How much did a tunic cost in the Roman Empire? (2021)(bookandsword.com)
bookandsword.com
How much did a tunic cost in the Roman Empire? (2021)
https://www.bookandsword.com/2021/05/08/how-much-did-a-tunic-cost-in-the-roman-empire/
22 comments
> That certainly puts the practice of robbers to take people's clothes into perspective.
Cloth was so valuable that the words for both the robber and the extremely valuable robes they stole and plundered share a common origin:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/robe#etymonline_v_15128
Cloth was so valuable that the words for both the robber and the extremely valuable robes they stole and plundered share a common origin:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/robe#etymonline_v_15128
This makes me want to set up a tailoring business on the side of the road and call it "Highway Robery"
Yep, in Albanian: Rrobe, means "Cloth". Same origin. It means that 'rober' came from the meaning of 'cloth taker'.
Actually the opposite - the root refers to loot and "robbery" is the direct development from it. Robes the clothing are named after robbery the act of generic theft, not the other way around.
An average worker in Ancient Rome is not really comparable to a worker in a modern country (e.g he likely would had spent >50% of his income on food, so equivalent wage would probably below the minimum wage in US).
The prices in Diocletian's degree don't really make much sense, e.g. for 40 Denarii you could buy ~5 pounds of beef or only 8 pounds of rye/barley. So likely the price for tunics is quite a bit higher than the real market price. Based on 1st AD prices/wages a tunic cost 15 sestertii which is equal to around 3-4 days wage (a "worker" likely earned ~ 4 sestertii per day)
The prices in Diocletian's degree don't really make much sense, e.g. for 40 Denarii you could buy ~5 pounds of beef or only 8 pounds of rye/barley. So likely the price for tunics is quite a bit higher than the real market price. Based on 1st AD prices/wages a tunic cost 15 sestertii which is equal to around 3-4 days wage (a "worker" likely earned ~ 4 sestertii per day)
Diocletian's price control decrees were for this reason and many others widely hated, widely ignored and widely worthless at stemming rampant inflation. (just as draconian price controls today suffer a similar fate in countries where leaders try to stem the consequences of their own economic mismanagement with arbitrary rules of fluid prices.)
The average worker in ancient Rome was a slave.
The proportion of slaves in the entire Roman Empire never rose to much more than 15-20% also by 300 AD serfdom had already started to replace slavery in rural areas.
No they weren't.
The enormous cost of clothes is why people in the bible tearing their clothes when they were extremely upset was such a big deal. It'd be like someone today throwing their smartphone in the ocean.
Smartphones are usually rather cheap. I think it would be more like setting your car on fire.
You're only 1-4 generations removed from ancestors who only owned one set of clothing, not necessarily including shoes.
Something that's stuck in my mind is how prosperity in India, not that many decades ago, meant that women could wash one Sari in the river without being naked, since they now owned two.
When I see people complaining about too much "disposable" clothing, I am not impressed.
Something that's stuck in my mind is how prosperity in India, not that many decades ago, meant that women could wash one Sari in the river without being naked, since they now owned two.
When I see people complaining about too much "disposable" clothing, I am not impressed.
Your conclusion doesn't follow. People can be against fast fashions urge for people to constantly be cycling out their wardrobes with short-lived clothing while still supporting everything have what they need. I think that is the main argument - use what we need and no more, or at least reduce waste.
This is what I was looking for in the article, thank you!
Modern business suit prices in other words or thereabouts.
>> $500 and $1500 for the simplest tunic, or between $7000 and $21000 for the finest quality.
Go look at the price for a nice suit, or a designer dress. Those numbers are not terribly high.
Go look at the price for a nice suit, or a designer dress. Those numbers are not terribly high.
"Not terribly high," I mean 99.5% of Americans will never spend even the lower end of that range on a single garment. It seems pretty high to me. Also you have to get pretty high up into the luxury market before you'll find a suit that costs $7,000. Armanis are synonymous with luxury suits in the public consciousness and they top out at $4,000, according to their website.
The cost of those luxury items don't come from the cost of making them. They come from the fact that they are luxury items -- it's the exclusivity and signaling that you're paying for. For more on this phenomenon see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
The cost of those luxury items don't come from the cost of making them. They come from the fact that they are luxury items -- it's the exclusivity and signaling that you're paying for. For more on this phenomenon see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
> The cost of those luxury items don't come from the cost of making them.
That's not entirely true, especially when it comes to haute couture. For example, clothes made by a French fashion house may take tens/hundreds of hours to make, at Western European salaries. Yes, agreed, the markup puts the cost into the stratosphere, but the point is that clothes made like this would need to cost thousands of dollars at minimum just to cover the labor (instead of the tens of thousands they sell for).
I interpreted the parent's comment of "not terribly high" as meaning not terribly high when compared to modern day clothes that take a similar amount of labor. When you think about it, the amount of manual labor that would need to go into a tunic (shearing wool or picking cotton, washing and spinning the fibers, weaving the cloth, sewing and cutting the garment) is enormous without modern day machines. The reason stuff like fast fashion today is so cheap is not just that it's put together in poor countries (though that's obviously part of it), but that the total amount of labor that goes into something like a shirt or dress is in the the ~10-15 minute range, not the 30-40 hour range.
That's not entirely true, especially when it comes to haute couture. For example, clothes made by a French fashion house may take tens/hundreds of hours to make, at Western European salaries. Yes, agreed, the markup puts the cost into the stratosphere, but the point is that clothes made like this would need to cost thousands of dollars at minimum just to cover the labor (instead of the tens of thousands they sell for).
I interpreted the parent's comment of "not terribly high" as meaning not terribly high when compared to modern day clothes that take a similar amount of labor. When you think about it, the amount of manual labor that would need to go into a tunic (shearing wool or picking cotton, washing and spinning the fibers, weaving the cloth, sewing and cutting the garment) is enormous without modern day machines. The reason stuff like fast fashion today is so cheap is not just that it's put together in poor countries (though that's obviously part of it), but that the total amount of labor that goes into something like a shirt or dress is in the the ~10-15 minute range, not the 30-40 hour range.
Clothes made by a French fashion house don't cost a lot because they're labor-intensive to make: they're labor-intensive to make because that costs a lot.
Very useful things like big nuclear power plants and subways face somewhat similar issues, though of course the starting point has more unavoidable difficulty.
> I mean 99.5% of Americans will never spend even the lower end of that range on a single garment.
Wedding dresses?
Wedding dresses?
Normal people don't buy $7,000 wedding dresses. Hell, even a lot of rich people don't.
The 'lower end of that range' is $500, and you'll definitely spend that if you're buying a wedding dress.
I wonder how the longevity compares. Would a tunic last much longer than a modern pair of jeans?
Even a modern pair of jeans sent to ancient rome would last longer than a modern pair of genes today. All the washing and drying we do is what makes your jeans go threadbare in the knees in a few years time.
Even contemporary linen clothes last way longer than a random pair of jeans.
It's not that onesided, good linen trousers are usually somewhat more free-fitting, and usually don't chafe as much as typical jeans models. But still.
Also superior water vapor exchange is superior.
It's not that onesided, good linen trousers are usually somewhat more free-fitting, and usually don't chafe as much as typical jeans models. But still.
Also superior water vapor exchange is superior.
> That certainly puts the practice of robbers to take people's clothes into perspective.
Also probably the source of the "they'd take the shirt of his back" saying.
Also probably the source of the "they'd take the shirt of his back" saying.
Probably not. "Steal the shirt off someone's back" means to take everything from a person, even the most basic and least significant item of clothing that they are wearing, and leave them with nothing.
The phrase is usually "he'd give you the shirt off his back." That's much nicer
and it really has nothing to do with the price of clothing
It does, at least a little.
If you give someone a $20 shirt, causing yourself a little embarassment, that's not quite the same commitment to charity as giving them your $20,000 car.
If you give someone a $20 shirt, causing yourself a little embarassment, that's not quite the same commitment to charity as giving them your $20,000 car.
Think of it this way; my shirt would have a lot more value to me than value to you. Therefore, if I gave you the shirt off my own back would show a high degree of selflessness.
That's what the phrase conveys.
That's what the phrase conveys.
What were the poor people wearing?
How did women earn these - were linen garments a form of payment to effective prostitution?
YES: Source; Kimono.
How did women earn these - were linen garments a form of payment to effective prostitution?
YES: Source; Kimono.
> What were the poor people wearing?
Dollar analysis like 'how much did X cost in a pre-industrial economy' is incredibly unsuitable for answering these kinds of questions.
The answer is - most people weren't wage workers. Most people didn't have money. Most people were subsistence peasants, and they paid taxes, rent, and for many services in goods. What money they had would usually go towards buying things they couldn't make.
Most people wore homespun. Clothing a typical Roman peasant family[1] would take ~3,000 hours of domestic labour a year - every year, most of it devoted to spinning flax. Being domestic labour, done by the family, for the family, most of it, was, of course, unpaid. Being the kind of labour that you can do on-and-off throughout the day, as you are waiting on other tasks, it was mostly done by women. [2]
[1] https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t...
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distaff
Dollar analysis like 'how much did X cost in a pre-industrial economy' is incredibly unsuitable for answering these kinds of questions.
The answer is - most people weren't wage workers. Most people didn't have money. Most people were subsistence peasants, and they paid taxes, rent, and for many services in goods. What money they had would usually go towards buying things they couldn't make.
Most people wore homespun. Clothing a typical Roman peasant family[1] would take ~3,000 hours of domestic labour a year - every year, most of it devoted to spinning flax. Being domestic labour, done by the family, for the family, most of it, was, of course, unpaid. Being the kind of labour that you can do on-and-off throughout the day, as you are waiting on other tasks, it was mostly done by women. [2]
[1] https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t...
[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/distaff
Thank you.
There was a post on HN `2013 or so, about a wiki for instructions on how to rebuild civilization through plans to start with primitive farming equipment up through more modern equipment...
We need this.
There was a post on HN `2013 or so, about a wiki for instructions on how to rebuild civilization through plans to start with primitive farming equipment up through more modern equipment...
We need this.
The poor would typically make their own clothes. This was of course very labor intensive, but back in the day, benefits from division of labor weren’t that huge, and the poor often did not have better employment opportunities (that’s why they were poor in the first place).
90%+ worked in farming, and in farming depending on the climate over the year you had months with nothing to do vs months with 16 hours of work a day. The whole system was designed around making sure few people starved and work was distributed around somewhat sensibly with such wild seasonal swings of labour shortage and surplus.
So yeah, DIY all the way.
So yeah, DIY all the way.
Yep. My grandmother's family in rural Poland was still making all their their clothes (from their homegrown linen and sheep) in 1930s.
I imagine poor people wore rags, discarded material crudely sewn together.
Something that continually just blows my mind is how new spinning wheels are. The most plausible range of time of arrival of the wheel in European contexts is between the mid-1200s to about 1340, which means that textiles produced previously to that were made with drop spindles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_(textiles)#Hand_spindl...
That includes things like clothing, but it also includes more staggering ideas like hand-spinning all the fabric for sails for ships, which is a seriously nontrivial amount of time!
