All of Ladislaus_Bessmertny's Comments + Replies


The point is that these systems are not merely different in degrees, but different in kind, functioning on a very different basis with different potential avenues for growth in production.

Basically says the same.

Dutch? We are talking about Late antiquity. Again, my point is that Roman empire was a totally different world. In all senses.

About the Netherlands. Do not understand your question. I do not know a lot about Dutch trade empire, but my knowledge is sufficient to conclude that they were a technological leader. Their emipre stretched from Moluccas to South Africa, they basically invented capitalism as it is and created first full-time stock exchange. 

Please elaborate what do you want to ask here.

The whole point here is the idea that society was simply not ready for such innovations. Who needs steam power? You have cheap slaves. Plenty of them. Glorious Roman steel can even bring you more, and so on.

This is not about pure mechanics or mathematics. This is about social development. Civilsational development.

1Lost Futures7mo
What "civilizational development", as you refer to it, would you say that The Netherlands lacked during the Dutch Golden Age? What hindered them from industrializing 200 years before England?

But the idea of steam-powered engine was not unknown to Greek philosophers. Of course it was just a mere toy. Still, first commercially developed steam engine (James Watt) had, as far as I remember, something like 1,5 percent of energy conversion efficiency.

Deep thinking on why the Roman Empire had no industrial revolution by a professional historian specialized in the Roman military: []
4Lost Futures7mo
IIRC, the aeolipile provided less than 1/100,000th of the torque provided by Watt's steam engine. Practical steam engines are orders of magnitude more complex than Hero's toy steam turbine. It took a century or more of concerted effort on the part of inventors to develop them.