NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm bored and am interested in peoples opinion. How do you think the world would have turned out if the Roman legions had succeded in defeating the germanic tribes? Would Rome still be a country today, a superpower, would the United States even exist? Lets go, let'ur'rip.

I'm bored and am interested in peoples opinion. How do you think the world would have turned out if the Roman legions had succeded in defeating the germanic tribes? Would Rome still be a country today, a superpower, would the United States even exist? Lets go, let'ur'rip.

Do you mean if it had fended off the Germanic tribes or not collapsed? If just fended off the Germanic tribes then it wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway; it was already on a long, slow slide into its complete collapse.
If it hadn't collapsed at all though... Hmm...
Depends on if the British and Frankish peoples had overthrown the Romans and become independent. Since so much in history is actually dependent on that one little battle between the Normans (of Norse descent, I know...) and the Saxons in 1066, I have no idea. If the Battle of Hastings had still been fought and the result the same, then I think we'd have a world pretty much as it is today apart from a great big empire occupying half of Europe. We wouldn't have had either World War, though, or maybe even the Cold War.
We might therefore have been slightly better off, but I don't know the consequences of a Roman Empire in such a situation. For all we know it could have turned out a little like the Third Reich in some aspects, or a bit like Britain or the USA in others.
One empire of Roman descent I feel sure had the potential to survive was the Byzantine Empire. If it hadn't been for those stupid Crusaders (was it the Fourth Crusade? I can't remember offhand) then it might have survived the Turk's eventual attack and we would have had a very much different course of world history; I like to think for the better.

Ilaer

The Roman Empire fell as much from internal rot as from external pressure. Supposing they had defeated the various Goth tribes, the Vandals, the Huns, and all of the other Barbarians, they'd've probably broken up into a number of successor states.

The main thing would be that there would have been no Dark Age in the West. Civilization would have been continuous, and the Church would never have gotten significant political power, though religion would have remained a strong social influencer, of course.

The main difference would have been a difference in values. The Roman values of strength, stoicism and ruthlessness would probably never have been put aside in favour of compassion, mutual respect and reliability, and the West would still have an honour system based on obedience to the family rather than personal honour. Our societies would be dramatically different.

Since, unlike medieval people, the Romans believed in bathing and not tossing their shit (sometimes literally) out their windows and onto the streets and people, we would become more advanced than we are now. Just think: science unhindered by a corrupt world government (The "Church" kept giving Cesear what is rightfully God's) and general ignorance.

*Teacher walks into class*
"Okay class, open your history books to unit 7 'Rome' and read goddamit!"

(A history lesson for ye)

Upheaval In The West
The Collapse of Rome

Weakened by economic, social, and political decline, Rome had turned to the most extreme forms of absolutism in an effort to survive.

But the Empire’s internal crisis was compounded by mounting external pressures that threatened its far-flung frontiers.

The greatest danger was in the north, the home of restless tribes of barbarians - the Germans. When they defeated the Romans in the battle of Adrianople in 378, the gates of the Empire burst open.

The Germanic Tribes

While the westernmost German tribes (Franks, Angles, and Saxons) had achieved a settled agricultural life, the others (including Goths, Vandals, and Lombards) were largely nomadic.

All were far less advanced than their Roman contemporaries. For example, they engaged in so little commerce that cattle, rather than money, sufficed as a measure of value.

According to the Roman historian Tacitus, the Germans were notorious as heavy drinkers and gamblers.

On the other hand, Tacitus praised their courage, respect for women, and freedom from many Roman vices.

A favorite amusement was listening to the tribal bards recite old tales of heroes and gods.

Each warrior leader had a retinue of followers, who were linked to him by personal loyalty. According to Tacitus:

On the field of battle it is a disgrace to the chief to be surpassed in valour by his companions, to the companions not to come up to the valour of their chief.
As for leaving a battle alive after your chief has fallen,
that means lifelong infamy and shame. To defend and protect

him, to put down one’s own acts of heroism to his credit -

that is what they really mean by "allegiance." The chiefs

fight for victory, the companions for their chief. ^1

[Footnote 1: Tacitus Germania 14, trans. H. Mattingly, Tacitus on Britain and Germany (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1948), p. 112.]
The war band - comitatus in Latin - had an important bearing on the origin of medieval feudalism, which was based on a similar personal bond between knights (companions) and their feudal lords (chiefs).

The heroic values associated with the comitatus also continued into the Middle Ages, where they formed the basis of the value system of the feudal nobility.

In an effort to eliminate blood feuds, the tribal law codes of the Germans encouraged the payment of compensation as an alternative for an aggrieved kin or family seeking vengeance.

For the infliction of specific injuries, a stipulated payment, termed a bot, was listed.

The amount of compensation varied according to the severity of the crime and the social position of the victim.

For example, the compensation for killing a male of high rank was forty times greater than that for killing a commoner.

It was often necessary to hold a trial to determine guilt or innocence.

A person standing trial could produce oath-helpers who would swear to his innocence. If unable to obtain oath-helpers, the accused was subjected to trial by ordeal, of which there were three kinds.

In the first, the defendant had to lift a small stone out of a vessel of boiling water; unless his scalded arm healed within a prescribed number of days, he was judged guilty.

In the second, he had to walk blindfolded and barefoot across a floor on which lay pieces of red-hot metal; success in avoiding the metal was a sign of innocence.

In the third, the bound defendant was thrown into a stream; if he sank he was innocent, but if he floated he was guilty because water was considered a divine element that would not accept a guilty person.

Trial by ordeal lasted until the thirteenth century, when it was outlawed by Pope Innocent III and various secular rulers.

During the many centuries that the Romans and Germans faced each other across the Rhine-Danube frontier, there was much contact - peaceful as well as warlike - between the two peoples.

Roman trade reached into Germany, and Germans entered the Empire as slaves.

During the troubled third century, many Germans were invited to settle on vacated lands within the Empire or to serve in the Roman legions.

By the fourth century, the bulk of the Roman army and its generals in the West were German.

The Germans beyond the frontiers were kept in check by force of arms, by frontier walls, by diplomacy and gifts, and by employing the policy of playing off one tribe against another.

In the last decades of the fourth century, however, these methods proved insufficient to prevent a series of great new invasions.

A basic factor behind Germanic restlessness seems to have been land hunger.

Their numbers were increasing, much of their land was forest and swamp, and their agricultural methods were inefficient.

Barbarian Invasions

The impetus behind the increasing German activity on the frontiers in the late fourth century was the approach of the Huns.

These nomads, superb horsemen and fighters from Central Asia, had plundered and slain their Asian neighbors for centuries.

In 372 they crossed the Volga and soon subjugated the easternmost Germanic tribe, the Ostrogoths.

Terrified at the prospect of being conquered in turn by the advancing Huns, the Visigoths petitioned the Romans to allow them to settle as allies inside the Empire.

Permission was granted, and in 376 the entire tribe crossed the Danube into Roman territory.

But soon corrupt Roman officials cheated and mistreated the Visigoths, and the proud barbarians went on a rampage.

Valens, the inept East Roman emperor, sought to quell them, but he lost both his army and his life in the battle of Adrianople in 378.

Adrianople has been described as one of history’s decisive battles, since it destroyed the legend of the invincibility of the Roman legions and ushered in a century and a half of chaos.

For a few years the capable emperor Theodosius I held back the Visigoths, but after his death in 395 they began to migrate and pillage under their leader, Alaric.

He invaded Italy, and in 410 his followers sacked Rome. The weak West Roman emperor ceded southern Gaul to the Visigoths, who soon expanded into Spain.

Their Spanish kingdom lasted until the Muslim conquest of the eighth century.

