Sociopolitical and Cultural progress if Roman Empire survives

[mojojojo]

How would the colonization of the New World proceed in this TL? When would it happen and how many Romans would come to the New World Where in the New World would they come and how would their relations with the natives be? What ever happens there will still be a massive die off due to the old world diseases

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

In regards to the discovery of America in TTL, this augmented version of Rome, having the potential means and motivation, may concentrate future expansion to the east, so trips across the Atlantic would be pretty low on their priorities. With that in mind, a few fringe nations in northern Europe, perhaps based in Scandinavia and Ireland, which are too small to give the Romans any bother, and too resource poor for Rome to be interested in, but which are still economically dependent on the Empire.

These satellites may have the inclination and ambition to take the necessary steps to improve their lot in the world, so the colonization of Iceland by either the maratime empowered Irish or Scandinavians, could become the stepping stone for the later discovery of America.

Such expeditions may often be private ventures of individual chieftains and lords, rather than national governments. News of the discovery may reach Rome, but the Emperors/Senates may still have alternate priorities, so initial immigration may come at the behest of the Nordic or Irish discoverers.

Once news of the contact with the more advanced Central American cultures reaches the attention of the Empire, however, then that may slide the lands of the western Atlantic further up on Rome's priorities.

But before America, Rome's interests would concern the taming of the Wild East.

 

[mojojojo]

In regards to the discovery of America in TTL, this augmented version of Rome, having the potential means and motivation, may concentrate future expansion to the east, so trips across the Atlantic would be pretty low on their priorities. With that in mind, a few fringe nations in northern Europe, perhaps based in Scandinavia and Ireland, which are too small to give the Romans any bother, and too resource poor for Rome to be interested in, but which are still economically dependent on the Empire.

These satellites may have the inclination and ambition to take the necessary steps to improve their lot in the world, so the colonization of Iceland by either the maratime empowered Irish or Scandinavians, could become the stepping stone for the later discovery of America.

Such expeditions may often be private ventures of individual chieftains and lords, rather than national governments. News of the discovery may reach Rome, but the Emperors/Senates may still have alternate priorities, so initial immigration may come at the behest of the Nordic or Irish discoverers.

Once news of the contact with the more advanced Central American cultures reaches the attention of the Empire, however, then that may slide the lands of the western Atlantic further up on Rome's priorities.

But before America, Rome's interests would concern the taming of the Wild East.

I had been told one that a slow small scale colonization of Old World peoples would have been better for the Native Americans in regards to diseases. That it would have allowed them more time to develop immunity is this accurate?

 

[General Zod]

I've slighty edited the first map in the original thread (which refers to the early 2nd Century *Roman Empire) and I've created another one, which refers to the 3rd Century Empire, after the conquest of Western Sarmatia.

 

[General Zod]

It's certainly possible, if rather optimistic. You would still have to overcome the problem of dividing intellectual pursuits and technical ones. But if natural sciences get an additional bit of status, that could help. Medicine is usually a good connecting point, but how do you get it into a legal faculty? For monotheistic theologians, the obvious nexus was contempolating creation. maybe for Roman legalists, the idea could be a better understanding of ius naturale?

This is meant to be an optimistic, if plausible, outcome for the Roman Empire.

The idea of seeking ius naturale seems quite fitting to me. It meshes well with parallel developments in religion. After G.K.'s comments, I'm assuming that Pan-European Polytheism meshes with Roman Philosophy (esp. Stoicism) and Hinduism ideas to develop the concept of an immanent universal divine principle that expresses itself as fixed universal "natural" law (Fate or Logos), and unfolds in various free-willed archetypal aspects (the pagan gods), whose actions allow "fate" to be changed in some ways. Hence, ius naturale exists, can be understood, and affected by human actions if the proper means are used.

What is the settlement pattern you had in mind here? Does it grow around extant native centres as locals adopt a prpofitable technology? Is it based on private land acquisition and development? State-run colonisation? THat would make for very different outcomes, I think.

I believe that settlement would occur through a mix of the options you quote. The natives are largely settled around extant centers as they are integrated into Roman society and economy, but massive state-run colonization also occurs as veterans are settled into state-run colonies and given land grants in the provinces. Slightly later, as the "company" private sector takes off, we may see significant private land development.

It seems to be the way that Roman society went OTL, and far too early to view it as a response to crisis. Basically, a prospering Empire and a depoliticised society seem to have encouraged the upper classes to be protective of their status. In Roman society, the wealthy and influential were required to expend considerable sums on various public duties. They were rewarded with political powers. It would be unusual for them not to try to use these powers to their owen advantage. Roman law does not allow for an aristocracy, but it does allow for social stratification. In the course of creating the Romania, geographic location and Roman citizenship would come to mean less and less and wealth more and more. I can't see how you are going to stop this development. After all, the system allows for upward mobility in plenty of places.

Ok, I see the reasons for your argument. And indeed, the system would allow for strong upward mobility through pleny of ways: service in the military or bureaucracy, economic success. So it would balance.

