Reconstructing Roman Industrial Engineering(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Reconstructing Roman Industrial Engineering
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/07/reconstructing-roman-industrial-engineering/
38 comments
I accept your broader point. I have a minor quibble on invention of the steam engine:
First rudimentary steam engine was the Aeolipile produced in the first century in Roman Egypt. In this light one can also say China had the steam engine during the Song Dynasty(960-1279). https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2012/did-the-chi...
The point is that for steam engine technology to take off, there had to be an economic problem it solved. In a nation with prevalent slavery or abundant human labour, an early steam engine is superfluous.
First rudimentary steam engine was the Aeolipile produced in the first century in Roman Egypt. In this light one can also say China had the steam engine during the Song Dynasty(960-1279). https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2012/did-the-chi...
The point is that for steam engine technology to take off, there had to be an economic problem it solved. In a nation with prevalent slavery or abundant human labour, an early steam engine is superfluous.
The rest of the thread in your link is contradicting that one answer. And the fact that particular answer says the modern steam engine was invented by Watt doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the author.
Hero's Aeolipile boiled water, but didn't resemble what we call a steam engine in any other way: it's just a jet. And in fact, it's very difficult to get it to work; you need modern bearings, extremely lightweight modern materials, and very large burners to give it enough power to spin itself. It's pretty unlikely it ever worked in antiquity, it was probably a concept sketch.
Likewise, the illustrations of "steam engines" in China show no boilers, no pipes, no evidence of pressure vessels of any kind.
A steam engine that produces useful power requires strong steel pipes and connections. It was technology gates being passed that led to the steam engine being invented and improved, not a change in economic condition. Agreed slavery can slow down technological adoption, but keeping slaves has its expenses too. It's easy to imagine there being an economic advantage to mechanical power even in a slave tolerating society.
Hero's Aeolipile boiled water, but didn't resemble what we call a steam engine in any other way: it's just a jet. And in fact, it's very difficult to get it to work; you need modern bearings, extremely lightweight modern materials, and very large burners to give it enough power to spin itself. It's pretty unlikely it ever worked in antiquity, it was probably a concept sketch.
Likewise, the illustrations of "steam engines" in China show no boilers, no pipes, no evidence of pressure vessels of any kind.
A steam engine that produces useful power requires strong steel pipes and connections. It was technology gates being passed that led to the steam engine being invented and improved, not a change in economic condition. Agreed slavery can slow down technological adoption, but keeping slaves has its expenses too. It's easy to imagine there being an economic advantage to mechanical power even in a slave tolerating society.
In addition to this, I would also like to point out that the British Empire - the birthplace of the steam engine - was a society formally practicing slavery between 1562 and 1833. (And that in addition to practicing chattel slavery, it had no issue with forced labour, penal labour and colonies, the Enclosure acts, etc. In short, it had no shortage of manpower.)
Were all of these institutions different from what was practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome? Somewhat. But they are more similar than we often think.
Were all of these institutions different from what was practiced in Ancient Greece and Rome? Somewhat. But they are more similar than we often think.
The British Empire lacked one thing that was abundant in the Roman Empire - lumber - and Britain needed lumber, the heat source, more, both because Britain is colder (residential heating) but also because of high demand for charcoal needed to fire blast furnaces to smelt iron.
It was for this reason that Britain began mining coal at scale (as well as harvesting peat), and found herself in need of an efficient way to de-water her mines.
And when the prerequisites (metallurgy, abundant fuel, and economic necessity) converged, the steam engine emerged.
It was for this reason that Britain began mining coal at scale (as well as harvesting peat), and found herself in need of an efficient way to de-water her mines.
And when the prerequisites (metallurgy, abundant fuel, and economic necessity) converged, the steam engine emerged.
Slavery isn't what kept the steam engine down, it was metallurgy.
The Romans had a curiousity in the form of the steam engine but it could do no useful work because they couldn't manufacture a shaft or bearings it could turn without breaking.
The Romans had a curiousity in the form of the steam engine but it could do no useful work because they couldn't manufacture a shaft or bearings it could turn without breaking.
Did these steam engines really have that much torque? I know the Romans used waterwheels with gears and shafts, I would be surprised if these proto-steam engines were more powerful than those.
