If the Roman Empire had not of fallen, would we be more advanced in technology and if so how far?
I read a book about this... 'Twas a history book that looked at the premise that 'the victors write history' and among a whole heap of other points, suggested that the Roman Empire actually slowed down the advancement of technology and that various archelogical finds supported this. One of the examples that it used was some of the devices and inventions that existed in Greece prior to the Romans rocking up, and how these inventions that made life much easier for your average aristocrat, the Romans had no interest as it didn't further their military aim, so like Australia's scientific research budget over the last 15 years, it got junked.
Conclusion was that the the Romans were not more 'advanced' than any other civilisation at that point in time across most things (medicine, engineering etc) they just had a better army and subsumed the knowledge of the civilisations they took over and used it to their own ends if it suited their objectives.
Sticking with the Roman theme, the Roman Empire rose and fell in power and influence over it's existance (or at least the commonly accepted timeframe from Romulus and Remus to about the time the Vandals rocked up and stole stuff - allegedly and not supported by fact). Excluding violence and physical intimidation, how do people hold 'power' and what is 'power' in the political sense? The Romans held the power of their Emporer in high regard and soem emporers considered powerful were not really violent, at least by Roman standards, were they smarter or more manipulative? What defined their power?