74

In Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" a nineteenth century character finds himself in medieval England and shortly manages to build all the "modern" inventions: from steam engines to Gatling guns.

While this is entertaining, I find it hard to believe that a single person would be able to introduce those modern world inventions without the backing of industry and science.

So let’s say that modern twenty-first century engineer/scientist/MacGyver travels back in time, but to make it more interesting lets make it to the Hellenic Greece around 490 BC and a good fate would allow him to became an influential person.

But he knows that in 10 years Xerxes will arrive with huge army — how can he prepare his city-state to fight off the invaders? Of course by using his knowledge — but then he can't like the Twain's Yankee just handwave and build machine guns in a country that still mainly relies on bronze. What then should he try to re-invent and build?

EDIT: 5 years seems to be a short span, I've changed it to 10.

Community
  • 1
Yasskier
  • 839
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 72
    Actually, an experienced 19th century factory worker, empty-handed, would have much better chances to start the industrial revolution in a medieval or classical era, than a modern engineer with lots of modern tech. The 19th century hero in Mark Twain's novel had good knowledge of metalworking without needing high-tech computer controlled or electronically driven equipment. In the 19th century America, people were used to arriving in the middle of nowhere and building up a town from almost nothing. A modern engineer would have no chances without an industrial base supporting his gadgets. – vsz Jul 19 '16 at 06:22
  • @vsz So true! The real answer, which is off-topic, is bring all the guns, ammunition, explosives and whatever death-dealing toys you want to use with you on your jaunt through time. Even if what you do is on-topic, the time-police will be after you. – a4android Jul 19 '16 at 07:06
  • 9
    @a4android, if you go back far enough you can make it the norm for historic groups to be bootstrapped to higher technology from the future and the time-police won't bother you as that's how it's always worked. – Separatrix Jul 19 '16 at 13:41
  • 7
    The Greeks were thinkers. If it counts, I would definitely expect Newtonian physics to fascinate them more than anything else. – Devsman Jul 19 '16 at 14:03
  • i would suggest latrines, but I can't find a reliable source for a/ it was not being used by the Greek armies and b/ it was a significant source of death at the time. – njzk2 Jul 19 '16 at 21:14
  • @Separatrix, remember the time-police motto. "Keeping history safe from one end of time to the other." Mess with them and you'll find your causality violated. – a4android Jul 20 '16 at 08:02
  • 1
    @njzk2. The first war in human history where more combatants died from weaponry and enemy action than diseases was the Second World War. What you suggest is a good idea. But! No germ theory until the 19th century. So would the Greeks understand the value of hygiene? The Spartans had spaces around their houses where they went outside to do what needed to be done. Probably, not. Bit it's simple and highly effective ideas like this that would really work, if you find the right one. – a4android Jul 20 '16 at 08:08
  • @a4android, if they try to stop you they create a paradox, at some point they need to protect the sequence of events that lead to their own creation and that includes your judicious tampering with the earlier timeline. All they can do is attempt to prevent any further tampering with the timelines subsequent to a snapshot taken as they're formed. – Separatrix Jul 20 '16 at 08:17
  • @vsz this is why we cannot rely on Google to remember everything for us. Someday someone among us will travel back time – Ooker Jul 20 '16 at 09:29
  • 7
    Just got back. Asked Cleisthenes if there was anything they could use, but he didn't have time to talk. He was catching a Bulbasaur. – Ed Plunkett Jul 20 '16 at 13:43
  • 1
    We did not widely adopt the current scientific method until the second half of the second millennium. This could hamper the uptake of new ideas if you have to frame them in the philosophical contexts of the time rather than using the; theory, experiment to test theory, observer results, method we do now. Instead a bunch of people sat around in a group have to think it is correct for it to be taken up. This is how we had 4 or 5 elements and humours for so long. Demonstrations might be enough for a widget to get duplicated though. – TafT Jul 20 '16 at 15:30
  • bronze gun works. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 01:02
  • 5
    OT, but I think your engineer would do much better working for Xerxes and his tolerant, multi-cultural empire rather than for xenophobic and slave-owning citizens of a city-state : ) And don't forget that many military inventions/tactics were put into great use (eg combined arms phalanx of Alexander III) and then forgotten just because nobody felt like using them. So I doubt a total stranger could pitch his new ideas when proven, wars-winning ideas were rejected for no reason. – Agent_L Jul 21 '16 at 16:19
  • 1
    @vsz: "A modern engineer would have no chances without an industrial base supporting his gadgets." This is essentially the premise of the Paul Twister stories. (A big part of it, at least. There's a lot going on in the series.) – Mason Wheeler Jul 21 '16 at 18:02
  • You see, time travel isn't that complicated. There is one time line, and the repercussions of all excursions into the past are already being felt making it impossible to change the past our present. That doesn't haunt, however that you have a perfect knowledge of how things happened in the past. – Xandar The Zenon Aug 07 '16 at 18:36
  • 1
    Or better yet, time isn't really a line, it's more like a big ball of wobbly timey wimy stuff. – Xandar The Zenon Aug 07 '16 at 18:38
  • Note to close voters: you should leave a comment explaining your reason for the close to give the OP a chance to improve his/her question. A question's age doesn't excempt it from this courtesy. – JBH Jan 05 '18 at 16:29
  • @Agent_L Eh, Greek slave-owning isn't a relevant factor comparing cultures in that era; who didn't keep slaves then? – Jedediah Mar 07 '22 at 19:51
  • The title and the text appear to conflict. What would most revolutionize combat might not appear the most revolutionary, especially since that would change over time. (Electric lights are quick, but antibiotics would slowly reveal themselves.) – Mary Mar 07 '22 at 23:32
  • @Jedediah It's a super-relevant factor comparing to modern culture. – Agent_L Mar 08 '22 at 09:30
  • @Agent_L But you weren't comparing the Greeks to modern culture - you were comparing them to the Persian empire of the same era. – Jedediah Mar 08 '22 at 14:29
  • @Jedediah Not really. What I wanted to convey was that ancient Greece was not much compatible with modern values while Achaemenid Empire was bit more. – Agent_L Mar 09 '22 at 10:28
  • @Agent_L Exactly. ...And when comparing how the ancient Greeks in particular don't match modern values, you should have only cited things that were different between ancient Greece and the "tolerant, multi-cultural empire" of Xerxes, which imperialistically invaded Greece, and also had slaves. – Jedediah Mar 09 '22 at 14:45

