I know this is Roman Timeline, but I think it's a little one sided. Could we see the effects of the contact among the east in west in china too. Would they've adopted glass or aqueducts or a Neo-Platonic influence in Confucianism?
On eastern shores – A Roman Timeline
- Thread starter Alcsentre Calanice
- Start date
If you could tell me, why China always became united again, I could tell you why the roman empire fell.
Time seems to be important - China was united as early as 1600 BCE by the Shang dynasty, whereas the west's first unification came with Alexander the Great in 330 BCE. If we give Rome some more time, they will achieve to establish a lasting allegiance to the Empire,
The dynasty thing is interesting. Rome couldn't adopt dynastic succession early, because the emperors had to maintain the republican facade of the Principate. But the republican form of government will completly disappear at some point, and the Romans will then be able to establish a real order of succession.
A Roman TL is one sided if it doesn't deal with China. Interesting
I'll try to include some Chinese stuff.
Here the mandatory daily update:
=====
Liber Quintus: The Severan Dynasty
Caput Quintus Decimus: Peace in the World
Marcus Lollius, philosopher on the Roman throne, autocrat against his will, underrated reformer had ruled the empire for thirty years: He accessed power in 916 AUC [1], together with his adoptive brother, Publius Verus, who proved to have much more luck than competence. Marcus Lollius had to organize the empire's defense on his own, whereas Verus relied on generals and administrators appointed by Lollius.
Most of the progress in Roman administration achieved during the three decades of the Lollian Era were conceived and put into execution by Marcus Lollius. Lollius ended the endless wars in Judea, in Hibernia and on the Danube; he added the pacified provinces of Hibernia and Sarmatia to the empire; Lollius' professionalized army was trained to stop the raising barbarian tide.
In Lollius' Roman Empire, public functions were (officially) exerted by the most able ones, whether they were senators, equites, decurions or simple plebeians. Office holders were appointed by the emperor, who was helped by the recommendations of the local elites – unfortunately, sometimes the local elites were corrupt and recommended the highest bidder.
However, Lollius' personal life consisted of defeats on all fronts. He had to spend his time with governing the empire instead of pursuing his studies of Greek and Chinese philosophy; his wife gave him some daughters, but only one son, named Marcus Annius Verus; last but not least, the plague brought to Rome by the war took him precisely this son.
Publius Verus however had a son: Septimius Severus, bearing the old name of his father, was a product of the Lollian Era. He was, like Quietus and his father, of African origin. His family was of equestrian origin, and Septimius had always a better rapport with the army and bureaucracy than with the Senate. He represented a new class of well-educated men, loyal only to the state, loving effectiveness and vigorousness, but despising decadence and impuissance.
Lollius never liked Septimius Severus. He would have preferred his own son as successor, a son he educated and hoped that he would become like him. But since Sepimius was married to one of Lollius' daughters, and since he was the son of Lollius' co-regent, Marcus Lollius had no other choice than to appoint him successor; choice that was approved by the Senate and the people of Rome, a pure formality in these times.
Even though Marcus Lollius, resigned and convinced that the empire would be lead to destruction by Septimius, died in 946 AUC [2], Septimius Severus had to wait until the death of his father in 948 AUC [3] before he could assume power. Expactably, his reign should not be as destructive has the old Lollius had imagined, even if it deepened the shift from a traditional, senatorial aristocracy to an equestrian, meritocratic bureaucracy.
[1] 163 CE
[2] 193 CE
[3] 195 CE
Awesome timeline, more updates pls
Have some patience
I need one or two hours for all the research and writing work for ONE update, so posting one per day isn't that bad I guess.
I doubt, that a clear dynastic succession helps that much. The principate from Augustus to Severus Alexander was pretty peaceful for 250 years. Just 2 short 1 year civil wars after Nero and Commodus. All other usurpations in these 250 years were just minor nuisances. The dynastic rule in the principate was pretty clear and worked well: the one, who became co-emperor (imperium proconsulare and tribunicitas potestas) adopted or not, was the heir. If you look to the english monarchy or other monarchies with a clear dynastic succession, you won't find 250 almost peaceful years.
