Between the time of the Second Punic War and that of the Gothic

File: 1425307127105.jpg (117KB, 700x944px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 700x944px

Define "advance(ment)(ed)".

On the military side of things, they were certainly equipped differently, and I'd say that a sleeved shirt of mail or scale is preferable to a tunic+heart protector, but that doesn't necessarily speak to the effectiveness of the army overall.

concrete

>>1607351
Advancement as in new technologies, both military and civilian.

Youre talking about a difference in 750 years. Absolutely the late empire was far more advanced.
On the military side of things, its more that they were equipped differently rather than "more advanced" The Roman soldier of Scipio's time wouldve carried an early version of the rectangular scutum (the post above me shows it), whereas Belisarius' troops wouldve had a large ovular shield. There is good evidence to suggest that those serving under Scipio would have been wearing mail, whereas some of those under Belisarius might not even have worn chest armor (Maurice tells us this).
As the Romans continued onward in time, their way of warfare changed dramatically, and their adoption of new arms and armor showed this change.

>>1608674
You're thinking of 'technological advancement' like it's a game of Civilization, but in reality it doesn't really work like that. It's not so linear. as >>1607351 said, armies may have been equipped differently, but military equipment and even, to a certain extent, tactics don't effect the performances of military forces that much. More macro factors like population and leadership quality tend to be more predictive of the outcome of warfare.
As for the status of the average household, material culture may have been different, but again it's hard to say 'more advanced'. Before the introduction of electric appliances, household chores and the like were pretty similar the world over.

Basically, 'technological advancement' in pre-Modern societies is kinda muddy to define. Looking at history as some kind of linear progression of 'advancement' or 'progress' is pure Whig history, which is silly.

is technological advancement directly the latter of and proportional to genetic diverse breeding of stocks? err. humans?

OP here

>>1608712
that's why I'm using two reference points which are so far apart, because new inventions don't pop up all over the place suddenly

>>1608692
New forms of armor and weapons are one thing, but was the metal better? Did their metallurgy improve? Was a sword from 200BC much worse than one from 550AD?
>As for the status of the average household, material culture may have been different, but again it's hard to say 'more advanced'. Before the introduction of electric appliances, household chores and the like were pretty similar the world over.
That's what I was wondering.

>>1607967
That's the kind of example I'm looking for


Image you magically transported somebody from Rome, 200BC to Constantinople, 550AD. Language and location change and all that aside, would this person have the kind of future shock that somebody transported from 1150 to 1900 would have when you look at the average household? Were the buildings more complex? Were garmets more complicated? Were tools better? Has medicine improved?
We are probably too used to technological progress, so we assume it was always like that, that people would notice a change during their lifetime.