That includes things like clothing, but it also includes more staggering ideas like hand-spinning all the fabric for sails for ships, which is a seriously nontrivial amount of time!
It’s curious, if you go back in time far enough with all knowledge from the present, you’d surely arrive at a point where you still need to work your entire life to bring one component of one innovation to life. Even then, the innovation would be unlikely to survive your death due to other missing parts of the supply chain.
Try building a musket in Ancient Greece, you’d need to start with building the steel supply chain - which means drilling into granite with wooden and bronze hand tools…
Try building a musket in Ancient Greece, you’d need to start with building the steel supply chain - which means drilling into granite with wooden and bronze hand tools…
Yes, you wouldn't be building a steam engine with the tools of Greek artisans in antiquity, not even the ones who built the Antikythera mechanism. But we do know some things that would seem like crazy hacks to the ancients. For example, I know a simple trick. I can multiply numbers, of arbitrary size. And I can do it in a few seconds using just a stylus and tablet. This would have blown the minds of a learned Roman or Greek from that time.
For those who find the general idea enticing, there was a book written about 80 years ago on this idea. What if a time traveller got sent back to Ancient Rome? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lest_Darkness_Fall
A couple friends and I are big fans of the book, and premise. We always figured it was far too optimistic. Most likely you'd die of dysentery or be sold off into slavery. But assuming not, I figure the real path to power wouldn't be brandy, but strong acids and electroplating.
For those who find the general idea enticing, there was a book written about 80 years ago on this idea. What if a time traveller got sent back to Ancient Rome? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lest_Darkness_Fall
A couple friends and I are big fans of the book, and premise. We always figured it was far too optimistic. Most likely you'd die of dysentery or be sold off into slavery. But assuming not, I figure the real path to power wouldn't be brandy, but strong acids and electroplating.
> I can multiply numbers, of arbitrary size. And I can do it in a few seconds using just a stylus and tablet.
So could a Roman or Greek. He'd just need a counting board and some stones. He could probably do it faster than you, as well. Anyone using an abacus today could perform almost exactly the same algorithms, with the added convenience of having beads on rods in a frame instead of an unwieldy counting board and stones. The algorithms are the same, and you can also do division and square roots with a counting board or abacus. When done deftly moving stones around on the counting board (and Aristotle makes clear that this goes so quickly that it's possible for the person calculating to cheat an onlooker, like in a con-man's shell game), one might choose to write the result down on a tablet, and he might just finish writing before you do.
So could a Roman or Greek. He'd just need a counting board and some stones. He could probably do it faster than you, as well. Anyone using an abacus today could perform almost exactly the same algorithms, with the added convenience of having beads on rods in a frame instead of an unwieldy counting board and stones. The algorithms are the same, and you can also do division and square roots with a counting board or abacus. When done deftly moving stones around on the counting board (and Aristotle makes clear that this goes so quickly that it's possible for the person calculating to cheat an onlooker, like in a con-man's shell game), one might choose to write the result down on a tablet, and he might just finish writing before you do.
> goes so quickly that it's possible for the person calculating to cheat an onlooker
Indeed, the biggest advantage of paper arithmetic is that it leaves a written record: each step in the algorithm can be checked for mistakes afterward. It is otherwise significantly slower and not inherently more accurate than a counting board.
The other advantage that paper arithmetic has is that it can be easily reproduced in printed books, making learning more advanced techniques more accessible / easier to spread to anyone literate, without requiring an expert teacher.
(And finally, paper arithmetic [eventually] has the advantage that it can be more conveniently extended and generalized to include more kinds of operations and structures, in a way that is easier to explain and teach than adding new kinds of counting board rules. Paper arithmetic is a more natural precursor for symbolic algebra than counting-board calculation.)
The big disadvantage of paper arithmetic is that it depends on widespread literacy and cheap access to paper (or similar material). In a context where paper is expensive or unavailable, written arithmetic is not very compelling.
Indeed, the biggest advantage of paper arithmetic is that it leaves a written record: each step in the algorithm can be checked for mistakes afterward. It is otherwise significantly slower and not inherently more accurate than a counting board.
The other advantage that paper arithmetic has is that it can be easily reproduced in printed books, making learning more advanced techniques more accessible / easier to spread to anyone literate, without requiring an expert teacher.
(And finally, paper arithmetic [eventually] has the advantage that it can be more conveniently extended and generalized to include more kinds of operations and structures, in a way that is easier to explain and teach than adding new kinds of counting board rules. Paper arithmetic is a more natural precursor for symbolic algebra than counting-board calculation.)
The big disadvantage of paper arithmetic is that it depends on widespread literacy and cheap access to paper (or similar material). In a context where paper is expensive or unavailable, written arithmetic is not very compelling.
Chalk (or charcoal) and slate (or other rewritable surfaces) were common before paper was cheap.
Greek and Roman students typically used wax-coated boards and scratched them with styli. The surface could be heated or rubbed to restore its unmarked form.
Greek and Roman students typically used wax-coated boards and scratched them with styli. The surface could be heated or rubbed to restore its unmarked form.
Yes that is true, but if you don’t have a permanent written record of the computation, that takes away a lot of the advantage of written arithmetic. You may as well just use your counting board.
Not permanent, but a record that could be shown as the computation was performed, and until the slate itself was erased. Obviously, where a permanent record is desired, permenent media would be used.
My point was that there were cheap alternatives to parchment and paper for quick work.
My point was that there were cheap alternatives to parchment and paper for quick work.
A wax or clay tablet or flat patch of dirt and a stick, piece of bark or wood and charcoal, etc. don’t have enough advantage for anyone to bother organizing their accounting or calculation system around them. They are on the whole inferior to the existing system. Trying to introduce them to people 2000+ years ago might have a chance, but it would be a tough sell.
The thing that really spread Hindu numbers around the world was access to paper.
The thing that really spread Hindu numbers around the world was access to paper.
Is there any evidence / record that Hindu / Arabic numerals and paper co-dispersed?
I am not an expert.
My impression is that in India “Hindu” numerals and arithmetic were developed using some kind of erasable board, but among Arabic speakers (and later Europeans) the spread of Hindu numerals went along with paper as a prerequisite technology.
This looks relevant https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.ucsc.edu/dist/f/704/file...
Here is a relevant looking book: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300089554/paper-print
In e.g. Britain, the transition to Hindu numerals did not occur until 1600–1800, depending on the place.
My impression is that in India “Hindu” numerals and arithmetic were developed using some kind of erasable board, but among Arabic speakers (and later Europeans) the spread of Hindu numerals went along with paper as a prerequisite technology.
This looks relevant https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.ucsc.edu/dist/f/704/file...
Here is a relevant looking book: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300089554/paper-print
In e.g. Britain, the transition to Hindu numerals did not occur until 1600–1800, depending on the place.
It's probably worth noting that Fra Luca Bartolomeo de Pacioli's dates are c. 1447 – 19 June 1517, shortly after Gutenberg and about 50--100 years after cheap papermaking (comparatively) first reached Europe.
It's hard to have double-entry bookkeeping without books.
I'm unsure if he used Arabic or Roman notation... Though the dedication page of Summa Mathematica in fact does include recognisable Hindu / Arabic numerals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_de_arithmetica#/media/Fi...
Wikipedia's article has several illustrations, but none of the actual bookkeeping notation itself, which is ... a curious oversight. Continued on the double-entry bookkeeping article as well FWIW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Pacioli
It's hard to have double-entry bookkeeping without books.
I'm unsure if he used Arabic or Roman notation... Though the dedication page of Summa Mathematica in fact does include recognisable Hindu / Arabic numerals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_de_arithmetica#/media/Fi...
Wikipedia's article has several illustrations, but none of the actual bookkeeping notation itself, which is ... a curious oversight. Continued on the double-entry bookkeeping article as well FWIW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Pacioli
https://doi.org/10.1017/jbr.2017.59 is interesting
Thanks.
> this goes so quickly
Many people don't realize how fast it is to work on abacus (or soroban in Japanese). Here is an example of what a 7 year old can do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQtqlB-jXO0
For many years I always did my taxes and other accounting using an abacus because it was sooo much easier than longhand (this was before calculators).
There is the famous Feynman story as well:
https://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/abacus/feynman.html
But you wouldn't impress an ancient Greek very much by taking cube roots quickly because there wouldn't be much call for that.
Many people don't realize how fast it is to work on abacus (or soroban in Japanese). Here is an example of what a 7 year old can do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQtqlB-jXO0
For many years I always did my taxes and other accounting using an abacus because it was sooo much easier than longhand (this was before calculators).
There is the famous Feynman story as well:
https://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/abacus/feynman.html
But you wouldn't impress an ancient Greek very much by taking cube roots quickly because there wouldn't be much call for that.
Ok but we know about zero!
Anyone with a counting board also has zeros, as empty places with no counters, and ancient people had no problem understanding and using the concept of zero in calculations (though most probably would not have considered zero a “number” per se). They just didn’t write explicit zeros in their permanent serialization format.
But there are certainly plenty of mathematical ideas and tools ancient people didn’t know about: they didn’t have a convenient method of manipulating algebraic expressions and equations; they had only the most rudimentary version of differential/integral calculus; they didn’t have group theory, linear algebra, complex analysis, etc.
But there are certainly plenty of mathematical ideas and tools ancient people didn’t know about: they didn’t have a convenient method of manipulating algebraic expressions and equations; they had only the most rudimentary version of differential/integral calculus; they didn’t have group theory, linear algebra, complex analysis, etc.
Or, indeed, negative numbers.
Yeah Lest Darkness Fall the optimistic, knowledge from the future makes you powerful view of things - which really the hero was an academic who knew a lot about Rome of the period but also had lots of practical knowledge that he managed to make use of to improve his initial position of actually being made a slave.
The less optimistic version would be this https://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2014/10/08/the-american-so...
on edit: removed a not that should not have been there
The less optimistic version would be this https://grapevine.is/mag/articles/2014/10/08/the-american-so...
on edit: removed a not that should not have been there
Why not build a printing press? All you really need to do is carve some wood. As expensive as tunics were, books were much more so. Copying the bible would have taken several months (if not years) of labour. And the ability and control to spread such knowledge faster than others would not only be very lucrative but a source of great power.
The woodblock printing existed in Europe even before Gutenberg. Gutenberg's real contribution was the printing with movable metal types, which were themselves made by means of a hand mould he invented. So you had to carve a letter only once, produce one or several moulds from it and use them to cast identical metal types. This had not only the advantage that the types could faster be arranged into a text than cutting it all in wood. Their clear shapes were not only superior in appearance to any wood cut, but in one respect even to hand writen texts: all the types looked alike. Gutenberg's idea was not to make a cheap product for the masses (or at least for those who could read), but an extremly high-quality product for the top of the elite.[1] It is rather interesting to see that his intent and his actual impact were so far apart.
[1] Cf. this sample from his bible: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Gutenber...
[1] Cf. this sample from his bible: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Gutenber...
