AH Challenge: The Roman Empire as a whole survives

[Cromm Crúaich]

Or if it did survive, it would have borne very little resemblance to the original culture of Romanitas. Very few people, even at the Empire's height actually spoke classical latin - most spoke the vulgate - which subsequently evolved into French, Italian, Spanish, Romanch etc.

If there was no Church to ossify written romance, and education and trade were kept up, couldn't a somewhat simplified vulgar-latin based lingua franca have come about? Say, native mostly in italy from latium up to the alps, southern france, and catalonia, with other areas speaking divergent romance languages, but less divergent than OTL due to prolonged contact in a mostly intact western empire.

 

[MarkA]

arkA and Wozza, I gotta give you guys credit for imagination in seeing some things in my writing that I, er, didn't actually write. When did I write that Rome was a democracy? It was an oligarchy, of course, that grew more liberal over time.

And, MarkA, I wish you'd try rereading my original comment and first reply to you, because the reply on innovation's and Imperial military ineffectiveness is already in there. Short version: do you think the many Romans hurt, displaced, or in conquered turf saw it your way, much less Attila?

Wozza wrote:
Oh, yes, because the Roman Empire was actually ruled by Martians instead of humans.

Do you live in our timeline?
The Senate was effectively powerless, losing them an important thoughtful group check on executive rule (as you noted). All the institutions were maintained, but all the liberty was taken away. Citizenship was spread wider, but it was easy, because votes only counted for minor posts. And the Early Empire was almost continually on the warpath; though, it was the only period in which it succeeded consistently. Even the early changes of monarchies had unpeaceful bits. And calling Caligula's and Nero's reigns peaceful is IMHO quite the spin.

It's true the Empire lasted much longer; my count is 1500 years because the Byzantines were politically continuous. If that's what you mostly care about, then it did great. Personally, I rate how the people did, individual freedom, and innovation higher. And the Empire was worse at all these than the Republic.

arkA and Wozza, I gotta give you guys credit for imagination in seeing some things in my writing that I, er, didn't actually write. When did I write that Rome was a democracy?

The Republic also had a lower, popular house and popularly elected leader by the time of its hacking. Are you going to argue bicameral legislatures and popularly elected leaders can't scale?

Sounds like a description of a democracy to me.

If your innovation is solely your example of Rome copying Carthaginian ships and then have their Greek allies in Capua and elsewhere build and row them then it is pretty limited. Compared to Imperial innovations like a better plow, water mills, much larger ships, better infantry armour, more varied and effective artillery, a brand new cavalry doctrine and an effective system of ruling such a large polity then the Republic looks decidedly poor in innovation.

 

[jkay]

round 4

Prem_Rack, how about some evidence on the decreased corruption point? People certainly regularly had to pay for high office under the Empire as well. Some emperors even gave up and tried to enforce set bribe rates. Very early, there was a whole new major state bribe cost, vast payments to keep the Praetorians on whom rule depended, happy. Officials were still underpaid, and had to make their way off the public. And, as the rulebook grew and grew, there were more officials there to keep happy, and it grew more and more hopeless to get anything done.

Though it's true the Empire kept some social climbing ability, notably via the Army, there were more avenues in the Republic, like private enterprise. Lessee, you're a conservative telling me that you think big bureaucracies do a good job of identifying and bringing talent forward???

On innovation, how about answering my many supporting points on this thread if you think I'm wrong.


Yeah, Claudius, I do think exams would've chosen elites better. BUT, there is one serious mistake in your comment - China was so technologically advanced that European nations were able to make it half-kowtow from the 16th century. Europeans got, for example, unfairly good legal treatment, just like our Blackwater troops in Iraq. It's currently thought to have slowed down once it faced no big competition around it, around the Late Middle Ages. Before that, it was pretty good for a monarchy.

 

[cadwallon1969]

I think...

We have differing interpretations of democracy. For example - Singapore is technically a democracy - and yet has never changed government, and is largely ruled by one family - the Lees.

On another level - in the US, you effectively have to be a millionaire to get into government or the presidency. You also have 'dynasties', like the Bushs, the Kennedy's and even the Clintons. Sounds a bit like an oligarchy to me! I might also say, that the American prediliction for glorifying the military and even electing soldiers to power has significant parallels with roman history!

