[James R.Fox]

Sir- that is what was so cool about the antikythera machine. We don't know only one was built, and since so much background thechnology went into it,( multiple observations from various points and times of year, development of reliable gear trains, the hand crank, which is not at all obvious,not being re-invented in Europe untill around 1000 ce) I very highly doubt only one was. I would agree the sailor's guild or merchants guild or whatever kept it a trrade secret. Untill the invention of patent law that was common and the cause of much technical knowledge being lost.

[Eric Spitler]

I always thought the Romans limited themselves quite a bit by not using stirrups on their saddles. I read somewhere that they knew about them but considered them unmanly. That probably reduced the effectiveness of a cavalry charge a lot.

[Xan Stepp]

First of all I do have to say that the Antikythera is one of the coolest things I've seen in a while, and thanks to Mr. Fox for bringing it up.

However, I can't help but ask if, in the discussion of the Antikythera, we are showing a huge cultural bias as well. While I wouldn't be surprised if more were built, I wouldn't be surprised if this were the only one. First of all, it's construction must have taken a huge amount of intellectual coordination or individual knowledge. Someone would need to preform the calculations, engineer the design, smelt the metal, construct the gears, test the design, and probably other things that I can't even think of. That is a pretty incredible skill set for one individual, and a remarkable team effort. Not that such an undertaking would be impossible, the Ancient Greeks did accomplish tasks far superior to what would have been required for the Antikythera. However, most of these accomplishments are also unique.

I also think that we, as modern people, see immense application for automated machines of this nature, but I'm not sure that it really would have been all that useful. First of all, it would have had limited applications in navigation. It would be easy to damage, and navigating using the Mediterranean can rely on landmarks much more than a lot of naval voyages. Also, who would use it? First of all you have to assume some measure of literacy was required to properly operate it, and then if something didn't work, you need someone to troubleshoot the problem. I certainly wouldn't want to trust my life or ship to a machine like this if no one was around who could fix it. So it seems only logical that the crew would still carry a navigator of some sort, who probably never actually did the math anyway, he was just so familiar with how the sky should be that he essentially functioned at the Antikythera.

So even if it had an non-navigational function, what would it be? The Wikipedia article proposed Astrology. But it seems to me that it would be about the last thing that you would want to mass produce. After all, if anyone could calculate star and planetary positions, you would loose half your job, and if you managed to produce an Antikythera, and someone else found out that you were using a machine, wouldn't you lose some of your mystique?

Anyway, my main point is that we love automated machines now, but I really question if such a machine would have really been more of a curiosity than useful for the Ancient Greeks?

[Carl Pryor]

I was curious after hearing about the Antikythera device and did a little research. I seems the Greeks just before the Roman conquests was surprisingly close to an industrial revolution. They seem to have closed cylinder pistons, the clockwork and so forth. We cant judge accurately how close they came as almost all books and all but a handful of devices were lost. Some due to the loss of the library at Alexandria, other though not being copied (printing press limit from above?).

From what I gather the Antikythera device was not alone, (and that clock work devices were a noted artifact from some greece colonies), but it was an exceptional one for its time.

We have few works of note from heron, or his predecessors, but we do have fragments of works, were he describes things that he could not actually produce, as they required accurate screw threads in metal and metal gear chains, when they were now only able to produce threads in wood and friction drives. They were able to produce the metal screw theads and drives 300 years before, pre roman.

The Romans seem to have been limited by the ideal of 'romanitas' a roman-ness that should be aspired to. They readily copied items that were better then theirs that fit the ideals. Weaponry, armour, military training, and some architecture were chosen.

Other ideas did not fit, The Gaulish harvesting machine for instance, the use of gypsum based mortar as used in the east. The higher greek mechanics also were dropped. archimedes wonderful weapons did not get used across the empire. According to Suetonius (roman historian) a greek inventor (heron again?) offered Vespasian a mechanical device capable of shifting tons at a time vertically. Despite rebuilding large parts of the city, and needing to move vast amounts of stone Vespasian refused saying 'I have to feed the common people'. The historian approved it as a properly roman response.

We know Herons steam engine ended up opening the doors of a temple when a fire was lit, hidden under the floor so it could be seen that the door was opened it self. He was left making little more than toys, mobile theatres that stopped to do plays automatically, and a holy water dispenser that gave a measured amount when coins were inserted.

If you are interested the book 'Terry Jones' barbarians' by Terry Jones and Alan Ereira is worth reading, as it looks at the 'barbarians' around rome, and what they were able to do, as a contrast to most histories that repeat what rome tells us abut them and itself. It is 'popular history' but well done. The TV show accompanying it is rather rabidly anti-roman and not so balanced in out look.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Gary Teuscher]

One thing IMO was the lack of many earlier middle ages armies to use trained better morale type footmen.

