I think people are saying that for the Roman Empire to exist in the form of Augustus and Diocletian is impossible-which is what the OP wants. For it to continue to exist indefinitely in some form is possible but like China it will have to go through many transformations.
Make the Roman Empire last to 2014
- Thread starter U.S David
- Start date
I think people are saying that for the Roman Empire to exist in the form of Augustus and Diocletian is impossible-which is what the OP wants. For it to continue to exist indefinitely in some form is possible but like China it will have to go through many transformations.
We have been upgraded from "not even wrong" do you just plain wrong. There was nothing inherently wrong with the equipment of the late Roman army. It was simply different than that of the classical early Imperial Army because it was facing different enemies.
Further, salary for the legions was clearly not a problem, at least not in the way you suggest. The legionaries were incredibly well paid for their time, which is one of the key problems, economically speaking, the Empire faced. Further, while it is true that the later army Incorporated far more German elements then its predecessor, this is because quite simply there weren't enough Romans to fill the ranks. This is do both to population decreases and two social circumstances. It is not as though the Romans just said "why should we fight our own wars?" Further up until the problem of Adrianople, The Romans were quite adept at Romanizing these German recruits.
To your final point about the military leadership, I just don't know what to say. If the Roman empire of the third century had anything in abundance, it was skilled military leaders. The empire was militarized on an almost Prussian level for that century. From Severus to Diocletian.
I highly recommend Mike Duncan's history of Rome podcast for further information in particular, he goes a long way and dispelling the myths regarding the late Roman military system.
To the comparisons between the Chinese state which, has existed relatively uniformly for the past 2200 years in something resembling a unified political structure (though it was obviously divided and or conquered by foreigners on occasion), It is worth comparing one of the biggest differences between China and Rome. Rome was, logistically speaking, a naval power. Obviously, they never saw themselves as such and they structure their military in such a fashion as to be a land power. Where as China was based on the major river valleys of East Asia, Rome was based on the Mediterranean. So long as the sea was calm and under unified political control, this game Roman a key advantage in maintaining its empire. As we all should know, naval transport during this period was exponentially superior to land transport.
It is worth noting, therefore, that Rome's doom was only truly sealed when it lost control of the Western Mediterranean. Even after that control was lost, the Empire made serious incredible efforts to regain control of the sea lanes, several of which could have succeeded. Had Rome maintained such control over the sea, there is no reason to think that it could not have persisted for much longer than it did. This does not mean that they would be culturally stagnant and everyone would be wearing togas saying vini vidi vici. We need only compare modern China to ancient China to see how a unified culture can still evolve greatly over the millennia. even were Rome to persist in such a similar fashion it would likely never be quite as cultural unified as China was able to be (and of course it is a mistake to think the China itself is perfectly unified culturally).
So, the success or failure of the Empire - or any empire- boils down to logistics. Anything that improves the cost and speed of both transportation and communication is crucial. We can be fanciful and imagine the Romans with telegraphs. This would obviously make maintaining a large empire laughably easy. We can see that in the case of the Russian Empire which could not have succeeded as well as it did over such a vast expanse of territory without industrial technology. We could also be somewhat more grounded and assume a focus on projects such as more canals.
Another key factor to consider is the ultimate cause of all the military stresses pressing on the empire from the exterior. That being, Of course, The migratory nature of nomadic tribes. This is the same problem that faces any sedentary state, from Persia, to India, all the way to China. Even the meso Americans faced this problem (Though obviously entirely different groups). Nomadic societies will continue to be an existential threat to any society that does not have a sufficiently advanced economy or military. Militarily speaking, gunpowder spells the doom of the nomadic peoples within a few centuries of its introduction. Economically, industrial scale production is likely necessary to maintain an edge. However, identifying key technologies that would enable a state to withstand these problems is not the same as saying how they could be developed.
That said, any state in Europe would receive it somewhat of a reprieve after the fifth century, and the end of the Huns. To be sure, the Avars, Alans, Khazars, Bolghars, Slavs, and Magyars would all be a problem, but the Huns where only really rivaled by the Mongols in terms of their organization.
