Roman Empire

[Albert.Nik]

@Byzantine fanatic You seem to have a weird fixation to somehow downplay European civilizations. Don't get me wrong but I have made this observation seeing your consistent posts on this. My hunch though!

So Rome was not a mix of cultures. It was a homogeneous state. Wow! First time someone starts a whole new narrative! So we just ignore the Anatolians,Galatians,Greeks,Egyptians,Assyrians,North Africans,Armenians,etc who were Proud Roman Citizens??

Nonsense about innovation! Pure nonsense! Haven't you heard Nessecity is the mother of innovation? The Greeks were plenty in the Roman Empire and they were leading in various innovations. When the necessity comes,so will innovation.

Between reluctance to accept the truth about Ottoman brutality and this post,I'm getting weird vibes. I am not saying ME and Islamic civilizations weren't great. But you somewhat want to put Islamic civilizations at the Pinnacle which is again,nonsense. Heard about the demolition of the Sassanid library?

You also seem to totally ignore the premise when Christianity rose to become a strong religion. It happened mostly during the Waning era of the Roman Empire when there were already deep divisions and civil wars already. Anyway,I don't want to argue with you anymore. Have a good day. Adios. Anyway,I would be interested in hearing your clarification about these..

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

snip

Her point is exactly that, my thanks for putting it into better words.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Rome was in the excellent Mediterranean region. It had good lands with rivers,sunny climate,less Geographical barriers to expand,more contact with other Advanced civilizations due to closer Geographical connection and stuff like that.

It was also harder to administrate and the creation of joint-emperors became a necessity along with extensive and costly frontier defenses.

 

[SpaceRome]

On technology, I think it's unlikely technology would advance faster in a 'Rome conquers everything' scenario. In fact, you can bet that the opposite would be the case - it's likely there would be very little or no technological advance at all.

I'm inclined to agree that technology in this roman world would be somewhat behind in some subjects, but Maritime - specifically Atlantic-sailing vessels - would not be one of them IMO. without depopulation in late antiquity and the early middle ages and the continuation of cross-empire trade, ocean going vessels for trade and fishing will be in high demand.

As far as I am aware, the Romans were not a particularly innovative culture and produced little in the way of technological advances. They built things on a large scale, as their aqueducts, roads and public buildings attest. But much of what they did was simply applying concepts developed much earlier by other civilizations including the Persians, Greeks and others.

The Romans became even less receptive to new ideas once Christianity became the dominant religion. They closed down Plato's Academy in Athens, persecuted scholars (some of whom ended up leaving the empire to go and live at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad), and generally closed down all progress for centuries.

OTL romans? sure. however, give any culture about 500 years to develop and it would change massively. Also, the roman empire also includes the aforementioned greeks, and christianity as we know it will almost surely be butterflied away with an early empire PoD. As for imperial sponsorship of arts and sciences, nothing prevents rome from doing the same thing with a budget ten times larger than the Abbasid caliphates.

 

[Albert.Nik]

My only point of the previous post is that certain members need to first cleanse the thinking "This is the greatest and others aren't because they were of this culture or religion". At least on the Forum. Didnt mean to target personally to anyone. While Geography and Natural factors are the strongest influences,these are minor. That should be an obvious thing. Discussions based on religions and cultures should either go to chat or not be on the forum,especially those quite flamebait points. This is the reason I used to use strong language against exclucivist religious or cultural proponents and concepts being a believer in some divinity myself.
@SpaceRome has echoed my points.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

@Byzantine fanatic You seem to have a weird fixation to somehow downplay European civilizations. .... Anyway,I don't want to argue with you anymore. Have a good day. Adios. Anyway,I would be interested in hearing your clarification about these..

No problem, it's okay

I'm not offended or anything like that, I think it's great to see people debating history. That's what makes this so enjoyable and interesting to be a part of the community.

I'd like to share that it's okay if someone doesn't see the things in the same way. We all have our favourite historical civilisations and the things that interest us the most.