I think Rome could pretty much be called an oligarchy with limited franchise and distinct roles and powers for elected officials. Religion and tribal traditions also played a major role in their government.

Like someone else said - this system was under major stress following major conquests all over the Mediterranean. Money, with associated corruption enabled many to buy their way into office. The role of the army in Roman politics was never truly settled - as was borne out by the series of emperors/dictators who ruled purely by dint of their legions.

We do glorify Rome - read Terry Jones' 'Barbarians' if you want to be disabused as to the so-called glory that was Rome!

 

[jkay]

govt type and noninnovation

MarkA wrote

Sounds like a description of a democracy to me.

Do you think if you think I think it was democratic, then I must think it was democratic? As it happens, I think the Republic was a liberalizing oligarchy. It had inequality inherent all over its constitution and way of life, despite its democratic parts, but it had a clear pattern of improving liberty, equality. and accountability to more groups. Cadwallon's version sounds gpood to me.

Compared to Imperial innovations like a better plow, water mills, much larger ships, better infantry armour, more varied and effective artillery, a brand new cavalry doctrine and an effective system of ruling such a large polity then the Republic looks decidedly poor in innovation.

The water mill predates the Empire, and wasn't invented in Roman turf; different sources quickly googled credit India and Greece. More googling suggests the metal plow appears to likelier originate in Palestine; remember "...and they shall beat their swords into plowshares (Genesis)?" Ruling big turf monarchically had already been done by Babylon and their next door neighbor, and better by the Republic.

And you haven't answered my implicit question, if they were so innovative, why did they lose Constantinople to cannon, and so much turf and much else to horse nomads they could've copied? The cataphract was a cool unit, but it took until half the Empire, including their starting city, had already gone; its inventor did great things with them, but he was executed (what encouragement for innovation, eh?) and his conquests were allowed to go with the wind. Autarchs are always afraid of successful men becoming threats to their rule. And naval superiority only counts when monarchs have it?

 

[MarkA]

MarkA wrote
Do you think if you think I think it was democratic, then I must think it was democratic? As it happens, I think the Republic was a liberalizing oligarchy. It had inequality inherent all over its constitution and way of life, despite its democratic parts, but it had a clear pattern of improving liberty, equality. and accountability to more groups. Cadwallon's version sounds gpood to me.

The water mill predates the Empire, and wasn't invented in Roman turf; different sources quickly googled credit India and Greece. More googling suggests the metal plow appears to likelier originate in Palestine; remember "...and they shall beat their swords into plowshares (Genesis)?" Ruling big turf monarchically had already been done by Babylon and their next door neighbor, and better by the Republic.

And you haven't answered my implicit question, if they were so innovative, why did they lose Constantinople to cannon, and so much turf and much else to horse nomads they could've copied? The cataphract was a cool unit, but it took until half the Empire, including their starting city, had already gone; its inventor did great things with them, but he was executed (what encouragement for innovation, eh?) and his conquests were allowed to go with the wind. Autarchs are always afraid of successful men becoming threats to their rule. And naval superiority only counts when monarchs have it?

What liberalising tendencies were inherent in the Republic? How was liberty, equality and accountability improved in the Republic for anyone outside the ruling clique? How did this differ from the practices in the Empire?

Is your research limited to googling? I said nothing about metal ploughs I said an improved plough. Ruling big turf? Babylon? What are you talking about? Are you saying empires that lasted a couple of centuries at best were somehow superior systems to imperial Rome that lasted for much longer?

Do you know anything about Byzantine history at all? Canon were not the reason the City fell they helped breach the walls for the final assault but the Empire was doomed many years before.

Have you any idea on the makeup of the Late Roman army?
The rest of your post is unintelligible.

 

[cadwallon1969]

Liberalising doesn't mean nice...

Liberalising oligarchy would be right - particularly with individuals such as Marius and Caesar who worked towards making life better for the plaebians and the 'masses' - much to the disgust of the aristocracy/senate.