20 Answers20

60

I am far from the first to think of this, but alphabetical long distance signalling, whether by Semaphore line, heliograph or shuttered lantern gives you the biggest bang for your buck as an invention to introduce from a low technological base. Given that the Greeks already had alphabetic writing many people have wondered why they or the Romans didn't think of it. Just one of those things, I suppose. Naval flag signalling using pre-arranged flags to indicate certain manoeuvres was apparently known to the Greeks, but did not extend to a system able to send any message.

Two-way signalling faster than a galloping horse will transform the Greeks' defence against Xerxes, although they will need to be aware that he will eventually copy the idea. The Greeks do have the advantage of home territory, so they can build towers in advance. To keep their signals secure the Greeks will need to develop ciphers and codes for military and later commercial use. Once your time traveller has got them started on the idea - which by some accounts they had already had for themselves - there are plenty of ingenious mathematically-inclined Greeks to take codemaking and codebreaking forwards.

In an earlier answer to a similar question, I borrowed some more ideas for innovations to introduce from L Sprague de Camp's 1939 novel Lest Darkness Fall in which a time traveller introduces distillation of spirits as an immediate money-maker, and Arabic numerals to eventually transform the society of sixth century Rome. For that answer I forgot to mention another long term idea from the same book, double-entry bookkeeping, but remedy that omission now. In the long run the ledger entry is more powerful than the sword.

Community
  • 1
Lostinfrance
  • 9,294
  • 1
  • 30
  • 48
  • 5
    +1: I could kick myself for not having thought of this one! (Since several ideas are noted here, I should specify that the self-kicking would be for not having thought of naming the clacks, in its various forms.) – Charles Rockafellor Jul 19 '16 at 07:52
  • 1
    @CharlesRockafellor, well, as I hope I made clear, neither did I! – Lostinfrance Jul 19 '16 at 07:53
  • 1
    An interesting discovery I made thanks to puzzling.SE: The Polybius Square. It seems Polybius had in fact devised the beginnings of a 2-bit binary telegraphy system. – Pharap Jul 19 '16 at 15:41
  • 26
    The one side-effect of doing this is that nobody would ever invent the marathon race. We'd probably have some kind of flag waving event in the Olympics instead. – Simba Jul 19 '16 at 16:32
  • 5
    @Sima: Isn't that rhythmic gymnastics? – Steve Jessop Jul 19 '16 at 22:40
  • 1
    This would have started cryptography really early, possibly even kick starting computer science millennia before computers. It would be awesome to see what we would have today. – Christopher King Jul 20 '16 at 03:02
  • You can encrypt, chat and maneuver all your want but it still won't help you from getting killed. In a duel of a two guys, one armed with smartphone with highest grade encryption and other armed with medieval musket, I'll bet on the later. I don't remember a single war that wasn't won through weapon superiority. – Oleg V. Volkov Jul 20 '16 at 16:25
  • 1
    I think the Ancient Greeks did have communication towers. They probably did not use them with alphabet but for simple signals but I think they were in use before 500 BC. – ypercubeᵀᴹ Jul 20 '16 at 16:49
  • 4
    @ypercubeᵀᴹ, yes - in the Wikipedia entry for "Beacon" it says, "In Aeschylus' tragedy Agamemnon, a chain of eight beacons manned by so-called lampadóphoroi inform Clytemnestra in Argos, within a single night's time, that Troy has just fallen under her husband king Agamemnon's control, after a famous ten years siege." This, added to the point Pharap made about the "Polybius Square" suggests that the ancient Greeks had all the elements for visual telegraphy available but for some reason did not take the final step of moving from pre-arranged messages to generating new ones. Or perhaps > – Lostinfrance Jul 20 '16 at 18:17
  • 4
    < they did but it didn't take off for some reason, rendering my answer wrong. It could be that the expense of maintaining, staffing and defending a network of towers was just too great for a state of that time. (I gather it was considered expensive even in Napoleon's time, and French semaphore towers were sometimes burned down by opposing forces.) We know that a communications network pays for itself many times over in the long run, but we have hindsight - the Greeks didn't. – Lostinfrance Jul 20 '16 at 18:21
  • @Lostinfrance Yeah, they may did or not. I remember reading about an expanded set of similar towers in the Byzantine era, to warn the capital (Constantinople) about border invasions or similar issues but I can't remember where I read it and I have no idea what features that had. – ypercubeᵀᴹ Jul 20 '16 at 18:22
  • 1
    @Lostinfrance you make a good point and 600 years before the period in question no less. The early chapters of James Gleick's The Information cover these revolutions in information technology that extend not only to fire / flag signals but also to drums. It was the desire to equal these rates of transmission that lead to the French development of early telegraphy. – Raydot Jul 20 '16 at 22:02
38

Simple military technology would make the biggest impact, some ideas.

The longbow, along with conscript soldiers using the massed volley firing technique would outrange generally existing bows, but more importantly the ability to raise a huge force of minimally trained conscripts to provide the massed fire would be devastating to the professional soldiers/armies of the day.

The stirrup, along with the idea of a massed cavalry charge would be very effective against foot soldiers of the day.

The trebuchet able to throw massive loads very long distances. The greeks of 500BC had begun experimenting with simple catapult/mechanical bow throwers. This would be recognizable and generally understandable to them, and effective against fortifications or massed armies.

These ideas would be fairly simple to implement and manufacture at the existing technology level, and would provide a massive improvement over generally existing military methods.

