A China-like Europe?

[stevep]

Why couldn't most of the Mediterranean basin come to think of itself as Roman? It would do wonders to solve the problems of nationalism, and it would give imperial aspirants a powerful incentive to pursue empire during the inevitable "warring states" periods.

King Gorilla

A lot of them did. You see discussion of the bitter hated and hostility between 'Romans' and Germans, the former being defined as all members of the empire. [Albeit this was partly due to the religious differences between the assorted Roman sects and the Arian Germans at a point when the external threats and recent final [formal] destruction of preceding religions had left sectarian feeling very high.

Similarly a lot of the various Germanic rulers that emerged not only wanted initially to be allies of the empire but later to seek to reform it. The idea of empire maintained a strong presence in the Mediterranean [later European mind - don't forget Moscow's claim of being the 3rd Rome].

Steve

 

[Falecius]

Could a surviving Kievian Russia (with no Mongol invasion) be a simialr thing for the Eastern part of the continent?

 

[stevep]

Wait what?
Late antique Christianity readily embraced the imperial ideas. If anything, it provided unity and cohesion Rome lacked earlier. It was only the significant defeats in the early 5th centurion which made the Church recognize the danger of relying on the support of single temporal power.

Prem_Rack

It embraced the idea of a universal state, since that was the basis of the Christian idea. However because the various Christian factions were in continual dispute about what was the correct form of the faith they squabbles endlessly. Furthermore, since they viewed this as a fundamental issue and that any deviation from the correct format as evil, that meant compromise was basically impossible. To complicate matters further the various sects took on regional loyalties and identities which deepened the divides.

Even more importantly to the Muslim early victories than the exhausted state of Byzantium after the long war with Persia was the deep divisions within the empire. Many Syrians and Egyptians preferred Muslim rule because the relatively small number of Arabs treated them better than their Christian brethren.

Steve

 

[King Gorilla]

A lot of them did. You see discussion of the bitter hated and hostility between 'Romans' and Germans, the former being defined as all members of the empire. [Albeit this was partly due to the religious differences between the assorted Roman sects and the Arian Germans at a point when the external threats and recent final [formal] destruction of preceding religions had left sectarian feeling very high.

Yes, one of Rome's primary strengths was that people wanted to be Roman, afterall they gave their empire the aguaduct, sanitation, roads, irrigation, and wine. This became less so when perpetual civil war, invasion, disease, and the collapse of both trade and urban life robbed the empire of its ability to create these wondrous things. The effect of this soft power was also diminished by acts of cruelty such as buying the children of starving German tribes in exchange for dog meat.

Would things perhaps have been different if Rome fell when it was relatively healtheir, particularly in the west? The Germanic kingdoms could then conceivably rule their petty kingdoms by co opting the existing bureaucracy rather than making due with the inevitable decentralization of feudalism. This could potentially offer them a wealthier power-base from which to engage in wars of reunification.

 

[Metro]

Why couldn't most of the Mediterranean basin come to think of itself as Roman? It would do wonders to solve the problems of nationalism, and it would give imperial aspirants a powerful incentive to pursue empire during the inevitable "warring states" periods.

Romans were conquerors. The people of the regions they conquered wanted them out. The Chinese tended to do things differently. They created protectorates. If you just acknowledge the Emperor and paid tribute they usually would not interfer. Correct me if I am wrong but they say the Chinese supposedly were not really into conquering other nations. It was generally they who were conquered. For example the Mongols who conquered China. But in the end because of there huge population the conquerors were absorbed and became Han.

 

[Prem_Rack]

Romans were conquerors. The people of the regions they conquered wanted them out. The Chinese tended to do things differently. They created protectorates. If you just acknowledge the Emperor and paid tribute they usually would not interfer. Correct me if I am wrong but they say the Chinese supposedly were not really into conquering other nations. It was generally they who were conquered. For example the Mongols who conquered China. But in the end because of there huge population the conquerors were absorbed and became Han.

Eh, that's not true at all for late Rome. The people in provinces thought of themselves as Romans even for centuries after the direct Roman rule ended.
The Chinese were certainly into conquering barbarians. It's just they hit the borders of what they considered worthy to conquer pretty early, i.e. during the Han Dynasty.

