🚀 go-pugleaf

"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:XuSQb.116232$5V2.584730@attbi_s53...
>
>
> Bernardz wrote:
>
> > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
>
> I though the major roman roads were very good for carts and wagons. Like
> the Via Appia for example.

They were good, but they tended to go straight over hills rather than
arround.

A heavily laden cart could not handle slopes as well as marching infantry,
and
the Roman roads were optimized for marching infantry speed.

Still, I suspect that the Roman roads were better than those when actual
industrialization started, so I suspect this is a red herring.

DougL

Bernardz wrote:

> Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.

I though the major roman roads were very good for carts and wagons. Like
the Via Appia for example.

Bob Kolker

In article <bv1d5f$jbl40$1@ID-197887.news.uni-berlin.de>,
doug.lampert@tdytsi.com says...
> "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XuSQb.116232$5V2.584730@attbi_s53...
> >
> >
> > Bernardz wrote:
> >
> > > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> > > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
> >
> > I though the major roman roads were very good for carts and wagons. Like
> > the Via Appia for example.
>
> They were good, but they tended to go straight over hills rather than
> arround.
>
> A heavily laden cart could not handle slopes as well as marching infantry,
> and
> the Roman roads were optimized for marching infantry speed.
>
> Still, I suspect that the Roman roads were better than those when actual
> industrialization started, so I suspect this is a red herring.

Your suspicions are incorrect. Road construction in the 1800s was
superior to Romans in so far as freight was concerned.

Because the construction and maintenance of roads was very costly,
Romans were not particularly keen to encourage heavy freight carts. Few
of their roads were wide enough to allow wagons to pass each other.

Nor is it such a simple POD as Roman carts were quite primitive. The
horses had by modern standards poor harnesses. The wheels of the cart
were rigidly fixed to the axis. This meant that the right and left wheel
had to turn at the same rate. This slowed it down considerably.

Also turning was a problem as the axis were rigidly fixed to the cart's
frame.

For both the driver and the freight, it would be a very bumpy road as
they did not have springs.

Better carts were the main reason why freight charges were much lower in
medieval times then Roman times.

There is no engineering reason why the Romans could not have built
better carts. The Chinese already were using them. So what-if the Romans
had them?



>
> DougL
>
>
>

--
When two incompatible beliefs are advocated and both are right, then we
have a problem.

35th observation of Bernard

Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a7f71232ca7095498988b@news>...
> In article <bv1d5f$jbl40$1@ID-197887.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> doug.lampert@tdytsi.com says...
> > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:XuSQb.116232$5V2.584730@attbi_s53...
> > >
> > >
> > > Bernardz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > > > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> > > > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
> > >
> > > I though the major roman roads were very good for carts and wagons. Like
> > > the Via Appia for example.
> >
> > They were good, but they tended to go straight over hills rather than
> > arround.
> >
> > A heavily laden cart could not handle slopes as well as marching infantry,
> > and
> > the Roman roads were optimized for marching infantry speed.
> >
> > Still, I suspect that the Roman roads were better than those when actual
> > industrialization started, so I suspect this is a red herring.
>
> Your suspicions are incorrect. Road construction in the 1800s was
> superior to Romans in so far as freight was concerned.
>
> Because the construction and maintenance of roads was very costly,
> Romans were not particularly keen to encourage heavy freight carts. Few
> of their roads were wide enough to allow wagons to pass each other.
>
> Nor is it such a simple POD as Roman carts were quite primitive. The
> horses had by modern standards poor harnesses. The wheels of the cart
> were rigidly fixed to the axis. This meant that the right and left wheel
> had to turn at the same rate. This slowed it down considerably.
>
> Also turning was a problem as the axis were rigidly fixed to the cart's
> frame.
>
> For both the driver and the freight, it would be a very bumpy road as
> they did not have springs.
>
> Better carts were the main reason why freight charges were much lower in
> medieval times then Roman times.
>
> There is no engineering reason why the Romans could not have built
> better carts. The Chinese already were using them. So what-if the Romans
> had them?
>

ok, i agree that one of the major problems in the empire was the great
distances between parts of it, requiring lots of road travel for it
military.  So the roads they made needed to be clear, stable
relatively dry paths for the infantries to pass over at a quick pace.
And i agree that the problem with any sort of industry would be, not
so much getting large quantities of goods to the workshop/factory
-quickly-, as much as getting them there in the first place.  so
coastal and riverine transport will of course be very important, but
obviously land transport needs some sort of working on.  so they need
roads that can handle large freights.  with that in mind:

(1) paved roads; not paved with cemented stones but rather paved with
cement.  modern roads are sometimes underlain with cement, and topped
over with asphalt.  The asphalt is weak, but cheap, so it can crumble
away, be replaced, and be relatively cost affective.  Concrete is
strong, but it two will break down and require expensive re-working,
so roads aren't (usually) made of conrete.  so -if- the romans can get
a really cheap source of conrete, perhps then they can set the legions
to work paving these roads.

(2)  wear and tear on roads in general could be reduced by having
something like tires,  but obviously they didn't know anything about
gum or rubber sap.  perhaps they coudl come up with some sort of glue
that can be applied to the wheels (neverminding the already mentioned
suggestions regarding the failings of prmitive carts) that would
soften its grinding down of the road.  even if the glue (obviosuly i'm
not talking about it being sticky while in use, i am using glue
because they must've known about it and i dont see what else they
could use) was worn away after most trips, if it were cheap enoughit
could just be re-appllied.  also, perhaps they could just glue leather
or somesuch to the wheels, reducing wear on the roads and perhaps
giving traction (if its were ruffled) for uphill climbs, as must
become necessary eventually

(3) and this is probably as outlandish as all the rest, but i just
have to say it, why not tracked carts?  the advantage of a track, as
most people here know, if the distribution of weight, so that could
take care of part of the heavy freight problem.  i would think that
this would make the non independent wheels even worse.

(4) as an after thought, perhaps someone could abandone the axle idea
and have independent wheels mounted on the wagon/cart thru a ball and
socket joint?  multiple wheels (ala stryker) might also give similar
load dispersal advantages.

please proceed to tear this apart.

"Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a7e3a593f5cfd61989882@news...
> Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
>
Well horses are not what you want for heavy loads, even with collers, heavy
transport remained the domain of Ox teams untill engins took over. Horses
were good for medium size loads and where speed counted because oxen are
slow!.
However introdusing free turning wheels on a fixed axil would probably have
helped alot, and maybe turntables for the front axils to improve steering.
But the real backbone of the industreal revolutions transport were canals.
Rome knew how to build cannals but if you really want to help them introduse
effective lock gates. Given those they should be able to build a cannal
system as good as Europe had early in the 19th C.
>
> --
> When two incompatible beliefs are advocated and both are right, then we
> have a problem.
>
> 35th observation of Bernard
>

Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a7f71232ca7095498988b@news>...
[snip]

> Your suspicions are incorrect. Road construction in the 1800s was
> superior to Romans in so far as freight was concerned.
>
> Because the construction and maintenance of roads was very costly,
> Romans were not particularly keen to encourage heavy freight carts. Few
> of their roads were wide enough to allow wagons to pass each other.
>
> Nor is it such a simple POD as Roman carts were quite primitive. The
> horses had by modern standards poor harnesses. The wheels of the cart
> were rigidly fixed to the axis. This meant that the right and left wheel
> had to turn at the same rate. This slowed it down considerably.
>
> Also turning was a problem as the axis were rigidly fixed to the cart's
> frame.
>
> For both the driver and the freight, it would be a very bumpy road as
> they did not have springs.
>
> Better carts were the main reason why freight charges were much lower in
> medieval times then Roman times.
>
> There is no engineering reason why the Romans could not have built
> better carts. The Chinese already were using them. So what-if the Romans
> had them?
>

Were Roman chariots constructed in the same way?