Josh King
  • 24,856
  • 5
  • 65
  • 96
  • 9
    Ooh, the stirrup's a good one! – Charles Rockafellor Jul 19 '16 at 01:55
  • 22
    Definitely +1 for stirrup, I'm not sold on the longbow idea - while it is superior to the Persian bow (used while mounted or on the move), it requires quite a lot of training to be efficient, and one of its main advantages was the ability to pierce the heavy armor which Persians would lack. – Yasskier Jul 19 '16 at 02:05
  • 2
    Perhaps a double recurved composite ow? – Charles Rockafellor Jul 19 '16 at 02:29
  • 18
    Forget bows, crossbows are more powerful and require less training. – AmiralPatate Jul 19 '16 at 06:45
  • 12
    Longbows require a long training: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training. – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Jul 19 '16 at 07:29
  • @AmiralPatate I agree about crossbows (hence the inclusion of repeating versions in my own answer), but this answer (Josh King's) addresses regular bows, hence the comment re. long vs. double recurved composites. – Charles Rockafellor Jul 19 '16 at 09:18
  • 2
    Would the stirrup really make such a difference considering that the Greeks used phalanxes? – terdon Jul 19 '16 at 09:18
  • 2
    @terdon The stirrup is arguably a game-changer. A big one. If you can convince them to use mounts, then the stirrup would have what would amount to a game-ending effect. – Charles Rockafellor Jul 19 '16 at 09:24
  • @CharlesRockafellor Convincing them to use mounts wouldn't be a problem. Cavalry was not unknown to the Greeks, but owning a warhorse required significant income and social standing. – Kys Jul 19 '16 at 13:53
  • @terdon While a cavalry charge would be ineffective against massed pikes, something as modestly advanced as Scythian horse archers would wreak havoc on tight infantry formations. Remember too that many armies contained disorganized and ill-equipped levy troops, against which a cavalry charge could be devastating. – Kys Jul 19 '16 at 14:13
  • @AmiralPatate, crossbows require metallurgy techniques (relatively large pieces of spring steel) that are probably far beyond anything you can introduce to Greek society in ten years. – Mark Jul 19 '16 at 23:24
  • 2
    Keep in mind that if you're going to introduce the stirrup, you'll need saddles more sophisticated than the simple pads commonly in use at the time. – Mark Jul 20 '16 at 01:38
  • @Mark I don't exactly know when the scorpio was invented, but it was used by Romans and possibly Greeks before them. I don't think it's undoable. – AmiralPatate Jul 20 '16 at 08:40
  • @AmiralPatate Yes, but they are much harder to construct and maintain, and have a vastly inferior rate of fire. But really, information might be the best choice - like, say, warning them of the strategies and tactics the Persians use. – Luaan Jul 20 '16 at 16:26
  • Greek society was based on the idea of Yeoman farmers, and the idea of conscription, or arming the poor with effective weapons like a longbow would totally overturn Greek society. The Hoplite Phalenx was explicitly developed to exclude the lightly armed poor or aristocratic cavalry. The Stirrup is interesting, but Greece has few plains or lowlands for effective cavalry to be raised and trained, much less used. – Thucydides Jul 20 '16 at 20:04
  • 9
    Minimally trained?!? You're kidding, right? There used to be a ha-ha-but-kinda-serious joke among the English military: "How do you train a longbowman? Start with his grandfather." – Mason Wheeler Jul 21 '16 at 17:58
  • 1
    @MasonWheeler Wow, if when you were in the military they were joking about longbows you must be pretty old :-p – SJuan76 Jul 23 '16 at 00:47
  • Ötzi the iceman, circa 3300BC had a yew longbow, so the Greeks would have likely known of it already. – user24000 Oct 03 '16 at 14:35
  • @user24000 He had a bow made of yew yes. And by definition a longbow. But not an English Longbow (ELB). That is quite a different beast with draw weights beyond 100 pounds, requiring a long trained archer to be able to be used and used multiple times effectively. A weapon to defeat armor. A hunting bow like Otzi's is in the 50-60 pounds range. That is because of the kind of prey you may be looking for in the Alps at the time. That includes humans wearing no armor. – Duncan Drake Mar 07 '22 at 20:49
29

If the defense is the main concern I think gunpowder is the most feasible advanced technology to introduce on a disruptively large scale with the resources available at the time.

It would be possible to mine saltpeter (Potassium Nitrate) from somewhere like Spain, Sulfur is right there in Greece as is Charcoal. Grind them together carefully with stone tools to create gunpowder. Its not feasible to create accurate firearms with the available technology in that time frame, so employing it in explosive devices would be the best bet.

It would likely be easiest to inflict the largest amount of damage to the enemy when they are still ship-bound, so deploying naval mines could be one successful tactic. If unable to catch them at sea, then using them as ammunition in catapults or as land-mines would be both devastating and terrifying to an ancient army travelling in columns.

navigator_
  • 441
  • 3
  • 4
  • 1
    Lateen sails could give them a strong advantage. – Charles Rockafellor Jul 19 '16 at 02:27
  • Please note that while indeed gunpowder seems the simplest solution, I don't really believe it would be superior to already known catapults and bows. – Yasskier Jul 19 '16 at 02:32
  • 2
    @Charles-rockafellor Yes I was initially going to answer that advances seafaring and navigation along with a knowledge of locations of other contemporary civilizations would be the most valuable thing. However I decided to change it to this with the scenario in the question being the defense of Greece. – navigator_ Jul 19 '16 at 02:38
  • 3
    @Yasskier I agree that trying to use it for firearms would prove futile as you mentioned in your other comment. However its not just the gunpowder but a larger solution in how to deploy it in ways that otherwise took 500 years to develop after the introduction of gunpowder-based hand weapons. – navigator_ Jul 19 '16 at 02:44
  • 10
    As for gunpowder, I think a horrifying use for it would be ad grenades. Imagine what a simple grenade does to a pike formation. – lijat Jul 19 '16 at 04:23
  • 8
    You could build brass cannons in the bronze age. – vsz Jul 19 '16 at 06:24
  • 2
    Traditionally saltpetre is extracted from urine. Don't remember offhand the rest of the chemistry for its production. Wouldn't be easy. You need to be build the industry for its manufacture not just know the formula for gunpowder. Then train the Greek soldiers not to kill themselves. – a4android Jul 19 '16 at 07:02
  • 1
    It can also be 'mined' from large deposits of bird or bat droppings and extracted through a rudimentary process using ash, for example common sources for the civil war were cave systems in Kentucky or Georgia with large bat populations. – navigator_ Jul 19 '16 at 17:46
  • @a4android it's easy, watch this and second part this – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 01:20
18