>Why not build a printing press? All you really need to do is carve some wood
The printing press seems to be far more complex than just "carve some wood". Otherwise I find it hard to believe that it took until 1400AD for people to figure out how to make large stamps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#Gutenberg's_pre...
The printing press seems to be far more complex than just "carve some wood". Otherwise I find it hard to believe that it took until 1400AD for people to figure out how to make large stamps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#Gutenberg's_pre...
Woodblock printing was invented in the 7th century in Tang China.
The prerequisite for economic printing is paper, and the tech tree for paper is reproducible from Roman conditions. The production of vellum is measured in years, scribes were barely the limiting factor on text production.
The prerequisite for economic printing is paper, and the tech tree for paper is reproducible from Roman conditions. The production of vellum is measured in years, scribes were barely the limiting factor on text production.
There is a lot of basic scientific knowledge that many/most modern people have (germ theory of disease, how the body works at some level, astronomy 101, etc.) But ancient people weren't stupid. They just didn't have advanced technology. Recreating a whole chain of technology to bring about the iron age maybe 1000 years early probably isn't happening. The fact is that they're mostly doing pretty well with building things that the technology more or less exists for.
I also read somewhere that a good deal of his innovation was also in finding inks suitable for the process.
A lot of existing inks at the time where suitable for writing not pressing.
A lot of existing inks at the time where suitable for writing not pressing.
The printing press is the easy part - parchment was expensive and hard or impossible to get.
Did the Romans not have paper of any sort? It seems odd that they only used animal skins for writing on.
My understanding is that while parchment (vellum in particular) was used in early printing press printings, such as the Gutenberg Bible, the use of paper was more common because it was so much cheaper, if less durable.
My understanding is that while parchment (vellum in particular) was used in early printing press printings, such as the Gutenberg Bible, the use of paper was more common because it was so much cheaper, if less durable.
They did have papyrus but that is even less durable than paper, especially outside of very unique climates like Egypt (and the papyri that we do find there are very fragmentary). Parchment was known, but not widely used for obvious reasons.
Seems more like all this stuff is tied together in tricky ways. Why bother learning to read if the only supply of written text is people hand-writing it on fragile paper or parchment, so getting even a single page of written text is super-expensive? Why bother figuring out how to make cheap and durable paper when all text must be hand-written by the few who had time to learn how? Why bother making a way to write faster when paper is expensive and nobody knows how to read?
People need to solve all of those, and have some reason for solving each one independent of the others, before the written word can even start to proliferate widely.
People need to solve all of those, and have some reason for solving each one independent of the others, before the written word can even start to proliferate widely.
A book on agricultural developments post-antiquity to the industrial revolution would be a far more immediate source of power. Less starving -> more surplus -> more specialization of labor and societal development -> goto(1).
There are political liabilities to the printing press.
> Yes, you wouldn't be building a steam engine with the tools of Greek artisans in antiquity, not even the ones who built the Antikythera mechanism.
Sure you could. The antikythera mechanism shows more than enough skill and precision to make a small one. It might only be a toy for the rich though. I'm not sure if you could afford enough metal to make one large enough to do useful work, and even if you could the fuel required might kill it (coal wasn't really available at the time, though knowing it is useful might be enough to find and use it). The metals of the time where not up to a modern high pressure (and thus efficient) steam engine, but a large low pressure steam engine is perfectly possible.
That said, water or wind power would be a much better invention to focus your efforts on. I'm not sure how much of that they had though.
Sure you could. The antikythera mechanism shows more than enough skill and precision to make a small one. It might only be a toy for the rich though. I'm not sure if you could afford enough metal to make one large enough to do useful work, and even if you could the fuel required might kill it (coal wasn't really available at the time, though knowing it is useful might be enough to find and use it). The metals of the time where not up to a modern high pressure (and thus efficient) steam engine, but a large low pressure steam engine is perfectly possible.
That said, water or wind power would be a much better invention to focus your efforts on. I'm not sure how much of that they had though.
No, you couldn't. It wasn't until Wilkinson had perfected his boring machine and Watt had a model of a steam engine that could not be be realized because he couldn't get a precise enough bore, that Wilkinson took it upon himself to bore the first steam engine cylinder that worked.
In order to get this, there are a lot of steps involved, including the ability to sand cast and bore iron of sufficient quality to take a reasonable amount of pressure.
If you got to that point, you might want to build a Stirling engine instead, it's far less likely to explode and kill people.
In order to get this, there are a lot of steps involved, including the ability to sand cast and bore iron of sufficient quality to take a reasonable amount of pressure.
If you got to that point, you might want to build a Stirling engine instead, it's far less likely to explode and kill people.
I have some knowledge of machining and how to create precision from nothing, though this isn't very common.
Lack of precision means worse efficiency, crude steam engines with careful handfitting can work well enough. Though this adds times, and as the other replies note it isn't clear if the Greeks had the fuel to run a modern steam engine if you gave them one with a boiler.
Lack of precision means worse efficiency, crude steam engines with careful handfitting can work well enough. Though this adds times, and as the other replies note it isn't clear if the Greeks had the fuel to run a modern steam engine if you gave them one with a boiler.
Watt's steam engines were vacuum engines, with power on the condensation stroke. High-pressure expansion engines didn't emerge until after Watt's patents expired in 1800. (I believe they may have been introduced a few years earlier in the United States where Watt's patents had no authority.)
There was no danger of a Watt engine exploding.
There was no danger of a Watt engine exploding.
>There was no danger of a Watt engine exploding.
I learned something new today, thanks for pointing that out.
I learned something new today, thanks for pointing that out.
> but a large low pressure steam engine is perfectly possible.
Irrespective of whether it was possible for the Greeks to make them, what would be the economic incentive for them to build large low pressure steam engines at scale? In our timeline, the only serious application of large low pressure steam engines was pumping water out of mines, from after 1720 or so. Even with the incentive of the industrial revolution, it took almost a century to get small high-powered engines, with the first public steam train in 1825.
Irrespective of whether it was possible for the Greeks to make them, what would be the economic incentive for them to build large low pressure steam engines at scale? In our timeline, the only serious application of large low pressure steam engines was pumping water out of mines, from after 1720 or so. Even with the incentive of the industrial revolution, it took almost a century to get small high-powered engines, with the first public steam train in 1825.
Milling grain, hammering wrought iron, crushing ore etc. There were plenty of uses of mechanized power even in antiquity, and the ancients realized that through use of water wheels.
> Milling grain, hammering wrought iron, crushing ore etc
Are these actually feasible with a large low-pressure steam engine of the sort that the Greeks could have actually constructed? Remember that the early real steam engines were only just powerful enough to slowly lift buckets of water.
[Edit] - good answers below - thanks! But I think the question of economic viability still stands. As pointed out elsewhere, a waterwheel is easy to construct and doesn't have ongoing fuel costs. A steam engine requires a reasonably well developed iron/steel working industry (including skilled artisans), which in turn requires a fair amount of iron ore and fuel to support smelting. The finished steam engine would require a lot of wood as fuel, or coal, which wasn't widely available in ancient Greece, or easily transportable without a lot of effort. Ancient Greek metallurgy was definitely not sophisticated enough to build a steam train and as for for building a railway 1) they could barely build graded roads and 2) they would have needed a phenomenal amount of mass-produced steel for the tracks.
Are these actually feasible with a large low-pressure steam engine of the sort that the Greeks could have actually constructed? Remember that the early real steam engines were only just powerful enough to slowly lift buckets of water.
[Edit] - good answers below - thanks! But I think the question of economic viability still stands. As pointed out elsewhere, a waterwheel is easy to construct and doesn't have ongoing fuel costs. A steam engine requires a reasonably well developed iron/steel working industry (including skilled artisans), which in turn requires a fair amount of iron ore and fuel to support smelting. The finished steam engine would require a lot of wood as fuel, or coal, which wasn't widely available in ancient Greece, or easily transportable without a lot of effort. Ancient Greek metallurgy was definitely not sophisticated enough to build a steam train and as for for building a railway 1) they could barely build graded roads and 2) they would have needed a phenomenal amount of mass-produced steel for the tracks.
Water hammer is a big lever that has a hammer on one side and a big bucket of water on the other side. Bucket gets filed by a water stream, gets heavier than the hammer and lifts it, and then at the lowest point (of the bucket) it is mounted in such way that the water spills and the hammer drops, resetting the machine. No precision technology needed, they could do it in stone age.
You can do the same thing with fireplace and water and it's certainly doable with ancient technology, but I'm not sure it's worth it when you have more running water than industry needs anyway.
Another thing they could do is Heron's steam turbine geared in such a way that it does useful work. Also not sure if it's worth it.
This trick (using low power to lift the hammer slowly and dropping it quickly) can be adapted to use any inefficient power source - hamster powered mills are possible ;)
You can do the same thing with fireplace and water and it's certainly doable with ancient technology, but I'm not sure it's worth it when you have more running water than industry needs anyway.
Another thing they could do is Heron's steam turbine geared in such a way that it does useful work. Also not sure if it's worth it.
This trick (using low power to lift the hammer slowly and dropping it quickly) can be adapted to use any inefficient power source - hamster powered mills are possible ;)
Yes, because that work had been done at the time by even more underpowered devices, that is, by actual humans. You’re lucky if you get half a horsepower from a good human, so replacing them with low HP steam engines might still be worthwhile.
I don't think the OP is saying that there wasn't a need for mechanized power, just that it wasn't profitable to get that power from steam.
Water wheels have no fuel costs, and very little ongoing maintenance costs. A steam engine that could be built in antiquity would be incredibly expensive in both respects. So even if the technology existed, there would be little economic incentive to use it over a water wheels, since transportation is cheaper than fuel and maintenance.
As recently as 1900, steam engines were so expensive that most farmers rented equipment by the day.
Water wheels have no fuel costs, and very little ongoing maintenance costs. A steam engine that could be built in antiquity would be incredibly expensive in both respects. So even if the technology existed, there would be little economic incentive to use it over a water wheels, since transportation is cheaper than fuel and maintenance.
As recently as 1900, steam engines were so expensive that most farmers rented equipment by the day.
Simple solution: Military industry.
Some generals would likely find a mobile mill stone quite useful. When your centuria loot a conquered land they can now take raw grains in addition to processed flour without being tied down to the local stationary mills.
Some generals would likely find a mobile mill stone quite useful. When your centuria loot a conquered land they can now take raw grains in addition to processed flour without being tied down to the local stationary mills.
> Some generals would likely find a mobile mill stone quite useful. When your centuria loot a conquered land they can now take raw grains in addition to processed flour without being tied down to the local stationary mills.
Not in the slightest. The legion on the march has no use for a millstone because nobody's eating bread. They would never carry processed flour, because it spoils quickly. They carried raw grain and made porridge from it.
Not in the slightest. The legion on the march has no use for a millstone because nobody's eating bread. They would never carry processed flour, because it spoils quickly. They carried raw grain and made porridge from it.
That sounds wrong but I don't know enough about ancient roman military rations to dispute it. Do you have any sources?
I thought they primarily consumed bread (both hardtack and leavened), watered down wine/vinegar, and meat (when available.)
