The Roman Empire's Powerbase

[NotAMyth]

That doesn't mean anything, the "Mediterranean region" is such a large region, you might as well say that Rome was a Afro-Eurasiatic empire, it's just as helpful.


The economic center of chinese empires moved from time to time, it was never permanently on the Yangtze.


This doubly wrong, not only the bulk of the population growth happened from 1000 CE onwards, there is also no reason to say that it was political power that decided things, literally no reason.


Northern France was not subsidized by a large empire contrary to Roman peninsular Italy. Also the mechanism here doesn't work until one explains what "feudal power" means and why it would increase food production.


Except there was no such isolation ever and the demographic growth happened centuries after the collapse of Rome.

relax friend. no conflict here. just a discussion.
1. Unlike Afro Eurasia, Mediterranean spanning trade networks did exist and prospered, with peak roman shipping quantities being unmatched till centuries later. It is helpful as it defines the chief element on which the prosperity of the Roman economy was built- It's control of the entire Mediterranean.

2. Political center of Chinese Empires moved around, mainly due to the foreign origin of the dynasty in question or due to a need to be closer to the perceived threat so as to better manage the active theatres of war. Yangtze was the lifeblood of the Chinese Empires, especially (as I already mentioned) Han Chinese ones.

3. I mentioned that Europe saw intensive deforestation in from 500 to 800 CE. And rate of population increase grew, relative to what we see just before. Sure population may have grown even faster from 1000 CE, but how does it negate my statement? by the same logic, I might as well as say that population grew much faster after 1900 CE, so your statement is false.
And political power shift is a big factor. It promotes immigration, development of urban centers around the great courts, and greater security, all of which promote a growth in population.

4. Correct. It wasn't subsidized, but neither did it have to actively support campaigns and large urban centers. The biggest population estimates I can find for Gaul is 80,000 for Trier and Paris, when they were the capital for the praetorian prefecture. Most of this population was almost certainly tied the prefecture bureaucracy and not actual organic growth. They, and they armed forces they commanded were also definitely supported by North African grain.
It was only in the Carolingian period where the economy was "feudalistic" (meaning decentralized, built around feudal strongholds, instead of trade based, with large urban centers) did local production have reason to increase. Much, much less competition with North African grain chief among them. Also a larger share of population would be supported by subsistence agriculture, which would increase area under cultivation, and overall production (though not productivity I imagine).

5. I meant relatively my man. It just wasn't as well integrated as it once had been under Pax Romana. One can check the drop in overall shipping volumes to corroborate this.

 

[CalBear]

I mean this isn't a court, I don't need to come in with a file of evidence - it is literally impossible to prove online what someone's intentions were. I simply stated my opinions.

No it isn't a court. We do expect members to be reasonably civil.

 

[EvilJam]

No it isn't a court. We do expect members to be reasonably civil.

I don't think I violated any form of civility - I simply responded with what I thought and why

 

[Tanc49]

Gaul would probably get some strong cultural overlaps with Germanic people, and, due to the climactic shifts, would probably still get hit by heavy disruptions.
Constantinople OTOH, is the cultural center with Greece nearby, is heavily defended and has access to both Crimean and Egyptian wheat.
The Crimea connection is also very important as its a solid trade route to Asia and the steppes with their furs for example.
Now you might have a traditional center with Constantinople and a shifting economic center, like it moved to NYC, Detroit, LA... in the last 60 years in the US.

 

[CalBear]

I don't think I violated any form of civility - I simply responded with what I thought and why

I , obviously, disagree, as did the third parties who reported the post.

Most folks who post things that are contrary to policy think they are A-OK right up until the wind up on the bench for a week.

 

[EvilJam]

I , obviously, disagree, as did the third parties who reported the post.

Most folks who post things that are contrary to policy think they are A-OK right up until the wind up on the bench for a week.

That was an unnecessary and strangely passive aggressive threat.

It's fine that you disagree, and naturally it is your opinion which will determine the final results - so... cool.

 

[CalBear]

That was an unnecessary and strangely passive aggressive threat.

