How close were the ancient Greeks to industrialization?
I think the application of steam power and the mass production of steel are the hallmarks of the Industrial Revolution. After all, without these people, we would still build everything out of stone and wood, and all our vehicles and engines would be powered by sails, water wheels, or horses.
In this regard, history makes it difficult for us to say when it all began. The first commercially successful steam engine was introduced in 1712, and the first successful smelting of iron from coke appears to have occurred in 1709.
The end of ancient Greece is also a time cleverly depicted by historians. The death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC is the most common end date of the classical period.
Thus, we can say that the time between the end of ancient Greece and the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (although not in ancient Greece) is about 2035.
It's not very close to the scale of a human lifetime, but for the duration of human existence, I would say it was basically simultaneous.
My answer doesn't exactly satisfy you, and I suggest you keep reading.
Take a look at the picture below and think about how complex the society they live in may be.
The above question is a rhetorical question.
These scenes are based on or inspired by wars in the late 14th century. The society to which these soldiers belonged was in many ways more complex than that of ancient Greece.
However, I ask you to use your intuition to say that we see clear and immediate precursors of the scientific and industrial revolution in these societies.
Copernicus was less than 160 years younger than the time Copernicus published his book on heliocentric models and about 320 years after the steam engine. If we take 80 human lifespan as a benchmark, we have to conclude that they are only 2 to 4 people from the scientific and industrial revolutions.
I want to reiterate that I think they are certainly closer to industrialization than the ancient Greeks. Mechanization (using non-human), mechanical equipment, metallurgy, and the degree and complexity of its natural philosophy put them slightly ahead of the ancients.
On the other hand, using these facts to argue that they are on the cusp of industrialization may not convince many people. Despite the fact that they are only three centuries away from the Industrial Revolution.
The reader's question is how far one can truly "predict" such a bizarre event as the Industrial Revolution.
Historians with medieval history have proposed dates as early as the 13th century. They saw the advent of universities with STEM-heavy courses and the invention of (vertical) windmills, mechanical clocks, and glasses as early signs of the Industrial Revolution.
On the other hand, there are also historians who take the exact opposite view. Until Galileo published his two new sciences in 1638 and Evangelista Torricelli provided a vacuum proof in 1643, there was little indication that a steam engine or path to the steam engine existed. In other words, the steam engine was not even considered for more than 70 years before its invention.
People who want to prove that the Industrial Revolution cannot really predict can take advantage of this fact. Some argue that the opposite is that the general trend could be perceived from the 13th century, which may have occurred in the 17th century, but for reasons that were discovered earlier.
Below: Schematic diagram of some of the main innovators of steam powder in BJG van der Kooij's paper
Personally, I can dispute both cases, but given my legal background, I would say that the party that offered the highest fee was right.
With the above in mind and looking at your question again, I think that anyone interested in answering that question must first determine whether the Industrial Revolution is predictable, and secondly must determine how far away it is reasonably predictable.
I've seen serious statements to the effect that ancient Greece, Song China, and early modern Bangladesh were still centuries away from industrialization, but these statements don't often get about the inevitability or predictability of the Industrial Revolution.
So yes, 2035 sounds good?