StarDestroyer.Net BBS

To say that the topic title is sufficient for the topic is a foolish thing to do, as they are so many factors we need to address in such a topic.

The fall of the Western Roman empire in particular, was said by many people to be the end of the anitquity age, and the beginning of the dark ages. This is not a thread discussing about how the WRE fell, but a discussion about whether is the fall beneficial in the long run, from a present day perspective.

The chain of events that followed after the fall of the Roman empire did result in things like the industrial age, where the standard of living for people in the world has been greatly increased thanks to technology.

However, there are many people who likes to speculate whether can technological advances be faster or slower if the Western Roman Empire did not fell.

Some people thinks that the survival of Roman empire will suddenly allow the world in the 21st century to be even more advanced than it is, having some sort of space empire and other advanced technology all because Roman empire is the only empire where technological advance can be made. Those that believe that the lack of technological progress during the dark ages is universal and applies to all parts of the world.

To think that all the technological knowledge of the world was contained in western Roman empire alone shows that you have a total lack of understanding in regards to history beyond what your primary school teacher has told you and what you see in Hollywood's version of history. That you fail to factor in the continued existence of the Eastern Roman Empire ( or holds this belief that the knowledge of the roman empire in the east is somehow more inferior than the west) and assume that empires far beyond the Roman borders are full of unwashed barbarians and easterners( near eastern and far eastern alike) who only managed to reach Rome's technological level centuries after the fall of Rome.

On the other hand, there are people who believe that the continual existence of the Western Roman Empire will stalled technological advancement, simply due to a lack of competition between the fragmented nations of Western Europe , as it is competition that drove nations to industrialise, and one big and 'stable' nation would prevent the fast pace of innovation from taking place.

Of course, that point of view totally disregard the amount of changes made by the Roman empire when it was faced with new threats from the so-called unwashed masses of barbarians and why it takes a fragmented Western Europe in particular to advance technology as a whole.

So, instead of looking at this issue at a face value, would the survival of the WRE brings more benefits to the world through more technological advances through an in depth analysis?

I hope that we can start a more reasonable discussion on this issue, whether the fall of the Western Roman Empire could increase or decrease the pace of technological advancement of the entire world.

Feel free to point out if there is any mistakes made.

Let me make a thought experiment here. Say, we invade Singapore, destroy the infrastructure, let the population starve, enslave a third of them and cause all smart people to emigrate to someplace safer, turn the place into small barely-surviving vilalges and then proceed to keep the population illiterate, under the thumb of a theocracy and subject to raids for the next 1000 years.

Would you find this to be a beneficial thing?



***********
Also, please point out to me which technologies were invented as a direct result of the collapse of the empire.

Thanas wrote:Let me make a thought experiment here. Say, we invade Singapore, destroy the infrastructure, let the population starve, enslave a third of them and cause all smart people to emigrate to someplace safer, turn the place into small barely-surviving vilalges and then proceed to keep the population illiterate, under the thumb of a theocracy and subject to raids for the next 1000 years.

Would you find this to be a beneficial thing?

Nope. Bear in mind that I am not talking about how much technological progression the survival of the Roman Empire can make in the short term (talking about in several centuries here) but challenging the idea that the simple survival of the Roman Empire will lead to a more advanced 21st century.

Namely because the continued survival of a civilised empire does not necessarily translate to more technological progression for the world as a whole which is what many alt-history fans and all those Roman empire in space fans. While stability creates a greater chance for a state to progress, it doesn't necessarily mean the world as a whole will be have an industrialisation revolution by the 10-15 century AD.

Take for example, even though gunpowder was invented in China, does not mean that China managed to fully exploit the use of gunpowder to the same extend Europeans did by the 17th century, and the progress from a early era gunpowder weapons to a more lethal weapons we see during the Napoleon era took several centuries to happen. The question is, why would the continued survival of a stable Roman empire in this case allows the progression of gunpowder technology to be faster?

Also, please point out to me which technologies were invented as a direct result of the collapse of the empire.

I'm not saying that technologies were invented as a direct result per say, but as a indirect result.


Hope you know what I am getting at.

ray245 wrote:Nope.

