Could we have been on the Moon by 1000 CE if Rome hadn’t been so corrupt? Rome isn’t romantic; in a reign of only 4 years these were built? I’m sure it was grueling and violent, I’m not handing it to them. But given reasonable time and equitable conditions, could a “pacifist” Rome get to space?
I don't think there's a world where "pacifist Rome" is recognizably Rome. The materials and wealth needed to construct their many feats of engineering were sourced from across their empire, i.e. from conquered peoples. The culture was one of militarism and domination. Can't really pacify that.
That specific point aside, Rome wasn't the only society doing some seriously impressive building around the turn of the CEs or earlier. By the time the Romans made it to Egypt, the pyramids would have been older to them than they are to us.
I’m not trying to hand it to Rome, hell, our atomic and space ages were born out of war and promises of criminal evasion.
Oh yeah I think you were pretty clear on that point initially, and I wasn't trying to say you were. My focus was on (A) at what point can we not realistically call something "Rome" anymore and (B) the actual sheer technical hurdle of getting to the moon. Everything else was mostly scaffolding.
The question of the moon or space is one of method and material. To go to the moon, Rome would have needed all the same things we do, including a Newtonian or better understanding of gravity, protection against vacuum, sophisticated enough math to calculate the trajectory of the rocket, ...
An accurate prediction of the distance between the earth and the moon, propellant capable of actually getting the rocket across that distance, communications and/or recording tech capable of documenting all of this, building materials light enough to launch but resistant enough to survive...
I think I've made my point. Building a floating palace is impressive. It is nowhere near the feat of going to the moon