To counter Alaric’s threat to Italy, the Romans had withdrawn most of their troops from the Rhine frontier in 406 and from Britain the following year.

The momentous consequence of this action was a flood of Germanic tribes across the unguarded frontiers.

The Vandals pushed their way through Gaul to Spain and, after pressure from the Visigoths, moved on to Africa, the granary of the Empire.

In 455 a Vandal raiding force sailed over from Africa, and Rome was sacked a second time.

Meanwhile the Burgundians settled in the Rhone valley, the Franks gradually spread across northern Gaul, and the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes invaded Britain.

Although each of these several tribes set up a German-ruled kingdom within the confines of the Empire, only the Franks in Gaul and the Angles and Saxons in Britain managed to perpetuate their kingdom longer than a few centuries.

Meanwhile, the Huns pushed farther into Europe.

Led by Attila, the "scourge of God," the mounted nomads crossed the Rhine in 451. The remaining Roman forces in Gaul, joined by the Visigoths, defeated the Huns near Troyes.

Attila then plundered northern Italy and planned to take Rome, but disease, lack of supplies, and the dramatic appeal of Pope Leo I - which was to give the papacy great prestige - caused him to return to the plains of eastern Europe.

The Huns disintegrated after 453, when Attila died on the night of his marriage to a Germanic princess immortalized in legend as Krimhild of the Nibelungenlied.

Modern Hungary derives its name from Attila’s followers who remained in that location.

[See Barbarian Europe: 481 AD]

The End Of The West Roman Empire

As previously noted, after the death of Theodosius I in 395 the Empire had been divided between his two sons.

The decline of Roman rule in the West was hastened as a series of incompetent emperors abandoned Rome and sought safety behind the marshes at the northern Italian city of Ravenna.

The leaders of the imperial army, whose ranks were now mainly German, wielded the real power.

In 475 Orestes, the German commander of the troops, forced the Senate to elect his young son Romulus Augustulus ("Little Augustus") as emperor in the West.

In the following year another German commander, Odovacar, slew Orestes.

Seeing no reason for continuing the sham of an imperial line in the west, he deposed Romulus Augustulus and proclaimed himself head of the government.

The deposition of this boy, who by a strange irony bore the names of the legendary founder of Rome and the founder of the Empire, marks the traditional "fall" of the Roman Empire.

Actually, no single date is accurate, for the fall of Rome was a long and complicated process.

Yet at least 476 symbolizes the end of the Roman Empire in the West, for in this year the long line of emperors inaugurated by Augustus ended and the undisguised rule of Italy by German leaders began.

Theodoric’s Kingdom In Italy

The disintegration of the Hunnic empire following the death of Attila freed the Ostrogoths to migrate as other tribes were doing.

Under their energetic king, Theodoric (c. 454-526), the Ostrogoths were galvanized into action.

Theodoric accepted a commission from the emperor in the East to reimpose imperial authority over Italy, now in Odovacar’s hands.

In 488 Theodoric led his people into the Italian peninsula, where, after hard fighting, Odovacar sued for peace and was treacherously murdered.

Theodoric then established a strong Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy with its capital at Ravenna.

Because he appreciated the culture he had seen at Constantinople, Theodoric maintained classical culture on a high level.

Following his death without a male heir in 526, civil war broke out in Italy, paving the way for a twenty-year war of reconquest (535-555) by the armies of the East Roman emperor Justinian.

Italy was ravaged from end to end by the fighting, and the classical civilization that Theodoric had carefully preserved was in large part destroyed.

The Lombards

In 568, three years after the death of Justinian, the last wave of Germanic invaders, the Lombards, reputed to have been the most brutal and fierce of all the Germans, poured into Italy.

The emperor in the East held on to southern Italy, as well as Ravenna and Venice, and the pope became the virtual ruler of Rome.

Not until the late nineteenth century would Italy again be united under one government.

The Lombard kingdom in Italy, weakened by the independent actions of many strong dukes, did not last long.

In 774 it was conquered by the Franks, who had in the meantime established the most powerful and longest lasting of all the Germanic kingdoms that arose on the territory of the West Roman Empire.

The Problem Of The Fall Of Rome

The shock and dismay felt by contemporaries throughout the Roman world on learning of Alaric’s sack of the Eternal City in 410 were to echo down the centuries, leaving the impression that the fall of Rome was a major calamity, one of the greatest in history.

Pagan writers attributed the sack of Rome to the abandonment of their ancient gods.

In The City of God, St. Augustine argued against this charge and put forth the view that history unfolds according to God’s design. Thus Rome’s fall was part of the divine plan - "the necessary and fortunate preparation for the triumph of the heavenly city where man’s destiny was to be attained."

This view was challenged in the eighteenth century by Edward Gibbon,

author of the famous Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, who saw Rome’s fall as "the triumph of barbarism and religion."



Not only the Germans, but also the Christian’s had played an important role in undermining the imperial structure: "The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and

pusillanimity; ... the last remains of the military spirit were buried in the

cloister." ^2

[Footnote 2: E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London: Methuen & Co., 1896), ch. 38, "General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West."]

Modern historians advance a variety of theories to explain why Rome fell. Some explanations have been rooted in psychological theory.

Thus the basic cause has been attributed to a weakening of morale in the face of difficulties, to a "loss of nerve."

Or it has been argued that the ultimate failure of Rome came from its too complete success - the easy acquisition of power and wealth and the importing of ready-made cultures from conquered peoples led to indolence and self-gratification among the ruling classes.

Corrupt high-ranking bureaucrats and military leaders seeking private gain have also been cited as a key factor.

Some historians blame nonhuman causes such as an exhaustion of the soil, drought, malaria, plague, or the presence of toxic amounts of lead in Roman dining pottery and water pipes.

Such single-cause explanations usually reflect a personal bias or axe to grind.

Most historians today attribute Rome’s decline to a combination of interacting forces over a long period of time.

On the political side, no effective system of imperial succession had ever been worked out, and this, plus the failure of the emperors to control the army, resulted in military anarchy, the disintegration of central authority, and the weakening of Rome’s ability to withstand external pressures.

Beginning in the third century, the emperors had to increase the military establishment despite a growing manpower shortage caused by a declining birthrate and by recurrent plagues from Asia (perhaps smallpox or measles).

This decision led to Germanization of the army and to German colonization within the Empire. The West was becoming "barbarized" before the barbarian invasions took place.

The economy of the Empire had been declining for two centuries.

Rome had grown rich on the spoils of conquest.

This source of wealth ended when expansion ceased with the stabilization of the frontiers.

Without manufactures and other sources of new wealth, Rome’s capitalistic economy contracted.

To pay their armies and other costs of government, the emperors continually debased the coinage.

To escape the resulting inflation, the rich invested their wealth in land, which, unlike money, retained its value.

Inflation and a crushing tax burden destroyed much of the middle class.

Eventually, the rigid economic and social reforms of Diocletian and Constantine created a vast bureaucracy that merely aggravated the existing ills in the western half of the Empire, already far along the road to decline.


(My point is , the fall of rome was almost unavoidable. It was too big to be controlled adequetly for its time period, and defeating the germanic tribes would have put more strain on its economy. There are other points as well, read and discover.)

