How did the fall of Rome affect society today?

Question:

How did the fall of Rome affect society today?

If you think about it, ancient Greek and Roman cultures had a lot of technological advancements that were way ahead of their times. Things like running water, heated and cooled water, and other stuff. But after its fall, society entered the "Dark ages" for about 1000 years (until about 1300).

Do you ever wonder what society would be like today if Rome would have continued to grow and prosper? Do you think we could possibly be 1000 years in the future, technology wise?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: What is a well known fact, which archeology supports, is that the fall of the empire was a dramatic drop in the standards of living for people. The early dark ages are categorized by frequent migrations, and frequent, savage wars over the remnants of the empire. It wasn't until Charlemange reunited Europe in 800 A.D that some semblance of peace returned.

However, it is more important to ask the question; in what form does Rome survive? As the relatively benign Republic? Or as the oppressive, authoritarian Empire of the later Dominate period?

The fall of Rome was not a spontaneous event. For all of the Republic, and the early imperial period (the Principate), Rome was a trade economy, much like today. People lived in technologically advanced cities, with sewers, plumbing, innovation, and entrepenuerialism, and the idea of being invaded seemed like a laughably distant idea. However, Rome's collapse into the tyranny of the later Dominate destroyed that. Internecine warfare sapped Rome of wealth and security (it was during this period that cities began to need walls to repel raiders). Oppressive taxation and a heavily bureaucratized state destroyed Rome's economy. What replaced the trade economy was a feudal economy. When Rome fell in 476, most people were already accustomed to their new life of servitude, wether it was to their Roman or new German masters.

In the Republic, people were wary about tyranny. In the Principate, people called the Emperor "First citizen" and regarded him as the first among equals. In the Dominate, they called him Lord, and were not allowed to make eye contact with him, nor address him without first kissing his robe.

It's also important to remember that it was the cracks in the system that allowed the rise of the dominate in the first place. In the Republic, it was the lack of the separation of powers, which led to senators playing a zero-sum game with regards to power. In the Principate, it was the lack of a proper system of succession (few emperors were the first born children of the previous emperor) that lead to the crisis of the third century and the rise of the dominate.

But assuming the cracks were ironed out, I would say that if Rome survived as a Republic, then I would agree with you that progress would have continued unimpeded. On of those cracks needing to be the end of slavery, as slavery was a tool used by the affluent to give themselves an unfair advantage over the middle class. While it seems improbable, it is more important to remember that stoics regarded all men as a brotherhood, and while there was never a proper movement to end slavery, the potential was there. It is from the stoics that Christianity assimilated the idea that all men are equal in the eyes of God.

However, if we take Rome's surviving form as the dominate, I would not agree. At best, Rome would have become similar to pre-industrial China. In fact, we probably would be less advanced, as the over-arching bureaucracy would have kept the population down.