alternatehistory.com

Notes for Lecture VII: Foundation of the European System; Bending with Change
Discussion topics: 1. What was the impact of the New World on the European System?
2. Why were the Russian states so easily excluded from the Peace of Rome, and inclusion into the European System at this time?
3. Were the compromises in the Peace the "best" choices for each of the participants? What would have improved the overall outcome?


The Peace of Rome was the culmination of trends that began early in the Medieval Era, with the permanent division of the Carolingian Empire. In those centuries of chaos, Europe was embroiled in increasingly deadly conflicts that only temporarily were eased by redirection of such aggression to equally violent crusades along the Baltic or Levant.

The continental organizing principles of Western civilization at the time were limited to the Church, and legal notions of feudal legitimacy, with strong reverence for the notion of a unifying Empire on the model of Rome. None of these survived the violent centuries of the Post-Carolingian age intact, but only the last proved to be truly enduring.

The reasons for the erosion of the broad unifying principles of European civilization during the age of chaos were many-fold. Gallic influence over Papal authority, and the Church in general, became undeniable as the Toulouse court consolidated control of the Italian peninsula. This, along with the ultimate failure of the Levantine Crusades, and corruption within the structures of the Church itself, gravely weakened arguments in favor of ecclesiastical authority in secular matters. While limited by Gallic influence, Rome did gradually respond through cautious reform and movement out of competition with secular government in the century and a half before the Peace of Rome sealed the fate of the last few ecclesiastical states in Europe.

Feudalism, arising from the ashes of the old Roman order, demonstrated great capability in restoring some manner of local peace and law--by the point of a sword. It also provided the building blocks for the amalgamation of peoples into larger states within the administrative limits of the time. However, this manner of governance could not be entirely maintained in the face of change. The Black Death was only the first harbinger of the end of feudalism, by undermining serfdom and elevating wage-labor. The Vernovus, beginning in Italy in the 15th century, provided continuous intellectual critiques of the old order, and the development of printing only accelerated that trend. Incessant cultural change while slow by modern standards eroded the foundations on which the medieval order was built.

Finally, the commercial revolution destroyed the balance of power within European societies. Cities and their merchants grew to utterly dominate European economies and even began to overshadow the wealth of landed nobility. Equally important, commercialism powerfully drove expansion of commerce outside of Europe proper. Portuguese and later Spanish exploitation of new trade routes to India and the Far East, as well as the coast of Africa, was explosive; it grew by leaps and bounds through the exploits of a few missionaries, sailors, and merchants one port at a time. Similarly, commercialism greatly encouraged Britannike efforts to establish their own mercantile empire to rival the Spanish, Gauls, and Venetians. While London did not immediately gain new trade with the East Indies, it was more than compensated with the commercial colonization of the New World. This benefit was far from limited to Meksaka gold and silver, but immensely profitable sugar and tobacco plantations on the islands and mainland. Skandia too, moved to ensure dominion over trade in furs by exploring the northern reaches of the new continent.

All of these trends only intensified the feeling of instability and disrupted the balance of power within and without the nations of Europe. The Empire, in Germania and Northern Italy, were constantly roiled by internal peasant revolts, and wracked by external wars. Indeed, it was not uncommon for local high clergy and rulers to break with Rome itself! Intended as the successor of Rome, the Empire instead became the prize of the great Kings, all of whom had the power and desire to gain the crown of Emperor. As such, the Empire had failed either to maintain the power of the Carolingian court, or even unite the states held within it. It had fallen so far that the question before the Peace of Rome was not how the Empire would change, but if it would even exist by the next year.

The Empire would indeed endure, but in a fashion greatly removed from its previous history. Those who held title in Europe's Great Powers, or of their lines, would be barred from the Imperial crown. The former Electoral seats, long corrupted beyond repair, would be remanded to those powers instead. The deliberative bodies of the Empire were dissolved, precipitating a simpler system, again with Europe's great powers dominating the system through a new Imperial Senate. Much compensation was required for the smaller states of Germania and the Great Powers themselves though balance and loose consensus was gained as the ecclesiastical states were dissolved.