Do you mean if it had fended off the Germanic tribes or not collapsed? If just fended off the Germanic tribes then it wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway; it was already on a long, slow slide into its complete collapse.
If it hadn't collapsed at all though... Hmm...
Depends on if the British and Frankish peoples had overthrown the Romans and become independent. Since so much in history is actually dependent on that one little battle between the Normans (of Norse descent, I know...) and the Saxons in 1066, I have no idea. If the Battle of Hastings had still been fought and the result the same, then I think we'd have a world pretty much as it is today apart from a great big empire occupying half of Europe. We wouldn't have had either World War, though, or maybe even the Cold War.
We might therefore have been slightly better off, but I don't know the consequences of a Roman Empire in such a situation. For all we know it could have turned out a little like the Third Reich in some aspects, or a bit like Britain or the USA in others.
One empire of Roman descent I feel sure had the potential to survive was the Byzantine Empire. If it hadn't been for those stupid Crusaders (was it the Fourth Crusade? I can't remember offhand) then it might have survived the Turk's eventual attack and we would have had a very much different course of world history; I like to think for the better.

Ilaer

I agree, it probably would have had several revolts near modern times though, because it would most likely still be an empire held together on the backs of conquered peoples, and many would eventually push for independence or at least democracy, or something similer there of .

Since, unlike medieval people, the Romans believed in bathing and not tossing their shit (sometimes literally) out their windows and onto the streets and people, we would become more advanced than we are now. Just think: science unhindered by a corrupt world government (The "Church" kept giving Cesear what is rightfully God's) and general ignorance.

The world, might even have turned out to be less advanced than it is today, because it took the dark ages and the wars fought during that time period, that fueled many of the advances we have that led to the modern era. That and the black death.

Had the Roman Empire made peace with the Germans and had their economy sorted, it could well have lasted a very long time, like China did. Eventually they would have discovered America, and founded a New Rome of sorts and may have treated the locals better. What interests me is if Rome could have become a Republic again or if it would be suck with an emperor until it toppled...

Had the Roman Empire made peace with the Germans and had their economy sorted, it could well have lasted a very long time, like China did. Eventually they would have discovered America, and founded a New Rome of sorts and may have treated the locals better. What interests me is if Rome could have become a Republic again or if it would be suck with an emperor until it toppled...

Eventually it would attempt to transform into a republic, but its territory would have been reduced rather quickly. A republic simply could not control such a vast land area. The whole reason it became an imperial nation was so it could better control its territories,and have a more effective government.

Peter Heather's 2005 book 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' (pithy title, I know) in my opinion pretty much does away with the view that the Roman Empire was doomed to fail. It was actually doing pretty well until its tax base got eroded by invasion.
A surviving Roman Empire is a fascinating historical speculation. What interests me most is that there would have been no England, or in fact any of the modern European nations, but there probably would have been a major clash between the RE and emerging Islam in the sixth/seventh century.
Roman survival probably would have meant much less colonisation in the Americas (when discovered), probably a slower pace of linguistic, social, and technological change, and possibly eventually a state of Cold War between Rome and the other global superpowers (China? an Arabic caliphate? a Mesoamerican superpower?).

A surviving Roman Empire would probably for a long time not have been much larger than it was historically, though. Once the Americas were discovered, I could imagine a series of colonies for commercial exploitation (similar, maybe, to the Scramble for Africa), but without larger settlement. Similarly, colonies might have been established in Africa.

Peter Heather's 2005 book 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' (pithy title, I know) in my opinion pretty much does away with the view that the Roman Empire was doomed to fail. It was actually doing pretty well until its tax base got eroded by invasion.
A surviving Roman Empire is a fascinating historical speculation. What interests me most is that there would have been no England, or in fact any of the modern European nations, but there probably would have been a major clash between the RE and emerging Islam in the sixth/seventh century.
Roman survival probably would have meant much less colonisation in the Americas (when discovered), probably a slower pace of linguistic, social, and technological change, and possibly eventually a state of Cold War between Rome and the other global superpowers (China? an Arabic caliphate? a Mesoamerican superpower?).

America would have remained very backwards if it wasn't for the collapse of the Roman empire, I mean think about it. With the collapse of the RE the dark ages insued eventually the Dutch the English, Spanish, Portugese, and the French all started sailing around looking for better trade routes (these vastly better ships are a product of the dark ages and their conflicts mind you) with the colonization of the Americas by European powers (that never would have exsisted without the fall of the RE) brought several major advancements to the natives. Without the fall of the RE the americas would have been a barbaric place with un-educated people a lot longer.

America would have remained very backwards if it wasn't for the collapse of the Roman empire, I mean think about it. With the collapse of the RE the dark ages insued eventually the Dutch the English, Spanish, Portugese, and the French all started sailing around looking for better trade routes (these vastly better ships are a product of the dark ages and their conflicts mind you) with the colonization of the Americas by European powers (that never would have exsisted without the fall of the RE) brought several major advancements to the natives. Without the fall of the RE the americas would have been a barbaric place with un-educated people a lot longer.

Well, Central and South America were rather civilised even during the Roman Iron Age, and would no doubt have continued to be so - in fact, with a little bit of cultural exchange they might have quickly bridged the technological gap. No doubt North America would have continued to be inhabited by various tribes without large settlements, hence any Roman colonies would probably be located on the eastern seaboard rather than further inland (the Romans were stumped whenever an enemy just didn't have settlements you could conquer, eg the Germans and Celts).
I don't see why ships could not have improved. Admittedly war and conflict are stimulating to technological advance, but I think more modern ships would probably have been developed anyway. In fact, the Americas might have been discovered earlier: cultural exchange between Rome and Scandinavia, from where Vinland would have been discovered, would likely prompt Atlantic exploration. The Romans and Greeks were keen explorers, after all.

With regards to technology - the Romans were not known for their technological innovation. They improved on earlier principles a great deal, but the reliance on slaves especially hindered any kind of mechanical development.

I'd say the most important thing in Europe - maybe even in the world - was the Renaissance - how a continuing Rome would have affected that I don't know.

With the Roman Empire still intact, we might have eventually seen states forming on Rome's periphery. Ireland and Scotland might have become politically unified, as would Norway, Sweden, Geatland, possibly Denmark and several south Germanic polities (a Saxon, Frankish, and Alaman state?).

With regards to technology - the Romans were not known for their technological innovation. They improved on earlier principles a great deal, but the reliance on slaves especially hindered any kind of mechanical development.

I'd say the most important thing in Europe - maybe even in the world - was the Renaissance - how a continuing Rome would have affected that I don't know.

A surviving Rome would surely have rendered the Renaissance ("rebirth" of antiquity) obsolete? With Rome intact, the dreadful events of the late Middle Ages, such as the Hundred Years War, the Black Death, and so on, would maybe not have occurred, so no intellectual counter-movement (the Renaissance) would have come into being.
I think you're right in your assessment of Roman technology, by the way. The world would probably be more backwards technologically if it wasn't for the fall of Rome.

With regards to technology - the Romans were not known for their technological innovation. They improved on earlier principles a great deal, but the reliance on slaves especially hindered any kind of mechanical development.

I'd say the most important thing in Europe - maybe even in the world - was the Renaissance - how a continuing Rome would have affected that I don't know.

LOLOL!!!! What?

Roads, aqueducts, concrete, siege weapons...to name a few...

Mechanical devices? So they filled the Colosseum with water by a bucket chain? Those siege weapons...mechanical...that invented by the Romans. Surveying tools...to build those roads...Roman. Medicine .... combat medics...Romans.

I think you might need to brush up on our friends the Romans...

/incoherent rant ;)

LOLOL!!!! What?

Roads, aqueducts, concrete, siege weapons...to name a few...

Mechanical devices? So they filled the Colosseum with water by a bucket chain? Those siege weapons...mechanical...that invented by the Romans. Surveying tools...to build those roads...Roman. Medicine .... combat medics...Romans.

I think you might need to brush up on our friends the Romans...

