AHC: Switch the fates of the Roman Empire and Han China
- Thread starter Will Kürlich Kerl
- Start date
Dorozhand
Banned
They pretty much had the same fate. They both fell, to internal disintegration combined with military failure. Both Rome and Han's final end came with a military strongman who forced the last weak emperor to abdicate. Both were immediately followed by a era of confusion and disunity.
Afterwards, the Eastern Roman Empire continued to claim Rome's legacy while keeping at bay eastern Barbarians. Similarly, the Han Dynasty was followed by the Jin, who kept the northern barbarians at bay while the south was allowed to develop.
Afterwards, the Eastern Roman Empire continued to claim Rome's legacy while keeping at bay eastern Barbarians. Similarly, the Han Dynasty was followed by the Jin, who kept the northern barbarians at bay while the south was allowed to develop.
scholar
Banned
The thing is, China was eventually reunited and each of those barbarians eventually became Chinese in both identity and culture. Rome, however, went into perpetual decline and what it meant to be Roman shrunk considerably with time becoming more and more inclusive until it was almost a form of pseudo-nationalism for Orthodox Greeks instead of a cultural identity.
The fact that the Arabics were Muslim or the Germanic invaders weren't Mediterranean peoples or Christian needs to not be an issue as far as being Roman is concerned, that needs significant alterations to occur to Rome in order for a Chinese style fall to even occur to Rome. It is an issue, even a major one, but not a marker as far as being Roman goes. Instead, the strength of Roman culture, literature, and their very government and empire would cause them to convert on their own in their own way. Which somewhat occurred anyways, but it needs to be stronger and more uniform. Europe needs to be filled with Romans before Rome can be unified, instead Europe was filled with many peoples growing more different from one another with each passing generation making Roman identity strongest right before the fall. The Chinese identity in the north was at its weakest with the fall and at its strongest centuries later.
Last edited:
Presuming that Scholar's description is the intended point of the OP, I think the biggest issue might be geography. The territories of Rome were basically centered around a core in Italy, and geographically divided provinces, which eventually developed into their own independent states. While the divergence of Latin into the Romance languages and Roman culture into Romance cultures is not something I've studied in depth, AFAICS, a big part of the divergence stems from major geographical division. For example, France and Spain developed separately from the the division along the Pyrenees, and sub-Roman Britain developed independently by virtue of the separation of the English Channel.
By contrast, China's biggest advantage in remaining coherently unified is that it's a geographically unified state; where Rome was divided by mountains and sea, China had at best token divisions by river, and was geographically, one unit. Where geography caused divergence in the post-Roman era, geography created a "re-unification" impetus in China.
Too, there is the fact that Rome was not as much of a culturally unified state as China. Whereas China largely had a unitary Chinese culture, there always was a major division in Rome between the Latin-dominated west and the Greek-dominated east.
Also, my understanding is that Rome, even at its height, was a much more de-centralized state than China ever was (excepting in civil wars and such), but that I'm less certain of.
By contrast, China's biggest advantage in remaining coherently unified is that it's a geographically unified state; where Rome was divided by mountains and sea, China had at best token divisions by river, and was geographically, one unit. Where geography caused divergence in the post-Roman era, geography created a "re-unification" impetus in China.
Too, there is the fact that Rome was not as much of a culturally unified state as China. Whereas China largely had a unitary Chinese culture, there always was a major division in Rome between the Latin-dominated west and the Greek-dominated east.
Also, my understanding is that Rome, even at its height, was a much more de-centralized state than China ever was (excepting in civil wars and such), but that I'm less certain of.
katchen
Banned
Yes. And the geographic appendage of Han China that WAS separated by China partially by sea and was a peninsula (Korea) remained a separate nation with separate people. As did Nan Yueh (Vietnam), too separate from China to be united by canal, and partially, Llaoning (Southern Manchuria) and the Kansu Corridor and Sinkiang. Which proves your thesis of the importance of geography.
Willmatron
Banned
I think the idea seems that northern China survives as a separate entity for centuries before being conquered and finally broken up while it's southern half slowly becomes flourishing countries at the same time.
Do you want same fates for each or just something similar?
Do you want same fates for each or just something similar?
One of the things that helped China reunite was that when it split up during the Three Kingdoms era that the various leaders were Chinese, and that later when the barbarians invaded, they wanted to make use of existing Chinese institutions.
The Western Roman Empire just fell apart completely in places, and the only Roman institution that survived in many ways was the Catholic Church. Some areas retained Roman institutions initially, but lost them. Ostrogothic Italy is one example where the new leaders kept a lot of Roman culture, but the devastating Gothic War ruined much of that and weakened it so much that the Lombards who came afterwards eliminated the rest. Finally, when the Muslims attacked the destroyed the only remaining area that had any kind of continuity with the old Empire.
