Hello, forum's people! I want to question to you: if the Roman Empire, like China, kept existing with basically the same frontiers, but only different governments? Like some roman equivalent of the Mandate of Heaven (preferably a christian version, as a pagan version would lose legitimacy once Rome goes christian).
A China-like Roman Empire
- Thread starter John I of Brazil
- Start date
But China didn't had the same frontiers at all during all the imperial dynastic rule : it ruled over core areas and not necessarily all of them in the same time (the traditional North/South contrast). Similarily, an imperial Roman state apparatus could have survived as a dynamic and varying entity either as ERE as IOTL, either as an Italo-Roman WRE maintaining an hegemonic patronage over various warlord post-imperial states (either Barbarian as ITOL, either Roman).
You'd "just" need maintain of imperial state apparatus and its predominance to reach something close enough : for instance, in a no-Islam TL, Roman Empire centered in ERE, Italy and Africa as equivalent of Chinese "protectorates", Francia as Korea, etc.
The idea that Rome have either to expand, or at least keep ideal borders to survive (either Rhine/Danube as IOTL, either Elbe/Vistula/Prout because it looks good enough on a blank map) doesn't seem quite obvious to me, giving that most long-lasting empires did well enough with varying cores and borders.
So, really, up to a point (let's say the VIIth century), you can go wild well enough.
You'd "just" need maintain of imperial state apparatus and its predominance to reach something close enough : for instance, in a no-Islam TL, Roman Empire centered in ERE, Italy and Africa as equivalent of Chinese "protectorates", Francia as Korea, etc.
The idea that Rome have either to expand, or at least keep ideal borders to survive (either Rhine/Danube as IOTL, either Elbe/Vistula/Prout because it looks good enough on a blank map) doesn't seem quite obvious to me, giving that most long-lasting empires did well enough with varying cores and borders.
So, really, up to a point (let's say the VIIth century), you can go wild well enough.
China is geographically isolated by deserts, mountains and ocean. Rome was not.
a surviving roman empire is hard, a self-reviving one is harder and would require vastly different circumstances. IMO, any plausible 'roman mandate of heaven' scenario requires a conquest of germania to the vistula at the very least, and a thorough colonization and development of the area by Latin-speaking romans. Once a suitable population base is reached in germania, italia, gaul and other heavily romanised provinces like hispania, then the empire will have a good chance of achieving the same feats as china - IE assimilating invaders instead of the opposite occurring. however, a large roman population is only one part of the equation - a precedent must be set for a complete collapse of the empire, followed by the creation of another, different roman empire consisting of the same core territories (and no, the eastern empire doesn't fit the bill here). however, this might mean that the city of rome itself might be overshadowed by other parts of the core territories - one iteration of the empire might be based in germania, while another in gaul. however, the end result is still achieved - with a large, developed, roman base of power in western europe the concept of rome might be able to last indefinitely.
Arguable they did to a decent extent as France,Spain, and Italy are speaking romance languages instead of Germanic and practice Catholicism instead of Arian Christianity .
China has been invaded multiple times from the steppe. Not to mention Rome was also isolated as it had the Zagos and Caucasus mountains to the east,the Rhine and Danube to the north, and the Sahara to the South
Rome has as much continuity as China does. Or China has a little as Rome depending on your perspective.
That would be true if they held Mesopotamia, but sadly for Rome, Sassanid Persia held the area. As for the Danube and Rhine, they didn't stop barbarians crossing. Sure China got invaded too but I'd rather cross a river than cross the Ghobi Desert or the Himalayas.
Kaze
Banned
There is also the Civil Service and a known succession.
The problem is Roman succession - any ambitious general, senator, man with enough gold to bribe barbarians or Praetorian guard, or governor - could in theory become emperor. China despite its history has had good succession (with some minor exceptions) the title passed without incidents.
Then there is the civil service. The empire needed running and management. Barbarian armies can be defeated and if they are not defeated... Even when the barbarians moved in and took the capital, they had to take up the civil service. Little by little, the barbarians became as Chinese as those they conquered.