/incoherent rant ;)

Actually the Romans took over a lot of stuff from other cultures and improved it, rather than inventing new stuff. A case in point is a Roman legionary's equipment: the shield, sword and helmet were all inspired by Celtic designs. I think the lack of technological advancement during Rome's 500-year ascendancy is quite remarkable.

I don't see why ships could not have improved. Admittedly war and conflict are stimulating to technological advance, but I think more modern ships would probably have been developed anyway. In fact, the Americas might have been discovered earlier: cultural exchange between Rome and Scandinavia, from where Vinland would have been discovered, would likely prompt Atlantic exploration. The Romans and Greeks were keen explorers, after all.The Roman world centred around the Mediterranean Sea. A shallow vessel with oars and manned by slaves is more than adequate to traverse the Mediterranean. The lands of the East would have been far more attractive than the vast tracts of ocean that lie to the west of Europe and Africa. Even once the Romans had extensive knowledge of the East there would have been very little incentive to build ocean going ships like the carrack, as the romans would have been in control Egyptian ports that connected to the Indian ocean. The main reason that large sailing ships that were developed in Europe was to create a sea based trade route to circumnavigate the Islamic Caliphate's hold over the Silk Road.

I was under the impression the Romans took most of their innovation from the Greeks. The Greeks invented lots of stuff but didn't apply it in reality; the Romans did.

I think a much more interesting view would be if the republic was maintained, rather than it becoming an empire. Were Rome to have kept its republican roots, many of the problems which later arose with imperial politics would have been averted. A republic could very well have weathered many of the problems which killed off the empire.

The old political system could have done a much better job of integrating Germanic peoples, directing resources for the betterment of the republic rather than mad extravagances of the emperors, maintaining a better economy, etc.

Perhaps you could also look at the significant part Christianity played in the fall or Rome. Had Christianity not developed (or at least been kept out of Roman politics) the world would look drastically different. Pre-christian Rome was tolerant of other religions, respectful of other people’s beliefs, etc. etc. Rome was a technologically advanced civilization, the loss of which I blame on the church. Before you Christians out there start flaming me, I am not denigrating your religion, just the administration of the Catholic Church, for which even John Paul II admitted and apologized.

The Roman world centred around the Mediterranean Sea. A shallow vessel with oars and manned by slaves is more than adequate to traverse the Mediterranean. The lands of the East would have been far more attractive than the vast tracts of ocean that lie to the west of Europe and Africa. Even once the Romans had extensive knowledge of the East there would have been very little incentive to build ocean going ships like the carrack, as the romans would have been in control Egyptian ports that connected to the Indian ocean. The main reason that large sailing ships that were developed in Europe was to create a sea based trade route to circumnavigate the Islamic Caliphate's hold over the Silk Road.

That's a good point. Large sailing ships, however, were used even before, eg by the Hanseatic trading league, so they need not be connected to trade routes to India; with the development of "barbarian" kingdoms in Northern Europe, North Sea and Baltic trade would probably have become more important, further stimulating the construction of more seaworthy ships. Besides, an Islamic Caliphate might still have come into existence and, considering what happened to the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century, it is conceivable that the eastern trading routes would have been blocked after all.

How history would have turned out if the Plutonian Empire had not arrived
Fixed. ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;) :D

I doubt the Empire would have survived, but had the Republic been at peace with its neighbours I think it would have lasted quite a long time.

Perhaps you could also look at the significant part Christianity played in the fall or Rome. Had Christianity not developed (or at least been kept out of Roman politics) the world would look drastically different. Pre-christian Rome was tolerant of other religions, respectful of other people’s beliefs, etc. etc. Rome was a technologically advanced civilization, the loss of which I blame on the church. Before you Christians out there start flaming me, I am not denigrating your religion, just the administration of the Catholic Church, for which even John Paul II admitted and apologized.

Christianity was a tremendous political cohesive force, which reinforced imperial ideology. Now I am a Christian, but the exploitation of the Christian faith to strengthen imperial rule is a historical fact. Nonetheless, I can't see how Christianity practically weakened the Empire.

I doubt the Empire would have survived, but had the Republic been at peace with its neighbours I think it would have lasted quite a long time.

Why was the Empire weaker than the Republic? I don't think it was. It worked quite well until the strains of war on several fronts necessitated its division.

Christianity was a tremendous political cohesive force, which reinforced imperial ideology. Now I am a Christian, but the exploitation of the Christian faith to strengthen imperial rule is a historical fact. Nonetheless, I can't see how Christianity practically weakened the Empire.Well, it led people into mental retardation. After all, there is no need for a brain if you have a god and church to tell you what to think. As soon as folks started to believe in the biblical god the stopped believing in Rome. Christianity might have strengthened imperial rule for a while, but it destroyed the ideals on which Rome had been once built.

I'm bored and am interested in peoples opinion. How do you think the world would have turned out if the Roman legions had succeeded in defeating the Germanic tribes? Would Rome still be a country today, a superpower, would the United States even exist? Lets go, let'ur'rip.

had the Roman Empire survived technology would have been advanced by centuries...so we'd either be extinct or well into space travel...

no the United States wouldn't exist, some political entity would be in it's place but nothing would be as it is now...

"what if" speculation is interesting but the fall of the Empire couldn't be avoided despite Rome's technological advances, barbarians have no respect for technology...

Well, it led people into mental retardation. After all, there is no need for a brain if you have a god and church to tell you what to think. As soon as folks started to believe in the biblical god the stopped believing in Rome. Christianity might have strengthened imperial rule for a while, but it destroyed the ideals on which Rome had been once built.

Peter Heather (sorry for pestering everyone with him) dubs the Roman Empire a "one-party state", which isn't too inaccurate. The imperial claim to supremacy was conveniently married to Christian theology. Now I heartily disapprove of associating Christianity with any particular state (as the Bible says, "Do not put your trust in princes"), but imperial ideology was strengthened by using Christianity to back it up. In Late Antiquity, believing in Rome became the same as believing in God's kingdom; this may be a factor in the continuing importance of Rome (eg the Papacy, the Holy Roman Imperial title) throughout the Middle Ages.
What ideals was Rome built on, then?

had the Roman Empire survived technology would have been advanced by centuries...so we'd either be extinct or well into space travel...

no the United States wouldn't exist, some political entity would be in it's place but nothing would be as it is now...

"what if" speculation is interesting but the fall of the Empire couldn't be avoided despite Rome's technological advances, barbarians have no respect for technology...

"Barbarians" had every respect for Roman technology; the continuing use of Roman legal, artistic, architectural and political models is one of the dominating themes of the Middle Ages. Theoderic, king of the Ostrogoths, for example, had a Roman minister (Cassiodorus) and was buried in a very Roman-looking mausoleum.

That's a good point. Large sailing ships, however, were used even before, eg by the Hanseatic trading league, so they need not be connected to trade routes to India; with the development of "barbarian" kingdoms in Northern Europe, North Sea and Baltic trade would probably have become more important, further stimulating the construction of more seaworthy ships. Besides, an Islamic Caliphate might still have come into existence and, considering what happened to the Byzantine Empire in the seventh century, it is conceivable that the eastern trading routes would have been blocked after all.Ah yes, but if I'm allowed to extrapolate that the development of the Western Empire's navy would have followed the same as the Eastern empire then it would seem that the Romans would have never developed deep drafted vessels. The ability to sail up rivers was too much of trade off to gain stability. I made this mistake when talking about sailing ships. The romans would have converted to sails due to economic decline and increasing costs of labour, food, slaves, etc... but would not have developed deep drafted boats.

[CENTER]*snip*
Interesting post. Where did you get the information from? I've been wanting to find something good on Rome for quite a while.

LOLOL!!!! What?

