Knowledge Is Power... Only If You Have The Will To Use It....

[Spacescifi]

Scenario: Pick the most capable Roman Emperor from the 1st century onward, and have him SUDDENLY know all of modern science and engineering know-how of how to make EVERY bit of modern technology in existence since the industrial age... plus knowledge of how the original timeline went.

1. Which emperor would you pick?

2. What are his odds of developing any technology?

 

My analysis: Even if you picked a competent emperor how far they progress would be limited by the very nature of how power was in the Roman Empire. Emperors were assasinated all tye time, and who knows how much backing you could really get on your scientific endeavors.

 

My guess is you would have to start with something, anything, that will reap rewards and fast, so folks could get behind supporting tye Emperor's mad quest for better industrial machinery.

 

From there? Complexity until you can't or you get assasinated lol.

Edited April 11 by Spacescifi

[darthgently]

2 minutes ago, Spacescifi said:

Scenario: Pick the most capable Roman Emperor from the 1st century onward, and have him SUDDENLY know all of modern science and engineering know-how of how to make EVERY bit of modern technology in existence since the industrial age... plus knowledge of how the original timeline went.

1. Which emperor would you pick?

2. What are his odds of developing any technology?

 

My analysis: Even if you picked a competent emperor how far they progress would be limited by the very nature of how power was in the Roman Empire. Emperors were assasinated all tye time, and who knows how much backing you could really get on your scientific endeavors.

 

My guess is you would have to start with something, anything, that will reap rewards and fast, so folks could get behind supporting tye Emperor's mad quest for better industrial machinery.

 

From there? Complexity until you can't or you get assasinated lol.

Marcus Aurelius.  His stoicism and common sense would likely lead him to keep his mouth shut and realize that the unintended consequences of his taking advantage of this strange knowledge glitch would cause far more harm than good

[Pthigrivi]

What are we optimizing for? Fastest possible human extinction or? Can we pick a Chinese, Mesomerican or Egyptian leader?

Edited April 11 by Pthigrivi

[Nuke]

there is a problem where in that the leaders tend to not be the ones very good at technological progress. look how well congress or any other governing body understands science and technology. stem fielders they are not. you would be better off giving the knowledge to archimedes or davinci or the like. also im not convinced one person could know everything, eventually you will reach a limit to what you can store in the brain. i have a feeling if you dumped all the worlds knowledge into one mind, you would just drive it to madness.

[darthgently]

18 minutes ago, Nuke said:

there is a problem where in that the leaders tend to not be the ones very good at technological progress. look how well congress or any other governing body understands science and technology. stem fielders they are not. you would be better off giving the knowledge to archimedes or davinci or the like. also im not convinced one person could know everything, eventually you will reach a limit to what you can store in the brain. i have a feeling if you dumped all the worlds knowledge into one mind, you would just drive it to madness.

Marcus Aurelius was known as the Philosopher King for a reason.  He was quite well versed in the sciences of the day and quite knowledgeable

[Nuke]

12 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Marcus Aurelius was known as the Philosopher King for a reason.  He was quite well versed in the sciences of the day and quite knowledgeable

yes, but statecraft would require more attention than you could split between it and scientific endeavors. even if you have all the cheat codes.

Edited April 11 by Nuke

[StrandedonEarth]

The biggest issue would be having the necessary resources, mainly fuels and ores, in economic reach. Can’t do much without iron ore and the coal (or oil?) to smelt it. 

Perhaps the most civilizing advancement would be electric light, but that would probably be too close to witchcraft…

[SunlitZelkova]

I don’t think the behavior of the Roman Empire is any different from that of our world today. Technology would advance and Rome would rule the Earth. If you give him knowledge of all modern technology that would include surveillance tech and he’d probably be able to stave off any assassination attempt.

Apart from certain cultural peculiarities, I’m skeptical there is any difference between humans 2000 years ago and humans today, in terms of say, desire to technologically advance. We’re always looking for more efficient ways to do things. I don’t believe this stuff is limited to “chosen” individuals, and everyone has the potential to invent something innovative and game changing. A Roman Emperor would just as soon take up the opportunity to improve the Empire’s ability to crush its enemies (within and without) as any human would try to improve QOL in their village or learn more about the world around them through science.

[darthgently]

8 hours ago, Nuke said:

yes, but statecraft would require more attention than you could split between it and scientific endeavors. even if you have all the cheat codes.

Maybe you missed my other post, but I think Aurelius would have not acted on the information.  He would have kept it to himself and let humanity grow in its own normal time.  No need to rush things when that could invite disaster.  You don't give liquor and car keys to 10 year olds

[farmerben]

I think you underestimate the division of labor.  Imagine YOU personally time travelled to ancient Rome.  What could you do with simple blacksmith tools?  Could you build a steam engine or a practical electric device?  How much better could you do than a scientist from 1824?  Suppose you get rich in ancient Rome and hire 100 skilled employees to help build your stuff, how much could you realistically do?

