Veneti (Was Re: Belgs)

> > > - a huge number of unemployed people
> > > who were later on employed in new industrial activities,
> > > that prior to that could not happen because there were nobody
> > > to work on that.
>
> > That makes no sense. Labor-saving devices are deployed because of
> > a shortage of working hands, not because of a surplus.
>
> The industrial revolution was not really about labor-saving devices.

The first application of steam was to pump out water from mines, which
was formerly done less efficiently by horse or human power.

> > > This first happened in England.
>
> > Communis opinio is that it didn't happen in Rome because they had
> > plenty of slaves, so why bother?
>
> I doubt that it's communis opinio amongst historians. The
> technological prerequisites for an industrial revolution were
> unavailable.

Circular, as usual.

> I also suspect that the Romans lacked the economic resources to
> industrialize.

Surprise: you don't need that. The economic resources at the disposal
of James Watts were limited.


Torsten