alternatehistory.com

I was looking at Yet Another Roman Empire: Can It Industrialize? threat and Carlton Bach suggested that a Roman Empire that lasted long enough to industrialize would change so much in that time as to no longer be considered the same entity. It made me wonder: how much can you change the Roman Empire and still have it make sense to call it "The Roman Empire?" And how much change must take place given a couple millenia and the development of the preconditions for an industrial revolution?

As to the first, few here I think would take seriously the notion of the Ottoman Empire as the last incarnation of the Roman one, but on the other hand, many do so take the Byzantine Empire, in spite of its different geography, ruling language, and religion. (After all, its rulers _did_ think of themselves as direct descendants of the Romans).

Would a western Empire reestablished under Germanic rule be considered a continuation of the Roman Empire? How about a Coptic-speaking one centered in Egypt?

If the Arabs had taken Constantinople and the ruling class become Grecified while remaining Muslims (for varying values of Islam), would their empire be considered a continuation of the Romans? If one major change of religion is OK, why not two?

To be a "true" lasting Roman empire, must it remain pagan? Or is it OK if they convert to Mirthraism? How about a Buddhist Roman Empire?

Geography: how much overlap with the old Empire is needed? A Latinized German north European Empire (the battle of Teutoberg forest doesn't happen) - would that be OK? How about an empire moved to the Americas? (See GURPS Alternate Worlds or Pinchovski's ongoing effort). Must it include Italy to be a "true" Roman Empire? Must the capital be in Rome? Is it OK if we move it to the Nile or the Rhine, but call it "New Rome?"

As to the second point: I wonder re China. China underwent changes of dynasties and fractures and recombinations of territory from the start of the latter Han and the peak of the Song dynasty (when some say China came within, if not spitting range, at least cheap binoculars range of industrialization), but we still think of it as "China" (heck, we tend to see continuity from 'ol Qin Shi "Stalin" Huangdi to the Manchus).

But how much continuity was there really? If we compare China 25 AD and 1071 and Rome under Tiberius vs "Eastern Rome" just before the battle of Manzikert, which had undergone greater change? Is there a Sinologist in the house?

And if industrialization and modernization are such fundamental changes, can we meaningfully draw comparisons or find an identity between the France of today and that of Louis IX? :D

Thoughts?

Bruce
Top