Apparently, in Rayworld, a wrecked state will lead to more technological inventions than an intact state in which people can pursue science.

Bear in mind that I am not talking about how much technological progression the survival of the Roman Empire can make in the short term (talking about in several centuries here) but challenging the idea that the simple survival of the Roman Empire will lead to a more advanced 21st century.

Apparently, in Rayworld, 600 years of technological regression will lead to a more advanced society.

Namely because the continued survival of a civilised empire does not necessarily translate to more technological progression for the world as a whole which is what many alt-history fans and all those Roman empire in space fans.

Wait....you came into this forum to talk about what idiots post on the internet? Are you truly that incapable of differentiating between "Romans in Space fanfiction" and "loss of technology as part of the empire's collapse?"

While stability creates a greater chance for a state to progress, it doesn't necessarily mean the world as a whole will be have an industrialisation revolution by the 10-15 century AD.

Apparently, you are not.

Take for example, even though gunpowder was invented in China, does not mean that China managed to fully exploit the use of gunpowder to the same extend Europeans did by the 17th century, and the progress from a early era gunpowder weapons to a more lethal weapons we see during the Napoleon era took several centuries to happen. The question is, why would the continued survival of a stable Roman empire in this case allows the progression of gunpowder technology to be faster?

Why should it? Or why does it need to?

Listen to me, because apparently you have trouble understanding it: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EMPIRE SET EUROPE BACK AT LEAST 1000 YEARS.

Yes, that is right. Here are a few fun facts about lost technologies:
- road building. Europe was only able to build decent (read - not soggy) roads in the 18th century again and even then they only copied the roman designs. In case you missed it, that is ~1200 years after the collapse.
- In the 17th century, one city was able to exceed 1 million inhabitants. ´1500 years after Rome managed to do so.
- running water and public baths in every city was not reached until the 20th century.
- masonry. Until the high middle ages, masonry was a shadow of its former self.
- science. How long did people believe the earth to be flat again? How long did it take for the west to regain architecture, mathematics, medicine etc?


That of course is ignoring the other facts about technological innovations. Innovations take time and resources. This means that a society must have excess resources in order to undertake research. Guess what people didn't have after the fall of the empire?

Oh, and nevermind the church squashing everything that was considered heretic. Remember Galileo?

The topic is essentially non-sensical. Setting aside Thanas' point, how can one in any seriousness try comparing the technological development (or lack thereof) in a reality in which the WRE collapsed, to the hypothetical technological development stemming from something that never happened?

Overall, following the collapse of the western half of the empire, society underwent a regression. Trade broke down, cities shrunk in size, and land ownership became the measure of wealth and power. The number of literate people declined significantly, classical knowledge was lost, and without archeology, our historical knowledge of the post-Roman half-millenia would be almost non-existent.

That's without question a bad thing.

Thanas wrote:Oh, and nevermind the church squashing everything that was considered heretic. Remember Galileo?

Just as a quick aside, the matter of Galileo was never as cut and dry as all that. What basically got Galileo in trouble was not so much his advocacy of heliocentrism but his caricature of the Pope in the form of the character Simplicus (or, basically, 'simpleton'). While the Catholic Church was by no means offering a level playing field of debate, the ensuing conviction was probably the result of the Pope feeling (not entirely without cause) that he had just been publicly given the finger. Given that the Pope was not just a spiritual but a temporal ruler, Galileo had committed a political faux pas of some magnitude, and frankly, he was fortunate to have gotten off with something as light as a house arrest.

Thanas wrote:

ray245 wrote:Nope.

Apparently, in Rayworld, a wrecked state will lead to more technological inventions than an intact state in which people can pursue science.

Err, Thanas, I'm agreeing with you in regards to a wrecked state is not a beneficial thing.

Apparently, in Rayworld, 600 years of technological regression will lead to a more advanced society.

Didn't places like China for instance managed to avoid a technological regression?

Wait....you came into this forum to talk about what idiots post on the internet? Are you truly that incapable of differentiating between "Romans in Space fanfiction" and "loss of technology as part of the empire's collapse?"