The commercial revolution is what I am least certain about. Roman finance was sophisticated, but there is no guarantee that it will come up with the instruments that powered the Islamic and medieval European systems.

There is no compelling reason why it ought not to, and since this is meant to be the optimistic-but-plausible outcome, negative butterflies do not occur.

Assuming it does, there is nothing to stop it from starting in the second or third century. Technically, it could have started even before the rise of Rome (possibly even better). The infrastructure was in place and more and more modern historians are putting together the pieces and realise that the Roman trade network was incredibly sophisticated and ranged from Indian precious stones and Chinese silk to rooftiles.

Exactly. So the financial revolution looks like a natural evolution of what they had OTL, had it been time to grow.

The sharecropping and property ownership idea, BTW, will mean that commercial patterns will look different. Traders can now buy real estate and landowners turn their estates into investtment capital. If you can get Roman law to allow limited liability and full legal personage, you could make joint stock companies happen. Joint stock investment in land melioration... sounds like a respectable thing to do for the traditional upper classes.

Yes, and with the central state remaining strong, this shall remove any significant tendency to feudalization. And when the joint stock investment in land amelioration tradition spreads and take root, it is a natural evolution to expand investments into similar areas like mining, proto-industry, and private infrastructure development.

The decline and change in status is OTL. It's already more or less reality by the 1st century AD. Extend it through the provinces and you could have a situation where you replace the medieval system of apprenticeship, kinship and retainership with property relationships. Roman businesspeople often used slaves and freedmen as agents because they could trust them. The typical career structure would look something like this: A houseborn slave (verna) shows promise in youth and is trained, either in-house or by being lent or sold to someone who has use for him (trade in gifted children is brisk). ONce he has the required skills (as an accountant, merchant, administrator, physician, artisan or whatever), he works for the profit of his owner. These people only change hands rarely, and if they do it is for large sums. Traditionally, after ten to fifteen years of service (in comfortable quarters and nice conditions, with some informal pay), they are granted their freedom and continue to work for their masters, now for pay. Some may strike out on their pown, though they are still bound to them by legal ties (may not compete with them or act against their interests). Many former owners will provide seerd capital for their freedmen. That way, the structure can be perpetuated and a system of competitive struggle coexist with traditional family structures and hereditary elites. The good thing is that all of this is OTL, just writ large.

Your ideas are quite fine. I'm only concerned that the numbers of the slave population would gradually decline, as the manpower pools from Northern and Eastern Europe, Persia, and later India are integrated in the Empire. Unless they gear up the slave population to sustain itself through breeding (which Roman slavery was not), and/or they open large-scale slave trade with subsaharian Africa (problematic until they develop Renaissance naval technology). So your system is fine, but you need means for the free poors to work their children in it without legally selling them into slavery. This may be done by expanding on the Roman concept of patronage. One might have a temporary indenture system, by which a free parent may sign a child for an extended apprenticeship, which would work much like the system you describe, but without legal loss of citizenship which slavery entails. You may also have skilled slaves and free apprentices systems running in parallel.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

What sociopolitical and cultural progress?

The Roman Empire was, from the beginning, a slave-based agricultural economy where all the power was vested in a military dictatorship with theocratic leanings. What progress was made was made under an even more theocratic regime hundreds of years after any possible PoD that could have the Romans Empire looking like it does in that map. Even then, the military dictatorship continued through until the collapse of the whole system and the rise of a medieval monarchy. What power outside the hands of the Emperor there was was held by a class of hereditary nobility whose wealth and status was ensured by vast land holdings, worked by slaves for the benefit of a captive class of land-less consumers in the cities.

What middle class of independent farmers, craftsmen, traders, and proto-industrialists there were had to deal with a government often-times ambivalent to their problems and needs and sometimes downright hostile to their intentions and persons. Saving Roman society from the fate it succumbed to and getting 'progress' in the modern sense of the word would require a PoD as far back as the Gracchi, or even before then.

If you want to see progress in the ancient world, get China to snap out of her nearly reactionary conservatism. China was, in general, a society of free-holding farmers subject to no one but the Emperor, with an urban culture centered around crafts, goods production, and (internal) trade. The power structure was aimed at meritocracy and not the aristocracy of Rome. In fact, the sort of half-feudal arrangement that came to dominate the world of the Roman Empire was viewed as decay in ancient China, and actively fought against. It can be argued that the stability China enjoyed throughout the centuries was partially driven by these middle-class centric values on the part of the Imperial Chinese establishment.

Not that I have any complaints about trying to save the Roman Republic to achieve this sort of thing in the West, too. Partially or completely breaking the power of the Senate and Senatorial class over the Roman state would go a long way to rectifying the situation Rome grew to face in the 1st century and beyond.

Repost because it raises important points that aren't being addressed.

 

[General Zod]

Great Thread!

Thankee.

Interests I have here involve the "science" and "technology" aspects.

Very important issues.

The thread flow here seems to have established the emergence of "Greek proto-science". Thread flow suggests a spilling-over from bureaucratic and academic areas into mathematics and what would be "natural philosophy".

