Middle Ages w/ intact Roman Empire

[John Fredrick Parker]

We've had plenty of discussion on this board about how the Fall of Roman Empire in the West could have been prevented (PoD e.g. include Teutoburg Forrest, Stilicho, etc); what I'm interested in here is, looking at the big picture (the really big picture) of what the next millennia or so looks like in Europe and the Mediterranean, assuming the (long term) fall of the Empire does not happen in this time.

Specifically, over a period of a thousand years or so: How is agriculture, the economy, and general social order of the region affected? Does serfdom and/or the manor system still dominate this period? What about demography -- for example, is the overall population growth positively or negatively affected? Or urban populations specifically? Or specific regions (like North Africa)? Does political unification mean the region sees less war? What about global (here meaning Afro-Eurasian) trade? And (assuming the Empire still becomes Christian) what of religion; is there still an Orthodox-Catholic split? And how does this all (again, very generally) affect things like the development of philosophy, science, etc?

Again: for this thread, I'm not really interested in the cause (or "how") of Rome's survival, only of the effects, and even then over a very long period in very general terms. If possible, I'd like to focus on those general effects that are common to any TL with Roman survival (whether the PoD is in 9 or 402 AD). Anyone who feels this not possible needn't comment here.

 

[JonasResende]

Well, the question that affects this, is what does the Roman empire look like in the aforementioned era? Is it Italy, North Africa and perhaps Spain? Or is it like in Traianus' reign of from the Scots' border to Alexandria, and from Lisbon to the Middle East?

Another question is what is this empire's relation to the Byzantine Empire?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Another question is what is this empire's relation to the Byzantine Empire?

For our purposes, we're assuming scenarios where either the West and East Roman Empire isn't split, or where the intact West survives and is reabsorbed/vassaled to the East.

Well, the question that affects this, is what does the Roman empire look like in the aforementioned era? Is it Italy, North Africa and perhaps Spain? Or is it like in Traianus' reign of from the Scots' border to Alexandria, and from Lisbon to the Middle East?

At the very least, it will include the former, plus southern Gaul (and of course the East, which still has Egypt, etc); at most, it can include the latter, plus Germania. So yeah, admittedly bit of a gap there.

 

[Derek Pullem]

To survive it will have had to withstand the tribal migrations in 3rd-6th centuries. Which means it has to be able to defeat steppe nomads and predominately warband based armies.

I can't see how the Empire can survive without incorporating some of these tribes into the Empire which means the Empire would become more polygot rather than less.

Maybe a Holy Roman Empire based around Rome which is Holy, is Roman but is not really an Empire.

The forces drawing power away from the center would be huge though - I'd be suprised if the East (and others) didn't become increasingly detatched as time went on.

 

[RodentRevolution]

We've had plenty of discussion on this board about how the Fall of Roman Empire in the West could have been prevented (PoD e.g. include Teutoburg Forrest, Stilicho, etc); what I'm interested in here is, looking at the big picture (the really big picture) of what the next millennia or so looks like in Europe and the Mediterranean, assuming the (long term) fall of the Empire does not happen in this time.

Well to my (admittedly small) mind the likelihood is that you would see a medieval world that on the ground felt surprisingly similar. It has in fact been argued that the Roman Empire did not fall so much as changed its character.

However what I am assuming you mean is that somewhat more than nominal central authority continues to be exercised in the West from Rome or at least Ravenna in the name of Rome rather than simply Constantinople.

Structurally as has been pointed out the Roman authority would most likely endure through a process of at least partial assimilation. Indeed the Middle Ages could in fact be argued as the further Romanisation of Europe at least in the sphere of Government. One might even argue that Russia to this day still practices politics that are Byzantine/East Roman in nature.

So it is quite likely that at least some of the trends towards feudalism would become apparent but perhaps with a stronger urban component for longer and possibly less endemic warfare save on the frontiers of the Imperium (meaning more the rule of the central authority rather than the Empire de jure).

 

[clem attlee]

Just a very pedantic point. It would not be the Middle Ages, but, by definition, the Classical World.

