What if the Roman Empire remained?

[darkbard]

for a truly amazing read that starts off with this same premise, check out thomas harris' oath of empires trilogy. the author's stories have appeared in dragon and some of his rpg adventures have appeared in dungeon. it's an alternate world with magic that works (a lot like d&d actually).

 

[fusangite]

Dr. Strangemonkey, I think a lot of your ideas would be much fun though about as inevitable as mine (ie. not at all). But as for the issue of slavery you raise, remember that in fact the lot of slaves would be better in much of Europe under Roman dominion. Chattel slavery is a feature of the Germanic tribes; only they saw humans as actual property.

The Roman (and hence Spanish and Portuguese) system of slavery was complex, with many checks and balances allowing people to escape slavery -- it worked on an indentured servitude model rather than a chattel model. One of the big influences of the Vikings/Varingians on Russia is that serfdom is constructed on the chattel model.

As for the small holder relationship to the throne, one does see this addressed in Byzantium through the rise of autocratic power. Also, in the West, if one were to set the story in the Justinian theory, the empire would be starting from scratch in the newly regained western territories.

 

[Nightstorm]

Also I think the question is what if the Roman Empire stayed peaked all the way through without outside influence taking over.
things that would have to happen would be:
1.The empire not dividing between east and west
2.Christianaity never becoming the offical religion and in fact getting squashed by Rome.
3. Rome never getting sacked by barbarians.
4. Other beliefs (like Islam) not having effect.
And on and on.
Now that Im thinking about it, there was a star trek eps that had a world where Rome survived up to the present day. There were gladiator fights on television.

 

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The Roman empire fell in 1453

Provocative headline, I know.

The point I want to make is that the Roman empire did last for a very long time. The Emperor Constantine XI who died at the fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks in 1453 stands at the end of a line that begins with Augustus (or Julius Caesar if you say he was a de facto emperor). It is really hard to say when "Rome" became "Byzantium". One just morphs into the other over the years.

True it is that in 324 Constantine I moved the capital of the empire to what he called "New Rome" but what became know as "Constantinople". But, in reality, Rome hadn't been the capital for over a century by then. It was too out of the way down in Italy when the "centres of gravity" of the empire were now in Eastern Macedonia and Gaul. The previous few emperors had hardly spent any time living in Rome at all.

And its hard to say the Roman Empire ended with the sack of the city of Rome in 476, because that would say that the very Roman Justinian (527-565) was not a Roman emperor.

So what I'm saying is that your "what if" is not a "what if" at all. The Roman Empire lasted until the early Renaissance.

Of course, maybe what you're saying is what if the there had been no loss of the Western Empire? But there were various attempts to revive that (e.g. Charlemagne) which showed that by then Roman culture in the West had been subsumed and morphed by Frankish and Germanic traditions. True, as the Eastern Empire’s Roman-ness became increasing Greek, but it was still recognisably Roman in 1453 – the chariot races in the Hippodrome, much of the architecture, the Senate, the

Another interesting question is what if the West had come to the aid of the Empire in 1427 and saved it from the Muslims? That would have been interesting.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is the point made in John Julius Norwich's excellent three volume History of Byzantium - the city of Rome may have fallen in 476, but the Roman Empire lasted until 1453.

I found this fascinating when I realised it. The so called "Dark Ages" are not what I thought. Roman civilization didn't end, it just contracted away from the backwoods of Western Europe and continued to evolve in the East. Byzantium was a fascination and sophisticated civilization. "Greek fire" alone demonstrates their technological proficiency.

The fall of Constantinople was a major impetus to the Renaissance because of the influx of refugees from the New Rome bringing classical texts and teachings with them. In many ways the Renaissance is return of classical thought to the West from the East. Of course, what the previously primitive and backwards West then did with that tradition was quite extraordinary (late Renaissance and the Enlightenment).

 

[s/LaSH]

The biggest factor that contributed to the downfall of Rome was the position of the Emperor. No question. The split of Rome into East and West, the withdrawal of frontier troops to fight civil wars, etc; all this is due to the fact that the Emperor was the position of ultimate power, and everyone wanted that.