Blame any weirdness in this post on Siri.
It is worth noting, therefore, that Rome's doom was only truly sealed when it lost control of the Western Mediterranean. Even after that control was lost, the Empire made serious incredible efforts to regain control of the sea lanes, several of which could have succeeded. Had Rome maintained such control over the sea, there is no reason to think that it could not have persisted for much longer than it did. This does not mean that they would be culturally stagnant and everyone would be wearing togas saying vini vidi vici. We need only compare modern China to ancient China to see how a unified culture can still evolve greatly over the millennia. even were Rome to persist in such a similar fashion it would likely never be quite as cultural unified as China was able to be (and of course it is a mistake to think the China itself is perfectly unified culturally).
So, the success or failure of the Empire - or any empire- boils down to logistics. Anything that improves the cost and speed of both transportation and communication is crucial. We can be fanciful and imagine the Romans with telegraphs. This would obviously make maintaining a large empire laughably easy. We can see that in the case of the Russian Empire which could not have succeeded as well as it did over such a vast expanse of territory without industrial technology. We could also be somewhat more grounded and assume a focus on projects such as more canals.
Another key factor to consider is the ultimate cause of all the military stresses pressing on the empire from the exterior. That being, Of course, The migratory nature of nomadic tribes. This is the same problem that faces any sedentary state, from Persia, to India, all the way to China. Even the meso Americans faced this problem (Though obviously entirely different groups). Nomadic societies will continue to be an existential threat to any society that does not have a sufficiently advanced economy or military. Militarily speaking, gunpowder spells the doom of the nomadic peoples within a few centuries of its introduction. Economically, industrial scale production is likely necessary to maintain an edge. However, identifying key technologies that would enable a state to withstand these problems is not the same as saying how they could be developed.
That said, any state in Europe would receive it somewhat of a reprieve after the fifth century, and the end of the Huns. To be sure, the Avars, Alans, Khazars, Bolghars, Slavs, and Magyars would all be a problem, but the Huns where only really rivaled by the Mongols in terms of their organization.
Blame any weirdness in this post on Siri.
Nah, OP specifically asks for 'this day', which clearly refers to the year 2014 AUC specified within the title, which is indeed fulfilled.
I mean, if you're talking about the Roman Empire, why *wouldn't* you be using the AUC calendar?
Loopholes are fun sometime
When a sentence has the phrase 'this day,' it generally means the present. Given that follow-up posts clarify this, there's no loophole.
Besides, the Romans rarely used AUC as a calendar; prefering to use the consular dating system, before eventually adopting a regnal dating system, and, occasionally, anno mundi dating.
It'd help if you view China less black and white when looking at the dynasties. Different political entities existed in China and all of them were "China". But at the same time each Dynasty was its own separate nation, its own separate "China" so to speak. Its similar to Egypt. Ptolemaic Egypt and New Kingdom Egypt were both Egypt, but there not the same political entity.
What the OP is asking for is a similar request to asking for the Han Dynasty to be around in 2014 in the same fashion it was in in the year 150 A.D. Not an easy thing to do.
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
Again, can someone please debunk this idea that the Classical Roman Empire deserved to live before it became Byzantium?
Because it didn't. The Classical Roman Empire committed all the crimes done by the Christian and Islamic states that came after it, except sexual repression, and even then its 'sexual freedom' was only for adult males and some women. It was also a military dictatorship whose 'tolerance' was the tolerance of a dictatorship.
Not merely that, but it says in another thread that maritime trade actually declined in the Height of the Empire, judging by the number of shipwrecks found in that time period.
Because it didn't. The Classical Roman Empire committed all the crimes done by the Christian and Islamic states that came after it, except sexual repression, and even then its 'sexual freedom' was only for adult males and some women. It was also a military dictatorship whose 'tolerance' was the tolerance of a dictatorship.
Not merely that, but it says in another thread that maritime trade actually declined in the Height of the Empire, judging by the number of shipwrecks found in that time period.