I also doubt, that the crisis of the 3rd century could have been avoided just with a better dynastic succession. If you look to the late empire, with a better dynastic succession than the principate, you got even more usurpations. The relatively stable succession of the first 250 years had stopped working. I guess we need to look to multiple factors which finally lead to instability of a system; regardless how well a dynasty is legitimated.
Also the chinese dynasties were blown away more than once. But after some decades or centuries of separation somebody united China again. This did not happen in Europe. Well Aurelianus did it. But this is the only case. Justinianus tried it. But even without the plague he had not the ressources to re-conquer Hispania and Gallia, too. And even if: he had no idea, how to hold it. It seems the chinese conquerors did not care about ressources. Or the faced a completely different situation.
Last edited:
This is the same Septimius Severus as in OTL, right?
How is economy and inflation going these days? Modern historians believe that Severus did not ruin the economy by increasing the salary of the soldiers. The economy was already hit hard by inflation and his increase of pay was just the badly needed reaction. Well, Caracallas probably even bigger increase is a different story.
Severus had some good ideas and was a pretty competent emperor. Would be interesting to see, how he would act differently without inflation and a civil war at start. But why should there be no noticeable inflation by now? At least you did not explain it. Well, good luck.
How is economy and inflation going these days? Modern historians believe that Severus did not ruin the economy by increasing the salary of the soldiers. The economy was already hit hard by inflation and his increase of pay was just the badly needed reaction. Well, Caracallas probably even bigger increase is a different story.
Severus had some good ideas and was a pretty competent emperor. Would be interesting to see, how he would act differently without inflation and a civil war at start. But why should there be no noticeable inflation by now? At least you did not explain it. Well, good luck.
Last edited:
Yep. When the feudal state of Qin (re-)united China unter ther reign of Qin Shi Huangdi, it hadn't to care about an Empire like Persia being able to backstab it at any moment. Justinian couldn't ignore the Persian threat, whereas the kings of Qin had decades to focus on Chinese unification.
Now if Rome takes out Persia (by dividing it as you proposed), the Romans can divide and unite the empire again and again because they haven't to fear Persia.
The Chinese conquerers simply had more ressources available, because the Chinese states had an effective bureaucracy and a comprehensive economic policy.
Yep. Same name, same origin, roughly the same character.
There is some inflation, but since there was no civil war until now, it is not dramatic. Also, the increase of pay was provoked by the frequent civil wars, but until now, not one of these happened.
=====
Caput Sextus Decimus: Ordinary People
As much Severus hated powerlessness and weakness, as much authority the Severans had over society, so few they had over their own family. The Severan family was a totally ordinary family with its disputes and feuds, but in an imperial family, such arguments could quickly become very serious: Septimius Severus had, along with two daughters, one son named Geta after Septimius' grandfather Publius Septimius Geta (who had become Publius Verus after his adoption by Quintus).
However, Septimius' younger brother, Publius Severus, played a major role during Septimius' reign, and when Septimius died in 964 AUC [1], the succession order wasn't completely clear. According to Septimius' last will, Geta became emperor, but in 966 AUC [2], the Praetorians overthrew Geta and proclaimed Publius emperor. Publius was a capable ruler, but never gained popularity among the Romans, since he owed the throne to the murder of his nephew.
Publius successfully reigned for a decade, before dying of a natural cause in 975 AUC [3]. He left behind a daughter, Septimia, married to Sextus Varius Marcellus, a Syrian politician; the couple had a young son born in 961 AUC [4], named Alexander Septimius Geta, who hence became emperor when he was fourteen years old. His reign therefore was a long one, but since he wasn't given the credit to rule along, his father and then his mother assumed government until their deaths in 999 [5] and 1002 AUC [6] – at this point, Alexander had already given up all dreams of autonomy, and the regency changed over to Alexander's sister Theoclia.
But Theoclia was soon challenged by Alexander's wife Sallustia; consequently, Theoclia's husband Gaius Claudius came to the latter's support, which lead to various poison murders among Roman high society. The winning third however was Alexander's son, named Lucius Septimius Geta, who became emperor after his father's death in 1023 AUC [7] – his important role, however, deserves an own chapter.