To fight, I would reveal the secrets of biological warfare (and how to avoid catching germs yourself), iron, gunpowder, and large scale opium production.

If I can't get them hooked on dope, kill them off with a plague, stab the remainder with incredibly sharp and durable spears, blind their archers with smoke bombs, collapse canyon walls on their convoys with dynamite, frighten their horses with cannon, and generally make it look like Zeus himself had come down mysteriously from Olympus to help a civilization that already had the genius of Athens, the fury of Sparta, and the courage of Thebes, then perhaps all is lost.

Adam Wykes
  • 2,904
  • 10
  • 24
  • 2
    I would like to point out (for this answer as well as others), that iron weapons would actually be inferior to the bronze they had at the time. The only real superiority iron would have over bronze would be availability (which is why it eventually did), as iron doesn't rely on trade to get both copper and the more scarce tin. Bronze is a very hard and tough metal, and the ancient greeks had quite the bronze economy. – Skyler Oct 04 '21 at 17:26
17

Consider the number one killer of troops of the day, poor or inadequate medical facilities. You can effectively double and redouble your ranks if soldiers that would have died from infection can return to battle. You would further reduce your losses of intelligence and invested training. Start now with sterile facilities, reduced cross contamination, and proper waste disposal. Make it a culture of the people for continued civilization advancement.

So to answer the question, I believe modern sterilization practices(technology) would have the greatest positive effect on a defending force. Utilize your other prior knowledge to earn support then make this recommendation.

Jammin4CO
  • 1,787
  • 8
  • 12
13

When the Persians ascend the goat path to flank Thermopylae they will be met with another army that wasn't there an hour before.

While there are stacks of useful inventions to take back and I have them in tables, the bootstrap sequence is long, but the history books are right there. We know the very hour of doom. My army shall be fresh and equipped with steel swords and spears and armor that cannot be broken. Though the bootstrap will not permit large quantities, the choke point is in my favor. Two hundred fresh men well equipped and well supplied are hard to dislodge from a choke point where only one man can approach at once, so narrow was the path.

Joshua
  • 1,695
  • 10
  • 12
12

Archimedes used parabolic mirrors back in the day to create the first energy weapon; they weren't that backward.

Use the concept of polished metal mirrors as an energy source, start ironworking. Even cast iron would be a major improvement over bronze weapons.

Gunpowder in clay pots mixed with metal shards gives you grenades.

Hygiene practices reduce disease in crowded camps. The concept of germs and the basic microscope would revolutionize Greek medicine. This would require the concept of glass lenses, but glass blowing already existed since at least 1000 BC; it would not be an unheard of concept to the Greeks.

Basic mechanics to design better tools, improve weapons, design siege machinery, build stronger boats faster. If the Greeks only managed to only double their productivity by the time the Persians landed, it would still be a winning advantage.

Most importantly, he would know WHEN the Persians would invade and get the Greek to coordinate their defences.The major reason the Persians got as far as they did was that only the Spartans and Athenians were in any shape to field a fighting force. On the other hand, once word reached Persia that the Greeks were advancing, Xerxes would move up his invasion schedule.

nzaman
  • 11,960
  • 2
  • 23
  • 55
  • 14
    "Gunpowder in clay pots mixed with metal shards gives you Molotov cocktails." - actually it gives you grenades (as were developed in the early 19th century; before Molotov was even born). Molotov cocktails are something rather different involving petrol, – MD-Tech Jul 19 '16 at 16:30
  • 1
    @MD-Tech: Quite possibly. My idea of grenades was that the explosive is in a metal shell with a trigger or fuse and in Molotov cocktails you put sharp objects in a bottle add explosive and ignite with a flaming rag. According to wikipedia, there is no additional explosive added, so point taken. Still, both are viable options against a Bronze Age army, just replace petrol with flour or olive oil – nzaman Jul 19 '16 at 19:10
  • 1
    Molotov cocktails were used by the Finns against Russian tanks in the Second World War. The Finns named their incendiary weapons after the Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov because of how Eastern Europe was carved up by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939. They were first used in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. – a4android Jul 20 '16 at 08:22
  • 6
    Cast iron as an improvement over bronze weapons? Back when iron took over, it wasn't for being better than bronze, it was about availability and cost. It took us a long time to finally make steel good enough to compete with bronze. Cast iron in particular is worthless for weapons, since it's way too brittle (and, well, heavy). Modern steel probably wouldn't be doable, since you'd have trouble finding the necessary additives, so unless the engineer remembers some old recipes, he'd have trouble introducing steel of high enough quality. – Luaan Jul 20 '16 at 16:30
  • 4
    @nzaman Also, Molotov cocktails are firebombs. There is so little explosive force that adding sharp objects to the bottle would have little to no effect. The purpose of a Molotov cocktail is to light things on fire. – nukeforum Jul 20 '16 at 16:41
  • @nukeforum: MD-Tech pointed out the same issue above. I'll correct it to grenades. But as I said in my reply, your basic M. cocktail firebomb is also going to be effective against infantry – nzaman Jul 20 '16 at 17:45
  • @Luaan: IIRC, bronze is a lot softer than cast iron. While the iron blade may shatter, it will keep an edge that can slice through the enemy's bronze blade, perhaps several times if you're lucky. There is a huge psychological advantage there – nzaman Jul 20 '16 at 17:57
  • 2
    Yes, cast iron is rather hard - that's part of what makes it so brittle. It's very nice that your broken sword still keeps a sharp edge, but it's not very useful as a weapon. And no, it cannot slice through a bronze blade. It couldn't even slice through a wooden staff, and hitting anything like a shield, a bone or another sword would make it shatter. It would dull the bronze blade, but that's easily fixed. You don't want your weapon to be hard, you want it to be tough. Sure, if you have the option, making the edge hard is very useful, but the whole weapon must be tough first and foremost. – Luaan Jul 20 '16 at 21:03
  • they have to interact with Spartans before actions, to make them stronger, let it be over 9000 Spartans. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 01:31
  • @Luaan: After doing a bit of research, it appears steelmaking has been around since at least 1200 BCE. That implies the infrastructure for modern steel is possible, as the major problem was getting the forge hot enough without a coal industry. I hope you'll agree that steel beats bronze ;) – nzaman Jul 21 '16 at 15:18
  • 1200 BCE steel surely didn't beat bronze - otherwise, it would have been used instead of bronze. Iron is everywhere in Europe, and very cheap. Coal is also everywhere and very cheap. You need to refine the coal and use industry-age practices to produce steel that's better than bronze. If you just take coal straight from the ground, you get steel that's very brittle and unsuitable for forging. Do not underestimate bronze - we stopped using it because it was expensive, not because it was of lower quality. Again, it took us a long time to produce steel that was better than bronze. – Luaan Jul 21 '16 at 15:52
  • The question here is modern twenty-first century engineer/scientist/MacGyver travels back in time, how would he stop the Persian invasion? I'd imagine he could improve ancient steelmaking quite a bit, even if he couldn't set up a steel industry and all necessary infrastructure within 10 years – nzaman Jul 21 '16 at 16:06
9

