4 ms·
Yes, of course. What I meant was we could have had all the stuff that lead to Galileo before the great reset that was the fall of Rome, so maybe civilization wo
by gniv 3y ago
Yes, of course. What I meant was we could have had all the stuff that lead to Galileo before the great reset that was the fall of Rome, so maybe civilization would have been ahead a few hundred years.
- woodruffw 3y agoThis doesn’t require belief in the great man theory: progress can ebb and flow under any theory of history. Besides: there is no point in history that’s identifiable as “the fall of Rome.” The Western Empire declined over the course of three centuries; the Eastern Empire arguably never fell at all. The idea of the “fall” comes from the same period of historical theorization as the “great man” framework; it’s not widely accepted as a useful milestone today.
- gniv 3y agoWe’re splitting hairs now. Let me rephrase again. There was a period when Rome was ridiculously wealthy (gold from Spain etc). It was a time when science could have advanced rapidly but didn’t. My point was that a few “great men” there might have changed history.
- zanellato19 3y ago> It was a time when science could have advanced rapidly but didn’t. I don't think this is accepted anymore. The material conditions for the Industrial Revolution were pretty specific and didn't show up in the age of Rome, despite all their riches.