Yes.

Perhaps if "Canonical Polytheism" developed along the lines of, say, Vodou, which has a belief in a fixed universe with a fixed destiny that (here's the kicker) can be rewritten by pressing the spirits to your aims. Maybe here the Fate's book can be changed by intervention, but the "fixed law of the universe" constrains the methods and results. In the long run the view of an empirical cosmology evolves allowing for a measurable, manipulable universe.

Following on your own ideas here, I have conceived the picture of Pan-European polytheism fusing with Roman philosophy (esp. Stoicism) and some aspects of Hinduism to generate a religious system with an immanent universal cosmic/divine impersonal principle, which expresses as Fate and natural law, and unfolds into several free-willed, self-conscious archetypal aspects (the various gods) that have dominion over several aspects of the natural world and can rewrite them to a degree, if properly addressed. Thus man has both a fixed fate and lives in a fixed universe, but many outcomes can be rewritten by using the proper methods. In time, this evolves in the concept of a measurable, manipulable universe by empirical means.

Of course technology is another thing entirely and much a product of society. In this unitary bureaucratic state we might see (yet another) China allegory where technology is the purview of the central government. However, the persistent "property rights" merchant class offers some interesting prospects on a decentralized economy, which means private technological explorations could be possible. The latter spurs continual change while the former tends towards bursts of investment/development and occasional reversions as per China.

On the one hand (central) we could see technology developing rather slowly and centrally with big "works" projects and military projects as the focus. The "Suez Canal" and other hydrology projects suggest this course. On the other hand a decentralized "private sector" would see small inventions that cut costs or bring profits. On the gripping hand some blend of the two seems probable here, perhaps in competition. We might even see the rise of "company" economies as per OTL Britain and Netherlands and later corporate America which would have the "advantages" of large capital availability, large labor force, and freedom of direction, but would result in a social stratification and a "consumer-commercial" outlook as OTL of "we build it and make you want to buy it" (and perhaps planned obsolescence) rather than an organic growth. This could mean quite an entrenched "military industrial complex" analog with large "private" companies entwined with the government bureaucracy. Seems IMO to dovetail well with the Roman "patron" system and the above merchant-property owner economy.

These are very worthy ideas, and my reasoning is that we would see a lively mix of both. A strong public sector that is driven by government bureaucracy and the military, and focuses on big infrastructure and military projects, and a set of large private companies that focus on land and resource development, minor infrastructure, and consumer goods. Sometimes they cooperate, sometimes are in competition, together with the landowners they form the elite. In the niches of this military industrial complex, a myriad of small household firms (generated by the apprenticeship system, see below) provide services and cost-cutting small innovations to the giants. Indeed the Roman society could easily evolve an economic system like this.

Industrial Revolution. This is tricky. You have the basis for an agricultural revolution with the resultant population growth (workers available). You have the seeds for a potential financial revolution (assuming the bureaucracy doesn't entrench itself). With an empirical or quasi-empirical world view there's a belief that the world can be affected by men. Eventually we could assume, even in the "Centralized technology" scenario, that someone creates an engine more usable than Hero's.

Yes. According to the initial parameters, this Roman Empire also masters good steelmaking and metal-working in the 1st-3rd Century, therefore combined with the very good Greco-Roman tool-making ability shown by the Ankithera mechanism, the problem in Hero’s engine should be worked out.

More in general, the initial parameters assume that this Roman Empire gets some interrelated lucky breaks in the 1st-3rd Century: achievement of its “natural borders” in Northern-Eastern Europe and the Middle East (and assimilation of the Germanic-Slav populations), a religious environment that is conductive to tolerance and continued cultural progress, and the early mastery of several key pieces of medieval technology (blast furnaces, heavy plough, horse collar, horseshoes, woodblock printing press, paper, wheelbarrow, crossbow, stirrup). Together they ensure the survival and continued expansion of the Roman Empire. A related consequence of its survival would be the early development within the same Late Antiquity timeframe of socio-political checks and balances to military despotism and its disruptive civil wars, which we may now identify as the professional bureaucracy and the propriety merchant class, which later grows into the company private sector.

What I have not defined is the precise timeframe by how these premises would unfold into transition into full Middle Age and later Renaissance society (without the nasty monotheism of course) and technology, with the exception of mobile type printing press, which I see adopted as early as 1-2 centuries after the development of woodblock printing: it is a natural development with an alphabetic system.

Of course just having the engine isn't enough for "revolution". Assuming you now have population, economic spurs, and available technology you could (particularly in the "Company" economy) have a sudden need for mass production of goods, hence an Industrial Revolution as per OTL (factories, textile mills, etc.). This being Rome, however, I could more easily see steam power being the purview of the government and military. Perhaps the development of railroads (a likely offshoot from "mine steamer" development) or steam propulsion in ships (very possible in an empire based around an inland sea). In the latter steam may develop more slowly and will remain mostly a toy for the government.

