NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, this should probably figure coming from someone like me, but the topic dawned on me when, doing some research for personal purposes, that no one has ever tried researching the topic, and I confirmed this with some searches. Plus, as a History major, one of my favourite things to do concerning the past is to take it and wonder what would happen if I changed it a little.

(I also figured the General forum could use a break from the election topics and that there seems to be a lot of Roman-based nations on NS, so I figure this could work)

So now I bring you the "what if" I always think about, and that concerns my favourite historical people the Romans (as it should be apparent by my username). I'm actually attempting to write a history of Rome to the present day for my NS nation, so I have an added interest in the subject.

First, the inevitable- if Rome was to survive to the present day, it probably would have gone through at least two major revolutions, because no civilization can last if it does not change to run itself better in its current times. In Rome's actual history it underwent revolution six times- the overthrow of the Etruscan kings (510 B.C.), the overthrow of the Republic (somewhere between 46 B.C. and A.D. 3, depending on your viewpoint), Diocletian's reorganization (290), Constantine's reorganization (c. 320- the exact date escapes me), and the splitting of the Empire into Western and Eastern halves (395). So, for Rome to last another 1500 years to make it to the present it'd have to reorganize itself at least two or three times because a nation cannot have one way of running itself forever as at some point it would not be condusive to the world the state is situated in. Plus, Roman history does show that they were not averse to change, so revolutions were almost to be expected.

That doesn't necessarily mean that a Roman state today wouldn't be anything like the Roman state we know historically- while the way it's physically run would be different (e.g., the use of modern weaponry and the adoption of modern technology such as computers), the ideals of the people, the social fabric, the economic tendencies, militaristic tactics and the institutions that make up the state could very possibly remain the same (meaning, in short, it'd still could be the Rome we'd all recognize). I also want to establish that if a Roman state were to exist today it doesn't necessarily have to include ALL of the former Roman territories- it could just be a small enclave around Rome itself (mirroring the demise of Byzantium), or a massive Empire that rules all of Africa.

I'll post what I think later- I don't want my opinions to influence others' thoughts. Oh, and please let's all be serious about this. Thanks.

Your turn.

Well, as a fellow classical history major, I'm happy to see a topic that actually greatly interests me come up.

I think for Rome to have survived to this day it would have had to have seriously re-evaluated its entire existence. First, and foremost, it would have had to reduce its size significantly. The Empire proved very well at its zenith that it had collapsed under its own massive size. The only way for the Empire to pay for itself later on in its life was to conquer more land for the new resources. To do this, you needed an army. To raise a new army, you needed resources, which required an army, which needed more resources, so on and so forth. It was a vicious cycle that eventually devoured itself when its ability to conquer new lands slowed down and it could no longer support the large armies that were needed to support the Empire. Of course, in this day and age, the Empire could have existed at its size, but in order to get here, it would have had to severly contract. Maybe to the size of the Eastern or Western Empires, maybe smaller, maybe a bit larger. But it was evident even before it fell that it could not exist at such an enormous size. That would have to be the first of its concerns.

Secondly, it would not have been able to exist to this day as an Empire. History has shown that dictatorships do not stand the test of time very well in the past few centuries, and in a socially progressive culture such as Rome, the people would not have tolerated living under such a despotism for much longer had Rome not fallen. When a large majority of the educated elite knew very well the methods and manners of Athenian Greece, a dictatorship like the Empire could not have lasted for very long. The 400 years it did last was an impressive feat of its own right, to have survived 1500 more years in such a fashion would be completely unfeasible. A trend towards more democratic rule, perhaps a return to the Republic, would have been a definite must for Rome to have lasted to this day.

Also, in order to have survived, Rome would have had to severly increased its connectivity. Granted, the Romans made great leaps in connecting their empire with roads, but in order for the nation to have stood the test of time, even at half its size, it would have had to greatly increased its own ability to get from one point in the nation to another. To see this, you have to look no further than the difference between the Western and Eastern halves. The East was much more highly developed than the West, and the West was much more easily dismantled than the East, which lasted more or less another 1000 years. For Rome to have continued at even a percentage of its greatest size, it would have had to done a great deal towards improving travel inside the empire.

