What you're describing is more of a social revolution (upset of traditional societal structures). As always with history, the interesting question is whether the latter could have happened without the former.

Its a pre-requisit, as a wittness i call into court venecia, were free enterprise lead to the cities bloom and the return of the feudal ruling structure among its trade partners (osman empire) lead to the decline of this "italian" silicon valley back into obscurity.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Venice/The-commune

Which by deduction means, that you need a trade supporting eco-system, without taxation on the moving of goods. Oceans prefered. Which means, that hermit kingdoms waylaying is the biggest innovation embargo.

Walter Scheidel argues Roman Collapse started the IR. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691172187/es...

> hierarchical anarchy

I have a vague idea what you're trying to describe but this phrase is completely self-contradictory.

Anarchy is the absence of hierarchies. I think you're using "anarchy" in its pejorative sense, roughly meaning "chaos" or "law of the jungle" but using it like this in a discussion about social structures is confusing at best.