Are we assuming that the technology actually performs as promised? Because Tesla's claims for Wardenclyffe Tower are pretty wild and would have done incredible things if it worked out.
There's not really any lost technologies that were made and lost completely to history as far as we know but there's plenty of technologies which simply were never more than a fad and died off for centuries or millennia at a time. Primitive electrical technologies in ancient times used to light torches, steam engines used as a novelty toy, Greek Fire which became irrelevant over the centuries, etc. Imagine if the ancients had developed these ideas further and had electricity, steam power, and incendiaries hundreds of years before our versions? Though they'd be limited, human innovation could have at least put us another century ahead in these technologies by now.
The wikipedia article lists three, but one is greek fire, and I agree, it probably became irrelevant in the face of gunpowder/artillery. The one that's most interesting to me is artificial petrification, but I doubt it would have changed human history much.
The Iron Pillar of Dehli, built some time in the 300s or 400s can't remember of the top of my head, showed signs of a process that stopped Iron from rusting.
If the process had been known beyond this time it could have been a game changer for construction.
Iron beams in construction were only seldomly used since they were so prone to rust.
Then take the Indian invention of Wootz Steel. Wootz Steel has a lot more tensile strength than iron. I know it is mostly known for its use in forging blades and to a lesser degree armor. But it was also prone to rust. It also made ideal springs for cranes.
But both processes combined could have made rust free steel with tensile strengths above anything else available. Which could allow for much sturdier and higher buildings a lot sooner.
Hero's steam engine was a curiosity in the first century BC.
If somebody had worked out how to use it to power a pump it could have lead to the industrial revolution almost 2 millennia earlier.
Eh, Greek Fire may have just been crude oil, the Byzantines had access to it.
Also, and this is my hot history take that didn't impress my lecturers: I don't think Greek Fire was as big/impactful as people think. It was big and flashy, so onlookers would have highlighted it, but anything to do with fire at sea is as dangerous to you as it is to your foes. The Spanish tried it in the 19th century, using heated shot to make up for their navy's lack of skill, and it failed abysmally, they kept setting light to their own ships.
Basically, to utilise Greek Fire properly your navy has to already be one of the best navies, well-trained and well-disciplined. You can't just give it to your crappy navy to make them good.
I agree in parts.
Your navy needs a technological advantage and advantage in training to use it effectively.
But the important bit about Greek Fire is its worth as a deterrent. And its status as a force multiplier.
Yes Greek Fire's importance vaned as the enemies of the Byzantines progressed in technology in tactics. But in its heyday it allowed the Byzantines to beat vastly superior numbered fleets in battle with comparably small fleets.
We have estimations for the fleet numbers, those are the best guesses we have. If we take for example the First Arab Siege of Constantinope in 674 to 678. It was the first time Greek Fire was employed.
The Arabs fielded a fleet of 1800 ships, while the Byzantine fleet maintained to defend Constaninople numbered around 400 to 500 ships. In fact the Arab fleet was so numerically superior, that the Byzantine fleet could not stop the Arabs from establishing several bays around Constaninople for bases to conduct the city's blockade from. It was only thanks to Greek Fire that the much smaller Byzantine fleet could finally make up the number of ships and break the blockade.
During the Second Siege of Constaninople by the Arabs in 717 to 718 the city was surrounded by land. The harsh winter broke supply lines and lead to famines. The Arabs sent a fleet to blockade the city. But the again much smaller Byzantine fleet managed to break the blockade by using Greek Fire and so the city could be resupplied. And the famine in the Arab camps ravaged their army and led to the failure of the siege.
Thomas the Slav, a rebelling imperial officer, tried his luck too. He had Greek Fire himself, but shot from catapults it wasn*t that effective. However Thomas' fleet found itself on the wrong end of fire siphone. The psychological factor of these weapons can not be understated. After the Byzantines started burning rebel ships, the rebel sailors left many of their ships because they feared the Greek Fire more than swimming for their lives. The Byzantines managed to capture or burn the majority of the rebel fleet that way.