I'm talking about the fact that treating those Roman in space fanfiction is not what you are suppose to do when discussing this issue. However, ignore what I've said.

Apparently, you are not.

huh?

Why should it? Or why does it need to?

Maybe because the idea that technology progress at a faster rate might be a good thing?

Listen to me, because apparently you have trouble understanding it: THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EMPIRE SET EUROPE BACK AT LEAST 1000 YEARS.

Yes, I know that it did set back Europe for at the least a 1000 years, but did the fall of the WRE set back the entire world for a 1000 years?

Setting aside Thanas' point, how can one in any seriousness try comparing the technological development (or lack thereof) in a reality in which the WRE collapsed, to the hypothetical technological development stemming from something that never happened?

Guess I got too caught up in too many alternate history debates I guess. Guess too many people argued against me on the belief that Rome is the centre of all technological advancement, hence as long as the WRE is around, there will definitely be more technological advancement than the 'original timeline'.


Alas, I think that the thread title is stupid and should be changed I think.

Eleas wrote:

Thanas wrote:Oh, and nevermind the church squashing everything that was considered heretic. Remember Galileo?

Just as a quick aside, the matter of Galileo was never as cut and dry as all that. What basically got Galileo in trouble was not so much his advocacy of heliocentrism but his caricature of the Pope in the form of the character Simplicus (or, basically, 'simpleton'). While the Catholic Church was by no means offering a level playing field of debate, the ensuing conviction was probably the result of the Pope feeling (not entirely without cause) that he had just been publicly given the finger. Given that the Pope was not just a spiritual but a temporal ruler, Galileo had committed a political faux pas of some magnitude, and frankly, he was fortunate to have gotten off with something as light as a house arrest.

Galileo is but one example of many and he got off lightly. Scores of other scientists were not so lucky.


**************************

ray245 wrote: Didn't places like China for instance managed to avoid a technological regression?

China never collapsed in the way Europe did.

ray245 wrote:huh?

Meaning your post reveal a pretty much illogical view of how technology is invented etc. It sound to me that you are one of those people thinking "chaos leads to new technologies and a non-unified europe will have more different opinions and therfore more avenues of research. Even if we accept the flawed premise of that, it does not mean that the second should automatically follow.

ray245 wrote:Maybe because the idea that technology progress at a faster rate might be a good thing?

And you will of course show that technology progressed faster and how that can be linked to the Roman Empire?

ray245 wrote: Yes, I know that it did set back Europe for at the least a 1000 years, but did the fall of the WRE set back the entire world for a 1000 years?

No. But it did affect other states as well. And even if it did not set back the world, how is that related to your main point?

ray245 wrote:Guess I got too caught up in too many alternate history debates I guess. Guess too many people argued against me on the belief that Rome is the centre of all technological advancement, hence as long as the WRE is around, there will definitely be more technological advancement than the 'original timeline'.

Now, whether it necessarily follows that the Romans would have space colonies already is not supported by any evidence, because - guess what - there isn't any. However - and I can't believe I have to spell it out - that a society which did not suffer a 1000 years regression would be better off than one who did is only logical.

If instead of an advanced empire with marvelous inventions like roads and running water, the world instead got a collapsed Europe where technology and society regressed, I think it would've been a noticeable setback for the entire world as a whole. Like how modern day Somalia or wartorn and AIDS-plagued bits in Africa set back the world today.

Thanas wrote: China never collapsed in the way Europe did.

Which is what I am trying to say, that a more stable civilisation does not necessarily mean the modern world would be even more advanced than what we see today.

Meaning your post reveal a pretty much illogical view of how technology is invented etc. It sound to me that you are one of those people thinking "chaos leads to new technologies and a non-unified europe will have more different opinions and therfore more avenues of research. Even if we accept the flawed premise of that, it does not mean that the second should automatically follow.

Err, that isn't what I am trying to support, but saying this is how a number of people I know view things, with arguments like how a divided Europe that has a number of stable states have a greater drive to advance technology as opposed to a unified region like China.

And you will of course show that technology progressed faster and how that can be linked to the Roman Empire?

I'm saying the idea of technology advancing at a faster rate is a good thing, but it cannot be linked to the Roman Empire.

