What if the Eastern Roman Empire turned into a totalitarian state?

[Hvalrossen]

Wikipedia isn't the best source obviously but gives a good overview of both.

Demand from the Islamic world dominated the slave trade in medieval Europe. For most of that time, however, sale of Christian slaves to non-Christians was banned. As a result, most Christian slave merchants focused on moving slaves from non-Christian areas to Muslim Spain, North Africa, and the Middle East, and most non-Christian merchants, although not bound by the Church's rules, focused on Muslim markets as well. Arabic silver dirhams, presumably exchanged for slaves, are plentiful in eastern Europe and Southern Sweden, indicating trade routes from Slavic to Muslim territory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe#Slave_trade

Slavery in the Byzantine Empire was widespread and common throughout its history. The military campaigns and expansion of the empire in the 10th century resulted in a large numbers of slaves. The Synopsis of Histories mentions that after the Battle of Adrassos (960) many prisoners of war were sent to Constantinople. They were so numerous that they filled all the mansions and rural regions. After the 10th century the major source of slaves were often Slavs and Bulgars, which resulted from campaigns in the Balkans and lands north of the Black Sea. At the eastern shore of the Adriatic many Slav slaves were exported to other parts of Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Byzantine_Empire

I wonder what the longterm effects of the slave trade had in the sending parts of Europe aswell as the recieving areas around the mediterranen?

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

I wonder what the longterm effects of the slave trade had in the sending parts of Europe aswell as the recieving areas around the mediterranen?

Well, it did lead to a few mutinies like those led by Thomas the Slav in the Byzantine Empire or Mujāhid al-ʿĀmiri in al-Andalus.

 

[Gukpard]

I think a lot of people here are mixing up authoritarianism with totalitarianism.
Rome did not have the technology to be totalitarian, nor was it realistically possible prior to the latter half of the 19th century.

Napoleon is often described as prototypical of totalitarianism for a good reason, you actually require the technological prowess to be able to communicate with great speed, have mass education (so that everyone can tow the party line) and infrastructure to make sure nobody is missed.

So for example, a Roman totalitarianism is going to run into issues of people not knowing the party line (no mass education), missing people out (you could have an ingsoc esque regime but the people in isolated villages are going to have sporadic information at best) and no quick way to provide the regular whereabouts of your citizens (or prevent them from just leaving). Most people lived in villages and small towns rather than big walled cities where you could control movement. Disgruntled or rebellious citizens could otherwise fairly easily move to the more friendly state next door.

Ok, you gavwe the best answer until now, so let me ask you: The Eastern Romans really do that, with all it's problems they try to push such indocrination of the people living on big cities while the other elements of totalitarism are simple too innefective for the reasons you listed above. What would happen?

 

[CountPeter]

Ok, you gavwe the best answer until now, so let me ask you: The Eastern Romans really do that, with all it's problems they try to push such indocrination of the people living on big cities while the other elements of totalitarism are simple too innefective for the reasons you listed above. What would happen?

I imagine it would work out like a less effective Tsarism. I can't imagine it lasting long because the rural powers are going to have a field day as Totalitarian (or as close to it as Rome could get) governments are very inefficient.