Earliest Possible Space Age?
- Thread starter loneranger
- Start date
Stephen
Banned
Guess thats what I get for trying to remember paleological epocks of the top of my head without double checking.
I don't see why a "Rome never falls" scenario is being touted as the best option. That's just blatantly untrue. People seem to forget that the Romans' capacity for scientific advancement was nil. Romans, probably as part of their somewhat hedonist ideals, weren't interested in tinkering with technology. Technology went precisely nowhere during the entire length of their existence. What the Romans did was steal the technology of those they conquered. But when they had conquered states, they put a crimp on those states' ability to develop technology amongst themselves, thus essentially stemming the flow of advancement. As the Romans take more land, they are consigning more of the globe to technological stagnation. And after all, let's not forget that war stimulates technological advance. The more that the Roman Empire is guaranteed its position in the world, the more technology is going to dry up. And I'm really not sure who in the Ancient world could replace the Romans and spur on technology. I have to say I really think that a Dark Ages period is needed to create the national units capable of forming a Space Age period.
RealityX
Banned
I think that a surviving Parthian/Persian empire - Zoroastrian or without an established religion would be the best bet. Persia was the home land of the magi and the first alchemy (actually inherited from the Sumerians). Of course competition is also needed, so perhaps a strong rival in the form of Rome, Egypt, or China? China divided has always brought about more innovation than anyother times, think the warring states period... Perhaps an expansion on Taoism, and the emporers continued desire to become immortal results is heightened science funding?
China vs Parthian empire vs divided europe
could be the best bet for scientific innovation
China vs Parthian empire vs divided europe
could be the best bet for scientific innovation
I strongly question the graph. Which big innovations occured between year 0 and 400 in the Roman Empire?
As already has been said: The Romans were very conservative and didn't see "change" as something positive. Roman engineering was brute force, not innovation or finesse. Pile on slaves (or legionaries) to make it. A surviving Roman Empire wouldn't be the nerds and geeks best friend.
When industrialisation began in Europe the proto-industrialist shuffled between France, Netherlands, Great Britain and other countries, looking for the best country (= smallest amount of restricting laws) to do buissnes in. A Roman Empire would probably have the same restricting laws all over, promoting the buisness interest of the Senate / upper classes.
What about Rome never becoming an empire? If Rome didn't destroy the other mediterranean nations then the Greeks, Carthaginians, and others could have continued their own development. Without the centralisation of the ancient world I think there would have been less chance of something like the dark ages happening. And if the Roman persecution didn't cause so much violence towards the jews, perhaps the abrahamic religions would never have been so prominent, and tolerant polyism may have been the dominant religious position.
Valdemar II
Banned
It's crap that the Roman stopped advancement, they stopped it in the teorectical science (especially Mathmatic), but brougth us centuries ahead in the practical science. They spread the times most advanced technologies over a giant area. So when the empire broke down, the seeds for technological advanced cultures lay far and wide.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
Perhaps that's why we're exploring space; to find a new homeworld.
But it was an environment less hostile to and unsupportive of change than the Dark Ages. I can picture Europe becoming supportive of change earlier on if the Roman Empire survived than OTL. Having a much more unified Europe means easier cultural diffusion (knowledge from other cultures spread faster), higher literacy rates (still absurdly low by modern standards, but higher than the dark ages), knowledge being kept available, the possibility of universities (all it takes is one emperor who hears about Indian or Chinese universities, and decides to duplicate them), etc. Having an Age of Enlightenment analogue even a hundred years early would have a profound impact on technology.
Although you got the years wrong. It is 65 mya, yeah this is probably the best scenario for a earliest possible space age.
Just get rid of the asteroid and make a dinosaur/avian evolve into a sapient specie and well they win.
Earliest possible space age 50 mya
Even with the asteroid who is to say this hasn't happened already. Therefore earliest possible space age could have been long before 65 mya
Keep China divided. If the warring states of the time in which Confucio lived (V century B.C.) had evolved into independent and competing nation-states, technology would have evolved much faster. Most of chinese innoventions, both practical and theorical (logig, philosophy, etc.) took place in this period.
If they hadn't unified, we might have had an i ndustrial revolution by the end of the first milenium, if not earlier.
The other possibility is to have an independent Sung China after the XIII Century.
If they hadn't unified, we might have had an i ndustrial revolution by the end of the first milenium, if not earlier.
The other possibility is to have an independent Sung China after the XIII Century.
Germaniac
Donor
Most scientific advances stem from military practices. Rome would stagnate without competetive neighbors, and the only way for Rome to survive is complete dominance. The only way I see Rome and/or China becoming overly advanced is if the two face off for a thousand year cold war.
On second thought that sounds Frigen awesome
On second thought that sounds Frigen awesome
Not nececarlly. Rome was a Universal Empire, and Universal Empires tends to stagnate. It was hindered by extremly ineffective economic system based on slave-worked latifundia, and culture that encouraged looking back rather than forward (with it's notions of the mythical golden age in the past).
Wow. This thread is so full of collective stupidity... my opinion of AH.com has visibly dropped.
Let's make a few things clear:
1. The term "Dark Ages" is simply a historiographical phrase that discounts the literature that was written during this period and advancements that were made. It was by no means a period of universal stagnation.
2. Christianity did not cause the "Dark Ages."
3. Christianity did not prolong the "Dark Ages."
4. The Crusades helped end the "Dark Ages" by bringing the West into close cultural and political contact with the east.
5. Centralization of power is not always detrimental to advancement. If it were, by that argument pre-modern India should have dominated the entire world. Or the disunited Mongol tribes should have conquered all of Eurasia before being united.
6. China's peaks in power, technology, and influence came during the periods of greatest imperial centralization. Disunited periods were the real dark ages in which millions were killed and corruption was the norm. I invite you to convince me that the Southern Qi Dynasty was more progressive at its best than the Tang or Song Dynasty.
Let's make a few things clear:
1. The term "Dark Ages" is simply a historiographical phrase that discounts the literature that was written during this period and advancements that were made. It was by no means a period of universal stagnation.
2. Christianity did not cause the "Dark Ages."
3. Christianity did not prolong the "Dark Ages."
4. The Crusades helped end the "Dark Ages" by bringing the West into close cultural and political contact with the east.
5. Centralization of power is not always detrimental to advancement. If it were, by that argument pre-modern India should have dominated the entire world. Or the disunited Mongol tribes should have conquered all of Eurasia before being united.
6. China's peaks in power, technology, and influence came during the periods of greatest imperial centralization. Disunited periods were the real dark ages in which millions were killed and corruption was the norm. I invite you to convince me that the Southern Qi Dynasty was more progressive at its best than the Tang or Song Dynasty.
NO! Idiotic 4chan memes have no place on this forum!
In my Tank is Fight the Nazis reach space.However due to this the wars over by mid 1944.
Solomaxwell6
Banned
During the centuries following the destruction of Rome, most classical knowledge was lost. I do agree that the stagnation during the Dark Ages is exaggerated a lot of the time, but it was real. You can't say that Europe circa 700 AD was nearly as culturally advanced as ancient Greece.
Valdemar II
Banned
You can't say it was advanced as the Roman Empire, it was a lot more advanced than Ancient Greece, Ancient Greece was small statelets, which was inferior in architecture, farming, logistic, adminstration, metallurgy, animal breeding and almost every single area, even compared to backwaters like the Frankish Empire or Lombardy.