Those smaller nations in communion with Rome, but not in unity with the Great Powers were admitted within it as well. The entrance of Servia resulted in the proclamation that there was "One Rome, and she was restored." This claim had additional meaning in the Balkans, with Constantinople having fallen to the Caliphate of Rum almost two centuries ago. Servia, though now with a long-held Uniate religious establishment, was determined to seize Constantinople as the self-proclaimed heir of the Byzantine Empire.

The reform of The Empire and proclamation of "One Rome" had predictably negative responses from the nations in adherence to the Eastern Churches, particularly Novgorod and Vladimir. United Orthodox irritation on this matter strongly cooled the relations between the Russian states and the courts of Copenhagen and Warsaw. The latter two would not have expected the impetus for the largely Orthodox Russian states to seek a reconciliation of interests generally believed sparked by the perception of western insults, and potential aggression.

The Caliphate of Rum did not initially record any particular reaction to the Peace of Rome whatsoever--largely due to the latest round of war with the Persians, and difficulties in assimilating Egypt into their Empire. Turkish scholars did record the deepening perception of European unity in hostility, and the growing danger of renewed war with the Holy League of Servia, Venice, and Hungary while still locked in combat within Mesopotamia. The court of Rum was not of course aware of the incipient coup d’état in Persia, nor the collapse of Persia's position that quickly followed. In general however, the Caliphate believed itself to be generally secure against Western depredations. While the coasts could suffer raids, and devastation would once again engulf its European territories, the heartlands of its Empire in Anatolia, and the wealthy cities of Syria and Egypt would, they believed, be impenetrable. Time would prove such predictions and planning quite prescient.

The same security was not felt in North Africa west of Egypt. The Gallic Empire, and its Venetian proxy, had long pressed hard on the Barbary Coast, particularly after absorbing the Neapolitan Duchy of Carthage. With Spain and particularly Britannija no longer providing subsidy, support, or distraction, the Gallic dream of Africa loomed large as an ever-present nightmare. Morocco, committed to the defense of the Algerian cities, could only draw back from competition with Spain in West Africa, and prepare for a final Gotterdammerung with the land-hungry Gallic menace.

For Spain, a stable peace allowed a renewed focus on colonial and commercial pursuits, with characteristic intensity. Portuguese merchants and sailors, joined by Castilian missionaries and soldiers, lapped across African shores like the sea itself. It was the peace that allowed Spain the resources to overcome Zanzibar's commercial dominion in East Africa, where before they lacked the power to control. Southern Atlantea by contrast, was neglected. After the Inkan Empire was looted, Spanish consolidation proceeded at a snail's pace. This was not entirely for lack of resources, for the Atlantean colonies returned much more to Lisbon than they consumed. It was instead simply a matter of interest and attractiveness. The vastness of the Pacific and easy access to the Indian Ocean route to Asia precluded intensive trade from Atlantea's west coast, and most Spanish settlers preferred the more developed and prosperous Suriberia, and the familiar climate of southern Africa.

Britannija, by contrast, threw itself into Atlantean colonization with feverish intensity. It was only after the Peace of Rome that the Mayan cities submitted to the relatively light rule of the Middle Atlantea Company. While tribute in gold or goods was heavy, the Mayan peoples did not suffer nearly as harshly as the Meksaka or neighboring peoples. Further, Company rule generally did not interfere with local customs, provided taxes and tribute were paid. Penetration of the Mayan region by Britannike merchants and missionaries followed company control, but even they were not unlimited in their activities.

Unfortunately the same light touch could not be said to occur elsewhere in Atlantea. Where plantations developed, and settlers gathered, native tribes weakened by European diseases suffered forced indenture, near serfdom, or in some cases slavery. Britannija is often subject to harsh moral criticism in modern times for its treatment of the Atlantean peoples as compared to Skandia or even Spain, but the experiences of those nations in Atlantea are far from similar. Unlike Britannija, neither Spain nor Skandia heavily settled in the New World. Skandia in particular never had a high population on the continent, and was almost entirely dependent on native tribes to maintain its trade networks. In the few places Skandia did heavily settle, Ny Sverige Island, the native population virtually ceased to exist. In a counterfactual, were Skandian settlement to have been more extensive in Atlantea, it is likely its treatment of its native peoples would have been little better than that of the Britannike colonies. This is not to excuse or ignore historical brutalities, save to say that one should not expect historical peoples to adhere to modern ethics and morality.