I thought they primarily consumed bread (both hardtack and leavened), watered down wine/vinegar, and meat (when available.)
It was wrong. Turning up quick information makes it clear that hardtack was a core part of the military marching diet, and the soldiers could prepare their own bread, though they didn't carry flour.
https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/roman-army/food-in-roman-army/
https://www.comitatus.net/research_files/rations.pdf
Those both seem like decent writeups which cite to several classical sources. The first one mentions porridge (stating that bread was preferred); the second explicitly makes the assumption that all grain becomes bread. We can safely ignore that assumption.
More from that first writeup:
> The daily grain ration (wheat or barley)for one legionary was on average 830 grams and was in the form of unground grain; This was mainly due to the fact that grain spoiled slower than flour.
> The meals of the Roman legionaries were mainly based on wheat, from which two types of food were made:
> mash, called pulse. It was an easier-to-make food that required a mixture of cooked wheat grains, water, salt, fat, and olive oil or milk. Sometimes vegetables or spices were added.
> flatbread (pane). It was the more popular use of grain. The soldiers threshed out the grain, ground it with a device or stone, mixed it with water, salt and spices, and then roasted it over the fire.
So, what's true:
- The legion isn't going to carry a millstone. They're huge and there's no way to justify it.
- The legion isn't going to make itself dependent on the location of local mills. That would defeat the purpose of being a military force.
- The legion isn't going to carry flour, because it spoils. They carry raw grain.
- But they also carry hardtack, which is prepared so as not to spoil quickly.
- A foraging legion already takes raw grain. That's their primary foraging objective. They are not limited to robbing granaries; they're happy to harvest it directly from the field.
- Food preparation is done at a very low level - if the grain is going to be ground, it will be done in parallel by a large number of soldiers personally grinding small amounts of grain each, not by a mill.
- The soldiers often do eat bread. But if you're going to eat bread, you make it from raw grain the same day. This has to occur wherever you happen to be, so you'll be using something like a mortar and pestle.
- Despite the fact that bread is preferred to porridge, sometimes you make porridge anyway. It's much easier to make.
https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/roman-army/food-in-roman-army/
https://www.comitatus.net/research_files/rations.pdf
Those both seem like decent writeups which cite to several classical sources. The first one mentions porridge (stating that bread was preferred); the second explicitly makes the assumption that all grain becomes bread. We can safely ignore that assumption.
More from that first writeup:
> The daily grain ration (wheat or barley)for one legionary was on average 830 grams and was in the form of unground grain; This was mainly due to the fact that grain spoiled slower than flour.
> The meals of the Roman legionaries were mainly based on wheat, from which two types of food were made:
> mash, called pulse. It was an easier-to-make food that required a mixture of cooked wheat grains, water, salt, fat, and olive oil or milk. Sometimes vegetables or spices were added.
> flatbread (pane). It was the more popular use of grain. The soldiers threshed out the grain, ground it with a device or stone, mixed it with water, salt and spices, and then roasted it over the fire.
So, what's true:
- The legion isn't going to carry a millstone. They're huge and there's no way to justify it.
- The legion isn't going to make itself dependent on the location of local mills. That would defeat the purpose of being a military force.
- The legion isn't going to carry flour, because it spoils. They carry raw grain.
- But they also carry hardtack, which is prepared so as not to spoil quickly.
- A foraging legion already takes raw grain. That's their primary foraging objective. They are not limited to robbing granaries; they're happy to harvest it directly from the field.
- Food preparation is done at a very low level - if the grain is going to be ground, it will be done in parallel by a large number of soldiers personally grinding small amounts of grain each, not by a mill.
- The soldiers often do eat bread. But if you're going to eat bread, you make it from raw grain the same day. This has to occur wherever you happen to be, so you'll be using something like a mortar and pestle.
- Despite the fact that bread is preferred to porridge, sometimes you make porridge anyway. It's much easier to make.
Thanks for the thorough reply.
> it will be done in parallel by a large number of soldiers personally grinding small amounts of grain each, not by a mill
I'd had it in my head for some reason that a mill stone was the only reasonable way to turn grain into flour. This was the main factor I wasn't considering. The weight/effort to handle a portable mill certainly wouldn't beat hand tools. Even if to just help keep soldiers busy.
EDIT: I expect that if one were to analyze an army's flour requirement as some form of equipment weight + work-hours / grain-throughput * army size there would be a point at which it made sense to haul a portable mill. But it definitely would not make sense to power it with steam engine compared to having soldiers turn it by hand. I would also expect that a force large enough to utilize that efficiency would be unheard of in roman times.
> it will be done in parallel by a large number of soldiers personally grinding small amounts of grain each, not by a mill
I'd had it in my head for some reason that a mill stone was the only reasonable way to turn grain into flour. This was the main factor I wasn't considering. The weight/effort to handle a portable mill certainly wouldn't beat hand tools. Even if to just help keep soldiers busy.
EDIT: I expect that if one were to analyze an army's flour requirement as some form of equipment weight + work-hours / grain-throughput * army size there would be a point at which it made sense to haul a portable mill. But it definitely would not make sense to power it with steam engine compared to having soldiers turn it by hand. I would also expect that a force large enough to utilize that efficiency would be unheard of in roman times.
The military generally ate what they could take from locals. Until modern transport they couldn't get enough food to support an army any other way
Depends on if it is a practical self propelled engine or not. Our modern military (for any country with a modern military) is 90% about logistics, and all of that is possible because trucks and trains can carry so much food and other equipment overland (they had good enough ships for over water) that a military can supply itself from back home. This is a massive change to how a military operates and their generals would not be blind to that advantage. Siege defense worked in large part because the enemy ran out of food and had to leave (the food from harvest was stored in the city walls so the defenders had the advantage so long as they held the walls)
Of course practical over land transportation is a massive change, and a large part of why our civilization can advance so far. (without tractors 90% of us wouldn't be born because our grandparents would have starved, and the rest would be tillers of the ground - as in physically running a shovel)
Of course practical over land transportation is a massive change, and a large part of why our civilization can advance so far. (without tractors 90% of us wouldn't be born because our grandparents would have starved, and the rest would be tillers of the ground - as in physically running a shovel)
> mobile mill stone
... makes the brigade/regiment/whatever far less mobile for no real benefit.
... makes the brigade/regiment/whatever far less mobile for no real benefit.
I'm now intensely curious about the concept of pre-industrial tactical millstones...
Even in the late 19th century, areas with fast moving water (like the Northeast US) tended to use water power for mills rather than steam.
Keep in mind that those were typically coal mines, that is, the fuel for the pump engines was literally immediately at hand.
Windmills date back to the 9th century, water wheels to the 1st or earlier.
>Yes, you wouldn't be building a steam engine with the tools of Greek artisans in antiquity, not even the ones who built the Antikythera mechanism.
The Greeks had steam engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
It's just that slaves were vastly cheaper. In Britain early steam engines were price competitive with horses only at the coal mine for the first century of their operation.
The Greeks had steam engines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
It's just that slaves were vastly cheaper. In Britain early steam engines were price competitive with horses only at the coal mine for the first century of their operation.
An aeolipile is massively inefficient and it would have been almost impossible for ancient societies to extract useful work from it. By constantly releasing steam, an enormous amount of energy and matter is released from the engine that could otherwise be recycled. It's like trying to power a car with a rocket engine. The first steam engines that were used for practical work were low powered and very unreliable, but they did close the the steam cycle which allowed them to exploit the liquid -> gas phase transition while keeping (some or) the hot water around to reheat.
>An aeolipile is massively inefficient and it would have been almost impossible for ancient societies to extract useful work from it. By constantly releasing steam, an enormous amount of energy and matter is released from the engine that could otherwise be recycled. It's like trying to power a car with a rocket engine. The first steam engines that were used for practical work were low powered and very unreliable, but they did close the the steam cycle which allowed them to exploit the liquid -> gas phase transition while keeping (some or) the hot water around to reheat.
The first engines were atmospheric pressure, e.g. they used a vacuum to work. They were not closed cycle and they did not care about wasting water seeing as their purpose was to be a water pump. They didn't care about wasting coal as they worked at a coal mine. For the first century of their development they were stuck in the one niche where both the things they required were free.
https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/77500/77524/77524_newcm_stmeng.h...
An illustration that shows how they removed waste water from the piston. It was a century before high pressure engines were used, which were also open cycle and why steam trains released great plumes of steam when they moved.
The Aeolipile is exceedingly easy to reduce the steam outflow by having smaller nozzles. Given that they are basically a solid sphere made with four pipes sticking out they would have been the easiest form of high pressure engine to keep from exploding if there was a demand for mechanical work. They would however still explode, unlike the atmospheric engines.
The first engines were atmospheric pressure, e.g. they used a vacuum to work. They were not closed cycle and they did not care about wasting water seeing as their purpose was to be a water pump. They didn't care about wasting coal as they worked at a coal mine. For the first century of their development they were stuck in the one niche where both the things they required were free.
https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/77500/77524/77524_newcm_stmeng.h...
An illustration that shows how they removed waste water from the piston. It was a century before high pressure engines were used, which were also open cycle and why steam trains released great plumes of steam when they moved.
The Aeolipile is exceedingly easy to reduce the steam outflow by having smaller nozzles. Given that they are basically a solid sphere made with four pipes sticking out they would have been the easiest form of high pressure engine to keep from exploding if there was a demand for mechanical work. They would however still explode, unlike the atmospheric engines.
I bet most STEM related people could work out how to produce lot or trig tables with a little thinking. I wonder if the ancient Greeks would appreciate those.
Edit: It turns out they could produce their own for trig functions and wouldn't have been all that impressed by the log table because they didn't have logs.
Edit: It turns out they could produce their own for trig functions and wouldn't have been all that impressed by the log table because they didn't have logs.
Slides rules, though. Although it'd be nontrivial to make them, and I'm not sure where the demand would come from. For some of the same practical engineering approximations they might use compass and straightedge instead.
I never had the chance to use a sliderule, unfortunately.
In general (I'm sure someone's dug incredibly deep on this topic and can tell me exactly why I'm wrong), the pre-digital/electronic-computer era of engineering seems to have been really focused on doing log based calculations, which makes sense -- a good design has tolerances such that you only have to be right in the order of magnitude, right? This seems like it would much more appropriate to share with ancient civilizations. No need to waste precision when the implementation is going to be done with an hammer and chisel.
I will only be useful if you can convince ancient Greek computers to go out to E-15, haha.
In general (I'm sure someone's dug incredibly deep on this topic and can tell me exactly why I'm wrong), the pre-digital/electronic-computer era of engineering seems to have been really focused on doing log based calculations, which makes sense -- a good design has tolerances such that you only have to be right in the order of magnitude, right? This seems like it would much more appropriate to share with ancient civilizations. No need to waste precision when the implementation is going to be done with an hammer and chisel.
I will only be useful if you can convince ancient Greek computers to go out to E-15, haha.
Yeah, a slide rule's supposed to be good to ~3 digits, and I was imagining maybe the crude ones you're hacking up are only good for 2. The one I picked up out of curiosity is a bit sticky in its action, alas, so I haven't been excited about getting into it.