I will make a counterpoint here.

Greek society was built around Yeoman farmers who had roughly equal landholdings, roughly equal economic outputs, stood together as equals on the field of battle (the Hoplite Phalenx) and used this as justification to stand as equals in the Ekklesia as part of the democratic government of the polis. One reason the Hoplite phalanx evolved the way it did was it specifically excluded the poor (who had no weapons to effectively attack a wall of bronze) or the Aristocrats (who's main contribution was javelin armed cavalry, also an ineffective tool against a fully formed phalanx).

So whatever your innovations are, they must be first and foremost acceptable to a class of Yeoman farmers who value both their equality and their ability to hold the power of their society. Longbows or other weapons that help the poor, or stirrups and shock cavalry which would help the aristocrats, would be considered horrifying and destabilizing for the Greeks, and indeed if introduced before the Persian Wars, would probably result in Greece being embroiled in a series of civil wars between the various class elements.

As an aside, the introduction of effective naval technology which allowed the Greeks to take to sea on equal terms with the Phoenicians (and win the battle of Salamis) ended up being extremely destabilizing to the Greek Polis system. Athens granted full citizenship to the rowers because of their performance in the Persian Wars, and this large block of relatively poor, landless people allowed Athens to become "hyper democratic" compared to other city states, develop quite different interests and priorities and become prey to Demagogues. The critical naval technology? A sliding sheepskin seat pad which allowed rowers to make longer and more powerful strokes on the oars when manning a trireme.

So perhaps the best possible solution would be to introduce more effective non mechanized farming techniques, to allow the Hoplite class to expand and provide more savings and investment to the overall Greek society. The Greeks did pretty well during the Persian Wars, having a stronger agricultural base would simply provide greater defensive depth to the Greek city states, and make it much more difficult for Xerxes to advance into Greece.

The long term effect would be to make the Persians think twice about a rematch (and if the Persians didn't come back for a second round, the Greeks and eventually Macedonian King Alexander III would not be thinking about overthrowing the Persian Empire in return).

kubanczyk
  • 261
  • 1
  • 6
Thucydides
  • 97,696
  • 8
  • 96
  • 311
  • 1
    Well, a modern horse collar comes then to my mind - surprisingly simply yet important invention – Yasskier Jul 20 '16 at 20:39
  • 1
    What they used that time bronze or iron? What kinda yoke they used? Choking or not choking? I see only one problem in 10y time frame it's hard to implement any social changes on global scale specially if everybody care about their equality. So more local changes will be better it will be. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 02:13
  • Except for the Spartans. They were... Something – PipperChip Mar 07 '22 at 19:58
8

Kicking off an industrial revolution is hard, technology require an energy source and you need quite advanced technology to access most energy sources, it would be a nightmare to build geothermal or hydroelectric power plants from bronze age technology. If there was a large near-surface deposit of coal in ancient Greece you could build steam engines and kick start industrial infrastructure but as far as I know they mainly used charcoal because coal wasn't readily available.

The five year limit is tough too, it's hard to introduce radical new technologies so quickly, I suppose you would have to limit yourself to upgrading branches on the existing tech tree. For example teaching them modern medicine, metallurgy, basic mechanical engineering, invent a flywheel powered lathe, pasteurization and other food preservation techniques.

Edit: Inspired by navigator's answer.

Two or four man lever operated pumps, long hoses (perhaps partially buried if defending a strategic location) and barrels full of "greek fire" which is probably lamp oil mixed with something. The pumps and fuel can be transported in an armoured cart but obviously you would want to keep it away from the enemy and the hoses would be vulnerable, hence burying them to protect them from arrows.