What about Egyptian chariots?

Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a80e1149ea04be398988c@news>...
> In article <4015cdd4@clear.net.nz>, smid2n@clear.net.nz says...
> >
> > "Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1a7e3a593f5cfd61989882@news...
> > > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> > > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
> > >
> > Well horses are not what you want for heavy loads, even with collers, heavy
> > transport remained the domain of Ox teams untill engins took over. Horses
> > were good for medium size loads and where speed counted because oxen are
> > slow!.
>
>
> Yep.
> Horse would be used for transporting people. Oxen for freight.
>
> > However introdusing free turning wheels on a fixed axil would probably have
> > helped alot, and maybe turntables for the front axils to improve steering.
>
> Which the Romans could have got from the Celts or the Chinese.
>
> > But the real backbone of the industreal revolutions transport were canals.
> > Rome knew how to build cannals but if you really want to help them introduse
> > effective lock gates. Given those they should be able to build a cannal
> > system as good as Europe had early in the 19th C.
>
> Are canals really necessary? Roman was centered around the Mediterranean
> which had many large cities along its coast. They had relatively cheap
> sea freight. There is no reason why cities like Alexandra, Athens, Rome,
> London,Caesarea, Marseilles or Leptis Magna could not have serviced a
> much greater area.
>
> One of my great aunties can still remember the Chinese pedlars with his
> horse drawn wagon coming to their wheat farm to sell them goods. Similar
> scenes occurred in many regions eg Poland, Australia, South Africa and
> the US.
>
>

Mules? http://www.humanist.de/rome/harnessing/collar-romeshoulder.html

CST#2: Roman mules in collars on a coin. It is a sesterce of Emperor
Tiberius of 22/23 AD. This is, at the mid 1999 state of research, the
earliest representation of the typical Roman collar. See CMi#1 to
CMi#3 for details of this collar design. Here the iron core seems
padded and the fastening straps below the wood pads are visible too.
It is very much like CNT#1 but in shoulder traction.

 CST#3: Roman mules in collars on an undated coin. The collars are
covered by some decoration pieces or a heavy padding.

 CST#4: Roman mules in collars on a coin. Undated, somewhat abraded.
 CST#5: Roman mules in collars on a coin. A sesterce of Emperor
Caligula of 37/41 AD.
  CST#6: Collars on Roman mules pulling a light travelling wagon. The
inscription, perhaps Memoriae Domitiane, indicates a time of c. 96 AD.
The collar looks two-parted to the front of the throat. These are the
fastening straps more clear depicted in CST#8, 9 or CNT#1. The girth
strap is also visible over the body. A bump on the top of the horse's
back, betwen the collar and the girth, seems to be caused by a damage.
It created a dent below too. It is no indication of a yoke.

  CST#7: Mule in collar at a vallus, a Roman "harvesting machine"
around 100 AD. Several damaged relief depictions of it were found.
Click the picture to see the composition of two such fragments showing
the whole front part of a vallus in operation. This device is also
mentioned by Roman writers.
 The whole vallus in a reconstruction based on the reliefs from
different sites mainly in France. But instead of the Roman collar the
artist wrongly placed an MA ring collar over the mule.

 CST#8: Roman army collar from the column of Emperor Trajan, c. 106
AD. Two pairs of mules hauling torsion gun carts -- a Roman field
artillery system. The relief of the lower mule is somewhat demaged.
But the above one is the most detailed representation of a Roman
collar in position of shoulder traction.
  We see an iron collar bow, only slightly padded, that ends in the
wooden pad. We know these wood pieces from CMi#3. In the front are the
fastening straps we know from CNT#1. Unlike CNT#1 here the two straps
seemed to be fixed together by a front band. The rein close to the
collar supports the idea that it was guided through the upper part of
the collar like shown in CST#9.
 The context of the above picture. The carts are depicted during
march. The guns and carts are visible in much detail.

  CST#9: Roman army collar from the column of Emperor Trajan, c. 106
AD. This is one of two mules hauling a gun cart again. But here the
collar is on a higher neck position unlike the two other depictions
above. The many details make an error on the artist's side less
likely. A soldier at the right seems to be moving the wheel of the
cart. This at first suggests some assistence of the mules offroad in
difficult terrain. But the base of the wheel is well visible -
removing the idea of a bad road. Instead the moment we see is probably
the unharnessing of the mules. The fasten straps (in front under the
neck) connected the wooden frontpads at the lower sides of the collar
bow. The release of this straps allowed the rotation of the wood pads
and this the release from the harness. If it was a fail safe design,
the straps could not be released as long as the system was under
tension on the shoulders at the neck base. To release the tension and
then the strap the soldier pushes the cart pole forward by turning the
wheel. So the collar at this depicted moment is not in hauling
position but up the neck.
  This interpretation is supported by the context of the above
picture. This is the whole scene. The artillery cart arrives in the
lower left at a city wall. Here Roman soldiers already stationed some
torsion guns at the wall of the city. Another such device is in a well
protected position in front of the wall. The newly arrived unit is
just unharnessed to the left of the other at the site where the
position building is still in work.

 CST#10: Roman collar in a relief by Aurelian, 274 AD. Although a
somewhat abraded relief, the depicted collar seems of different design
then that in CST#8 170 years before. And it is a rare depiction of the
collar's backside. The reins are fed through the top part of the
collar. The pole of the car is visible in front of the wheels, too. It
is clear that the pole is attached to the side of the collar like in
CMi#1 and not to the top. The collar is positioned at the upper
shoulder part at the base the neck.
 Same relief section from another view. To the left is a mule with the
same collar harness but in a condition less well preserved.

  CST#11: A Roman collar applied to a single mule by a double-poled,
4-wheeled wagon. Black and white street mosaic at the Roman seaport of
Ostia, c. 350 AD. That image is a scan out of Needham (1965). A
detailed video sequence of the same mosaic, done in the 1980s, is also
available to me. By comparing the two, the black streak atop the
collar is clearly a photographic artefact by Needham or his source.
There is nothing like it in the real mosaic. But the depicted back top
of the collar is just one line of mosaic stones, as confirmed by the
video.
 By the girth strap Needham assumed this picture was a
"throat-and-girth" harness type. But the girth strap is today
considered a necessity for all kinds of collar harness too. It allows
the horse to break the wagon and keep it distant from its rear. It has
the same function as in the "throat-and-girth" harness. Only the back
top line identifies this harness as collar type.
(Unlike in Needham's sketch here, in his several sketches of collar
harness types (p. 320, 328), Needham always neglected the girth strap.
Nevertheless the girth strap is visible in his photographs of today's
collars.)

