Yes. It was painfully generic as Eurasian empires go, certainly doesn't deserve its name being used as the namesake of the phenomenon as a whole when it was not the biggest nor the first. Alexander's short lived empire was actually bigger than it ever was, despite skipping whole regions of the Achaemenid realm like in the Caucasus. China was also bigger and if the two had ever been in direct contact it would have been wiped off the face of the planet like it nearly did when eastern steppe rejects made it their way West. The only actually impactful part in the big picture was Justinian's demolition of the WRE in Italy clearing the way for the mercantile city states that followed as the birthplace of Capitalism.
>>18470050>>18470096It was the worst pick for a European barbarian Empire and retarded technological progress until the Ottomans and Protestants destroyed it.
>>18470096>When your so good people cope with Alexander 50 years empire to invalidate you.
>>18470050By people like you? Absolutely.
>>18470123Both destroyed by the Anglo saxons kek
>>18471039??
>>18471058Yes, the Anglo-Saxons forced the Romans out of Britain and claimed the island for themselves. Your weird little detail from an obscure, unsourced illustration can't change that fact. lol
>>18471058King Arthur and Roman-Bretons lost.
>>18471069Still got fucked over and enslaved for 400 years lol 400 YEARS
>>18470050The scale of substance technology and gross domestic product are not the same thing or entirely commiserate magnitudes though something like industrialization would seem to require a sufficient scale of substance technology or something like that
no, they're underrated
>>18470050this is as bad as the dark ages graph
>>18471144based on material conditions of your average human its extremely accurate, not much would change if you are average person in roman times vs in the bronze age empires
>>18471175your "average human" didn't participate in the bronze age, so you're affirming the consequent a bit.anyways "material conditions" is a very specific thing used by the pseudo-scientific historical materialism, which is intentionally reductive of non-industrial society. obviously using it to analyze said societies, particularly in the case where details are sparse and esoteric, is going to lead to absurd results.manufacturing methods massively changed, metallurgy advanced, public slaves became a less common institution, the iron age saw a massive move away from mass-craftsmanship, the commons was severely tarnished in many ways, philosophy and academic pursuits reached new heights obviously, the economics of writing changed on a level that wouldn't be matched until the advent of the printing press, entirely new systems of government like republics came to be a thing, parts of the world that were basically uninhabitable became habitable, and previous goldilocks zones were desertified, etc. and those are just the broad strokes.in the way you think life didn't change much is true of all eras since the natufians first developed the village and then the city. your life and the relationship you have with the outside world hasn't substantially changed from that of someone living in Assur all those thousands of years ago.of course the problems with the graph extend beyond the reductionism applied to the iron and bronze ages. it asserts a no true scotsman fallacy with stone and copper age civilizations (of course without justification), you overlook the pre-copper age civilizations entirely, you overlook the massive technological advances of the late iron age (which include everything from mechanical computers to steam-powered mechanistic constructions, the development of new miracle materials like concrete, the massive changes in engineering capability, etc.), just as a few examples.
>>18470050>technological advancement>largely due to northern eurosYour own cultural heroes proudly declared to stand on the shoulders of giants.You may be too retarded to understand the unevenness of tech advancement, but they weren't and they would clown you for this post.
It's pretty crazy how deluded most people are.The bronze age did not in fact represent an enormous technological leap.You went from copper moulding to alloys. That's pretty much it. Now you can make actual swords.Horse domestication and spread, chariots etc, were important and reshaped the destiny of continents but life didn't actually change significantly for most people.Meanwhile the iron age ancient Greeks were producing literal analog computers and automata with little gears and shit.The technology requires to make iron actually useful instead of brittle garbage is more advanced than what it takes to make bronze.
