Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

Maybe Sir Frank of France pissed them off at the spanish march?

Well, If india posed a major defence and the Iberians/Franks messed up (so they captured Aquitine or some sort) it will bring a Crusade, but for a blessed 5 or 50 years the Moslums will take over much of Europe 'the wrong way'.


More into africa? You mean all the way past the tiny tribes to the south? ALL the WAY? And ethiopia in the bargin? It might happen...
 
Does this alt-hist sound plausible? (criticism would be very appreciated):
Spoiler :

In 216 BC, Philip V does not order his large fleet to retreat from the Roman patrol, and easily defeats the 10 Roman ships. His Illyrian campaign surprises the Romans (who didn't have a fleet permanently stationed there since Macedon and Carthage hadn't formally become allies yet), and obviously is much more successful than the OTL one (Philip carries out his strategy of first conquering the Illyrian coasts and then securing a land supply route to them). He then secures an alliance with Carthage earlier than in OTL, but unlike in OTL doesn't abandon his plans of a naval invasion of Italy. Hannibal starts a halfhearted siege of Rome right after Cannae while part of his army is still ally-fishing (he still gets Capua). After a short while, he steps up the siege (and is reinforced by a small number of Macedonian troops) and in 213 Rome falls. However, many Roman generals still fight throughout Italy and the Iberian peninsula. Meanwhile, Macedon has succeeded in subduing most of Illyria but is threatened by a growing possibility of an alliance between Pergamon and the Aetolian League. This alliance materializes near the end of 210, however it is too little and too late as the last Roman generals surrender and Rome is divided up among a multitude of city-states (Syracuse, Capua, etc). Macedonia, with Carthage's naval help, manages to cripple both Pergamon and the Aetolian League while the Seleucid empire joins the war near the end and puts them out of their misery.
Carthage takes over most of Spain and indirectly controls most of Italy through allies. Macedonia takes over Illyria and parts of Greece and indirectly controls the rest of Greece and parts of Anatolia and Italy through allies. The Middle east takes pretty much the same course (Syrian wars, Parthia, etc). The eastern Celts eventually unify against the Macedonians under a brilliant leader while Vercingetorix unifies the western Celts against Carthage and the eastern Celts.

FF to Arabs. The Eastern Celts have fallen to the Huns, Germans, Avars, etc. and that area is now a melting pot of barbarians. Macedonia takes over the Balkans and most of Anatolia, but lose a little territory to the Magyars and most of Anatolia to the Arabs and Turks. Ptolemaic Egypt, Parthia, and Macedonia were fighting over Syria when the Arabs invaded. Carthage was declining and on the brink of a civil war when the Arabs invaded them. Most of Spain was seized by the western Celts.

FF to ~1780. The Celtic Empire controls Spain, France, northern Italy, England, and parts of western Germany. However, Spain and England are autonomous and basically act as independent states, although they are still very good allies of the Celtic Emperor. Spain is now widely considered the most powerful region of the Celtic Empire as they profit greatly from trade with the Zulu and act as middlemen to the rest of Europe. The German confederation controls most of central Germany and was formed in response to their neighbors' growing power. Sweden controls Scandinavia and much of northern Germany and historic Prussia as a result of their alliances with the Jagiellons and the Celts. The Jagiellons are around although they are weakened by internal problems and the Russians' and Ahmedans' hostility. The Ahmedans' just recently completed their conquest of former Macedonian land.
In southern Africa, the Zulu had long envied Mwene Mutapa's wealth and had long wanted to tap into the Indian Ocean trade. Like Europe ITL, they mapped out ocean currents and then used them to act as middlemen between the Spanish and India/Indonesia. They were one of the first nations to industrialize, and after a bloody war successfully conquered Mwene Mutapa. They are now widely considered the most advanced and powerful nation in the world, and have even begun conquering Indian and Indonesian coastlines.
Egypt had long been an important link between the east and the west. They escaped Ahmedan conquest by agreeing to several treaties but mostly by having one of the world's largest armies. A canal that linked the Red Sea and Nile was rebuilt earlier this century and brought even more wealth to Egypt. However, the Zulu empire is now threatening to cut them out of the Indian Ocean trade. As a result, Egypt has also started industrializing. Right now, the large Egyptian army and the well-equipped Zulu army are about equal and there have been no open hostilities between them, but there's an uneasy tension.