Last edited:
Well, I suppose that the ideal behind this is mostly the aim of preserving some form of political (and cultural) unity for Europe. Many people think that if some unity of Europe or the Euro-Mediterranean region would have been preserved until today, the Europeans would enjoy the powerful European Union (not the messy current one) that potentially it could be. And the Classical Roman Empire is the last (and only) political entity that achieved something similar to that ideal. But well it's mostly a vague perception rather than a deep analysis of pan-European ideals.
I hadn't realized the OP was asking for the Roman Empire to not evolve whatsoever politically.
Well I mean that's ASB for any country.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
I tend to think that the best way to have a full Roman Empire in 2014 would be a No-Islam/Romans Defeat Islam PoD - whilst not the Latin Roman Empire from the West, the Heraclian Empire is much closer to the desired result than most, retaining Syria and Egypt gives them the continued strength to fight the West.
In fact - My three favourites
Romans Defeat Islam - forcing Islam to fight with Persia - and ideally reaching a stalemate/partial victory, giving the Roman Emperors a political struggle to manipulate to keep the east secure - either with money, or interceding on either sides behalf, whilst they go about reclaiming the West.
Mantle of Rome - China (to the outsider) appears to have assigned great political clout to the Mandate of Heaven/Middle Kingdom - if we have that clout assigned to the 'Mantle of Rome' we could see a similar pattern of 'Romes'. Romes problem is the split to West and East - meaning that both the HRE and ERE were legitimate at the same time - so we need either stronger successor states in the West, An Asturias that gets the title Western Roman Emperor from Pope or Patriarchs, or a Unified Italy - all of which would lead to more contenders to the 'Mantle of Rome' - which would cause either the ERE or the eventual WRE to assimilate the other during some period of crisis.
Ricimer doesn't end Majorian - Majorian was probably the best and last hope for the WRE as the OP desires - if Ricimer were to die of some sort of disease, and his power transfer to Majorian or his allies - then we have a huge change in Europe - the WRE is pretty much rebuilt, with a talented Emperor. We just need a new fleet, or the old one not to be sabotaged.
This is probably your best bet for the OP - if he can transform the Federates into Romans, (probably over a few generations) then the WRE is in a v.good place, Germania could begin to urbanise, and become an Empire in its own right, or become an area to settle all the Federates, as new provinces, creating a large series of 'buffer provinces' against any other Steppe invasions (assuming Mongol/Turk analogues)
However, regardless of which path, it is the final assimilation of the territories that is important. The Empire needs reform, it needs stability and unity - and ideally shorter borders. Give me a Dneister-Carpathians-Vistula border in Europe, and the infrastructure through Austria - and I give you your Empires natural borders.
It may still collapse, but if you have 3+ major polities going for it based from Germania, The East, The West, etc - and you'll have at the least, a Roman Empire that.... "Cleans House" in its intermediate periods.
In fact - My three favourites
Romans Defeat Islam - forcing Islam to fight with Persia - and ideally reaching a stalemate/partial victory, giving the Roman Emperors a political struggle to manipulate to keep the east secure - either with money, or interceding on either sides behalf, whilst they go about reclaiming the West.
Mantle of Rome - China (to the outsider) appears to have assigned great political clout to the Mandate of Heaven/Middle Kingdom - if we have that clout assigned to the 'Mantle of Rome' we could see a similar pattern of 'Romes'. Romes problem is the split to West and East - meaning that both the HRE and ERE were legitimate at the same time - so we need either stronger successor states in the West, An Asturias that gets the title Western Roman Emperor from Pope or Patriarchs, or a Unified Italy - all of which would lead to more contenders to the 'Mantle of Rome' - which would cause either the ERE or the eventual WRE to assimilate the other during some period of crisis.
Ricimer doesn't end Majorian - Majorian was probably the best and last hope for the WRE as the OP desires - if Ricimer were to die of some sort of disease, and his power transfer to Majorian or his allies - then we have a huge change in Europe - the WRE is pretty much rebuilt, with a talented Emperor. We just need a new fleet, or the old one not to be sabotaged.
