Rome and Future Outlook

So let's take an idea I suggested as a counter-example in another thread. Suppose Vespasian came up with this system of "Choose the oldest son, if no sons, chose the son-in-law married to the oldest daughter. If someone is dead, their children 'take their place' in succession. Use me as the 'root' of the hereditary system" and suppose for the sake of argument no one questions this for his lifetime. Suppose the Senate ratifies this and no one questions this during his reign, Titus, and Domitian.

Suppose Domitian has 3 sons, and the oldest inherits without a fuss. And that guy also has a son (Vespasian's great-grandson). And all 5 of these Emperors are gifted administrators, all charismatic, and all good tacticians (good luck when the last guy grew up in a palace).

Originally I pointed out this unlikely series of events was the best case scenario for a particular goal someone else wanted and still wouldn't likely achieve that goal, but we're not trying to get to that goal, but see where the sequence of events goes.

Suppose Rome never is divided. Rome or Mideolanium remain the seat of power. Due to the butterfly effects, Vespasian's successors co-op the Suedbi, the Burgandians, and the Ostrogoths as allied mercenaries. The denarii is not debased beyond Vespasian's time. Many other barbarians are shoved back beyond the Rhine (If this sounds implausible, remember that OTL Rome had the numbers and resources available to do so, but they spent lots of time infighting like Constantine III vs Honorius and corruption sapped the government coffers) The Visigoths are exterminated. The Huns easily defeat boarder units of ripenes, but in three separate field battles they are given checks by the Comitantesis.

After the Huns are dealt with, the Romans prop up "friendly Germans" kings to replace "descendants of stupid barbarians who keep trying to settle on Roman lands when running away from the Huns" in the most fertile areas East of the Rhine, as kind of a Sphere of Influence. Roman Britain is given a fresh security upgrade, either turning Hadrian's Wall into a super fortification, turning the Picts into a tributary state, or getting the Picts to stop bugging them.

Internal threats, threats to Britain, and threats from the Rhine have been suppressed. No one is invading from the Atlantic obviously. The Sinai in Egypt and the Balkans in the north provide natural barriers on both sides of the Mediterranean.

What would a likely outlook by 800 be?

Would Rome survive to 800 having defeated internal threats, threats to Britain, and threats from the Rhine in the 400s? We might see a Muslim invasion take Egypt. Or maybe an Arabic pagan invasion. If modern day Egypt and Tunisia (Tunisia was a forested land with fertile clearings back then not a desert), it would seriously destabilize Rome and make the Emperors lose prestige, perhaps making ambitious generals think they can do better.

Assuming Rome survived

What would be seen on boarders? A huge series of forts similar to OTL castles? An open boarders with trade going both ways? A few large forts that house over a thousand legionaries apiece backed by super Euites/Equites Promoti (equestrians, basically the new knights as cavalry becomes better)?

How about religion? Would the persecutions of Christianity stop with the deviations, since in OTL Vespasian did not have a great grandson sitting on the throne? The OTL banning of Christianity was a very unusual event because in those days people respected each others' gods (even if they failed to worship foreign ones) and the Emperors considered that the Christians would be a subversive threat, more loyal to their god than Emperors (oddly enough, the Jewish revolt was responded to "merely" by sacking and scattering them, but not a religion bad). Would Christianity hijack a Emperor, or is a civil war the only way to convert the throne?

How about language? A plurality of Romans spoke Latin, but Romans gave citizenship to so many of their people that it's actually a minority. In particular less than 1/4 of the citizens in the Eastern Half or in Roman Britain spoke Latin. There was no policy of Latinization either. Greek in fact I think was considered a prestigious language.

How about slavery? To the Roman perspective it worked. There was a nasty Socii Wars which resulted in the banning of enslaving Romans, but that didn't stop them from enslaving conquered people or simply buying them from outside. So in TTL, assuming Rome survived, I don't see it being done away. In OTL it was gone in France by 800 wasn't it?