Roads, aqueducts, concrete, siege weapons...to name a few...

Mechanical devices? So they filled the Colosseum with water by a bucket chain? Those siege weapons...mechanical...that invented by the Romans. Surveying tools...to build those roads...Roman. Medicine .... combat medics...Romans.

I think you might need to brush up on our friends the Romans...

/incoherent rant ;)

agreed, engineering abilities far in advance of any other culture...

Interesting post. Where did you get the information from? I've been wanting to find something good on Rome for quite a while.

Hold on I will link you. ( I sort of just copied and pasted, my lazy ass wasn't going to type all that out.)

ahh, here we go, the link you guys wanted.


http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/romeco~2.htm

and may have treated the locals better.
The Romans (and Greeks) although not violently racist were nonetheless convinced of their own superiority vis-a-vis the darker Africans and the pale Northerners (Plato in fact made reference to Greeks being the perfect colour). A thing to keep in mind about the Greeks and their reverence for blondness is that although the germanic tribes had this feature, they differed fundamentally in many ways from the Greek ideal of beauty (Cro-magnid versus Nordoid/Mediterranoid features).

The Romans may well have enslaved the locals. I suppose their treatment of them would mirror that of the germanic tribes though.

The Romans (and Greeks) although not violently racist were nonetheless convinced of their own superiority vis-a-vis the darker Africans and the pale Northerners (Plato in fact made reference to Greeks being the perfect colour). A thing to keep in mind about the Greeks and their reverence for blondness is that although the germanic tribes had this feature, they differed fundamentally in many ways from the Greek ideal of beauty (Cro-magnid versus Nordoid/Mediterranoid features).

The Romans may well have enslaved the locals. I suppose their treatment of them would mirror that of the germanic tribes though.Hell yes, the Greeks were insanely xenophobic. If you weren't greek, or greek wasn't your first language then you were considered a 'barbarian'.

Hell yes, the Greeks were insanely xenophobic. If you weren't greek, or greek wasn't your first language then you were considered a 'barbarian'.

bastards! they were the predecesor to the american southerner. If you weren't white and american wasn't your first language then you were a slave.

Renegade Legions would be fun as a game. Not so fun as real life.

LOLOL!!!! What?

Roads, aqueducts, concrete, siege weapons...to name a few...

Mechanical devices? So they filled the Colosseum with water by a bucket chain? Those siege weapons...mechanical...that invented by the Romans. Surveying tools...to build those roads...Roman. Medicine .... combat medics...Romans.

I think you might need to brush up on our friends the Romans...



Or maybe you do.

The Romans are reasonably well known for being conservative and technologically stagnant. They inherited most of their technology from the Greeks and Etruscans, and while they perfected what they had and found practical applications for it, they weren't the least bit interested in technological or scientific progress. They didn't discover new things.

Or maybe you do.

The Romans are reasonably well known for being conservative and technologically stagnant. They inherited most of their technology from the Greeks and Etruscans, and while they perfected what they had and found practical applications for it, they weren't the least bit interested in technological or scientific progress. They didn't discover new things.I was going to agree with you for while, but then I remembered something - the Pantheon. As far as I can remember it was a completely new architectural style never seen before in Europe. Until the Pantheon the most sophisticated type of architecture was place some pillars on the ground and then rest something on top of them. Due to load restrictions this meant that large buildings needed many internal pillars for support - as evidenced by the Parthenon. The Pantheon is remarkable in the fact than other than the external walls the roof of the building is completely unsupported. This is because the Romans had come up with using the idea of using a 'circular arch' or dome to provide support. This innovation gave the interior of the building over 65 sq metres or 700 sq feet of space.

Another remarkable attribute of the Pantheon is that a large part of the roof is made from concrete instead of rock (wiki says that modern concrete would not be able to support it's own weight if used in the same manner). So the Pantheon is evidence of new building materials as well as new building styles.

And just to finish off, the Pantheon still stands today, whereas the Parthenon lies in ruins. Though the Pantheon is 500 years younger than the Parthenon this is still quite an achievement.

My Two Sesterces;

Firstly, we have to somehow imagine a Roman Empire that survives the German migrations. Military reform is probably the most important issue, since barbarian migrations were an issue for Rome since day 1. Gauis Marius was figting migrating Germans during the Republican period too. The key difference with these new barbarians, was the advent of the stirrup, and the effective use of heavy cavalry on an infantry force that just wasn't prepared for it.

So, let's say Rome is prepared for such things, by decentralizing the empire somewhat, learning something from its allied states and so forth. They re-organize their legions, and drive off the barbarian hordes. This empire would still have to contend with future invasions, and most importantly, the Islamic invasions later on.

If such a state were to survive to this day, you would have a very authoritarian military state, with an extreme case of xenophobia. Comparisons to the Third Reich wouldn't be too far off. (Although I don't imagine you'd reach 'final solution' kind of scenarios.) I think technological progress would be less in a comparable time frame to what we have now, largely due to the fact that the Roman Empire would be less interested in finding an alternative route to the Indies/China et al for trade purposes. But with the Turks/Ottomans/Whoever blocking the trade routes, eventually, they would try out other methods.

My guess, would be that you would have a world with many small wars, but no 'World Wars'. Rome, China and the Mulsim world would all be colonizing the Americas, Africa and Australasia for trade purposes and general advancement. Fresh New Ideas would most likely come from the colonies that emerge from there.

In regards to the idea that Rome would have survived longer as a Republic, I highly disagree. Rome was in a constant state of civil war in its republican period, as well as much harsher on it's provinces. It wasn't really a just and democratic system, it was an oligarchy bent on enriching a few senators. The Empire kept Rome together, and relatively stable (except for the odd power struggle) for hundreds of years after the fall of the republic.

Am I the only person on NSG with even a passing familiarity with philosophy of history? Counter-factual history is rendered impossible by methodological flaws inherent to it; namely, the impossibility of a definitive past upon which to construct an alternative past.

However, do continue making arses of yourselves by all means.

Am I the only person on NSG with even a passing familiarity with philosophy of history? Counter-factual history is rendered impossible by methodological flaws inherent to it; namely, the impossibility of a definitive past upon which to construct an alternative past.

However, do continue making arses of yourselves by all means.

Will do professor. Will do.

Will do professor. Will do.

Sorry, but having had to learn all this shite for University application, I feel obliged to inflict it upon others.;)

Sorry, but having had to learn all this shite for University application, I feel obliged to inflict it upon others.;)

Try using the same logic in the holocaust denial thread. Doesn't stop those guys one bit, and they're serious about it.

Besides, we're just supposin'. Without it, Harry Turtledove would only write sub-par fantasy novels, instead of the superlative alternative history he writes.

I was going to agree with you for while, but then I remembered something - the Pantheon. As far as I can remember it was a completely new architectural style never seen before in Europe. Until the Pantheon the most sophisticated type of architecture was place some pillars on the ground and then rest something on top of them. Due to load restrictions this meant that large buildings needed many internal pillars for support - as evidenced by the Parthenon. The Pantheon is remarkable in the fact than other than the external walls the roof of the building is completely unsupported. This is because the Romans had come up with using the idea of using a 'circular arch' or dome to provide support. This innovation gave the interior of the building over 65 sq metres or 700 sq feet of space.


The Romans didn't invent the circular arch, they borrowed it from the Etruscans.

Am I the only person on NSG with even a passing familiarity with philosophy of history? Counter-factual history is rendered impossible by methodological flaws inherent to it; namely, the impossibility of a definitive past upon which to construct an alternative past.