Any very large empire in the premodern era would be prone to centrifugalism. This would tear the empire apart in the inevitable times of weakness.

One deeply profound change would be the resumption/continuation of urbanism in the west. The Roman could not conceive of a region as civilised unless it was also urbanised. It was the basis of their administrative structures wherever possible.

Agricultural productivity would not fall by 50% in the West in 5th-7th centuries, as in OTL. But it might make agriculture more conservative and less prone to adopt the great advances of the high and late Middle Ages (for which see the late Lynn White).

Classical learning would not be lost. Nor would literacy decline to insignificance. Culturally it would be a hugely different world.

 

[Tanc49]

Could we see an expansion Southward in Africa? A more stabilised Europe would be able to project itself more easily and south of the Mediterranean wouldn't be considered a foreign continent as the Maghreb would already be integrated in the Empire

 

[Kalontas]

I think having discernible Middle Ages and Rome at once can have Roman Empire be a rump state at best. Kind of a Holy Roman Empire Situation, except with titular caesars controlling Italia but not much else.

 

[euromellows]

Allow me to address the elephant in the room: Sir, you appear to have a Christian behind you!

Is this continuing Roman Empire Christian? Because that will have a profound impact on how this world looks.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Good point! Or rather is the Empire monotheistic? Does that - by itself - squash or butterfly the Islamic world?

 

[RodentRevolution]

Could we see an expansion Southward in Africa? A more stabilised Europe would be able to project itself more easily and south of the Mediterranean wouldn't be considered a foreign continent as the Maghreb would already be integrated in the Empire

I would actually expect the strong likelihood is for less European expansion rather than more.

The big driver would be how strong the Empire remained in the East. It does not need direct political control but if the trade routes are kept open then the urge to explore other avenues of access to China and the Indies are less profound.

That was the big driver of the Age of Exploration...getting to India.

 

[Mike Stearns]

I think having discernible Middle Ages and Rome at once can have Roman Empire be a rump state at best. Kind of a Holy Roman Empire Situation, except with titular caesars controlling Italia but not much else.

I would be inclined to agree with that. The Middle Ages are called the Middle Ages because they are the transitional period from Classical Antiquity to the post Greco-Roman world. If the Roman Empire survives the problems that beset it the 3rd, 4th and 5th Centuries intact, then the Middle Ages as we know are completely butterflied. This is especially true if we the butterfly the rise of Christianity.

 

[Caesar Biden]

For our purposes, we're assuming scenarios where either the West and East Roman Empire isn't split, or where the intact West survives and is reabsorbed/vassaled to the East.

Hmmm. We can look at some pretty late PoDs then. Perhaps the Roman invasion of Africa succeeds and saves the Western Empire in Italy and North Africa (plus Dalmatia)? This allows a weakened, but intact Western Roman Empire that will be able to influence European affairs but will still be a little less powerful than say, the Franks. They would also be incredibly influenced by the east.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Allow me to address the elephant in the room: Sir, you appear to have a Christian behind you!

Is this continuing Roman Empire Christian? Because that will have a profound impact on how this world looks.

Aye, if there are 2 Emperors you butterfly the papacy and Catholicism in its current form and possibly set up a schism even earlier with an actual temporal ruler to keep the Pope in line rather than go around seeking aid from all and sundry.

 

[RousseauX]

For our purposes, we're assuming scenarios where either the West and East Roman Empire isn't split, or where the intact West survives and is reabsorbed/vassaled to the East.

The problem with trying to build a projection out of this is that the Roman Empire was pretty different in 100 AD than 300 Ad than 400 AD.

So basically it depends on exactly how it survives and what sort of political entity it actually represents, because even before 476 WRE's control over its western and northern provinces outside of Italy was low/non-existent and depended on allied tribes to impose any sort of authority. So basically a surviving WRE might very well just because an Italy centered version of HRE rather than Augustus's empire lasting 1000 years.

