“Conveniences like roads (covered in hard surfaces), aqueducts to bring in water, sewers to take waste out, tiled roofs, and a highly developed mass production economy for simple items like tiled roofs and other conveniences.”
And those are perfect examples of why I called it massive hyperbole.
Roman systems were kept and maintained for centuries - with little innovation. There was little to no pressure to change things and innovation was stifled.
If the Roman empire had, say, stuck together after 476 and say survived until today the world would be stuck with ancient innovations and no new ones.
how can I say that? By comparing the state of Western Europe to
1. The (eastern) Roman empire — by the 12th century, Western Europe had caught up
2. The Muslim world - again, Western Europe had caught up by the 12th century and then steamrolled ahead.
3. India stagnating from its Gupta golden age to the conquest by the turkic Muslims and then deterioration until 1947 (the Mughals were strong, but they just exploited the land and had few development)
4. China under the post-Tang empires - the Ming personified this — they first had a burst of creativity then it became “the old ways are best” and they literally burned their boats.
People did NOT return to the stone age - they may have returned to the early Republican era, but that was also temporarily until the force of innovation and multiple competing states pushed the Western world to innovate, innovate, innovate
Ridiculous statment. Having said that I woul rathet live as free person in a low tech Roman society than in a high tech security state.
Yes.Correct.
You made my point
It only took them a thousand years to innovate.
Why do you think they call those years the "dark age?"
Smart. Real smart.