However, do continue making arses of yourselves by all means.
Hah, that is exactly what I was saying in whichever thread it was the other day when you made mention of Stalin coming to power! Counterfactual history is indeed largely an exercise in futility. Fun, but futile.

bastards! they were the predecesor to the american southerner. If you weren't white and american wasn't your first language then you were a slave.
I wouldn't go that far. They were actually intelligent after all. ;)

Do you mean if it had fended off the Germanic tribes or not collapsed? If just fended off the Germanic tribes then it wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway; it was already on a long, slow slide into its complete collapse.
If it hadn't collapsed at all though... Hmm...
Depends on if the British and Frankish peoples had overthrown the Romans and become independent. Since so much in history is actually dependent on that one little battle between the Normans (of Norse descent, I know...) and the Saxons in 1066, I have no idea. If the Battle of Hastings had still been fought and the result the same, then I think we'd have a world pretty much as it is today apart from a great big empire occupying half of Europe. We wouldn't have had either World War, though, or maybe even the Cold War.
We might therefore have been slightly better off, but I don't know the consequences of a Roman Empire in such a situation. For all we know it could have turned out a little like the Third Reich in some aspects, or a bit like Britain or the USA in others.
One empire of Roman descent I feel sure had the potential to survive was the Byzantine Empire. If it hadn't been for those stupid Crusaders (was it the Fourth Crusade? I can't remember offhand) then it might have survived the Turk's eventual attack and we would have had a very much different course of world history; I like to think for the better.

Ilaer

Thanks for another thing to blame on Christianity and the Crusades. :D :fluffle:

Thanks for another thing to blame on Christianity and the Crusades. :D :fluffle:
The Byzantines were arrogant bastards themselves. People often blame Rome for Constantinople's fall. I blame idiocy on both sides. What really caused the Schism was the fact that Rome and Byzantine dispatched two stubborn, closeminded men to resolve the differences between the (currently) two denominations. And it is the Schism that was the most irreconcilable difference between the two that turned them into enemies. Why blame religion? It's all politics.

Certainly, the Crusaders were stupid to sack the city, but it's not as if Byzantine itself had a clean, spotless history and amiable relations with Rome.

Hah, that is exactly what I was saying in whichever thread it was the other day when you made mention of Stalin coming to power! Counterfactual history is indeed largely an exercise in futility. Fun, but futile.

Indeed.

Anyway, my principles are flexible. Like a gymnasts hips.....

Technically, didn't the Roman empire survive(though greatly diminished) until the fall of Constantinople in 1453?

To understand the Romans themselves were more advanced then China up to the fourth century, and would be still till a reunited China, and the Romans may well have developped new technologies to feed their armies need for new weapons, can someone say muskets in the 10th century. As well, the Romans values had changed due to Christainity as it was a communal religion and lasting religion where you were a member all the time, which incidently allowed for it to become the main religion of the Empire.

As for the threats of Arabic Moslems they would have been crushed like a hammer due to their having been a disiplined blood thirtsy army who were even more vicious then them, yes the early Moslems were ruthless conquerers as that allowed them to grow at such a rapid rate and they were extremly fanatical. With then faced with a true Roman army which would have sought revenge proably and take Medina and Mecca and would have burned them down and killed all who got in their way.

As well, to say for the rest of the social and political changes it would be hard to say as the world is a pretty improable place.

With regards to technology - the Romans were not known for their technological innovation. They improved on earlier principles a great deal, but the reliance on slaves especially hindered any kind of mechanical development.

I'd say the most important thing in Europe - maybe even in the world - was the Renaissance - how a continuing Rome would have affected that I don't know.
They may have invented Concrete and yeah they improved on plenty, roads they didn't invent it but they made them awesome, Aqueducts and sewer systems.

The Romans didn't invent the circular arch, they borrowed it from the Etruscans.you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying the romans invented the arch, but that they invented the dome. The Romans borrowed the idea of the arch (semi-circular) from the Etruscans (who probably borrowed if from a civilisation in the Indus valley). The Roman idea was to rotate the arch around its centre to create a dome. The structure of the Pantheon is so strong that it doesn't even need a keystone. You will not find a dome-like structure that is older than the Pantheon.

http://www.dolceroma.it/images/common/dove/pantheon.jpg
http://www.sanford-artedventures.com/study/images/pantheon.jpg

We often forget in modern times that innovation never did move very fast. Life was very much the same for the average person(farmer) from about 1500 to 1900.

People like to mutter about how the romans used lead pipes and how it might have poisoned them. One thing that is not mentioned is that the pipes were formed from lead sheet, bend in a curve so that the edges would meet. After that, they would be soldered shut. Because this required testing for leaks, and because the person who organized the work was responsible, they had the craftsmen stamp a makers mark on it.

They used a crude form of removable type.

If the roman republic had persisted, we would be far more advanced now, I am sure. Or all dead.

To understand the Romans themselves were more advanced then China up to the fourth century, and would be still till a reunited China, and the Romans may well have developped new technologies to feed their armies need for new weapons, can someone say muskets in the 10th century. As well, the Romans values had changed due to Christainity as it was a communal religion and lasting religion where you were a member all the time, which incidently allowed for it to become the main religion of the Empire.

As for the threats of Arabic Moslems they would have been crushed like a hammer due to their having been a disiplined blood thirtsy army who were even more vicious then them, yes the early Moslems were ruthless conquerers as that allowed them to grow at such a rapid rate and they were extremly fanatical. With then faced with a true Roman army which would have sought revenge proably and take Medina and Mecca and would have burned them down and killed all who got in their way.

As well, to say for the rest of the social and political changes it would be hard to say as the world is a pretty improable place.

I think you're underestimating the Arabs, and overestimating the Romans. In the seven-hundred year history of conflict on the Mesopotamian/Arabian frontier, the Romans never managed a decisive victory over either the Parthians or the Sassanian Persians; their campaigns tended to get stuck in hostile territory, and they suffered some awful defeats there (Crassus, Valerian, Julian etc.). The Muslim Arabs in the seventh century managed to both crush the Sassanian Empire (the Byzantines' centuries-old nemesis) and to conquer vast swathes of Byzantine territory. The Romans were, furthermore, not very good at fighting fast, cavalry-based enemies; witness, for example, the success of the Huns in the 440s.
Despite actually taking Mesopotamian cities several times, the Romans could never hold on to conquests beyond the fertile regions of the Levant.

Ah yes, but if I'm allowed to extrapolate that the development of the Western Empire's navy would have followed the same as the Eastern empire then it would seem that the Romans would have never developed deep drafted vessels. The ability to sail up rivers was too much of trade off to gain stability. I made this mistake when talking about sailing ships. The romans would have converted to sails due to economic decline and increasing costs of labour, food, slaves, etc... but would not have developed deep drafted boats.

Fair enough. I guess I just want the Romans to have discovered the Americas in a counterfactual history scenario... it makes everything so much more interesting :) .

As well, the Romans values had changed due to Christainity as it was a communal religion and lasting religion where you were a member all the time, which incidently allowed for it to become the main religion of the Empire.
Sometimes I really wish Christianity and its altruist doctrines had never come into being....

I think you're underestimating the Arabs, and overestimating the Romans. In the seven-hundred year history of conflict on the Mesopotamian/Arabian frontier, the Romans never managed a decisive victory over either the Parthians or the Sassanian Persians; their campaigns tended to get stuck in hostile territory, and they suffered some awful defeats there (Crassus, Valerian, Julian etc.). The Muslim Arabs in the seventh century managed to both crush the Sassanian Empire (the Byzantines' centuries-old nemesis) and to conquer vast swathes of Byzantine territory. The Romans were, furthermore, not very good at fighting fast, cavalry-based enemies; witness, for example, the success of the Huns in the 440s.
Despite actually taking Mesopotamian cities several times, the Romans could never hold on to conquests beyond the fertile regions of the Levant.
Why assume that the Romans would simply stagnate? They might well have adapted both their military techniques and their knowledge in order to overcome their new rivals.

