AHC: anti-cliche classical era

Which is why it was so utterly crushed by disaster, all that somehow overlooked strength somehow never materialized.

We've gone over this, but for thread's sake, anyone who wants to have a surviving WRE in the fifth century really needs to be able to explain how the state is able to disprove that (in red).

States have faced military disasters without dissolving (the ERE in the seventh century, for example, or the Roman Republic in the Second Punic War).

I don't think it would serve the purposes of the thread to repeat the argument for its own sake (we know what the other thinks) - but if one is going to look for a WRE survival IN a scenario, one has to come up with something more satisfactory than claiming the WRE really wasn't that weak.
As you said, we should not repeat the argument in this thread. Though I recommend reading The Fall of The Roman Empire by Peter Heather, whihc makes a good case that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of moral, social, or economic collapse going into the 5th century.
 
As you said, we should not repeat the argument in this thread. Though I recommend reading The Fall of The Roman Empire by Peter Heather, whihc makes a good case that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of moral, social, or economic collapse going into the 5th century.

I will keep that in mind.

But whether or not it entered it that way, it seems to have failed to rally those resources by the mid-century mark (not "the end", but so much damage has been done that its definitely a long shot in 450-).

The thing I don't get, and this is something relevant:

Rome (as a favorite state of AH) endures. And I mean that in general - there's the idea that the Roman Empire is not subject to the problems and pressures of other empires over time.

Whether or not the fifth century was too much, the fact is sooner or latter something will come along where the empire does falter. It might survive in diminished form, it might collapse - but all empires age and when the high tide of fortune (in both "wealth" and "luck") is replaced by the ebb tide, they are no longer capable of what they were at their peak.

But its treated often as if this is merely unfortunate chance and not a natural part of history when dealing with favored states.

So I'd definitely list it as a cliche - if Classic Rome is talked about in centuries beyond its OTL end, its talked about as a state where the question is how it looks down the road, not as something that may make it longer than OTL but still declined.
 
As you said, we should not repeat the argument in this thread. Though I recommend reading The Fall of The Roman Empire by Peter Heather, whihc makes a good case that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of moral, social, or economic collapse going into the 5th century.

Speaking of Heather, according to him the beginning of the "chain reaction", that eventually led to the fall of the original Roman Empire was the rise of the Sassanids, especially the monetary drain brought by the Roman-Sassanid conflict. It was less about economy collapsing and more about money normally used on provincial infrastructure development going to the military instead

You could say that the Romans were unlucky to have another empire next door.

Curiously, when it comes to the end times of WRE, Goths, Vandals and Huns are mentioned quite frequently, but almost never the Sassanids

EDIT: and like Elfwine wrote, all empires will eventually lose their influence one way or another (Surprisingly often by the rise of another one)
 
Well, enough about WRE for now. Now i'd like to talk about another cliche: Gunpowder Rome

In other words, a civilization creates a new technology of some kind and survives because of it. It is easy to see, why this won't work nearly as well as believed, but the question is, how should it play out?

I'll use an analogy of Archimedes inventing gunpowder (note that Archimedes was not a chemist IOTL, this is purely an example)
Possibility 1: Archimedes discovers gunpowder, but never comes up with the idea of using it for weaponry
Possibility 2: Archimedes discovers gunpowder and comes up with the idea of using it as a weapon, but the gunpowder is not effective enough to be used for projectile launching. All he can make are primitive flamethrowers ,which are not nearly as useful.
Possibility 3: Archimedes discovers gunpowder, comes up with the idea of using it as a weapon and perfects it so that it can be used for bombs and cannons. However, they are not enough to save Syracuse from the Romans and the city is conquered.

What would be the best scenario to use?

And for that matter, should this be a serious TL or would a parody sound better?
 
Top