Renaissance Italy and Reformation Germany were tremendously violent places where wealthy cities could be starved to death and then be burned to the ground, forced to start all over again when it comes to the capital accumulation process.
Oh, then I beg some indulgence to say that is missing the entire point. The decline of the principate to the dominate, as it is occassionally referred to, saw the Roman Empire become a state that existed to sustain and maintain a standing army. Emperors and commanders were compelled to divert funds that they did not have to support an army, lest they be deposed and civil war ensues until someone who is willing to pay takes command. The runaway inflation was a consequence of this, there simply wasn't enough funds that the people had at their disposal to keep up with the rapidly increasing costs, so they started diluting the money.Re scholar
That's a fine point, but I was referring to the question of financial reform of the Roman Empire, which could prevent runaway inflation, preserving strong consumer demand for non-local goods, and thus allowing forces that OTL transitioned the Roman Empire to a proto-manorial economy to transition to proto-capitalism instead.
So obviously, all we need is a Prince of Peace to unite the Germanies.
Also, unlike the Romans, the Germans had precision metalworking, some understanding of the sciences (optics, for instance), a printing press, a better banking system, indisputably more use of waterpower, better ships and navigation techniques, higher population....
<snip>
That's the idea. Changing the nature of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty dynamics would be the most desired, which would involve a series of "princes" brought up and exposed to imperial power by the Emperor, and then succeeded by those princes who repeat the process. Augustus's greatest success was a peaceful transition of power, but his greatest disaster was the death of nearly every single man he put forward as a successor with the exception of Tiberius. With Tiberius many of the favored successors also died off, leaving Caligula. Caligula's death left Claudius, who had the benefit of being one of the only ones left and the same thing happened with Nero. In short, it was the least of the Julio-Claudians who survived, and the manipulative nature of the Julio-Claudian women did not help much. If you could make this stable, and more importantly keep the idea of the Emperor being a civil official who just also happens to control the military with no more civil power a magister. Their civil influence would instead come from their autoritas when it comes to internal politics. And that autoritas would be cemented for centuries as the descendents from Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus.Awesome answer! So, in short (and vastly simplifying) we need to prevent the Crisis of the Third Century, which as you mention means establishing a stable dynasty (you mentioned the Julians and Flavians, but I expect saving the Antonines would also work).
That's the idea. Changing the nature of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty dynamics would be the most desired, which would involve a series of "princes" brought up and exposed to imperial power by the Emperor, and then succeeded by those princes who repeat the process. Augustus's greatest success was a peaceful transition of power, but his greatest disaster was the death of nearly every single man he put forward as a successor with the exception of Tiberius. With Tiberius many of the favored successors also died off, leaving Caligula. Caligula's death left Claudius, who had the benefit of being one of the only ones left and the same thing happened with Nero. In short, it was the least of the Julio-Claudians who survived, and the manipulative nature of the Julio-Claudian women did not help much. If you could make this stable, and more importantly keep the idea of the Emperor being a civil official who just also happens to control the military with no more civil power a magister. Their civil influence would instead come from their autoritas when it comes to internal politics. And that autoritas would be cemented for centuries as the descendents from Julius Caesar and Caesar Augustus.
It would not last forever, but if it can last a couple centuries longer than it did in OTL, then you have the playground you need to do whatever theoretical experimentation you want for industrialism. I might even argue that industrialism is likely in this case, at least to the level of the Song a good thousand years before the Song reached it.
The Flavians and Antonines are more practical. The Flavians were what the Julians could have been, but they died out after two generations. The Antonines had a far more open association with the military, since their successors were chosen because they were the leading generals at the time, but this practice served the Romans well while it lasted. The Severan's are the latest possible way to prevent this, but the inflation was already starting and it was clear that the state was a military regime and its funds existed to support that military. Perhaps the only way to reverse this trend would be to have Geta succeed and have Caracella killed off.
At least, that's my take on this.
<snip>
And yet, it actually did work. The problem with Nero was not that he was a civilian emperor, but how he ruled. Both Tiberius and Claudius were just as much civilian emperors. Commodus had an obsession with activities the Roman elite considered base, and his association with Hercules became a problem. Nerva, the founder of the dynasty, was a civilian emperor, though he was a commander in the past. Septimius Severus's successor was the man who fully created the dominate, while the next emperor was ultimately disposed of by his own grandmother. Alexander could probably have ruled successfully, and is often times thought of as showing the beginnings of a great leader, he was killed not because he was a civilian emperor, but because on campaign against the Germans he assembled a large army, only to pay off the Germans with gold rather than with blades. In the mean time Geta was well liked by the Roman Elites, though his rule would probably not have been purely civilian.Theoretically you are right. But given the roman mind set I think It could not work.