So what is needed is a different fall of Rome that retains a lot more Roman institutions and culture suviving. If we limit the barbarians to the Gothics and allow North Africa to either be retained or recaptured from the Vandals, that could happen. That means the Franks need to be kept out. Then at some point, a very Romanized Gothic king could reunite the Western Empire and be recognized as Western Emperor by Constantinople. Justinian never engages in his conquests, and Byzantium keeps more treasure and strength that allows it to hold off any Persian or pseduo-Muslim invasion.
The Western Roman Empire just fell apart completely in places, and the only Roman institution that survived in many ways was the Catholic Church. Some areas retained Roman institutions initially, but lost them. Ostrogothic Italy is one example where the new leaders kept a lot of Roman culture, but the devastating Gothic War ruined much of that and weakened it so much that the Lombards who came afterwards eliminated the rest. Finally, when the Muslims attacked the destroyed the only remaining area that had any kind of continuity with the old Empire.
So what is needed is a different fall of Rome that retains a lot more Roman institutions and culture suviving. If we limit the barbarians to the Gothics and allow North Africa to either be retained or recaptured from the Vandals, that could happen. That means the Franks need to be kept out. Then at some point, a very Romanized Gothic king could reunite the Western Empire and be recognized as Western Emperor by Constantinople. Justinian never engages in his conquests, and Byzantium keeps more treasure and strength that allows it to hold off any Persian or pseduo-Muslim invasion.
Well I remember a tl that never got finished called "For the Dream of a Dead Empire" which looked to make a smoother transition from the fall of rome into the post roman world.
Anyway, a good way to do this: Have the Domain of Soissons under Aegidius and Syagrius actually survive and be a powerhouse in Gaul. Also, having Odavacer's Kingdom of Italy survive as well would go a long way, considering Odavacer was using the existing Roman governing body and system, just simply with a king instead of an emperor. Having the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain (assuming Soissons takes southern Gaul) survive too wouldn't hurt.
With Britain, obviously having the Romano-British drive out the Anglo-Saxons would go a long way in helping out sub-Roman Britain I imagine. North Africa simply falling back under Odavacer's dominion at a later date, or under the dominion would help Italy recover too.
Another obvious help would be butterflying away the muslim invasions, and thus allowing the eastern empire to remain a Mediterranean wide superpower.
Anyway, a good way to do this: Have the Domain of Soissons under Aegidius and Syagrius actually survive and be a powerhouse in Gaul. Also, having Odavacer's Kingdom of Italy survive as well would go a long way, considering Odavacer was using the existing Roman governing body and system, just simply with a king instead of an emperor. Having the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain (assuming Soissons takes southern Gaul) survive too wouldn't hurt.
With Britain, obviously having the Romano-British drive out the Anglo-Saxons would go a long way in helping out sub-Roman Britain I imagine. North Africa simply falling back under Odavacer's dominion at a later date, or under the dominion would help Italy recover too.
Another obvious help would be butterflying away the muslim invasions, and thus allowing the eastern empire to remain a Mediterranean wide superpower.
I believe the big issue is that Rome had multiple threats to face. China only had internal fighting and steppe peoples. Rome had the Germanics, occasionally steppe invasions AND most importantly the Sassanids. Later the Sassanids were replaced by the Caliphate but the relationship was similar. And when the Caliphate broke up politically the Byzantines began to regain territory again until the Seljuks united the Muslims.
Was there another civilization of comparable vitality and prestige (Persians/Persianized Arabs) next to China that could and would snap up territories?
Also in regards to who was "Roman" the elites WERE all Roman as it was considered in the time period.
Was there another civilization of comparable vitality and prestige (Persians/Persianized Arabs) next to China that could and would snap up territories?
Also in regards to who was "Roman" the elites WERE all Roman as it was considered in the time period.
I think you could possibly have a later reunification of most of the roman empire if those splinter parts remain controlled by Roman governing bodies-namely, Gaul by Soissons, Italy (and maybe North Africa) by Odavacer, and maybe having Spain splintered between the Visigoths and Suevi (so as to make it easier to conquer).
I don't think Rome had more threats. China was just as threatened during this time. The steppe nomad threat to China was probably just as threatening as the Persian threat to Rome.
