> If Rome hadn’t collapsed, they might, within a matter of centuries, have advanced to the stage of industrialization. That betrays a deep misunderstanding of

> If Rome hadn’t collapsed, they might, within a matter of centuries, have advanced to the stage of industrialization. That betrays a deep misunderstanding of the Roman Empire. Because although Rome was sacked and conquered, the Roman Empire continued for another thousand years. The eastern Roman Empire, that is, which was arguably the more educated and advanced half. I know a lot of people love to see the Western Roman Empire as some pinnacle of ancient technology after which the world plummeted into a thousand years of backwardness, but it only looks that way from western Europe. And the real strength of the Romans didn't lie in its technology, but in its massive trade network and in its organisation. They were good engineers because they could organise big engineering projects. They maintained massive road networks. That helps a lot in the spread and use of technology. Of course the collapse of that trade network did slow the spread and therefore development of technology, but most of the technology was never lost (except underwater concrete, I believe), and the collapse of trade did create new problems which lead to other forms of technological progress, especially in agriculture.