Why No Roman Industrial Revolution?

Re:Why No Roman Industrial Revolution? by mabbo on Friday July 28, 2023 @07:14PM (#36914670)

> If Rome hadn’t collapsed, they might, within a matter of centuries, have advanced to the stage of industrialization. But they would have done it by skipping the Dark Ages

The very notion of "the Dark Ages" has long been debunked. It's a myth. The Roman Empire collapsed, but other nations rose in it's place and technological progress continued throughout.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why No Roman Industrial Revolution? by yazantapuz on Friday July 28, 2023 @07:19PM (#36914708)

Only the west half. The Roman Empire ceased to exist a thousand years later, when Constantinople fell.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why No Roman Industrial Revolution? by wudangmonk on Friday July 28, 2023 @07:46PM (#36914959)

Doesn't seem like a myth regardless of who debunks their interpretation of what 'dark ages' means. Things before and after the fall of the western empire seem quite different, maybe it wasn't the fall of the western empire alone but also the rise of christianity that caused this decline. After all it wasn't until religions lost their power that progress picked up speed and things started to get better.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why No Roman Industrial Revolution? by jasoncrawford on Sunday July 30, 2023 @11:06AM (#36931906)

I disagree; this article makes a good case for the term “Dark Ages”: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/15/were-there-dark-ages

[ Parent | on HN ]