In my opinion, external forces weren't as important as that internal dynamic. If Augustus had been the first and only Emperor, or if the Senate had imposed greater restrictions on his authority, or even if the Emperor became an elected position, the Empire would have been able to focus on its boundaries and repelled all comers.

However, I don't know if a strong Rome would have conquered the world. On the first page of Gibbon's Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, it mentions that Emperor Augustus said on his death bed that Rome's borders were fine where they were, and for the most part Rome never expanded again. (I think there was one additional region they conquered, but that was it.) And do you know what the result of this was?

It changed the slavery dynamic. There were no new conquests, so there were no new conquered people to become slaves. Those slaves that Rome possessed (millions of them) were suddenly valuable breeding stock, because they were the only source of new slaves. Over the next few generations, slaves became valuable and increasingly rare commodities, and in fact being a slave could well be a position of eminence.

What does this non-expansionist policy mean for an elongated Rome? Two things.

One, it continues indefinitely. Rome is in control of the Mediterranean basin, and their slaves continue to decline in numbers as more and more buy their freedom. By the modern day, slaves are somewhat like celebrities or royalty. However, this means that Rome runs out of labour slaves very quickly, and has to either employ vast numbers of citizens to perform drudge work (something that a Roman citizen would not enjoy), or create labour-saving devices. I suspect the latter, therefore Rome would evolve as a technological power. The Roman Renaissance comes around 900-1000AD, as the slaves run out; the industrial revolution arrives around the 1500s. Gunpowder is not immediately available, because the non-expansionist Chinese empire where it was developed millenia before has no contact with the non-expansionist Roman empire. However, intermediary forces will bring the two together between 1000 and 1500, and the two will gradually exchange technology. Neither power will pursue space travel, as it is contrary to their fixed border protocols.
- Rome will probably conquer or subdue as satellites the Germanic kingdoms and the Islamic Middle-East, to prevent agression. They won't press further, and this expansion will cease by about 900AD.
- The Viking colonies in Vinland will meet the Aztecs around about the rise of the Aztec empire, not its stagnant reigning days. Subsequently, both the Vikings and the Aztecs develop superior technology to what they otherwise achieved, but still finish their battles with swords. The Vikings develop a strong force in North America, probably a federation of kingdoms similar to the USA (hey, they were democrats). The Aztecs never stagnate.
- By the time of the Industrial Revolution, the Vinlanders and Aztecs have become mighty powers. The world is split between four main powers: Rome and China are the mighty industrialists with huge standing armies and the best equipment, but Vinland and the Aztecs are expansionist and innovative. Vinland puts the first man in space, and the Aztecs follow suit.
- The Aztecs test a nuclear weapon. Everyone else gets them by 1750. Nobody uses them after the Texas Conflict. (Which isn't actually in Texas; nukes arrived in Florida and the Vinlanders responded by scorching the Yucutan, wherupon the empires signed a treaty.)
- By the 20th century, China and Rome are feeling a little whipped. Their younger cousins from 'America' have conquered the inner planets, and can rain down nuclear fire from their industrial bases in orbit. While the old empires have developed laser defences and have a small number of space stations, the new empires are terraforming Mars (and occasionally blowing each other up there too), as well as having quantum weapons (like the plasma induction antimatter disc, or the teleporting bomb). The old empires have developed power armour; the new empires have developed personal force screens, but are only starting to deploy them.

Isn't that an interesting idea? I still wonder what Africa would be doing, but I've rambled on enough already.

By contrast, the second option is that Rome begins to expand again. In this circumstance, I see them having their renaissance at 900AD again, but they quickly attain contact with China and have an industrial revolution in the 1300s. By the 1500s they're at war with China and have discovered Terra Nova (America), and have most of Africa as vassal states. During the 1600s they have the Industrial Revolution, and conquer the stagnant Aztec empire with machine guns. At the same time, they have developed nukes and sent cosmonauts to the Moon, and acquired China as a vassal state. By 1750 they're colonising Mars. By 1850 they're sending out interstellar probes, and by the present day the Romans have primitive FTL technology.
- Slaves are dirt under this regime. The Romans are conquering the world state by state for their entire history until the 1700s, hence plenty of slaves for the citizens. Because technology can do most of what a slave can do, slaves are used for very specific purposes by their masters to make themselves feel important.
- If the slaves deter scientific progress, the Romans will expand at the same rate, but never conquer China. Instead, they will turn their attention to the Aztecs and conquer them with steel swords and armour. China and Rome will feud for the next few centuries; China will begin to develop new weapons in the 1700s, like long-range artillery and steam engines, which Rome will not immediately adapt. China will carve out an Asian empire, but Rome will crush any further attempts to expand after catching up technologically. Today, technology resembles Victorian-era tech, but the engines are bigger and rarer because slaves have to do something (that's apparently the reason the Greeks never created labour-saving devices - they were scared their slaves would find something else to do).