It's more a comment on why the steam engine didn't revolutionize anything for them: they lacked the pre-requisite technologies to make it viable. You don't just go "steam engine done" - you need metallurgy to make shafts, boilers, pressure containers (specifically, you need steel - Romans had a word for something like steel, but their metallurgy is generally considered to be poor). You need clear glass to make gauges and other management equipment, and to do the chemistry to develop a reproducible metallurgy.
The Romans skirted around a lot of these things, but they couldn't have known these were the things they needed: the best steel they ever produced probably wasn't very good, compared to working with bronze, and unless you knew it could get better, there was no reason to think it was revolutionary at the time - i.e. because you could make it a lot better and then get the steam engine and mechanical motion out of it.
The Romans skirted around a lot of these things, but they couldn't have known these were the things they needed: the best steel they ever produced probably wasn't very good, compared to working with bronze, and unless you knew it could get better, there was no reason to think it was revolutionary at the time - i.e. because you could make it a lot better and then get the steam engine and mechanical motion out of it.
I guess the two things are complementary, if you don't have slaves, it creates a greater incentive to search for technologies that amplify human labor. So in a sense both explanations might be true. If there hadn't been any slaves, the question of "how can we build more durable gears" would have been on more people's mind, which could have lead to better metallurgy earlier on, even without guns/gunpowder or whatever lead to the need for better metal in the enlightenment?
The Nature article this is based on is helpful to read because of the pictures: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74900-5#Fig1
Well, being an industrial engineer myself, I was always at awe looking at Roman engineering. And ancient Greek and Macedonian engineering as well. Especially compared to medieval Europe, those empires were much more modern in terms of standards and so on. Medieval engineering was top notch, especially architecture (gothic churches and cathedrals really stand out), but at that large a scale.
IMHO the Roman Empire was build on the back of its civil engineers, and not its legions. At least in the long run.
IMHO the Roman Empire was build on the back of its civil engineers, and not its legions. At least in the long run.
> IMHO the Roman Empire was build on the back of its civil engineers, and not its legions. At least in the long run.
An interesting aspect of this is that the legions were civil engineers. Every legion had craftsman as part of their workforce. The craftsman didn't build only their forts, but also streets, bridges, mills ... I think this combination may have been Romes greatest advantage. Not only were they able to conquer regions, but also to build them out pretty fast after the fact.
An interesting aspect of this is that the legions were civil engineers. Every legion had craftsman as part of their workforce. The craftsman didn't build only their forts, but also streets, bridges, mills ... I think this combination may have been Romes greatest advantage. Not only were they able to conquer regions, but also to build them out pretty fast after the fact.
Caesar's bridges over the Rhine absolutely blew my mind. It's an incredible example of military engineering yielding a tremendous advantage. The military handbooks from throughout the full history of the empire also speak maybe less to engineering specifically, but to the advantages of a literate culture in war. The Romans faced many types of opponents over the centuries, many of which they did not have a natural advantage against, in terms of armament. But they did have tremendous amounts of research and strategy, applicable to all sorts of conditions and opponents. And also impressive skills in logistics.
When it comes to the a Rhine, it's a mistake to think that the Romans were simply more civilized than the Germanic people. That may have been true at one point in time, but over time, the societies on the borders of the empire gained quite a bit of sophistication. The borders were also porous, and the "barbarians" spent years of their lives in the Roman world. This is a big reason the power vacuum created by the collapse of Roman authority was readily filled by "barbarian" kings. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Arabs, and Vikings didn't come out of nowhere.
What was lost in the west was institutional complexity. Although it's interesting that the Arabs founded empires that did match Rome in this regard. At least until the Mongols came smashing in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Rhine_bridges
When it comes to the a Rhine, it's a mistake to think that the Romans were simply more civilized than the Germanic people. That may have been true at one point in time, but over time, the societies on the borders of the empire gained quite a bit of sophistication. The borders were also porous, and the "barbarians" spent years of their lives in the Roman world. This is a big reason the power vacuum created by the collapse of Roman authority was readily filled by "barbarian" kings. The Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Arabs, and Vikings didn't come out of nowhere.
