The Empire Falls, Rome Does Not

WeisSaul

Banned
Gaul is pretty hard to defend, that's the big issue. It is on the north European plain, and that happens to have no major barriers to protect oneself, so Gaul and Britannia are too tough too keep in a cash strapped empire.

If Rome focuses its efforts on keeping Iberia, Italy, and Dalmatia, all of which are territories defended by harsh and mostly impassable mountains, North Africa is defensible from any foreign army. Considering the Atlas mountains provide a natural wall against any southern invaders, Rome is geographically secure with just these territories.

In short: Iberia, Italy, Sicily, Africa north of the Atlas mountains, Corsica, Sardinia, Malta, Dalmatia, and the Balearic Islands. It's a respectable and prosperous empire to say the least. Maybe if they put enough effort in they can keep Carthage and Tripolitania.
 

Delvestius

Banned
Gaul is pretty hard to defend, that's the big issue. It is on the north European plain, and that happens to have no major barriers to protect oneself, so Gaul and Britannia are too tough too keep in a cash strapped empire.

If Rome focuses its efforts on keeping Iberia, Italy, and Dalmatia, all of which are territories defended by harsh and mostly impassable mountains, North Africa is defensible from any foreign army. Considering the Atlas mountains provide a natural wall against any southern invaders, Rome is geographically secure with just these territories.

In short: Iberia, Italy, Sicily, Africa north of the Atlas mountains, Corsica, Sardinia, Malta, Dalmatia, and the Balearic Islands. It's a respectable and prosperous empire to say the least. Maybe if they put enough effort in they can keep Carthage and Tripolitania.

This is exactly what I was thinking. However I would also say they could probably maintain Massilia as a well-defended port town, given it's importance, and perhaps small settlements and highways through Languedoc to connect with the Roman holdings in Iberia.
 
This is exactly what I was thinking. However I would also say they could probably maintain Massilia as a well-defended port town, given it's importance, and perhaps small settlements and highways through Languedoc to connect with the Roman holdings in Iberia.

Perhaps a situation in Gaul akin to Roman presence there pre-Caesar, at least territorially speaking, just to serve as a buffer to protect Spain, and to ensure full Roman control of the Mediterranean.
 

WeisSaul

Banned
I made a map, you like?

Untitled.png
 
I think that this is very unlikely. Rome giving up territory is simply not an idea that would occur in the Imperial mindset. You can, perhaps, have the situation forced on the Empire- let's say it reconquers Africa in 468 and is able to gradually retake Spain in the early sixth century. Gaul, though, remains a step too far, and by time the Empire is really stable again in the middle of the sixth century, the Franks are just too strong and the Slavs, Gepids and Lombards keep the Romans distracted. Anyway, the loss of territory will only come to be barely accepted by the Empire if it becomes the status quo over centuries, rather as things were with Syria and Egypt IOTL.

Centralisation won't help- the Empire had been centralising since the third century, and corruption remained pretty rampant. I think, really, it's inevitable that a pre-modern military dictatorship is going to be a corrupt and ramshackle state.

Finally, as for your comments on the Dark Ages- classifying them as a period of "theocracy and feudalism" is pretty naive, and a bit of a pet peeve of mine. For one thing, proto-feudalism was a direct development of the Roman system of patronage, and was a case of Germanic kings behaving like Roman gentlemen in the absence of an Empire. Widespread "classical" feudalism is a development of the supposedly more enlightened and "recovering" eleventh century. For much of the period from 500 to 950 in Western Europe, life for the majority of the populace (ie, rural peasants) was much more pleasant than before or after.

As for theocracy, learning was kept alive by the Church in Western Europe, there can be very little doubt of that. Erasing Christianity in the West erases the classical legacy. In any case, as Elfwine says, the Church was generally not a particularly powerful political player until the eleventh century.
 

Delvestius

Banned
I think that this is very unlikely. Rome giving up territory is simply not an idea that would occur in the Imperial mindset. You can, perhaps, have the situation forced on the Empire- let's say it reconquers Africa in 468 and is able to gradually retake Spain in the early sixth century. Gaul, though, remains a step too far, and by time the Empire is really stable again in the middle of the sixth century, the Franks are just too strong and the Slavs, Gepids and Lombards keep the Romans distracted. Anyway, the loss of territory will only come to be barely accepted by the Empire if it becomes the status quo over centuries, rather as things were with Syria and Egypt IOTL.

Centralisation won't help- the Empire had been centralising since the third century, and corruption remained pretty rampant. I think, really, it's inevitable that a pre-modern military dictatorship is going to be a corrupt and ramshackle state.

Which is why we should have a POD that includes greater senatorial power in Imperial Rome and a more practically minded empire.

Finally, as for your comments on the Dark Ages- classifying them as a period of "theocracy and feudalism" is pretty naive, and a bit of a pet peeve of mine. For one thing, proto-feudalism was a direct development of the Roman system of patronage, and was a case of Germanic kings behaving like Roman gentlemen in the absence of an Empire. Widespread "classical" feudalism is a development of the supposedly more enlightened and "recovering" eleventh century. For much of the period from 500 to 950 in Western Europe, life for the majority of the populace (ie, rural peasants) was much more pleasant than before or after.

Sure, but before the technological advancements of the twelfth century, things were still kind of sucking for everybody.

As for theocracy, learning was kept alive by the Church in Western Europe, there can be very little doubt of that. Erasing Christianity in the West erases the classical legacy. In any case, as Elfwine says, the Church was generally not a particularly powerful political player until the eleventh century.

And this is a pet peeve of mine. Yes, the Catholic monasteries were the centers to learning and education, but they were very small to the proportion of the population, not to mention you had to be a monk... Any sort of education and learning done by the Catholic church in the middle ages undeniably pales in comparison to the Madrases and libraries to that of the Arab world, and we must only look at who provided more to the world at the time... Sure they didn't get strong until later, but would it of happened if Rome didn't collapse...?
 
Top