This is probably your best bet for the OP - if he can transform the Federates into Romans, (probably over a few generations) then the WRE is in a v.good place, Germania could begin to urbanise, and become an Empire in its own right, or become an area to settle all the Federates, as new provinces, creating a large series of 'buffer provinces' against any other Steppe invasions (assuming Mongol/Turk analogues)
However, regardless of which path, it is the final assimilation of the territories that is important. The Empire needs reform, it needs stability and unity - and ideally shorter borders. Give me a Dneister-Carpathians-Vistula border in Europe, and the infrastructure through Austria - and I give you your Empires natural borders.
It may still collapse, but if you have 3+ major polities going for it based from Germania, The East, The West, etc - and you'll have at the least, a Roman Empire that.... "Cleans House" in its intermediate periods.
Last edited:
Some of Rome's greatest external threats were the Sassanids and the Germanic tribes. The first were a powerful, organized entity that required the lion's share of resources to combat (a task the Romans mostly succeeded in accomplishing) while the second, while underdeveloped and weak at first (features which made it pointless to conquer them early on), eventually evolved into a society that, when pushed on by migrations from the east, managed to take over everything west of Thrace (obviously also helped by the other problems facing the empire at the time - plague, crop failure etc etc).
However, there was a short, fleeting moment when both of these adversaries of Rome were in position to be defeated - and this was during the reign of Alexander Severus.
This was right before the crisis of the third century, meaning Rome's economy, population base and strength relative to that of its neighbors were close to their peak. What made the situation so favorable was the fact that, at the the time, the Persian state was undergoing one of its worst civil wars (something Rome usually was very good at taking advantage of), a civil war that pitted the Parthian dynasty against the up and coming Sassanids. Meanwhile, the Germanic tribes had been steadily transformed by centuries of contact with the Roman world, and were now much more appropriate targets for conquest and romanization of the ruling elite.
Had Alexander Severus' campaign in Persia been successful to the extent that the major population centers were razed, northern (possibly also central) Mesopotamia directly annexed and the rest divided between small, tribute-paying states upon which Rome kept a close eye, then THE major stress plaguing the Roman world would have been eliminated for at least a generation or two.
Likewise, if his campaign in Germania would have been successful, it would have meant butterflying away from history the very groups that spelled the death of the western empire. While there were obviously other barbarians further east of the Elbe, these too would need centuries of contact with the Roman world to develop the kind of society needed to conquer and hold Roman lands and defeat Roman armies, time they would not really have by the time the (probably climatic-driven) Great Migrations start rolling.
If both of these are as successful as postulated, and if they are coupled with an even broader monetary reform then that of Alexander Severus (of the kind performed by later emperors), then it's not inconceivable that the Crisis of the 3rd Century never takes place, with HUGE butterflies - trade stays strong, urbanization continues at a fast pace, the established system of local assemblies managing their own polis never gets dismantled and the general slide towards autocracy witnessed OTL is at least delayed if not stopped.
Rome would be in a much better position to weather the migrations and plagues that brought if down OTL, and would probably rebound relatively fast from them. By the 7th-8th century (once Arab migrations were repulsed), we would probably begin to see the rise of a prominent merchant/petit bourgeois class challenging the great landlords. If Christianity still becomes dominant, it likely attaches itself to Imperial power and, supported and financed by it in a time of prosperity, leads to a (slightly) more homogenous culture for the peoples of the Mediterranean.
However, there was a short, fleeting moment when both of these adversaries of Rome were in position to be defeated - and this was during the reign of Alexander Severus.
This was right before the crisis of the third century, meaning Rome's economy, population base and strength relative to that of its neighbors were close to their peak. What made the situation so favorable was the fact that, at the the time, the Persian state was undergoing one of its worst civil wars (something Rome usually was very good at taking advantage of), a civil war that pitted the Parthian dynasty against the up and coming Sassanids. Meanwhile, the Germanic tribes had been steadily transformed by centuries of contact with the Roman world, and were now much more appropriate targets for conquest and romanization of the ruling elite.
Had Alexander Severus' campaign in Persia been successful to the extent that the major population centers were razed, northern (possibly also central) Mesopotamia directly annexed and the rest divided between small, tribute-paying states upon which Rome kept a close eye, then THE major stress plaguing the Roman world would have been eliminated for at least a generation or two.
