05-10-2008, 07:14 AM
The romans were pre-industrial europeans themselves.
Is there any notion that it is a fault? Scientific knowledge, and even practical engineering, did not necessarily in any part of the world lead to an industrial revolution. The Enlightenment was contemporary with the height of the triangular slave trade, which is, to put it mildly, rather unenlightened - the anti-slavery movement was only tangential to enlightenment philosophy, beginning in fringe religious groups such as the Quakers. As i commented, natural scientists had a rather non-practical attitude for a long time - some argue World War 1. It bears remembering that, as I recall it, Surgery did not enter the universities as a discipline until the 19th century - before that it was, as it had been in the ancient and medieval worlds, a craft - taught at some craft schools, but much more commonly from master to apprentice. When Danish-Norwegian King Christian IV tried to let the barber-surgeons form a university faculty in the early 17th century, for entirely practical reasons - standarizing their training, increasing the respect for the craft, etc - it was vigorously resisted by the medical faculties at the University of Copenhagen: no grubby little surgeon who did not know proper latin (for shame!) was going to be admitted to the University staff, no siree, no matter how essential his skills would have been to the medical professionals there.
As I wrote, the Finleyan thesis has been weakened lately - the history of rome, as of any period, changes constantly as new discoveries are made and old are re-interpreted. I would also say that a walk around Istanbul should dispel any notion that nothing impressive was built after the age of Justinian, althought that was the last big building spree in the city.
Is there any notion that it is a fault? Scientific knowledge, and even practical engineering, did not necessarily in any part of the world lead to an industrial revolution. The Enlightenment was contemporary with the height of the triangular slave trade, which is, to put it mildly, rather unenlightened - the anti-slavery movement was only tangential to enlightenment philosophy, beginning in fringe religious groups such as the Quakers. As i commented, natural scientists had a rather non-practical attitude for a long time - some argue World War 1. It bears remembering that, as I recall it, Surgery did not enter the universities as a discipline until the 19th century - before that it was, as it had been in the ancient and medieval worlds, a craft - taught at some craft schools, but much more commonly from master to apprentice. When Danish-Norwegian King Christian IV tried to let the barber-surgeons form a university faculty in the early 17th century, for entirely practical reasons - standarizing their training, increasing the respect for the craft, etc - it was vigorously resisted by the medical faculties at the University of Copenhagen: no grubby little surgeon who did not know proper latin (for shame!) was going to be admitted to the University staff, no siree, no matter how essential his skills would have been to the medical professionals there.
As I wrote, the Finleyan thesis has been weakened lately - the history of rome, as of any period, changes constantly as new discoveries are made and old are re-interpreted. I would also say that a walk around Istanbul should dispel any notion that nothing impressive was built after the age of Justinian, althought that was the last big building spree in the city.