What was lost in the west was institutional complexity. Although it's interesting that the Arabs founded empires that did match Rome in this regard. At least until the Mongols came smashing in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Rhine_bridges
The Egyptian army was also used in construction projects. I believe the general thinking is that the state wanted to have a military force available, but didn't want it to be idle. That reasoning would predict that every standing military would see similar uses.
Is that so different from the (British Army's) Royal Engineers and similar units in modern armies really?
Military engineers focus on battlefield-relevant construction and demolition techniques and aren’t routinely deployed on civilian engineering tasks during their readiness cycle. One exception would be military assistance in emergency situations, such as quickly erecting a bridge to replace a flood-damaged one. For the average soldier, their trade-specific training would be measured in months, so the only opportunities to pick up deep domain knowledge are limited. Career engineers might get deeper knowledge but I suspect they would still focus on battlefield-specific competencies.
In the USA the US Army Corp of Engineers is heavily involved in public/civilian infrastructure. For example, see this article on their involvement and attendant controversy in Hurricane Katrina (2000s New Orleans): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Corps_of_Engineers...
A Royal Engineer friend of mine is an expert on runways, both making and breaking them.
I won't comment on training because I suspect that varies too much internationally to be worthwhile - but of course they focus on battlefield-relevant tasks; are you saying that wasn't also true of the Romans? I don't know, I just assumed (and asked if) they were pretty similar.
The difference is that Roman soldiers could build roads and fortified camps as part of their day job using skills similar to civilian Roman construction. Today, however, building a modern motorway, or a high rise building, would be way different to battlefield engineering.
The advantage the Romans had was, that military engineering and civil engineering were much closer back then.
The legions could reportedly throw up a fort in 2 hours, so I'm sure there was some overlap ;)
>IMHO the Roman Empire was build on the back of its civil engineers, and not its legions. At least in the long run.
Interesting thought but why would the Empire have fallen then? Most likely, civil engineering remained top notch throughout.
Interesting thought but why would the Empire have fallen then? Most likely, civil engineering remained top notch throughout.
In early Imperial Rome prestigious families would fund public works as a public symbol of their wealth and power. This shifted over time to a more self-interested display of wealth and power in the family's villas. If the aqueducts and roads have existed for centuries in your region there is less opportunity for those public displays of civil engineering and I would suspect the skills and knowledge did wither though I can't say to what extent. Look how fast the knowledge to build the space-race era rockets was lost in the US, and that's with modern record keeping and no major domestic disasters or upheavals.
The knowledge of space-race ear rockets wasn't lost, the money to build them was no longer available or going into other projects.
For the cost of shuttle NASA could have recreated the J-2 and F-1.
We unfortunate don't have good data on Roman private and public infrastructure spending detailed enough to really make a god case for how it changed over time.
For the cost of shuttle NASA could have recreated the J-2 and F-1.
We unfortunate don't have good data on Roman private and public infrastructure spending detailed enough to really make a god case for how it changed over time.
Building roads and sewers and such in a new province is a great way to secure the new people's loyalty. But after the bridge you built has stood for 400 years, people start to ask "but what have the Romans done for me lately?"
Not sure if you are just doing a joke reference, but this doesn't really hold up. In the Imperial period most infrastructure was build the empire didn't grow all that much anymore.
Binding of territories to the Roman state worked primarily by co-opting local elites by giving them a fair bit of local power and protection from their enemies.
Binding of territories to the Roman state worked primarily by co-opting local elites by giving them a fair bit of local power and protection from their enemies.
Those local elites would have even more power if they were independent, and imperial protection didn't mean much during the decades of civil wars. People tolerated Roman rule for centuries, during good times and bad, because they recognized that quality of life was better under the Romans. For centuries, barbarians migrated into the empire and were easily integrated into the empire. However in late antiquity Rome stagnated, infrastructure projects weren't being built anymore and various tribes were no longer being effectively assimilated into the empire. Rome's military was still very large, and the elites were more powerful than ever, but the empire fell because those elites and armies were no worse off setting themselves up as independent rulers of small kingdoms.
> Those local elites would have even more power if they were independent
No they wouldn't. Because they would face both their internal rivals and external rivals most importantly the empire itself.
> and imperial protection didn't mean much during the decades of civil wars
There was not as much civil war as you think and not in most regions even if there was.
During a civil war local elites had to pick sides. Often those choices happened above their heads.