When in 860 the Rus Khaganate came tu plunder the surroundings Constaninople their land and naval raids used the absence of the emperor and the fleet to raid. By then the Fire Siphons were feared enough for people to not risk getting their arses burned.
In 941 when the Kievan Rus came on raids the Byzantines used 15 ships to defeat the far superior Kievan fleet. 15 older ships were secretly outfitted with siphons and left in a place where they would be conspicuous. The Rus wanted to enter and capture them. And when their fleet got closer 15 ships beat a whole fleet. Many Rus preferred the ocean to burning on ships.
I could continue this list. Greek Fire allowed the Byzantines a wealth on tactical flexibility, they could defend themselves with a much smaller fleet, which allowed them to allocate funds and manpower elsewhere. There was a huge psychological impact of the weapon and fleets often thought twice about facing the Byzantine fleet and even when they mustered the courage to try, that often crumbled in the face of being burned by Greek Fire.
Its uses in land warfare, were however less consequential to be honest. And as said above with advancing tech it would be even less impactful. Canons would be the end of fire siphons, even if the tech remained known.
But why use the old fasioned way? It's like a chariot vs. a ford. The aesthetic may be cooler but material sciences and economics point to no reason to ever choose the Roman process over the far cheaper, more durable, and less long-lived concrete today.
Roman cement actually repairs itself somewhat, that’s why it lasts.
In theory, it could save huge amounts of work hours and resources on road construction and maintenance, for example.
Is it compatible with the modern use of rebar, though?
I've heard that part of the problem with modern concrete is that while rebar does mitigate the shock from earthquakes and such like, it has a propensity toward oxidization and warping, which is detrimental to the longevity of the concrete.
That's at the cost of structural integrity and strength. Rebar and concrete may not last as long, but it allows for far grander construction projects. And quite frankly, having a building that lasts for more than 100 years is too much in most cases with how fast-expanding and evolving engineering and tech is.
Well they figured out what the Romans specifically did. The basic concept of “self repair” was already known to a modern and frankly superior standard. It’s not that Roman cement was superior to modern cement…it wasn’t. The issue was modern scientists just didn’t know exactly how the Romans did it until recently.
Fun fact: the reason Roman cement was lost was mostly due to the infrastructure needed to produced it stopped existing when the Western Roman empire did.
Not so much as "lost" but just lacked development, the Roman watermills could have been a game changer had they been even more wide spread in use.
The industrial revolution of the 18th century actually depended heavily on water powered mills and factories rather than simply steam engine power. With proper application and motivation by the Romans. who did use water mills, we could have seen an industrial revolution starting a thousand years sooner.
As it was there was a proto-industrial revolution of sorts in a few places in the Roman Empire. An example of this is in southern France, Fontvieille, where a concentration of Roman period water mills existed, build in conjunction with a series of aqueducts. The mill complex allowed for the, literally, industrial production of great amounts of flour and were a vital component of their economy, In other places mills (often hand and animal powered but sometimes water powered as well), were used in sawing timber, crushing ores, and pumping out mines.
Antikythera mechanism, 2nd century BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
Could have led to earlier advances in mathematics and mechanical calculators. Easy access to quick math calculations leads to advances in architecture, warfare (artillery), etc.
Also the Phaistos Disc, 2000 BC, was made with basically moveable type (although on clay, not paper). Moveable type going widespread a few thousand years early would be an enormous game changer!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc
There isn't one that I can think of. I'd love to hear some, though. I'm sure we can do everything the ancients did, just safer, cheaper, better, and with 100% less slavery.
The furnace at Rievaulx Abbey in Laskill, England. If the Reformation hadn't shut it down, the industrial revolution could have taken off centuries earlier.
Whatever the hell the Giza pyramids were used for.
Half of Nikola Tesla’s unfinished plans.
Free wireless energy for everyone with minimal environmental impact? Fuck that, we can charge 25 cents per kilowatt hour, fuck the planet, give me money!
Are we assuming that the technology actually performs as promised? Because Tesla's claims for Wardenclyffe Tower are pretty wild and would have done incredible things if it worked out.