How about marriages for the Imperials? Romans marrying non Romans was acceptable. However, marrying a foreign sovereign (like Cleopatra) was not acceptable. Likewise, the Imperial family married within the Empire for the sake of appearing properly Roman.
 
Personally, I find the idea of the 5 Good Flavians a bit hard to buy into - but I'll bite.

I'm not sure you can avoid the eventual founding of a city on the site of Constantinople, it is too good a site. Doubly so in a stable Empire.

(Side Note : You could possibly have achieved this with the Macedonian dynasty, who had managed to make their family the only legitimate ruling family for quite a while).

But this is "We have 5 good Emperors, and the Empire solves every one of its problems".

5 good Emperors is great, that could legitimately be nearly 200 years of stability.

Being good administrators also means they could be setting up any number of institutions to stabilise the Empire, such as Senates to elect local governors, or establishing defacto dynasties in certain provinces. Heck, they could unleash Exarchates-in-all-but-name in Britannia.

Could the Empire survive? Sure. It could also break apart into smaller Roman Kingdoms/Republics. This is like, 800 years, with 200 years of generic good admin.
 
Hereditary succession would definitely be unusual. In Roman custom, an adopted son was given the same rights as a natural son, so why would someone want to change that? Sure, if you have five generations of brilliant sons, you might be a bit complacent, but why wouldn't you leave the option open for adopting a son if none of your sons (if you had sons to begin with) were fit to rule an empire? The Roman Empire still pretended to have republican traditions, after all. It still doesn't stop powerful generals from trying to usurp the throne either.

After that, you're skipping a ton of generations of Roman history. A lot of things could happen. And IIRC, the Crisis of the 3rd Century wasn't caused simply by weak Roman rulers, but because of a variety of factors which even a great leader couldn't handle.

So Rome by 800 could be anything ranging from OTL's results to nowadays Rome. A better Rome would have consolidated what they had, so maybe conquer Britain entirely as well as conquer Mauretania entirely. Perhaps they could expand the borders to the Elbe in the process (a pretty natural border as much as the Rhine IMO).

The biggest threat is still internal (Christians and other new religions), and there will still be external invasions from the steppe, which will cause quite a bit of problems. North Africa and the Near East will probably still have to contend with the Arabs, although if North Africa is managed right then the Berbers will be a minor problem.
 
The issue here is that Rome was never as centralized as the East Asian Dynasties, due to both the political structure and the vastness of its empire. Even then there were no Chinese dynasties that lasted more than 300 years after Zhou, and you needed to look to Korea to see actual long-lasting regimes (Shilla was 992 years, etc).
 
Personally, I find the idea of the 5 Good Flavians a bit hard to buy into - but I'll bite.

I agree, not very likely. But we do have 5 good Capets in a row for France, more than 5 Ruriks for Russia, we had some great Hapsburgs in a streak for Austria (and some not so good ones!).

But that's the premise and it's not impossible. I'll bite if someone says that should lead to change X and provide a good explanation.

I'm not sure you can avoid the eventual founding of a city on the site of Constantinople, it is too good a site. Doubly so in a stable Empire.

No we can't, but that doesn't mean the Imperial Court sits there. OTL sack of Rome, it had triple the population of Arretium and comparable to Londinium. There are plenty of good cities that ended up grabbing wealth and population, but the court didn't sit there.

But this is "We have 5 good Emperors, and the Empire solves every one of its problems".

