A China-like Europe?

[Eurofed]

What did you think of my suggestion of assimilating, or otherwise doing away with, the jews to improve Rome's Stability?

It is a good suggestion which would direct remove a significant (if not major) factor of Rome's collapse (e.g. without the Jew rebellions, it is quite possible that Mesopotamia would have been kept) and if it happens in a way that butterflies away Christianity, it would do away with a major contribution to Rome's (and the ERE's) downfall. I dunno how it might be accomplished, however.

 

[Typo]

It is a good suggestion which would direct remove a significant (if not major) factor of Rome's collapse (e.g. without the Jew rebellions, it is quite possible that Mesopotamia would have been kept) and if it happens in a way that butterflies away Christianity.

errrr explain, decades after the revolt the Romans held onto to Mesopotamia.

it would do away with a major contribution to Rome's (and the ERE's) downfall. I dunno how it might be accomplished, however

Err, explain like how and why Christianity was a "major contribution" to Rome's fall, like Gibbon's theory was always a bit flimsy

 

[stevep]

Err, explain like how and why Christianity was a "major contribution" to Rome's fall, like Gibbon's theory was always a bit flimsy

Typo

As I said earlier in the thread the rise of Christianity meant a deeply divisive situation with continued sectarian dispute that caused centuries of conflict. Even when Islam had conquered over half the old empire and was continually raiding the rest the various sects found internal conflict preferable to combining against the common enemy.

Similarly the Christian establishment was far more intrusive into political affairs than the pre-Christian faiths. While this was sometimes constructive, if was often not. Also the religion had a much larger and more expensive establishment which controlled a sizeable amount of land which often had tax exemptions, taking vast resources out of play.

Furthermore Christian believes in celibacy and pacifism, although often followed as much in the breach as in reality, also cause problems for rulers in the last days of the empire trying to hold things together.

Steve

 

[Typo]

As I said earlier in the thread the rise of Christianity meant a deeply divisive situation with continued sectarian dispute that caused centuries of conflict. Even when Islam had conquered over half the old empire and was continually raiding the rest the various sects found internal conflict preferable to combining against the common enemy.

The problem with this theory is that it pretty much ignores the fact that the first few centuries of the first millennium was full of new cults and religions of various success such as the cult of Isis and Mithras, some of which was also under official persecution. This which is fundamentally related to the fact that the old Greek-Romano polytheism was too "primitive" to satisfy the religious needs to the empire, it was almost certainly going to be superseded by some other type of universalism religion. It wasn't that Christianity was particularly "bad" so much as it was the most successful one. I think sectarianism in the late Empire was pretty much inevitable

Similarly the Christian establishment was far more intrusive into political affairs than the pre-Christian faiths. While this was sometimes constructive, if was often not. Also the religion had a much larger and more expensive establishment which controlled a sizeable amount of land which often had tax exemptions, taking vast resources out of play.

Again, I'm not too sure if this is so much in the nature Christianity so much as it was in its success. Christianity was -suppose- to be the least materialistic religion of the bunch.

Furthermore Christian believes in celibacy and pacifism, although often followed as much in the breach as in reality, also cause problems for rulers in the last days of the empire trying to hold things together.

Celibacy is one thing, but pacifism was done away by Augustine of Hippo

 

[Faelan]

I think a centralized Holy Roman Empire might do the job.

I agree. I think the unifying religion and easy application of new territories is the key. During the Augustan age, Rome seeks a systematic Romanization of the provinces. By this time, you can "be Roman" i.e. a member of civilized Europe, if you accept Christ.

Throw a few bishops in a new land, make the newly converted King a vassal and they are as good as on their way to being part of the Empire.

The key I think is, as someone said, stopping the retrogression of nation-building that occurs when realms are split on death.

Perhaps, in that case, there has to be some sort of bureaucracy that prevents it? Maybe all the vassals of the Emperor start electing sooner? Not sure...

Or maybe the pope is in charge of executing the "estate" on the death of an Emperor. As vicar of Christ, he decides the fate of the realm, but as priest he appoints someone to do the day-to-day or the like. That's kind of interesting, a secular capital and a religious capital. Separation of the "powers of state" as far as the medieval world was concerned...