In addition, Rome would have had to extend rights to the parts of their nation outside of Italy. Unless the Rome existed to today solely as Italy, then it would have had to have controlled areas outside of the Italian peninsula. Those areas under the Empire were not considered citizens in the same way that Italians were, and it could not have possibly retained such control over those areas for 1500 years without giving them the same rights as those held by the Italians, especially if those areas were places with strong democratic traditions like Greece. If the outlying provinces continued to be treated as second-class members of Rome, then they would not have remained part of Rome for very long.

Furthermore, the Roman economy would have had to found a viable alternative to military conquest. The Roman economy depended enormously on resources gained from new territories to carry on. Eventually, even if it did not collapse under its own weight, the Empire would have simply run out of places to conquer, and eventually the fresh supply of newly-conquered territories and their new riches ripe for the plundering would have dried up, and the Roman economy would have fallen on terrible times. For Rome to have perservered for 1500 more years, it would have had to found alternatives to the conquering economy, and internal trade would not have sufficed.

Finally, Rome would have had to learned how to exist peacefully with other nations. This is obviously an extension of the point of not continuing conquest, but Rome showed an amazing ability to not co-exist with other sovereign powers, from the Etruscans to the Gauls to the Carthiginians to the Macedons to the Egyptians to the Germans to one another. This habit of conquering rather than negotiating could not have continued, for eventually their combined enemies would outstrip even their impressive military's ability to deal with them, and they would have been conquered. It would have had to have learned diplomacy, plain and simple.

So, in conclusion, the empire would have had to reduced its size considerably, trended towards more democratic government, increased its internal development, extended rights to all living under them, found an new primary economy, and learned how to co-exist peacefully with other nations in order to have survived till 2004. Rome would have had to have undergone at least one major revolution, and would have had to have seriously redesigned their nation to have continued to this day.

First of all, you get a gold star for coming up with a unique thread.

I'm just going to add that people have though of this before, and a good friend of mine is taking part in the creating of a video game called Imperator. It's a massively-multiplayer-online RPG set in the not-so-distant future, but Rome never fell. You might find it interesting.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/imperator/558621p1.html?fromint=1

Acadian Mists: why thank you *affixes gold star to shirt*.

I don't really doubt that people haven't thought of this "what if" before- I'm just surprised that no one's made something like a Web Site or a book about it (maybe there is, I just haven't found it yet). So from my perspective, once I actually finish my nation's history, it may be the first of its kind online.

As for the Imperator game: I just may indeed check it out. I especially like the twist that allowed Rome to survive- where Germanicus escapes death and fights with Claudius against Tiberius to re-establish the Republic and decide on ensuring the peace of the world rather than fighting everyone. Makes sense too- co-operating with people means you'll have less people fighting you.

Sdaeriji: Excellent post...I think that sums up what I think would happen too. I personally believe a modern Rome would be a Constitutional Monarchy with the Senate becoming the first proper Parliament in history, because I think that institutions like the Emperor and of the Senate would become too important to get rid of. They'd have to change to adapt to the world, granted, but I think they'd still be around today- maybe even to the point where the leader of the leading party in the Senate is the Emperor. Eventually the two would have to learn to co-exist, as I doubt the Senate would have liked to have been treated as figurehead politicians for much longer.

As for what I believe Rome would look like: I'm starting my history at 475, when Romulus Augustulus ascends to the throne. My twist of history has Julius Nepos, technically the last Emperor of the West in RL, taking an army to Italy from his place of exile in Dalmatia and evicting Odoacer and thus continuing the Western Empire in that way. I'd also envisioned Nepos simply staying in Rome and consolidating his forces there as opposed to embarking on ambitious campaigns of reconquest because of the heavy opposition the Germans were providing Rome at the time. I haven't really thought about how Rome would look like today, but I'd imagine that in the 17th Century, when the rest of Europe embarks on colonial expansion the Romans would go with them. I'd also imagine that Rome would also give its colonies independence, maybe even being the first nation to do so- the Romans have shown themselves to be a progressive people, so I'd imagine that whatever Europe would wind up achieving the Romans would probably be either among the first or the first people to achieve that level (i.e., things like a Parliament, colonies, a real Constitution, a real democracy, etc.).