 A clearer picture of the Ostia relief taken from Brancards et
Transport (1993). It's only 30 % the size of Needham's reproduction
but shows more details about the mosaic structure. The structure at
the back of the mule is clearly no artefact but a depiction of the top
of a Roman collar.

In article <4015cdd4@clear.net.nz>, smid2n@clear.net.nz says...
>
> "Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1a7e3a593f5cfd61989882@news...
> > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
> >
> Well horses are not what you want for heavy loads, even with collers, heavy
> transport remained the domain of Ox teams untill engins took over. Horses
> were good for medium size loads and where speed counted because oxen are
> slow!.


Yep.
Horse would be used for transporting people. Oxen for freight.

> However introdusing free turning wheels on a fixed axil would probably have
> helped alot, and maybe turntables for the front axils to improve steering.

Which the Romans could have got from the Celts or the Chinese.

> But the real backbone of the industreal revolutions transport were canals.
> Rome knew how to build cannals but if you really want to help them introduse
> effective lock gates. Given those they should be able to build a cannal
> system as good as Europe had early in the 19th C.

Are canals really necessary? Roman was centered around the Mediterranean
which had many large cities along its coast. They had relatively cheap
sea freight. There is no reason why cities like Alexandra, Athens, Rome,
London,Caesarea, Marseilles or Leptis Magna could not have serviced a
much greater area.

One of my great aunties can still remember the Chinese pedlars with his
horse drawn wagon coming to their wheat farm to sell them goods. Similar
scenes occurred in many regions eg Poland, Australia, South Africa and
the US.





> >
> > --
> > When two incompatible beliefs are advocated and both are right, then we
> > have a problem.
> >
> > 35th observation of Bernard
> >
>
>
>

--
While you are being taught something new, record your questions before
they get you thinking in the box. As once they get you in the box, it is
very hard to think out of the box.


36th observation of Bernard

nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com (R.Schenck) wrote in message news:<8fcb1069.0401271109.6ce646e8@posting.google.com>...
> Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a7f71232ca7095498988b@news>...
> > In article <bv1d5f$jbl40$1@ID-197887.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > doug.lampert@tdytsi.com says...
> > > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:XuSQb.116232$5V2.584730@attbi_s53...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bernardz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > > > > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> > > > > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
> > > >
> > > > I though the major roman roads were very good for carts and wagons. Like
> > > > the Via Appia for example.
> > >
> > > They were good, but they tended to go straight over hills rather than
> > > arround.
> > >
> > > A heavily laden cart could not handle slopes as well as marching infantry,
> > > and
> > > the Roman roads were optimized for marching infantry speed.
> > >
> > > Still, I suspect that the Roman roads were better than those when actual
> > > industrialization started, so I suspect this is a red herring.
> >
> > Your suspicions are incorrect. Road construction in the 1800s was
> > superior to Romans in so far as freight was concerned.
> >
> > Because the construction and maintenance of roads was very costly,
> > Romans were not particularly keen to encourage heavy freight carts. Few
> > of their roads were wide enough to allow wagons to pass each other.
> >
> > Nor is it such a simple POD as Roman carts were quite primitive. The
> > horses had by modern standards poor harnesses. The wheels of the cart
> > were rigidly fixed to the axis. This meant that the right and left wheel
> > had to turn at the same rate. This slowed it down considerably.
> >
> > Also turning was a problem as the axis were rigidly fixed to the cart's
> > frame.
> >
> > For both the driver and the freight, it would be a very bumpy road as
> > they did not have springs.
> >
> > Better carts were the main reason why freight charges were much lower in
> > medieval times then Roman times.
> >
> > There is no engineering reason why the Romans could not have built
> > better carts. The Chinese already were using them. So what-if the Romans
> > had them?
> >
>
> ok, i agree that one of the major problems in the empire was the great
> distances between parts of it, requiring lots of road travel for it
> military.  So the roads they made needed to be clear, stable
> relatively dry paths for the infantries to pass over at a quick pace.
> And i agree that the problem with any sort of industry would be, not
> so much getting large quantities of goods to the workshop/factory
> -quickly-, as much as getting them there in the first place.  so
> coastal and riverine transport will of course be very important, but
> obviously land transport needs some sort of working on.  so they need
> roads that can handle large freights.  with that in mind:
>
> (1) paved roads; not paved with cemented stones but rather paved with
> cement.  modern roads are sometimes underlain with cement, and topped
> over with asphalt.  The asphalt is weak, but cheap, so it can crumble
> away, be replaced, and be relatively cost affective.  Concrete is
> strong, but it two will break down and require expensive re-working,
> so roads aren't (usually) made of conrete.  so -if- the romans can get
> a really cheap source of conrete, perhps then they can set the legions
> to work paving these roads.

 Relatively cheap concrete was a big part of roman success.  It was better
than the modern stuff (we make it cheap and nasty because we understand
Net Present Value and how well cheap concrete works).  What they
really need is an asphalt equivelent to soak up some of the punishment.
>
> (2)  wear and tear on roads in general could be reduced by having
> something like tires,  but obviously they didn't know anything about
> gum or rubber sap.  perhaps they coudl come up with some sort of glue
> that can be applied to the wheels (neverminding the already mentioned
> suggestions regarding the failings of prmitive carts) that would
> soften its grinding down of the road.  even if the glue (obviosuly i'm
> not talking about it being sticky while in use, i am using glue
> because they must've known about it and i dont see what else they
> could use) was worn away after most trips, if it were cheap enoughit
> could just be re-appllied.

  It's hard to make something that cheap that lasts long enough to
make it worthwhile applying.

>  also, perhaps they could just glue leather
> or somesuch to the wheels,

  Leather?  Are you made of money?

> reducing wear on the roads and perhaps
> giving traction (if its were ruffled) for uphill climbs, as must
> become necessary eventually
>
> (3) and this is probably as outlandish as all the rest, but i just
> have to say it, why not tracked carts?  the advantage of a track, as
> most people here know, if the distribution of weight, so that could
> take care of part of the heavy freight problem.  i would think that
> this would make the non independent wheels even worse.

  I don't think the problem is the distribution of weight but the
willingness to spend money to provide infrastructure.  The cost of
repairing the roads is not much compared to the value of the transport
but it's hard for the government to get the cart owners to pay and
it's hard for the cart owners to get the government to do it.  After
all it's trade, which is below the notice of our august senators.
>
> (4) as an after thought, perhaps someone could abandone the axle idea
> and have independent wheels mounted on the wagon/cart thru a ball and
> socket joint?  multiple wheels (ala stryker) might also give similar
> load dispersal advantages.
>
> please proceed to tear this apart.