> People tolerated Roman rule for centuries, during good times and bad, because they recognized that quality of life was better under the Romans.
Very questionable. Quality of life has little do with it. People for the most part didn't have much say in it, rather the elites. Their standard of life might get better because they get imperial titles, trade monopolies and things like that.
Maybe your point is true for the late imperial period around the med, but its certainty not generally true.
> However in late antiquity Rome stagnated, infrastructure projects weren't being built anymore and various tribes were no longer being effectively assimilated into the empire.
Yes, but what matters is the integration not the infrastructure. In fact, if you really track this, the falling apart of infrastructure does not at all correlate with the Fall of the Western Empire. Much of the infrastructure had already been having issues since the 3rd century.
> Rome's military was still very large, and the elites were more powerful than ever, but the empire fell because those elites and armies were no worse off setting themselves up as independent rulers of small kingdoms.
The elites with actual power (not just money) were no longer centralized or unified. If you actually look at trade pattern and urbanization they don't actually decline until much later. For the most part the Fall of the formal empire is a non-event.
The collapse of the Roman Med economy and the de-urbanization of Italy mostly happens later.
No they wouldn't. Because they would face both their internal rivals and external rivals most importantly the empire itself.
> and imperial protection didn't mean much during the decades of civil wars
There was not as much civil war as you think and not in most regions even if there was.
During a civil war local elites had to pick sides. Often those choices happened above their heads.
> People tolerated Roman rule for centuries, during good times and bad, because they recognized that quality of life was better under the Romans.
Very questionable. Quality of life has little do with it. People for the most part didn't have much say in it, rather the elites. Their standard of life might get better because they get imperial titles, trade monopolies and things like that.
Maybe your point is true for the late imperial period around the med, but its certainty not generally true.
> However in late antiquity Rome stagnated, infrastructure projects weren't being built anymore and various tribes were no longer being effectively assimilated into the empire.
Yes, but what matters is the integration not the infrastructure. In fact, if you really track this, the falling apart of infrastructure does not at all correlate with the Fall of the Western Empire. Much of the infrastructure had already been having issues since the 3rd century.
> Rome's military was still very large, and the elites were more powerful than ever, but the empire fell because those elites and armies were no worse off setting themselves up as independent rulers of small kingdoms.
The elites with actual power (not just money) were no longer centralized or unified. If you actually look at trade pattern and urbanization they don't actually decline until much later. For the most part the Fall of the formal empire is a non-event.
The collapse of the Roman Med economy and the de-urbanization of Italy mostly happens later.
> No they wouldn't. Because they would face both their internal rivals and external rivals most importantly the empire itself.
And under the empire they'ed be competing with those same rivals to be the ones that the empire keeps in charge.
> There was not as much civil war as you think and not in most regions even if there was.
The crisis of the third century had 26 people claim the title of emperor in 50 years. Wikipedia lists 111 civil wars and revolts between 30 BC and 476 AD with the longest period between civil conflict being the 26 years between the revolt of Saturnius and the Kitos war. From the year 227 to 324, there wasn't a single period of peace lasting 5 years.
It doesn't matter if it's happening elsewhere in the empire, the fact is a large portion of the Roman military is doing something other than defending the empire.
> Very questionable. Quality of life has little do with it. People for the most part didn't have much say in it, rather the elites.
If the people are unhappy, new elites rise to power by leading people in overthrowing the old ones. Yes, there wasn't a democratic process by which the local populace could simply choose to leave the empire, but the populace did need to be placated. Who do you think the "bread and circuses" were for?
The empire was just as capable of granting titles and monopolies in the fifth century as in the first, that clearly wasn't enough to keep the provinces in line.
> Maybe your point is true for the late imperial period around the med, but its certainty not generally true.
We are talking about a change in behaviour in the late imperial period that caused the fall of the roman empire.
> Yes, but what matters is the integration not the infrastructure.
I'm arguing they are one in the same. A strong and cohesive society builds and maintains valuable infrastructure like aqueducts and roads that improve quality of life and thus make people want to integrate with it. A weak and divided society stops building and maintaining this infrastructure which causes quality of life to stagnate or decline which in turn makes people less invested in preserving a unified empire.
> Much of the infrastructure had already been having issues since the 3rd century.