Of course they had their own reasons. Manipulating the masses was a great way to power, and by doing away with the property requirements for the legions increased their power massively. Precisely when they needed it for the conquests of Pompey, Caesar and even Crassus' mis-adventures against the Parthians.

It was these populist measures which resulted in the first welfare - free grain to 'the people'! Certainly a liberal measure, in the American/left wing sense of the word.

I agree about the reasons for Constantinople's final fall. The sack by the fifth? crusade, which lead to the Latin Empire didn't help matters - nor did obsessing over obscure points of religion. In fact, your mis-spelling of cannon, canon might be more appropriate, as it was the differences in canon between the catholic and orthodox which isolated Byzantium at a crucial point in potential recovery.

Losing Anatolia, the wealth, lands and people was also probably crucial. Byzantium's lack in the latter days was people, and soldiers.

Technology wise, Byzantium didn't have the money, time or attention to keep up with new technologies. Its armies, in the latter days where largely mercenaries.

 

[jkay]

uninvention

MarkA

What liberalising tendencies were inherent in the Republic? ...

I've already typed para after para on these topics. Hint: look at my explanations on Early vs Late Republic.

Is your research limited to googling? I said nothing about metal ploughs I said an improved plough. Ruling big turf? Babylon? What are you talking about? Are you saying empires that lasted a couple of centuries at best were somehow superior systems to imperial Rome that lasted for much longer?

Well, Mark, I have no idea whatsoever what source you got those claims from. So, all I can do is google to guess what your source might be talking about. And for plow, I got an enthusiastic claim that the metal plow had been invented in Northern Italy around 100AD. So, where do you get these claims, and what was new about it? Babylon was probably the city that invented scaling monarchic rule to many cities - we're talking who invented what, not length of existence. And, though you couldn't be bothered to read my post, I did mention a Roman neighbor, by which I meant Persia.

Canon were not the reason the City fell they helped breach the walls for the final assault but the Empire was doomed many years before.

You're wrong - I've played Pachelbel's Canon far, far, too often, and let me tell you, it can doom anybody ;-)

The Empire'd been depending on mercs for over 1,000 years. It was a big weakness, to be sure, but why did they fall right THEN, and not before? There was no merc revolt that took them. Of course, there's also the question of how they got down to one city, but still, the evidence seems best to me that's the primary disadvantage that ended them.

 

[cadwallon1969]

Well the visigoths were mercs...

Jkay, Stilicho was a vandal (son of a mercenary), Alaric had high office in the Roman army, and his army was used as mercenaries by both the Western and Eastern Empires.

I'm not sure what you mean JKay about getting down to one city - Rome meant very little apart from symbolic as it slowly decayed - becoming less and less relevant. There is every indication that the so-called 'sack' of Rome was actually quite a civilised affair. Little rapine, few fires, more ransoms than plundering.

The ruined Rome was have to day is largely due to people recycling building materials than barbarian devastation. People had fled the cities as the trade and infrastructure needed to maintain them disappeared.

The image we have of the sack of Rome is based on later Christian tradition, plus artistic license. So much more dramatic than decay into uselessness.

I wouldn't say that the Romans depended on the mercenaries for a thousand years. Certainly, even in Republican times they used auxilaries - mostly cavalry. The later Western empire did have big mercenary contingents. Including Vandals, Visigoths - even Huns. The core of the army were actual Romans though - Comitanses, Limitanei.

 

[jkay]

IMHO Byzantine Empire == Roman Empire

Remember, cadwallon, above I said I see the Byzantine view of being Imperial successors as being right. That's why I was talking of the fall of Constantinople instead. On another thing that's confused you, of course, using mercenaries is one of many bits of continuity with the Byzantines.

Re the 4th Crusade sack, it's not that simple. There's evidence leaders of earlier crusades wanted to sack Constantinople, but they were militarily inferior and knew there was no hope of them getting away with it. The 4th Crusade saw the Venetian fleet become bigger and better than the Byzantine, and the fall happened when cannon were brought to bear.

I'm a little dubious that coreligion would've been stronger than greed. And, Byzantine culture was in major denial that they no longer owned half the world and acted accordingly nastily, so it's a little questionable if they even would've looked for an alliance, much less been popular enough to do it.