Republic or empire .

[Hari ganesh]

Oh yes, writing, the printing press, the steam engine, all were invented because of wars. And of course all the agricultural, architectural and domestic inventions. Why improve the yield of your fields if there is no war to motivate you?

People invent new things mainly because these inventions improve their lives. In a peaceful, united republic, there would still be enormous pressure to gain higher farming yields. There would still be demand for new luxury goods, better transport and better communication. In fact, I would say innovation would be higher, as trade is very important for the spread of technology. With a safe empire, long-distance trade would flourish and enable the spread of local inventions to other areas.

I agree with you to a extent but when i was reffering to inventions i was reffering to the creation of the space ship which was a direct result of war. Trade may increase during peace time and ideas may be exchanged but war creates necessity and necessity creates innovation and there by leads to radical new inventions such as nukes.

 

[Yakman]

I agree with you to a extent but when i was reffering to inventions i was reffering to the creation of the space ship which was a direct result of war. Trade may increase during peace time and ideas may be exchanged but war creates necessity and necessity creates innovation and there by leads to radical new inventions such as nukes.

Yes, because nukes have done so much to improve the world. oh wait.

Nuclear research was accelerated by the second world war, but it was already progressing.

might have been a bit faster if a quarter of europe's young men hadn't died 20 years previous and its countries weren't saddled with horrific debts from the cost of murdering them ;-)

 

[Hari ganesh]

Yes, because nukes have done so much to improve the world. oh wait.

Nuclear research was accelerated by the second world war, but it was already progressing.

might have been a bit faster if a quarter of europe's young men hadn't died 20 years previous and its countries weren't saddled with horrific debts from the cost of murdering them ;-)

I wasnt just talkin about nukes when i talked about advances. War gives rise to newer ways to kill people which in turn gives rise to newer ways to save and heal people . I wasnt patronizing the second world war i was merely pointing out that certain inventions wouldnt happen if it wasnt for wars .

 

[Yakman]

I wasnt just talkin about nukes when i talked about advances. War gives rise to newer ways to kill people which in turn gives rise to newer ways to save and heal people . I wasnt patronizing the second world war i was merely pointing out that certain inventions wouldnt happen if it wasnt for wars .

we have no way of knowing if these advances would happen or not.

sometimes we can clearly see advances occurring because of wars - aviation is a good example - but saying that warfare is good for technology is somewhat misleading, imho. most of war spending goes into basic materials - food, uniforms, war profiteering - and not into the science and technology, which is almost always building off pre-war advances.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

WWII was horribly expensive, and the advances that came out - radar, sonar, atomics - were accelerated by monetary investment made during the war but they only built upon research that was already extant before the war. But war never advances an economy, it puts a massive drain on it.

The US space program was horribly expensive, but the changes and consumer technologies that came out of it were far more reaching and long lasting. The personal computer you are reading this on? Direct result of the US space program. And Tang! Just the tip of the iceberg, but food for thought.

 

[Kovax]

There's a huge distinction between science and technology. Science usually develops faster in peacetime, because the money is available to pump into long-term projects with no projected payoff date. Technology, the application of that science for practical uses, is built upon that science, and usually develops faster in wartime, because money is no object when the survival of your country is at stake, and you need the latest "toys" to tip the balance in your favor.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Excellent point, Kovax.

 

[Plank of Wood]

It's worth noting that the internet was largely a peacetime invention, and it's easier to list the things the internet hasn't changed.

 

[Kovax]

It's worth noting that the internet was largely a peacetime invention, and it's easier to list the things the internet hasn't changed.

The internet was a peacetime application of a military tool, first expanded to coordinate research and development projects between universities, and later opened up for general use.

 

[knul]

There's a huge distinction between science and technology. Science usually develops faster in peacetime, because the money is available to pump into long-term projects with no projected payoff date. Technology, the application of that science for practical uses, is built upon that science, and usually develops faster in wartime, because money is no object when the survival of your country is at stake, and you need the latest "toys" to tip the balance in your favor.

That's been only the case in the 20th century. In all the centuries before that, technological development wasn't done through large-scale, government-sponsered project but mostly by gradual development by many small teams.