[1] 211 CE
[2] 213 CE
[3] 222 CE
[4] 208 CE
[5] 246 CE
[6] 249 CE
[7] 270 CE
There was always a moderate inflation during the principate. But it usually did not exceed the ongoing growth of the economy. So this inflation was good and needed. Some exceptions like Neros overspending, the flood of dacian gold during Trajans reign, and Tiberius' oversaving of public funds. But other than that nothing extrordinary. And even these exceptions were not really dangerous.
It is not fully clear amongst historians focussing on roman economy, when exactly the inflation started to rise faster. I prefer the theory, that it happened during Marcus Aurelius reign. The economy was hit hard by the plague. Millions of people died, the gross national product dropped dramatically. What a serious modern government would do now, is reducing the money supply. But Aurelius was in the mid of the Marcomann Wars. He had even to increase public spending massively. This started the desaster. Afterwards we had Commodus, who was not economical but debased the currency again. And the civil war after his death did'nt help either.
IIRC in your TL we had also this desastrous combination of a plague and an ongoing huge war. Therefore, I am not convinced, that there is no serious inflation in your world.
PS: And you just skipped 60 years in the still cruical 3rd century without any shit hitting the fan. I don't buy this wet dream. Too much love, peace and harmony. Furthermore you wasted 60 years to solve the massive internal structural issues of the empire. Without solving them, it can't survive anyways.
Last edited:
Yep, bot the plague and a big war occured in my TL. But there are things one can do against inflation - for example, stopping to mint coins for some time. And once the plague and the war stopped, the economy recovered, prices dropped and inflation was reduced automatically.
No, magic does not happen in political economy. Some measures are badly needed, that the inflation does not start galopping. Well, OTL there is no evidence, that it started to gallop during the severan dynasty. But all severan emperors had serious issues with inflation.
PS: But I undestand, that you are not interested in some areas of history, like the history of roman economy.
Donald Reaver
Donor
Was the thing that the black death has been given credit to stimulating the European economy, more money in heirs of the dead for investing in the economy rather than being tied up. Why that is different in Roman times than the black death is something that I would like to see an explanation for. No doubt plenty of reasons for, perhaps more survivors of the major holders of the bulk of the wealth in the economy? Interesting question anyways.
One reason was, that after the plague in the mid-ages the freedom of workers/tenants in agriculture was strenghtened, because the demand was still there, but less people available. So the land-owners started to compete about the rare ressource tenant. And the tenants used this situation to negotiate better contracts.
Same situtation after the Antoninian Plague. But the romans reacted with more supression of tenants not less. Actually mid-age serfdom was invented by the romans these days. So serfdom was pushed by one plague and the downfall of serfdom by an other plague. Even if it needed some centuries more until serfdom really fully ended, the process started in the 14th century.
Regarding investments, the roman world is too much focussed on investments in agriculture only. And the plague changed nothing about roman laws and mindset.
Not really
I never understood why the emperors weren't able to stop the inflation. What do you think?Investments is one point I thought of to save the empire. But where's the problem with investments in agriculture? I think Rome needs even more investmens in agricultural technology. Now the problem is to know where these investments should come from, if Rome didn't made them in OTL and even lost capital in the trade with India.
Now with Indian Company, the Romans will be able to counterbalance the foreign trade balance and to accumulate capital - capital that can be invested in the modernization of agriculture. In fact, if I think about it, the inflow of capital from India to Rome could increase the ammount of circulating money and thus even worsen the inflation.
Were's the problem with serfdom?
The romans had no economic sciences. They never planned something about economy, they just reacted and tinkered. They had no clue, that inflation has something to do with money supply and gross national product. The romans introduced the gold currency with the Solidus, so that people trust in their money again. And it worked. But just for the short supplied gold.
The silver currency was still around and heavily inflated. IIRC it was Maioranus, about a century later, who finally stopped silver currency inflation by accident. Silver currency became that worthless, that he decided to stop minting it all together. And suddenly this heavily debased very bad silver currency became valuable again. Because people needed these smaller coins. You can't buy a bread with a solidus. It's like a 1000€ bill. The east romans saw this effect and copied it. This rescued their economy. But for the WRE it was already too late.