I'd suck at "inventing" anything impressive & practical -- so it'd be hard to get heard about germs, etc., etc., which I do know.
I'd suck at "inventing" anything impressive & practical -- so it'd be hard to get heard about germs, etc., etc., which I do know.
Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court is about this as well.
I thought it would be a silly story about a guy who get sent to the past but it is incredibly dark and pessimistic. The Yankee’s knowledge wows everyone, he’s put in charge of a war machine and creates an industrialized hell hole.
I thought it would be a silly story about a guy who get sent to the past but it is incredibly dark and pessimistic. The Yankee’s knowledge wows everyone, he’s put in charge of a war machine and creates an industrialized hell hole.
If you are into alternative history, Eric Flint does an optimistic, entertaining and lighthearted take on both Ancient Rome and the 17th century.
The first book from the 17th century series, 1632, is downloadable for free from Baen books.
The first book from the 17th century series, 1632, is downloadable for free from Baen books.
Do you recall the famous 'fan-fiction' fable of Prufrock on Reddit that was asked what happened if a modern military [Platoon?] was transported to ancient rome, and how would they fare against roman legions...
It was supoposed to have been opted for a movie... and then douchebagery ensues and it never made it to light...
It was supoposed to have been opted for a movie... and then douchebagery ensues and it never made it to light...
This is reminiscent of the book series A Time Odyssey, by Stephen Baxter and Arthur C. Clarke, where a UN helicopter crew and a couple of cosmonauts from 2037, a late 19th century British force, the Mongol horde under Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great's army and a couple of early hominids happen to meet each other. I remember it as a quite interesting parallel to A Space Odyssey. Highly recommended.
that sounds too weird to not be interesting. ordering...
Enticed by the wiki, I went to buy of off eBay and ended up finding the author's personal library copy with his bookplate.
Will find a friend when I'm finished, as well.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/304333942417
Will find a friend when I'm finished, as well.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/304333942417
I love this whole premise, is there a name for this genre of fiction?
Alternative history.
An Ancient greek or Roman would have lacked paper. Using the available paper on arithmetic would have been seen as an inordinate waste of dies and paper.
For temporary purposes, they usually wrote on wax tablets with styluses, which could be easily melted and re-molded for reuse. They came in little boxes with a protective cover and were used for temporary records and drafts and personal letters: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Table_wi...
And there's always sand! It's probably apocryphal but the legend is that Archimedes was slain by a Roman soldier during the taking of Syracuse when he objected -- "Don't disturb my circles!" -- to how the soldier marched through his trigonometry problems.
And there's always sand! It's probably apocryphal but the legend is that Archimedes was slain by a Roman soldier during the taking of Syracuse when he objected -- "Don't disturb my circles!" -- to how the soldier marched through his trigonometry problems.
There's a bunch of youtube channels with various takes on "starting from scratch". It seems like a mix of things that are very hard to bootstrap (metal being a big one!), and things that were more coincidental (lathes, saddles and riding gear, spinning looms).
Having a modern high school math education would make you the greatest mathematician in history up to about Newton, but more practically speaking I'm thinking that if you understood the principles behind good charcoal, a wood lathe, and how concrete and mortar actually work you could probably kick civilization up at least a few hundred years.
I'm envisioning something like this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IShxXtAev9U although they do rely on 18th century metals there you could start from less.
There's a great clickspring series where he thinks about what kind of knowledge and tools would be required to build the antikythera mechanism, I think that's a great example of "master tradesman that got surprisingly far by dedication to a few small areas, but then that knowledge was lost".
Having a modern high school math education would make you the greatest mathematician in history up to about Newton, but more practically speaking I'm thinking that if you understood the principles behind good charcoal, a wood lathe, and how concrete and mortar actually work you could probably kick civilization up at least a few hundred years.
I'm envisioning something like this -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IShxXtAev9U although they do rely on 18th century metals there you could start from less.
There's a great clickspring series where he thinks about what kind of knowledge and tools would be required to build the antikythera mechanism, I think that's a great example of "master tradesman that got surprisingly far by dedication to a few small areas, but then that knowledge was lost".
Not the best example (IMHO):
>how concrete and mortar actually work
Would you tell Roman engineers how to deal with those?
(they actually invented it, and - for certain applications - their concrete is still superior to modern one)
>how concrete and mortar actually work
Would you tell Roman engineers how to deal with those?
(they actually invented it, and - for certain applications - their concrete is still superior to modern one)
I was thinking in terms of ancient Greece like the GP mentioned. That said, Romans invented and pioneered concrete, but they didn't really understand how or why it worked, it was just centuries of excellent trial and error. They also had problems replicating it out of base materials other than volcanic ash.
Now that said I have my doubts that there are that many people on earth who could build better concrete for a given application than the Romans with no store to go buy pure materials from, I'm certainly not one of them.
That's also why I didn't talk about modern steel -- In my head I vaguely understand that there's a chain from copper to wire to a rotor/stator to electrolysis to oxygen gas to the Bessemer process, but I'd be amazed if there's anyone on earth who could bootstrap it in one lifetime, even with an ancient king's resources.
Now that said I have my doubts that there are that many people on earth who could build better concrete for a given application than the Romans with no store to go buy pure materials from, I'm certainly not one of them.
That's also why I didn't talk about modern steel -- In my head I vaguely understand that there's a chain from copper to wire to a rotor/stator to electrolysis to oxygen gas to the Bessemer process, but I'd be amazed if there's anyone on earth who could bootstrap it in one lifetime, even with an ancient king's resources.
In general, as someone else mentioned in the context of agriculture, the low-hanging fruit are probably innovations that aren't especially complicated or require possibly uncommon elements and other material. Stirrups for example in Europe. Also mostly abstract (but possibly useful) scientific and medical knowledge.
Anything that requires a long technology tree to implement effectively is going to be hard.
Anything that requires a long technology tree to implement effectively is going to be hard.
If you have woodworking skills you could make a crude but working spinning wheel in about a week with crude tools. They are simple machines once you understand them, and most of it can be made crude and still work. The idea is what is hard not the construction which is why once one was made it spread fast. I suspect (I think Bret Devereaux would agree) that if the males who were allowed to be creative had thought about women's work at all they would have made one several thousand years before. I wouldn't be surprised is some unknown woman did create something close on her own but society norms meant it didn't spread (if this happened all evidence would have burned/rotted - Luddites of the day may have destroyed it and the inventor).
As a modern educated man I'd turn much of my attention to "women's work" first - in large part because there is low hanging fruit there that would make my life better. The spinning wheel and looms would be a great changer, and something I think just having seen one in a history museum and a few weeks to watch how women work would allow me to make things work, then a few months in the woods to make a prototype.
For "men's work" things are harder because society allowed smart men to think about improvements. Maybe I could create gunpowder, but I would prefer to focus my war efforts on a good defense. I know good steel has controlled amounts of manganese and carbon in it (I'm sure more than those two), but I don't know how to control those amounts and my visits to museums and chemistry classes haven't given me enough information to think I could create those from scratch. That is before we consider the amount of labor needed to get the ore. (though if metal is available I'd make a steam engine)
Note that the above assumes I end up in or near Europe. I have no idea if any of societies on the other continents could support the above efforts.
As a modern educated man I'd turn much of my attention to "women's work" first - in large part because there is low hanging fruit there that would make my life better. The spinning wheel and looms would be a great changer, and something I think just having seen one in a history museum and a few weeks to watch how women work would allow me to make things work, then a few months in the woods to make a prototype.
For "men's work" things are harder because society allowed smart men to think about improvements. Maybe I could create gunpowder, but I would prefer to focus my war efforts on a good defense. I know good steel has controlled amounts of manganese and carbon in it (I'm sure more than those two), but I don't know how to control those amounts and my visits to museums and chemistry classes haven't given me enough information to think I could create those from scratch. That is before we consider the amount of labor needed to get the ore. (though if metal is available I'd make a steam engine)
Note that the above assumes I end up in or near Europe. I have no idea if any of societies on the other continents could support the above efforts.
There's this "Conrad Stargard" book series about an engineer going back in time to 13th century Poland and starting industrial revolution there. The book is VERY, VERY sexist with a strong dose of ephebophilia, the hero is 100% Gary Stu with Catholic-supremacy mania, but the engineering challenges and solutions are quite well presented. The trick was to get a powerful patron early and adapt the technology to the limitations and the engineering looked pretty realistic to me.
For example he makes rails but no locomotives because pulling standarized cars with standarized containers along low-friction rails already brings most of the benefits of modern transport network and is much easier than designing a steam locomotive in 1230s.
There's a lot about industrializing cloth production there, too and it's quite detailed. I liked it despite all the awful stuff.
For example he makes rails but no locomotives because pulling standarized cars with standarized containers along low-friction rails already brings most of the benefits of modern transport network and is much easier than designing a steam locomotive in 1230s.
There's a lot about industrializing cloth production there, too and it's quite detailed. I liked it despite all the awful stuff.
Well even that would vary widely. Some places it's easier to extract iron ore than others, or you could just melt down a meteorite and use that iron/steel to mine more ore.
Drilling also isn't necessarily so hard. Neolithic Chinese built perfectly circular discs out of jade, an extremely hard stone. They had no metal tools. It's possible that they could have developed more sophisticated equipment for mining rock, if they realized what they could do with it once they extracted it. https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/myster...
Drilling also isn't necessarily so hard. Neolithic Chinese built perfectly circular discs out of jade, an extremely hard stone. They had no metal tools. It's possible that they could have developed more sophisticated equipment for mining rock, if they realized what they could do with it once they extracted it. https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/myster...
Would you? Maybe it depends on how hard you have to struggle merely to survive and how much freedom you have. If you were a helot in ancient Sparta you'd have to be careful not to draw the attention of the Spartiates; they'd kill you for sport if they thought you were too virtuous.
What is this about drilling into granite? The Egyptians were drilling into granite a thousand years earlier using copper tube drills and quartz sand, which they probably could have drilled a lot faster if they'd known about emery, but I don't understand where granite drilling fits into the steel supply chain.
But with freedom and some way to survive you can get pretty far. In only four and a half years, apparently without using modern materials other than a video camera and writing instruments, John Plant was able to bootstrap from sticks and stones up to celt axes, coarse pants (spun of course with a drop spindle), a centrifugal blower, iron smelting powered by it, fired bricks, several huts, ceramic tile roofs, underfloor heating, cob construction, bow and arrow, atlatl, lime cement, wood ash cement, crawfish traps, rock-heated soup pots, charcoal burning, a pump drill, and a monjolo.
He hasn't yet been able to smelt enough iron to make so much as a fishhook, though, and Australian law doesn't allow him to hunt animals for sinew, leather, catgut, bone, and bladder.
A thing he's missing so far is metrology, which is very important for chemistry and for muskets and other machines. He also doesn't have much in the way of chemical resources on his land: no saltpeter and no concentrated salt, though he could perhaps purify them from urine.