You don't see any correlation between the crisis of the third century and the onset of infrastructure issues? Rome did not suddenly collapse, it was a gradual decline over the course of centuries, which correlates very well with the slow but steady decline of its infrastructure.
> The elites with actual power (not just money) were no longer centralized or unified. If you actually look at trade pattern and urbanization they don't actually decline until much later. For the most part the Fall of the formal empire is a non-event.
> The collapse of the Roman Med economy and the de-urbanization of Italy mostly happens later.
Yeah, and the aqueducts didn't poof out of existence in 476 AD. But the question is why were the elites with actual power decentralized? Why were they no longer unified? You're right, the population was still there, the money was still there, so why not the power? Clearly something had changed.
Now I'm the first to admit that blaming the fall of Rome solely on a lack of infrastructure spending would be absurd. There were many changes over the centuries which contributed in a myriad of ways. But the fact is in that time period the ability to quickly move armies via roads, the ability to produce massive quantities of food via irrigation, and the ability to house large populations in cities via plumbing were major selling points for the empire. People were proud to be Roman, people would spend years in service to become Roman, people would willingly die for Rome, because in their minds this was the beacon of civilization and their children would live better lives as Romans. Eventually, people no longer thought that way. The barbarians which started ravaging the empire and setting up independent kingdoms from the fourth century onward were not particularly numerous - any particular group was only a few thousand people, and there were never more than 1 million total, compared to the empire's population of 40 million, but the provinces put up little resistance and shifted their cultures to match the invaders. The end of euergetism and the decline or roman infrastructure was likely both a cause and consequence of this ideological shift.
And under the empire they'ed be competing with those same rivals to be the ones that the empire keeps in charge.
> There was not as much civil war as you think and not in most regions even if there was.
The crisis of the third century had 26 people claim the title of emperor in 50 years. Wikipedia lists 111 civil wars and revolts between 30 BC and 476 AD with the longest period between civil conflict being the 26 years between the revolt of Saturnius and the Kitos war. From the year 227 to 324, there wasn't a single period of peace lasting 5 years.
It doesn't matter if it's happening elsewhere in the empire, the fact is a large portion of the Roman military is doing something other than defending the empire.
> Very questionable. Quality of life has little do with it. People for the most part didn't have much say in it, rather the elites.
If the people are unhappy, new elites rise to power by leading people in overthrowing the old ones. Yes, there wasn't a democratic process by which the local populace could simply choose to leave the empire, but the populace did need to be placated. Who do you think the "bread and circuses" were for?
The empire was just as capable of granting titles and monopolies in the fifth century as in the first, that clearly wasn't enough to keep the provinces in line.
> Maybe your point is true for the late imperial period around the med, but its certainty not generally true.
We are talking about a change in behaviour in the late imperial period that caused the fall of the roman empire.
> Yes, but what matters is the integration not the infrastructure.
I'm arguing they are one in the same. A strong and cohesive society builds and maintains valuable infrastructure like aqueducts and roads that improve quality of life and thus make people want to integrate with it. A weak and divided society stops building and maintaining this infrastructure which causes quality of life to stagnate or decline which in turn makes people less invested in preserving a unified empire.
> Much of the infrastructure had already been having issues since the 3rd century.
You don't see any correlation between the crisis of the third century and the onset of infrastructure issues? Rome did not suddenly collapse, it was a gradual decline over the course of centuries, which correlates very well with the slow but steady decline of its infrastructure.
> The elites with actual power (not just money) were no longer centralized or unified. If you actually look at trade pattern and urbanization they don't actually decline until much later. For the most part the Fall of the formal empire is a non-event.
> The collapse of the Roman Med economy and the de-urbanization of Italy mostly happens later.
Yeah, and the aqueducts didn't poof out of existence in 476 AD. But the question is why were the elites with actual power decentralized? Why were they no longer unified? You're right, the population was still there, the money was still there, so why not the power? Clearly something had changed.
