Historia Mundi
- Thread starter DominusNovus
- Start date
Dammit, I had a huge reply to this. Basically, yes, things are looking good for Rome. The government is relatively stable. The borders are secure, thanks to the Romans going out periodically and kicking the shit out of anyone who looks like they want to cause a problem. However, its still an empire run by Latins in Italia for Latins in Italia, and the outlying people might start to resent being ruled by a supposedly representative government in which they have no say. Or maybe not, people tend to be less idealistic and prone to doing dumb things like rebelling when times are good. Anyway, there were two events that I had meant to include in the recent update, but forgot to:Iñaki said:Very good!
This roman republic is becoming more interesting and advanced than the best emperors of the Roman Empire of OTL could imagine about the future of Rome (Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius would say looking at the roman republic of this ATL: Jupiter, this is great, I am too a republican!
The stability of the frontiers is very good, with the alliance with the Gallic Confederation and the defeat of the parthians (formation of client states in Mesopotamia this is the dream of emperor Traianus: defeat decisively the parthians accomplished in this ATL 100 years before of his dead in OTL
The techonological advances as the optigraph are making of the Roman Republic a structure far more prosperous and easy to govern than the Roman Empire of OTL in its best times.
754 AUC
- Corsica and Sardinia are incorporated into Italia.
773 AUC
- Sicilia is incorporated into Italia.
Its pretty much the top of the ladder for these regions.
Well, I refered to him as young in 728 AUC, so he was somewhere in his 20s. Its not 775 AUC, so he's probably in his 70s. He's likely retired, though still influential, assuming he's still alive.Iñaki said:
Well, there are definately ties between the British tribes and the mainland tribes. I imagine that if a state develops there, Rome will not stand for the Gallic Confederation expanding into Britain, and will support a native state, so as to keep the Gauls from becomming more powerful. So, there'll likely be a rival Britannic Confederation or something similar.Iñaki said:
and well at last only say another time: very good timeline!
[/QUOTE]Thank you. I gotta say, your replies are probably almost as entertaining for me as my intallments are for you.
Oh come on, when have I ever been nice to the Parthians? They're going down, either in the next instalment, or the one after that. Probably the later one.Imajin said:
Poor parthians, kicked out by the sassanids in OTL kicked out by the romans in this ATL.
For the partians the history is only a tale of who kicks me out ? , but well I am sorry for the parthians but it is the law of history for parthians, a very unstable state! (too much pretendents, too much unrest, too much civil war...uof when the parthians remain united could be very good, but when they are in civil unrest they are well like cocks fighting between them when the foxes assault the henhouse )
Hmm, the parthians between Rome and the Kushan Kingdom, it seems probable that this parthian sandwich could be eaten by Rome and the Kushans.
For the partians the history is only a tale of who kicks me out ?
, but well I am sorry for the parthians but it is the law of history for parthians, a very unstable state! (too much pretendents, too much unrest, too much civil war...uof when the parthians remain united could be very good, but when they are in civil unrest they are well like cocks fighting between them when the foxes assault the henhouse )Hmm, the parthians between Rome and the Kushan Kingdom, it seems probable that this parthian sandwich could be eaten by Rome and the Kushans.
Very likely that the Romans and Kushans split them up. The Parthian state (and, for that matter, the Sassanids) was basically feudal in nature, thus prone to civil wars and just rebelliousness. If it weren't sitting on top of some of the richest territory in the world, it would never have lasted the way it did.Iñaki said:Poor parthians, kicked out by the sassanids in OTL kicked out by the romans in this ATL.
For the partians the history is only a tale of who kicks me out ?
Hmm, the parthians between Rome and the Kushan Kingdom, it seems probable that this parthian sandwich could be eaten by Rome and the Kushans.
DominusNovus said:
Eh, you sure about that? Personally, I think that would be better if you kept the previous legal system. Why, you might ask... well, codifying law makes it rather unflexible - definitely not good for Rome at that time. You see, at the end of Republic, AFAIK, the Roman legal system consisted of two sub-systems - first one was the old Roman law, strict, harsh and unflexible. And growing problematic to be used effectively. There was where the second sub-system came into action - the Praetor's law. I don't remember how exactly it worked, unfortunately. But I can say that the whole Roman legal system of the late Republic and early Empire reminds a lot of Anglo-Saxon legal system with Common Law and Equity Law - with Praetor's law being similiar to today's Equity Law. BTW, Corpus Iuris Civilis (the OTL-ish one)was created during the time that iurisprudence wasn't that great anymore and legal culture was much lower.
Great timeline Dom. It's quite a bit different than the ealier versions but still similar. I don't like having to scroll down to read the footnotes. Gallia Cisalpina was a province before your POD afaik. Parachutes can be used for base-jumping
Last edited:
With the introduction of the printing press, a codified book of law enabled roman law to be disseminated across the mediterranean. The stuff thats on the books is pretty minimalist, so as to allow as much flexibility as possible.Tizoc said:
Sorry, but its a convenient format. Blame Scott, his use of them is what inspired me.fortyseven said:
According to wikipedia, it wasn't incorporated until 81bc, otl. I know I found that information originallly on UNRV, but I can't find it now.fortyseven said:
Well some of the events in the history of Jesus were caused by the political situation in Palestine: in OTL there was the territory controlled by roman governor Pontius Pilatus + the kingdom of Herod Antipas + Decapolis.
In this ATL all Judea is controlled by the romans, I suppose that there are plenty of little groups that attempt to expell the romans of this ATL.