Sometimes I really wish Christianity and its altruist doctrines had never come into being....

Problem was, the alternatives didn't work. As wonderful as classical paganism was, it didn't provide the kind of unifying force that Christian doctrine did, and without Christianity the Byzantine Empire probably would not have survived much longer than the Western Empire.

Pagan beliefs worked when the system worked, and Christian beliefs worked when the system was falling apart. If Rome had not fallen in to the crisis during the 3rd century, Christianity probably would not have grown as rapidly as it did.

Problem was, the alternatives didn't work. As wonderful as classical paganism was, it didn't provide the kind of unifying force that Christian doctrine did, and without Christianity the Byzantine Empire probably would not have survived much longer than the Western Empire.
As long as there are sheep to be led by the bellwether, there will be religions like Christianity to give the wolves masquerading as shepherds power over them. Thankfully few Christian leaders actually take its principles seriously...

Pagan beliefs worked when the system worked, and Christian beliefs worked when the system was falling apart. If Rome had not fallen in to the crisis during the 3rd century, Christianity probably would not have grown as rapidly as it did.
Another good reason for Rome not to have collapsed! In fact, it'd be rather lovely to see a Roman Empire basing itself on satanist instead of herd doctrines. Rome had the necessary presence of elitism and individualism (further compounded with closer contact with the germanic tribes) to do so.

Problem was, the alternatives didn't work. As wonderful as classical paganism was, it didn't provide the kind of unifying force that Christian doctrine did, and without Christianity the Byzantine Empire probably would not have survived much longer than the Western Empire.

Pagan beliefs worked when the system worked, and Christian beliefs worked when the system was falling apart. If Rome had not fallen in to the crisis during the 3rd century, Christianity probably would not have grown as rapidly as it did.

Paganism was never the faith of the elite in any case. The amjority or the Roman aristocracy, intellectuals and politicians were atheists.

Paganism was never the faith of the elite in any case. The amjority or the Roman aristocracy, intellectuals and politicians were atheists.
Indeed. Just as is the case with the Christian churches - the leadership is never truly bound to the religion's slavish mores.

Indeed. Just as is the case with the Christian churches - the leadership is never truly bound to the religion's slavish mores.

I still maintain that Christianity is the single worst influence upon history, for its merits.

I still maintain that Christianity is the single worst influence upon history, for its merits.
If it is disagreement you seek from me, I can assure you, you will find none. :) My posts above should've outlined my sentiments towards it.

If it is disagreement you seek from me, I can assure you, you will find none. :) My posts above should've outlined my sentiments towards it.

Good.

I always felt that Pagan morality would make society so much more fun.:p

Good.

I always felt that Pagan morality would make society so much more fun.:p
Perhaps - that, and Satanist mores. :) It'd be quite nice to see the gothic churches actually used by a religion that would put their sinister feel to good use.

Perhaps - that, and Satanist mores. :) It'd be quite nice to see the gothic churches actually used by a religion that they would represent.

Indeed. Equally, it would be quite nice for Mithras to take his birthday, and his dying day, back from that theiving Jesus...;)

Why assume that the Romans would simply stagnate? They might well have adapted both their military techniques and their knowledge in order to overcome their new rivals.

The Romans did adapt to changing circumstances - the Eastern Roman Empire, for example, developed its own cataphracts in response to Persian tactics. Nonetheless, no such response would have been possible for the Arabs. At the time of the Arab conquest, Persia had just finally eclipsed Constantinople as the regional superpower - yet Persia fell awfully quickly. You can adapt to raiding tactics, but adapting to an enemy that is bent on conquest at great speed is much more difficult, there just isn't enough time.

Could we please stop the Christianity-bashing? I thought this was supposed to be a thread about counterfactual history, rather than an anti-Christian rant (there are enough of those already).
Alright, we'll put a halt to it. :p

Indeed. Equally, it would be quite nice for Mithras to take his birthday, and his dying day, back from that theiving Jesus...;)

Could we please stop the Christianity-bashing? I thought this was supposed to be a thread about counterfactual history, rather than an anti-Christian rant (there are enough of those already).

Could we please stop the Christianity-bashing? I thought this was supposed to be a thread about counterfactual history, rather than an anti-Christian rant (there are enough of those already).

I tell you what. Why don't you fuck off?:)

Shockingly, the quotation you misinterpreted was designed to both point out the inherent shortcomings of Christianity, and convey one facet of a pagan-centric culture. Satisfied?

The Romans did adapt to changing circumstances - the Eastern Roman Empire, for example, developed its own cataphracts in response to Persian tactics. Nonetheless, no such response would have been possible for the Arabs. At the time of the Arab conquest, Persia had just finally eclipsed Constantinople as the regional superpower - yet Persia fell awfully quickly. You can adapt to raiding tactics, but adapting to an enemy that is bent on conquest at great speed is much more difficult, there just isn't enough time.
But this is assuming Rome had not fallen as previously. Would it not then have both the resources and the manpower to withstand any Arab attacks, and then mount heavy-handed invasions against them?

I tell you what. Why don't you fuck off?:)

Shockingly, the quotation you misinterpreted was designed to both point out the inherent shortcomings of Christianity, and convey one facet of a pagan-centric culture. Satisfied?
That is true - and since we are engaging in counterfactual history here, we do get to conjure up different versions of Rome, depending on which mores it went by!

I tell you what. Why don't you fuck off?:)

Shockingly, the quotation you misinterpreted was designed to both point out the inherent shortcomings of Christianity, and convey one facet of a pagan-centric culture. Satisfied?

I was referring to the conversation up to and including that quotation. And I don't think there is any need for impoliteness.

The Romans did adapt to changing circumstances - the Eastern Roman Empire, for example, developed its own cataphracts in response to Persian tactics. Nonetheless, no such response would have been possible for the Arabs. At the time of the Arab conquest, Persia had just finally eclipsed Constantinople as the regional superpower - yet Persia fell awfully quickly. You can adapt to raiding tactics, but adapting to an enemy that is bent on conquest at great speed is much more difficult, there just isn't enough time.

I beg to differ about Persia eclipsing Constantinople in the early 7th century. While it is true that Khosrau II's attack on the Empire was wildly successful at first, once Heraclius marshalled his forces and counterattacked, the overextended Sassanids folded very quickly. Khosrau was assassinated and the kingdom dissolved in civil war. By the time they began to recover, the Arabs were already probing their frontiers. Both the Byzantines and the Persians had been weakened by years of war with each other, but the Byzantines managed to hold on and recover. The Persians did not.

But this is assuming Rome had not fallen as previously. Would it not then have both the resources and the manpower to withstand any Arab attacks, and then mount heavy-handed invasions against them?


That is true - and since we are engaging in counterfactual history here, we do get to conjure up different versions of Rome, depending on which mores it went by!

1. In the third century, Rome was faced with the rise of Persia. Persia was a formidable threat which forced the entire Roman military organisation and grand strategy to change (the Diocletian-Constantinian reforms), but it was way more harmless than Islam would have been, inasmuch as it didn't seek to conquer everything it possibly could and was thus contained, though with difficulty. Roman expeditions into Arabia could hardly have been successful, if you consider the previous record of Roman eastern expeditions.
2. The whole counterfactual history thing raises an interesting question - what is our point of divergence? I've assumed c.375, so Christianity would already be adopted; I assumed that the divergence would be that the Huns would not relocate westwards.