Now I'm the first to admit that blaming the fall of Rome solely on a lack of infrastructure spending would be absurd. There were many changes over the centuries which contributed in a myriad of ways. But the fact is in that time period the ability to quickly move armies via roads, the ability to produce massive quantities of food via irrigation, and the ability to house large populations in cities via plumbing were major selling points for the empire. People were proud to be Roman, people would spend years in service to become Roman, people would willingly die for Rome, because in their minds this was the beacon of civilization and their children would live better lives as Romans. Eventually, people no longer thought that way. The barbarians which started ravaging the empire and setting up independent kingdoms from the fourth century onward were not particularly numerous - any particular group was only a few thousand people, and there were never more than 1 million total, compared to the empire's population of 40 million, but the provinces put up little resistance and shifted their cultures to match the invaders. The end of euergetism and the decline or roman infrastructure was likely both a cause and consequence of this ideological shift.
"What have the Romans ever done for us?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
As we're seeing with infrastructure now in the US, civil engineering isn't a "do once" kind of job. Infrastructure (roads, bridges, irrigation etc) takes consistent upkeep, resources, and redesign as the fixtures degrade and usage patterns change. Engineers still need resources, manpower and direction, so as the empire's control area and wealth centralization receded, so did the impetus/capacity to maintain infrastructure.
The empire never ended
There's some truth to that, but at the same time it's undeniable that there was a dramatic decrease in political organization, stability, and economic complexity in the Western Empire. Only for brief periods would there be anything like imperial control of Western Europe, but never with the inclusion of Britain and Spain again, and never with the economic engine of Rome. The multi-centric world of Western and Central Europe didn't come close to matching the Roman economy until the Renaissance, and wouldn't surpass it in engineering achievement until the Enlightenment.
I have to admit I was eager to read this because of the phrase "Industrial Engineering." Still an interesting article, and there is some discussion of components working together as a system... but overall, I think we're still talking about a somewhat mechanical innovation in aqueducts. I think it's probably more accurate to classify this one under civil engineering. Interesting and fun to read, but consistent with what most people already know about the Romans - they had remarkable large scale civil engineering projects.
I don't want to drag this discussion into the minutiae of what distinguishes civil from mechanical from industrial engineering, especially since there's so much overlap (I met a lot of civil engineers in my graduate industrial engineering classes, especially from transportation engineering). But what I'm reading here doesn't really strike me as something that would be notably "industrial engineering," which I see as more abstracted from impressive mechanical innovations in infrastructure projects like aqueducts.
I don't want to drag this discussion into the minutiae of what distinguishes civil from mechanical from industrial engineering, especially since there's so much overlap (I met a lot of civil engineers in my graduate industrial engineering classes, especially from transportation engineering). But what I'm reading here doesn't really strike me as something that would be notably "industrial engineering," which I see as more abstracted from impressive mechanical innovations in infrastructure projects like aqueducts.
I think you're kind of right in terms of the actual content of the article, but what it speaks to is a system capable of producing flour on an industrial scale. I was quite surprised to learn that there were many ways in which the Romans operated legitimate industries, in the sense of producing far more goods at single sites than the local demand. They had massive mining operations, pottery factories, and mill complexes.
Can anyone suggest a resource to learn how to distinguish the various types of construction by civilization found around the Med? For example you come across the foundation of an ancient building in Greece. It could be Mycenaean, Classical, Hellenistic, or Roman, but to my eye they all look like stone and mortar.
Building that break so easily..lol
"Creativity" isn't a modern invention. "I have a problem to solve and will use engineering!" isn't a modern invention.
They've existed since the beginning of humans, and it remains quite irritating to see people who are shocked and amazed that ancient people were able to solve problems - often in ways we don't fully understand. How long was Roman cement a mystery?
Human nature doesn't change with time, and while the things that people groups care about tends to change, it baffles me that someone studying ancient Roman ruins of what's pretty clearly an industrial facility sounds surprised that they did something less than the most obvious solution - especially when it worked better.
Wasn't like you had Twitter to distract you - engineering solutions to problems is very clearly something the Romans were good at, given how much of their infrastructure rather outlasted the nation.
Modern civilization isn't what it is because we're somehow smarter or more creative than people were 1500 or 2000 years ago - it is what it is because, about 300 years ago, we finally figured out how to make fossil fuels do something mechanically useful for us.
If the Romans had figured out a steam engine, and had cared to continue developing it (a technology without an application is just a curiosity, and history is littered with those), they certainly could have accomplished plenty of what we consider modern today.