There was no Manhattan Project to develop three-field crop rotation. There was no Space Program to create the printing press. No government funded the development of the mechanical clock.

While there is certainly the concept of arms race, which is particularly competitive as there is no second place in war (but there is in trade and commerce), that doesn't mean that war is the only or even major driver of technological development. Necessity is the mother of invention and for most people, the main necessities were economic.

People improved farming and production not to win wars but to get more bread on the table and nicer clothes.

 

[JodelDiplom]

For the individual farmer, perhaps. Changes that work, spread, and changes that don't work, are abandoned. Although for society as a whole, Malthus' law implies that food and clothing don't really get better (in the long run) even if yields increase.

Did the living standards of your average farmer really change all that much, between classical antiquity and the early modern age (1500s)? Their dishes were made of earthenware, their tools made of mostly wood with a little iron, their clothes of homespun stuff. Food was plenty when the harvest was good, and when it was bad they starved. What does archaeology have to say about it? You'd think they should be the ones to know since digging up remnants of material culture is what they do for a living. :huh:

The only noticeable changes I seem to remember from history books were the ups and downs of plagues / wars (terrible calamities when they hit, boom times when they were over, zero long term effect).

 

[knul]

For the individual farmer, perhaps. Changes that work, spread, and changes that don't work, are abandoned. Although for society as a whole, Malthus' law implies that food and clothing don't really get better (in the long run) even if yields increase.

Did the living standards of your average farmer really change all that much, between classical antiquity and the early modern age (1500s)? Their dishes were made of earthenware, their tools made of mostly wood with a little iron, their clothes of homespun stuff. Food was plenty when the harvest was good, and when it was bad they starved. What does archaeology have to say about it? You'd think they should be the ones to know since digging up remnants of material culture is what they do for a living. :huh:

The only noticeable changes I seem to remember from history books were the ups and downs of plagues / wars (terrible calamities when they hit, boom times when they were over, zero long term effect).

Malthus' law states that population growth outstrips agricultural production gains, not that there are no agriculture gains at all.

As for inventions, see f.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology. The Middle Ages were not the stagnant morass most people believe it was.

Technological development was certainly much slower than post-industrial revolution, but not absent. As for it all improved the quality of life, I find it difficult to believe that inventions like improved ploughs, windmills or spectacles had no impact on the life of people. That most history books gloss over economic and cultural issues and focus on wars and plagues has more to do that contemporaries wrote more about exciting, short-term events.

 

[Kovax]

That's been only the case in the 20th century. In all the centuries before that, technological development wasn't done through large-scale, government-sponsered project but mostly by gradual development by many small teams.

You've got a valid point, but I'd have to expand that timeframe well back into the 19th Century as well, and even earlier, although to a much lesser degree. The government paid for the development of new types of ships, guns, and other tools of war, as well as the means to produce those tools of war. I'd be very surprised if the underlying metallurgy and mechanical design concepts needed to create many of those better farming implements and techniques didn't benefit or even derive from better ways of producing swords, armor, or other military hardware. It's certainly not an "across the board" kind of thing, but I'm pretty sure that it had some impact even in antiquity, where the state or ruler paid to have something made or improved, or some individual with an idea went to the king or ruling council to get funds to build or improve it. Ideas with military applications probably got priority over things that "merely" improved the lives of the peasantry, especially in wartime.

 

[Hari ganesh]

You've got a valid point, but I'd have to expand that timeframe well back into the 19th Century as well, and even earlier, although to a much lesser degree. The government paid for the development of new types of ships, guns, and other tools of war, as well as the means to produce those tools of war. I'd be very surprised if the underlying metallurgy and mechanical design concepts needed to create many of those better farming implements and techniques didn't benefit or even derive from better ways of producing swords, armor, or other military hardware. It's certainly not an "across the board" kind of thing, but I'm pretty sure that it had some impact even in antiquity, where the state or ruler paid to have something made or improved, or some individual with an idea went to the king or ruling council to get funds to build or improve it. Ideas with military applications probably got priority over things that "merely" improved the lives of the peasantry, especially in wartime.

+1 Fine point sir.