Cognisant
  • 4,880
  • 1
  • 12
  • 22
  • 3
    What are you going to make the hoses out of? – Mark Jul 19 '16 at 23:28
  • 1
    Coal was widely used, as was crude oil - it just wasn't used for metallurgy etc., due to its impurities. It took us a long time to be able to produce refined coal that was actually usable for producing steel. But making a steam engine is not exactly simple, and it requires high quality alloys, a lot of fiddling and is very dangerous. I'm not even starting on modern steam turbines :) That said, you don't need hydroelectric power - even introducing waterwheels and windmills would be a huge bonus for the industry. – Luaan Jul 20 '16 at 16:34
5

This question deserves a solid list and treatise, though I suspect that such a treatment is beyond my capabilities. I'll list some possibilities that occur to me, for others to expand upon:

Charles Rockafellor
  • 465
  • 1
  • 4
  • 15
  • Addendum not worthy of a full edit: the obvious gunpowder, of course (I debated adding it). – Charles Rockafellor Jul 19 '16 at 01:59
  • Early gunpowder weapons were not very efficient, I doubt that few cannons shooting once every few minutes would provide enough advantage. – Yasskier Jul 19 '16 at 02:09
  • Very true (I had in mind the assumption of later refinements of gunpowder, though assuming Our Hero(ine) to not be an expert on the latest versions of it). – Charles Rockafellor Jul 19 '16 at 02:11
  • 4
    @Yasskier Don't forget the psychological effects. Early armies would be freaked out until they get used to it. – Euphoric Jul 19 '16 at 06:24
  • Aluminum requires enormous amounts of electricity, which has a rather large set of prerequisites. Nylon and most other plastics require an extensive chemical industry to supply the raw materials. Imaginary numbers aren't much use until the later stages of electrical engineering or theoretical physics. Building a difference engine without a modern industrial base would require an entire nation of jewelers (no other metalworkers work at the size and precision required). – Mark Jul 20 '16 at 18:32
  • 1
    Aluminum production went through several chemical processes (1825-1886) prior to the electrolytic approach, but you're still right about the expense. I can't much debate the problem of production of nylon materials, but primitive plastics might be within a 10-year development capability. I think that I must concede that imaginary numbers might not be of much immediate benefit (beyond causing the ancient Greek geometers to debate); as well, I think that I might have to concede on the Babbage engine's requirements (could be done, but only at great expense). – Charles Rockafellor Jul 20 '16 at 19:17
  • one problem, except of gunpowder nothing in that list, help to defend city. bombs with their ancient napalm - yhea that might help. They had trowing systems. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 01:12
  • 1
    Medical knowledge of antimicrobial chemicals and microbes would help defend a city? Future technical developments in light weight tough materials wouldn't either? Same for mathematics, food storage, advanced mechanical computation, or medieval arms R&D? – Charles Rockafellor Jul 21 '16 at 01:27
  • @MolbOrg A town under siege usually lost when they run out of consumables (water, food) or were overwhelmed by disease. Medicine would help greatly, and they would allow a lot of people survive injury in battle or even heal fully, allowing you to push longer with the same amount of men. And in any case, all of those are valuable trade goods. – Luaan Jul 21 '16 at 15:59
  • @Luaan I agree that those thing are useful in our society. But same time I have to mention not in entry world. And now you might investigate it where how and which difficulties it makes today. My aunt is medic and shes husband too, and they both in 197x participated in some programs of helping Ethiopia. Sure, not they alone, not know details, might be some international something. But I sure, I would like to know how it is now there. Really you do not need time machine for all that, to see difficulties. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 16:26
  • @Luaan Vet-clinic in gambia hosted by some German man. Or better his second channel dedicated to mangoworms, I find it easier to watch Cordylobia Anthropophaga - in this channel you are specially interested in videos where he talks with locals, specially how to take care about infested dog, what to do. Mechanically simple task(shown in any video there), but f mentality, dog need no care, but they do not see connections between dog care and over all situation where they live. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 16:44
  • Not sure I see it, or see it correctly, specially because of lack huge chunk of information about local environment and overall situation. Not sure if that information was given to me, I would do right conclusion, I could try trough. But, at least I know people know what they are doing. (not without flaws, but ...) I know that overall system works, specially when applied as system. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 16:45
  • @Luaan yeah, decided to refresh memory, and first video I choose, is with some locals, "Brady" - Mangoworms , shows that everything stays same. U might look yourself, it's disgusting as usual but educational for sure. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 17:02
5

The assembly line, replaceable parts, and "tools to build tools".

The advantages of many of the other inventions that other people have mentioned (cross bow, trebuchet) could be massively multiplied using assembly lines to create large quantities of them and also focusing on replaceable parts so that broken equipment can be fixed more quickly. This can even apply to technology they already have, e.g. ship assembly lines or shoe assembly lines.

(Side note: For a humorous fictional take on this, see Larry Niven's "The Flying Sorcerer".)