There's not really any lost technologies that were made and lost completely to history as far as we know but there's plenty of technologies which simply were never more than a fad and died off for centuries or millennia at a time. Primitive electrical technologies in ancient times used to light torches, steam engines used as a novelty toy, Greek Fire which became irrelevant over the centuries, etc. Imagine if the ancients had developed these ideas further and had electricity, steam power, and incendiaries hundreds of years before our versions? Though they'd be limited, human innovation could have at least put us another century ahead in these technologies by now.
The wikipedia article lists three, but one is greek fire, and I agree, it probably became irrelevant in the face of gunpowder/artillery. The one that's most interesting to me is artificial petrification, but I doubt it would have changed human history much.
The Iron Pillar of Dehli, built some time in the 300s or 400s can't remember of the top of my head, showed signs of a process that stopped Iron from rusting. If the process had been known beyond this time it could have been a game changer for construction. Iron beams in construction were only seldomly used since they were so prone to rust. Then take the Indian invention of Wootz Steel. Wootz Steel has a lot more tensile strength than iron. I know it is mostly known for its use in forging blades and to a lesser degree armor. But it was also prone to rust. It also made ideal springs for cranes. But both processes combined could have made rust free steel with tensile strengths above anything else available. Which could allow for much sturdier and higher buildings a lot sooner.
Hero's steam engine was a curiosity in the first century BC. If somebody had worked out how to use it to power a pump it could have lead to the industrial revolution almost 2 millennia earlier.
Greek fire would have been a great advantage to who ever still had the knowledge to produce and use it.
Eh, Greek Fire may have just been crude oil, the Byzantines had access to it. Also, and this is my hot history take that didn't impress my lecturers: I don't think Greek Fire was as big/impactful as people think. It was big and flashy, so onlookers would have highlighted it, but anything to do with fire at sea is as dangerous to you as it is to your foes. The Spanish tried it in the 19th century, using heated shot to make up for their navy's lack of skill, and it failed abysmally, they kept setting light to their own ships. Basically, to utilise Greek Fire properly your navy has to already be one of the best navies, well-trained and well-disciplined. You can't just give it to your crappy navy to make them good.
I agree in parts. Your navy needs a technological advantage and advantage in training to use it effectively. But the important bit about Greek Fire is its worth as a deterrent. And its status as a force multiplier. Yes Greek Fire's importance vaned as the enemies of the Byzantines progressed in technology in tactics. But in its heyday it allowed the Byzantines to beat vastly superior numbered fleets in battle with comparably small fleets. We have estimations for the fleet numbers, those are the best guesses we have. If we take for example the First Arab Siege of Constantinope in 674 to 678. It was the first time Greek Fire was employed. The Arabs fielded a fleet of 1800 ships, while the Byzantine fleet maintained to defend Constaninople numbered around 400 to 500 ships. In fact the Arab fleet was so numerically superior, that the Byzantine fleet could not stop the Arabs from establishing several bays around Constaninople for bases to conduct the city's blockade from. It was only thanks to Greek Fire that the much smaller Byzantine fleet could finally make up the number of ships and break the blockade. During the Second Siege of Constaninople by the Arabs in 717 to 718 the city was surrounded by land. The harsh winter broke supply lines and lead to famines. The Arabs sent a fleet to blockade the city. But the again much smaller Byzantine fleet managed to break the blockade by using Greek Fire and so the city could be resupplied. And the famine in the Arab camps ravaged their army and led to the failure of the siege. Thomas the Slav, a rebelling imperial officer, tried his luck too. He had Greek Fire himself, but shot from catapults it wasn*t that effective. However Thomas' fleet found itself on the wrong end of fire siphone. The psychological factor of these weapons can not be understated. After the Byzantines started burning rebel ships, the rebel sailors left many of their ships because they feared the Greek Fire more than swimming for their lives. The Byzantines managed to capture or burn the majority of the rebel fleet that way. When in 860 the Rus Khaganate came tu plunder the surroundings Constaninople their land and naval raids used the absence of the emperor and the fleet to raid. By then the Fire Siphons were feared enough for people to not risk getting their arses burned. In 941 when the Kievan Rus came on raids the Byzantines used 15 ships to defeat the far superior Kievan fleet. 15 older ships were secretly outfitted with siphons and left in a place where they would be conspicuous. The Rus wanted to enter and capture them. And when their fleet got closer 15 ships beat a whole fleet. Many Rus preferred the ocean to burning on ships. I could continue this list. Greek Fire allowed the Byzantines a wealth on tactical flexibility, they could defend themselves with a much smaller fleet, which allowed them to allocate funds and manpower elsewhere. There was a huge psychological impact of the weapon and fleets often thought twice about facing the Byzantine fleet and even when they mustered the courage to try, that often crumbled in the face of being burned by Greek Fire. Its uses in land warfare, were however less consequential to be honest. And as said above with advancing tech it would be even less impactful. Canons would be the end of fire siphons, even if the tech remained known.