The Republic was Dead by the time of Caligula. After his death and before the ascension of Claudius, people were debating who would be the new Princeps, not how best could the Republic be restored. In part that has to do with most people believing the Republic was still alive and well, it just had this new military position grafted on it whom many supported, there were still Consuls, Magisters, Praetors, Propraetors, proconsuls, the senate was still the principle advising body, the tribunate was still powerful, everything looked like it always had. There was just something else there, and after the long reign of Augustus and the chaotic contentions before him, there was barely a Roman alive who did not feel accustomed to the idea of a supreme military commander.This is a very good point. Side note: a few months back, I was asking about the PoD where Gaius Ceasar, grandson of Augustus, lives; this made me think of that, because I noted the Imperator position might end up looking like a monarchy a lot earlier TTL and asked "would that change even hold, or would old republicans push back?"
<snip>
And yet, it actually did work. The problem with Nero was not that he was a civilian emperor, but how he ruled. Both Tiberius and Claudius were just as much civilian emperors.
Nerva was a general as well, as would Geta.Tiberius was an accomplished general long before he became Emperor, Claudius, not so much.
I fundamentally disagree with this.Awesome answer! So, in short (and vastly simplifying) we need to prevent the Crisis of the Third Century, which as you mention means establishing a stable dynasty (you mentioned the Julians and Flavians, but I expect saving the Antonines would also work).
I fundamentally disagree with this.
The technologies which enabled agricultural revolution (i.e the horse collar, or the two-field system) to come about took place in the early Medieval era, a time when the state system was much less stable than during Roman times. Not to mention of course, that even during the crisis of the third century you had large swath of the empire which were relatively untouched (i.e Egypt IIRC)
I think it's tempting to look for a political PoD because that's the thing people know the best, I highly doubt that any dynasty was going to affect long term economic trends.
I think you may have missed the point Rousseau, we were talking about possible ways of preserving the spark of both a trend towards proto-capitalist structures and proto-industrialism. Both of those were terminated by the third century crisis or causes linked to it, but their death knell was with the dynasty before that.I fundamentally disagree with this.
The technologies which enabled agricultural revolution (i.e the horse collar, or the two-field system) to come about took place in the early Medieval era, a time when the state system was much less stable than during Roman times. Not to mention of course, that even during the crisis of the third century you had large swath of the empire which were relatively untouched (i.e Egypt IIRC)
I think it's tempting to look for a political PoD because that's the thing people know the best, I highly doubt that any dynasty was going to affect long term economic trends.
So why -do- we think that there are proto-industrialism in the Roman Empire anymore than say, the 1300s in western Europe or northern Italy.I think you may have missed the point Rousseau, we were talking about possible ways of preserving the spark of both a trend towards proto-capitalist structures and proto-industrialism. Both of those were terminated by the third century crisis or causes linked to it, but their death knell was with the dynasty before that.
That, and you should know that I will disagree with any arguments that render men and women powerless to affect the big picture, even when they rule it. The second Severan Emperor granted universal citizenship in the Roman Empire, a massive change in the economic dynamic of the empire for it meant they could be taxed. Why? Because the army was expanding under the Emperor's command, and further mass inflation in regards to the coins of the Roman State was brought about directly from Roman Imperial Politics and their relationship both to wars and the legions.
To me, the statement of doubt about the dynasty of Rome meaning little to long term economic trends is like saying saying the exact same thing about the Tudors and religion in England, or that the revolution in France was destiny and not the actual product of a series of events that could have easily been radically diverted or avoided all together. Now I do not mean to say that I think you espouse these beliefs, but I will disagree with you if that is your implication. You would sooner convince me that Muhammad did little to change the course of world history, than you would that the consequences to actions made by Emperors of Rome had little affect on the Roman economy even when comparing the third century crisis to the Antonines.
The seeds of a trend were in place, but a similar seed could be found within the dynasties of Rome. The question then becomes, from where were those trends born or how did they mature? The only way your argument works would be if the two trends did not influence one another, and that they were not feeding off of the other. So long as the two are influencing each other, even if it is lopsided against the Emperors, dynastic dynamics matter.
Actually for this to be sustainable you need vast improvements in agriculture first, because people who work in industry don't produce food, which means that without vast improved average product of labor in agriculture you have far less surplus to feed non-producers, and thus fewer non-producers in general.I think the particular developments of the agriculture are overemphasized in importance when talking about the forces necessary to an industrial revolution (though admittedly not as much as things like "availability of coal"). The key to getting an industrial revolution is that first you need a commercial revolution, that is you need a strong demand for what will become industrial goods (so a strong middle-class to act as consumers) and for the cost of labor to be such that investments in advancing productivity (through technological advances or proto-factories) are cost effective.
TBF, we got to to a political PoD by looking at how to set up the economic pre-requisites in Rome.
So why -do- we think that there are proto-industrialism in the Roman Empire anymore than say, the 1300s in western Europe or northern Italy.