Hoo boy, this got long. Still, it's an interesting concept. I've always loved alternate history.

 

[Phowett]

Hoo boy, this got long. Still, it's an interesting concept. I've always loved alternate history.

It was a good read though.

 

[s/LaSH]

It was a good read though.

Just be glad I didn't branch off into my Mexican Hitler timeline...

One thing I didn't really consider was the impact of religion. One of the great weapons the Romans had against a conquered people was their pantheon; they were generic and could adapt to nearly any other pantheon, which made building new temples easy. (Come on, how many people don't know that Juno is Hera, or Venus is Aphrodite?) This would have served them well in a militaristic regime.

The rise of Christianity in the Empire was largely independant of the Emperors. I suspect, however, that it would have made things more difficult for a conquering entity; monotheism is quite a stretch from saying, "Well, Amun-Ra is kinda like Apollo, really, so let's use the name interchangeably". Also, a culture that accepts Christianity has a certain predisposition towards peace and love (see the Crusades). In all seriousness, if there were a sizable Christian component to this Rome, it would have difficulty expanding as fast and would probably delay any major conquests by one to four hundred years, increasing as you approach the modern day. (If your culture preaches peace, and you have a microwave, there's no need to go beat on your neighbour to steal his firewood. If you followed Mars, god of War, instead, you'd consider it your duty to beat on him. While religion is rarely the ruling factor in people's lives, it has an influence, and over 2000 years Christianity has permeated Western culture to an extent most people can't imagine, even if they're not Christian.)

To that end, I'd revise my first timeline to include a Christian Vinland state and Rome. Most satellite countries thereof would be Christian or Islamic. The Aztecs and all Asian nations, of course, would persist in their indigenous beliefs, but the exchange of ideas would become more common around the 1500s and it is my suspicion that Christianity would creep in. (History has shown that it's almost impossible to squish it.) I suspect that a communist theory would be developed during the 1600s in Rome or possible China (as industrial urbanisation continues), and the Aztecs or Vinlanders to adopt it as they are less industrial. (Sounds strange, but really, Russia and China were both largely rural when they had their communist uprisings. I always found that grimly amusing.)

The second timeline, which is freer of technological advance because of slave use, would probably require Christianity to remain a minority because of the timeline's militarism and slavery. I could easily see the Americas being colonised by religious exiles or refugees, which would create a colonial power similar to the Vinlanders, albeit slightly less militaristic. This would alter the world power balance slightly, and take some of the Roman heat off China.

One thing I find interesting is that, no matter how I think things through, North America always seems to get Christian colonists who set up some form of democracy. And I don't even like America! I think it's probably because North America features little in the way of indigenous infrastructure and is comparatively easy to settle, so the first major expansionists are likely to settle there. (I know I'd rather try to settle a place with plains and grassland than the Amazon jungle - white folks have been there for five hundred years now and still haven't finished chopping it down!)

Anything I've overlooked? Factors that could swing the tides of history? I'm no history expert (I said, wondering where I've put my copy of Herodotus' Histories; I know exactly where Gibbon's Decline And Fall is), and I haven't even touched on the possibility of an empire whose renaissance is thaumaturgical, not technological.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Let's see ...

We'd have the Province of Michiganius, Ohionus, Kentuckiunus, Califorinum, New Yorkanna, Massachusicum, Floridanna ...

If nothing else, have a look at the names of the Roman provinces and cities.
London, England, was founded by the Romans, and they called it Londinium, I believe.

Perhaps we would have a Common Tongue, here on Earth.
The Roman Empire did. This language was Latin.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Star Trek had a very good one on this subject.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I can't believe it took this long for someone to mention that Star Trek episode.

Seriously, look into it.