Within 10 Years Most Workers Will Be "Task Rabbits". R. Reich.

[happyslug]

66. Oh, the Horse Collar, Horse Shoe, Hay were NOT major discoveries? or they just helped the poor...

During the Roman Empire, the water wheel, one of man's greatest invention, was known at the time of Christ in the Middle East, but took almost 500 years to reach Gaul. The heavy plow was known in Asia Minor about 200 bc, but did not reach Western Europe till the Slavs took it to Western Europe in the 600s. Without the Heavy Plow, farming north of the Alps was almost impossible. With the plow, what had been pasture during the Roman Empire, came to be farmlands, even as the world's temperatures decline after about 300 AD.

While it appears Rome had the Ball Bearing (they were used on Ships built by Nero) there is NO evidence of that knowledge being shared till the 600s, when what we would call the modern axle came into use. The modern Axle is a solid axle that does NOT turn, instead ball bearings are installed when the wheel and axle meet and the weight of the axle is transmitted to the wheel via the ball bearings. This ONLY became the norm in what is commonly referred to as the "Dark Ages'.

The horse collar is another invention of about 900 AD, given little weight for like most such invention it helped the lower 99% not the top 1%.

Chinese Iron manufacturing, a much better system then the European Iron making methods, entered Europe in the 600s, as Christianity took over Europe.

We do not think of Hay as an invention, but prior to the 600s it did NOT exist. Your animals ate what they could find when BEING used as a beast of burden. Hay permitted keeping more animals over the winter, thus permitting more horses and oxen to survive to haul items.

If we go into the High Middle ages (1000-1500), you have the invention of the Rudder. Technically the Chinese had a type of Rudder during the time of Christ and the Arabs were using a variation by 900 AD, but Europe improved on these to make the pintle-and-gudgeon rudder around 1180.

The introduction of Linen paper into Europe in the 1300s, lead to the invention of movable type in the 1400s. The reason for this was simple, the primary paper prior to Linen was parchment. Parchment is animal skin. Yes books prior to the 1300s would cost more then a leather Jacket, for that was the alternative use for the animal skin people wrote on to keep records. Papyrus was a competitor to Parchment till the 400s, but Papyrus do not last as long in wet climates as does Parchment and was only produced in Egypt. Thus writings prior to 1300 was rare for books cost a lot of money, books written before the 1300s were intended to be read by readers who were paid to read the books to large groups. People either paid the reader to hear the stories in the books OR the reader read the books because he had been paid by its Author (This is why Caesar wrote his commentaries. they were propaganda written to be read to his supporters among the Roman Lower Classes, for he knew he needed their support and that support could be obtained through keeping his name in front of them).

Linen Paper made printing books for sale to more people possible. Linen comes from Flax and it was the same material used in shirts before Cotton became the norm for Shirts. Pulp Paper, the paper we used today was NOT invented till 1801 and not into general use till the 1820s (and one of the reason for the invention of the Public School Systems in the US in the 1830s was for the first time you had the ability to produce books people could read and then toss away, something people could NOT afford to do even with Linen Paper).

The above inventions have one thing in common, they helped the poor. The button is another invention, unknown to the Ancient Romans but entered common use during the 'Dark Ages'. It appears that many of the above inventions were spread by the Missionaries sent to convert people, and since these missionaries had access to the above knowledge, people would seek them out, get this new information in addition to the teachings of Christianity. This all lead to the spread of the above inventions and Christianity after 300 AD.

In simple terms, if you looking at things that benefitted the bottom 99%, look to the Dark Ages and Christianization of Europe. If your concern is things that affect the top 1% then look to Ancient Times, and mostly the Roman Empire. You can NOT build on mud, and without the poor benefiting from the technology you are building on Mud. That was one of the problems of the Ancient World. The bottom 99% had less knowledge of the Science being used then, then we do today, and the reason for that difference is the Inventions of the Dark ages, 300 AD till 1000 AD in addition to the inventions of the last 300 years (going back to the Watt Steam engine of the early 1700s).

As to the Great Library of Alexandria, here is a site that says all the evidence we do have points to Julius Caesar in 47 to 48 BC:

http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm

We have some other candidates, but most are ignored for if they destroyed the Great Library, it does not help anyone's agenda of today:

Despite the continuation of academic activity, Alexandria suffered much in the years up to 391AD. Augustus reduced it, Caracalla massacred many of its citizens over a perceived insult and Aurelian also sacked the city and the palace quarter in which the Museum was situated. Finally, the city was taken with great destruction by Diocletian at the start of the fourth century.