It's fine that you disagree, and naturally it is your opinion which will determine the final results - so... cool.

Just trying to get the point across.

All you had to do was read my original message and move on, or, at most, post an "acknowledged".

You chose a different path. Which is fine, but it results in different messaging.

 

[Erizium]

define "long run"

Egypt was the richest part of the mediterrenean world until fairly recently. The answer would be different if this is assuming Rome surviving to 1200 AD or 1700 AD for instance.

Up to whoever takes interest in answering I guess. Similar to how Constantinople and the Aegean replaced Rome's dominance in the latter parts of the Empire or how Northern France quickly became THE population center for much of the Medieval period. I kept timescales and, as mentioned, territorial acquisitions as vague as possible to give posters the creativity and leeway they need.

 

[Deleted member 160141]

France became the major population center in the middle ages because it had plenty of fertile land to support a stable population with no one failure point.
Egypt on the other hand is very fertile but very limited in space to grow, and hence is going to also be very susceptible to just one bad flood. It's also very resource-poor, meaning it has to import everything in exchange for exotic goods traded through it and for its food. This alone makes it very vulnerable.
Italy is nice land, but nowhere near as fertile as France, and has more mountains.

If you want a new center of power for the Roman Empire, let's construct a scenario where the Romans move their capital to said place.
1. France. The Romans lose their naval focus as the center of the Mediterranean, and they quickly lose their eastern territories because their French center of power can only support armies campaigning in places near France: Spain, Italy, Dalmatia, maybe North Africa, but not Greece, Anatolia, Syria or Egypt. In effect, it becomes Frankia.
2. Constantinople. The Romans keep their naval focus as the eastern half of the Mediterranean, but lose the other half. France and Spain are gone for sure because both are large power centers far away from Rome, so whoever controls them is very capable of splitting off without issue. Basically, they become IOTL Byzantium.
3. Egypt. The Romans would be fucked if they choose Egypt. They'd have the smallest possible core population, they'd have the poorest possible core population, and they'd have the smallest scope for future population growth and industry out of any of them. They'd have control over North Africa, southern Italy, Syria, Greece and possibly Anatolia. No France, Spain, northern Italy, Dalmatia or Thrace; in short, no Europe, because all the power centers of Europe (France, Spain, Dalmatia) are across a sea and more powerful than the Egyptian powerbase in terms of population, military and resources. Egypt was always doomed to be a colony used for its one resource (food) and supported with just enough to keep the food flowing.
4. Just for funsies, Britannia. Britannia is a continent away from the Mediterranean, meaning they wouldn't be able to enforce their will over it. They're also very poor and underpopulated compared to those places, so they have no way of holding them. They're also poorer than France, which means they're going to become France's bitch in short order.

If the capital powerbase is not centrally placed, it will lose the most outlying territories. If the capital powerbase is weaker than the outlying powerbases, they will split off. No need for statistics here; just some common sense and a simple look at a terrain map and a resources map of the empire would tell you what's what.

 

[Socrates]

Roman empire was a Mediterranean based empire right from the get go. Any version of a stable, prosperous and politically united empire, recognizable as the same entity from centuries ago, SPQR would still be Mediterranean based. Like any Chinese Empire, which was culturally Han Chinese, would have the Yangtze as the center of it's economy/population/culture. Same for North Indian empires and the Gangetic plains.

Those are pretty bad examples given the Yangtze basin is the most agricultutally fertile part of China and the Gangetic plain is the most agriculturally fertile part of India. The most agriculturally fertile part of Europe and North Africa is... the northern European plain.

 

[Avrorrange]

relax friend. no conflict here. just a discussion.
1. Unlike Afro Eurasia, Mediterranean spanning trade networks did exist and prospered, with peak roman shipping quantities being unmatched till centuries later. It is helpful as it defines the chief element on which the prosperity of the Roman economy was built- It's control of the entire Mediterranean.

2. Political center of Chinese Empires moved around, mainly due to the foreign origin of the dynasty in question or due to a need to be closer to the perceived threat so as to better manage the active theatres of war. Yangtze was the lifeblood of the Chinese Empires, especially (as I already mentioned) Han Chinese ones.