Bernardz <bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a8260ec1ca7600e989688@news.f.de.plusline.net>...
> In article <4017b0a6@clear.net.nz>, smid2n@clear.net.nz says...
> > >
> > > Are canals really necessary? Roman was centered around the Mediterranean
> > > which had many large cities along its coast. They had relatively cheap
> > > sea freight. There is no reason why cities like Alexandra, Athens, Rome,
> > > London,Caesarea, Marseilles or Leptis Magna could not have serviced a
> > > much greater area.
> > >
> > > One of my great aunties can still remember the Chinese pedlars with his
> > > horse drawn wagon coming to their wheat farm to sell them goods. Similar
> > > scenes occurred in many regions eg Poland, Australia, South Africa and
> > > the US.
> > >
> > Water transport is still the cheapest even today, coastal cities are alright
> > but if you need to move bulk goods inland you need ether a good river or a
> > cannal. I think Europe would mostly benifit from a cannal system, the Romans
> > built quite a few and planned out large parts of the system built much
> > later. But without good locks there are crippling limates on elevation
> > changes, with the idea of a two leaf gate type of lock, forget the proper
> > title the Romans had everything they needed to build a system as good as
> > Europe eventuly did. It would have let them link up the major river systems
> > in Europe doing away with portages and greatly speeding up transport.
>
> It certainly would. To build a canal, even assuming you know what you
> are doing, you need a lot of trade to justify the expense. That means a
> lot of freight must be carried.
>
> Once the goods arrive at the end of the canal you still need these
> wagons.

http://www.worldcanals.com/Anglais/italy.html (site includes a map)

The vast plains of Northern Italy offer the boater and canal
enthusiast a remarkable variety of inland waterways, which can broadly
be divided into three main categories. First there is the network of
canals and canalised rivers connected by the Venice intracoastal
waterway (Litoranea Veneta). Linking the lagoons along the Adriatic
coast from the Po delta to Trieste, they total 760km, and form an
ideal cruising area. The channels across the lagoons are well marked,
and commercial traffic is very slight except in the Venice lagoon,
where deep-sea ships ply on the channel to the port of Mestre. There
are two hire boat firms based at Chioggia. The Venice-Padova waterway
is a high-capacity canal designed to give access to the inland port of
Padova, but it remains unfinished.
Under preparation (on 28/11/03), a zoom on the extraordinary nework of
historic canals in Lombardy, where a master plan for restoration and
low-impact navigability is currently being implemented by the region.

Bernardz wrote:
>
> Track never heard of it with horses, if horses cannot use wheels they
> are mounted on skis.

Ambiguous antecedant of the day. I can see those horse on skis right
now. It is hillarious.

Bob Kolker

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:05:02 +1100, Bernardz
<Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <8fcb1069.0401271109.6ce646e8@posting.google.com>,
>nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com says...

>> (4) as an after thought, perhaps someone could abandone the axle idea
>> and have independent wheels mounted on the wagon/cart thru a ball and
>> socket joint?  multiple wheels (ala stryker) might also give similar
>> load dispersal advantages.
>
>The Romans never adopted this although interesting the Celts had such
>wagons.

And it didn't really work with the Celts ... the pin holding the axle
to the cart body was always a point failure source. Celtic metalwork
tech was not up to making one that would last a substantial period ...
and neither was Roman, not a usable one, anyway.

Did the Romans have ball and socket joints? I am most *definitely* NOT
an engineer, but I suspect that these are products of the Industrial
Revolution and require machine tools of a sort the Romans simply did
not possess and probably could not have made or powered.

Anyone know for sure about ball and socket joints?

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au

In article <8fcb1069.0401271109.6ce646e8@posting.google.com>,
nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com says...
> Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a7f71232ca7095498988b@news>...
> > In article <bv1d5f$jbl40$1@ID-197887.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > doug.lampert@tdytsi.com says...
> > > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> > > news:XuSQb.116232$5V2.584730@attbi_s53...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bernardz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > > > > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> > > > > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
> > > >
> > > > I though the major roman roads were very good for carts and wagons. Like
> > > > the Via Appia for example.
> > >
> > > They were good, but they tended to go straight over hills rather than
> > > arround.
> > >
> > > A heavily laden cart could not handle slopes as well as marching infantry,
> > > and
> > > the Roman roads were optimized for marching infantry speed.
> > >
> > > Still, I suspect that the Roman roads were better than those when actual
> > > industrialization started, so I suspect this is a red herring.
> >
> > Your suspicions are incorrect. Road construction in the 1800s was
> > superior to Romans in so far as freight was concerned.
> >
> > Because the construction and maintenance of roads was very costly,
> > Romans were not particularly keen to encourage heavy freight carts. Few
> > of their roads were wide enough to allow wagons to pass each other.
> >
> > Nor is it such a simple POD as Roman carts were quite primitive. The
> > horses had by modern standards poor harnesses. The wheels of the cart
> > were rigidly fixed to the axis. This meant that the right and left wheel
> > had to turn at the same rate. This slowed it down considerably.
> >
> > Also turning was a problem as the axis were rigidly fixed to the cart's
> > frame.
> >
> > For both the driver and the freight, it would be a very bumpy road as
> > they did not have springs.
> >
> > Better carts were the main reason why freight charges were much lower in
> > medieval times then Roman times.
> >
> > There is no engineering reason why the Romans could not have built
> > better carts. The Chinese already were using them. So what-if the Romans
> > had them?
> >
>
> ok, i agree that one of the major problems in the empire was the great
> distances between parts of it, requiring lots of road travel for it
> military.  So the roads they made needed to be clear, stable
> relatively dry paths for the infantries to pass over at a quick pace.
> And i agree that the problem with any sort of industry would be, not
> so much getting large quantities of goods to the workshop/factory
> -quickly-, as much as getting them there in the first place.  so
> coastal and riverine transport will of course be very important, but
> obviously land transport needs some sort of working on.  so they need
> roads that can handle large freights.  with that in mind:
>
> (1) paved roads; not paved with cemented stones but rather paved with
> cement.  modern roads are sometimes underlain with cement, and topped
> over with asphalt.  The asphalt is weak, but cheap, so it can crumble
> away, be replaced, and be relatively cost affective.  Concrete is
> strong, but it two will break down and require expensive re-working,
> so roads aren't (usually) made of conrete.  so -if- the romans can get
> a really cheap source of conrete, perhps then they can set the legions
> to work paving these roads.


Part of the Roman road problem lies here. When soldiers had nothing to
do they would be used for road construction. So the Roman roads were
constructed by soldiers for the military.

>
> (2)  wear and tear on roads in general could be reduced by having
> something like tires,  but obviously they didn't know anything about
> gum or rubber sap.  perhaps they coudl come up with some sort of glue
> that can be applied to the wheels (neverminding the already mentioned
> suggestions regarding the failings of prmitive carts) that would
> soften its grinding down of the road.  even if the glue (obviosuly i'm
> not talking about it being sticky while in use, i am using glue
> because they must've known about it and i dont see what else they
> could use) was worn away after most trips, if it were cheap enoughit
> could just be re-appllied.  also, perhaps they could just glue leather
> or somesuch to the wheels, reducing wear on the roads and perhaps
> giving traction (if its were ruffled) for uphill climbs, as must
> become necessary eventually

Irrelevant as it is only very recently that we used rubber tires. Modern
wagons don't use rubber either.