Basically what I want is a time-line where western Europe is controlled by a strong-ish state (Celts in this case), and as a result does not industrialize. Therefore, the industrial revolution starts in another backward part of the world that's envious of their rich neighbors (Zulu are very close to tapping into the Indian Ocean trade's wealth but need that extra oomph). I only posted a brief outline because I wanted to see if there are better ways of getting to this result and didn't want to spend too much time on this only to later replace it with something else. If it sounds plausible enough, I'll go fill in important things like presence/lack of Christianity.
 
The initial conditions are a bit iffy for me. Macedon wasn't really interested in invading Rome per se, but rather gaining concrete benefits in Greece itself. IMHO Philip V was more interested in protecting what he had and gaining extra land than acting as a foederatus of the Barcids. So even if the Sazan "debacle" doesn't occur and Philip wipes out the tiny Roman squadron, he might not actually go on to attack Italy. And even if he does proceed with the "Illyrian plan", Rome has plenty of men, despite the defeat at Cannae. Philip's preoccupation with Illyria would be a perfect opening for the Aetolians and a small Roman allied force to hit him from behind, with the same basic outcome as later. Even acquiring the stepping stone to reach Italy is iffy at this juncture now, much less attacking Italy itself.
 
Could there be an event where the main part of the Islamic invasions go into western Europe and more into Africa, but not go so much into Eastern Europe and Asia/India?

The Africa part is a iffy, frankly there is there isn't much wealth or land to grant as spoils, there are nasty diseases for man and livestock, the Sudd and the Ethiopian highlands present significant barriers and the the profits of control of the eastern coast are to long term to interest a conquest orientated state.

@qoou, 'FF' isn't really enough - how did your Celtic empire survive the German and Scandinavian migrations, or further steppe and Berber incursions. Why are there Jagellions centuries after rome fails? Or arab invasions for that matter.

Also there was a hell of a lot more to industralisation, and commercialization and why it happened in Europe then, than 'envy'. Plus there are about a million reasons why it wouldn't happen to the Zulu and in Africa. Plus the Zulu as a clan were only founded in the 1700s, and the Zulu empire was in part a consequence of conflict with the Voortrekkers...who probably wouldn't turn up in a Celtic empire scenario.
 
Land of the Risen Son[1]
Part 1: A Demon's Dream

By 1582, the Warring States period of Japan seemed to be drawing to a close. Oda Nobunaga, the famed "Demon King," was at the height of his power, having just finished destroying the formerly powerful Takeda clan. Central Japan was firmly under his control, while the only remaining threats were the Mori, Uesugi, and Hojo clan. Of these both the Uesugi and Hojo clan were suffering from the recent deaths of their great leaders, Uesugi Kenshin and Hojo Ujiyasu, and the corresponding succession of less competent successors. Nobunaga decided to take advantage of the weakness of his rivals, and so began to aggressively embark on military campaigns in all directions, sending perhaps his best general, Hashiba Hideyoshi to attack the Mori clan, Shibata Katsuie the Uesugi clan, Niwa Nagahide to invade the important province of Shikoku, while leaving Takigawa Kazumasu to defend against any potential attack by the Hojo clan.

This strategy began to pay off as Hashiba Hideyoshi laid siege to Takamatsu Castle, which, if it fell, would leave the Mori clan’s home domain helpless before Hideyoshi’s rampaging armies. However, before Takamatsu Castle fell, Hideyoshi sent a request to Nobunaga for reinforcements. Hideyoshi did not have samurai heritage, leaving many more noble born Oda retainers to envy his rapid rise. By asking Nobunaga for help, Hideyoshi made sure that Nobunaga would receive the glory for taking Takamatsu Castle, which was about to fall, and thus receive the glory for the inevitable defeat of the Mori clan which would follow. By doing this, Hideyoshi would be, in effect, confirming the hierarchy of honor to the rest of Oda’s retainers, relieving some of the tensions that had been building up against him.

In support of Hideyoshi, Nobunaga ordered Akechi Mitsuhide to assemble his army and assist Hideyoshi, while he himself departed with a few retainers towards the front lines. Mitsuhide, however, made other plans. Sending a message to Kyoto, Mitsuhide claimed that Nobunaga had ordered Mitsuhide to conduct a military parade in the capital, a common event. Mitsuhide’s real intentions, however, were to initiate a coup d’etat while Nobunaga was defenseless at Honno-ji temple in Kyoto, where Nobunaga always stayed while in Kyoto. Mitsuhide’s plans, however, were leaked to Nobunaga. Gathering some nearby loyal retainers, Nobunaga surprised Mitsuhide at his encampment outside of Kyoto, demanding a private interview. A nervous Mitsuhide, not realizing his plan had been leaked, but uncomfortable at Nobunaga’s sudden appearance was forced to accept. In the private interview, Nobunaga revealed his knowledge of Mitsuhide’s plot. Surrounded by Nobunaga’s retainers, and his plot exposed, Mitsuhide was forced to commit seppuku, while Nobunaga took control over the army, continuing his journey to help Hideyoshi.