There weren't other civilizations that could and would snap up Chinese territories, but there were certainly other powerful countries surrounding China. I would say that the Gokturk and Tibetan empires surrounding China were the most militarily threatening. In 626, one Turkish Khan and his army approached within 30 kilos of the Tang capital, forcing the Emperor to come out and submit. Luckily for the Tang, the Gokturks got devastated by a frost a few years later, allowing the Tang to regroup and destroy them. After 755, the Tang western territories were lost to the Tibetans and Uighurs. In 763, Tibetans seized the Tang capital before being forced back. The Uighurs later were probably more militarily powerful than the Tang Empire. Historically, the Gokturks and Uighurs were less interested in acquiring territory, unlike the Tibetans who were hungry for territory, but in an alternate scenario, they might not be. There was also Koguryŏ and Parhae in China's northeast, but while these two states (I hesitate to say that they constitute a pre-existing Korean civilization) could definitely expand into Chinese territory, they don't pose the existential threat that the Tibetans and Turks pose to China.
If you want to reverse Rome and China, perhaps the best strategy would be a breakup of the Persian empire followed by more expansionist steppe nomads in China.
scholar
Banned
There were many millions of nomadic people which settled inside Northern China after the Later Han-Three Kingdoms civil conflict. The Xianbei which were amongst the forebears of the Mongols, the Xiongnu both the Northern and Southern variety, the Qiang tribes in the west, the Di people, and others from around the north went into China. Much like the Germanic Peoples, many of these tribes had been utilized by the Chinese Dynasties as auxiliary forces and had been settled in many areas throughout the north depopulated by warfare. Rome was, in a way, much more defended from Nomadic peoples by the Alps, the Pyrenees, and other tall nearly impassable mountains.
Ok since I at least have some knowledge of the Late Han period around it's end the Han suffered from having an emperor who didn't care to rule, Emperor Ling, who instead delegated power to group of people called the Ten Regular Attendants. On top of that there were famines,disasters and major rebellion by a Taoist group called the Yellow Turbans. Emperor Ling eventually dies and the Ten Regular Attendants try to take over by capturing the Emperor's 2 sons, the Attendants are killed, but the princes are found by Dong Zhou. Dong Zhou turns out to be a tyrant and rules through the new emperor Shao, who he kills replaces with his younger brother Liu Xie who becomes Emperor Xian.
From there the Emperor pretty much had no power and was eventually forced to abdicate when the Warlord Cao Cao's son Cao Pi took power, after Xian was largely under Cao Cao's control. The biggest threat to China I wouldn't say would be nomads but bad rulers and a weakening of authority. The Three Kingdoms period got so bad that governors and warlords either used the emperor or had their own rivalries to deal with.
In order to make the Roman Empire fall Han China you would have to serious disasters,greedy bureaucrats, and a possible succession crisis. The only real problem is that Dynasties never really lasted in Rome when who ever could control the army could have the power to become emperor themselves. While in Han China since there was a Mandate of Heaven, that you could remove the emperor if he didn't have Heaven's favor, most of the time you had people using the emperor as a tool for power, save for Yuan Shu who declared himself emperor and attacked by everyone. So maybe make the Roman Emperor to be more valuable as tool than weak enough to be overthrown but that would Rome would need a clear-cut succession.
From there the Emperor pretty much had no power and was eventually forced to abdicate when the Warlord Cao Cao's son Cao Pi took power, after Xian was largely under Cao Cao's control. The biggest threat to China I wouldn't say would be nomads but bad rulers and a weakening of authority. The Three Kingdoms period got so bad that governors and warlords either used the emperor or had their own rivalries to deal with.
In order to make the Roman Empire fall Han China you would have to serious disasters,greedy bureaucrats, and a possible succession crisis. The only real problem is that Dynasties never really lasted in Rome when who ever could control the army could have the power to become emperor themselves. While in Han China since there was a Mandate of Heaven, that you could remove the emperor if he didn't have Heaven's favor, most of the time you had people using the emperor as a tool for power, save for Yuan Shu who declared himself emperor and attacked by everyone. So maybe make the Roman Emperor to be more valuable as tool than weak enough to be overthrown but that would Rome would need a clear-cut succession.
I think Roman and Han Chinese had almost same fate.
Only Geography was the reason to different development of Europe and Han China.
Core of Roman Empire was OTL Italy were defended and isolated by Alps and Sea. And they retained pretty much Roman Culture.
OTOH Han Chinese core were Northern China that had retained its culture. Other part of Han China for example Korea, Mongolia and Vietnam had different identity.
Southern China wasn't same as North for long time especially Yunnan. They had different culture and language albeit same writing like Canton and Mandarin(should we say it same because of it based on chirography).
Only Geography was the reason to different development of Europe and Han China.
Core of Roman Empire was OTL Italy were defended and isolated by Alps and Sea. And they retained pretty much Roman Culture.
OTOH Han Chinese core were Northern China that had retained its culture. Other part of Han China for example Korea, Mongolia and Vietnam had different identity.
