Make the Roman Empire last to 2014

[sarahz]

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.

well this really is using a 21st century value system inappropriately, surely Roman society should be compared to the world it was in, not the here and now. However if one wants to be judgemental Rome was a lot less racist and much more inclusive than pre civil rights america for example.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

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.

There's an implication here that only nation states can survive nationalism, and nationalism based on ethnicity, not civic nationalism based of your culture and country that Romans had.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

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.

And the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire. So it is a problem, no?

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?

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.

In modern science there is the idea of the Western Empire beeing weaker than the East: "The Western Empire's resources were much limited, and the lack of available manpower forced the government to rely ever more on confederate barbarian troops operating under their own commanders, where the Western Empire would often have difficulties paying. In certain cases deals were struck with the leaders of barbaric mercenaries rewarding them with land, which led to the Empire's decline as less land meant there would be even less taxes to support the military."

And why the East Roman Empire didn't send regular help to the West? I think this is connected to the (inofficial) splitting of the RE.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

And the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire. So it is a problem, no?

Im not sure what this statement is supposed to mean.

In modern science there is the idea of the Western Empire beeing weaker than the East: "The Western Empire's resources were much limited, and the lack of available manpower forced the government to rely ever more on confederate barbarian troops operating under their own commanders, where the Western Empire would often have difficulties paying. In certain cases deals were struck with the leaders of barbaric mercenaries rewarding them with land, which led to the Empire's decline as less land meant there would be even less taxes to support the military."

And why the East Roman Empire didn't send regular help to the West? I think this is connected to the (inofficial) splitting of the RE.

Go to bed Gibbon, you've been disproved for a century now.

The East was busy stationing most of its troops (and a fourth of the entire Roman army) to fight against the Sassanids.

The West was only strapped for manpower once they gave Dalmatia to the east, and the Rhine frontier broke down (those where the main areas of recruitment) which is why our boy Stilicho tried to hard to get it back. As well, the West was always poorer than the east and thus had less resources.

 

[DominusNovus]

And the Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire. So it is a problem, no?

In one specific circumstance was there a serious problem due to the religion of the Empire. Even then, it was not the religion itself, but the insistence on uniformity. But even with this problem, the Empire continued on for another 6 centuries. This is even considering the various religious conflicts and controversies that embroiled the Byzantine Empire. And, all the while, the Franks were able to use Christianity as a unifying and stabilizing force, as well as a Casus Belli, to strengthen their realm almost up to parity with the East. Its almost as though Christianity was no real threat to the Empire.

In modern science there is the idea of the Western Empire beeing weaker than the East: "The Western Empire's resources were much limited, and the lack of available manpower forced the government to rely ever more on confederate barbarian troops operating under their own commanders, where the Western Empire would often have difficulties paying. In certain cases deals were struck with the leaders of barbaric mercenaries rewarding them with land, which led to the Empire's decline as less land meant there would be even less taxes to support the military."

Quoting wikipedia verbatim is not much of an argument.

And why the East Roman Empire didn't send regular help to the West? I think this is connected to the (inofficial) splitting of the RE.

First of all, the East had their own problems. They were not immune to attacks, they had to face the brunt of the initial Gothic invasions, and even after the West fell, there were Ostrogoths within the Eastern borders. They also had to hold the Persian frontier, which was no small task. Putting the entire Empire under one administration does not lessen the threats, it just means that more decisions have to be made by a central authority, which cannot always react to problems on opposite sides of the Empire. That is why they split up the administration in the first place, so that threats in opposite regions of the Empire could be dealt with simultaneously.

This worked just fine for centuries. Even as early as the Antonine Dynasty, Marcus Aurelius managed the day-to-day running of the Empire, while Lucius Verus commanded the forces against the Persians. It took extremely exceptional rulers to be able to handle all the administration of the entire Empire, and those just weren't always available. The only hope was that there wouldn't be major threats during those periods. If there were, it just simply could not be done by one man.

Second, guess what? The *did* send help. Even as late as 468 (just 8 years before the 'end' of the Western Empire), the East and West were trying furiously to retake Africa, because both states knew that Africa was vital to Rome. And when the failed, look, the west fell soon after. Mind you, the Cape Bon expedition to which I am referring, had ships in the hundreds on the combined Roman side, whereas the the previous attempt by the West to retake Africa, that ended in failure, couldn't even muster 50 ships, and their loss doomed the expedition without Eastern help. As it was, it took the East another 70 years to recover enough to be able to effectively threaten Africa again.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

For the record, the Holy Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire's are about as close to the original Roman Empire the OP was so enamored with as any Chinese dynasty was to another, and especially more similar to one another than modern China is to any previous imperial dynasty, so all the comparisons to China kinda fall flat.

 

[AlexG]

I wonder if Robert E. Lee would still lose the battle of Gettysburg with this pod.









...

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

In one specific circumstance was there a serious problem due to the religion of the Empire. Even then, it was not the religion itself, but the insistence on uniformity. But even with this problem, the Empire continued on for another 6 centuries. This is even considering the various religious conflicts and controversies that embroiled the Byzantine Empire. And, all the while, the Franks were able to use Christianity as a unifying and stabilizing force, as well as a Casus Belli, to strengthen their realm almost up to parity with the East. Its almost as though Christianity was no real threat to the Empire.



Quoting wikipedia verbatim is not much of an argument.



First of all, the East had their own problems. They were not immune to attacks, they had to face the brunt of the initial Gothic invasions, and even after the West fell, there were Ostrogoths within the Eastern borders. They also had to hold the Persian frontier, which was no small task. Putting the entire Empire under one administration does not lessen the threats, it just means that more decisions have to be made by a central authority, which cannot always react to problems on opposite sides of the Empire. That is why they split up the administration in the first place, so that threats in opposite regions of the Empire could be dealt with simultaneously.

This worked just fine for centuries. Even as early as the Antonine Dynasty, Marcus Aurelius managed the day-to-day running of the Empire, while Lucius Verus commanded the forces against the Persians. It took extremely exceptional rulers to be able to handle all the administration of the entire Empire, and those just weren't always available. The only hope was that there wouldn't be major threats during those periods. If there were, it just simply could not be done by one man.

Second, guess what? The *did* send help. Even as late as 468 (just 8 years before the 'end' of the Western Empire), the East and West were trying furiously to retake Africa, because both states knew that Africa was vital to Rome. And when the failed, look, the west fell soon after. Mind you, the Cape Bon expedition to which I am referring, had ships in the hundreds on the combined Roman side, whereas the the previous attempt by the West to retake Africa, that ended in failure, couldn't even muster 50 ships, and their loss doomed the expedition without Eastern help. As it was, it took the East another 70 years to recover enough to be able to effectively threaten Africa again.

Amazing, and conceded on your other points.