Unlike the contemporary Han Dynasty, the Roman Empire was never fully reconstituated after it fell, but could the Roman Empire have developed into a China-esque "eternal empire"? How would such a China-esque Rome function? What PODs might be needed for circumstances which could result in Rome "pulling a China"?
Could Rome have developed into a China-esque "eternal empire"
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
Naturally, it would need to reconstitute itself after the West collapsed.
Perhaps if Islam hadn't happened, the Byzantines would have retained Egypt and continued to dominate the Med. Then, they could have retake the Germanic kingdoms one way or another.
A big factor in China's continual reconstitution is that its successor states have always wanted to pick up the pieces rather than do their own thing.
Say Odoacer takes the title " Western Roman Emperor" rather than King of Italy, and then later Theodoric (citing that his invasion was sanctioned by the ERE) takes the title as well. Have that sort of thing continue on for a bit and it may become ingrained that there must be an emperor in the west, and that any king should be trying his best to make that title his own. The borders and culture could change significantly depending on the course of battle over Italy, but its not like China was stagnant through its different dynasties.
To a large degree Rome did return. It simply never returned in whole or in the same level of prosperity. This likely requires the removal of Islam as a bare minimum, at least in my opinion.
This does not even mention the fact that ‘Roman’ institutions remained after the fall of Rome and provided the foundation for European Society. Institutions such as, manorialism (feudalism), the Church, Roman civil law, Latin, Republican government forms or simply the ideal of a senate (Imperial Diet), etc...
Also, allow me to briefly propose why Islam cannot exist comfortably with a completely revived Pax Romana. Simply put, the Islamic Caliphates proposed in opposition to Rome, an all encompassing and eternal state. Thus, the Umayyad and Abbasid were not and never were competing for Rome’s legacy; but among those who sought to uproot it entirely and all it stood for, so that the new law and new state can reign supreme.
This does not even mention the fact that ‘Roman’ institutions remained after the fall of Rome and provided the foundation for European Society. Institutions such as, manorialism (feudalism), the Church, Roman civil law, Latin, Republican government forms or simply the ideal of a senate (Imperial Diet), etc...
Also, allow me to briefly propose why Islam cannot exist comfortably with a completely revived Pax Romana. Simply put, the Islamic Caliphates proposed in opposition to Rome, an all encompassing and eternal state. Thus, the Umayyad and Abbasid were not and never were competing for Rome’s legacy; but among those who sought to uproot it entirely and all it stood for, so that the new law and new state can reign supreme.
Last edited:
The idea was ingrained IOTL, which is why the Pope made Charlemagne Emperor of the Romans. So my POD would be to get rid of the Frankish partitive inheritance system in favour of primogeniture, so that the Carolingian Empire can actually remain united.
Here are my two cents on the difference between Rome and China.
When barbarians took over Northern China in the early 300s,the vast majority of Chinese landlords had castles of their own.The barbarian warlords could not eradicate these landlords and seize their lands and distribute them to their followers to the extent as it was done in Western Europe,nor could they benefit from doing so since these landlords helped produce a bureaucracy that helped them administrate the conquered lands.Northern China was also far more populated than the south as opposed to the west where the WRE was quite sparsely populated compared to the ERE.In the south,the Jin Dynasty and its' successors repeatedly invaded the north under the rallying cry of expelling the barbarians.Each time such an event occurred,the landlords would flock to the invading Southern Chinese army given that Southern Chinese regime held legitimacy in the eyes of the Northern landlords.The only way to prevent the Chinese landlords from defecting was therefore to sinicize to an extent that was acceptable to these landlords.To further reinforce their legitimacy,these barbarian rulers will need to try and conquer the central plains(the center of China).
The only institute worth mentioning in Europe that was preserved from Rome was just the church and although there were counter attacks by the ERE,it was far less sustained and the ERE itself was crippled soon afterwards by the Muslim invasions.Despite its' role in helping to preserve knowledge of the past, the Church cared far less about what constituted a Roman than what constituted a Christian,despite its' role in the crowning of Charlemagne.And then the ERE basically became Greek....plus the various schismatic controversies.
When barbarians took over Northern China in the early 300s,the vast majority of Chinese landlords had castles of their own.The barbarian warlords could not eradicate these landlords and seize their lands and distribute them to their followers to the extent as it was done in Western Europe,nor could they benefit from doing so since these landlords helped produce a bureaucracy that helped them administrate the conquered lands.Northern China was also far more populated than the south as opposed to the west where the WRE was quite sparsely populated compared to the ERE.In the south,the Jin Dynasty and its' successors repeatedly invaded the north under the rallying cry of expelling the barbarians.Each time such an event occurred,the landlords would flock to the invading Southern Chinese army given that Southern Chinese regime held legitimacy in the eyes of the Northern landlords.The only way to prevent the Chinese landlords from defecting was therefore to sinicize to an extent that was acceptable to these landlords.To further reinforce their legitimacy,these barbarian rulers will need to try and conquer the central plains(the center of China).
The only institute worth mentioning in Europe that was preserved from Rome was just the church and although there were counter attacks by the ERE,it was far less sustained and the ERE itself was crippled soon afterwards by the Muslim invasions.Despite its' role in helping to preserve knowledge of the past, the Church cared far less about what constituted a Roman than what constituted a Christian,despite its' role in the crowning of Charlemagne.And then the ERE basically became Greek....plus the various schismatic controversies.
Last edited:
Another factor that helped bridge the culture in North and South China as opposed to what happened between former WRE and the ERE was that it was very common for members of the same family to serve the southern court and the barbarians simultaneously.Noble families intentionally invest their members in different factions so as to not put all of their eggs in one basket.The result was that officers and officials can and often did defect back and forth between different factions.You see no such thing with the ERE and Western Europe.