The problem is Roman succession - any ambitious general, senator, man with enough gold to bribe barbarians or Praetorian guard, or governor - could in theory become emperor. China despite its history has had good succession (with some minor exceptions) the title passed without incidents.
Then there is the civil service. The empire needed running and management. Barbarian armies can be defeated and if they are not defeated... Even when the barbarians moved in and took the capital, they had to take up the civil service. Little by little, the barbarians became as Chinese as those they conquered.
Deleted member 109224
The Ottoman Empire was sort of a geopolitical continuation of the Byzantine Empire. It had the same geographic core.
I think the Byzantine Empire would be the best option for this otherwise. If you have them avoid the Gothic Wars, they could reasonably retain their post-Justinian expansion and have a stable eastern frontier with the Sassanids. With stable control of the North Africa breadbaskets and levantine trade routes I think they could do well for themselves.
Alternatively, a post-Manzikert empire comprised of Anatolia, the Balkans, and Sicily is manageable too. The Taurus Mountains and Danube-Drava River line (with the Dinarics and Rhodopes as something of a fallback) are pretty secure boundaries.
I think the Byzantine Empire would be the best option for this otherwise. If you have them avoid the Gothic Wars, they could reasonably retain their post-Justinian expansion and have a stable eastern frontier with the Sassanids. With stable control of the North Africa breadbaskets and levantine trade routes I think they could do well for themselves.
Alternatively, a post-Manzikert empire comprised of Anatolia, the Balkans, and Sicily is manageable too. The Taurus Mountains and Danube-Drava River line (with the Dinarics and Rhodopes as something of a fallback) are pretty secure boundaries.
Assuming Rome unifies Europe and creates a Roman identity, and it always reunifies if it falls, would Europe be more advanced than the rest of the world? I believe Europe advanced militarily due to intermittent fighting, since “Neccesity is the Mother of Invention”
What an interesting post. One of the remarkable things about the Ottoman Empire, if we compare it to the Byzantine, is that the Ottomans managed to maintain their control over that core territory far more consistently than the Byzantines. Or to say it another way, the Byzantines had drastic changes to their territory much more often than the Ottomans.
The Ottoman Empire in 1878 still controls very largely the same shape as the Ottoman Empire over 300 years earlie, in 1566. Sure, they lost some territories in Europe. But the essential shape, covering North Africa, Egypt, the Levant, the Hijaz, Syria and Anatolia and the Balkans is still there.
By contrast the Byzantines were all over the place. The map below shows how the empire's borders kept shifting over time. What's especially noticable is that no sooner had they recovered the Balkans after centuries of being based in Anatolia, that the Byzantines lost Anatolia and spent the next few centuries mainly based in the Balkans.
Deleted member 109224
Manzikert was a bit of a fluke. Had they won Manzikert, they likely would have maintained their Anatolia-Balkans core territories.
The Gothic Wars were a messy messy effort for the Byzantines and cost them quite a bit. There was also a massive plague in the empire that devastated it quite a bit. Without the Gothic Wars + Plague of Justinian + Byzantine-Sassanid War + Arab invasion of an exhausted Byzantium, they probably wouldn't have fallen as hard as they did.
Granted, Egypt was pretty annoyed with Byzantium due to Constantinople opposing their Copticism. Maybe they'd rebel later.
The Gothic Wars were a messy messy effort for the Byzantines and cost them quite a bit. There was also a massive plague in the empire that devastated it quite a bit. Without the Gothic Wars + Plague of Justinian + Byzantine-Sassanid War + Arab invasion of an exhausted Byzantium, they probably wouldn't have fallen as hard as they did.
Granted, Egypt was pretty annoyed with Byzantium due to Constantinople opposing their Copticism. Maybe they'd rebel later.
Republic > United Empire > Western/Eastern Empires > Eastern Empire > Ottoman Empire > Italy/Greece, in tenuous order of succession. Culturally the legacy of Rome is equal parts belonging to (Primarily Western and Southern) Europe and Near-Asia, while on a more nuanced approach it is equal parts Italian and Greek. The continuity of Rome was/is pretty clear. And if you want to count them in the mix toss the HRE/Carolingians specifically between the Western/Eastern and Eastern Empires in the line.