PDA

View Full Version : What ideology can make the Roman Empire last longer


Typo
March 25th, 2008, 02:18 PM
While a lot of people talk about technology that can save the Roman Empire, I'm asking: what kind of ideology can delay the fall of Rome?

Could a more martial religion/cult such as Mithras or Sol Invictus do it? Could some form of pseudo-nationalism even spring out?

Keenir
March 25th, 2008, 02:20 PM
While a lot of people talk about technology that can save the Roman Empire, I'm asking: what kind of ideology can make delay the fall of Rome?

Immortality.

other than that, I don't see how you can keep it from finallly falling in 1924.

Typo
March 25th, 2008, 02:44 PM
Fine, let's define the fall as in the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and that of the eastern one into a feudal Greek kingdom.

Berra
March 26th, 2008, 10:28 PM
Industrialism and enlightenment?

Kvasir
March 26th, 2008, 10:59 PM
An ideology based on the Emperor himself. Look at China. If the Religion required a Roman Empire to function, it would have to continue in some form.

Alayta
March 26th, 2008, 11:02 PM
From a certain point of view ( and not an extremly weired one) christianity made the roman empire last until 1806.

LordInsane
March 26th, 2008, 11:18 PM
From a certain point of view ( and not an extremly weired one) christianity made the roman empire last until 1806.
Or possibly 1917 (if just going by Christianity), but since

Fine, let's define the fall as in the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and that of the eastern one into a feudal Greek kingdom.




was said, that's not the issue at hand.

Codae
March 26th, 2008, 11:42 PM
The ideology that the political status quo must be maintained.

alt_historian
March 27th, 2008, 12:12 AM
While a lot of people talk about technology that can save the Roman Empire, I'm asking: what kind of ideology can delay the fall of Rome?

Could a more martial religion/cult such as Mithras or Sol Invictus do it? Could some form of pseudo-nationalism even spring out?

How about an ideology embracing change? The impression I get is that the Romans fell, as much as any other reason, because they ceased to innovate.

But yes, pseudo-nationalism would be very helpful, as it would provide something to hold the Empire together. As long as people identify more strongly with their region/tribe/religion/whatever than they do with the Empire, they'll just keep having civil wars...

Really, we need the advent of nationalism, coupled with the idea that innovation, if not necessarily good in itself, is not inherently bad either... both of those will help a lot.

Abdul Hadi Pasha
March 27th, 2008, 05:54 AM
From a certain point of view ( and not an extremly weired one) christianity made the roman empire last until 1806.

Why 1806? I don't understand the significance of that date.

Zyzzyva
March 27th, 2008, 05:55 AM
Why 1806? I don't understand the significance of that date.

End of the (Holy) Roman Empire.

PaleHorseRiding
March 28th, 2008, 07:06 AM
well how about constitutional monarchy.

Kinna
March 28th, 2008, 12:23 PM
An ideology based on the Emperor himself. Look at China. If the Religion required a Roman Empire to function, it would have to continue in some form.

Huh? Chinese religion DIDNT require an Emperor. Japan would be a better analogy, a state that not only remained a monarchy but retained the same royal family... so something like Shintoism, perhaps?

Ridwan Asher
March 28th, 2008, 12:28 PM
End of the (Holy) Roman Empire.

Well, (Holy) Roman Empire was as "Roman" as the Byzantines and the Ottomans, though they were still more roman than the Russians. ;)

From another certain point of view, Roman Empire last until 1922, when it dissolved by the Treaty of Versailles.

Kvasir
March 28th, 2008, 12:36 PM
Huh? Chinese religion DIDNT require an Emperor. Japan would be a better analogy, a state that not only remained a monarchy but retained the same royal family... so something like Shintoism, perhaps?

No, what I meant was China's empire survived for so long because of the Chinese culture and beliefs about the Emperor. For example the mystery and power of the Emperor and the "Son of Empire" title. Look at this wiki entry:


Since the Qin Dynasty, the Emperor of China was formally called the Son of Heaven (天子), and as the descendant and representative of Heaven on Earth, he legally had absolute power over all matters, big or small, under Heaven (天下). His mandate to rule is thought to be divine and predestined. In contrast to modern international relationships, the Emperor of China was seen in East Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asia) not merely as the head of one nation-state among many, but rather as the overlord of the entire civilized world, meaning there could only be one legitimate emperor in the world at any given time.
The emperor's words and directives were considered sacred edicts (聖旨), and his directions from writing are considered "directives from above" (上谕). In theory, the emperor's orders were to be followed with immediate obedience. He was elevated above all commoners, nobility, and members of the imperial family. Addresses to the emperor were always to be formal and self-deprecatory, even by the closest of family members.

There were huge advantages to claiming the Title, but it could only be claimed if you controled most of China. Therefore it actually encouged unity. An ambitious man would activly try to recreate the Empire when it fell. That's what Rome needs. So after the German migration there has to be that power and draw for the Empire to return. So a religion that facilitated that would be far more useful. Christianity focused on the Pope and look how long he lasted.

Typo
March 28th, 2008, 02:18 PM
I'm more inclined to believe Diamond's theory that China's geography naturally leads to more years of unification.

But get back on topic! :)