No. But it did affect other states as well. And even if it did not set back the world, how is that related to your main point?

That is my main point. Guess I really need to type things out in a more understandable manner. Although that is mainly due to an opening post that was not properly thought out.

Now, whether it necessarily follows that the Romans would have space colonies already is not supported by any evidence, because - guess what - there isn't any. However - and I can't believe I have to spell it out - that a society which did not suffer a 1000 years regression would be better off than one who did is only logical.

I think I might have buy into people's arguments that a single unified empire may have advanced technology, but it doesn't translate into an industrial revolution too easily. That it requires more regional rivalry between states that is somewhat stable and has a similar level of technology to progress at a much quicker pace. That such a trend can be observed by how easy Europe managed to overtake Asian states from the 17th century onwards.

Guess I was wrong about that.

ray245 wrote:

Thanas wrote: China never collapsed in the way Europe did.

Which is what I am trying to say, that a more stable civilisation does not necessarily mean the modern world would be even more advanced than what we see today.

No, it would be worse. Think about how much the arab/western world benefited from china, then try that thought again.

Err, that isn't what I am trying to support, but saying this is how a number of people I know view things, with arguments like how a divided Europe that has a number of stable states have a greater drive to advance technology as opposed to a unified region like China.

That theory is something quite different than the one currently espoused in this thread.

I'm saying the idea of technology advancing at a faster rate is a good thing, but it cannot be linked to the Roman Empire.

Are you trying to troll this thread or what is this? If a society has excess resources to spend, of course it will advance faster than a wrecked continent.

That is my main point. Guess I really need to type things out in a more understandable manner. Although that is mainly due to an opening post that was not properly thought out.

As evidenced by your words, you do not understand what I and others have been saying.

I think I might have buy into people's arguments that a single unified empire may have advanced technology, but it doesn't translate into an industrial revolution too easily. That it requires more regional rivalry between states that is somewhat stable and has a similar level of technology to progress at a much quicker pace. That such a trend can be observed by how easy Europe managed to overtake Asian states from the 17th century onwards.

That theory is a lot different than what your theory suggest. Do you honestly not see the difference between 17th century Europe and the dark ages?

Thanas wrote:Galileo is but one example of many and he got off lightly. Scores of other scientists were not so lucky.

Freely granted; the thrust of your argument is valid. I just took issue with one specific anecdote which, though often repeated, doesn't really prove the point it's supposed to make.

Thanas wrote: No, it would be worse. Think about how much the arab/western world benefited from china, then try that thought again.

So the technological progress of the world as a whole is dependent on Europe?

That theory is something quite different than the one currently espoused in this thread.

Guess I my expression skills need some work then. So is those ideas completely unjustifiable?

Are you trying to troll this thread or what is this? If a society has excess resources to spend, of course it will advance faster than a wrecked continent.

Well I was talking about globally, on how the stability of one region managing to allow one part of the world to increase their technological base, it does not mean the entire world has gained those technology at a similar pace. That a stable and advanced continent does not translate to a stable and advanced world as a whole. Think that view I wrong I suppose.

Am I still too confusing?

As evidenced by your words, you do not understand what I and others have been saying.

I'm doing my best to figure things out.

That theory is a lot different than what your theory suggest. Do you honestly not see the difference between 17th century Europe and the dark ages?

I guess I view things in a manner that without a dark ages, the existence 17 century Europe as we know it would not be possible. That's a pretty dumb view on second thought.

Thanas, from reading the thread, it appears that Ray has his ego tied to China never having a massive regressive collapse such as Europe and has his feelings hurt that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire has hurt the WORLD civilization more than HIS China that never under went such problems (at least to that scale that I'm aware of).

Anyway, from my perspective from his opening post, he was trying his hardest to set up a 'why is the Roman Empire so great that even in it's fall it is accredited with such wondrous things and the lack of it hurt the WORLD so much while my lovely China never fell like that and isn't regarded in the same sense.'

I could be misunderstanding him but that's the impression i got from his posts.