>
> (3) and this is probably as outlandish as all the rest, but i just
> have to say it, why not tracked carts?  the advantage of a track, as
> most people here know, if the distribution of weight, so that could
> take care of part of the heavy freight problem.  i would think that
> this would make the non independent wheels even worse.

Track never heard of it with horses, if horses cannot use wheels they
are mounted on skis.

>
> (4) as an after thought, perhaps someone could abandone the axle idea
> and have independent wheels mounted on the wagon/cart thru a ball and
> socket joint?  multiple wheels (ala stryker) might also give similar
> load dispersal advantages.

The Romans never adopted this although interesting the Celts had such
wagons.

>
> please proceed to tear this apart.
>

--
While you are being taught something new, record your questions before
they get you thinking in the box. As once they get you in the box, it is
very hard to think out of the box.


36th observation of Bernard

In article <7164002b.0401271620.419b1e9f@posting.google.com>,
jacklinthicum@earthlink.net says...
> Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a80e1149ea04be398988c@news>...
> > In article <4015cdd4@clear.net.nz>, smid2n@clear.net.nz says...
> > >
> > > "Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1a7e3a593f5cfd61989882@news...
> > > > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > > > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> > > > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
> > > >
> > > Well horses are not what you want for heavy loads, even with collers, heavy
> > > transport remained the domain of Ox teams untill engins took over. Horses
> > > were good for medium size loads and where speed counted because oxen are
> > > slow!.
> >
> >
> > Yep.
> > Horse would be used for transporting people. Oxen for freight.
> >
> > > However introdusing free turning wheels on a fixed axil would probably have
> > > helped alot, and maybe turntables for the front axils to improve steering.
> >
> > Which the Romans could have got from the Celts or the Chinese.
> >
> > > But the real backbone of the industreal revolutions transport were canals.
> > > Rome knew how to build cannals but if you really want to help them introduse
> > > effective lock gates. Given those they should be able to build a cannal
> > > system as good as Europe had early in the 19th C.
> >
> > Are canals really necessary? Roman was centered around the Mediterranean
> > which had many large cities along its coast. They had relatively cheap
> > sea freight. There is no reason why cities like Alexandra, Athens, Rome,
> > London,Caesarea, Marseilles or Leptis Magna could not have serviced a
> > much greater area.
> >
> > One of my great aunties can still remember the Chinese pedlars with his
> > horse drawn wagon coming to their wheat farm to sell them goods. Similar
> > scenes occurred in many regions eg Poland, Australia, South Africa and
> > the US.
> >
> >
>
> Mules? http://www.humanist.de/rome/harnessing/collar-romeshoulder.html
>
> CST#2: Roman mules in collars on a coin. It is a sesterce of Emperor
> Tiberius of 22/23 AD. This is, at the mid 1999 state of research, the
> earliest representation of the typical Roman collar. See CMi#1 to
> CMi#3 for details of this collar design. Here the iron core seems
> padded and the fastening straps below the wood pads are visible too.
> It is very much like CNT#1 but in shoulder traction.
>
>  CST#3: Roman mules in collars on an undated coin. The collars are
> covered by some decoration pieces or a heavy padding.
>
>  CST#4: Roman mules in collars on a coin. Undated, somewhat abraded.
>  CST#5: Roman mules in collars on a coin. A sesterce of Emperor
> Caligula of 37/41 AD.
>   CST#6: Collars on Roman mules pulling a light travelling wagon. The
> inscription, perhaps Memoriae Domitiane, indicates a time of c. 96 AD.
> The collar looks two-parted to the front of the throat. These are the
> fastening straps more clear depicted in CST#8, 9 or CNT#1. The girth
> strap is also visible over the body. A bump on the top of the horse's
> back, betwen the collar and the girth, seems to be caused by a damage.
> It created a dent below too. It is no indication of a yoke.
>
>   CST#7: Mule in collar at a vallus, a Roman "harvesting machine"
> around 100 AD. Several damaged relief depictions of it were found.
> Click the picture to see the composition of two such fragments showing
> the whole front part of a vallus in operation. This device is also
> mentioned by Roman writers.
>  The whole vallus in a reconstruction based on the reliefs from
> different sites mainly in France. But instead of the Roman collar the
> artist wrongly placed an MA ring collar over the mule.
>
>  CST#8: Roman army collar from the column of Emperor Trajan, c. 106
> AD. Two pairs of mules hauling torsion gun carts -- a Roman field
> artillery system. The relief of the lower mule is somewhat demaged.
> But the above one is the most detailed representation of a Roman
> collar in position of shoulder traction.
>   We see an iron collar bow, only slightly padded, that ends in the
> wooden pad. We know these wood pieces from CMi#3. In the front are the
> fastening straps we know from CNT#1. Unlike CNT#1 here the two straps
> seemed to be fixed together by a front band. The rein close to the
> collar supports the idea that it was guided through the upper part of
> the collar like shown in CST#9.
>  The context of the above picture. The carts are depicted during
> march. The guns and carts are visible in much detail.
>
>   CST#9: Roman army collar from the column of Emperor Trajan, c. 106
> AD. This is one of two mules hauling a gun cart again. But here the
> collar is on a higher neck position unlike the two other depictions
> above. The many details make an error on the artist's side less
> likely. A soldier at the right seems to be moving the wheel of the
> cart. This at first suggests some assistence of the mules offroad in
> difficult terrain. But the base of the wheel is well visible -
> removing the idea of a bad road. Instead the moment we see is probably
> the unharnessing of the mules. The fasten straps (in front under the
> neck) connected the wooden frontpads at the lower sides of the collar
> bow. The release of this straps allowed the rotation of the wood pads
> and this the release from the harness. If it was a fail safe design,
> the straps could not be released as long as the system was under
> tension on the shoulders at the neck base. To release the tension and
> then the strap the soldier pushes the cart pole forward by turning the
> wheel. So the collar at this depicted moment is not in hauling
> position but up the neck.
>   This interpretation is supported by the context of the above
> picture. This is the whole scene. The artillery cart arrives in the
> lower left at a city wall. Here Roman soldiers already stationed some
> torsion guns at the wall of the city. Another such device is in a well
> protected position in front of the wall. The newly arrived unit is
> just unharnessed to the left of the other at the site where the
> position building is still in work.
>
>  CST#10: Roman collar in a relief by Aurelian, 274 AD. Although a
> somewhat abraded relief, the depicted collar seems of different design
> then that in CST#8 170 years before. And it is a rare depiction of the
> collar's backside. The reins are fed through the top part of the
> collar. The pole of the car is visible in front of the wheels, too. It
> is clear that the pole is attached to the side of the collar like in
> CMi#1 and not to the top. The collar is positioned at the upper
> shoulder part at the base the neck.
>  Same relief section from another view. To the left is a mule with the
> same collar harness but in a condition less well preserved.
>
>   CST#11: A Roman collar applied to a single mule by a double-poled,
> 4-wheeled wagon. Black and white street mosaic at the Roman seaport of
> Ostia, c. 350 AD. That image is a scan out of Needham (1965). A
> detailed video sequence of the same mosaic, done in the 1980s, is also
> available to me. By comparing the two, the black streak atop the
> collar is clearly a photographic artefact by Needham or his source.
> There is nothing like it in the real mosaic. But the depicted back top
> of the collar is just one line of mosaic stones, as confirmed by the
> video.
>  By the girth strap Needham assumed this picture was a
> "throat-and-girth" harness type. But the girth strap is today
> considered a necessity for all kinds of collar harness too. It allows
> the horse to break the wagon and keep it distant from its rear. It has
> the same function as in the "throat-and-girth" harness. Only the back
> top line identifies this harness as collar type.
> (Unlike in Needham's sketch here, in his several sketches of collar
> harness types (p. 320, 328), Needham always neglected the girth strap.
> Nevertheless the girth strap is visible in his photographs of today's
> collars.)
>
>  A clearer picture of the Ostia relief taken from Brancards et
> Transport (1993). It's only 30 % the size of Needham's reproduction
> but shows more details about the mosaic structure. The structure at
> the back of the mule is clearly no artefact but a depiction of the top
> of a Roman collar.
>