I'd be happy to teach physics to the right motivated students and see what happens from there.  I would not however rely on broad popular appeal.  Progress was not a popular idea.  Many ancients believed in cyclical time.  Most stoics believed that time had gone on long enough for everything to be forgotten, and would go on long enough for their present to be forgotten.  Aurelius remarked to that effect.  Meanwhile the early Christians thought they were near the end of time, and God would soon destroy this world.

 

Edited April 11 by farmerben

[kerbiloid]

Caligvla.

Would this time finish much faster, and we could watch a sci-fi remake.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

Imagine YOU personally time travelled to ancient Rome.  What could you do with simple blacksmith tools?  Could you build a steam engine or a practical electric device?

I would take Jules Verne book and make nitroglicerine.

Either successfully, or at least quickly.

[magnemoe]

17 hours ago, Nuke said:

yes, but statecraft would require more attention than you could split between it and scientific endeavors. even if you have all the cheat codes.

Now he could tell smart people about it and give them resources. just knowing its possible makes it much more relevant. Or why everybody want to reuse rockets after SpaceX showed that it work. 
Romans probably did not had the precision to make steam engines back then they made the first they was horrible and they only worked because they was in coal mines so they was easy to fuel. 
They could make primitive cannons who they wold love. printing press would also be something they could to and would spread knowledge a lot more and germ theory who is probably the most important ones and something you could easy test if emperor. 
Use treatment of wounded gladiators as an example, one school uses good hygiene and sterilization with wine, control group does it the standard way. 
Note the survival rate difference. The gladiator schools would obvious go for the one there more survived. 

And  he should write stuff he know down. stuff about steam engines, America India and China (who they know about but no details) electricity and fusion who would not be very useful in his lifetime but would be as the tools got better. 
It would not be an well known book as it would be for emperors and scientists close to them, and scientists would probably be their title. 
But Romans was not very nice people to say it mildly, and an world then they had telegraphs, steamships and muskets would probably be bad. 

[DDE]

On 4/11/2024 at 6:48 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t think the behavior of the Roman Empire is any different from that of our world today

I think it was. Today's world is rather small and cluttered. Back then, the Eurasian interior was terra incognita and so Rome and ancient China could peacefully coexist, despite both claiming absolute power over the known world.

[kerbiloid]

Knowledge is power at least because twenty professors can carry twenty times greater cargo than one professor could.

[magnemoe]

On 4/11/2024 at 5:48 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t think the behavior of the Roman Empire is any different from that of our world today. Technology would advance and Rome would rule the Earth. If you give him knowledge of all modern technology that would include surveillance tech and he’d probably be able to stave off any assassination attempt.

Apart from certain cultural peculiarities, I’m skeptical there is any difference between humans 2000 years ago and humans today, in terms of say, desire to technologically advance. We’re always looking for more efficient ways to do things. I don’t believe this stuff is limited to “chosen” individuals, and everyone has the potential to invent something innovative and game changing. A Roman Emperor would just as soon take up the opportunity to improve the Empire’s ability to crush its enemies (within and without) as any human would try to improve QOL in their village or learn more about the world around them through science.

One major change is that technological progress was not really an thing. Yes it happened but you had to be an historian to notice it. Medieval Europe was far more mechanized with water or wind power than Rome even if they had it. Including inverse paddle wheel boats who was mobile mills you tied up in an river to grain grain. Not sure if they was moved around but it make sense, at end of 19th century it was roaming threshing machines often pulled by an steam engine who powered it then in use. 
My grandfather got one of himself and he shared an electrical engine with the next farm and engine was even in use then I was a teen and my grandfather was alive for cutting firewood. 

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

I think it was. Today's world is rather small and cluttered. Back then, the Eurasian interior was terra incognita and so Rome and ancient China could peacefully coexist, despite both claiming absolute power over the known world.

Yes it was no way they could go to war with each other. 
Also invading other countries to loot and enslave them is luckily an thing of the past also counties rarely go to war with each other after industrialization. 
Less so to the last 50 years. 

[DDE]

2 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

also counties rarely go to war with each other after industrialization. 
Less so to the last 50 years. 

I suspect it's bevause of the taxing and devastating nature of a modern, mass-mobilization war. The last fifty years (probably more) saw the rise of the post-modern war, what Eugene Messner called the insurgency war and Valery Gerasimov called the hybrid war. However, this state of "not-quite-war" turns out to have a way of turning back into a modern industrial war many seemed to assume was gone for good (hurr-durr, fourth and fifth-generation warfare!)

