-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I would note that the Athenians did use slaves on occasion, as did Syracuse - for example at Arginusae slaves and metics (resident foreigners) were allowed to row, with the promise of citizenship for all those who participated, or possibly freeing them before they were employed.
Sure - but that's clearly an emergency measure. If you go around offering freedom to your slaves if they row for you, that clearly implies that rowing is considered to be a job for free men. Also, if you tried crewing an entire fleet that way, you'd have no slaves left after the war...
In the Roman navy oarsmen were usually non-citizens (peregrini) who were offered citizenship as a reward at the end of their service, similar to the Auxiliary units on land. Syrians, Egyptians and Anatolians were preferred as rowers. As with the Greek example you mentioned, during the Civil Wars at the end of the Republic there were some cases where the Romans recruited slaves as oarsmen - but again, they were given their freedom as a reward.
The ancients did use steam power for prestige/toy purposes: I've read of a steam-driven temple door opener.
For an industrial revolution, however, more than a low-powered, one-of-a-kind machine is needed. The need for advanced metallurgy is already mentioned. But also consider this: who is going to maintain those machines? In the 19th century, there were plenty of technicians that worked complex machinery like clocks, windmills and watermills. So when steam machines became prominent, there was plenty of talent to hire to build and maintain those machines. The Ancient world did not have the multitude of technicians to make widespread high-tech solutions workable.
Another reason might be for financial reasons: one of the reason the U.K. industrialized first was that the necessary high capital investments could be done by wealthy investors. France and Germany, for example, lagged because their individual investors did not have enough capital on their own. Their solution was through the formation of investment banks. While in the Ancient world there were plenty of rich people, it could be that their wealth was simply not enough to kickstart an industrial revolution.
Yet another is that you might need to have a large food surplus to start an Industrial Revolution. The British Industrial Revolution in part was made possible of the British Agricultural Revolution and the resulting mass of freed hands ready to work in factories. In the Ancient World, there would simply be too few people available building and running steam engines and the infrastructure around it, as the great majority would be farming.
For an industrial revolution, however, more than a low-powered, one-of-a-kind machine is needed. The need for advanced metallurgy is already mentioned. But also consider this: who is going to maintain those machines? In the 19th century, there were plenty of technicians that worked complex machinery like clocks, windmills and watermills. So when steam machines became prominent, there was plenty of talent to hire to build and maintain those machines. The Ancient world did not have the multitude of technicians to make widespread high-tech solutions workable.
Another reason might be for financial reasons: one of the reason the U.K. industrialized first was that the necessary high capital investments could be done by wealthy investors. France and Germany, for example, lagged because their individual investors did not have enough capital on their own. Their solution was through the formation of investment banks. While in the Ancient world there were plenty of rich people, it could be that their wealth was simply not enough to kickstart an industrial revolution.
Yet another is that you might need to have a large food surplus to start an Industrial Revolution. The British Industrial Revolution in part was made possible of the British Agricultural Revolution and the resulting mass of freed hands ready to work in factories. In the Ancient World, there would simply be too few people available building and running steam engines and the infrastructure around it, as the great majority would be farming.
About oarsmen, most medieval galleys had a free crew. The penal ''revolution'' occured at the Renaissance.
Even Louis XIV galleys used a sizable compliment of free rowers, around 20% of the crew at the end of the period.
Even Louis XIV galleys used a sizable compliment of free rowers, around 20% of the crew at the end of the period.
Many authors who studied the question wonder if a ''trireme'' did not meant ''three ranks of rowers per oar '' as three ranks of oars would have been extremely problematic for naval engineering
From what I gather, that used to be a question - but more recently it's been decisively settled in favour of triremes having three banks of oars.
We now have the inventories of the Athenian naval dockyard from the 4th century BC, excavated in Piraeus and first edited and published in complete form in 1995. They clearly state that a trireme was issued with 170 oars for actual use, in three different types, plus 30 spare oars for a total of 200. That seems pretty conclusive.
An Athenian trireme's standard crew was also 200 men, incidentally - 170 rowers, 14 marines, 10 sailors, 6 officers.
There are also pictures and references in literature to ships having multiple banks of oars, though nothing quite so definitive as the Inventories.
There's also no problem at all in operating a ship with three banks of oars, as the modern-day Greek Navy ship Olympias proved:
%5B1%5D.jpg)
On the other hand, it is believed that a quinquereme/penteres did still only have three banks of oars, not five - they doubled up the rowers on the lower two banks. The invention of the penteres is attributed to Syracuse in about 400 BC.
Yep I heard this too in a documentry about ancient machines.Also lets not forget that technological advancement in some areas really stopped with the pressure of papacy in dark ages.At the first 100 year of Islam advances continued (see the universty of cordoba) but eventually same with christianity Islamic way of thinking stopped the science for beign at the center of the soceity.Later west broken off its chains with renaissance science begin to have big role in humans life.
Dont get me wrong I am a religious guy too (as much as I can be) but seeing how technological advancements are hampered by the Church or by Islamic leaders just for their own profit drives me mad.
Also lets not forget the facts of plauge,wars and political divions all around world which affected this situation.