Why didn't the Romans invent steam engines?

[Hroth]

Because the French ships were well designed and sailed well.

 

At this time both British and French Ships of the time were hand built by craftsmen, the difference was that in the British yards more of the individual components, supplies and ammunition were starting to be mass produced, which made it possible to build more of them. Marc Brunel for example getting his start in this country by designing a machine to make the 100,000 blocks a year needed to rig the Royal Navies ships. The fact that Royal Navy ships spent longer at sea and that the British dockyards ended up supplying a lot of the French built ships with gear would also have created a greater demand, and hence helped drive the development of more efficient methods of production. Also the demands of a Navy that wants to be off Cadiz next week are harder to supply by craft methods than one that may want to sail sometime next year.

 

One of the great advantages that the British forces had at that time was the combination of a country made rich enough by trade to allow them to practice with cheaply made mass produced live ammunition.

I don't have "facts" to back this assertion up, but I've a feeling that the reason that French ships sailed well was that they were largely new-built.  The Royal Navy, on the other hand went to sea in ships that were sometimes decades old and had been laid up (often to rot) in dockyards during periods of peace. These ships were then thrashed all year round, enforcing the blockade of the French fleet in their ports.  As an example, the most famous (and still existing!) Royal Navy ship of the line is HMS Victory, launched in 1765 and thus 40 years old at Trafalger. 

 

Its no wonder that an ambitious frigate captain would rather fancy his chances in a relatively new captured French 74!

[Ozexpatriate]

Most national debt seems to be owned by collective or individual pension funds in the 'home' country, which makes the recent proposal by Mr President to 'devalue' US national debt particularly weird ...... it would involve devaluing the pension pots of all of his voters, which surely wouldn't go down too well! Wasn't it that sort of thing that had the normally peaceable Greeks out on the streets in anger?

We quickly cross into the realms of politics, as all discussions on total debt, distinctions between foreign and domestic debt ownership, the deficit, the budget and that particularly peculiar US creation, the "debt ceiling" become heavily politicised depending on political perspective. Lately each new budget cycle has required an increase in the legislated "debt ceiling".

 

Earlier in the year (before the fiscal year deadline of September 30) congress passed an extension (until December 8) to fund the government (and provide hurricane disaster relief) through December 8. Yesterday congress passed an emergency measure to extend funding until the 22nd. This remains unresolved for yet another showdown. I won't dive into the rat hole of what is currently happening with the new Federal income tax plan and how this effects the deficit and funding.

 

Pension funds are a thorny topic as well. Fewer commercial entities offer them, mostly it is state workers, or related entities like teachers' unions, who have access to them anymore. 

 

 The distinctions between all of these are largely lost on most people who seem to cling to very simple notions relative to their personal tax burden and the 'reach' of government. A lot of cognitive dissonance is applied and my sense of it is that many people seem to hold mutually exclusive, quasi-religious, positions on governance, taxation, spending and services.

[coachmann]

Why didn't the Romans invent steam engines?  Oldham Latics supporters probably thought they had when an ageing Lanky 0-6-0 was rustled up out of a siding to haul them to a match with Stoke and they got there 20 minutes before the final whistle.

Edited December 9, 2017 by coachmann

[Nearholmer]

We seem to have got this far, but missed a vital point: they were just too rushed off their feet to go round inventing bits of technology.

[DavidB-AU]

[The White Rabbit]

Well OT, but I’ve always wanted to see a nice complicated diagram showing who owes what to whom.

 

Well, it's sort of like this x 100...

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/62412-things-that-make-you/?p=2952839

 

or on a good day:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/62412-things-that-make-you/?p=2953052

 

Seriously, I did an A-level in economics (albeit quite a few years ago now) and can't have been that bad at it as I got an A grade. Some of my paid work since then has included accounting, economics, finance and tax etc. - OK, so I'm not a world expert but perhaps in the top 1% of the population when it comes to understanding the economy and finance - and when I study some financial products and concepts, it makes my head spin. In 'the old days', when A went to B and said can I borrow a gold bar to buy some more sheep, pay you two gold bars back next April/May once they've lambed/been sheared, it's easy. When B offsets risk against A getting fly-strike or mass abortions and defaulting on the loan by insuring with C against that risk, then you can still use contract law and/or maths (law of probabilities) to get a [relatively] straight answer. When B also takes out share options on A (now a multi-national corporation registered in a tax haven, using shell companies and a complicated corporate structure subject to various different legal jurisdictions) and starts using derivatives, collateralised debt obligations, credit default swaps and depending on specific rates of loan interest and international currency exchange rates, it usually takes a team of auditors and lawyers considerable time to trace who owns what and owes what and who made profits on 'the deal'. By which time, usually the 'cash' has disappeared or the situation has changed sufficiently to make the original answer meaningless and you're back to square one. 