Since I am assuming a mixed-economy bureaucratic-company society here, I assume both kinds of developments would occur: the military and the government bureaucracy would fund the creation of a vast railroad and steam navigation network (natural extension of their old road and hydrology focus, and very good for military and trade purposes both), and the private sector would focus on the mass production of goods with abundant factories and textile mills.

A centralized system, particularly one with an emperor not fond of private ideas, would suggest printing remains monopolized or at least strictly controlled by the central bureaucracy. Private use and "underground" use will be a dangerous game. I highly doubt we'd see the sheer "press in every town" as Europe saw OTL as the central authority certainly doesn't wish to see anti-government fliers. At least in the poly-religious environment there'd be little incentive to suppress religious texts. Of course disseminated press equals quicker spread of ideas equals faster technological growth.

IMO a standard much like modern China would be established as it concerns the spread of information (press and later IT): the government exercises partial control to suppress politically-subversive ideas, but does not concern itself with other kinds of texts. Therefore, in combination with the prestige literature and scholarship carried in Roman society (which would grow to encompass “natural” philosophy), economic growth and mobile printing creating relatively high rates of literacy, this would create an healthy appetite in society for circulation of ideas and your “press in every town” even if the printers would subject to license and government control and stiff punishment if they print anti-government fliers (the business of an underground sector, esp. if subversive propaganda may have a gossipy character).

Together here, I'm seeing a society where public and large "corporate" private institutions coexist and at times blur together. I see information being controlled and censored, but "approved" learning quickly disseminating through the University system and "private" organizations, with a constant irritant of small underground press organizing opposition groups. Technology will grow, possibly in spurts, and be the purview of the "military-industrial complex". Perhaps eventually factories for consumer goods will appear, but I see transportation infrastructure first. I do not necessarily foresee "private automobiles" and other consumer technologies being a major sector here, instead such contraptions belonging to the military and perhaps the toys of the rich. I do not foresee much effort in information technology except in military applications until far into post-industrial society. I do foresee development of weapons technology at a brisk pace, particularly with "private" organizations developing new "toys" to sell to the Empire (as per OTL's US military contractors).

In all, a weird polyglot blend of "Chinese" bureaucratic monopoly and "European" company-capitalism arises where some sectors of technology develop faster than OTL (Civil Engineering, "Military" steam power, etc.) while others develop more slowly or hardly at all (factories, consumer goods, IT).

Just my 0.25 Denari...

I largely agree with your picture here. Except I do not foresee any real delay in the mass development of factories and most mass-produced consumer goods (e.g. household appliances). Private cars would be indeed made less widespread by the strong emphasis on public transportation, and IT would be delayed.

 

[carlton_bach]

Your ideas are quite fine. I'm only concerned that the numbers of the slave population would gradually decline, as the manpower pools from Northern and Eastern Europe, Persia, and later India are integrated in the Empire. Unless they gear up the slave population to sustain itself through breeding (which Roman slavery was not), and/or they open large-scale slave trade with subsaharian Africa (problematic until they develop Renaissance naval technology). So your system is fine, but you need means for the free poors to work their children in it without legally selling them into slavery. This may be done by expanding on the Roman concept of patronage. One might have a temporary indenture system, by which a free parent may sign a child for an extended apprenticeship, which would work much like the system you describe, but without legal loss of citizenship which slavery entails. You may also have skilled slaves and free apprentices systems running in parallel.

Actually, there is evidence free people did sell their children and themselves into slavery in return for a contractual promise of liberation after a certain timespan. Such a contract would not be enforceable under Roman law (except under consuetudo, which would require powerful interests behind it), but there appear not to have been problems with it in practice. Then there was child exposure (a ready source of slaves as well as adoptees) and the continuing import from the East. A low-intensity slave system can easily operate like that - Europe and the Middle EAst throughout the Middle Ages could make do with the supply from Central Asia, the Caucasus and East Africa. Only when plantations were reintroduced did Europe start needing West Africa as a source.

Bear in mind, there's no reason that 'slave of X' can't be a title a man bears with pride, as long as the master is powerful enough.

 

[Faeelin]

Without the rise in status of ecclesiastical and military fora, Roman legal culture is likely to persist unbroken. That means there is a reasonable chance a system of unitary procedure and law, with recognised authorities to provide legal opinion and formalised educational institutions for practitioners, could emerge. We see the beginnings of this in the late Empire at Berytus and Constantinople.

Okay, why aren't you off somewhere writing alternate histories about the intrigues at law schools in a Rome that never fell?

 

[MerryPrankster]

JR,

I don't think it's technically proper to call the Later (Western) Empire and the Byzantine Empire "theocratic." In the latter case, the State controlled the Church, not the other way around.

And didn't the "military dictatorship" keep the Senatorial class under its thumb? It's true that a lot of the dictators were from the Senatorial class, but I was under the impression the Senate was under control.

Here's a thought. In Byzantium, the Emperors supported freeholding peasants to weaken the aristocracy. What got that going and how might it be replicated in the West in a much earlier timeframe?