Likewise, if his campaign in Germania would have been successful, it would have meant butterflying away from history the very groups that spelled the death of the western empire. While there were obviously other barbarians further east of the Elbe, these too would need centuries of contact with the Roman world to develop the kind of society needed to conquer and hold Roman lands and defeat Roman armies, time they would not really have by the time the (probably climatic-driven) Great Migrations start rolling.
If both of these are as successful as postulated, and if they are coupled with an even broader monetary reform then that of Alexander Severus (of the kind performed by later emperors), then it's not inconceivable that the Crisis of the 3rd Century never takes place, with HUGE butterflies - trade stays strong, urbanization continues at a fast pace, the established system of local assemblies managing their own polis never gets dismantled and the general slide towards autocracy witnessed OTL is at least delayed if not stopped.
Rome would be in a much better position to weather the migrations and plagues that brought if down OTL, and would probably rebound relatively fast from them. By the 7th-8th century (once Arab migrations were repulsed), we would probably begin to see the rise of a prominent merchant/petit bourgeois class challenging the great landlords. If Christianity still becomes dominant, it likely attaches itself to Imperial power and, supported and financed by it in a time of prosperity, leads to a (slightly) more homogenous culture for the peoples of the Mediterranean.
And how was any of this different from what came after? If you're going to go for the classical Roman Empire, might I assume you mean the Principate? In which case, the economy was doing pretty solidly, until the Antonine plagues, people's freedoms were generally pretty well respected by most administrations, taxes were low, there was only really 1 civil war (though it had more than 2 sides) until Commodus dies...
Your comment about a military dictatorship is amusing. First of all, that pretty much describes most non-elective governments, if you want to get right down to it. Second of all, during the Principate, the Emperor's main source of power wasn't actually the military, it was their wealth. Without their personal funds (such as the revenue for the personal estate we know as Egypt), the Emperors could never have afford to secure the military's loyalty.
So really, what makes the Romans so much worse in your eyes?
I think you're overstating the Sassanids as a threat to Rome, simply because they were a consistent *enemy* to Rome. Its worth noting that, once the Parthians fell, the border between the two empires was pretty static for centuries, only budging a bit during particularly spectacular wars.
The idea that Alexander Severus could have done much better is one to which I am particular partial, since he clearly had great potential and had some fantastic administrators in his government. In particularly, he very much shines when compared to what followed him.
However, I do think the campaigns against the Germans would not be as productive as you suggest. The situation there is just too fluid to think that defeating the nearest tribes would really give a century's reprieve. Maybe a generation, perhaps even two. But thats about it.
Yes, if the Crusaders had not attacked Constantinople, there is a chance that the Byzantine Empire might have lasted up till the age of the nation states. Whether it would have crumbled during the 1800s or not would have depended on how heterogenous or homogenous or not (the spread of the Greek Language). Anyway, if it had crumbled, a Greek nation state would surely have been larger than today and would have included Constantinople and large parts of the Western Asia Minor.
And indeed the OP didn't specify anything like this. The OP only wants Rome to survive to this day.
~~~
In the original post it was asked for a survival of a Roman Empire. Easy. One needs a Middle Ages PoD and we'd have a robust ERE surviving to this day.
The original poster later further specified that this Roman Empire ought to have at least the same size of the classical Roman Empire or more. Harder but not at all an impossible task. Limiting the constant repartition of Europe with feudalism would be a good start. We don't need those pesky national identities to later emerge...
IOTL there were several attempts to restore some sort of of WRE which indicates that even in our unfavourable timeline there was a continental-wide identity associated with the Roman Empire for long. That's a good basis for a renovateable/restorable Rome.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
The key to the survive of the RE are reforms. The Roman Empire had a many problems:
Only a charismatic and powerful leader, like e.g. Augustus, Traianus or Julian the philosopher can enact the needed reforms and laws.
Using this method, the financial problems would have been solved, the usurpations reduced, christianity forced back and the limes defended.
