I know it seems nearly impossible... but can you make it so the Roman Empire is not divided, and that the Roman society evolves beyond the OTL Roman society?
his is something I've been studying. I'm laying down the line on this, and saying I don't believe the Roman EMPIRE could've survived until the present day, much less continued to expand. The Republic, now, is a different story, so if you can make it survive through constitutional reform to get rid of the serious bugs that ultimately the Caesars used to doom it, then you're golden.
Why do I think that? Well, I took a late Roman History course in college, and have read a bunch of Gibbon's Decline and Fall until I couldn't stand it any more. During the Republic, Rome continually expanded at a 'just-right' pace they had down, continuously improved its culture and technology, and had more and more of the virtues of free societies.
After the Empire started, there was a last flurry of conquests, and then the Empire shrank forever, even losing Rome, until it finally ended 1500 years later, despite many, many expeditions to conquer things; they had lost their edge. Imperial society immediately grew static, losing innovaion in everything quickly.
It's a little hard to understand that for anybody who hasn't read alot of history or traveled much outside democracies, but liberal govt makes for far more capable government. Imagine if the situation in Iraq had happened here, too, with military and police order effectively ceasing to work for a long time. That happened alot. Imagine if we had to put up with Bush 'til his death. Imagine if only 1/3-1/2 of the rulers were up to their jobs. Imagine if being Bush' buddy was the ONLY way to start ANY kind of enterprise atall. Imagine if you had to bribe half the world to do ANYTHING, if the ways into decent education and the middle class were strictly limited. Imagine if half the male youth were regularly killed by military expeditions lead by people who got their positions by birth or by people like Napoleon.
Yes, they did hang on an amazing length of time, 1500 years. So, why no longer? Well, they chose an amazingly strong and strategically smart place renamed to Constantinople, to put their second capital, with amazing castle-style walls, which, of course, was the last place to fall. But they weren't able to innovate anymore. Well, castle walls became obsolete when cannon got good...around when Constantinople fell to the Turks (who did innovate) and was renamed Istanbul, the name it keeps today.
IIRC the name wasn't changed till the 1920's when Turkey became a Country.around when Constantinople fell to the Turks (who did innovate) and was renamed Istanbul, the name it keeps today.
IIRC the name wasn't changed till the 1920's when Turkey became a Country.
That's when Europeans finally quit saying Constantinople but the Istanbul name had been around in the Muslim world for centuries.
his is something I've been studying. I'm laying down the line on this, and saying I don't believe the Roman EMPIRE could've survived until the present day, much less continued to expand. The Republic, now, is a different story, so if you can make it survive through constitutional reform to get rid of the serious bugs that ultimately the Caesars used to doom it, then you're golden.
Why do I think that? Well, I took a late Roman History course in college, and have read a bunch of Gibbon's Decline and Fall until I couldn't stand it any more. During the Republic, Rome continually expanded at a 'just-right' pace they had down, continuously improved its culture and technology, and had more and more of the virtues of free societies.
After the Empire started, there was a last flurry of conquests, and then the Empire shrank forever, even losing Rome, until it finally ended 1500 years later, despite many, many expeditions to conquer things; they had lost their edge. Imperial society immediately grew static, losing innovaion in everything quickly.
It's a little hard to understand that for anybody who hasn't read alot of history or traveled much outside democracies, but liberal govt makes for far more capable government. Imagine if the situation in Iraq had happened here, too, with military and police order effectively ceasing to work for a long time. That happened alot. Imagine if we had to put up with Bush 'til his death. Imagine if only 1/3-1/2 of the rulers were up to their jobs. Imagine if being Bush' buddy was the ONLY way to start ANY kind of enterprise atall. Imagine if you had to bribe half the world to do ANYTHING, if the ways into decent education and the middle class were strictly limited. Imagine if half the male youth were regularly killed by military expeditions lead by people who got their positions by birth or by people like Napoleon.
Yes, they did hang on an amazing length of time, 1500 years. So, why no longer? Well, they chose an amazingly strong and strategically smart place renamed to Constantinople, to put their second capital, with amazing castle-style walls, which, of course, was the last place to fall. But they weren't able to innovate anymore. Well, castle walls became obsolete when cannon got good...around when Constantinople fell to the Turks (who did innovate) and was renamed Istanbul, the name it keeps today.
I'm saying there was LESS corruption in the Republic than in the Empire. And that innovation and enterprise were virtually at a standstill compared to the Republic. And I stopped reading Gibbon because the standard of rule had fallen so badly from Republican days I found it hard to take. Polybius vs Gibbon is quite the contrast.Are you saying there was no corruption in the Republic? Are you saying there was no innovation, invention or enterprise in the Empire?
