you have been talking about the Roman Empire in the Medieval Age but witch part of it?
early? middle? or late?
Irrelevant
you have been talking about the Roman Empire in the Medieval Age but witch part of it?
early? middle? or late?
Why is it always assumed that Roman Italy was unsustainable?
I do agree Majorian was the last chance of the West to survive in a respectable manner; maintaining control of its land, military and maybe even a chance at a rebound. But Italy could have been worked.
No it was not. It became too expensive! In the first century there was no major problem with centralization, economic growth and taxation. Thats a problem we could solve, if we find the structural reasons for this process.
That's because in the 1st century Rome was still capable of running a looting economy where it appropriated the surpluses of societies it had just conquered.
The same was not true of, say, the 3rd century because it ran out of wealthy societies to plunder.
Is there any credible scenario where Rome simply does not try to go into Germanic territory? Say they stay south of the Swiss Alps and never try to cross the Rhine (or stop father west). Can Rome improve if it simply does not antagonize the Germanic people?
This is more or less the scenario, we discussed above. If the romans manage to hold Africa and maybe reconquer Spain and perhaps the Narbonensis (Mare Nostrum!), the WRE ends up with a pre-Caesar-state. Gallia, Britannia and the 2 german provinces were lost anyways.
The Alps sound like a good border. But the Alemanns and others invaded northern Italy. And so did the Langobards against the ERE centuries later. So you need legions to defend this line. And now we are back to politics and economy.
With North Africa, Rome can defend these borders. A border at the Rhine would be better, but this is defensible enough.
I just wonder what happens next. Would the Franks still expand from Belgica to Gallia? Whats the roman position about this conquest and the romans in Gallia?
The Franks were always loyal partners since the 4th century (not that much in the 3rd). Perhaps the romans need them against the Visigoths in Spain and allow them to settle in Gallia afterwards?
How would the frankish empire develop with a strong WRE as its neighbour. What does that mean to the frankish culture in the next centuries. The Franks were already heavily influenced by the local romans in Gallia. Now this influence might become even stronger.
Would we see 3 more or less "roman" empires in 1000 AD: the Franks, the WRE and the ERE? Would Charlemagne or anybody else become Caesar, crowned by the Augustus in Constantinople?
How would this WRE deal with the ERE? Could the roman emperors of the WRE get their power back and implement roman magistri with roman legions instead of foederati. like the ERE managed to do? What would happen during the rise of the Islam and the appearance of the Avars in Europe? What happens to the Ostrogoths and the Langobards? Without the Arabs in Spain, would the Franks invade Britannia?
I just wonder what happens next. Would the Franks still expand from Belgica to Gallia? Whats the roman position about this conquest and the romans in Gallia?
The Franks were always loyal partners since the 4th century (not that much in the 3rd). Perhaps the romans need them against the Visigoths in Spain and allow them to settle in Gallia afterwards?
How would the frankish empire develop with a strong WRE as its neighbour. What does that mean to the frankish culture in the next centuries. The Franks were already heavily influenced by the local romans in Gallia. Now this influence might become even stronger.
Would we see 3 more or less "roman" empires in 1000 AD: the "Gallic Empire" of the Franks, the WRE and the ERE? Would Charlemagne or any other Frank become Caesar, crowned by the Augustus in Constantinople? Or would we see even 3 Augusti? Would this new multi-emperor system including the germans stay stable?
How would this WRE deal with the ERE? Could the roman emperors of the WRE get their power back and implement roman magistri with roman legions instead of foederati, like the ERE managed to do? What would happen during the rise of the Islam and the appearance of the Avars in Europe? What happens to the Ostrogoths and the Langobards? Without the Arabs in Spain, would the Franks invade Britannia?
Can you explain why?Let's be real here. If the Western Roman Empire somehow managed to survive after 5th Century CE it would probably just be relegated to the Italian Peninsula (if that) and Central Italy.
What is this I don't even... Why would people support a giant Papal state?The Pope (i.e. the "Pontifex Maximus" of the Roman State) would constantly struggle with the Emperor for temporal authority and probably win out in the end, possibly reducing the hereditary Emperor to a figurehead position similar to that of pre-1867 Japan. Or they (the Papacy) must just abolish the Empire altogether in favor of a theocratic state roughly analogous to OTL Papal States. Just some thoughts, guys.
What is this I don't even... Why would people support a giant Papal state?
That would beg the question why wasn't the patriach in Constantinople doing the same thing? If the pope (it must be stressed, the papacy getting any leverage politically didn't come until at least the 7th-8th centuries) would struggle with the Western Roman Emperor's, then one would assume the patriarch of Constantinople would have been locked in an eternal power struggle with the eastern emperors. Yet they seemed to be deposed and installed at will, often hostage to the emperor's ends. Why would this be different in Rome? The Pope, at least at this time, is merely an overglorified patriarch.