 

[Mikestone8]

Typo

As I said earlier in the thread the rise of Christianity meant a deeply divisive situation with continued sectarian dispute that caused centuries of conflict. Even when Islam had conquered over half the old empire and was continually raiding the rest the various sects found internal conflict preferable to combining against the common enemy.

Similarly the Christian establishment was far more intrusive into political affairs than the pre-Christian faiths. While this was sometimes constructive, if was often not. Also the religion had a much larger and more expensive establishment which controlled a sizeable amount of land which often had tax exemptions, taking vast resources out of play.

Furthermore Christian believes in celibacy and pacifism, although often followed as much in the breach as in reality, also cause problems for rulers in the last days of the empire trying to hold things together.

Steve

Then why did the Eastern Empire, the more thoroughly Christianised of the two, survive so much better than the Western?

 

[Faelan]

Then why did the Eastern Empire, the more thoroughly Christianised of the two, survive so much better than the Western?

That's a classic question. The first thing that comes to mind for me is relative historical and cultural cohesion. In the west, new people have just arrived, ruling over mixed Roman populations, upsetting everything.

In the East, things may have been tough, but for the most part the same people have been in charge for a long time, and populations have been somewhat culturally homogenized (at the very least not undergoing the culture shock of say, your average Gallo-Roman staring at a mustached Frank calling himself your new king) with little or no great external interference for some time.

For example: from the Hellenistic period forward, Greek is more or less the culture to be. In the west, all of a sudden, now you have old local population, a Latinate bureaucracy desperately holding on, and Germanic overlords. Relatively fewer cities. A new religion not as deeply entrenched as it was in the East, etc etc.

In short, I don't think Christianity did a whole lot to improve the East's chances for survival. Their chances were so much better that the religious unity was only incremental in the grand scheme, whereas in the West it may have had more impact (controlling newly converted kings/tribes etc., thus curbing some of the violence).

I think. I wrote this kind of quickly.

 

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

There's also the point that the Eastern Roman Empire was significantly more powerful and richer than the Western.

 

[Faelan]

There's also the point that the Eastern Roman Empire was significantly more powerful and richer than the Western.

Exactly. Christianity isn't all that as far as the ERE's staying power.

 

[Sabbatai Zevi]

Imagine if Christianity mandated that all Christiandom must be ruled by one supernatural being or you would be failures as Christians.

Unam Sanctam

 

[MNP]

Actually, since the "Arab Empire" is a pretty rare if not unique event (some underpopulated, semi nomadic tribe conquering half the wolrd, we are talking about the arabian coasts here, not the endless asian steppes!) in most timelines it would be butterflied.

But the catholic church itself offers an excelent structure for an empire: A common religion (well, duh!), a common language, an excellent provincial sistem (diocesis, archidioceis and primatures) than can easily expand -as it has done OTL to cover literally the planet-, a clear and mostly stable election system for a new ruler. A change sometime before the fall of the west, and we could create a Pope/Emperor/Caliph position, than could take over the Empire. The bishops would secularize, or equivalent secular positions -hereditary, appointed ot any combination- and we would have a stable structure.

The _empire_ itself would not be stable, of course, some centuries the Pope is a mere figurehead under a "shogun" like the Japanese Warior States, some centuries he is a absolutist Sun King, some centuries the empire is broken into warlord in a cosntant civil war -but unlike OTL civil wars, those warlords eventual aim ouwld be to kake over the EMpire itself, the way chine always reformed after its civil war decades.

I would want to work on a timeline like this with you...

 

[stevep]

Then why did the Eastern Empire, the more thoroughly Christianised of the two, survive so much better than the Western?

Mikestone8

Sorry for the delayed response but missed you're reply. Two points come to mind.

a) The eastern empire was more populated and wealthier.

b) It was largely convert whereas the west was still strongly non-Christian. As such the Christian domination and the resultant problems had more of an impact there. [I'm of the view that the major factor why the empire fell was because life was so bad for the bulk of the population that they have no incentive for struggling to maintain the empire. This was obviously more of a problem for the west, suffering discrimination by the ruling Christians and with a poorer economy than for the eastern peasants].

Steve

 

[Strategos' Risk]

How was Qin Shi Huangdi successful at ending feudalism? The Qin swept out a couple of centuries' worth of rival sovereigns jockeying of power. Europe never grew out of such a feudal system.