Well, sohe Crisis of the third Centruary could be shortened with better Emperors. Also considered in OTL, Honrius had 75% of the tax revenues guzzled by corruption and his father only had 65% of the Western Empire's revenues outside of Italy guzzled by corruption, so being a bad Empror might have something to do with it. In Vespasian time, it was almost 0%, or a bit more if you count people who got into office by favoritism and nepotism collecting a salary corruption, even if they are lyoal and have the qualifications to do their job. In particular, debasing of the currency and not paying Britain's legions for three years until they revolted could be avoided simply by making sure no one skims the taxes!
 

trajen777

Banned
Well you have "alot" of stuff here" but like the plan -- so my thoughts :
1. Five good Emperors : part of this could happen and if you had set up an excellent array of staff this would be even more likely (like the legion you did not need great leaders you needed great centenarian). Also if you could have a emperor in training program structured (ie military assignments, finances, etc etc -- almost a modern cabinet) then the need for an elite emperor vs a decent emperor or slightly bad emperor would be diminished. So 3 great, 1 sortta bad, and 1 average would all be moved to above average with support mechanisms in place. Also just the reduction in civil wars would better protect the borders, reduce the loss of trained troops, and reduce (actually increase) revenues.
2.
Due to the butterfly effects, Vespasian's successors co-op the Suedbi, the Burgandians, and the Ostrogoths as allied mercenaries. The denarii is not debased beyond Vespasian's time. Many other barbarians are shoved back beyond the Rhine (If this sounds implausible, remember that OTL Rome had the numbers and resources available to do so,
-- One of the great financial burdens was the pin prick raids the destroyed farms, killed people, and generally reduced taxes. The ability to get these tribes either to shield the border, add to the roman population, or not raid would all be massive.
3.
What would be seen on boarders? A huge series of forts similar to OTL castles? An open boarders with trade going both ways? A few large forts that house over a thousand legionaries apiece backed by super Euites/Equites Promoti (equestrians, basically the new knights as cavalry becomes better)?
:
I think you would have a series of watchtowers, forts , and fortresses (and city fortresses) all in a series of defense in depth. However if the tribes are now in support of Rome then the Romans would need less small forts to protect the borders but insead larger concentrations of forces together to support / keep in check the supporting tribes.

IN answer to some of your other comments i think Latin would spread to become the major language (look to China - Rome broke up / China stayed together). Christianity would spread but i think it would not become a state religion in that their was less need for a unifying force with the boarders secure
 
Hereditary succession would definitely be unusual. In Roman custom, an adopted son was given the same rights as a natural son, so why would someone want to change that? Sure, if you have five generations of brilliant sons, you might be a bit complacent, but why wouldn't you leave the option open for adopting a son if none of your sons (if you had sons to begin with) were fit to rule an empire? The Roman Empire still pretended to have republican traditions, after all. It still doesn't stop powerful generals from trying to usurp the throne either.

Oh, I never actually expected this to make hereditary succession. I'm guessing in TTL the first time the Empire has a problem (no problems can always be run fine with an anemic ruler as long as the bureaucracy) that' while not exactly Empire threatening could result in territorial losses or loss of wealth and the Emperor has befriended this genius while his own sons are average or... worse (if better than average I'm guessing the son would still inherit if he hadn't fallen out of favor, but most people are not better than average by definition), he'll adopt the genius and cement it with finding an attractive female relative like a daughter. He'd do it in OTL, and I guess in TTL post Vespasian, there is a 75% chance he'll do it and in the remaining 25% the guy would at least be a highly compensated advisor. And that's the first time it happens. For the reminaing 25%, I expect that even if the Empire went through a few iffy Emperors without suffering too much (hey OTL Rome survived Caligula), some guy would probably break the hereditary tradition declared by Vespasian and started by Vespasian's son Titus (who was a competent administrator himself whn he ascended) and go to the older tradition of adopting a son when he finds a better heir than his kids. All I said in the OP was that Vespasian declares it in his lifetime and no one during his reign or his immediate successors question it with. Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, Domitican's son, and Vespasian's Great-Grandson all rule file. It won't actually stop the other rich romans from adopting sons and some Emperor with no son/weak son might think that if the other rich Romans are doing that, "wouldn't it make more sense to also do that and adopt a favored man who is fit to rule my legacy?" and adopt the man while leaving some estates and spending money to his other relatives in his will.
 
Top