Still, imagine how far he could get in 40 years with all the knowledge from the present and without those restrictions. It's an amazing contrast to what most of us have achieved in modern life with much more resources.
https://primitivetechnology.wordpress.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Technology
What is this about drilling into granite? The Egyptians were drilling into granite a thousand years earlier using copper tube drills and quartz sand, which they probably could have drilled a lot faster if they'd known about emery, but I don't understand where granite drilling fits into the steel supply chain.
But with freedom and some way to survive you can get pretty far. In only four and a half years, apparently without using modern materials other than a video camera and writing instruments, John Plant was able to bootstrap from sticks and stones up to celt axes, coarse pants (spun of course with a drop spindle), a centrifugal blower, iron smelting powered by it, fired bricks, several huts, ceramic tile roofs, underfloor heating, cob construction, bow and arrow, atlatl, lime cement, wood ash cement, crawfish traps, rock-heated soup pots, charcoal burning, a pump drill, and a monjolo.
He hasn't yet been able to smelt enough iron to make so much as a fishhook, though, and Australian law doesn't allow him to hunt animals for sinew, leather, catgut, bone, and bladder.
A thing he's missing so far is metrology, which is very important for chemistry and for muskets and other machines. He also doesn't have much in the way of chemical resources on his land: no saltpeter and no concentrated salt, though he could perhaps purify them from urine.
Still, imagine how far he could get in 40 years with all the knowledge from the present and without those restrictions. It's an amazing contrast to what most of us have achieved in modern life with much more resources.
https://primitivetechnology.wordpress.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Technology
I am pretty sure you could build a musket from bronze. Afaik the early cannons where made of it.
Sourcing of the ingredients for black powder might have been harder.
Sourcing of the ingredients for black powder might have been harder.
Cannons were cast however and musket barrels aren't. It's unclear you could make the barrels thick/strong enough to be useful. (At some point, you end up with something probably less useful than a refined bow design.)
In general, with these scenarios, another variable is do you just wake up in another time or do you have time to prepare, maybe have reference books/artifacts, figure out what you can do given technology and material availability, maybe learn the language, etc.
In general, with these scenarios, another variable is do you just wake up in another time or do you have time to prepare, maybe have reference books/artifacts, figure out what you can do given technology and material availability, maybe learn the language, etc.
Yes, you very much could build an effective firearm using bronze or brass. Brass barrels were quite commonly used historically. They are less suitable for modern, high pressure propellants, but for black powder firearms, they’ll work just fine.
I wonder which modern information would be actually useful a thousand years ago. Things like electricity, cumbustion engine etc wouldn't be very useful, but perhaps something steam-powered?
One low-hanging fruit would be sterilization and hand-washing for medical operations, at least.
One low-hanging fruit would be sterilization and hand-washing for medical operations, at least.
As someone mentioned on a different thread, a printing press would make a massive difference. The wine presses of 1022 were people standing on grapes in a box, so that could be significantly improved too.
Significant steam power (so not that ancient Greek toy) might prove too difficult for the engineering of the era, but a pressure cooker might be possible as it’s allowed to leak.
Screw cutting lathes, and in particular the guided toolpaths to make the output reliable and consistent, would be a big deal.
Might be able to bootstrap enough magnets and wires for basic electricity, at which point you can make much better compasses — the Chinese were the first to go beyond lodestones and that was about 1000 years ago — and electricity makes electroplating possible and some acids (e.g. hydrochloric) and alkalis (e.g. sodium hydroxide) basically trivial.
Float glass would radically increase the size and quality of individual windows panes. Knowing that lead oxide reduces the melting point would make manufacture much easier.
Wikipedia’s list of medieval technology has some interesting surprises: apparently wheelbarrows are only about 850 years old, hourglasses and segmented arch bridges only about 680 years old.
Significant steam power (so not that ancient Greek toy) might prove too difficult for the engineering of the era, but a pressure cooker might be possible as it’s allowed to leak.
Screw cutting lathes, and in particular the guided toolpaths to make the output reliable and consistent, would be a big deal.
Might be able to bootstrap enough magnets and wires for basic electricity, at which point you can make much better compasses — the Chinese were the first to go beyond lodestones and that was about 1000 years ago — and electricity makes electroplating possible and some acids (e.g. hydrochloric) and alkalis (e.g. sodium hydroxide) basically trivial.
Float glass would radically increase the size and quality of individual windows panes. Knowing that lead oxide reduces the melting point would make manufacture much easier.
Wikipedia’s list of medieval technology has some interesting surprises: apparently wheelbarrows are only about 850 years old, hourglasses and segmented arch bridges only about 680 years old.
Humans have been working with glass for a really long time. I wonder how hard it would be to make a microscope and kick off germ theory and antibiotics and such back then.
Right, and getting the finance to start the journey will be problematic.
The elevator pitch for the musket will sound like black magic.
The elevator pitch for the musket will sound like black magic.
In ancient Greece, I wouldn't be surprised if a crossbow (a bow that can be used with relatively little training!) wouldn't be more useful than very primitive firearms.
Ancient Greece had the ballista as early as 400 BC so this also wouldn't have seemed that magic or mysterious to them as well.
I'm not sure even with an unlimited budget you could get metals that would work as a musket. A cannon could be done if you know how, but the cost of that much metal would mean you would need the unlimited budget.
One could probably build a cannon out of mostly wood, with some banding for strategic reinforcement.
It would be fucking dangerous to operate and might not be all that effective. But my understanding is that the early cannons mainly worked by striking so much fear into people, that they surrendered without resistance.
The machines used to bore cannon holes into logs (lathes) would probably be nearly as profitable as the cannons themselves. And one could presumably use their cannon production business to finance their lathe-building business.
Oh, and there's always dynamite.
It would be fucking dangerous to operate and might not be all that effective. But my understanding is that the early cannons mainly worked by striking so much fear into people, that they surrendered without resistance.
The machines used to bore cannon holes into logs (lathes) would probably be nearly as profitable as the cannons themselves. And one could presumably use their cannon production business to finance their lathe-building business.
Oh, and there's always dynamite.
Black powder bronze firearms did apparently exist historically. Note that bronze is a fairly broad term for a range of alloys, some of which I'm guessing didn't exist in the "bronze age."
There's a book roughly on that topic called "How to Invent Everything" that I enjoyed, but I'm not sure I remember enough of it now to be of any good, so I'm going to be sure to grab it before going back in time.
Also along the same lines is "The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Civilization in the Aftermath of a Cataclysm", which I also enjoyed and keep a copy around just in case.
Also along the same lines is "The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Civilization in the Aftermath of a Cataclysm", which I also enjoyed and keep a copy around just in case.
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court.
A novel by Mark Twain. it is really fun.
[deleted]
Related to this if you like the topic and anime, watch Dr. Stone.
In a similar vein, I was astonished to read how much time was spent on spinning before the invention of the spinning wheel:
Consequently, spinning thread may have been the single most frequently performed work-task in the ancient world (the various farming tasks being more varied and more seasonal, while spinning was being done continuously all year round). We tend to think of the pre-modern world as a world of farmers (and it was) but we ought just as well to think of it as a world of spinnners.
I had no idea! From https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t...
The spinning wheel started out being three times more productive (at a somewhat reduced quality) and then, within a century or two, ten times more productive than the previous method.
Needless to say, a reduction in labor time potentially close to an order of magnitude in the most labor-intensive part (again, c. 80% of the labor time!) of textile production had enormous economic impacts (...). English cloth production tripled (measured by weight) between 1315 and 1545 and cloth produced per capita increased five-fold.
Consequently, spinning thread may have been the single most frequently performed work-task in the ancient world (the various farming tasks being more varied and more seasonal, while spinning was being done continuously all year round). We tend to think of the pre-modern world as a world of farmers (and it was) but we ought just as well to think of it as a world of spinnners.
I had no idea! From https://acoup.blog/2021/03/19/collections-clothing-how-did-t...
The spinning wheel started out being three times more productive (at a somewhat reduced quality) and then, within a century or two, ten times more productive than the previous method.
Needless to say, a reduction in labor time potentially close to an order of magnitude in the most labor-intensive part (again, c. 80% of the labor time!) of textile production had enormous economic impacts (...). English cloth production tripled (measured by weight) between 1315 and 1545 and cloth produced per capita increased five-fold.
A lifetime ago I worked in a textile mill in the US. After a several months I worked my way up to be a machine operator, a weaver. I had upwards of 50 weaving machines I kept operating thru my shift. Each of these produced probably 80meters * 6meters of fabric in an 8 hour shift. And at this rate, mills in southeast asia were able to undercut prices so much the US industry collapsed.
It's pretty amazing how much efficient you can build in if you're starting a process from scratch and know what the first mover did. This is precisely how the US pushed the UK out of the textile business. It's no wonder that it happened again after another series of innovations.
How old were the machinese you operated? I'm imagining turn of the century steam powered weavers. :)
They were state of the art MAV Rapier machines, in mid 1970's. They didn't use shuttles, but instead had rapiers that transported the fibers across the weave.
How much faster is a spinning wheel (of typical 500-year-old design, say) vs. a drop spindle, in the hands of someone with 20 years of spinning experience? And can the spinning wheel produce yarn that has similar quality?
From skimming around online, it seems that expert spinners get extremely fast with a drop spindle, and can produce higher quality yarn. But I can’t find a definitive answer about the comparative speed.
From skimming around online, it seems that expert spinners get extremely fast with a drop spindle, and can produce higher quality yarn. But I can’t find a definitive answer about the comparative speed.
Drop spindles don't spin continuously, which gives the wheel an uptime advantage.
Even modern spinners who prefer a drop spindle often have a wheel on hand for plying. Spinning a thread out of a blob of fluff can be engaging and interesting, while plying is a tedious process that's hard to get wrong without falling asleep in the middle. There's not really an art or skill to plying. A wheel can knock out this boring part of the spinning process much more quickly.
Even modern spinners who prefer a drop spindle often have a wheel on hand for plying. Spinning a thread out of a blob of fluff can be engaging and interesting, while plying is a tedious process that's hard to get wrong without falling asleep in the middle. There's not really an art or skill to plying. A wheel can knock out this boring part of the spinning process much more quickly.
> That includes things like clothing, but it also includes more staggering ideas like hand-spinning all the fabric for sails for ships, which is a seriously nontrivial amount of time!
The problem is that there is push and pull.
The Cotton Gin is quite famous about this. Anyone could have invented the cotton gin--and lots probably did. The problem is that nobody needed an order of magnitude more cotton--until they did. And once they did need more cotton--hey, presto--the cotton gin becomes widespread.
The problem is that there is push and pull.
The Cotton Gin is quite famous about this. Anyone could have invented the cotton gin--and lots probably did. The problem is that nobody needed an order of magnitude more cotton--until they did. And once they did need more cotton--hey, presto--the cotton gin becomes widespread.
Even knitting dates back only to about 1100 AD, which somewhat staggers me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knitting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_knitting
Well, yes, but it has very similar ancestors that are a bunch older: naalbinding, for example, is (probably) at least as old as the Mesolithic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A5lebinding
I know some very … enthusiastic … knitters who are keen to tell me how old knitting “really” is, but it smells a bit like “well, obviously…!” special pleading.