Southern China wasn't same as North for long time especially Yunnan. They had different culture and language albeit same writing like Canton and Mandarin(should we say it same because of it based on chirography).
I generally agree with these points, as the disparate geography explains many of the differences between the Roman and Han Empires after their downfall.
Gojoseon, Buyeo, Goguryeo, and Balhae continued to maintain separate political identities for almost two millennia despite the fact that they were generally centered within Southern Manchuria south of the Songhua River. However, Gojoseon and Goguryeo maintained significant populations within Liaodong, and eventually relocated their capitals to what is now Pyongyang long after they had been established. On the other hand, after Balhae collapsed in 926, Goryeo and Joseon did continue to retain separate political identities as well in part due to their locations within the peninsula, although all of the political entities mentioned above continued to be culturally influenced by China.
These points are unrelated to each other. Both Rome and China faced significant challenges from outsiders for centuries, but although China clashed with other powerful entities, none of them were significant enough to influence other far-flung regions culturally as well, similar to what China had done. In contrast, the Persians as a whole continued to influence disparate entities outside of its core territories, and remained culturally distinct from its neighbors, even after the Arabs eventually conquered them.
Again, although other entities continued to threaten China militarily for centuries, they were generally unable to do so in a cultural sense, in part because the Chinese heavily outnumbered them, and none managed to establish a distinct written literature in order to record historical and cultural texts. There was also a separate "Korean" civilization that continued to exist within Manchuria through Gojoseon, Buyeo, Goguryeo, and Balhae, and later within the peninsula by Goryeo and Joseon, as they continued to promote shared cultural values distinct from those of China. However, they were gradually sinicized over centuries due to their proximity to China, in which the process was greatly accelerated after Gojoseon's collapse in 108 BC and Goguryeo in 668. In addition, although the component states continued to assimilate outsiders within their boundaries, they were unable to do so outside Southern Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula, which meant that they were unable to reverse the cultural flow from China to Korea.
I am afraid these fates could not be switched.
The Roman civilization was extremely bright but it was less resistant than the Chinese civilization.
The Barbarians who conquered the Chinese territories became more and more Chinese with every passing generation. In the end most of the conquerors became truly Chinese in culture, language, customs and most often in self-identity as well.
The Barbarians who conquered the Roman territories stayed the Goths, the Vandals, the Sueves, the Franks, the Burgundians and so forth and had little inclinations to identify themselves as the Romans.
And more than that - our sources say that though the elites of the Goths got Romanized to some extent the overwhelming majority of the Italian Romans - the Roman commoners imitated the Gothic common people, their ways, their habits, customs, their culture.
I am afraid the same process of the common Roman folks imitating Barbarian ways took place in Gaul, Spain and in other conquered Roman lands.
So after a few centuries after being conquered the Romans forget that they were Romans. Their local identities and loyalties prevailed.
Of course the Barbarians who conquered the Roman territories changed themselves. But it was a process of creating new identities; it was amalgamation. It was never a process of 'Barbarians becoming Romans' like it was often the case in China - 'Barbarians becoming Chinese'.
One follows from the other but it's not required. That is, Rome was always required to keep an enormous part of its army on the border with the Sassanids compared to the Parthians and this sucked up manpower and funds. This wasn't beyond the empire's capabilities, but it meant that they had much less margin for error. When error came, the Persian/Islamic civilization was there, culturally distinct, to expand it's influence and snap up territory.
Deleted member 67076
No way to make the Romanization process quicker and more efficient?
katchen
Banned
Actually, it's geologically ASB. Switch the two region's geologies. Neither the Mediteranean nor the Baltic floods on the European side. The North Sea is a couple hundred feet higher too. This means that the Med Basin is desert and semidesert all the way through to the Mideast and sub saharan Africa. Herdsmen in Iberia. Caravan routes across the Alps and Pontus Mountains where there is some rainfall. Civilization and Empire on Atlantic side. Great river consolidating the Rhine, Seine, Elbe and possibly Baltic Rivers before emptying into Atlantic between what is OTL Cornwall and Brittany.
On Pacific side, reverse. North China Plain and Yangtze Basin underwater. Tsinling Shan Peninsula. Shantung an Island. Llaotung-Korea an Island Sikhote Alin an island. South China a peninsula. Much more room for Han, Wu , Gogoryeo and Yueh to develop into separate civilizations not to mention Tondo.
On Pacific side, reverse. North China Plain and Yangtze Basin underwater. Tsinling Shan Peninsula. Shantung an Island. Llaotung-Korea an Island Sikhote Alin an island. South China a peninsula. Much more room for Han, Wu , Gogoryeo and Yueh to develop into separate civilizations not to mention Tondo.