Veneti (Was Re: Belgs)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Arnaud Fournet" <fournet.arnaud@...>
wrote:

>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bmscotttg" <BMScott@...>
> >
> >> 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. I also suspect that the Romans lacked the economic
> > resources to industrialize.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> ============
>
> The notion that Rome had "plenty of slaves" is questionable.
> The death rate among slaves can be estimated at 20 to 35% per Year
> depending on the harshness of their conditions of living.
> So there was more a permanent shortage than a surplus of slaves.
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacus

> And I suppose Romans or Greeks had no idea that machines could make
> slave work easier.

The Romans had plenty of machines, but human- or water-powered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextus_Julius_Frontinus
Hero of Alexandria had demonstrated the feasibility of steam power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_of_Alexandria
There just wasn't any incentive to apply it to machines.

And the decline of Rome was also caused by the decreasing number of
engineers, ie. people with technical (as opposed to theological) insight.


Torsten