Perhaps some Emperor rewards his veterans with lots of lands from Senators he dislikes and makes sure it stays that way?

Furthermore, I was under the impression China had a gentry class. The "free peasants subject only to the Emperor" seems a bit idealistic.

 

[carlton_bach]

Okay, why aren't you off somewhere writing alternate histories about the intrigues at law schools in a Rome that never fell?

I don't know enough about law schools. I took two lectures on Roman law in undergrad history and ran away screaming.

 

[Jaded_Railman]

JR,

I don't think it's technically proper to call the Later (Western) Empire and the Byzantine Empire "theocratic." In the latter case, the State controlled the Church, not the other way around.

The Emperor, at least in pre-Dominate Roman Empire, was the Pontifex Maximus, the head of the Roman state religion. But afterwards, and especially after Justinian, it took on a more directly theocratic tone. The Church was subservient to the Emperor because the emperor was the head of the Church. He was God's annointed representative on Earth, sent to protect, rule, and lead the Universal State that was his obvious intention for Man.

And didn't the "military dictatorship" keep the Senatorial class under its thumb? It's true that a lot of the dictators were from the Senatorial class, but I was under the impression the Senate was under control.

Yes and no. The politics of the Republic remained long after the spirit was gone. To be an Emperor secure in his position, you needed three groups on your side: The army, the Senate, and the People of Rome. The army was relatively easy (very relatively): Lavish them with attention and victories and they didn't care. The People were easy, Bread and Circuses were all they cared about. It's the Senate was the difficult proposition (again, up until about Justinian). It was often army officers of Senatorial rank who would be the main challengers to the security of the Emperor's throne.

Here's a thought. In Byzantium, the Emperors supported freeholding peasants to weaken the aristocracy. What got that going and how might it be replicated in the West in a much earlier timeframe?

You would need to maintain security in the West, for one. Whereas, in the East, the 'moral' government of the new Christian regime slowly helped bring about a change in land distribution (among -many- other causes), people clustered around manors in the West for safety and security in very uncertain times. Whereas the East managed to maintain something approaching security through the crisis of the fifth century, and managed to eject the Germans from the halls of government, the West saw its borders collapse and 'barbarian' tribes (who were as often Romans turned criminal from desperation as they were Germans or Huns) roaming at will, virtually free to take whatever they could pillage. Likewise, they failed to force the Germans out of their government, so the Western state quickly turned into a puppet for German warlords.

One of the major causes of this was the sheer length of the Western border versus the length of the Eastern one. The East's longest border was with the Persians who were, if not entirely friendly, at least another civilized power, not given to occasional mass migration. The West, however, looked over the Rhine into what was basically wilderness. When the Rhine froze over, there was nothing but a thin red line of Roman Legions facing the Germanic tribes.

Pushing out towards further European rivers will help shorten the border, but it might also help preclude the conditions that brought about the 'equalization' of Roman society. The East only really attained a 'real' class of yeomanry after the Avaro-Slavic and Arab invasions, when the entire political and economic structure collapsed. Faced with the cut-off of Egyptian and North African grain there were suddenly a great many urban mouths to feed and a great deal of newly virginized land to be reconquered.

One of the main reasons China managed the system it did was because it makes sense to settle soldiers on the frontier: You've got a ready set of already trained fighters right where you'll probably need them most. The problem with Byzantium was they ran out of unsettled, prime farming land to expand into. By the time they hit their apex, everywhere else around them was already taken.

Perhaps some Emperor rewards his veterans with lots of lands from Senators he dislikes and makes sure it stays that way?

Well, the thing is this happened IOTL. Roman soldiers, upon retirement, would be granted land to farm. The problem is that it was mostly land in the provinces: You had to be REALLY important to get land in Italy. Unfortunately, it was the land in Italy that mattered, politically speaking. The provinces had no representation at all in the central government. Since the aristocracy held almost all the land in Italy, they de facto controlled the government. Angering a bunch of Senators in Rome was a much more serious threat to an Emperor than angering some soldiers along in Gaul (at least under the Principate...once that fell apart, it was actually the other way around).

Furthermore, I was under the impression China had a gentry class. The "free peasants subject only to the Emperor" seems a bit idealistic.

They did, but they were emasculated and their influence was actively fought against by the Emperor. The peasants were mindful of this and believed their main loyalty was to the Emperor. The strong urban middle class made this connection even more solid, by giving an additional base of support free of artistocratic influence.

Rome's problems were, basically:

A. The main agricultural settlements around the major urban centers were plantations worked by slaves.

B. The Crisis of the Third Century effectively destroyed what urban middle class had existed in the West. It survived in the East only because it was more entrenched there. The West had always had a problematic relationship with its urban proletariat. The original 'Sesession of the Plebe' events that shaped the Early Republic were mainly caused by the outright hostility the Senatorial class showed towards any kind of trade or urban production at all.

So I maintain the best PoD to get a Rome that survives and progresses would be to go as far back as the Gracchi. Their land reform attempts were the last, desperate gasp of the reformist spirit that had made the Republic an institution worth saving, rather than just a power collusion amongst the nobility after they threw out their Etruscan king.