Knife wrote:Thanas, from reading the thread, it appears that Ray has his ego tied to China never having a massive regressive collapse such as Europe and has his feelings hurt that the decline and fall of the Roman Empire has hurt the WORLD civilization more than HIS China that never under went such problems (at least to that scale that I'm aware of).

Guess that is what I am intending to say even though I don't realise it. Namely because I don't think that the ability spread of technological advancement around the world is exclusive to Europe alone.

Guess I am trying to figure out why is this the case, and pinpoint everything on Western Europe being disunited, while East Asia consist of one major empire and numerous smaller states as the major difference.

ray245 wrote:

Thanas wrote: No, it would be worse. Think about how much the arab/western world benefited from china, then try that thought again.

So the technological progress of the world as a whole is dependent on Europe?

No. But it was during the scientific and industrial revolution. This does not mean others are incapable of innovation at all, just that historically, Europe got ther faster. However, what I meant was that it would have taken a lot longer if china had collapsed as well - think about the importance of paper for the aformentioned revolutions.

Guess I my expression skills need some work then. So is those ideas completely unjustifiable?

Please be specific, which ideas?

Well I was talking about globally, on how the stability of one region managing to allow one part of the world to increase their technological base, it does not mean the entire world has gained those technology at a similar pace. That a stable and advanced continent does not translate to a stable and advanced world as a whole. Think that view I wrong I suppose.

Well, it would depend on that region expanding, of course.

That theory is a lot different than what your theory suggest. Do you honestly not see the difference between 17th century Europe and the dark ages?

I guess I view things in a manner that without a dark ages, the existence 17 century Europe as we know it would not be possible. That's a pretty dumb view on second thought.[/quote]

No, it is a correct view. Without the dark ages, there would be no europe as we know it.
However, what you mean, that the decline of the roman empire actually helped spread technology is not supported by anything.

When talking about the 17th century, remember that they had already surpassed the romans. So comparing them to the romans is quite worthless.

ray245 wrote:
Guess that is what I am intending to say even though I don't realise it. Namely because I don't think that the ability spread of technological advancement around the world is exclusive to Europe alone.

However, where would the Empires of China and the Asian steppes be without the trade to the Ottoman Empire and the Roman Empire before it? That is a fairly large market share right there.

Guess I am trying to figure out why is this the case, and pinpoint everything on Western Europe being disunited, while East Asia consist of one major empire and numerous smaller states as the major difference.

Probably because of the successor states after the Fall of Rome went on with the enlightenment based off of, among other things, Rome and spread out into large globe spanning Empires while China did not.

ray245 wrote:Guess that is what I am intending to say even though I don't realise it. Namely because I don't think that the ability spread of technological advancement around the world is exclusive to Europe alone.

It is not, as evidence by numerous japanese, american or other countries operating on a world-wide basis.

Guess I am trying to figure out why is this the case, and pinpoint everything on Western Europe being disunited, while East Asia consist of one major empire and numerous smaller states as the major difference.

How about you try this as the following:
- Europe had a much larger degree of industrialization and specialization.
- They reached both the scientific and the industrial revolution faster due to them having been industrialized and dependant on "industry" far earlier, as well as the establishment of philosophy and logical principles.
- This translated into a competitive edge, which eventually gave them the world-reaching powers that were made in Europe.

Stiff competition from the various states is one of the reasons for why they industrialized, but in general I think it has also a lot to do with mentality. China and many asian states (Japan), isolated themselves from the rest of the world, something no European state has ever done. There was a widespread feeling of not adapting to new ideas.

However, such a mentality was not present in Europe. Even the Roman Empire, which was pretty conservative, usually recognized a good technology when it could be put to use. However, asian states seem to have undergone great pains to refuse to adapt to western ideas, when the opposite was not the case. Paper for example, a chinese invention, was enthusiastically embraced in the west.

Also, European states were not above copying or outright stealing technologies from others (silk was stolen from the Chinese by the Byzantines, for example). I am unaware of any chinese effort to do the same when it came to European technologies.

Addendum - I am no expert on chinese history, so if I forget anything, please feel free to correct me.

Knife wrote: Probably because of the successor states after the Fall of Rome went on with the enlightenment based off of, among other things, Rome and spread out into large globe spanning Empires while China did not.