 

[Tanc49]

So basically it depends on exactly how it survives and what sort of political entity it actually represents, because even before 476 WRE's control over its western and northern provinces outside of Italy was low/non-existent and depended on allied tribes to impose any sort of authority. So basically a surviving WRE might very well just because an Italy centered version of HRE rather than Augustus's empire lasting 1000 years.

For this particular thread with a limited PoD I'd go with no plague during the reconquest of the Empire by the Eastern troops

 

[Kingpoleon]

I assume the Emperors would eventually make the generals and governors in each region fight each other for power. What it really all comes back to is the Senate. If another Caligula happens, I could see them re-instating the Republic.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

[retracted]

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Very well, if it really helps and the thread promises not to pry too much into how plausible these are, I'll give two basic ideas to compare and work with:

1) 4 AD PoD where there's no Roman defeat at Teutonburg Forrest (and part of Germania is eventually added to the Empire), and Christianity as we know it doesn't exist (no Jesus crucifixion). The first century is more politically stable, and the Crisis of the Third Century or equivalent may or may not still happen.

2) PoD is 402 AD, invasions of the Western Roman Empire are mostly held at bay during the 5th Century, with only Britain being definitely lost in this time (Northern Gaul as well, maybe). Sometime in the 6th Century, the WRE is either reabsorbed or vassalized by the ERE, uniting the Empire once again. Butterflies either prevent the rise of Islam, or at the very least protect Egypt et el from falling from "Roman" power for at least a few centuries.

Majorian destroying the Vandals and reuniting the empire would be far easier to pull off than either of those two and be the easiest to predict from.

Second, the WRE was never formally divided from the east. It was still one empire, just with 2 heads of state.

To survive it will have had to withstand the tribal migrations in 3rd-6th centuries. Which means it has to be able to defeat steppe nomads and predominately warband based armies. Or losing frontier territories, regrouping and retaking them back. So long as the Mediterranean isn't breached Rome isn't in any serious trouble.

I can't see how the Empire can survive without incorporating some of these tribes into the Empire which means the Empire would become more polygot rather than less.

The same way China did?

Nomads aren't unbeatable and as time goes on the empire should adapt countermeasures against largely cavalry based armies like they did OTL such as fortification, improvement of heavy cavalry and greater mobility in the field.

The forces drawing power away from the center would be huge though - I'd be suprised if the East (and others) didn't become increasingly detatched as time went on.

The same way South China became detached from North China due to the draw on resources?

I assume the Emperors would eventually make the generals and governors in each region fight each other for power. What it really all comes back to is the Senate. If another Caligula happens, I could see them re-instating the Republic.

I don't get this. The second sentence reads like a non-sequitur. How are generals fighting each other at all relevant to the Senate? And how will either of those things make the idea of a republic popular enough to re-instate it?

 

[RousseauX]

Very well, if it really helps and the thread promises not to pry too much into how plausible these are, I'll give two basic ideas to compare and work with:

1) 4 AD PoD where there's no Roman defeat at Teutonburg Forrest (and part of Germania is eventually added to the Empire), and Christianity as we know it doesn't exist (no Jesus crucifixion). The first century is more politically stable, and the Crisis of the Third Century or equivalent may or may not still happen.

2) PoD is 402 AD, invasions of the Western Roman Empire are mostly held at bay during the 5th Century, with only Britain being definitely lost in this time (Northern Gaul as well, maybe). Sometime in the 6th Century, the WRE is either reabsorbed or vassalized by the ERE, uniting the Empire once again. Butterflies either prevent the rise of Islam, or at the very least protect Egypt et el from falling from "Roman" power for at least a few centuries.

The various invasions were, for the most part, held at bay. Remember the last Roman emperor was not deposed by an invasion, but rather by one of his German mercenary captains.

It didn't stop various provinces from being inhabited by non-Romans however, a large part of the barbarization of the provinces was due to the Romans themselves using barbarian tribes as soldiers for various civil wars, along with massive depopulation of those provinces meaning you need someone to come in and farm the land.

I don't see why the empire is more stable with the addition of the province of Germania.