Right, the last nationalistic rebellions were probably those in Judaea 132-35 and Egypt c 175 CE. Afterwards rebellions usually involved those seeking more power in the Empire, not breaking away from it.
AHC: Reverse the fate of Rome and China
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
Right, the last nationalistic rebellions were probably those in Judaea 132-35 and Egypt c 175 CE. Afterwards rebellions usually involved those seeking more power in the Empire, not breaking away from it.
So, in a scenario where China went the way of Rome, what happens to the non-Chinese "hill peoples" of the south?
I've always toyed with the idea that Constantine, after embracing Christianity, sets up the Patriarchates as they were, but managed to get the Patriarchs to agree that as long as people agreed with just one of the Patriarchs, then they were Christians.
Alexandria would then stand up for Copts, Constantinople for t'others. It'd possibly prevent any schism between East and West having political ramifications if handled well as Latin Rite is allowed to deviate from Greek Rite (as instead it is deviating from Greek, Egyptian, Levantine, etc).
(You might have to figure out how to reconcile Antioch and Jerusalem as if they have different rites then the Levant gets even more mess). However, that way you also allow Nestorianism (or an ATL version) to exist within that hierarchy.
I don't think that would be possible without completely changing the nature of ancient Christianity -- orthodoxy had been a big deal right from the start, even if in practice it was difficult to enforce before the fourth century.
Hello there Edward Gibbon.
This thesis gets trotted out with such regularity, but so little evidence.
The mediterranean. If the empire can hold that more or less together (say, half the sea), then it has an excellent economic and logistical backbone from which to restore its borders.
Border Security and Christianity.
Christianity, for all its flaws and internal conflicts, if united under a single Emperor, can be coherent (at least within that realm), without causing massive breakoffs. The Schisms get reinforced by political division into long-standing issues, rather than ending with one side winning or an agreement.
But China had (comparatively) shorter borders than Rome, and really good ones to boot.
It is a meme by this point, but if Germania can be made Roman, it combined with Dacia can give the Romans two moderate borders near a single point of command, and a couple of smaller ones with fewer threats.
China had otherwise pretty damn good borders.
There were much differences between the polytheistic religions, for sure, but they tended to be more tolerant towards other religions than the monotheistic religions, so the pluralism would create much less problems. As long as the various people were loyal towards the empire, the authorities let them worship their own gods. The reason why the Christian and Jews at times got problem with the Roman authorities was that they were not considered loyal subjects and even those two religious groups were not persecuted all the time. Instead of embracing Christianity, the Roman authorities could just tolerate them.
Well, there is a reason why many Christians in the areas the Arabs conquered prefered the Arabs to the Romans/Byzantines.
Not sure if I get your point. Are you saying that the Romans had no choice but to make Christianity the prefered religion of the empire?
There ate a few vote regions which I think a full Roman revival must hold:
Italy, Greece, Spain, Egypt, North Africa, are the key atras. And the secondary areas are part of southeast France (Gallia narbonnesis)Anatolia and the Levant, and a good chunk of the balkans. The rhineland while wealthy is rather distant and opens up a new frontier.
The interesting thing is that a lot of these regions- Italy, Greece, Spain, Anatolia,- have long coastlines and rather mountainous terrain which makes holding them in their entirety rather more plausible, though far from easy. These regions also have plenty of common cultural and political history.
I add in Egypt because it is essential to any heegmon of the Mediterranean and if held by a hostile power means said power will be an existential threat, as both the Persians and the Arabs showed.
Italy, Greece, Spain, Egypt, North Africa, are the key atras. And the secondary areas are part of southeast France (Gallia narbonnesis)Anatolia and the Levant, and a good chunk of the balkans. The rhineland while wealthy is rather distant and opens up a new frontier.
The interesting thing is that a lot of these regions- Italy, Greece, Spain, Anatolia,- have long coastlines and rather mountainous terrain which makes holding them in their entirety rather more plausible, though far from easy. These regions also have plenty of common cultural and political history.
I add in Egypt because it is essential to any heegmon of the Mediterranean and if held by a hostile power means said power will be an existential threat, as both the Persians and the Arabs showed.
Basically the same reason that many were okay with Germanic warlords (some of which were Catholic, some of which were Arian, some of which were pagan): There were often tangible benefits to being a second class subject under a regime that taxed you lightly and didn’t ask you to fight, compared to being a first class citizen under a regime that asked more of you.
Lets remember that, prior to the Arab conquests, the Emperors had generally been relatively conciliatory, particularly with the Monophysites/Miaphysites. The greats, like Justinian and Heraclius, actively supported compromise theologies to try to get everyone on the same page. At the end of the day, there wasn’t much oppression going on.
Further, in an interesting counter point, when the Byzantines became less doctrinally tolerant, in the 8th century, and strove more towards religious homogeneity, their state was more durable, and they underwent about 3 centuries of very gradual restoration, while also stamping out heresy along the way (and having a nice intermittent internal fight over icons). This, when the Arabs were at their apex and the Byzantines at their (first) nadir.
Kaze
Banned
One of the great flaws for the Romans is succession.Any son of a current emperor or rebel emperor, ambitious general, senator, governor in some far flung province, bribe the right barbarian or praetorian guard, or army coup could in theory become emperor. Such a system leads to factionalism and the establishment of feudal enclaves. Power remains divided between the feudal enclaves.
---
China has had many periods of division - Spring and Autumn Period / Warring States, Three Kingdoms Period, Sixteen Kingdoms, and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period - instead of power dividing instead of feudal enclaves; power usually ends up under a single ruler usually in a bloody fashion.
---
China has had many periods of division - Spring and Autumn Period / Warring States, Three Kingdoms Period, Sixteen Kingdoms, and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period - instead of power dividing instead of feudal enclaves; power usually ends up under a single ruler usually in a bloody fashion.
If none of the emperors sons had the right personality to become the next emperor, a possible solution could have been that the emperor picked his own successor and that this person then married one of his daughters. This way he could both ensure that an able person would succeed him and at the same time his family would still be close to the emperor.
And then that guy’s political opponents remind the son that he should be emperor, and by the way, here’s the legions that agree.
Assuming, of course, that he had any daughters. Even if he did, paternal affection is a strong thing, and I doubt many fathers would disinherit over a son who wasn't certifiably insane. Especially because doing so would essentially be signing his death sentence -- a natural son of the previous Emperor would provide a clear figurehead for people who don't like the new guy to rally round, so chances are he'd be offed pretty quickly, a la Britannicus.
In a scenario where China went the way of Rome, could we see the Tai-Kadai and Miao-Yao peoples remain the dominant ethnicities in southern China?