I have a naalbound and then felted cap. It is absurdly warm: unwearable with regular exertion in temperatures above -9C or so.
I know some very … enthusiastic … knitters who are keen to tell me how old knitting “really” is, but it smells a bit like “well, obviously…!” special pleading.
I have a naalbound and then felted cap. It is absurdly warm: unwearable with regular exertion in temperatures above -9C or so.
I'd imagine creating uniform and robust ball-bearings is not an easy feat.
Fortunately poured bearings (i.e., with Babbitt alloys) are much easier to create! You pour it into a shell with the shaft already installed. It's just tin and lead with a couple percent copper and antimony.
Now, getting a perfectly round shaft... also tough.
Now, getting a perfectly round shaft... also tough.
A marvelous book comparing income and wealth across centuries is The Haves and the Have-Nots - A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality by Branko Milanovic.
One way to compare wealth is to see how many people's labor an individual could purchase. It differs across time and countries (labor is cheap in India currently for example). This book is a careful historic look by an economist - using evidence from literature, history, etc. Branko uses a variety of ways to compare individuals across history.
https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/branko-milanovic/the-haves...
One way to compare wealth is to see how many people's labor an individual could purchase. It differs across time and countries (labor is cheap in India currently for example). This book is a careful historic look by an economist - using evidence from literature, history, etc. Branko uses a variety of ways to compare individuals across history.
https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/branko-milanovic/the-haves...
There's a great book about the progression of clothing, textiles, and fabric being scarce and expensive to commonplace and cheap. It runs through the various technological innovations (think cotton gin, but plenty more), culture, and economics. The Fabric of Civilization by Virginia Postrel. Great quote about Viking sail ships:
"Viking Age sail 100 meters square took 154 kilometers (60 miles) of yarn. Working eight hours a day with a heavy spindle whorl to produce relatively coarse yarn, a spinner would toil 385 days to make enough for the sail. Plucking the sheep and preparing the wool for spinning required another 600 days. From start to finish, Viking sails took longer to make than the ships they powered."
"Viking Age sail 100 meters square took 154 kilometers (60 miles) of yarn. Working eight hours a day with a heavy spindle whorl to produce relatively coarse yarn, a spinner would toil 385 days to make enough for the sail. Plucking the sheep and preparing the wool for spinning required another 600 days. From start to finish, Viking sails took longer to make than the ships they powered."
It doesn't strike me as surprising that the sail would take longer than the boat. The skill to make a boat is impressive but the mechanics of getting it done aren't enormous.
Fabrics and sewing, gathering and prepping those materials and the tedious work seems enormous.
Fabrics and sewing, gathering and prepping those materials and the tedious work seems enormous.
I encourage you to watch some videos online of traditional (mostly hand-tools) Shipwrights. Even with the use of a bandsaw to do the rough milling, it is an arduous and lengthy process. Shipwrights also work with some of the longest planks of wood any form of woodworking does. In the days before machines, there would be scores of workers simply preparing the wood and getting it ready for the ship building.
My hunch would be the reason shipbuilding is faster is it is easier to scale to multiple workers, and there are parts you can do in parallel.
My hunch would be the reason shipbuilding is faster is it is easier to scale to multiple workers, and there are parts you can do in parallel.
Reminds me of the comparison between computer software and hardware. Hulls are fairly linear. Sails are combinatorial.
Plucking sheep.
You shear sheep, not pluck them. If you're experienced you can sheer about 100 sheep per day. You can skirt and wash the fleece of those same 100 sheep on day two. How are you spending the remaining 598 days?
While I'm not an expert at spinning (although my spouse may be), I would venture that 12 or 15 village women carding and spinning 10 to 12 hours a day would be able to go from sheep to sail in about 3 months. Spindle spinning is very portable and something a woman would do during pretty much every spare moment when her hands were not busy doing something else. Making sails would have been a drop in the bucket when it came to yarn consumption since she also had to make all the clothes and cloth for other uses like sacking, ticking, blankets, etc.
You shear sheep, not pluck them. If you're experienced you can sheer about 100 sheep per day. You can skirt and wash the fleece of those same 100 sheep on day two. How are you spending the remaining 598 days?
While I'm not an expert at spinning (although my spouse may be), I would venture that 12 or 15 village women carding and spinning 10 to 12 hours a day would be able to go from sheep to sail in about 3 months. Spindle spinning is very portable and something a woman would do during pretty much every spare moment when her hands were not busy doing something else. Making sails would have been a drop in the bucket when it came to yarn consumption since she also had to make all the clothes and cloth for other uses like sacking, ticking, blankets, etc.
Shearing requires advanced technology that the Vikings may not have had. https://www.griggsagri.co.uk/blog/sheep-shearing-a-brief-his...:
“The sheep were shorn using very basic tools, such as metal, or sharp glass, fashioned into an implement to take whole clumps of wool off at once. Over time, the tools were adapted into scissor-like blades to make the job easier.”
I think you can call that plucking. People use tools to pluck grapes, too.
And 100 a day without a powered tool? Is that realistic?
“The sheep were shorn using very basic tools, such as metal, or sharp glass, fashioned into an implement to take whole clumps of wool off at once. Over time, the tools were adapted into scissor-like blades to make the job easier.”
I think you can call that plucking. People use tools to pluck grapes, too.
And 100 a day without a powered tool? Is that realistic?
[deleted]
These are examples of Viking era shears, found in what is now Sweden. I just did a quick search. Search words: sisare järnålder.
http://samlingarna.gotlandsmuseum.se/index.php/Detail/object...
https://historiska.se/upptack-historien/object/364462-sax-si...
http://samlingarna.gotlandsmuseum.se/index.php/Detail/object...
https://historiska.se/upptack-historien/object/364462-sax-si...
12-15 women working for 3 months is close to 4 person-years of work. That's higher than the numbers in Fenrisulfr's quote.
Plucking is the ancient form of sheering. You literally pull the hair off the sheep by hand. You aren't yanking it out by the roots, the shaft generally broke rather than the root put out of the skin, but I doubt the sheep enjoyed the process. In short: gathering wool from sheep was very different before ready acess to steel shears.
https://www.chassagne.ca/index.php/the-croft-mainmenu-30/the...
"Before the invention of shears, the sheep were plucked or “rooed”, a Scandinavian word for plucking, and this tradition was still carried out on the Shetland Island until about forty years ago."
https://www.chassagne.ca/index.php/the-croft-mainmenu-30/the...
"Before the invention of shears, the sheep were plucked or “rooed”, a Scandinavian word for plucking, and this tradition was still carried out on the Shetland Island until about forty years ago."
If you have ever encountered a sheep's fleece you would realize that it's not possible to pluck. It's a solid mat. It's not hair. Even paleolithic people had sharp knives and scrapers capable of shearing a fleece, so it's not stretch to imagine iron age people having equipment at least as good as their ancestors from 25000 years prior.
100 sheep per day ... with a flat blade since you don't have sheers yet ... while doing all the other chores required to maintain yourself ... accounting for the time it takes for the sheep to grow a coat long enough to sheer in the first place?
> 100 meters square
I think that might take a bit more than 154 km of yarn.
Presumably you meant 100 square metre. :-)
I think that might take a bit more than 154 km of yarn.
Presumably you meant 100 square metre. :-)
[deleted]
You'd have to cut the trees, get them from the forest to the build site, and then make lumber out of them and dry them. Can't imagine it would be that much different.
In those times, chances are they moved the build site to the trees, and made sure the trees were close to the water (with more forest and a much smaller population, such trees could probably be found fairly easily)
Also, they didn’t dry the wood. https://regia.org/research/ships/Ships1.htm:
“Timber was used green – in other words, shortly after felling. This is different to more modern practice, where the timber is "seasoned" – left to dry for several years. Green wood is easier to work, and more flexible, which can help with some of the more complex shapes found in Viking boats. Wood can be kept "green" for several years by keeping it immersed in water – a stem (or stern) of a Viking style boat was found on the island of Eig in what, a thousand years ago, had been a lake. As it had never been used – there were no indications of rivet holes – it was probably made up when the boat-builder had got a spare piece of suitable timber, and he was waiting for a similar bit for the stern (or stem) which never arrived.
It is also possible to steam green wood without complex equipment like the steam boxes used today. Simply by heating a plank over a fire, the moisture inside the wood heats up and causes the fibres to loosen. This means that – for a few minutes – it can be twisted into shape with less danger of it splitting and breaking. It is highly likely that this was done during Viking times – we know the technique was used to make "expanded" log boats, for example.”
Also, they didn’t dry the wood. https://regia.org/research/ships/Ships1.htm:
“Timber was used green – in other words, shortly after felling. This is different to more modern practice, where the timber is "seasoned" – left to dry for several years. Green wood is easier to work, and more flexible, which can help with some of the more complex shapes found in Viking boats. Wood can be kept "green" for several years by keeping it immersed in water – a stem (or stern) of a Viking style boat was found on the island of Eig in what, a thousand years ago, had been a lake. As it had never been used – there were no indications of rivet holes – it was probably made up when the boat-builder had got a spare piece of suitable timber, and he was waiting for a similar bit for the stern (or stem) which never arrived.
It is also possible to steam green wood without complex equipment like the steam boxes used today. Simply by heating a plank over a fire, the moisture inside the wood heats up and causes the fibres to loosen. This means that – for a few minutes – it can be twisted into shape with less danger of it splitting and breaking. It is highly likely that this was done during Viking times – we know the technique was used to make "expanded" log boats, for example.”
Before mechanization, logging was typically done in the winter so horse-drawn sleds could be used to transport the logs out of the forest.
https://picryl.com/media/framkorning-av-timmer-fran-skogen-m...
https://picryl.com/media/framkorning-av-timmer-fran-skogen-m...
> 154 kilometers (60 miles)
154 km = 95.7 mi
154 km = 95.7 mi
> Robbers in Italy or debt collectors in Egypt often stripped the clothes off their victims’ backs,
With regard to debt collection, what is interesting is the Bible requires that cloaks that were taken as collateral had to be returned by sunset so the person could sleep in them.
Exodus 22:26 - If you take your neighbor’s cloak as collateral, return it to him by sunset, because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in?
With regard to debt collection, what is interesting is the Bible requires that cloaks that were taken as collateral had to be returned by sunset so the person could sleep in them.
Exodus 22:26 - If you take your neighbor’s cloak as collateral, return it to him by sunset, because his cloak is the only covering he has for his body. What else will he sleep in?
Kind of contradicts the purpose of the collateral, doesn't it? Does the lender retrieve it as collateral again the next morning? Do they only make same-day loans?
My understanding was that the lender would the retrieve it again every morning.
a lovely little factoid is that in elizabethan england, a set of clothes could easily cost more than a house (Shakespeare paid a 60 pounds for the rather large house New Place, while a very fancy set of clothes could cost hundreds of pounds). This makes sense when you consider that the clothes could take more labor than the house!
Up until very recently, durable goods were very expensive and labor was very cheap. In some parts of the world, that's still the case today.
