Poll: Why did no post-Roman empire reunite the Mediterranean, like China was reunited?

Why did Rome shrink and die while China reunited?

  • China's Central Plain is smaller and more compact than the Mediterranean

    Votes: 49 45.0%
  • The existence of major enemy states on the east (Persia, Arabs)

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • The Roman elite was more ethnically and linguistically diverse (e.g. Greek vs Latin)

    Votes: 30 27.5%
  • Rome was less capable of controlling nomadic peoples like the Huns

    Votes: 10 9.2%
  • Lack of an analogue to Confucian-Legalist state ideology

    Votes: 26 23.9%
  • Christianity, as a more institutionalized non-state religion than Buddhism or Daoism

    Votes: 12 11.0%
  • Plague of Justinian and other diseases

    Votes: 18 16.5%
  • Rome was less centralized than Han China

    Votes: 16 14.7%
  • Rome was just unluckier than China

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 18 16.5%

  • Total voters
    109
I don't think any of us is underestimating the Umayyads,we are just trying to find ways to explain why no power around the Mediterranean,not necessarily the ERE were able to unite the region once again.

I understand, but part of the reason the other states didn't is that they had no claim to Rome nor the empire. Byzantium did and at certain periods reconquered much of the empire and on the eve of the Arab invasion had destroyed its Sassanid rivals making them if need be vassals. This development could easily spur Byzantium back on the conquest of Africa, then to Italy and so forth.

The Mediterranean as well was still a vital trade zone and relatively safe. The possibility of Pax Romana and Marr Nostrum remained in the future of a great king or emperor to grasp. The Umayyads however took these notions and eliminated them by being the first state since Carthage to challenge Rome/Byzantium in the Mediterranean. It further did not simply challenge but conquered and destroyed the trade within the eastern Mediterranean and subjected coastal Europe to onslaughts from the south and the west.

Essentially the Umayyads made the concept of Rome and Pax Romana obsolete, sort of the last nail in the coffin. Interestingly, it was one of the few things the Umayyad actually did, they almost were a state dedicated to waging war on the notions of Rome and of course the Khazars. The Abbasids afterward would come more to define Islam than the Umayyads but the Umayyads defined Europe and Rome more than they did Islam, quite interesting, I must say.
 
I understand, but part of the reason the other states didn't is that they had no claim to Rome nor the empire. Byzantium did and at certain periods reconquered much of the empire and on the eve of the Arab invasion had destroyed its Sassanid rivals making them if need be vassals. This development could easily spur Byzantium back on the conquest of Africa, then to Italy and so forth.

The Mediterranean as well was still a vital trade zone and relatively safe. The possibility of Pax Romana and Marr Nostrum remained in the future of a great king or emperor to grasp. The Umayyads however took these notions and eliminated them by being the first state since Carthage to challenge Rome/Byzantium in the Mediterranean. It further did not simply challenge but conquered and destroyed the trade within the eastern Mediterranean and subjected coastal Europe to onslaughts from the south and the west.

Essentially the Umayyads made the concept of Rome and Pax Romana obsolete, sort of the last nail in the coffin. Interestingly, it was one of the few things the Umayyad actually did, they almost were a state dedicated to waging war on the notions of Rome and of course the Khazars. The Abbasids afterward would come more to define Islam than the Umayyads but the Umayyads defined Europe and Rome more than they did Islam, quite interesting, I must say.
About the whole no claim on Rome nor the Empire,a similar development to what Charlemagne did occurred in China.The barbarians started proclaiming themselves emperor and eventually unified the northern half of China.The descendants of these barbarians eventually went further and unified China after they were thoroughly sinicized.One could assume that if a barbarian king and his successors disregarded claims and managed to conquer the majortiy of the Roman Empire,including the Eastern one,they would be naturally recognized as a Roman Emperor.
 
Last edited:
John7755's opinion pretty much fits with Pirennes theory about the Fall of Rome. When the arabs conquered Africa, the mediterrenean sea as the cultural and economic hub of the ancient world stopped working. And the ancient times finally ended and the mid-ages began. Also every approach to reunite the former roman empire was doomed to fail from now on.

One reason why I personally say that Rome felt in the year 636 with the Battle of Yarmouk. Which was the point of no return /reconquista.
Even if the roman empire legally existed until the Fall of Constantinople. No doubt abut that.

PS: IIRC Pirenne himself never named a date for the Fall of Rome. He was a follower of the so called Transformation Theory. The 3rd big theory about the Fall of Rome. The message of this theory is pretty simple: Rome did never fall!
 
About the whole no claim on Rome nor the Empire,a similar development to what Charlemagne did occurred in China.The barbarians started proclaiming themselves emperor and eventually unified the northern half of China.Would could assume that if a barbarian king and his successors disregarded claims and managed to conquer the majortiy of the Roman Empire,including the Eastern one,they would be naturally recognized as a Roman Emperor.