user3067860
  • 1,381
  • 7
  • 8
  • 3
    Interchangeable parts requires precision machining, which requires high-strength tool steels, which requires a strong understanding of chemistry plus a supply line capable of providing high-purity raw materials, which requires... An assembly line more sophisticated than "throw a whole lot of people at it" is a fairly late-stage development of industrialization, not something you can do in a decade. – Mark Jul 19 '16 at 23:34
  • 1
    Let's take the crossbow as an example. Basic crossbow has 4 parts (plus bits holding it together): the stock, the bow, the bow string, and the firing lever (and, OK, maybe the stirrup). You will probably still be hand carving the wooden pieces, but you can use guides to get them close enough that any firing lever can fit on any stock and the fasteners are in the same spots. Then you can have specialist carvers carving stocks, etc., and specialist assemblers assembling them in a four(five)-step line. Even arrows get an assembly line, 1) form dowel, 2) cut notch, 3) fletch, 4) attach head. – user3067860 Jul 20 '16 at 15:45
  • 1
    assembly line, just as principle is already useful - very good suggestion. It can be used not only in production but everywhere - teaching as example. They maybe used some of that - but I'm sure true power of method was hidden from them. As example its easier to learn one operation then whole process. Disagree with @Mark, "three plate method" probably was not known those times and it is base for measuring. Also important need and ability to see sense in that all. Plain care about accuracy, templates, verification of measuring sticks, central production of them, using them - is good enough. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 01:57
  • @MolbOrg, the "three plate method" for making flat surfaces is necessary but not sufficient for precision machining. No amount of care or measurement accuracy can compensate when your cutting tool wears down appreciably over the course of making a single part (something I learned the hard way when trying to do precision drilling of a high-hardness alloy using a tungsten carbide bit -- even with the best measurement tools of a modern machine shop, each drill bit change introduced about a 10% uncertainty in depth). – Mark Jul 21 '16 at 02:09
  • @Mark I agree it's complex task, but not forget, most building blocks wood, bronze and soft iron - so steel inserts will go like carbide inserts 1800-1900 europe had no super tools. But still they managed to do much stuff. But really their materials not today's materials, as tools they need. Also just casting is big deal, casting of iron was important method of doing things, because they had no tools which might cut 2 inch deep making 2 tonnes of chips without wear. In most cases wearing of tools is not important until it cuts, more important is you measurement, which shows how close u are. – MolbOrg Jul 21 '16 at 02:28
  • @Mark Re "precision machining" -- the Antikythera mechanism is currently dated to 150-100 BC, or even 205 BC, so perhaps it's not too far from reach with just a few fundamental advances. Hard for us to be sure of actual capabilities they had, so hard to know what new fundamental steps, if any, are needed other than just listing steps into a repeatable procedure... and 'procedure' might be the only innovation really needed. – user2338816 Jul 22 '16 at 13:00
  • @user2338816, precision machining isn't just about making one-offs with small details, it's about making those details consistently, time after time. Precision machining isn't making one Antikythera, it's making thirty Antikytheras, disassembling them into a box, shaking the box, and reassembling thirty working Antikytheras from the resulting pile of parts. – Mark Jul 22 '16 at 21:14
  • @Mark Yep. But the ability to make gears such as in that device has strong implications. Once appropriate sets of such things are made, they can be used to control machining of other parts that are consistent and interchangeable. And that's how it starts. Getting started with the procedure rather than relying on a single skilled manual craftsman is a big step, but one that could be explained to influential citizens.. – user2338816 Jul 23 '16 at 01:55
3

I am really surprised that noone has mentioned this so far: Greek Fire (wikipedia) Pros:

  • the greeks actually did win against Xerxes and did so most decisively on the sea (battle of salamis wikipedia), and greek fire was used best on sea
  • while the original formula is unknown, there were some substances with similar effect over the centuries
  • it seemingly had rather sopicticated delivering systems, but simple granades were known too
  • it was created and used in the same region, so the ingredients needed should be available
  • it has greek in the name ;)
MoDofGoD
  • 31
  • 1
  • "Greek" fire got its name because it was used by the Byzantine Empire, which covered rather more territory than the city-state of Athens. – Mark Jul 20 '16 at 18:24
  • @Mark "city-state of Athens" != "Hellenic Greece around 490 BC". Byzanz is in the first sentence of the first article i linked to. The territory of Byzanz did change a lot in time. And i do not see how this all is relevant. – MoDofGoD Jul 21 '16 at 17:59
  • "Greek Fire" (more properly know as "Sea Fire") was not invented by the Classical Greeks, but centuries later by the Byzantine Empire. The Battle of Artemesium and Salamis were both won by superior Greek naval strategy and tactics, taking advantage of the home waters and being able to meet Phoenician Triremes on an equal footing. – Thucydides Jul 23 '16 at 01:54
  • @Thucydides indeed - did you read the articles i linked to and decided to point out what the say? – MoDofGoD Jul 23 '16 at 08:13
3

Dynamite

(A late 19thC technology so not the toughest option)

The reason the battle was fought at the Thermopylae was because that was the only place the Persian army could get through.

Given dynamite, you have two options.

  • Close the pass that was used to outflank the Greek army
  • Close the main pass at Thermopylae itself

If you can time this to split the Persian army in half then you've got an easy win on the war at your next battle.

Failed option: Steel

(3rdC onwards)

As you mentioned, the Greeks were mostly still running on Bronze. However in practice steel doesn't seem to offer significant upgrades in the field as bronze still performs very well. When a man is cutting you off at the knees, you don't take the time to check what his weapon is made of.

Separatrix
  • 117,733
  • 38
  • 261
  • 445
2
  • Professionalize the army. The Romans built their empire on top of their legions - professional, experienced soldiers that were disciplined and knew how to fight as an unit. Standard weapons also meant that weapons were interchangeable and can be "mass produced".
  • Introduce high quality steel. Iron is better than bronze and steel is better than iron. Steel swords, chainmail, helmets, etc will give you a huge advantage on the battlefield.
  • Binoculars. Relatively easy to make, huge intelligence advantage
  • Any agricultural improvements your engineer could affect will lead to population growth which in turn means more soldiers.
  • Improve hygiene / healthcare. Obviously means more and healthier soldiers.
  • Communications - build a telegraph stations in key location so your lookouts can relate troop movements to you.
ventsyv
  • 3,793
  • 9
  • 18
  • In 10 years, having more kids just means having more people to care for. Having a higher output of food will, however, allow fewer people to work in the fields, which frees manpower for other things. – Clearer Jan 05 '18 at 07:15
1

Dental hygiene

Lack of dental hygiene in WW1, may have killed more people than bullets. Introducing the toothbrush (fairly simple concept, easy and cheap to make) could dramatically improve the lives of the Greek; on top of that, it wouldn't change the balance of power in the Greek society.

Better materials

Not just metals, but pretty much anything will do. Quality bricks would allow for better and stronger buildings, or at least, houses that are faster to build. With a strong binder, you could quickly build what amounts to a medieval castle which would be virtually unsiegable. Building castles will disrupt the power structure of the Greek society and will require a large amount of people for the construction. Minor fortifications might be a better options.