It is a very interesting site. This web site puts a good argument
forward that the Roman load limit would be almost as good as medieval
times.

A major debate on the issue exists of how efficient was the Roman
collar? Do a net search and you will see what I mean.

Start here.
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/texts/harncont.html

Conclusion here is that the answer to the question "did the Romans
extract maximum work from their horses?" would seem to be no

Even putting the collar aside this does not change the discussion mush
as the Roman land transportation was much dearer then in medieval times.
At best, it states that we may have to consider other factors beside the
collar.


--
Good research produces more questions for others to answer.


37th observation of Bernard

In article <4017b0a6@clear.net.nz>, smid2n@clear.net.nz says...
> >
> > Are canals really necessary? Roman was centered around the Mediterranean
> > which had many large cities along its coast. They had relatively cheap
> > sea freight. There is no reason why cities like Alexandra, Athens, Rome,
> > London,Caesarea, Marseilles or Leptis Magna could not have serviced a
> > much greater area.
> >
> > One of my great aunties can still remember the Chinese pedlars with his
> > horse drawn wagon coming to their wheat farm to sell them goods. Similar
> > scenes occurred in many regions eg Poland, Australia, South Africa and
> > the US.
> >
> Water transport is still the cheapest even today, coastal cities are alright
> but if you need to move bulk goods inland you need ether a good river or a
> cannal. I think Europe would mostly benifit from a cannal system, the Romans
> built quite a few and planned out large parts of the system built much
> later. But without good locks there are crippling limates on elevation
> changes, with the idea of a two leaf gate type of lock, forget the proper
> title the Romans had everything they needed to build a system as good as
> Europe eventuly did. It would have let them link up the major river systems
> in Europe doing away with portages and greatly speeding up transport.

It certainly would. To build a canal, even assuming you know what you
are doing, you need a lot of trade to justify the expense. That means a
lot of freight must be carried.

Once the goods arrive at the end of the canal you still need these
wagons.


--
Good research produces more questions for others to answer.


37th observation of Bernard

"Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a80e1149ea04be398988c@news...
> In article <4015cdd4@clear.net.nz>, smid2n@clear.net.nz says...
> >
> > "Bernardz" <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1a7e3a593f5cfd61989882@news...
> > > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need
a
> > > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper
horses.
> > >
> > Well horses are not what you want for heavy loads, even with collers,
heavy
> > transport remained the domain of Ox teams untill engins took over.
Horses
> > were good for medium size loads and where speed counted because oxen are
> > slow!.
>
>
> Yep.
> Horse would be used for transporting people. Oxen for freight.
>
> > However introdusing free turning wheels on a fixed axil would probably
have
> > helped alot, and maybe turntables for the front axils to improve
steering.
>
> Which the Romans could have got from the Celts or the Chinese.
>
> > But the real backbone of the industreal revolutions transport were
canals.
> > Rome knew how to build cannals but if you really want to help them
introduse
> > effective lock gates. Given those they should be able to build a cannal
> > system as good as Europe had early in the 19th C.
>
> Are canals really necessary? Roman was centered around the Mediterranean
> which had many large cities along its coast. They had relatively cheap
> sea freight. There is no reason why cities like Alexandra, Athens, Rome,
> London,Caesarea, Marseilles or Leptis Magna could not have serviced a
> much greater area.
>
> One of my great aunties can still remember the Chinese pedlars with his
> horse drawn wagon coming to their wheat farm to sell them goods. Similar
> scenes occurred in many regions eg Poland, Australia, South Africa and
> the US.
>
Water transport is still the cheapest even today, coastal cities are alright
but if you need to move bulk goods inland you need ether a good river or a
cannal. I think Europe would mostly benifit from a cannal system, the Romans
built quite a few and planned out large parts of the system built much
later. But without good locks there are crippling limates on elevation
changes, with the idea of a two leaf gate type of lock, forget the proper
title the Romans had everything they needed to build a system as good as
Europe eventuly did. It would have let them link up the major river systems
in Europe doing away with portages and greatly speeding up transport.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > --
> > > When two incompatible beliefs are advocated and both are right, then
we
> > > have a problem.
> > >
> > > 35th observation of Bernard
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> While you are being taught something new, record your questions before
> they get you thinking in the box. As once they get you in the box, it is
> very hard to think out of the box.
>
>
> 36th observation of Bernard
>

"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message news:<NURRb.136071$nt4.596618@attbi_s51>...
> Bernardz wrote:
> >
> > Track never heard of it with horses, if horses cannot use wheels they
> > are mounted on skis.
>
> Ambiguous antecedant of the day. I can see those horse on skis right
> now. It is hillarious.
>

Don't know about horse, but the camel on skis was shown on TV not
long ago. It is hilarious.