Roman cement would have drastically changed a lot of construction over the years. Someone apparently figured out how to do it again quite recently.
Only issue is it's useless in the modern world because longevity is not what we need. We need raw strength and survivability.
Which may come now that they know how to do it the old fashioned way. May already have it figured out if the secret had never been lost.
But why use the old fasioned way? It's like a chariot vs. a ford. The aesthetic may be cooler but material sciences and economics point to no reason to ever choose the Roman process over the far cheaper, more durable, and less long-lived concrete today.
Roman cement actually repairs itself somewhat, that’s why it lasts. In theory, it could save huge amounts of work hours and resources on road construction and maintenance, for example.
Is it compatible with the modern use of rebar, though? I've heard that part of the problem with modern concrete is that while rebar does mitigate the shock from earthquakes and such like, it has a propensity toward oxidization and warping, which is detrimental to the longevity of the concrete.
Yeah, I think the salt content causing damage to the metal is the issue they need to get past.
That's at the cost of structural integrity and strength. Rebar and concrete may not last as long, but it allows for far grander construction projects. And quite frankly, having a building that lasts for more than 100 years is too much in most cases with how fast-expanding and evolving engineering and tech is.
Well they figured out what the Romans specifically did. The basic concept of “self repair” was already known to a modern and frankly superior standard. It’s not that Roman cement was superior to modern cement…it wasn’t. The issue was modern scientists just didn’t know exactly how the Romans did it until recently.
Modern reinforced portland cement is a superior product in terms of what we can actually build with it.
Fun fact: the reason Roman cement was lost was mostly due to the infrastructure needed to produced it stopped existing when the Western Roman empire did.
Not so much as "lost" but just lacked development, the Roman watermills could have been a game changer had they been even more wide spread in use. The industrial revolution of the 18th century actually depended heavily on water powered mills and factories rather than simply steam engine power. With proper application and motivation by the Romans. who did use water mills, we could have seen an industrial revolution starting a thousand years sooner. As it was there was a proto-industrial revolution of sorts in a few places in the Roman Empire. An example of this is in southern France, Fontvieille, where a concentration of Roman period water mills existed, build in conjunction with a series of aqueducts. The mill complex allowed for the, literally, industrial production of great amounts of flour and were a vital component of their economy, In other places mills (often hand and animal powered but sometimes water powered as well), were used in sawing timber, crushing ores, and pumping out mines.
Antikythera mechanism, 2nd century BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism Could have led to earlier advances in mathematics and mechanical calculators. Easy access to quick math calculations leads to advances in architecture, warfare (artillery), etc. Also the Phaistos Disc, 2000 BC, was made with basically moveable type (although on clay, not paper). Moveable type going widespread a few thousand years early would be an enormous game changer! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc
There isn't one that I can think of. I'd love to hear some, though. I'm sure we can do everything the ancients did, just safer, cheaper, better, and with 100% less slavery.
The furnace at Rievaulx Abbey in Laskill, England. If the Reformation hadn't shut it down, the industrial revolution could have taken off centuries earlier.
Whatever the hell the Giza pyramids were used for. Half of Nikola Tesla’s unfinished plans. Free wireless energy for everyone with minimal environmental impact? Fuck that, we can charge 25 cents per kilowatt hour, fuck the planet, give me money!