 

[General Zod]

Actually, there is evidence free people did sell their children and themselves into slavery in return for a contractual promise of liberation after a certain timespan. Such a contract would not be enforceable under Roman law (except under consuetudo, which would require powerful interests behind it), but there appear not to have been problems with it in practice.

Hmm, I'm not sure that custom alone would be enough to make the system work. IMO the contactual promise of liberation (as well as protection of the temporary slave from the worst abuses) ought ot be enforceable in courts. It is true a slave may not bring action against master, but the contract might include the promise of liberation, as well as guarantee of some basic rights, and nominate a sponsor or agent to bring suit if the contract is broken (maybe even a governemnt official). I think this would be quite doable under Roman law. Such a supervision of temporary slavery contracts to prevent abuses might link nicely with the evolution of a more nuanced legal system, that would grant different degrees of legal rights to different kinds of slaves (maybe differentiating between "household" slaves, with a better regime, under which temporary slaves would fit, and labor ones). Since there was a movement in Roman society to give slaves more rights (independent form Christian influence) this would fit.

Then there was child exposure (a ready source of slaves as well as adoptees) and the continuing import from the East. A low-intensity slave system can easily operate like that - Europe and the Middle EAst throughout the Middle Ages could make do with the supply from Central Asia, the Caucasus and East Africa. Only when plantations were reintroduced did Europe start needing West Africa as a source.

This is very true, even if I expect that all of Caucasus would eventually become Roman territory soon after Parthia and Eastern Sarmatia (the territory between the Dniepr and the Volga) are annexed. At that point the Emperors would likely seek territorial continuity. After that, Rome would steadily encroach in Central Asia and India (even if the main effrto would be deployed to conquer and hold the latter) until the Americas are discovered. And then yes, slavery could turn ugly again as labor is needed for the plantations.

 

[Zajir]

The fringes of the empire

Evan though complete fragmentiation of the empire is unlikely, cold areas on the fringe of the empire break away, China had for example Tibet and Mongolia break away from it.

 

[General Zod]

Concerning the issues of how pre-existing cultural identities could survive in a (multi) continental Roman Empire, I do believe that they would undergo a process of partial hybridization and homogenization: all the areas of the Empire would absorb several traits from the Imperial culture, and some "useful" or "colorful" traits from the local culture might well join the Imperial one (thanks to the Roman talent for cultural hybridization) and enough local traits would survive to give the area its distinct character. Different provinces would have their distinct atmosphere, but still be recognizably Roman. The Empire would only purposefully (and ruthlessly) stamp out aspects of local cultures that would act as a rallying cry for political separatism.

I think this pattern would also hold true for languages: all the empire would speak out Latin, and Roman citizens from opposite corners of the Empire could still easily communicate in a common language, but regional variants (dialects) would develop (much alike national variants of English), and the most culturally prestigious or widespread pre-Roman languages would survive (Greek, Persian, Hindi, maybe German). It would be a world that would be both more culturally diverse (the Empire would not suppress some cultures as ruthlessly as later OTL civilizations did) and less so (there would be an handful of global Imperial cultures to represent every advanced Emprie that would grow in parallel to Rome: China surely, maybe others; actually the roman one might well be the more diverse Imperial culture of all, thanks to Roman talent for cultural hybridization).

This world would be drastically simplified in a political, rather than cultural, sense, however: potnetially it might quite easily evolve to hold 2-3 global cultures, from the super-empires that Rome and its rivals-peers woudl grow to be: almost surely China would skip absorption from Rome, however successful the latter. Imperial China held just as good potential to evolve in a global empire as Rome, and a steadily expanding Roman Empire would shake the Chinese elites out of their reactionary-isolationist complacency and spur them on the road to steady cultural innovation (and the reverse would also be true, once ongoing contact is established). So TTL would almost surely see a millennia-long superpower competition between Romasphere and Chinasphere, maybe alternating periods of military conflict and peaceful trade. India, depending on butterflies, might end up in three ways: complete absorption by Rome, political fragmentation as a set of buffer states, some vassals of Rome, some of China, and some neutral, or it might manage to unify and modernize as the the third great Empire of Eurasia. It all depends on how the parallel processes of Roman modernization and Indian political (dis)unity woudl play out.

IMO no other ancient culture would have the potential to grow into another Imperial great power, and so escape absorption or vassallization byt the Eurasian giants. Bizarre butterflies might play out here (e.g. Japan pulling out a Meji and becoming the 3rd or 4th great power). But neither the Precolumbian Native American nor the African states have any plausible hope of becoming any credible rival to the Eurasian empires nor of escaping absorption or vassallization by them. The technological and organizational divide was simply too great. As said above, Native American peoples, and to a degree, theri cultures, would likely fare better with a Roman colonization than with OTL European ones, since Romans would likely go for political annexation and partial cultural assimilation, rather than genocide. Population pressure from other areas of the Empire (Europe, and, if it is Romanized, India) would most likely see a lot of settlers coming to Americas, but they would mix with the natives.