I think that the Imperium would have evolved like China (Rome and China were the two great powers of this time, so I estimate it as possibly). The chinese language changed; the chinese architecture did etc. Even the chinese capital was moved frequently!
And Rome would also have changed.
But some things would presumably remain:
Rome of today would be a mixture of the US and fascist Italy; the political system is a democratic republic (with a people's assembly, a senate and a government); the economy is not socialist but state controlled, to afford enough material to army and navy.
Usurpation of the imperial power by mighty generals
Religious problems caused by christianity and the religious policy of the state.
Several economic problems (inflation, barbarian looting Roman cities atc.)
The invasions, caused by the Huns.
Only a charismatic and powerful leader, like e.g. Augustus, Traianus or Julian the philosopher can enact the needed reforms and laws.
The empire has to be centralized (to avoid lokal divergence regarding the state policy)
taxes for senators had to be imposed (this would be enough to levy maintain a powerful army group)
and the seperation of the empire avoided (the seperation of the army and the state budjet was catastrophic for the West Empire).
Using this method, the financial problems would have been solved, the usurpations reduced, christianity forced back and the limes defended.
I think that the Imperium would have evolved like China (Rome and China were the two great powers of this time, so I estimate it as possibly). The chinese language changed; the chinese architecture did etc. Even the chinese capital was moved frequently!
And Rome would also have changed.
Classical latin would have beeen abondoned even in the higher classes and replaced by something like French or Italian (but without many barbarian influences).
The art and architecture would be more sophisticated and "baroque" than the classical buildings of Athens; it would resemble the byzantine buildings.
The ideal capital and seat of the senate would be Rome, but other cities would have been the real political capital.
The religion evolved from the latin farming gods to the gods of the Greeks, and then to the oriental gods. Maybe the Romans would have adopted Buddha, Ganesh or Quetzalcōātl?
But some things would presumably remain:
- The symbols of Rome: Romulus and Remus, the wolf, the Fasces, 'SPQR' and the laurel.
- The senate, the source of all sovereignity and assembly of Roman notables. Maybe it would be a modern parliament, maybe it would remain a special body (like the House of lords or the senate of the French Empire).
- The legions, neither the hoplites of the republic nor the soldiers of Augustus, but a huge military engine.
Rome of today would be a mixture of the US and fascist Italy; the political system is a democratic republic (with a people's assembly, a senate and a government); the economy is not socialist but state controlled, to afford enough material to army and navy.
The idea that Christianity weakened the empire is a thoroughly discredited notion. The only serious problems came in the inability of the Byzantine Empire to reconcile with the Miaphysites, and even that may have not been a serious problem had the Arabs not burst onti the scene at the same time.
Adopting a religion that was popular with the masses was a very effective move and helped to bind the people to the state in a way that was impossible with the traditional Roman faith; what did Egyptians care if the temple if Jupiter Optimus Maximus was properly maintained?
There's this idea floating around that such a peaceful religion was ill-suited to the defense of the Empire (ignoring the theological development of Just War). That, too, is utter bull, since the Empire fell almost exclusively to Christian barbarians.
Thats not to say that there were no costs in adopting the new faith, but it most certainly did not spell the end of the Empire.
Further, the idea that splitting the empire doomed the west is also flawed. It was the loss of the sealanes and Africa that doomed the West. Even late into the 5th century, the Western Empire had a very solid chance of surviving, until it blew its attempts to retake Africa.
Adopting a religion that was popular with the masses was a very effective move and helped to bind the people to the state in a way that was impossible with the traditional Roman faith; what did Egyptians care if the temple if Jupiter Optimus Maximus was properly maintained?
There's this idea floating around that such a peaceful religion was ill-suited to the defense of the Empire (ignoring the theological development of Just War). That, too, is utter bull, since the Empire fell almost exclusively to Christian barbarians.
Thats not to say that there were no costs in adopting the new faith, but it most certainly did not spell the end of the Empire.
Further, the idea that splitting the empire doomed the west is also flawed. It was the loss of the sealanes and Africa that doomed the West. Even late into the 5th century, the Western Empire had a very solid chance of surviving, until it blew its attempts to retake Africa.