> Bob Kolker

Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a8238c877e96ebb989894@news>...
> In article <8fcb1069.0401271109.6ce646e8@posting.google.com>,
> nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com says...
> > Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a7f71232ca7095498988b@news>...
> > > In article <bv1d5f$jbl40$1@ID-197887.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> > > doug.lampert@tdytsi.com says...
> > > > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:XuSQb.116232$5V2.584730@attbi_s53...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bernardz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Any POD that want to create a Roman industrial revolution is going to
> > > > > > have to decrease the Roman cost of transport on land. To do so we need a
> > > > > > road system suitable for carts, improved horse carts and cheaper horses.
> > > > >
> > > > > I though the major roman roads were very good for carts and wagons. Like
> > > > > the Via Appia for example.
> > > >
> > > > They were good, but they tended to go straight over hills rather than
> > > > arround.
> > > >
> > > > A heavily laden cart could not handle slopes as well as marching infantry,
> > > > and
> > > > the Roman roads were optimized for marching infantry speed.
> > > >
> > > > Still, I suspect that the Roman roads were better than those when actual
> > > > industrialization started, so I suspect this is a red herring.
> > >
> > > Your suspicions are incorrect. Road construction in the 1800s was
> > > superior to Romans in so far as freight was concerned.
> > >
> > > Because the construction and maintenance of roads was very costly,
> > > Romans were not particularly keen to encourage heavy freight carts. Few
> > > of their roads were wide enough to allow wagons to pass each other.
> > >
> > > Nor is it such a simple POD as Roman carts were quite primitive. The
> > > horses had by modern standards poor harnesses. The wheels of the cart
> > > were rigidly fixed to the axis. This meant that the right and left wheel
> > > had to turn at the same rate. This slowed it down considerably.
> > >
> > > Also turning was a problem as the axis were rigidly fixed to the cart's
> > > frame.
> > >
> > > For both the driver and the freight, it would be a very bumpy road as
> > > they did not have springs.
> > >
> > > Better carts were the main reason why freight charges were much lower in
> > > medieval times then Roman times.
> > >
> > > There is no engineering reason why the Romans could not have built
> > > better carts. The Chinese already were using them. So what-if the Romans
> > > had them?
> > >
> >
> > ok, i agree that one of the major problems in the empire was the great
> > distances between parts of it, requiring lots of road travel for it
> > military.  So the roads they made needed to be clear, stable
> > relatively dry paths for the infantries to pass over at a quick pace.
> > And i agree that the problem with any sort of industry would be, not
> > so much getting large quantities of goods to the workshop/factory
> > -quickly-, as much as getting them there in the first place.  so
> > coastal and riverine transport will of course be very important, but
> > obviously land transport needs some sort of working on.  so they need
> > roads that can handle large freights.  with that in mind:
> >
> > (1) paved roads; not paved with cemented stones but rather paved with
> > cement.  modern roads are sometimes underlain with cement, and topped
> > over with asphalt.  The asphalt is weak, but cheap, so it can crumble
> > away, be replaced, and be relatively cost affective.  Concrete is
> > strong, but it two will break down and require expensive re-working,
> > so roads aren't (usually) made of conrete.  so -if- the romans can get
> > a really cheap source of conrete, perhps then they can set the legions
> > to work paving these roads.
>
>
> Part of the Roman road problem lies here. When soldiers had nothing to
> do they would be used for road construction. So the Roman roads were
> constructed by soldiers for the military.
>

yes, the military and government of course has no reason to foster
industrialization, and wouldn't have any interest in building roads in
the hopes of making things easier for industries that dont yet exist.
It would require the emperor doing this, or the senatorial/equitorial
class being appeased by it. maybe it would be a worthwhile concession
and the conspiratory population would focus on business instead of
conspiring.  probably not tho.
> >
> > (2)  wear and tear on roads in general could be reduced by having
> > something like tires,  but obviously they didn't know anything about
> > gum or rubber sap.  perhaps they coudl come up with some sort of glue
> > that can be applied to the wheels (neverminding the already mentioned
> > suggestions regarding the failings of prmitive carts) that would
> > soften its grinding down of the road.  even if the glue (obviosuly i'm
> > not talking about it being sticky while in use, i am using glue
> > because they must've known about it and i dont see what else they
> > could use) was worn away after most trips, if it were cheap enoughit
> > could just be re-appllied.  also, perhaps they could just glue leather
> > or somesuch to the wheels, reducing wear on the roads and perhaps
> > giving traction (if its were ruffled) for uphill climbs, as must
> > become necessary eventually
>
> Irrelevant as it is only very recently that we used rubber tires. Modern
> wagons don't use rubber either.
>

it's hardly irrelevant as the problem at hand is the roads being
unstable/nont resistant enough to bear large freight.  i'm not saying
its neccessary, and i am not saying its the best solution, but it
seems like it is a solution that its not too out of their
capabilities.  and i wasn't talking about rubber so much as
substitutes for it.

> >
> > (3) and this is probably as outlandish as all the rest, but i just
> > have to say it, why not tracked carts?  the advantage of a track, as
> > most people here know, if the distribution of weight, so that could
> > take care of part of the heavy freight problem.  i would think that
> > this would make the non independent wheels even worse.
>
> Track never heard of it with horses, if horses cannot use wheels they
> are mounted on skis.

hmm, guess that wouldn't work would it?  they would just end up
dragging the tracked vehicle more than turning the tracks.
>
> >
> > (4) as an after thought, perhaps someone could abandone the axle idea
> > and have independent wheels mounted on the wagon/cart thru a ball and
> > socket joint?  multiple wheels (ala stryker) might also give similar
> > load dispersal advantages.
>
> The Romans never adopted this although interesting the Celts had such
> wagons.

the multiple wheels or the independent wheels?   it seems like several
wheels lined up in a row might yield some of the load distributing
advantages of tracks.
>
> >
> > please proceed to tear this apart.
> >

Bernardz <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1a839071d94dfb7c989895@news>...
> In article <4018237e.1503391@news.pacific.net.au>, aspqrz@pacific.net.au
> says...
> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:05:02 +1100, Bernardz
> > <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <8fcb1069.0401271109.6ce646e8@posting.google.com>,
> > >nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com says...
>
> > >> (4) as an after thought, perhaps someone could abandone the axle idea
> > >> and have independent wheels mounted on the wagon/cart thru a ball and
> > >> socket joint?  multiple wheels (ala stryker) might also give similar
> > >> load dispersal advantages.
> > >
> > >The Romans never adopted this although interesting the Celts had such
> > >wagons.
> >
> > And it didn't really work with the Celts ... the pin holding the axle
> > to the cart body was always a point failure source. Celtic metalwork
> > tech was not up to making one that would last a substantial period ...
> > and neither was Roman, not a usable one, anyway.
>
> I would like to see some references for this comment
>
> But I don't doubt this and it makes a lot of sense. By the way the
> ancient Greeks and Persians also knew of this as well. But they did not
> use it much either. Perhaps for this reason.
>
>
> >
> > Did the Romans have ball and socket joints? I am most *definitely* NOT
> > an engineer, but I suspect that these are products of the Industrial
> > Revolution and require machine tools of a sort the Romans simply did
> > not possess and probably could not have made or powered.
> >
> > Anyone know for sure about ball and socket joints?
>
> I can take a reasonable guess.
>
> In Romans times, iron was very expensive. It was only after the later
> development of coal in medieval times that allowed much larger
> production of iron and brought the price down. Occasionally when they
> came across cast iron, they considered it to be a waste product! So the
> Romans would have a major problem to find a high quality material
> economically.
>
> Until modern times, craftsman started their careers at a very young age.
> They worked and studied all their lives in the profession. As a result
> they achieved skills that even today with our advanced metal machinery,
> we find difficult to reproduce. So I presume that such people could
> reproduce the design if we imagine some alien bat giving the Roman
> ironworker the design and the client was willing to pay both for the
> metal and the labor. I doubt that a typical wagon owner would be capable
> of paying such a price. So I suspect yes in theory and no in practice.
>
> The last issue is that if a large chunk of high quality iron was left in
> a wagon, the owner of the wagon, may need continuous to hire security
> guards to look after it.
>

waitaminute why does it need to be a metal ball and socket joint?  why
not a well sanded and wll greased wooden structure?  how much of a
load could something liek that carry?
>
> >
> > Phil
> >
> > Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au
> >