The Republic also had a lower, popular house and popularly elected leader by the time of its hacking. Are you going to argue bicameral legislatures and popularly elected leaders can't scale? And where's the evidence it was failing to scale? It's not why the Republic fell, certainly - that was because of its lack of a big Republican Army, big enough to outnumber privately owned troops. So, evidence, please?Limited oligarchy through the Senate was no longer practical once the Empire grew past a certain size - it did not reflect real divisions of power and wealth and could not smoothly exercise the flow of patronage - ie jobs and goodies.
The Republic also had a lower, popular house and popularly elected leader by the time of its hacking. Are you going to argue bicameral legislatures and popularly elected leaders can't scale? And where's the evidence it was failing to scale? It's not why the Republic fell, certainly - that was because of its lack of a big Republican Army, big enough to outnumber privately owned troops. So, evidence, please?
All amazingly non-unlike the place the sun never set eh? I can't seem to remember it failing to scale. Now, it is true both British and Roman Republican empires would've worked much, much better if they'd extended representation beyond a small region. But they did still work, and clearly better than the Empire you seemed to me to be by implication saying was better- the Empire that spent most of its history shrinking and misruled.In a small state it was possible for such a body to be representative of the landholding elite, in a massive Empire this was not possible, which would mean the real centres of power would never be in the Senate - just as vast amounts of day to day power across the Empire was never in the hands of Emperors.
States where a small fraction of the population was literate and there are no railways or telegraphs did not and could not work like modern ones.
Wozza wrote:
All amazingly non-unlike the place the sun never set eh? I can't seem to remember it failing to scale. Now, it is true both British and Roman Republican empires would've worked much, much better if they'd extended representation beyond a small region. But they did still work, and clearly better than the Empire you seemed to me to be by implication saying was better- the Empire that spent most of its history shrinking and misruled.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for evidence of Roman Republican scaling trouble. The Late Republic, by the way, was far more complex, with more sophisticated and democratic government, talent developed beyond the patricii, even plebes being able to be Consul, than in the Early Republic, in which your characterization of the Senate being everything was right.
MarkA:
I'm saying there was LESS corruption in the Republic than in the Empire. And that innovation and enterprise were virtually at a standstill compared to the Republic. And I stopped reading Gibbon because the standard of rule had fallen so badly from Republican days I found it hard to take. Polybius vs Gibbon is quite the contrast.
Look at how Constantinople fell; they hadn't adapted to the cannon. Look how long it took them to develop decent cavalry, of just one type, despite numerous examples from their neighbors. And it's hardly a rare belief - Churchill wrote the same thing about the Empire. You're going to tell me about Greek Fire. That just proves my point. In fact, they were so secretive about it that they lost the secret of how to use it in a lifetime. A handful of major innovations in 1500 years. Meanwhile, the Republic adapted and innovated pretty quickly. Look how quickly they went from being a land power to dominating the Med - quite the contrast with the Imperials who took centuries to learn about horsies despite the examples of the nomads who gave them so much trouble.
Wozza wrote:
The Republic also had a lower, popular house and popularly elected leader by the time of its hacking. Are you going to argue bicameral legislatures and popularly elected leaders can't scale? And where's the evidence it was failing to scale? It's not why the Republic fell, certainly - that was because of its lack of a big Republican Army, big enough to outnumber privately owned troops. So, evidence, please?
Wozza wrote:
All amazingly non-unlike the place the sun never set eh? I can't seem to remember it failing to scale. Now, it is true both British and Roman Republican empires would've worked much, much better if they'd extended representation beyond a small region. But they did still work, and clearly better than the Empire you seemed to me to be by implication saying was better- the Empire that spent most of its history shrinking and misruled.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for evidence of Roman Republican scaling trouble. The Late Republic, by the way, was far more complex, with more sophisticated and democratic government, talent developed beyond the patricii, even plebes being able to be Consul, than in the Early Republic, in which your characterization of the Senate being everything was right.
Britain itself withdrew voluntarily from the Empire - an example of secession, as it grew sick of continual turmoil and money drain - when the Empire became unable, or unwilling to protect it.
Oh, yes, because the Roman Empire was actually ruled by Martians instead of humans.I am not really sure of the validity or use of comparisons with Empires which existed 1200 years later...
Do you live in our timeline?Arguing that the Empire was "misruled" when it lasted for 500 years, with a 150 year postscript of Eastern survival and reconquest is silly - if a system is fundamentally flawed it does not wait half a millennium to collapse.
The difference between Empire and Republic in the first centuries was anyway one of degree - the Senate after all still existed. Considering that the Late Republic saw a century of continued political crisis, and the early Empire saw a century of peace, it is fairly clear to see which was more suited.
Arguing that the Empire was "misruled" when it lasted for 500 years, with a 150 year postscript of Eastern survival and reconquest is silly - if a system is fundamentally flawed it does not wait half a millennium to collapse.
And here you are making a common mistake of equaling the experience of the senatorial classes - indeed probably not very peacfull - with the experience of the people as a whole, which was much more peacfull during the decaded of republican civil and foreign wars.And calling Caligula's and Nero's reigns peaceful is IMHO quite the spin.