 

[MerryPrankster]

JR,

Byzantium more like a divine-right monarchy than a true theocracy. I don't think anyone calls any of the state-religion governments of Western Europe "theocracies"--even Cromwell's Commonwealth, despite its religious laws.

About the Senate, that's a good point. With that in mind, perhaps TTL could have a situation where the Senators try to restore the Republic and it backfires? Think Claudius's situation, where it turned into an armed standoff between the Praetarian Guard, the Roman mob, and Claudius against the Senate and a large collection of armed slaves, only TTL has no analogue to Herod to negotiate a peaceful solution.

The Senate gets defeated military and a lot of them are murdered. The victorious Emperor, hoping to weaken the Senatorial class permanently, distributes their lands to his troops as well as to replacement puppet Senators.

He might also import new Senators from elsewhere--wasn't one of the reasons Caesar was kiled is because he was bringing Gauls loyal to him into the Senate, giving him a power base indepedent of the "old Senators"?

This means representation of areas from outside Rome itself, which would weaken the Roman aristocracy further.

 

[General Zod]

In regards to the discovery of America in TTL, this augmented version of Rome, having the potential means and motivation, may concentrate future expansion to the east, so trips across the Atlantic would be pretty low on their priorities. With that in mind, a few fringe nations in northern Europe, perhaps based in Scandinavia and Ireland, which are too small to give the Romans any bother, and too resource poor for Rome to be interested in, but which are still economically dependent on the Empire.

These satellites may have the inclination and ambition to take the necessary steps to improve their lot in the world, so the colonization of Iceland by either the maratime empowered Irish or Scandinavians, could become the stepping stone for the later discovery of America.

Such expeditions may often be private ventures of individual chieftains and lords, rather than national governments. News of the discovery may reach Rome, but the Emperors/Senates may still have alternate priorities, so initial immigration may come at the behest of the Nordic or Irish discoverers.

Once news of the contact with the more advanced Central American cultures reaches the attention of the Empire, however, then that may slide the lands of the western Atlantic further up on Rome's priorities.

But before America, Rome's interests would concern the taming of the Wild East.

I agree that before the discovery of the Americas (which would require the romans to master the compass and ocean-worthy ship technology), their main expansion concern would be landbound, towards Asia. The main priorities would be absorption of Persia and all of Sarmatia (AKA European Russia). We have already defined that they absorb Western Sarmatia (up to the Western Dvina-Dneipr line) by the early 3rd Century and Persia has been vassallized. TTL might or might not see some kind of 3rd Century crisis: if it does, it is very diminished in severity by the PoDs, and its ends up spurring the development of those kidns of reforms (creation of the professional bureaucracy, economic reforms that favor the urban propritary trading elites and the yeoman class) that stabilize the Empire and greately reduce the frequency and severity of civil wars. Persia might or might not (temporarily) break away in TTL version of the Sassanid take over, Anyway, the 3rd century might be a time of crisis, recovery, reform, and consolidation. The 4th Century would quite likely be a new cycle of expansion, which sees the permanent (re)annexation of Persia and the assimilation of Eastern Sarmatia, up to the Volga rivers. Rome comes to share a border with the Indian states, and some encrochment in that area may well begin. The 5th Century might well be another time of crisis, as the Empire battles out the massive Hun breakout of Central Asian nomads. The Huns might well be a serious military problem for this Roman Empire, but never a fatal one. At the very least, Rome would need gunpowder to end the troubles from CA nomads, even if I suspect that the highly trained Roman legions might well give the nomads a run for their lives even before gunpowder, once they have plentiful archer corps with good crossbows and/or longbows, as well as strong heavy and highly trained heavy cavalry corps with horseshoes, solid saddle and stirrups.

Once the Hun threat has been contained and repelled, I expect the Empire to start a gradual piecemeal expansion in Central Asia, and return their main attention to India, which would their main focus of expansion for the next centuries, until it's wholly assimilated or definitely proved too strong to. China would see intermittent skirmishes and plentiful trade and cultural exchange, and would be spurred into becoming a parallel expansionist Empire (towards Korea, Japan, and South East Asia). As Roman ocean-going technology would improve they would explore trading routes towards Asia and make some colonization of East Africa, as well as follow the North Atlantic island chain, stumbling on Iceland and Greenland (curious) until they find the Northeastern North America, and they realize they have found another continent and pot of gold, besides India. Plenty of good land (and with southernward exploration, natural resources), as good as or better than Central Asia, with far less troublesome natives, for Roman military technology.

At his point, the Americas would become the new main coonquest and colonization focus for the Roman Empire. As said before, it is most likely that the Roman settlers would pursue political and partial cultural assimilation, rather than extermination and population substitution. Even if there would be plenty of eager settlers from crowded Europe (and India) to reap a new living in Atlantis (or whatever), and Roman colonization would take the usual mix of state-sponsored settlement (especially veterans) and private enterprise, with grdaul assimilation of natives in the Roman lifestyle.

