Re: Veneti (Was Re: Belgs)

At 3:54:11 AM on Thursday, October 16, 2008, tgpedersen
wrote:

>>>> - 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.

One should not confuse the first application of steam with
the phenomenon known as the industrial revolution, which had
more to do with greatly increased production capacity than
with the introduction of labor-saving devices.

>>>> 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.

Not in the least. In this case it isn't even apparent why
you would think so.

>> 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.

The industrial revolution was a societal phenomenon,
dependent on societal resources; the personal resources of
individuals are relatively unimportant.

I'm not going to pursue the matter any further, since it's
now way off-topic. I will just say that you've a very
simplistic approach to history that strongly suggests that
you've never read any serious historical writing; if you
have, it hasn't made much of an impression.

Brian