"R.Schenck" <nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fcb1069.0401291021.3269a199@posting.google.com...
> yes, the military and government of course has no reason to foster
> industrialization,

Eh?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 21:50:31 +1100, Bernardz
<Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <4018237e.1503391@news.pacific.net.au>, aspqrz@pacific.net.au
>says...
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:05:02 +1100, Bernardz
>> <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8fcb1069.0401271109.6ce646e8@posting.google.com>,
>> >nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> >> (4) as an after thought, perhaps someone could abandone the axle idea
>> >> and have independent wheels mounted on the wagon/cart thru a ball and
>> >> socket joint?  multiple wheels (ala stryker) might also give similar
>> >> load dispersal advantages.
>> >
>> >The Romans never adopted this although interesting the Celts had such
>> >wagons.
>>
>> And it didn't really work with the Celts ... the pin holding the axle
>> to the cart body was always a point failure source. Celtic metalwork
>> tech was not up to making one that would last a substantial period ...
>> and neither was Roman, not a usable one, anyway.
>
>I would like to see some references for this comment
>
>But I don't doubt this and it makes a lot of sense. By the way the
>ancient Greeks and Persians also knew of this as well. But they did not
>use it much either. Perhaps for this reason.

Sorry, don't have a reference per se ... ISTR that I read it in a book
on the Celts which showed a surviving cart (or maybe it was a model
thereof) which is evidently in a museum in Scandinavia ... it had the
swivel at the front and it was noted that this did not work because of
the reason stated.

Thing is, as you indicate, these were not great thick drop forged
pins, they were basically large hand hammered nail-like objects. And
*all* the stress and weight of the load of the cart goes on to them
when in use.

But, no, no written references, sadly ...

And, of course, this was many years ago so it could be like the Horse
Collar debate and now be disproved :-P

I offer it with that caveat :-}

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au

In article <4018237e.1503391@news.pacific.net.au>, aspqrz@pacific.net.au
says...
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:05:02 +1100, Bernardz
> <Bernard_zzz@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <8fcb1069.0401271109.6ce646e8@posting.google.com>,
> >nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com says...
>
> >> (4) as an after thought, perhaps someone could abandone the axle idea
> >> and have independent wheels mounted on the wagon/cart thru a ball and
> >> socket joint?  multiple wheels (ala stryker) might also give similar
> >> load dispersal advantages.
> >
> >The Romans never adopted this although interesting the Celts had such
> >wagons.
>
> And it didn't really work with the Celts ... the pin holding the axle
> to the cart body was always a point failure source. Celtic metalwork
> tech was not up to making one that would last a substantial period ...
> and neither was Roman, not a usable one, anyway.

I would like to see some references for this comment

But I don't doubt this and it makes a lot of sense. By the way the
ancient Greeks and Persians also knew of this as well. But they did not
use it much either. Perhaps for this reason.


>
> Did the Romans have ball and socket joints? I am most *definitely* NOT
> an engineer, but I suspect that these are products of the Industrial
> Revolution and require machine tools of a sort the Romans simply did
> not possess and probably could not have made or powered.
>
> Anyone know for sure about ball and socket joints?

I can take a reasonable guess.

In Romans times, iron was very expensive. It was only after the later
development of coal in medieval times that allowed much larger
production of iron and brought the price down. Occasionally when they
came across cast iron, they considered it to be a waste product! So the
Romans would have a major problem to find a high quality material
economically.

Until modern times, craftsman started their careers at a very young age.
They worked and studied all their lives in the profession. As a result
they achieved skills that even today with our advanced metal machinery,
we find difficult to reproduce. So I presume that such people could
reproduce the design if we imagine some alien bat giving the Roman
ironworker the design and the client was willing to pay both for the
metal and the labor. I doubt that a typical wagon owner would be capable
of paying such a price. So I suspect yes in theory and no in practice.

The last issue is that if a large chunk of high quality iron was left in
a wagon, the owner of the wagon, may need continuous to hire security
guards to look after it.


>
> Phil
>
> Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Email: aspqrz@pacific.net.au
>

--
Good research produces more questions for others to answer.


37th observation of Bernard

>
> Mules? http://www.humanist.de/rome/harnessing/collar-romeshoulder.html
>
> CST#2: Roman mules in collars on a coin. It is a sesterce of Emperor
> Tiberius of 22/23 AD. This is, at the mid 1999 state of research, the
> earliest representation of the typical Roman collar. See CMi#1 to
> CMi#3 for details of this collar design. Here the iron core seems
> padded and the fastening straps below the wood pads are visible too.
> It is very much like CNT#1 but in shoulder traction.
>


It is a very interesting site. This web site argues very well that the
load limit would be almost as good as medieval times.

There is a major debate on the issue of how efficient was the Roman
collar? Do a net search and you will see what I mean.

Start here.
http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/texts/harncont.html

Conclusion here is that the answer to the question "did the Romans
extract maximum work from their horses?" would seem to be no


This does not change the discussion as the Roman land transportation was
much dearer then in medieval times.




--
While you are being taught something new, record your questions before
they get you thinking in the box. As once they get you in the box, it is
very hard to think out of the box.


36th observation of Bernard

In article <5678a39d.0401280418.672fd49d@posting.google.com>,
nini_pad@yahoo.com says...
> > (3) and this is probably as outlandish as all the rest, but i just
> > have to say it, why not tracked carts?  the advantage of a track, as
> > most people here know, if the distribution of weight, so that could
> > take care of part of the heavy freight problem.  i would think that
> > this would make the non independent wheels even worse.
>
>   I don't think the problem is the distribution of weight but the
> willingness to spend money to provide infrastructure.  The cost of
> repairing the roads is not much compared to the value of the transport
> but it's hard for the government to get the cart owners to pay and
> it's hard for the cart owners to get the government to do it.  After
> all it's trade, which is below the notice of our august senators.
>

The other issue is that as the roads were not made for goods
transportation, often they went up on an incline of 20 degrees. The cart
owner would could not go with a full cargo as he needed to get it up the
hill.


--
Good research produces more questions for others to answer.


37th observation of Bernard

"Insane Ranter" <whoo@hooo.me> wrote in message news:<ZafSb.616$pk.155@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
> "R.Schenck" <nygdan_morteauxspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8fcb1069.0401291021.3269a199@posting.google.com...
> > yes, the military and government of course has no reason to foster
> > industrialization,
>
> Eh?

what i mean is what interst did they have in creating the conditions
neccessary for some private entrepeneur to efficiently mass produce,
what, pottery, bricks, stamped icons etc.  the roman imperial
governement anyway.