In 391 we come up to the 'Christian Destruction" of the Library:

The story that Theophilus destroyed a library is clearly a fiction that we can very precisely lay at the door of Edward Gibbon. It is in his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that we first find the allegation made. Gibbon seems mainly concerned to clear the Arabs of the responsibility of destroying the library and allows his marked anti-Christian prejudice to cloud his better judgement. His excellent footnotes show he had exactly the same sources as we do but drew the wrong conclusions.

That web site then goes in the Arab Burning of the library and dismisses it.

Wikipedia also tends to point to Caesar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria#Decree_of_Theodosius.2C_destruction_of_the_Serapeum_in_391

Here is a web site that makes the point that the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus "destroyed' the library as part of his policy of cutting costs (austerity) and thus it was NEVER destroyed, it just rotted away from deferred maintenance. Marcus Aurelius died c 180 AD, given the problems that hit the Roman Empire after him, I doubt the library survived till 250 AD let alone the Christian Era:

http://io9.com/the-great-library-at-alexandria-was-destroyed-by-budget-1442659066

My favorite story of what happened to the Great Library of Alexandria is that it was sent to Constantinople by the Emperor Julian. The Great Library of Constantinople had been founded in 330 AD by Julian's Uncle Emperor Constantius II (son of Constantine). There is some evidence (and I admit one or two sentence is very small evidence and that is all we have) Julian had arranged for the books to be transferred to Constantinople. Julian opposed the Christianization of the Empire that Constantine and Constantius II had embraced, but he supported the increased centralization of power that was part of that policy. Thus Julian wanted as much what we would call 'Data' or 'Information' around him as possible, which was also the policy of Constantine and Constantius II before him (Through Constantine and Constantius II saw Christianity as something to unite the Empire, Julian rejected that position).

Anyway the theory is Julian stole the books and the books arrived in Constantinople while he was on his campaign against the Persians. In that Campaign he was killed by a Persian in combat. At his death he had no children so the Army elected one of their own as Emperor. The new Emperor turned out to be Christian who then furthered the policies of Constantine and Constantius II, including the Christianization of the Empire. Now, the new Emperor wanted the books stolen from the Great Library in Constantinople but he had NOT ordered it, Julian had. Julian being dead, there was no benefit to the new Emperor to give credit to Julian and since the New Emperor could not claim it himself, the books were put into the Great Library of Constantinople till it was destroyed, either during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 (the only crusade CONDEMNED by the Vatican as it was proceeding) or the taking of Constantinople in 1453 by the Turks. The sacking of Constantinople in 1204 was followed by a massive increase in Greek and Roman knowledge being seen in Italy, it is the start of the Renaissance thus it is possible the books of the Great Library of Alexandria survived in Constantinople till 1204, and then slowly moved to Italy during the "Latin Empire" of 1204 till 1261 AD.

http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=1730

Sorry, Gibbon appears to be the person who invented the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria by the Christians in 391, for he did not want to blame Caesar. Some commentators say Gibbon did not want to blame the Arabs, but Gibbon was anti-Catholic (and Anti-Orthodox) not really Anti-Christain. Gibbon attack both Catholics and Orthodox when he attacks 'Christians' in the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' but it is clear he is NOT attacking the Protestants of his own time period (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ends in 1453 when the Turks take Constantinople, more then 50 years before the start of the Protestant Reformation, thus Gibbon could use the term 'Christians" and the people of his time period knew that meant Catholics and Orthodox NOT Protestants).

Once you understand Gibbon's prejudice, it becomes clear why he is considered Anti-Christian. Gibbon disliked the poor of his time period, for they tended to remain Catholic much longer then the wealthier segments of English Society. Thus Gibbon blamed the poor for not supporting the Roman Empire and why the Empire fell. Gibbon puts this rejection of the Empire on the Poor due to the Poor's adoption of Christianity NOT the overall decline in how the poor were living and treated under the Empire. i.e. Gibbon said Rome could not fight its enemy for Christianity made the Roman People to weak to want to fight the barbarians. Modern Scholars see the economics of the Empire leading to economic decay of the lower classes and the lower 99% respond to that decline by abandoning their old religion and embracing Christianity. In effect modern Scholars see the Christianization of the Empire after Constantine as the people of the Empire reacting to economic and military decline NOT the cause of that decline.

I bring up Gibbon for his book is the first book to mention the destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria. It is a story that has survived to this day, but the sources Gibbon cites do NOT support such a story. It is an example of someone saying something and people accepting it to be true even when it is not.