If I am not wrong, the concept of legitimacy in China was different than in Rome. Every state in Europe thought they were the Roman Empire.

Either way, this is inconsequential to the fact that the Umayyads in my opinion destroyed the actual notion of a true Pax Romana.
 
If I am not wrong, the concept of legitimacy in China was different than in Rome. Every state in Europe thought they were the Roman Empire.

Either way, this is inconsequential to the fact that the Umayyads in my opinion destroyed the actual notion of a true Pax Romana.
Prior to the Sixteen States and the development of the Northern Dynasties,which subsequently unified China,no one believed that it was legitimate for barbarians to become emperor either.
 
John7755's opinion pretty much fits with Pirennes theory about the Fall of Rome. When the arabs conquered Africa, the mediterrenean sea as the cultural and economic hub of the ancient world stopped working. And the ancient times finally ended and the mid-ages began. Also every approach to reunite the former roman empire was doomed to fail from now on.

One reason why I personally say that Rome felt in the year 636 with the Battle of Yarmouk. Which was the point of no return /reconquista.
Even if the roman empire legally existed until the Fall of Constantinople. No doubt abut that.

PS: IIRC Pirenne himself never named a date for the Fall of Rome. He was a follower of the so called Transformation Theory. The 3rd big theory about the Fall of Rome. The message of this theory is pretty simple: Rome did never fall!

I would agree with the Yarmouk point if you mean the concept of a Pax Romana.
 
Prior to the Sixteen States and the development of the Northern Dynasties,which subsequently unified China,no one believed that it was legitimate for barbarians to become emperor either.

Well, China is not my area of expertise so I defer to any who wish to pick this up. I know China in relation to the Islamic world, none else.
 
Does anyone have data about the quantity and quality of arable land in the Med vs the Central Plains? World conquest requires a certain resource surplus, which might not be possible without a large agricultural zone as rich as the central plains .
 
I think an interesting question is why is it that hard to expand in Europe? My personal belief is that unlike the Roman Empire,people still recognized people from other Chinese regions as fellow Hans instead of 'the Other'. It's why wars between different Chinese regimes are usually short and decisive,with the armies and officials of a state defecting en masse to another state whenever their side seemed to be losing.You instead see some sort of proto-nationalism in Europe that makes resistance much stronger even in face of defeat.

But weren't you "Roman" in the end? A lot of people speak of Romanisation, but until Late Antiquity (and beyond, in the case of North Africa, Britain, and to a lesser extent, Gaul), these were not people who'd be "ethnically Roman" (not by language, at least), but by culture, they were Roman.

Whenever barbarians conquered China they set up their own dynasties. They left the bureaucracy in place and contented themselves fucking virgins in palaces.

However, the Goths never did this. This seems and important difference. When Rome fell the government and the trade network simply broke down. You had just the Catholic church barely keeping the lights on.

After the Muslims conquer North Africa you basically have three major powers in the Mediterranean. That is hard to unite.

But the Franks, Visigoths, Lombards, Vandals, etc. ended up speaking Latin in the end. The Roman Empire was ruled by barbarians before. Non-Romans ruled the Roman Empire (the Severan dynasty, basically Carthaginians, plus others during the Crisis of the Third Century). The barbarians establishing their rule over Rome isn't truly impossible in the end. And even so, a "Roman shogunate" could occur--the emperor as puppet, ruled by a barbarian leader (be they Germanic, Arab, whatever) as magister militum.

I'm of the opinion that the Arabs gained their strength and influence on history thanks to Islam--otherwise they are a strong barbarian group which will join the Roman world as so many Germanic groups did.

I understand, but part of the reason the other states didn't is that they had no claim to Rome nor the empire. Byzantium did and at certain periods reconquered much of the empire and on the eve of the Arab invasion had destroyed its Sassanid rivals making them if need be vassals. This development could easily spur Byzantium back on the conquest of Africa, then to Italy and so forth.

The Mediterranean as well was still a vital trade zone and relatively safe. The possibility of Pax Romana and Marr Nostrum remained in the future of a great king or emperor to grasp. The Umayyads however took these notions and eliminated them by being the first state since Carthage to challenge Rome/Byzantium in the Mediterranean. It further did not simply challenge but conquered and destroyed the trade within the eastern Mediterranean and subjected coastal Europe to onslaughts from the south and the west.

Essentially the Umayyads made the concept of Rome and Pax Romana obsolete, sort of the last nail in the coffin. Interestingly, it was one of the few things the Umayyad actually did, they almost were a state dedicated to waging war on the notions of Rome and of course the Khazars. The Abbasids afterward would come more to define Islam than the Umayyads but the Umayyads defined Europe and Rome more than they did Islam, quite interesting, I must say.

Severing the southern and eastern part of the Roman world and changing its character immensely is a pretty evident part of the death of a potential of reunification.
 