[magnemoe]

3 minutes ago, DDE said:

I suspect it's bevause of the taxing and devastating nature of a modern, mass-mobilization war. The last fifty years (probably more) saw the rise of the post-modern war, what Eugene Messner called the insurgency war and Valery Gerasimov called the hybrid war. However, this state of "not-quite-war" turns out to have a way of turning back into a modern industrial war many seemed to assume was gone for good (hurr-durr, fourth and fifth-generation warfare!)

Yes but its far fewer wars. Ukraine and  Gaza is the obvious one, its others but its more civil wars in failed states, stuff nobody want to touch or they know they will get the blame. Or why nobody will intervene in Haiti.
But the end of the cold war ended lot of the faction faced conflicts and lots of the propped up governments fell. 
 

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

I think it was. Today's world is rather small and cluttered. Back then, the Eurasian interior was terra incognita and so Rome and ancient China could peacefully coexist, despite both claiming absolute power over the known world.

But wars did occur inside the Roman Empire. I would say the division of Rome and China is abstract, and that Octavius vs. Cinna, when names are ignored, could be equated to Britain and Spain vying for power in Europe and the Americas over a thousand years later.

47 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

One major change is that technological progress was not really an thing. Yes it happened but you had to be an historian to notice it. Medieval Europe was far more mechanized with water or wind power than Rome even if they had it. Including inverse paddle wheel boats who was mobile mills you tied up in an river to grain grain. Not sure if they was moved around but it make sense, at end of 19th century it was roaming threshing machines often pulled by an steam engine who powered it then in use. 
My grandfather got one of himself and he shared an electrical engine with the next farm and engine was even in use then I was a teen and my grandfather was alive for cutting firewood.

The tools may change but the practice/activity (farming) is the same.

[magnemoe]

30 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The tools may change but the practice/activity (farming) is the same.

Well it changed quite a lot, but basic is the same woodworking is woodworking if you use an stone ax or an CNC  
Its still individually crafted items 
Weirder employment was rare in the ancient world but might get some use in Rome, you was an slave,  or you was working for hourly payment as an field worker or an expensive specialist like the philosopher the senator hire to teach his kids.
Thin it was some sort of apprentice system but not like today then you work at an job for years and then switch. 
Its not that low skill labor was expensive, you had starvation wages in 18th century. They paid so little you could not buy food to survive, it was typical child or female work, the husband was suppose to bring most of the income and the rest was an bonus. 
You can not run slaves this cheap they need food to survive and be able to work and you need others to watch them. 

[Terwin]

You need incredibly good precision to manage replaceable parts.  One person would likely spend their entire life just working through the steps to get to a precision where things like interchangeable parts could actually work, and that assumes access to materials that the romans never made use of(and thus may not have had access to).

There are many things that took one or more life-times of refinement to get things to a point where other things could be done.

Measuring precision(length, weight and volume, each taking a great deal of effort), materials purity(each material needing lots of effort, and often other highly pure materials needed as reagents)

I would expect that an immortal with unlimited modern knowledge and authority that went to the 1st century Roman empire could manage to double or triple the rate of advancement, even cutting out a few hundred years of non-progress during the dark ages if they had unlimited food/no need to eat as well.

I'm not sure if preventing or encouraging wars would be more beneficial to that advancement, but the wrong choice would obviously cause set-backs.  

Unlimited authority and immortality would both be needed or else someone would kill or imprison you in the first few months because you were trying to do something that would annoy someone ruthless/powerful.

 

[darthgently]

6 hours ago, Terwin said:

You need incredibly good precision to manage replaceable parts.  One person would likely spend their entire life just working through the steps to get to a precision where things like interchangeable parts could actually work, and that assumes access to materials that the romans never made use of(and thus may not have had access to).

There are many things that took one or more life-times of refinement to get things to a point where other things could be done.

Measuring precision(length, weight and volume, each taking a great deal of effort), materials purity(each material needing lots of effort, and often other highly pure materials needed as reagents)

I would expect that an immortal with unlimited modern knowledge and authority that went to the 1st century Roman empire could manage to double or triple the rate of advancement, even cutting out a few hundred years of non-progress during the dark ages if they had unlimited food/no need to eat as well.

I'm not sure if preventing or encouraging wars would be more beneficial to that advancement, but the wrong choice would obviously cause set-backs.  

Unlimited authority and immortality would both be needed or else someone would kill or imprison you in the first few months because you were trying to do something that would annoy someone ruthless/powerful.

 

Exactly.  Just the tools required to measure precisely and reproducible is a steep hill involving materials and techniques.  Just the glass working skills and materials to make basic precision lenses is nontrivial