So I correct myself, when I said magic does not happen in economic history. Yes it did, with Maioranus.
The main problem is still there. The traders buy a lot of goods in India and pay with silver. Because there are not many goods the indians are willing to buy from the romans. Even in your TL this still ruins the foreign trade balance of the roman empire. You need some goods to sell to India. Like the british had to sell opium to China, in order to avoid to ruin themselves with this trade.
Of course you can simply conquer India. Like the Brits did. But that is not that simple in roman times.
Perhaps a stronger onsite engagement of your India Company is enough? I would analyze, how the early trading companies of the Portuguese and Dutch dealed with India without ruining their foreign trade balance. What did they sell onsite? Or did they run their own farms onsite?
That was not my point. It was just an example, that a plague can cause two exactly contrary things. In the 3rd century it increased serfdom and in the 14th century it decreased it. Both is plausible.
Last edited:
Well, all what Rome need is an intelligent guy who realizes that money is some kind of merchandise, and that money, like any other merchandise, becomes cheap if there is more of it than needed.
Some Roman economic science would be interesting.
Conquering India... On another board, some guy made a funny TL about it.
Here some problems:
a) India has a large populations, meaning that the Indian kingdoms have large armies.
b) Logistics. There are the Persian deserts between India and Rome, and not everything can be brought by ship to India. Logistics would be catastrophic.
c) Climatic conditions.
d) Different tactics.
I think conquering strongholds and trading post is the best the Romans can achieve in India.
Well, each colonial Empire seems to have had its own method. The Spaniards exchanged the silver and gold of their American colonies against Chinese goods. The Portuguese exported tropical wood and received some spices as tribute from local rulers. The Dutch partially conquered the Spice Islands, introduced new crops and established plantations.
It was very profitable to trade within Asia, and this form of trade was even more important for the Dutch East India Company than the trade with Asia. For example, the Dutch sold cotton and silk to the Japanese, who paid with gold and silver. These precious metals could in turn be used to purchase other goods, like for example tea or textiles. Coffee was a trade good too, and the Dutch company had its own coffee plantations in India.
I think the Romans could do the following: Conquer some African stronghold. Trade cheap textiles and glass for African goods like ivory, wood or spices. These African goods could in turn be exchanged against Asian merchandise. I'll think about it.
I think that in this TL too the Romans will restrict the peasants' liberty after the plague. Rome just needs the productivity of the agriculture to feed the population of its cities, so the taxes and quotas of the peasants will be raised.
=====
Caput Septimus Decimus: Strengthen the state!
Septimius Severus was of African origin, but like many other Romans of his time, he loved to consider Rome as decadent and the east as the example to follow. He was not particularly religious and rejected the mystics of Buddhism and Taoism, but was attracted by the Chinese school of thought named Legalism – he even learned some Chinese to be able to read the works of his models in their own language.
News from China were that the ruling dynasty [1] had been overthrown by aristocrats and military officers, and that a certain Dzau Tsau [2] had taken power in the north. The great Chinese Empire was falling apart [3], frightening Romans like Septimius – if a modern and well-organized state like China could be dismembered, Rome could share its fate. Or, even worse, a weakened empire could even fall to the barbarians inferior in numbers, just as Persia had fallen to Alexander's modest army.
But Septimius wasn't a fatalist. He thought that there was no problem without a solution, and this solution was, in his opinion, a strong state. Form him, every society was centrifugal – the senators fight the imperial authority, the peasants are exploited by the senators, the merchants try to avoid paying taxes, the soldiers want to escape military discipline, the slaves are disobedient anyhow…
Therefore, a state was necessary to create the cohesion needed by every nation, cohesion which the society could not bring off itself. Septimius' ideology was strongly influenced by Legalism, which described human nature as interest-driven – men had to be forced to obey the laws, whereas an improvement of human nature and voluntary observation of the law, as propagated by Confucian philosophers, was impossible.
