Why no Roman industrial revolution?
I feel like singling out Rome is unnecessary here.<p>Why Rome specifically?  Civilizations existed in the mediterranean (and elsewhere) for thousands of years before and alongside Rome. Why even assume that the industrial revolution had to emerge from a civilisation anyway. History suggests quite a lot of technology came from pastoralists, nomads, tribal agrarian societies, etc.<p>Alexandrian inventors were more likely to have recorded their patents and have those survive to modernity. My guess is that a prototype steam engine, or even functionally useful devices, probably <i>were</i> invented many times in many places.<p>The industrial revolution, seemingly, had a lot of chances to happen. Perhaps that&#x27;s the answer. It was an unlikely occurrence, and that&#x27;s why it didn&#x27;t happen all those other times. Tracing back the specific path that led to steam engine prowess in England is interesting... but somewhat arbitrary... probably.<p>For example, the flying shuttle doesn&#x27;t really need a steam engine. It could be powered by a water wheel, windmill or muscle power. Power isn&#x27;t really the bottleneck.<p>I think what the flying shuttle actually <i>needed</i> from the steam engine was inspiration.