Also it's true I criticised the Romans and Christians a bit but I don't always downplay the west. In my education I was taught that ancient Greeks for example had the best art compared to the Romans. Art historians will say Greek sculpture is of superior quality. They say the Roman copies are not as good.

Also, although I said that Christianity in the Byzantine Empire was a negative effect on science and technology, I don't have anything against Christianity as a religion. Its more the specific way the church and state organisation interacted at that period that I criticise. Actually I have a lot of sympathy/friendship with people who are Christians. Maybe I didn't show that side much in my posts but that's the difficulty of the internet. It's hard to know what someone else is really like from a few internet posts.

Good wishes for you too, I'm sure there are many interesting historical questions in the future to enjoy and I look forward to it.

 

[Albert.Nik]

@Byzantine fanatic I have clearly clarified later what offends and disgusts me the most in the post following(not about you but in general). I anyway would apologise for some strong language at the heat of the moment which would be common for forums like these. But Romans=\=Fundamentalist Christians. I too have done so about Christianity. @HowAboutThisForAName recalls our earlier debate which I regretted later for over exaggerating and over reacting his points. But your point seemed me that "Islamic or ME empires can do no wrong and it's impossible" from what I inferred from many of your posts. That's what I objected to.

 

[alexmilman]

Of course. But fairly early PODs that could butterfly those issues can exist. Obviously,saving a post third Century Roman Empire is impossible and would require Magic or Zeus blessing. But there can be plenty of PODs before that for saving the Roman Empire for a World domination.

And how, with any realistic POD, would they achieve dominance over India, China and Indo-China?

Or even of the whole Europe (ending at Ural Mountains)?

 

[Albert.Nik]

And how, with any realistic POD, would they achieve dominance over India, China and Indo-China?

Or even of the whole Europe (ending at Ural Mountains)?

Latter is easy. Former needs some sophisticated PODs.

 

[alexmilman]

Also it's true I criticised the Romans and Christians a bit but I don't always downplay the west. In my education I was taught that ancient Greeks for example had the best art compared to the Romans. Art historians will say Greek sculpture is of superior quality. They say the Roman copies are not as good.

And they are right (even the Romans, AFAIK, thought so).

The Romans had been great engineers/architects but the art was not necessarily their strongest point.

 

[alexmilman]

Latter is easy. Former needs some sophisticated PODs.

I don't think that even POD for the whole (geographic) Europe would be easy: the Romans did not have enough human resources to stretch too much beyond their OTL borders. Can you produce it?

As for the world domination, I don't think that any realistic POD could do it.

 

[stevej713]

I find it strange how so many people argue that technological innovation would have saved the Romans, or any other state. Technological superiority has very little to do with political stability, especially with such a massive state where centralized authority would be impossible.

 

[Albert.Nik]

I find it strange how so many people argue that technological innovation would have saved the Romans, or any other state. Technological superiority has very little to do with political stability, especially with such a massive state where centralized authority would be impossible.

True to a good extent! Anyway,such arguments and debates are typical on AH. As long as we don't go into personal attacks,atrocity apologia or something,it's fine for a short debate like this!

 

[alexmilman]

I find it strange how so many people argue that technological innovation would have saved the Romans, or any other state. Technological superiority has very little to do with political stability, especially with such a massive state where centralized authority would be impossible.

Indeed. But even with a higher than in OTL level of a political stability and some realistic technological upgrades the Roman society had too many internal problems for an unlimited expansion. Slave-based agriculture had its limitations and created numerous problems (like making a noticeable part of the Roman population dependent upon various types of handouts from government). Even if most of the "Mediterranean world" ended up being "Romanized" to one degree or another, this was much more difficult to achieve with the "barbarians" and when they had been incorporated, this created its own problems (all the way to destruction of the Western Empire).

The "native" Romans would need to keep breeding and resettling all over empire on a much greater scale than it happened in OTL (but this means that the small-scale farms are sustainable). This would also address the issue of avoiding "barbarization" of the Roman army (with the majority remaining "native Roman" included non-Romans would be incorporated as individuals, not the independent fighting entities). Of course, this does not solve all the problems but maintaining the Romans as a dominating ethnic group would contribute to a general stability and probably help the expansion.

