saving devices (a thing that I disagree with) then the demograhic decline of the empire was a good enough motif.

I believe that romans improved existing technolgy, they diffused it in backward areas and made innovations.

[Kosmo]

A good article on the subject: Machines, Power and the Ancient Economy, by Andrew Wilson in The Journal of Roman Studies

[Ludovicus]

Roman technolgy evolved in all aspects of life until the end of the empire. Many innovations that were claimed to be made in Middle Ages were already in large scale use in the roman empire.

 

 

I would be interested in knowing those Roman inventions wrongly ascribed to the Middle Ages. Can you provide a list? Thanks.

[Kosmo]

The use of water mills for grinding grains but also for other tasks like crashing ore and cutting stone. The tehnolgy did not have any major improvements from roman level until XIX century.

Complex water lifting devices for irrigations considered as arab, but wide spread since ptolemaic Egipt. This were diffused by romans.

The increase in size of some domestic animals including horses.

Better ways of horse control and of cart construction.

Mining tehnolgy with large scale use of water. Etc.

[caldrail]

Please tell me if i'm being naive, but isn't one of the best drives for technological advance just sheer competition. In an imaginary world say you we a farmer, ploughing away with oxen, when the farmer next door suddenly pulls past in a tractor, you going to not let that pass, u want one too, and so you and ur next door neighbour start having an arms race of sorts etc etc.

I'm aware that this is an incredible over over over simplication, but couldn't it be possible, that the romans never really were stuck in a cold war situation where the best technology wins. I'm aware of their various enemies, and that some were very technologically advanced for there time. But in Romes case (as far as my limited knowledge allows me to see, i'm very busy so i don't swot up much on history anymore) If the roman wanted something someone else had, they stretched their military arm a grabbed it. Well not in late roman empire so much, granted. But my point is simple, if there is no enemy constantly threatening you with new technology every month or so, the drive to create new technology stagnates too. So maybe it's not so much a slave vs machine, just if theres nothing upsetting the status quo, why upset it yourself (if your rich).

tell me if im terribly wrong here peeps, i'm here to learn after all.

 

In the roman world, we have a very superstitious population. Ok not everyone is and some thumb their noses at such things, but the world was a frightening place for romans. A storm was not bad weather, it was an act of the gods. A river was not just flowing water, it was the dwelling or property of gods who might not let you cross safely. An invention isn't necessarily good. It might upset the gods and bad luck will follow. Many wealthy romans simply saw no reason to sponsor technological stuff because they already had enough labour to the job, that did the job reasonably well, that could be told to do someting else, that could be told to do it elsewhere. A machine in those days was probably fixed in place, suffered breakdowns, and could easily make the owner look a fool. Now some machines were useful . We see the romans using siege engines and artillery very effectively. Water pumps were useful because it made extraction in volume so much better, although I would note that many of these were slave driven as opposed to animal driven. There was even a stone cutting device driven by water flow. But devices like these were rarely widespread. They were used in one place and gave that industry an advantage. Which is another reason why technology did not spread or perhaps was even supressed. It gave your advantage to your rivals. So in the roman world we have a situation where technology is useful sometimes provided it works and doesn't upset the gods, but where ideas often fall on stoney ground. Remember that if a slave had a bright idea - "Master, why not build a device that does this?" - he gets slapped back into place in all likliehood. Wealthier men would not risk fortunes on foolish enterprises. To do so would invite disaster.

Edited November 12, 2006 by caldrail

[Kosmo]

Most of roman agriculure in the Mediterranean was based on irrigation and that needs lots of money.

Also private mine owners or those who rented public mines needed to invest loads of money for the large mines used in first to centuries AD.

Why do you think that they did not invest in their properties?

Nobody today wants to make a foolish investment.