Also is possible that because the romans control all directly (and I suppose with an important garrison to protect against possible jews rebellions), the alternate roman governor (I suppose Pontius Pilatus is butterflied) have no as great necessity as Pilatus of OTL to make concessions to the jews lawmen (for example Pilatus have a dangerous position in OTL because in part he needs to have good relationship with fariseus and other power groups of Judea to stop any possible rebellion or unrest -and avoid that someone say to Tiberius that Pilatius free this presoner Jesus and this causes a lot of unrest) so is possible the same situation that Pilatus in OTL:
Jesus is captured by the jews opposed to him and presented to the jews lawmen, the governor listen this and orders to present to him this presoner (He says "I have the auctoritas in the province, so present me this presoner and quick and explain me what charges you have against Jesus of Nazareth") xxxxxx (space for the name of the roman governor ) listen to the fariseus and Jesus, and he says "I don´t found that this man is guilty" so I think that I free him, the fariseus protest and says : "is guilty of rebellion against the roman republic" xxxxx says "rebellion? a wise man of peace, the republic is not founded to kill man not guilty because a crowd says he is guilty"
Rumours and protests of the crowd, now the governor looking at his strong roman contingent of legionaries and after looking to the crowd He says:
"But you, all these rumours and this anger against a roman representant, could be rebellion" and he smiles
He looks with interest to Jesus and he asks to him what would you do with this crowd in my situation?
And Jesus says "My father would forgive them, I yet forgive them and I think they don´t know what they are doing, so I would forgive them"
xxxx says to the crowd "And this is the man that you want that I condemn, he worths more than all you"
an looking to Jesus "You are free"
Well more or less (sorry for this long answer, is my natural enthusiasm)
Well is possible than Jesus not be crucified in this ATL? It could be interesting how a christianism with Jesus living until his natural death could develops in a world with a Roman republic more respectuous with the laws and the persons and more stabel than the Roman Empire of OTL
In this ATL all Judea is controlled by the romans, I suppose that there are plenty of little groups that attempt to expell the romans of this ATL.
Also is possible that because the romans control all directly (and I suppose with an important garrison to protect against possible jews rebellions), the alternate roman governor (I suppose Pontius Pilatus is butterflied) have no as great necessity as Pilatus of OTL to make concessions to the jews lawmen (for example Pilatus have a dangerous position in OTL because in part he needs to have good relationship with fariseus and other power groups of Judea to stop any possible rebellion or unrest -and avoid that someone say to Tiberius that Pilatius free this presoner Jesus and this causes a lot of unrest) so is possible the same situation that Pilatus in OTL:
Jesus is captured by the jews opposed to him and presented to the jews lawmen, the governor listen this and orders to present to him this presoner (He says "I have the auctoritas in the province, so present me this presoner and quick and explain me what charges you have against Jesus of Nazareth") xxxxxx (space for the name of the roman governor
) listen to the fariseus and Jesus, and he says "I don´t found that this man is guilty" so I think that I free him, the fariseus protest and says : "is guilty of rebellion against the roman republic" xxxxx says "rebellion? a wise man of peace, the republic is not founded to kill man not guilty because a crowd says he is guilty" Rumours and protests of the crowd, now the governor looking at his strong roman contingent of legionaries and after looking to the crowd He says:
"But you, all these rumours and this anger against a roman representant, could be rebellion" and he smiles
He looks with interest to Jesus and he asks to him what would you do with this crowd in my situation?
And Jesus says "My father would forgive them, I yet forgive them and I think they don´t know what they are doing, so I would forgive them"
xxxx says to the crowd "And this is the man that you want that I condemn, he worths more than all you"
an looking to Jesus "You are free"
Well more or less (sorry for this long answer, is my natural enthusiasm
)Well is possible than Jesus not be crucified in this ATL? It could be interesting how a christianism with Jesus living until his natural death could develops in a world with a Roman republic more respectuous with the laws and the persons and more stabel than the Roman Empire of OTL
I have vague rememberances of a TV show or something that contended that Jesus actually survived and lived till 100+ or something. I wish I could remember what program it was.
Anyway, IIRC he lived his life preaching the word and as he got real old and it became difficult to move (he might have become blind too) he lived in a small hut (or a house of a follower) preaching till one day he died and 'ascended' unto Heaven.
Anyway, IIRC he lived his life preaching the word and as he got real old and it became difficult to move (he might have become blind too) he lived in a small hut (or a house of a follower) preaching till one day he died and 'ascended' unto Heaven.
Inaki, you seem to have guessed some of my ideas.
Another thing about Pontius Pilate is that, under normal circumstances, he would have gladly executed Jesus. He ruthless enough that Tiberius wanted him to ease up a bit (Tiberius, of course, wasn't exactly the nicest guy either).
Another thing about Pontius Pilate is that, under normal circumstances, he would have gladly executed Jesus. He ruthless enough that Tiberius wanted him to ease up a bit (Tiberius, of course, wasn't exactly the nicest guy either).
I have no idea about that Pontius was as ruthless, I suppose respect to Pontius have the romantic idea inspired by the film of Mel Gibson and by some novels.
So Pontius was in reality a bad man
But well surely the ATL roman governor could be a true republican not ruthless
, ah I am too much idealistic sometimes, well Pontius bye bye my romantic view.My idealism makes me to have good opinions of some men or women that in reality is not so good that I think like Pontius.
Surely this have of Historia Mundi my prefered timeline, not only because the great plaussibility and at same time imagination and a lot of data well researched that you makes is also the fact that Historia Mundi represents the pure roman soul developed in an authentic and stable republic
, the Roman empire of OTL was (in my personal opinion) a history of the degradation of the roman soul, the degradation of the institutions that formed this soul (at the end the senate was only a puppet dominated by the power of the emperor)DominusNovus said:
You did?!!
Well maybe that's where I got it from, could have sworn it was on TV though...well I've always have had a pretty decent imagination.
Hmm, I wonder if Christianity could become something like Buddhism of the west?