On the foreign affairs front, I'd also have to agree. If the Claudian episode in "Imperator" did not come to pass and make Rome realize the folly of its offensive ways, then certainly the Germanic incursions would. No ruler when faced with that kind of problem would sit up and say "let's go destroy them" when they so very nearly destroyed the ruler. Such a harrowing experience would lead to the Romans realizing that maybe they should get along with people and maybe then they wouldn't have so many enemies and so many people wanting to destroy their nation. To my knowledge, this is what helped Byzantium survive deep into the Medieval Age, as the Byzantines only collapsed when they decided to cut ties with the Papacy (the Great Schism of 1054).

As for economics: it wouldn't be beyond speculation to suggest that Rome- which had commodities such as central heating and plumbing- might have been the first nation to industrialize and would have become the world's leader in technological advances. The Romans were very keen on technological advances, and, once the Romans realized that peace was the only way (as I believe they would), they'd work overtime in developing their economy into the strongest in the world. Because of Rome's progressive and revoluntionzing aspect, if they survived the Germaic invasions they wouldn't be afraid to look at themselves and see what went wrong and address those problems. So they would see that their economy was in shambles and they'd work to redress that. Would that mean that Rome would be at an economic and technological level as what we have today or would it be very far advanced, changing the face of the world altogether? I'd choose the latter, since the chaotic Medieval Times stunted technological progression and if at least Rome wasn't that chaotic (as I believe it wouldn't be), then they'd fly past the rest of Europe in terms of technology. Such a development wouldn't be that far fetched, as the Abbasid Caliphate in the Middle East was actually very close to industrialization around this time before they became very despotic. Heck, I'd also think you'd see the Abbasids and the Romans working very closely together because of the similarities of their cultures.

I don't know- I haven't finished developing the history yet, so it'll be fun to see what the final product will be.

Also Sdaeriji, do you know who Julius Nepos' son was? I can't find it anywhere.

Something to remember would be after the collapse of Rome the rest of europe plunged into the dark ages, much of Roman technology was forgotten, so its likely to presume that this Roman society would be much more technologically advanced. Perhaps it may have forgotten religion, or perhaps moved onto another, this had happened before so its likely to think it would occur again. Also both World Wars would not have happened, or at least not at the times they did. America and Canada would also be radically different, as would Australasia without Great Britain existing, which it most probably wouldnt have, though the Romans never successfully delt with the Picts in what is now Scotland, maybe bring them into it somehow?

Rome still exists, maybe not physically but it's ideals are still present in society today.

When Great Britain embarked on their quest for Empire, I'm sure they had the Roman Empire in mind. In the US, the ideals of the Roman Republic and it's represenative democracy are the main pillars of American government.

Much like the Senate elected two consuls in the days of the Republic, the American people decide the President and Vice President. Rome hasn't fallen because it's ideas still remain two thousand years later.

Rome still exists, maybe not physically but it's ideals are still present in society today.
What are you talking about? Of course it exists physically. Capital of Italy? Helloo/ :rolleyes:

What are you talking about? Of course it exists physically. Capital of Italy? Helloo/ :rolleyes:

Well I meant the Roman Empire...

if the roman empire exsited today i would be emperor. You can all bow down to my greatness hahahah. ;) ok back to the serious convo. It'd be hard to say, because think of the effect it would have on the history of the countries in and around it. Each nation would have something different which would affect the nations around it and so on and so on. It would be interesting to see though.

Well I meant the Roman Empire...
Except you specifically talked about the Republic. However, by that logic of yours, the British Empire is still around because the Queen is on the back of Canadian coins. In theory, she's still head of state. Now, that's an idea, just like the form of the government in Rome, although I don't recall the United States appointing dictators during times of war... but that's just me. Also, Britain tried to form an empire, but that had little to do with Rome. Imperialism, as an idea, came before Rome and remained long after it. There was the Persian Empire, for example, and let's not forget a minor historic figure like Alexander the Great.

