Semaphore Towers

[jimmy olsen]

Is there a technical reason they weren't invented until the French Revolution? They seem quite simple to me, but maybe I'm missing something.
Is it just one of those things like the stirrup that looks obvious in hindsight and could have been invented and put into use a thousand years earlier?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_line

[sbr]

Where is the link to the news article where you learned about Semaphore Towers

[jimmy olsen]

Where is the link to the news article where you learned about Semaphore Towers

I don't read 18th century French newspapers.

[Josquius]

Centralisation and the power of nation-states are the big issues.

[The Brain]

I don't see any big reason why the Romans couldn't have done it, had it been invented back then. But of course, even if it was in fact invented back then big infrastructure projects don't just happen and semaphores are far from perfect. It's not one of those things that get employed automatically just because it's invented.

[jimmy olsen]

Centralisation and the power of nation-states are the big issues.

Someone on another forum mentioned that you really need the telescope for this, otherwise you just have to build and man too many towers.

[jamesww]

Yeah thinking about it Newtonian physics was pretty obvious.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah thinking about it Newtonian physics was pretty obvious.

When Tim strikes you with his cane he can blame gravity. 

[grumbler]

Yeah thinking about it Newtonian physics was pretty obvious.

Indeed it was, and physics was understood empirically for millennia before Newton formulated (or invented) the math necessary to quantify it.

[Razgovory]

Sometimes, simple ideas don't occur to people.  Romans didn't have windmills.  There was no material reason why this should be.

[grumbler]

Sometimes, simple ideas don't occur to people.  Romans didn't have windmills.  There was no material reason why this should be.

I suspect the Romans and earlier peoples didn't use them because they didn't have strong prevailing winds like those of the Middle East, which allowed fixed-direction windmills.

You are right, but the stirrup probably remains the better example of your argument.

[Josquius]

Centralisation and the power of nation-states are the big issues.

Someone on another forum mentioned that you really need the telescope for this, otherwise you just have to build and man too many towers.

Yeah, that's a biggy. Was a few centuries of telescoping before they emerged though.


There was one cool similar system I read about which was used in 19th century Japan, rather than having big permanent towers they instead had men stationed on mountains waving flags to send messages (rice prices) from Tokyo to Osaka (IIRC). Strange something like that which doesn't require so big an initial investment wouldn't have popped up elsewhere.
The closest we get is beacon systems. For emergencies only.

[The Brain]

The closest we get is beacon systems. For emergencies only.

Not necessarily, just a bit unwieldy. "Wouldst thou cyber?"

[jimmy olsen]

The closest we get is beacon systems. For emergencies only.

Not necessarily, just a bit unwieldy. "Wouldst thou cyber?"

[Zoupa]

Sometimes, simple ideas don't occur to people.  Romans didn't have windmills.  There was no material reason why this should be.

I suspect the Romans and earlier peoples didn't use them because they didn't have strong prevailing winds like those of the Middle East, which allowed fixed-direction windmills.

You are right, but the stirrup probably remains the better example of your argument.

Not really no. There's plenty of strong prevailing winds all over the previous territories of the Roman Empire.