 

[bernardz]

I find it strange how so many people argue that technological innovation would have saved the Romans,

The Romans were quick adapters when it came to the military and were in a much better position than their enemies in taking advantage of technology. Plus they had an economy almost as sophisticated as the Italians 1000 years later.

or any other state. Technological superiority has very little to do with political stability,

Can you give a few examples of such technological states?

especially with such a massive state where centralized authority would be impossible.

Why is it impossible?

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

I find it strange how so many people argue that technological innovation would have saved the Romans, or any other state. Technological superiority has very little to do with political stability, especially with such a massive state where centralized authority would be impossible.

I could always mention the literally modern bureaucracy of China in 2,000 BC which directly helped China's dynasties in their longevity that Rome lacked; if through some miracle you had the same sort of governance arise in Rome through whatever wand-waving we usually do in AH, it would help quite a lot with political stability. (Beware weak emperors and foreign barbarians even moreso tho).

 

[Albert.Nik]

One thing I would like to clarify. A surviving Roman Empire doesn't look anything like its predecessor Roman Empire. It would now have a Multi-ethnic empire or empires. Eventually you will have Germanic,Slavic,Baltic,Finnic,Celtic,Semitic,Berber, Scythian,etc population divisions inside the empire each wanting to have some autonomy. The Roman Empire eventually changes the structure totally and becomes mostly a namesake empire and the Culture and the goodies of the Graeco-Roman legacy will spread everywhere but yes,it's more or less contains autonomous territories just bonded by marginal powers of the Roman central Govt. Eventually they might drift apart and but the benefits of a Roman past exists. Christianity and Islam are butterflied away. Imperial crisis not happening would mean these religions would look totally different. Some kind of cool headed belief would pervade. Sciences would begin to eventually develop as for reasons in OTL itself.

 

[Lord_Vespasian]

I could always mention the literally modern bureaucracy of China in 2,000 BC which directly helped China's dynasties in their longevity that Rome lacked; if through some miracle you had the same sort of governance arise in Rome through whatever wand-waving we usually do in AH, it would help quite a lot with political stability. (Beware weak emperors and foreign barbarians even moreso tho).

China had protective geographical borders where as Rome did not. Rome had the constant hindrance of Persia, something China had no such equivalent, had the open plain of Central and Eastern Europe and the Northern Balkans fro population migration, China has deserts, jungles, mountains, and other massive hindrances to travel by land, that's why the Steppe people where often the only threat to China outside itself, and didn't fight a lot of wars relatively speaking. Rome was in constant war and was getting its wealth sapped away by China as well

 

[bernardz]

China had protective geographical borders where as Rome did not. Rome had the constant hindrance of Persia, something China had no such equivalent, had the open plain of Central and Eastern Europe and the Northern Balkans fro population migration, China has deserts, jungles, mountains, and other massive hindrances to travel by land, that's why the Steppe people where often the only threat to China outside itself, and didn't fight a lot of wars relatively speaking. Rome was in constant war and was getting its wealth sapped away by China as well

I am not sure of this as the Romans also had large areas almost all the South without significant enemies and the much of the Atlantic. Also, it could be argued that the Steppe people were a more significant enemy then Rome ever faced, Rome to largely cushioned by Eastern Europe from them.

 

[Lord_Vespasian]

I am not sure of this as the Romans also had large areas almost all the South without significant enemies and the much of the Atlantic. Also, it could be argued that the Steppe people were a more significant enemy then Rome ever faced, Rome to largely cushioned by Eastern Europe from them.

The steppes are at least nomadic, Germania, the Balkans, Eastern Europe are very habitable, this meant the people there could grow to large populations and actually change the demographic and linguistic makeup of Rome if they invaded. That's why the Germanic migrators didn't just pull a Qing and stay at the top, there were enough of them to dominate the area in force and so they didn't just completely assimilate into Rome, they fundamentally changed each of the areas