As Lord Stang [4], influential reformer of the state of Qin and thus preparer of Chinese unification, put it: “If the people are stronger than the government, the state is weak; if the government is stronger than the people, the army is strong, […] with the result that the state will flourish and attain supremacy.” Daoism and later Confucianism advocated for the principle of “non-action” of the government: Legalism agreed with them; however, Legalist statesmen thought that this should be obtained not by a restraint, but by an expansion of the state. Then, once bureaus and courts worked effectively, it would be “as if there were no government at all.”
Stang, following these precepts, had made a centralized state out of the feudal Qin without any deference to tradition, since “the sage, if he is able to strengthen the state hereby [i. e. by the law], does not model himself on antiquity, and if he is able to benefit the people thereby, does not adhere to the established rites.” The subjects were regarded as equal before the law, especially equally vicious.
Among Stang's reforms were the enslavement of scholars and other “idlers”, compulsory labor for peasants, death penalty and other draconian punishments for criminals and for those who didn't report a crime; but also the improvement of administration by meritocracy, since feudal aristocrats were replaced by public and military officers who had distinguished themselves in action.
Septimius Severus, even if he couldn't hope to enforce such radical reforms in a class society like the Roman one, was deeply impressed by the acts of this Chinese statesman living five centuries before him. His autobiography is full of allusions to Legalist philosophy, and his whole government was an attempt to adapt Legalist thought to the reality of Roman politics.
[1] Obviously the Han Dynasty
[2] Middle Chinese pronunciation of Cao Cao
[3] Nothing strange – development in China roughly follows our TL
[4] Old Chinese pronunciation of Shang
Even the Chinese did not really go Legalism during most of the time, a legalist Qin crushed down just 15 years after unification.
Severus should know Chinese history better, Han did not crumble because of its Confucius leaning, it is because of it's horrible succession.
Severus should know Chinese history better, Han did not crumble because of its Confucius leaning, it is because of it's horrible succession.
Well, the official (Han) ideology was Confucianism, and Legalism was condemned by the Han philosophers.
BUT in fact, the state remained Legalist; until 1911, the Chinese state had a very bureaucratic and hierarchical structure inspired by Legalism, even if China claimed to follow only "Confucianism". "outside Confucian, inside Legalist"
Sure Han had a horrible succession (in the 2nd century), but there were other problems too - the power of the palast eunuchs, the Daoist rebellions, the power of the gentry and the weakness of the imperial government (so Severus' theory isn't completly false). In fact, the rebellions were caused by the economic exploitation of the peasants not only by the central government, but also by the landowners; furthermore, the weakness of the government allowed the rebellions to happen in the first place. During the fight against the rebellion, local governors gained power and eventually became warlords being able to challenge the imperial government.
=====
Caput Duodevicesimus: Shield and Sword of the Emperor
As described, Septimius Severus strove for an authoritarian system of government, where he could rule without any opposition of the Senate and the ancient elites. However, like his predecessor, Septimius lacked of an instrument to both control the incumbent office holders and to find acceptable candidates outside of the existing ruling class. One of Septimius' attempts to solve this problem was the creation of the Ears.
Under the Severan Dynasty, the right of free speech introduced by Marcus Lollius was revoked; it was considered as dangerous to have people speak openly about social problems, and much more effective to have an efficient secret police reporting flaws in the system discretely to central authorities. To support the gendarmery (the frumentarii), established by Lollius, Septimius created an additional, secret security service called Ears of the Prince (aures principis), or simply the Ears, and modelled after the secret police of the old Persian Empire ("the eyes of the king").
The Ears, organized like the frumentarii (and the army), were a hierarchic and heavily centralized body under the control of the Prefect of the frumentarii. They were recruited among the common people as well as among the ruling class, and consisted of two categories of employees: Police officers, acting openly, for example at house searches or arresting of suspects; and undercover agents, recruited among the local population and recorded as spies on the Ears' records, but paid only in case of a success and acting as secret informers.
The most important task of the Ears was to oversee the provincial governors and to notify the central government of any case of incompetence, corruption, arbitrariness or disloyalty. Often, such information was only collected to be used at a favorable moment to blackmail the concerned or to force him to resign. Though, in cases of major opposition to the government, a denunciation could lead to an immediate imprisonment.