While the native culture of south China was very different to that of the north prior to the barbarian invasions,after the north was overrun,large numbers of aristocrats and their tenants migrated to the south and marginalized the native elite from power.You see no such thing in the ERE with the ERE basically going native,without large scale migration of WRE patricians to the ERE.
While the native culture of south China was very different to that of the north prior to the barbarian invasions,after the north was overrun,large numbers of aristocrats and their tenants migrated to the south and marginalized the native elite from power.You see no such thing in the ERE with the ERE basically going native,without large scale migration of WRE patricians to the ERE.
I think the reasons why China developed into an "eternal empire" while Rome didn't are much more deeply-rooted. Even before being properly united by the Qin, under the Zhou, China could still be regarded as a single cultural, political, economic unit, in a way that the Mediterranean basin region couldn't. Even during the Warring States this was partially-true. The reason for that I think is geography - it's much easier to communicate, migrate, trade, lead armies etc. through the yellow river basin, than across the Mediterranean sea. As a result, any state that held any territory in that region could easily expand or at least come into conflict with any other state that held territory in the region, until eventually one state emerged supreme, so there was an inevitability that the region of China proper would always come to be ruled by one polity. Over time this also gave legitimacy to the idea that there should be a single Chinese state, and later that there's a single Chinese nation. This means that China could never have really disintegrated into smaller polities the way Rome did. One the other hand, there was absolutely no inevitability that, for example, the Levant, Spain, and Britain would come to be ruled by the same polity. They only did eventually end up that way because of tremendous military efforts by a state with a uniquely effective army structure. So once the Roman empire in the West fell apart, it would have taken such a great effort to restore it that IMO it was highly unlikely it would ever be restored (and we've seen what happened when Justinian tried that).
The title was dusted off and given to Charlemagne as a trophy on top of his two more important titles, but that's not really a continuation of Western Rome, which at that point had been without an Emperor for 325 years and without its senate for at least 171 years.
What I'm suggesting is a way for the title to be in constant use (even if by multiple claimants) and for the Senate to remain an active institution (unlike OTL where it devolved into little more than a rubber stamp for Constantinople, then completely fell out of use shortly after)
I wonder what the culture of a China-esque Rome would look like and what would it's analogue to the Mandate of Heaven look like.
I would just add that it sort of did. In Western Europe there was always the notion of “Emperor” or “the Empire” as a proper noun referring to a specific thing (until Napoleon/Francis et al muddled it in the 19th century). That institution was considered to have continually existed - there’s a lot here in re: translatio imperii or universal monarchy that on the surface do not look to be analogs to China because it didn’t have the same sort of consistent polity structure.
If you asked a learned person in the medieval period in Western Europe why they had not a Roman Emperor, they would probably look at you funny. I think Voltaire or whoever was kind of soured for a lot of amateur historians today the notion of the Holy Roman Empire as little more than a meme, but during its day it was serious business and an international institution. After all the Catholic liturgical practice for Easter always included a prayer for the intercession for the Emperor - something not removed from the rubrics until 1955.
If you asked a learned person in the medieval period in Western Europe why they had not a Roman Emperor, they would probably look at you funny. I think Voltaire or whoever was kind of soured for a lot of amateur historians today the notion of the Holy Roman Empire as little more than a meme, but during its day it was serious business and an international institution. After all the Catholic liturgical practice for Easter always included a prayer for the intercession for the Emperor - something not removed from the rubrics until 1955.
Last edited:
The biggest problem post-Rome Europe had was that most people didn't even identify themselves as Romans.Ironically,in China,the concept of Han actually emerged due to barbarian conquest of the north.
Sort of? Surely the majority of Latin speaking people even under the rule of Germanic/Gothic/etc conquerors thought of themselves as Romans (the overwhelming success of the conquering groups to integrate and hybridize a new culture notwithstanding) and didn’t really think much one way or the other about the collapse of the empire in the west. The notion of “Rome“ of course was larger than just the polity itself - people took it seriously when folks called Charles’s realm the “Empire of the Franks and Romans”
What Romance language do you think is the most likely to be the "Mandarin" for this China-esque Rome?
‘Mandarin’ simply just meant official language.The truth was that there were multiple ‘mandarins’ in Chinese history.In the Tang Dynasty,the Mandarin was just whatever language that was used in the north-west of China.In the Ming Dynasty,it was the language used around Nanjing while in the Qing Dynasty,it was the language used around Beijing.
That’s sort of beyond the scope of the time period I’m discussing - I assumed you meant the period ca. 476-550, give or take - apologies. The point does stand, however, that the notion did survive quite some time. Even the hybrid successor cultures did seem to think of themselves as having taken some part in the whole thing
Period in the 700s is important.It takes time for the dust to settle in the West,just like how it took time in Northern China to settle,unify and develop institutions,identity and ideologies of its’ own.
1) China is a relatively compact ecumene, which was not especially hard to unite, and was largely isolated from major attackers. The Mediterranean basin is much more convoluted, and has long boundaries with potential invaders.
2) It was by no means predetermined that China would have a persistent imperial regime. There was a 400-year gap between the end of the Han abd the Sui who reunited China, another 100 years between the Tang and the Sung, and 150 years from the Sung loss of north China to the final conquest of the Sung by the Mongol Yuan dynasty. It has only been since 1279 that China has been continually united.
2) It was by no means predetermined that China would have a persistent imperial regime. There was a 400-year gap between the end of the Han abd the Sui who reunited China, another 100 years between the Tang and the Sung, and 150 years from the Sung loss of north China to the final conquest of the Sung by the Mongol Yuan dynasty. It has only been since 1279 that China has been continually united.