This was mostly a social thing, the focus was on the mounted knight being king of the battlefield.

Many foot armies that were properly trained and equipped could handle chivalry - Flemish, Swiss, even the English in the latter period of the middle ages.

The age of Pike was about 14 hundred years after the early age of pike with the Hellenistic kingdoms - It was not technology but socialissues that limited the value of the middle ages footmen.

I think it's easy to go overboard here - the feudal infantry in general was a bit more valuable than they are often given credit for - they were not purely levies and there were some that were more professional. But the still did not give the footman status compared to a mounted type, and this is much of what IMO was somewhat of an issue with morale. The warriors warriors with good "morale" throughout history were those that either were a bit of an "elite". like many of the mounted types, huscarls, Varangians, or ones that were "part of something", thinking of early expansion Islamics for one. Roman Legionairres had that "citizen" status. The Hussites were part of a religous movement. Alexander's pikemen were called "foot companions" of the king. Just the terminolgy there says something to me

It's the lack of social position that often makes one want to fight harder and not run away. Knights stood to lose much if their side lost. For many serfs it was just "same situation, different master". Putting the foot to a better status, or perhaps taking a bit of the kinghts status away would have led to a more effective infantry. Making these a more regular foot type with better drilling and training would have been a big difference maker also.

[Harold R.]

Currently we can see some of this in our own culture here in the US.

Firearms ownership is often looked down on by the media and there are constant attempts by our government to make their use and ownership even more restricted.

Select fire weapons are heavily regulated to even own. If you want to actually develop some of your own you've got all kinds of hoops to jump through.
In my opinion, this could be acting to restrictt the development of small arms that could be of use to our military.
For example, I've kicked the idea around of a relatively compact submachine gun (PDW) firing a flat shooting round for use out to about 200 meters or so maximum. It would be competition to the P90 but vastly more easy and cheaper to produce.
We're talking stamped steel and polymer construction, even using furniture from current production weapons where possible. I'd use fire control parts from the M-16 series but with the deletion of the semi-auto function - it's not at all hard to fire one shot at a time on an FA weapon by just letting go of the trigger. Sights would be a simple flip type aperature set for either 100 or 200 meters and dovetailed in for windage adjustment. The action would be blowback - no expensive machined locking system needed. This thing would be functional and so cheap that if you broke one you could literally just toss it and get another one.
But most of us can't develop an test such a weapon because of laws, hassles, and red tape.
So our armed forces may be losing out because of this (or maybe not).

Granted, this is getting off the subject of historical weapons.
But it is an example of a cultural factor that could be restricting military weapons and tactics.
Odds are that in a thousand years that someone would be able to put that together if they were studying our culture - with all the stuff that we write down something is bound to survive to help future historians understand why we did what we did.
But the civilizations of the past didn't have this luxury. Even those with writing still didn't have anywhere near the same amount of stuff written down that we have today.

So...
We spend a lot of time guessing about it.

[M. Eversberg II]

We, as a modern "culture", tend to write down stuff our ancestors would likely have thought trivial. This is probably because writing has become a survival skill.

I too wonder why it took so long to invent the printing press. As a child, before I was even aware what a printing press was, I was practically doing similar things with letter blocks and paint, so I wouldn't have to get paint all over myself. Why the Greeks didn't look into it is weird.

My largest reason for its delay is that steel work had to become reliable first. I'm sure making the letters out of wood would kind of suck, as it would absorb the ink and become soggy. The letters would have to be steel (harder, more durable than iron) which is better used in your military to defend against (and offend against) those outside your borders. It's also expensive.

But, that's my idea, and I've noticed I'm normally wrong about such things.

M.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[M. Eversberg II]

[Xan Stepp]

[Werner Stiegler]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Gabriele A. Pini]

The write production of the Romans was huge, with a sort of industry (but without pressing) born from it: the "books" (but, in effect, rool of paper or papyrius) of celebrated authors, like Cicerone, were copied and sold across the empire, with even cases of piracy and names stealing.

This discussion is similar to the one born in my family: my brother worked for a month in a mission's hospital in Burundi, and returned with a very strange story: if the missionaries sell or give a sow to a family, with the intent to start a breeding, chance are high that this pig will be re-sold or eaten in one or two days. This even if the person comprehend that in a year he, or they, will suffer famine for this act...
The same applied for cats: there is a huge problems of rats, and the diseases connected, but if you import a cat from Italy, in one or two days they will eat it.

Why this?

A studious speak of the "absence of winter", or the need in the northest regions to accumulate and think for the snow stagion, while in old Africa food is available through the year, even if a bit scarce.