ITTL the Irish are an integral part of the Roman Empire since the 1st Century, so they would be a part of Imperial colonization. The Scandinavians might well stay vassals fro a long time, as their lands would be seen as too resource-poor to be worth annexation, so it is possible that Scandinavians might manage sneak some colonies in North America under Rome's nose Barring improbable butterfleis, I doubt they could ever manage to grow quick and strong enough to resist the inevitable expansion of the Empire on the continent. And native american cultures would be far too backward to resist assimilation, even if initial contact with small numbers of colonists allow them to adapt to Old World diseases in time. No, in due time the legions from an Empire drawing on all the strength of Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, North Africa, and quite possibly Induia would crush Norse colonists and Native American states like toothpicks and make the Americans a Roman playground. Successful independence movements from disgruntled Roman settlers are always a possibility, but surely not a sure or even likely outcome (the Roman Empire would be much more powerful than Britain or Spain).

Of course, there is always the possibility that the other pre-industrial superpower, China, might manage some serious colonization effort of its own in North/Central America, and so turn the continent in another "hot" contested area, besides Central Asia. Butterflies have ample space for roaming here, so the relative size of the Romasphere and Chinasphere in NA, even assuming a parallel Chinese colonization occurs at all, are widely variable. IMO a rough estimate of the most likely outcome, assuming that Rome would draw from a larger resource pool in Eurasia, would have an easier route for exploration and colonization, and the Roman culture is better geared for such endevors, is that Rome would claim most of the Continent in any case, even if the chinese stake a successful rival claim. Say Roman North America up to the Rockies, Chinese North America beyond. South America would be Roman-only.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I like the idea of the Scandinavians "pulling a fast one" on the Romans by colonizing much of North America before the Romans realize its value.

Instead of some poor, primitive bumpkins to the North who aren't worth the effort to conquer, the Scandinavians become the Empire of the North Atlantic, combining their own warrior culture wth political institutions borrowed from Rome.

After all, if their population grows per OTL but moving south will get them curbstomped, where to go?

About India, perhaps nomadic tribes fleeing Roman expansion into Central Asia unite India? The Mughals, who ruled most of the Subcontinent for centuries in OTL, were originally Mongol-ish by way of Afghanistan.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Just my little contribution to this thread.



...........................................................................................
The Year 2612 Ab Urbe Conditia/ 1859 BCE.

The passenger train travelling along the Via Orientalis, the great railroad between the Imperium Romanorum and China, shook violently, causing his grace, and the official Imperial Envoy of China, Gong Yao Zedong, to awake from his slumber on the leather-bound couch. Zedong's papers were strewn messily across the small table below the couch. His personal assistant, a young man called Yuen Chao, was still fast asleep on the opposite couch, despite the jolt. It had been perhaps twelve days since the Gong Yao Zedong and his diplomatic delegation were sent by the Son of Heaven to discuss with the Romans on the official Partition of the continent of Australis in the South Seas.

The train transporting the Imperial Chinese delegation had made stops at the terminals in Wuhan, Lanzhou, and Lhasa. Then the journey continued past Kathmandu in the Himalayas, the city of Lakhanpuri, and approached through to Roman territory at Alexandria-on-the-Indus. The journey carried on through the Roman cities of Alexandria Arachosia, Persepolis, Seleucia, and just yesterday, Edessa. Once the come upon the city of Antioch, they would first oblige a visit on the Roman Proconsul of Syria, before mounting a steamship for Rome.

Zedong left his passenger cabin to find if the carriage's water closet was empty. Passing by the other private cabins was the Conductor of the train. Zedong stopped the man and enquired in Latin how it would take before the reached the station in Antioch.

"I expect that we should be at the Imperial Antioch Terminal within ten hours, sir," replied the Conductor, who was a thin Syrian-Greek of some forty years of age. Zedong thanked him for the estimate, and went into the carraige's latrine.

Yao Zedong returned to his cabin fifteen minutes later, and roused Yuen Chao from his rest.

"Chao. Wake up," he told the younger man. "We'll be in Antioch within less than a day." Chao sleepily opened his eyes. "Chao, I need your help to rehearse for when we meet the Governor of Syria."

Chao arose from the couch. "Of course, my lord," he replied dutifully.
....................................................................................................

 

[General Zod]

Of course, it is entirely possible that ITTL Japan shall still follow stereotype and pull a Meji and modernize quick and good enough to become another imperial great power, in such a case they might well compete with China for colonization of Korea, South East Asia, Australian, and the North America's West Coast.

As it concerns the Native American or the Subsaharian cultures, it is quite possible that a couple of them might manage to escape annexation and/or vassalage by the imperial superpowers thanks to favorable circumstances (inospitale or resource-poor location, being placed as a useful buffer between two imperial spheres of influence) but I find it utterly unplausible that any of them could ever manage to pull a Meji of their own and make themselves a rival to the superpowers. They would have to overcome a cultural handicap far worse than the one India or Japan would face.