 

[Faeelin]

Romans were conquerors. The people of the regions they conquered wanted them out. The Chinese tended to do things differently. They created protectorates. If you just acknowledge the Emperor and paid tribute they usually would not interfer. Correct me if I am wrong but they say the Chinese supposedly were not really into conquering other nations. It was generally they who were conquered. For example the Mongols who conquered China. But in the end because of there huge population the conquerors were absorbed and became Han.

I don't think this is really fair. Look at the Chinese repeated efforts to subdue Vietnam, or Taiwan... or even Southern China, Sichuan, etc. Or the Tang efforts in Central Asia.

 

[Prem_Rack]

I don't think this is really fair. Look at the Chinese repeated efforts to subdue Vietnam, or Taiwan... or even Southern China, Sichuan, etc. Or the Tang efforts in Central Asia.

Yep, the Chinese didn't magically appear as extremely numerous and widespread people. There was a lot of sinization going, in fact the Roman Empire and Chinese Empire are pretty similar in that regard.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Chinese had one thing going for them. They were majority Han. Most other groups got absorbed by them and in time became Han themselves.

And

No actually the Chinese were originally qin not Han.

 

[Typo]

Han is an ethnic group, Qin is the name of a state

 

[Eurofed]

Romans were conquerors. The people of the regions they conquered wanted them out.

What a wrong thing to say. With the one exception of the Jews, which had their own unique religious reasons, separatist resistance to Roman rule ceased among conquered peoples within a generation of conquest, and Romanization started to got entrenched within 2-3 generations. Afterwards, all rebellions that occurred in the periphery were dynastic civil wars and bids to claim the imperial throne in Rome, not attempts to cast Roman rule out.

The Chinese tended to do things differently. They created protectorates. If you just acknowledge the Emperor and paid tribute they usually would not interfer.

Many people fail to notice that the Chinese empire did not sprung fully-formed in its current borders from the womb of history in 2000 BCE. It arose in a much more limited area around the Yellow River, and it took many centuries of expansion, conquest, and Sinicization to reach the current borders.

 

[Finn]

No actually the Chinese were originally qin not Han.

If by the Qin, you mean the Manchus, you are very wrong.

 

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

If by the Qin, you mean the Manchus, you are very wrong.

No, he meant the Qin from the Warring States period. You're thinking of the Qing.

 

[birdboy2000]

The Medieval Church evolving into some sort of Europe-wide theocracy? It declared crusades and excommunicated kings, so if it had strengthened over the centuries instead of weakening perhaps it's the institution we're looking for.

 

[Aranfan]

What a wrong thing to say. With the one exception of the Jews, which had their own unique religious reasons, separatist resistance to Roman rule ceased among conquered peoples within a generation of conquest, and Romanization started to got entrenched within 2-3 generations. Afterwards, all rebellions that occurred in the periphery were dynastic civil wars and bids to claim the imperial throne in Rome, not attempts to cast Roman rule out.

Well, if you could get the Jews to assimilate that would likely kill the major sectarian social spur during the various crises. Assimilated Jews probably means no Christianity, which would lead to much less doctrinal separatism.

Many people fail to notice that the Chinese empire did not sprung fully-formed in its current borders from the womb of history in 2000 BCE. It arose in a much more limited area around the Yellow River, and it took many centuries of expansion, conquest, and Sinicization to reach the current borders.

Yep.

 

[Typo]

Chinese geography favours unification, European doesn't

 

[Aranfan]

Chinese geography favours unification, European doesn't

Yes, but just because something is favored doesn't mean it must be.

 

[Eurofed]

Yes, but just because something is favored doesn't mean it must be.

And the opposite is equally true.

 

[Aranfan]

And the opposite is equally true.

Yeah, just because something is unfavored doesn't mean it won't happen anyway. Geographical determinism is a myth.


What did you think of my suggestion of assimilating, or otherwise doing away with, the jews to improve Rome's Stability?

 

[Typo]

Yeah, just because something is unfavored doesn't mean it won't happen anyway. Geographical determinism is a myth.

It's more of a percentage game, like most likely you end up with unified China, and like 90% with disunified Europe.