Just the other day was an article about how Agatha Christie was considered middle class even though she had a live in maid and nanny, because she couldn't afford a car, because the cost of the car was the same as 5 years of salary for both workers.
Just the other day was an article about how Agatha Christie was considered middle class even though she had a live in maid and nanny, because she couldn't afford a car, because the cost of the car was the same as 5 years of salary for both workers.
This sentence stood out to me most: “executioners often claimed the clothes that their clients wore to the execution”. The word “client” is what shook me.
> The word “client” is what shook me.
Executioners in the past would often be paid by the people they were set to execute or their families. That payment included the cost of taking care of the body afterwards, and in many cases a fee for services as the alternative to an executioner was usually much more grim and painful, whereas a good executioner guaranteed a quicky and nearly painless death.
There's a fascinating video on YouTube by a channel called Weird History with more on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqdoJ5rfT4
Executioners in the past would often be paid by the people they were set to execute or their families. That payment included the cost of taking care of the body afterwards, and in many cases a fee for services as the alternative to an executioner was usually much more grim and painful, whereas a good executioner guaranteed a quicky and nearly painless death.
There's a fascinating video on YouTube by a channel called Weird History with more on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqdoJ5rfT4
seems they'd be a little bloody after the fact
if I got blood on a $2k shirt, I'd probably bother to clean it
This is helpful context in understanding the saying: "If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." (Matthew 5:40) The ethic described in the modern vernacular is to "go the extra mile." (verse 41)
If my calculations are correct, that would be ~$700 to $1400 for a linen tunic.
Well, now that would depend on who's making the tunic. Is it a Armanicus? Or was it made by the fabled three stripe master, Adidacus?
An interesting takeaway here is the wages with and without “maintenance”. From earlier reading, I take “maintained” workers to have been provided food, fuel, and housing.
Since “maintained” workers earned half of “unmaintained” workers, we can extrapolate that the pay was approximately equal to the cost of food, fuel, and housing, which would point to discretionary income at a much higher rate vs basic costs of living than contemporary laborers.
Many other factors are involved of course, including services and automation which greatly increase quality of life while reducing the need of discretionary spending, and also the comparative wage hierarchy of textile workers, but it is an interesting comparison nonetheless.
Since “maintained” workers earned half of “unmaintained” workers, we can extrapolate that the pay was approximately equal to the cost of food, fuel, and housing, which would point to discretionary income at a much higher rate vs basic costs of living than contemporary laborers.
Many other factors are involved of course, including services and automation which greatly increase quality of life while reducing the need of discretionary spending, and also the comparative wage hierarchy of textile workers, but it is an interesting comparison nonetheless.
Also see:
• Prices and wages in Medieval England (2014) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29882389> 2022-01-10, 119 comments
• Medieval Price List <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21669787> 2019-12-01, 147 comments
• List of price of medieval items <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15680005> 2017-11-12, 48 comments
• List of prices of medieval items (2009) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11613093> 2016-05-03, 38 comments
• Prices and wages in Medieval England (2014) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29882389> 2022-01-10, 119 comments
• Medieval Price List <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21669787> 2019-12-01, 147 comments
• List of price of medieval items <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15680005> 2017-11-12, 48 comments
• List of prices of medieval items (2009) <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11613093> 2016-05-03, 38 comments
There are a bunch of similar articles describing costs in the Middle Ages. Here's one example (there's another on the bookandsword.com site, too):
https://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-...
https://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-...
Nice article. You can read also from Titus Livius, in his work *Ad Urbe Condita, that in many occassions, if not all of them, when an army won the battle they stripped all their defeated army clothing, leaving them only with a small underwear back to their own cities. That was the price of defeat.
So, the word "robber" is because they would strip you out of your robe?
Actually it is the opposite.
The word “rob” comes from a proto-indo-european root meaning to “tear” or “strip”, and has apparently been used in the modern sense of taking things by force for thousands of years, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Eur... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic...
The word “robe” is the derivative word, originally meaning the spoils of robbery, e.g. a stolen garment. It has only meant a specific kind of long loose garment for hundreds of years.
The English words “rip”, “reave”, “bereave” also come from the same origin.
The word “rob” comes from a proto-indo-european root meaning to “tear” or “strip”, and has apparently been used in the modern sense of taking things by force for thousands of years, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-Eur... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic...
The word “robe” is the derivative word, originally meaning the spoils of robbery, e.g. a stolen garment. It has only meant a specific kind of long loose garment for hundreds of years.
The English words “rip”, “reave”, “bereave” also come from the same origin.
Women used to spend all day either tending the stove or making thread, cloth, and sewing. It's no surprised that the Industrial Revolution started with the textile industry.
What about the price of materials? Take that off of the 500 to start with, they'd have to work longer to make ends meet.
Nice website, bookmarked
Not the author, don't know him, no connection – but I caught a glimpse somewhere on the blog that he is currently unemployed. As an open-source maintainer, I feel like it is my duty to plug him so he can perhaps get some patrons or donations, the blog is great. https://www.bookandsword.com/support/
He is also not a software engineer or in tech in any meaningful way, so his 'tip to total income' ratio is probably off the chart compared to, say, me.
As an aside, now that everybody is asking for 'tips' of some sort, it is getting quite difficult to figure out for whom these tips are essential (i.e. him) and for whom they are just gratuities. I wish I had a good answer for this.
He is also not a software engineer or in tech in any meaningful way, so his 'tip to total income' ratio is probably off the chart compared to, say, me.
As an aside, now that everybody is asking for 'tips' of some sort, it is getting quite difficult to figure out for whom these tips are essential (i.e. him) and for whom they are just gratuities. I wish I had a good answer for this.
> As an aside, now that everybody is asking for 'tips' of some sort, it is getting quite difficult to figure out for whom these tips are essential (i.e. him) and for whom they are just gratuities. I wish I had a good answer for this.
That's a good point. On twitter, I see very often people asking for money for a surgery, an accident, or just in general. I feel like I see this way more often than before, but I don't have any hard data to back this up. Just like you, I don't have any good answer to that.
That's a good point. On twitter, I see very often people asking for money for a surgery, an accident, or just in general. I feel like I see this way more often than before, but I don't have any hard data to back this up. Just like you, I don't have any good answer to that.
Your online social milieu is likely getting poorer over time. In the olden days, online meeting grounds like Twitter were elite locations. Now they're commons. I notice this the most on Reddit where I'm sometimes reminded how many blue collar people there are (and also what a wide age range exists there).
Yeah, that's a trend. I think it's also the main underlying reason why Google results are getting worse (worse for elites like us...).
I feel like I see this way more often than before, but I don't have any hard data to back this up. Just like you, I don't have any good answer to that.
Maybe your network is growing or, more realistically, the global pandemic we happen to be in is causing issues than normal. IMO, the answer to this would be voting for politicians who support a welfare system where an accident doesn't bankrupt you (regardless of things like employment status).
Maybe your network is growing or, more realistically, the global pandemic we happen to be in is causing issues than normal. IMO, the answer to this would be voting for politicians who support a welfare system where an accident doesn't bankrupt you (regardless of things like employment status).
Thanks! I updated the link on the blog post and on my support page to point to my Canadian paypal account which is more accessible while I am overseas than my Austrian paypal account.
I think the issues funding open-source are very similar to the issues funding writing.
I think the issues funding open-source are very similar to the issues funding writing.
His blog had a mildly interesting post on rereading one of the SM Sterling novels, Against the Tide of Years. I really enjoyed those books, and in the comments it appears SM Sterling is actually there engaging, which is very cool!
[deleted]
Clothing remains expensive, except we don't see the true cost.
> Clothing remains expensive, except we don't see the true cost.
Not really comparably. Lots of externalities and some weird market distortions, sure. But still, we're an order of magnitude or two cheaper now at minimum. Especially if you are comparing day-to-day functional clothing, where it's more likely 3.
Not really comparably. Lots of externalities and some weird market distortions, sure. But still, we're an order of magnitude or two cheaper now at minimum. Especially if you are comparing day-to-day functional clothing, where it's more likely 3.
More like three. Went from $1500 to $1.50. At a minimum wage job in the US, you can buy multiple shirts per hour worked. It would literally blow the mind of ancient people (maybe even moreso than something like a Computer), as it's something they have and work with - but the price is so different.
The idea that someone on a laborers salary could afford the material standard of people in much of the world today would be astonishing. My own grandmother grew up wearing clothes made from repurposed flour sacks, and that was only 90 years ago. The last two centuries of human progress are staggering to think about.
There's a book called Why the West Rules--For now that basically explores the social development of the Western and Eastern cores since the dawn of civilization. One of the striking things in the book is that the author charts social development as measured by a formula with lots of variables. The kicker is that if you zoom out to look at the whole history, at that scale, the chart is basically flat-lined near zero until a couple hundred years ago.
flour and grain companies used to put floral designs on their sacks because they knew that buyers would repurpose the bags as clothing.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4b/80/d6/4b80d65a7d8ebf737eed...
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4b/80/d6/4b80d65a7d8ebf737eed...
Yeah, that's a pretty neat bit of history. I wish I had some photos but alas the oldest photo of them I'm aware of is sometime after WWII.
Yes, I'm handwaving that even if you very conservatively estimate factoring back in for the externalized costs etc., you still are a couple of orders at least for cheapest garments.
i.e. the GP has a valid point but it doesn't undermine OP article at all. I expanded a little.
i.e. the GP has a valid point but it doesn't undermine OP article at all. I expanded a little.
Basically only the sewing is done by hand now, and that's done with the aid of machines. That alone saves mountains of labor. Cotton has some problems with water and pesticide use, but it's insanely productive today even compared to 50 years ago. Even if you priced in every externality it would probably still be cheaper to buy a shirt today than it would have been 50 years ago.
Au contraire, it’s even cheaper than portrayed. Even though a “basic tunic” today can be had for less than an hour of minimum wage work under very comfortable conditions, the price additionally covers advertising, intercontinental shipping, extensive regulatory compliance, extensive insurance, great HVAC, etc.
Yes you can find “tragedy of the commons” and other concerns for modern production. Realize the tradeoffs, that ancient circumstances denied many benefits enjoyed today, that were we to subject workers today to those circumstances you’d be far more outraged.
Yes you can find “tragedy of the commons” and other concerns for modern production. Realize the tradeoffs, that ancient circumstances denied many benefits enjoyed today, that were we to subject workers today to those circumstances you’d be far more outraged.
What hidden costs are accounting for the 2-3 orders of magnitude difference in clothing prices vs. minimum wages?
In at least part, environmental damage, fuel, and resource costs.
The actual input cost of fossil fuels is ~5 million times the market price based on the time-cost of formation.
See Jeffrey S. Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine", 2003.
The actual input cost of fossil fuels is ~5 million times the market price based on the time-cost of formation.
See Jeffrey S. Dukes, "Burning Buried Sunshine", 2003.
So translating to modern wages (in US/Western Europe) somewhere between $500 and $1500 for the simplest tunic, or between $7000 and $21000 for the finest quality.
That certainly puts the practice of robbers to take people's clothes into perspective.