I guess I've figured out what I am really trying to say. That just because the western Roman Empire survived does not mean the Roman empire will spread out like what the Western Europe nation in the 17th century did.

That just because the Spanish or the British has a globe spanning empire does not mean the Roman empire will do the same thing.

Thanas wrote:Please be specific, which ideas?

The idea that divided Europe that has a number of stable states have a greater drive to advance technology as opposed to a unified region like China.

Stiff competition from the various states is one of the reasons for why they industrialized, but in general I think it has also a lot to do with mentality. China and many asian states (Japan), isolated themselves from the rest of the world, something no European state has ever done. There was a widespread feeling of not adapting to new ideas.

However, doesn't the fact that the balance of power between the different states plays a huge factor as well? In Europe, the balance of power is constantly shifting, with each nation being able to overtake the others for a certain period before getting bumped down.

Whereas in east Asia, the balance of power is mostly centred on China, and hardly shift into the balance of another empire. ( With exceptions of the Mongols under Genghis Khan of course.)

This may have resulted in a more conservative region as opposed to Western Europe.

However, such a mentality was not present in Europe. Even the Roman Empire, which was pretty conservative, usually recognized a good technology when it could be put to use. However, asian states seem to have undergone great pains to refuse to adapt to western ideas, when the opposite was not the case. Paper for example, a chinese invention, was enthusiastically embraced in the west.

True. Trade between Europe and the far east is usually one way.

Alas, seems to me my personality flaw of finding out the obvious is still around.

I guess I've figured out what I am really trying to say. That just because the western Roman Empire survived does not mean the Roman empire will spread out like what the Western Europe nation in the 17th century did.

That just because the Spanish or the British has a globe spanning empire does not mean the Roman empire will do the same thing.

Except the Roman Empire was an Empire and was under pretty much constant expansion during the whole of it's existence. Granted, you can argue that that is one of the major reasons for its decline, however to realistically look at a Europe where Rome never fell, you'd have to look at seriously taking the idea of Rome will expand it's boarders when possible as a definite possibility.

Would it go in the same directions and the same rate as Europe in later years? Maybe, maybe not. But I have a hard time thinking that if the WRE did indeed survive into the 17th century, they wouldn't have tried to, failed and succeeded, expand.

Knife wrote:

I guess I've figured out what I am really trying to say. That just because the western Roman Empire survived does not mean the Roman empire will spread out like what the Western Europe nation in the 17th century did.

That just because the Spanish or the British has a globe spanning empire does not mean the Roman empire will do the same thing.

Except the Roman Empire was an Empire and was under pretty much constant expansion during the whole of it's existence. Granted, you can argue that that is one of the major reasons for its decline, however to realistically look at a Europe where Rome never fell, you'd have to look at seriously taking the idea of Rome will expand it's boarders when possible as a definite possibility.

However, can't the same be said for the Chinese as well? After all, one can easily see the overall increase in size from the various dynasties.

The desire to expand is always present through the different dynasties, but they didn't bothered to build an overseas empire even during the Ming dynasty.

What is up with you and China, ray?

Wasn't there a time that China not only closed its borders to all foreign gaijin, but also burned down its treasure fleet of Chinese galleons?

A better thread topic would be why was there such a difference between oriental and western mindsets, which led to the historic state of East and West as we know it and all those things you go on about ancient China and Rome and stuff.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:What is up with you and China, ray?

Cultural and family influence I guess, and the additional fact that I like to compare Rome with China. Of course, there is the fact that comparing between Rome and China is rather popular within the Chinese historical community.

Wasn't there a time that China not only closed its borders to all foreign gaijin, but also burned down its treasure fleet of Chinese galleons?

Of course, which is what I am trying to say. That just because the Chinese continued to expand again and again does not mean they intend to colonialise states far beyond their borders.

A better thread topic would be why was there such a difference between oriental and western mindsets, which led to the historic state of East and West as we know it and all those things you go on about ancient China and Rome and stuff.[/quote]

True, that might be a better topic title.

Trainwreck locked.

Ray, next time you want to ask a question, just do so and say it outright.