Returning to Europe itself, peace enabled the states of Germania to recover, and in some cases thrive. Hamburg and Bremerhaven grew wealthy once again as free ports on rivers that reached into the heart of Europe. Hamburg in particular saw considerable trade in Polish and Bohemian goods that traversed the Elbe to escape Skandian Baltic tolls. The lands of the Rhine also grew wealthy again on commerce of peace. Increasing trade with Atlantea, Spain, and Africa spurred a flurry of activity on river and oceanic ports alike. This external trade, and greater centralization that had developed over the course of the previous century’s titanic conflicts proved equally strong in its domestic functions. At long last, tolls and internal barriers to trade in the Lowlands were eased or eliminated, and taxes standardized across the region. The Brussels Parliament, in accepting this agreement with Royal authority, gained assent and support for renewed canal building, and the unending battle to push back the sea. The borderlands with France had naturally suffered most in recent wars, and although the heavily fortified region defeated multiple sieges, the countryside was devastated. Many from Picardy, Lothorin, and Champane driven drove Britannike colonization during this time, seeking better opportunities than those left in their war-savaged lands. The Kingdoms of Ireland and Scotland, though certainly gaining some benefits from the expansion of trade, were still left behind within the Britannike Empire by the rapid growth and prosperity of the Kingdoms of England and Burgundy. The coming of peace too, also meant that the need for soldiers, mercenaries and similar occupations had fallen greatly, a significant outlet for Irish and Scottish at the time. They too were thus drawn to the colonies in Atlantea in large numbers. The introduction of a new crop during the wars, the potato, would in time greatly affect this developing tradition of colonial emigration.

The Peace of Rome then, was a major factor in European expansionism. Many historians posit in counterfactual that were the European states to have attempted to establish colonies during a continued period of incessant warfare, it is far from certain such ventures would meet with great success. Many have criticized the Peace for not attempting to do more to address the problems of Europe, and particularly the deadly attraction of western warfare. This is to misunderstand the objectives of those who negotiated the Peace and those who accepted it. While some may have hoped it would end war within Christendom and herald a new unity, such idealism does not find itself in accord with the thoughts and philosophies of the leading diplomats and thinkers of the day. Pragmatism verging on cynicism was the dominant atmosphere in the cloistered negotiations before the Peace. Diplomats sought foremost not to end war in Europe, but to assure their nation, or their patron’s strength within it. This attitude was very amenable to compromise, especially with Europe’s treasuries strained and peasants restless. The results then were driven by concerns over the balance of power, with concepts of feudal legitimacy considered afterwards, and idealism almost not at all.

It is in any case difficult to see the princes of Europe trading away secular powers within their own domains for the adulation of future history, or passing over the powers the Church was forced to set down. By the standards of the time, the Peace of Rome was far more successful than any had expected. Outright war between the Great Powers within Europe was avoided for more than a century, and the peace of the age offered fertile soil for the growth of new ideas and reform. Some have argued that without the Peace, the Roman Church itself would have suffered permanent schisms in the manner of the break with the Eastern Churches. Instead, the rate of Church reform accelerated after the Peace, and arguably outpaced that of most secular states. The Peace gave the educational religious orders, for men and women, time to take root and flourish—not just in Europe but across the world. It is difficult to count the great numbers of cases where missionaries and clergy protected the local peoples from colonial abuses, and it is doubtful that the modern age would be recognizable were not the foundation of literacy and rights transmitted by the reforming Church. Certainly, Church abuses and corruption did not abruptly end, nor did secular efforts to use religious authority to enforce local conformity, but it can be said that the clear movement of the Church, and efforts of post-Peace Popes, was distinctively directed towards rehabilitation of its moral authority, filling the gap left by the loss of much power in secular areas.
[End of Lecture]


Notes for Lecture VIII: Europe in Asia; Collision of Cultures
Discussion Topics: 1. What, if any, was the influence of the European system on Jongua Imperial Reform?
2. Why did the Asian responses to European commercialism differ so widely?
3. Were the various secular responses to the growing religious complexity of Southeast Asia effective, or justified?
Top