Septimius' government was a golden age of jurisprudence, since his government was very active at enhancing Roman law. This had two goals: Weakening the aristocracy, and thus strengthening the state. To achieve the first goal, equality before law was extended to senators, since both common and noble citizens could now be judged by the emperor himself.
The Senate lost his role as tribunal, and the cases of lèse majesté (crimen maiestatis) increased. Senators and other important citizens denunciated by the Ears were sentenced by secret courts during private hearings, and only the emperor himself had the power to save those who were found guilty. However, the Severans were clever enough not to use this procedure to often, to avoid being stigmatized as tyrants by the soldiers whose support they needed.
Besides the weakening of the senatorial class, the second target of the Severan legislation was to reinforce public authority over society. The common citizen should be forced to contribute his share to the Empire's power and prosperity: Beggars were subject to enslavement, as were monks [1], vagabonds and legacy hunter. Augustus' laws against childlessness were enforced, as were laws against prostitution, same-sex intercourse and effeminate behavior.
The state punished citizens laws branded as “useless” and “corrupt”, whereas the government tried to reward hard work. For example, the taxes of productive peasants, craftsmen or merchants were reduced; during the Plague, many peasants tried to profit from the manpower and foot shortage by lifting their prices – in reaction, the state set maximum prices and production quotas for them, and peasants that failed to meet these quotas were enslaved. Also, many sentences could be commuted into a certain time of serfdom, so that criminals could avoid harsh fines or death by draining marshes or working on public estates – the work in the mines and quarries however was as deadly as before, and regarded as one of the heaviest punishments.
[1] This had negative consequences for Buddhism in the empire.
Yeah you are right. But the problems of Han are quite interrelated.
The death of a young emperor (starting from the 3rd) means the child becomes the emperor. Because his father is dead so his mother and his cronies become regency. The emperor would become very unhappy about this and the only people he can 'trust' are the eunuch. The emperor relies on the eunuch to eradicate his mother and his cronies but it means the eunuch has the power. Eunuchs are nothing but trouble (most of the time) and the state starts to becomes corrupted as the emperor most likely would let the eunuch to handle state affairs and just indulges in some very unhealthy lifestyle and cares shit about the states.
The emperor dies young again (probably because of his unhealthy lifestyle, most of the emperor in East Han since the 3rd do not have a lifespan more than 35 years except the last) and the cycle begins again. Sometimes it is the eunuch who raise a new emperor and control the state and sometimes it is the matriach (mother of a former emperor) killed off an unruly or overly ambitious child emperor who defiles her will. And most of time the regency and eunuch fought for power.
Under such leadership the management of the state becomes horrible and the peasants got horrible life (of course sometimes natural disasters push a bit) and rebellions would rise, then the warlords as you say. So I would say succession is really the big problem.
But anyway, really enjoying your timeline.
The death of a young emperor (starting from the 3rd) means the child becomes the emperor. Because his father is dead so his mother and his cronies become regency. The emperor would become very unhappy about this and the only people he can 'trust' are the eunuch. The emperor relies on the eunuch to eradicate his mother and his cronies but it means the eunuch has the power. Eunuchs are nothing but trouble (most of the time) and the state starts to becomes corrupted as the emperor most likely would let the eunuch to handle state affairs and just indulges in some very unhealthy lifestyle and cares shit about the states.
The emperor dies young again (probably because of his unhealthy lifestyle, most of the emperor in East Han since the 3rd do not have a lifespan more than 35 years except the last) and the cycle begins again. Sometimes it is the eunuch who raise a new emperor and control the state and sometimes it is the matriach (mother of a former emperor) killed off an unruly or overly ambitious child emperor who defiles her will. And most of time the regency and eunuch fought for power.
Under such leadership the management of the state becomes horrible and the peasants got horrible life (of course sometimes natural disasters push a bit) and rebellions would rise, then the warlords as you say. So I would say succession is really the big problem.
But anyway, really enjoying your timeline.
Last edited: