Did the large amount of slaves cause Rome to never industrialize?

It's incredible to me what a bunch of wooden hut dwellers semi nomadic sheperds managed to do in a few centuries

Technology, they never had the advanced machines that could outproduce craftmanship and individual labour by several orders of magnitude.
Simple as that.

Yes but without cheap slave labour the incentive to innovate and invent would exist

>Actually Ancient Greeks already had all the knowledge required to start industrializing.
Considering they didn't even have the scientific method and that they totally lacked the knowledge of thermodynamics and metallurgy necessary to design and build industrial machinery I'd say you're completely wrong.

>the scientific method
Do you seriously think the technologies needed for industrialization came from labs by people using the "scientific method"?

Slavery doesn't wipe that out, it only hampers it. There will always be someone saying "there must be a simpler way than shifting thousands of people", sooner or later industrialization would overtake slave and animal labour.
Slavery does nothing to interfere with scientific development either.

You are delusional my friend

A significantly large and exploitable labor force isn't enough to spark industrialization as there must be some significant change in popular rhetoric to allow for it. Industrialization requires, among many other things, a mechanistic view of the world which implies a mathematical physics, which did not gain any traction in the ancient world asides from the few Epicureans. Most ancients adhered to Aristotelian teleological physics or to Stoic physics (somewhat similar as it still claims the presence of the Logos in everything). Recall what the Enlightenment achieved. For one, it help spread the superiority of a mathematical, mechanistic physics along with a form of philosophical hedonism (modern Utilitarians) and the belief that the universe is constant flux, both of which are also features of ancient Epicureanism. You have a large amount of inventions cropping up during the 17th to 18th centuries which all occured during the Transatlantic Slave Trade. To read history by claiming that a large labor force is the main hindrance for industrialization is to impose modern categories of thought onto people who are wholly alien to it. It is naive and doesn't do them justice.

A side note here, by nature I do not mean nature as relating to something like the recent environmental movement, but nature as distinguished from convention. For example, most people would call human rights as natural, while American law as conventional.

The scientific method is simply

theory -> platonic hypothesis -> empirical test of hypothesis -> results -> clearer understanding of theory

The ancients had all the philosophical tools required to conduct science and they did. What can't be understated is that slavery was always the path of least resistance if you wanted to become wealthy.

But nearly all of these inventions appeared where slave trade DIDN'T take place

Yes, an understanding of thermodynamics was necessary to build steam engines.

The 19th century was the first time in history when advancement in science and technology went hand in hand synergistically, and it would have been impossible if it weren't for the development of science and mathematics in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The ancients had the tools, but IIRC they were scattered around the toolshed so to speak. Most natural philosophers of the era didn't conduct research in such an organized way. Unless you have evidence otherwise? I read a book on the history of science recently but it could be I'm misremembering it.

>The ancients had the tools,
The ancients had actual steam engines you dumb nigger.

No they didn't. They had Aeolipiles, which shoot steam from vents to make the device spin. Not a practical design and not one which can be made into a practical design through improvement.

The steam engines which were of actual historical relevance operated by using steam as a working fluid to change the pressures in cylinders, rather than as a propellant expelled from the device. You're the dumb nigger if you can't see the difference.

Are you implying that these just popped out of a vacuum? Btw, James Watt improved on the Steam engine by 1781 and England abolished slavery by 1807.

Not that guy, but Watt's engine was designed to pump water out of mines in Europe. It had nothing to do with the plantation economies of slave territories overseas.

The romans stole their spaceships from the true KANGZ

I do recall that Matthew Boulton was an abolitionist, but that was just a side point. My main point was that there is little relation between slave labor and technological invention. The real relation is between popular thought and technological invention. The Romans did not industrialize as their physics was not a mathematical physics, which I think is the chief requirement of the Industrial Revolution.

>slavery and industrialization are not compatible
great, this meme again

Name one successful slave industrial society

Richmond, 19th century. Slaves were literally paid to work in manufacturing.

>hurr durr the southern states were nothing but cottong and plantations
say retards on Veeky Forums

> Yes because there was nothing stopping Rome from industrializing other than the abundance of cheap labor.

Mass slavery crippled innovation. A good example is the Romans developing the hypocaust home heating system that while it did a good job at heating the home, required a shit load of slave labor to build and maintain, instead of inventing the simple cast iron stove that was well within their capability.

The USSR
Oil producers
Illegal immigrants

>slavery cripples innovation
>romans developing
How did they develop it if it cripples innovation?

Secondly, you're comparing apples and oranges. One is an iron stove, the second is a central heating system that literally heats the walls and floors of the structure and was limited to wealthy people and public baths.

Are you saying that ordinary Romans, that had no access to it, didn't innovate because other Romans were warm enough and had slaves?

If you actually believe this you are legitimately retarded. Their knowledge in mathematics and sciences was nowhere near the point of capable of fully developing machinery, even steam powered ones on a level that could create an actual national industrial complex.

There was too much heavy taxation and centralized government for them to ever industrialize. If they had a more free market society then the potential would be there.

it requires advancement of mathematics.