What would it take for the near collapse of the Roman Empire in the Third Century to actually result in its collapse? What would the effect be on western history, a super early dark ages, no Christianity?
What would it take for the near collapse of the Roman Empire in the Third Century to actually result in its collapse? What would the effect be on western history, a super early dark ages, no Christianity?
Not do better than byzantium. But survive for centuries and still fend off the Sassanids...Why is it assumed that three or more competiting smaller empires, that, by the definition of this discussion, never succeed in rallying all the resources of the full Empire (or else we could say Rome survived), would do better than the united Roman Empire?
Why assume that a Palmyrene Empire would do better than the Byzantines, who owed much of their longevity to their impregnable fortress of a capital?
Why assume that a Gallic Empire could hold the Rhine, when the entire Roman Empire couldn’t?
Why assume any of them would succeed, when the Eastern/Westnern Emperors, supporting each other, couldn’t?
Why assume turning the Med Sea into a war zone a century early, and inhibiting trade, would help?
Why assume that avoiding the administrative, cultural, religious, and economic reforms of the Tetrarchy and Constantinian dynasties, would help? (yes, both groups made some huge mistakes, but, in general, reorganizing the provinces, stablizing the currency, and embracing Christianity were all net positives)
Roman civilization was, by and large, defined by its ability to support an urbanized society. None of these changes make it easier to support such a society.
Why is it assumed that three or more competiting smaller empires, that, by the definition of this discussion, never succeed in rallying all the resources of the full Empire (or else we could say Rome survived), would do better than the united Roman Empire?
Why assume that a Palmyrene Empire would do better than the Byzantines, who owed much of their longevity to their impregnable fortress of a capital?
Why assume that a Gallic Empire could hold the Rhine, when the entire Roman Empire couldn’t?
Why assume any of them would succeed, when the Eastern/Westnern Emperors, supporting each other, couldn’t?
Why assume turning the Med Sea into a war zone a century early, and inhibiting trade, would help?
Why assume that avoiding the administrative, cultural, religious, and economic reforms of the Tetrarchy and Constantinian dynasties, would help? (yes, both groups made some huge mistakes, but, in general, reorganizing the provinces, stablizing the currency, and embracing Christianity were all net positives)
Roman civilization was, by and large, defined by its ability to support an urbanized society. None of these changes make it easier to support such a society.
So are what you saying is that the so-called
"Dark Ages" would have begun about 200
years earlier than they did IOTL? (An out-
come, DominisNovus, that does sound most
plausible)
AD, not AUC, I assume.What would it take for the near collapse of the Roman Empire in the Third Century to actually result in its collapse? What would the effect be on western history, a super early dark ages, no Christianity?
Which could theoretically hinder technological development due to the lack of an institution as strong as the church for archiving and providing a literate priesthood.Religion would be a complete wildcard.
Which could theoretically hinder technological development due to the lack of an institution as strong as the church for archiving and providing a literate priesthood.