Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-24473740-20140515123108/@comment-32656-20140521143045

A considerably quicker development is a bit much. A little quicker is one thing - more than that is too much. Use the pace in Superpowers, probably the best timeline on here of that nature, as more of a guideline. Really though, with a Roman Empire surviving, you're going to either end up a century or less ahead, or a few behind. Either can be justified.

The Sacbeob, virtually no impact.

Yeah, the belief that the Church held things back is a common and extremely wrong misconception. Its role in science and other technological developments surpassed even that of most monarchs until the 1500s.

And, imo, Galileo is just about the worst example. The man didn't get into trouble with the church for his science, but because he personally insulted the Pope. The official charges were more or less irrelevant. That he's used for the purpose with regards to the church that he is is insulting to both parties.

Good source, Pita.

No. It's not plausible for them to have medical discoveries that far ahead.

Something you miss, Salvador, is that competition breeds advancement. It's part of why Europe otl advanced faster than the East, despite the East starting out ahead, at least in part due to chaos surrounding the fall of the Romans.

Rome doesn't fall, you avoid that period of chaos - however, the competition is far less. Falls later, same chaos but with a higher start - and further to fall.

Don't be so quick to write off the "humors." They still actually form part of the base of modern medicine - and they hold great influence in medicine through the Indian subcontinent and Middle East. Quite frankly, western medicine needs to take a few pointers from that school of thought, among others.

Humor-based medicine, in truth, just needs to be adjusted. You don't actually need to remove it. Romans would just make adjustments over time. The school of thought behind it is not adverse to such things, after all.

Have a look at the book "Health and Healing in a Comparative Perspective," edited by Elizabeth D. Whitaker for more on that.

There was never really anything even by the Church against the concept of dissection. Just wasn't considered proper, or right, to do it. Heck, people even in Italy were doing it to some degree in the late 1400s, for example. And those attitudes long predate Christianity. For the most part, they still exist today.

Not that discovering anatomy-related things does you a whole lot of good, overall. Need a bunch more discoveries for that to really be of use.

Again, the "late" discovery of medical/biochemical knowledge has nothing to do with any "domination of transcendental philosophies." Little to no truth to that.

Neoplatonism more or less merged with Christianity, and played a major role in thinking during the Enlightenment. Was no "challenge." Heck, the Middle Ages are when it got strong again. And, for that matter, they were vastly more important in that era in the Muslim world - where things were more advanced on some levels, medicine being one of them.

And to say that the Romans considered applied sciences in that manner simply isn't true.

There is evidence of distillation dating back to at least the 1st century AD in the Roman Empire, and even earlier in China. It's theorized that it probably happened earlier than that, too. And just because it occurred outside of a scientific context otl doesn't mean it didn't help progress. Alcohol is a pretty good motivator.

Overall, Salvador, good points, but not as relevant as you think.