Viking longboats

I'm not too sure about this -- the real strength of the viking longboats lies in its maneuverability on rivers. At any rate, they are strong, lightweight and don't require a lot of materials. They rival modern (recreational) sailboats for speed, on open waters.

Clearer
  • 586
  • 4
  • 7
1

Glass.
Glass would be useful for telescopes and profitable as building and art materials.
You can melt concrete using just a lens. See troops in the distance. Better than silver for reflection.

Uses of microscopes would jumpstart a lot of the ideas about teaching people about germs. You guys are forgetting, that people didn't believe there were little bugs on their hands that caused illness. It took years of campaigning just to get doctors to wash their hands before surgery.

But it would be unsurpassed in generating monetary value. I believe you can buy Manhattan with just a few boxes of glass beads.

Side note: Gunpowder would probably get you killed as a witch.

Engineer
  • 107
  • 4
  • Of course we love glass too, but can you try to add more than a few lines to your answer? – SE - stop firing the good guys Jul 20 '16 at 01:09
  • 2
    Glassmaking already existed. More for luxury goods though. What you need to introduce is lens making which is a good idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_glass You wouldn't get killed as a witch. The ancient Greeks were more accepting of their witches. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_in_the_Graeco-Roman_world Welcome to Worldbuilding and help keep the ideas flowing. – a4android Jul 20 '16 at 09:13
1

People have some great answers on here, and certainly medical advances would be paramount if possible. Basic hand washing in lye would be really easy to do, and sterilizing water with sun or heat, but it is so esoteric many people would probably not listen(see the issues with modern day third world countries). Penicillin would be an option, but after a quick google, it looks like getting a pure form is challenging http://io9.gizmodo.com/in-case-of-apocalypse-heres-how-to-make-penicillin-in-1110902296 and even if you find a way to make all of the things needed for it, you run the chance of bad luck at the beginning which could end up with your neck in a noose.

So I figure 2 things would be great:

  1. introducing materials and metallurgy advances. Composite woods would make a big difference, as certainly would better metals. Refining iron ore into basic steels is actually pretty easy, and then from there it could fairly quickly be turned into armor, wheels, swords, arrows(Yay the longbow idea), crossbows, stirrups(also a great idea), etc. and they would be things that people could see and hold so they would certainly start using them.

  2. Hot air or hydrogen balloons This is a fun one and might not be achievable in 5 years (unlike steel), put a wooden water wheel on the side of a river(bonus you introduce water driven mills for wheat grinding). Put the gears in it to get a small dowel spinning at a high speed, extrude some copper wire. Go find some natural magnets in all of the limestone in that area, and bam you have an electric generator. You can use this to create hydrogen and oxygen from salt water, and then use the Hydrogen to fill wood framed leather and pitch dirigible. Don't bother with engines, just float that guy up there tied to a rope and use it for long distance spotting, or fill it with archers and rain arrows down from above and well out of range.

theinvisibleduck
  • 1,552
  • 9
  • 9
  • Steel is easy, but with the technology of the time, it's also very labor-intensive, and produces pieces of a pound or less, of varying quality. As for hydrogen, you're better off making it by pouring oil of vitriol (sulphuric acid) over iron filings. – Mark Jul 21 '16 at 18:25
  • "use this to create hydrogen and oxygen from salt water" -- last time I tried this, what I actually created was a lot of chlorine gas. Not pleasant. I believe the ancient greeks knew how to produce sodium hydroxide (aka lye) however, and that would be a much better additive to the water than salt. – Jules Jul 21 '16 at 21:19
  • Awesome solutions for hydrogen. Certainly both would be easier than what I was thinking, though I suppose chlorine gas has its uses in this scenario as well.

    As far as steel goes, it is a matter of organization, and seems like it could be fairly achievable, though I admittedly have not tried it personally. For that matter, you might be better off making a few nice(for the time) pieces and then bribing the other powerful kings around to help defend you.

     – theinvisibleduck Jul 21 '16 at 22:01
0

I have little to add to the other answers (there are a plethora of technologies that would be incredibly helpful). However, there is one technology that has escaped mention that I think would have been very revolutionary in a number of ways: electricity.

Ancient Greeks already had access to large amounts of copper with their established bronze economy. This could be fairly easily made into flat wire or even round wire with basic tools of their time. Using this to create a basic generator or other simple electrical devices wouldn't be exceptionally difficult. If you were able to get access to basic magnets you could possibly produce simple electric motors as well.

These could be used to create new technologies or augment existing ones: electric powered tools (such as lathes, presses, or saws), electronic signaling and communication, and possibly even electric lights.

However, this would be slow in developing in comparison to other technologies. But given enough time, it would be the farthest-reaching and most influential technology I can think of.

Logan Kitchen
  • 900
  • 5
  • 13
0

Building on the 'better hygiene' (brilliantly simple) I'd suggest military tactics and training.

Ancient battlefields are basically slugging matches in which nummerical advantage and morale play a major part. Try to impose modern tactics on a slugging match might rob the enemy of many nummerical advantages.

user23142
  • 9
  • 1
  • 8
    Military tactics of the time (at least among the great powers like the Persians and Greeks, and later the Romans) were sophisticated adaptations to the available technology. Modern small-unit tactics and rapid, flowing combat are the result of individuals being able to carry massive amounts of firepower and call in even more from long distances away. Try to use those tactics with bows and swords (or worse: the long spears of the phalanx), and your army will get quickly squashed by the concentrated force of the opposing army. – Mark Jul 19 '16 at 23:40
-1

Steam-based automatic weapons (ala The Cross-Time Engineer by Leo Frankowski).

Arluin
  • 217
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
    I'm not familiar with the work in question, but steam typically requires large-scale fuel sources (eg. coal mining), automated anything requires precision machining, and weapons usually involve concentrated energy, which requires high-strength materials. You'll need to build up quite a bit of infrastructure in order to make these weapons practical. – Mark Jul 20 '16 at 01:36