Sure they could have built a computer if they had learned the technology. We are still amazed now as we learn of methods and technologies that human cultures had before us. Humans are much more able than we give them credit, and much more innovative than history endures and relates the resulting inventions.
Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
91–100 of 145 posts
Re: Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
#92Let's assume they can build the computer, including all the supporting technologies, like electricity and precise mechanics.
What use case would they have where it would make economic sense to spend countless man hours developing it?
Fortunately, all the component technologies are useful in themselves, so you could start by developing them independently, just like it happened naturally. Let's say you start with electricity. It's really useful right?
Well, without a power grid, electric engines, industry to use the engines, and large electric power plants to supply a steady supply of electricity, it is really much less attractive.
I'm doubting you could actually get a computer built until the civilization was ready for it, and there was a need.
Re: Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's likely that the greater forces responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire would have happened regardless of what advanced technology they might have developed.
Actually, from what I understood from listing to a TTC lecture series about this, the "decline and fall" of the roman empire is somewhat of a fiction, in that it wasn't a brutal event, more of a long slow disintegration over the span of a thousand years. To give some sense of perspective, that's 3 times longer than the US has existed, and people have been clamouring that the US is in decline for the last 50 years. Wh…
Re: Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
#94I think the point of the article was "Could Romans build a computer, if plans were magically given to them?". Given this, the critique I am about to make is a little outside the scope of this thought experiment. However, I've wondered about questions like this a lot before, and I think it is also interesting to consider that the Romans (possibly) had many conceptual hurdles to cross as well. I am not a historian, but…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hlkcq
Amazing stuff!
Re: Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nulla/nihil.
philosophical (or philological question): is having a word for 'nothing' the same as having a number 'zero'? my answer would be no. when zero entered western civilization from the east, my understanding is that it triggered profound changes. yet indo-european languages have probably pretty much always had a word for 'nothing'.
Many cultures had at least a word for zero/nothing in the context of numbers, but didn't have a positional numeral system, and in many cases didn't have a numeral notation for it either.
Re: Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
#96I think the point of the article was "Could Romans build a computer, if plans were magically given to them?". Given this, the critique I am about to make is a little outside the scope of this thought experiment. However, I've wondered about questions like this a lot before, and I think it is also interesting to consider that the Romans (possibly) had many conceptual hurdles to cross as well. I am not a historian, but…
Re: Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
#97Now consider (just consider) that one does not necessarily need a "plan" or a "theory" to build things, one should definitely do so, preferably something (seemingly) useless.
Re: Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
#98I think the point of the article was "Could Romans build a computer, if plans were magically given to them?". Given this, the critique I am about to make is a little outside the scope of this thought experiment. However, I've wondered about questions like this a lot before, and I think it is also interesting to consider that the Romans (possibly) had many conceptual hurdles to cross as well. I am not a historian, but…
It might not have been binary. It might not have been digital, but analogue.
I don't know anything about philosophy but Zeno's Arrow Paradox shows the strength of analogue thinking.
> It's interesting to think about what obvious inventions we may not realize today due to the way we represent certain forms of information.
I've only recently learnt that in Russian there are different words for "blue", and that these are seen as different colours, not just lighter or darker shades of the same colour.
And while it's good that we have so much processing power it does tend to mean that we just throw more processors at something, rather than designing a radically new architecture for specific domains.
Re: Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's likely that the greater forces responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire would have happened regardless of what advanced technology they might have developed.
Actually, from what I understood from listing to a TTC lecture series about this, the "decline and fall" of the roman empire is somewhat of a fiction, in that it wasn't a brutal event, more of a long slow disintegration over the span of a thousand years. To give some sense of perspective, that's 3 times longer than the US has existed, and people have been clamouring that the US is in decline for the last 50 years. Wh…
Yes and no. Roman decline really happened, but the significance attached to 476 AD is an artifact developed later, when the decline actually happened over hundreds of years. As you noted, the Eastern Roman Empire carried on for another thousand years, and the Catholic Church remains the largest religion in the world.
There was a decline in trade complexity, literacy, and probably standard of living at the top of society. Medieval historians did believe they were in a time of decline and ruin (this was heavily influenced by Christianity and its apocalyptic prophecies) but the average Germanic peasant didn't know enough to care either way, and probably had no substantial change in his material well-being from 100 AD to 600 AD (or 1700 AD).
One of the things to keep in mind is oblique comparison. Most people who perceive decline compare their status to that of elite people in the past, creating a sense that things were better then. You'd certainly be better off as a Roman patrician than as a peasant in 7th-century Bavaria, but that's not a proper comparison.
From the perspective of a literate elite, there was civil and industrial decline, explaining the impressive infrastructure that had fallen into disrepair. For the average European, there probably wasn't a directional change, but the average European left no writing.
Re: Could the ancient Romans have built a digital computer?
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's likely that the greater forces responsible for the downfall of the Roman Empire would have happened regardless of what advanced technology they might have developed.
Actually, from what I understood from listing to a TTC lecture series about this, the "decline and fall" of the roman empire is somewhat of a fiction, in that it wasn't a brutal event, more of a long slow disintegration over the span of a thousand years. To give some sense of perspective, that's 3 times longer than the US has existed, and people have been clamouring that the US is in decline for the last 50 years. Wh…
One of the big changes with Rome was that at some point, they became too big. Earlier in Roman history, the Romans would either kill everyone (Ceasar's conquest of Gaul killed a substantial proportion of the population) or begin a process of Roman-ifying the populace. The Roman armies kept the peace and spread the civilization.
The problem is that you had this built-in tension between keeping Rome (the City) under control, which was extremely challenging, and keeping the provinces in line and secure. Emperors had to spend fortunes subsidizing the City with grain, festivals/circuses and other support. Getting those fortunes meant levying onerous taxes, and collecting in the provinces meant enpowering the local Roman officials and military -- which in turn created rivals to the emperor.
Another issue is that as time went on, gaps in agricultural technology fundamentally changed the society. The core of the Roman republic was citizen solders and civil servants -- many of which were yeoman farmers. As crop yields declined and demand grew, these farmers went out of business and consolidated into much larger estates that were dependent on slavery.
All of these things resulted in changes to the character of the Roman system. Roman armies were not made up of Romans. Roman generals were not necessarily loyal to Rome. It just turned into a big mess.