There were several attempts- Charlemagne of course. The Caliphate. Philip II had Castille, Aragon, Portugal, Naples, Sicily, Netherlands, Milan, several cities along the North African coast, and even England and Ireland jure uxoris. The Ottoman Empire probably came closest out of all. Once the Muslim Conquest of North Africa occurred there was a cultural and demographic distinction that China lacked, as China was able to incorporate foreign barbarians into becoming Han to the extent that the Mediterranean Roman and Greek cultural spheres could not do with Slavs, Arabs, Berbers, and Turks (but was successful with most Celtic and Germanic tribes and Norse barbarians).
 
But weren't you "Roman" in the end? A lot of people speak of Romanisation, but until Late Antiquity (and beyond, in the case of North Africa, Britain, and to a lesser extent, Gaul), these were not people who'd be "ethnically Roman" (not by language, at least), but by culture, they were Roman.

As long as the Empire survived, yes, although the practice of having several different Emperors with separate spheres of operation does seem to have led to an increase in regionalism during the later Empire. After the Empire fell there wasn't anything to stop these regional identities becoming even more important until people began to see themselves as different countries.
 
But weren't you "Roman" in the end? A lot of people speak of Romanisation, but until Late Antiquity (and beyond, in the case of North Africa, Britain, and to a lesser extent, Gaul), these were not people who'd be "ethnically Roman" (not by language, at least), but by culture, they were Roman.



But the Franks, Visigoths, Lombards, Vandals, etc. ended up speaking Latin in the end. The Roman Empire was ruled by barbarians before. Non-Romans ruled the Roman Empire (the Severan dynasty, basically Carthaginians, plus others during the Crisis of the Third Century). The barbarians establishing their rule over Rome isn't truly impossible in the end. And even so, a "Roman shogunate" could occur--the emperor as puppet, ruled by a barbarian leader (be they Germanic, Arab, whatever) as magister militum.

I'm of the opinion that the Arabs gained their strength and influence on history thanks to Islam--otherwise they are a strong barbarian group which will join the Roman world as so many Germanic groups did.



Severing the southern and eastern part of the Roman world and changing its character immensely is a pretty evident part of the death of a potential of reunification.
To my knowledge,people didn't see each other as Roman after a while post-Roman Empire.From what I've read,strong regionalism/proto-nationalism developed in Europe.People from France most certainly didn't see people from Italy as one and the same.Even in France itself,the people of Southern France/Aquitaine saw those from Northern France as foreigners.In Italy,there's the business with the city-states.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Punic Wars. Take North Africa, which we see from France and Italy's interests and conquests there is definitely capable of being ruled from Europe. Rome of course is the ultimate and original example of such. But looking at Egypt, it's pretty often been ruled by foreign empires (Assyria, Persia, and onwards) so isn't too big of a challenge for reconquest. Everything else (Mauretania, Numidia) is at the fringe, and we can tell clearly looked toward Rome until Arab times and possibly into the 8th century.

OTOH how many times have the same power ruled both northern Italy and North Africa between post 500s?
 

RousseauX

Donor
Whenever barbarians conquered China they set up their own dynasties. They left the bureaucracy in place and contented themselves fucking virgins in palaces.

However, the Goths never did this. This seems and important difference. When Rome fell the government and the trade network simply broke down. You had just the Catholic church barely keeping the lights on.

After the Muslims conquer North Africa you basically have three major powers in the Mediterranean. That is hard to unite.
This is wrong btw this was true with the Yuan and Qing dynasties but wasn't really true of the wave of barbarians which toppled the Jin dynasty in the same time frame as the fall of the Roman Empire, you had a societal collapse in northern China comparable with the collapse of the western Roman Empire
 
To my knowledge,people didn't see each other as Roman after a while post-Roman Empire.From what I've read,strong regionalism/proto-nationalism developed in Europe.People from France most certainly didn't see people from Italy as one and the same.Even in France itself,the people of Southern France/Aquitaine saw those from Northern France as foreigners.In Italy,there's the business with the city-states.

Right, and Southern France is merely a region of Northern France nowadays thanks to how well Northern did assimilating them. Doesn't seem like it precludes a strong leader reuniting the Empire.

OTOH how many times have the same power ruled both northern Italy and North Africa between post 500s?

The Kingdom of Italy could have easily, if not screwed over by France. Look at all the Italians in Tunisia in that era, for instance. Not to mention Libya, which was gained by the Italians at that point.

The butterflies are so vast that it might be able to happen the other way, but it's difficult to say for sure.
 
Right, and Southern France is merely a region of Northern France nowadays thanks to how well Northern did assimilating them. Doesn't seem like it precludes a strong leader reuniting the Empire.



The Kingdom of Italy could have easily, if not screwed over by France. Look at all the Italians in Tunisia in that era, for instance. Not to mention Libya, which was gained by the Italians at that point.

The butterflies are so vast that it might be able to happen the other way, but it's difficult to say for sure.
Point is that it's a significant obstacle,something that's not present in China.France only assimilated Aquitaine after centuries of ruling the place.
 
Top