Rome continued to exist SO no Great Britain SO no United States of America So no George W. Bush... think about it haha

Rome continued to exist SO no Great Britain SO no United States of America So no George W. Bush... think about it haha
And i would still be emperor. Hahaha Come get some :mp5:

it could just be a small enclave around Rome itself (mirroring the demise of Byzantium), or a massive Empire that rules all of Africa.

If the Pope would renounce his spiritual title and adopt a wordly one the Vatican could be the heir of Rome.

Well I meant the Roman Empire...had the Roman Emire not Collapsed....Today thay would Cover the Planet...And we would have World Governement....WWI and WWII woul have nor been possible...and we would all speak Latin...we would all be Christian....we would all play Soccer....and we would all wach Latin Movies...and Listen to Latin Heavy metal...and Latin Rap...etc...
The roman Senators would be very corrupt...

With one Planetary Governemnt...and one Planetary Religion.....we would not expend that much on weapons....only for the Police....

The Planetary Jails would be in Groenland.

If Rome existed today, we wouldn't have Pizza! :eek:

Would Rome and Byzantium have eventually reunified? Or would they have become rivals? Its by no means certain that the world language would have been latin, Greek may very well have been a rival "world languge" If Byzantium had successfully crushed the Turks their would have been no Ottoman Empire, the Muslim world would have been far smaller if it managed to remain in existence at all.
For the Roman empire to have endured to this day many Barbarian invasions would have had to have been destroyed. I would respectfully argue that to survive Imperial Rome would have had to be more violent and more warlike than it was in its final centuries.

Would a Rome that never fell to the barbarian hordes have given rise to an industrial revolution centuries before it actually occured? Or would Slavery still exist in Europe?

Something to remember would be after the collapse of Rome the rest of europe plunged into the dark ages, much of Roman technology was forgotten, so its likely to presume that this Roman society would be much more technologically advanced. Perhaps it may have forgotten religion, or perhaps moved onto another, this had happened before so its likely to think it would occur again. Also both World Wars would not have happened, or at least not at the times they did. America and Canada would also be radically different, as would Australasia without Great Britain existing, which it most probably wouldnt have, though the Romans never successfully delt with the Picts in what is now Scotland, maybe bring them into it somehow?

Not necessarily. If, say, the Western Empire had somehow found a way to survive at the last minute (e.g. if Julius Nepos had actually won back control of at least the city itself), it's possible that the Roman Empire today would have radically different territory. The Romans lost Britain in 410, and by 475 the Romans were only really in control of Italy, so it's possible that kingdoms such as France and Britain would have still risen up and taken roughly the same historical course of action that it would really take. That means that both World Wars could still have happened, even if they would have a slightly different flavour to them (for example, WWII might not have seen the Roman state in Italy join the Axis powers but maybe those of the Allies, or stay out of the conflict altogether like the Spaniards did).

I admit, though, a detail such as that would be quite murky, simply because one just can't rewrite the Roman Empire back into history and assume that history would continue just as it had before. For one, the mythos of Rome carried on long after the West fell- the unified German Empire in 1870 named its Emperor the "Kaiser" after the Roman title of "Caesar", as did the Russians in calling their Emperor the "Tsar". If the Roman state still existed, then quite possibly this mythos would never have taken shape, or it would have taken a whole new form, because nations wouldn't call themselves "successor states" to the Romans if the Romans still existed. You might get states who'd call themselves challengers to Old Rome, but you'd certainly not get any states calling themselves "Roman" with the Roman state still in existence.