 

And when we involve international politics as well, another dimension's added to the mix. For example, a lot of American debt is held in China. At the dramatic end of the spectrum, what happens if those two countries go to war (whether over the Spratleys, Korea or any other issue) and the relationship breaks down irretrievably? DT on Twitter one morning: "@Xi Jinping? You know all that money we owe you? Well, you can whistle for it." New diagram needed... 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by The White Rabbit

[jjb1970]

In 1914 there was a high level of economic interdependency between the European economies and many (most) of the money men and financiers were among those urging peace because they had some idea of the possible economic consequences of war. However most still seem to ascribe WW1 to greedy capitalism, funny old world. We see a similar dynamic today.

[Edwin_m]

 

when I study some financial products and concepts, it makes my head spin.

Many of the worlds greatest brains were having the same problem in 2008. 

[pete_mcfarlane]

However most still seem to ascribe WW1 to greedy capitalism, funny old world. We see a similar dynamic today.

I think that's more a case of people blaming bad things on a political system they don't like, rather than a more detailed analysis. 

[runs as required]

Back to the "what do you do with an Empire once you've got it" bit several pages back.

 

A Sicilian friend, [who hankers after self rule for Sicily] argues that Spain at the end of the C15, having evicted the Moors, set about a century of self interested expansion.

Obviously it was possible to "Go West Young Man" and also East - although the west, the Great Unknown, was far riskier. 

So the Noble families hired others like Columbus from Genoa to take the big risks in sailing westwards while urging their own families eastwards to try their luck in ruling the safer well  known Western Med.parts of the Old World

So the Spanish New World was built by lower class adventurers, kept under tight control with the Laws of the Indies issued in great detail by Philip II from the Escorial Palace and the old Spanish Nobilty became a lax ruling class of aristocrats of the Spanish Mediterranean lands such as the Kingdom of the two Sicllies.

 

dh

[Big James]

The early empire was built by accident. It was the Punic Wars that built the first stages of the empire. The loss of most of Carthages overseas territories to Rome. Greece joining in on Carthage’s side set the stage for Rome to conquer them to. After that the empire was built by various politicians trying to put do themselves. Egypt was taken after cleopatra threw her lot in Mark Anthony against Rome. If Rome hadn’t been so soundly beaten in the ambush of the teuteberg forest then Germany would’ve have quickly fallen to. This is an extremely gross simplification of how the empire was built.

 

Big james

[pete_mcfarlane]

The early empire was built by accident. It was the Punic Wars that built the first stages of the empire. The loss of most of Carthages overseas territories to Rome. Greece joining in on Carthage’s side set the stage for Rome to conquer them to. After that the empire was built by various politicians trying to put do themselves. Egypt was taken after cleopatra threw her lot in Mark Anthony against Rome. If Rome hadn’t been so soundly beaten in the ambush of the teuteberg forest then Germany would’ve have quickly fallen to. This is an extremely gross simplification of how the empire was built.

 

Big james

There's also a theory that, having built an Empire, you then start to interfere in the affairs of the surrounding independent states so that you can use them as a 'buffer zone' between the Empire and the nasty foreigners outside your borders.

 

Over time these client states become more and more assimilated and part of the Empire, which then requires their neighbours to be used as the buffer zone (and eventually assimilated) and so on. So the Empire slowly grows. 

 

The Romans did this, we did it in India and Africa, and it explains some of Putin's recent behaviour in the Crimea. 

[Big James]

Palmyra was one it was an independent nation between Rome and the parthians. The batavians was another. They acted as a barrier between the empire and the big bad Germans. As some nations chose to join the empire some chose to leave. Like Britain and Gaul towards the end of the empire. Also the empire was invaded towards the end by Germans who looked more like the Romans them some of the Romans. Gone we’re the days with barbarians wildly charging them. They had become more sophisticated and in the end sheer weight of numbers overwhelmed the German borders.

 

Big james