I'm thinking that without the dark ages that the progress of man would be substantially further along by the 20th century...
I don't particularly see how Rome could have been saved from itself nor how this would lead to the type of technological expansion people seem to think would happen if it did.
The concept of the dark ages itself is becoming increasingly obsolete and was largely a renaissance invention to self-aggrandize.
Yeah, it's true that the "dark ages" weren't really a period of total decay, however it does kind of refer to how the advancements of civilization took a definite step or two backwards at the fall of the Roman empire. All inventions and innovations build upon the prior work of others and usually also include the collaborations of groups of people. This requires a stable and functioning society to facilitate that collaboration and sharing of knowledge. Roads and ships are also crucial for this, as they open the door for more travel, commerce, and communication.
I'm thinking that without the dark ages that the progress of man would be substantially further along by the 20th century...
You've got it backwards, Rome was culturally and technologically stagnant. The Romans knew this; many of its great minds complained about how with the end of Carthage, its last real rival, Rome took to resting on its laurels and never getting up. The reason there was so much advancement from the medieval period onward was because with so many states in Europe competing for power and prestige, there were plenty of courts willing to patronize engineers, scientists, and explorers with bright ideas.
Rome would never industrialize because slave labor was cheaper than investing in machinery. It would never explore and colonize because they had plenty of empty land and resources at home. It would never innovate because without any competition, it would have no reason to.
You've got it backwards, Rome was culturally and technologically stagnant. The Romans knew this; many of its great minds complained about how with the end of Carthage, its last real rival, Rome took to resting on its laurels and never getting up. The reason there was so much advancement from the medieval period onward was because with so many states in Europe competing for power and prestige, there were plenty of courts willing to patronize engineers, scientists, and explorers with bright ideas.
Rome would never industrialize because slave labor was cheaper than investing in machinery. It would never explore and colonize because they had plenty of empty land and resources at home. It would never innovate because without any competition, it would have no reason to.
No, it was pretty much forced to explore and colonize. A lot of what ultimately dragged Rome down was a vicious cycle of war debt and primitive economics that required them to pay off their soldiers with the promise of territory yet earned.
It's a major reason why they devolved into warlords and protectorates in the first place, then later the more familiar European kingdoms.
However! While all this happened, the advancement of philosophy and science continued unabated out east and south. The Islamic and Asian empires and kingdoms had their cultural renaissances while Europe floundered in the political aftermath of Rome's decline. It was a "dark" age for Europeans, but it might be better understood and be more accurately considered as the centers of global power moving east instead.
However! While all this happened, the advancement of philosophy and science continued unabated out east and south. The Islamic and Asian empires and kingdoms had their cultural renaissances while Europe floundered in the political aftermath of Rome's decline.
Most of these are astoundingly overrated, particularly Islamic Andalusia, which has proven archaeologically to be nothing much. The fact is the life of the ordinary peasant and his donkey --- which was most of us --- barely improved anywhere until the Renaissance; not in China, India, Islam, the Meso-Americans, or Eurasia. The Chinese believed in a flat earth until the 17th century [ 19th century for peasants ] and had a very low life expectancy --- found out recently by my looking up TCM --- but they made up for it in ART [ which barely affected the peasants... ]. If their science was more advanced, how come their lives were as grim as a European serf's until the 19th century ? Or a Roman slave's ?
.
Also, the Romans themselves weren't great at science and innovation...