What does that mean? Well, I think the character of Europe would change with Rome still around- the Europeans had a lot of respect for Rome simply because of its endurance (Europeans saw the death of the Western state as the end of the world), so it might be possible that if a Roman state- no matter how small- survived, it would have remained at least as Europe's inspirational leader, kind of like a national "father figure" if you will. Nations (though, granted, maybe not ALL of them) would value the Roman opinion quite highly simply because it had lasted for so long, with perhaps Rome becoming the seat of the worldwide U.N. Also, since at some point the Romans would have to realize that they simply just can't fight everyone (otherwise, they would collapse under the weight of everyone else in the world, which could not be fended off no matter how powerful Rome was), it's quite possible Rome might have heralded a much more peaceful world with its diplomatic efforts, using its influence to build that peace. Could this mean that the European Union would have formed a lot sooner than it did? Maybe. It's also quite possible Rome might have become isolationist at times, if only to avoid touching off another firestorm that would cause the collapse of the state once and for all.

Idealistic? Perhaps, but I don't think it would have been unlikely if Rome survived.

Would Rome and Byzantium have eventually reunified? Or would they have become rivals? Its by no means certain that the world language would have been latin, Greek may very well have been a rival "world languge" If Byzantium had successfully crushed the Turks their would have been no Ottoman Empire, the Muslim world would have been far smaller if it managed to remain in existence at all.
For the Roman empire to have endured to this day many Barbarian invasions would have had to have been destroyed. I would respectfully argue that to survive Imperial Rome would have had to be more violent and more warlike than it was in its final centuries.

Would a Rome that never fell to the barbarian hordes have given rise to an industrial revolution centuries before it actually occured? Or would Slavery still exist in Europe?

That's an interesting study, the one concerning Rome and Byzantium. I would imagine that, since both considered themselves "Roman" states, the two would have cycled between being bitter rivals and being the best of friends, with talks emerging from time to time about re-uniting. The timing of these cycles would depend on whether or not Byzantium was to survive- if, by 1453, the Romans and Byzantines were at odds, then the Romans would just let Byzantium get swallowed by the Ottomans, maybe even helping the Turks in this regard. However, what is most likely is that the Byzantines, when faced with the Ottoman threat, would have worked hard to re-establish ties with Rome just to save itself (assuming the ties were not there to begin with). You could even stretch it to say that an 11th-hour deal could have been worked to re-unite Byzantium and Rome in the face of the Ottoman threat, maybe even to the point where the Turks were repulsed because Rome would be able to raise a lot of allies simply by being who they are. This might mean that Ottoman expansion might have taken a completely different form, going into Iran as opposed to Europe as a result of this.

Stretching it further, as I mentioned before, Rome and the Muslim world might have even become allies simply because both were (or would have been) very progressive during the Medieval period (the Muslims were actually close to industrialization), working together to build their own technologies. So the Ottomans may have become Roman allies and allowed Byzantium to remain because of the Roman-Muslim ties. Granted, it's also possible that the Muslims and Romans would have become rivals because of their similarities, but after the near-collapse of the 5th century, the Romans might have attempted to reach out to the Muslims as opposed to potentially make an enemy out of a people that could take them out.

As for Europe's economic nature: Rome was a progressive society when it was around, so it may have been possible that an institution like slavery would have petered out as a result of Roman society. Remember, in 227 (I think) the Romans granted citizenship to ALL free peoples of the Empire- so I'd imagine the next step would be to abolish slavery. They might have even been the first peoples to do so. I also think that Rome would have industrialized far sooner than Europe actually did because of its progressiveness and technological prowess (they did have things like central heating and were responsible for the extensive aqeduct programs that popped up throughout the Empire).

As for the possibility that the Romans would have to be more militaristic to sustain themselves to the present, I doubt it- as Sdaerji and I have stated, at some point Rome would have had to realize that they simply just can't antagonize everyone and expect to still have a state (the barbarian onslaught proved just that). The Romans, as evidenced by their six revolutions (including the peaceful reorganizations by Constantine and Diocletian), were not averse to change and, assuming they survived the barbarian onslaught (even if just by a whisker), they just might have surmised that their whole foreign policy might have to change just to avoid being trounced again. Radical changes were not foreign to Roman society, so one as radical as "let's try to be peaceful with everyone" would emerge at some point in Roman history if Rome survived to this day.

*bump*