3. I mentioned that Europe saw intensive deforestation in from 500 to 800 CE. And rate of population increase grew, relative to what we see just before. Sure population may have grown even faster from 1000 CE, but how does it negate my statement? by the same logic, I might as well as say that population grew much faster after 1900 CE, so your statement is false.
And political power shift is a big factor. It promotes immigration, development of urban centers around the great courts, and greater security, all of which promote a growth in population.

4. Correct. It wasn't subsidized, but neither did it have to actively support campaigns and large urban centers. The biggest population estimates I can find for Gaul is 80,000 for Trier and Paris, when they were the capital for the praetorian prefecture. Most of this population was almost certainly tied the prefecture bureaucracy and not actual organic growth. They, and they armed forces they commanded were also definitely supported by North African grain.
It was only in the Carolingian period where the economy was "feudalistic" (meaning decentralized, built around feudal strongholds, instead of trade based, with large urban centers) did local production have reason to increase. Much, much less competition with North African grain chief among them. Also a larger share of population would be supported by subsistence agriculture, which would increase area under cultivation, and overall production (though not productivity I imagine).

5. I meant relatively my man. It just wasn't as well integrated as it once had been under Pax Romana. One can check the drop in overall shipping volumes to corroborate this.

This is completely false.China south of the Yangtze did not come to prominence any time before the second half of the Tang Dynasty.Prior to that, the Yangtze River region was commonly regarded as an uncivilised wilderness. Even then, the south was only economically important to the empire because it was one of the few regions the emperor could reliably control.The South did not eclipse the north until the introduction of Champa rice during the Song Dynasty and the North’s destruction by the Mongols and Jurchens.

 

[schai]

City of Rome: it would be the political and economic centres of the Empire. Citizen across the Empire would travel to City of Rome to seek fortunate and try their lucks.

As we see the OTL, an alternative economic centre would split the Empire into two.

 

[Avrorrange]

City of Rome: it would be the political and economic centres of the Empire. Citizen across the Empire would travel to City of Rome to seek fortunate and try their lucks.

As we see the OTL, an alternative economic centre would split the Empire into two.

I think you got it the other way around.Rome was one of those places that needed heavy political and economic rapport from the provinces to stay relevant.Once the grain shipments and political patronage stopped coming, it tanked quickly.And no, the division of the empire had nothing to do with alternate economic centres.It was never the economic centre given the empire’s economic centre was always the east and the African grain producing provinces.The division of the empire was also driven by military threats from both external and internal enemies.By the 4th century, it was impossible for a single emperor to respond to multiple threats along the borders without one section of the army proclaiming their own emperor.

 

[schai]

I think you got it the other way around.Rome was one of those places that needed heavy political and economic rapport from the provinces to stay relevant.Once the grain shipments and political patronage stopped coming, it tanked quickly.And no, the division of the empire had nothing to do with alternate economic centres.It was never the economic centre given the empire’s economic centre was always the east and the African grain producing provinces.The division of the empire was also driven by military threats from both external and internal enemies.By the 4th century, it was impossible for a single emperor to respond to multiple threats along the borders without one section of the army proclaiming their own emperor.

The question could be why did the grain shipment stop coming to Rome. I believe Roman issues were economic driven rather than political or military driven. Once economy had collapsed, the desire for political unity vanished.

 

[Avrorrange]

The question could be why did the grain shipment stop coming to Rome. I believe Roman issues were economic driven rather than political or military driven. Once economy had collapsed, the desire for political unity vanished.

There were issues that are economical in nature,but it has nothing to do with grain shipments to Rome.Grain shipments to Constantinople continued till the loss of North Africa in 7th century.Grain shipments stopped going to Rome because emperors preferred to spend less time there.They preferred somewhere closer to the army so they could command armies in person—similar to why the Ming emperors in China moved to Beijing.If the emperor did not command armies in person,the armies of a particular front could very well depose him in favor of a more successful commander.

 

[kasumigenx]

If we have Milan, the language will shift to Central Romance i.e. Occitan, Gallo Italic and Catalan.