I think you're underestimating the Arabs, and overestimating the Romans. In the seven-hundred year history of conflict on the Mesopotamian/Arabian frontier, the Romans never managed a decisive victory over either the Parthians or the Sassanian Persians; their campaigns tended to get stuck in hostile territory, and they suffered some awful defeats there (Crassus, Valerian, Julian etc.). The Muslim Arabs in the seventh century managed to both crush the Sassanian Empire (the Byzantines' centuries-old nemesis) and to conquer vast swathes of Byzantine territory. The Romans were, furthermore, not very good at fighting fast, cavalry-based enemies; witness, for example, the success of the Huns in the 440s.
Despite actually taking Mesopotamian cities several times, the Romans could never hold on to conquests beyond the fertile regions of the Levant.

arabs succeeded where the romans did not because of the invention of the stirrup...until the invention of the stirrup cavalry units were little more than skirmishing units, and even after the invention of the stirrup disciplined infantry was still superior to cavalry ...the Arabs like the Huns also came at a time when there was power vacuum... the roman military machine was a shadow of what it was, by the 5th century Roman armies mostly barbarian mercenaries...

2. The whole counterfactual history thing raises an interesting question - what is our point of divergence? I've assumed c.375, so Christianity would already be adopted; I assumed that the divergence would be that the Huns would not relocate westwards.
Well to be honest, it'd be far more interesting to visualise a pre-Christian Rome surviving, and perhaps never even adopting Christianity (yay!). That'd require more creativity, I suppose, but that is what counterfactual history is about. :)

I beg to differ about Persia eclipsing Constantinople in the early 7th century. While it is true that Khosrau II's attack on the Empire was wildly successful at first, once Heraclius marshalled his forces and counterattacked, the overextended Sassanids folded very quickly. Khosrau was assassinated and the kingdom dissolved in civil war. By the time they began to recover, the Arabs were already probing their frontiers. Both the Byzantines and the Persians had been weakened by years of war with each other, but the Byzantines managed to hold on and recover. The Persians did not.

OK, but even so the Byzantines also lost large tracts of territory. The Arabs were a formidable force, and the sheer extent of territory they conquered up to the eighth century proves that they could have presented a very real challenge to a surviving Roman Empire, from which they likely could have taken the Levant and North Africa at least.

Well to be honest, it'd be far more interesting to visualise a pre-Christian Rome surviving, and perhaps never even adopting Christianity (yay!). That'd require more creativity, I suppose, but that is what counterfactual history is about. :)

Actually, a Christian Roman Empire would be radically different ecclesiastically to what really happened - the papacy could probably never have gained the power it did.

Actually, a Christian Roman Empire would be radically different ecclesiastically to what really happened - the papacy could probably never have gained the power it did.
Naturally. As I said though, it'd be of interest to see how a Roman Empire completely untouched by Christian mores would've evolved. I doubt Rome would've undergone any serious religious revolutions, given the rather weak influence of organised religion in the empire.

OK, but even so the Byzantines also lost large tracts of territory. The Arabs were a formidable force, and the sheer extent of territory they conquered up to the eighth century proves that they could have presented a very real challenge to a surviving Roman Empire, from which they likely could have taken the Levant and North Africa at least.

in historical battles where highly disciplined infantry stood their ground they normally defeated cavalry units...Arabs never faced the best roman legions of earlier centuries...the romans did face other mobile forces in N Africa and when they were unable to force their enemy into a standing battle they defeated them by using a scorched earth policy...the arabs could only enjoy success in the absence of Roman military power...

Naturally. As I said though, it'd be of interest to see how a Roman Empire completely untouched by Christian mores would've evolved. I doubt Rome would've undergone any serious religious revolutions, given the rather weak influence of organised religion in the empire.

Well, I don't know about that. In the first few centuries AD, we can see a serious crisis of the old pagan Roman religion, which coincided with interest in various cults and mystery religions. I think that polytheism was probably on the way out inasmuch as the reformed Roman Empire of Diocletian and Constantine needed a state ideology, for which monotheistic religion is best - hence the popularity of Sol Invictus etc.

OK, but even so the Byzantines also lost large tracts of territory. The Arabs were a formidable force, and the sheer extent of territory they conquered up to the eighth century proves that they could have presented a very real challenge to a surviving Roman Empire, from which they likely could have taken the Levant and North Africa at least.

Oh, I'm not disputing the force of the Arab conquest. A Roman conquest of the Hejaz might have prevented Mohammed's rise, it's hard to say. The Persian War that had just ended in 632 had worn the Romans out, and at that time they were going through another of the interminable Christological disputes that screwed up the Empire from the Fourth Century on. Most of Syria, Palestine and Egypt were pissed off at Constantinople and when the Arabs came blazing through they decided, "Hey, these guys are no worse than those asshats in Constantinople and they might even be better, so why are we keeping the gates closed?"

I'm oversimplifying, of course. Byzantium and the Early Arab Conquests by WE Kaegi is a pretty decent overview.

in historical battles where highly disciplined infantry stood their ground they normally defeated cavalry units...Arabs never faced the best roman legions of earlier centuries...the romans did face other mobile forces in N Africa and when they were unable to force their enemy into a standing battle they defeated them by using a scorched earth policy...the arabs could only enjoy success in the absence of Roman military power...

Actually, I think the Roman army of the fourth century was probably stronger than ever before. If you consider disasters like Carrhae, or other Roman blunders (eg Julian's expedition; carefully planned, using the entire potential of the Roman military machinery, but an embarrassing defeat nonetheless), I think it is reasonable to say that the Romans probably would have suffered territorial losses at the hands of the Arabs, though not to the historical extent. I hold counter-invasions to be unlikely; those tended to prove futile (eg Roman invasions into Scotland, Germany, Marcomannic wars, etc.)

Oh, I'm not disputing the force of the Arab conquest. A Roman conquest of the Hejaz might have prevented Mohammed's rise, it's hard to say. The Persian War that had just ended in 632 had worn the Romans out, and at that time they were going through another of the interminable Christological disputes that screwed up the Empire from the Fourth Century on. Most of Syria, Palestine and Egypt were pissed off at Constantinople and when the Arabs came blazing through they decided, "Hey, these guys are no worse than those asshats in Constantinople and they might even be better, so why are we keeping the gates closed?"

I'm oversimplifying, of course. Byzantium and the Early Arab Conquests by WE Kaegi is a pretty decent overview.

Might be a book worth reading. Thanks.

you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying the romans invented the arch, but that they invented the dome.

So how come the Great Stupa in Sanchi, India (built in the 2nd century BC) has a domed roof?

Actually, I think the Roman army of the fourth century was probably stronger than ever before. If you consider disasters like Carrhae, or other Roman blunders (eg Julian's expedition; carefully planned, using the entire potential of the Roman military machinery, but an embarrassing defeat nonetheless), I think it is reasonable to say that the Romans probably would have suffered territorial losses at the hands of the Arabs, though not to the historical extent. I hold counter-invasions to be unlikely; those tended to prove futile (eg Roman invasions into Scotland, Germany, Marcomannic wars, etc.)

Carrhae was very early, well before Roman dominance...Julian won the battles but lost the war, (was killed in battle)his successor had to withdraw because the roman supply line was over extended, much like Napoleon and Hitler in Russia...it wasn't the enemy that defeated them it was the environment and the scorched earth policy of the enemy...many roman counter invasions were not aimed at territorial expansion but were punitive actions to stop enemy encroachments...

Might be a book worth reading. Thanks.

Sure thing. Another interesting one was The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles by Andrew Palmer, Sebastian Brock, Robert Hoyland. They translate and discuss some very interesting documents from the time of the Arab conquests.