When he arrived, the castle, already near collapse, fell. Exploiting this opportunity, Nobunaga quickly moved, defeating the outnumbered and outclassed Mori clan, utterly destroying it as an opposing force by 1583. Elsewhere, things were not going quite so well for the Oda clan. Both Hojo and Uesugi were engaging in spirited counterattacks borne of desperation. As a result, Katsuie and Kazumasu were barely holding them at bay. With the Mori defeated, however, Nobunaga was free to concentrate on his remaining foes.

Sending Hideyoshi along with some reinforcements to bolster Kazumasu’s defense against the Hojo, Nobunaga took the bulk of his forces and joined Katsuie against the Uesugi. With the combined Nobunaga-Katsuie forces, in 1585 Etchu Province fell, and the Uesugi forces were forced northward into their stronghold of Echigo Province. As a result of several sieges, skirmishes, and battles, the daimyo of the Uesugi clan, Uesugi Kagekatsu, was eventually trapped in his castle at Nagaoka. After a relatively short siege, the castle fell and Uesugi Kagekatsu acknowledged Nobunaga’s lordship over him.

This surrender left the Hojo clan as the last real remaining threat to Nobunaga’s power. So, in 1587, Nobunaga gathered together his entire powerbase to eradicate the Hojo clan. Heavily outnumbered and out maneuvered, the Hojo clan was easily destroyed. Though Nobunaga continued campaigning in Japan for the next two years, Japan was essentially at peace, unified under Nobunaga.

Militarily secure after Hojo’s defeat, Nobunaga started to turn his attention away from the military sphere into the civil sphere. Already, Nobunaga had proven himself to be a relative revolutionary and now he began to implement his policies throughout the realm. One of his more controversial policies was his “Europeanization” of Japan. As early as 1576 Nobunaga had become a patron of Jesuit missionaries in Japan and had overseen the establishment of the first Christian church in Kyoto. With the conquest of western Japan, where the Jesuits were based, Christianity continued to receive positive treatment from Nobunaga. This special treatment was primarily in order to reap the benefits of European trade, but also was intended to weaken the sohei, the Buddhist warrior monks, who had given Nobunaga so much trouble earlier. Under Nobunaga’s patronage, Jesuit missionaries increased in power, though their numbers remained small. Correspondingly, Portugal, who were the Jesuit’s official patrons, also grew to have more influence, as a result of their near monopoly on trade.

In addition to the rise of Christian power, there were also several other domestic effects of Nobunaga’s reign. Throughout Japan, castle towns were developed in order to act as the center of and basis for local economies in an attempt to turn the economy from an agricultural base to a manufacturing base. Closely aligned with this goal was the concern for building roads, in order to facilitate trade. International trade also picked up, not only with the Portuguese and the Jesuits, but also with Korea, China, and the Philippines. Ancient guilds and unions were either abolished outright or had their power curbed, resulting in a more free market system.

The results of all these economic efforts, as well as the unification of Japan under his rule, resulted in the amassing of great amount of wealth, which Nobunaga funneled into various projects. In addition to the road and castle building projects, Nobunaga also funded the arts, building extensive gardens and commissioning great works of art. In addition to local, Japanese art, Nobunaga also was interested in European art and culture, and was a major buyer of Jesuit supplied European clothing, art, and weaponry. His support also helped account for the rapid spread of the tea ceremony, which Nobunaga used not only for its aesthetics, but also as a means to conduct business and diplomacy.

Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, Nobunaga encouraged merit-based promotions and honors. Already, this policy had produced one of his best generals, Hideyoshi, who had been born a peasant. With a large part of the traditionalists having been defeated during the unification of Japan, there was a power vacuum which became filled by these neo-samurai, who owed the entirety of their advancement to Nobunaga, and thus were fanatically loyal to him.

With peace and prosperity at home, Nobunaga finally allowed himself the luxury of embarking upon one of his long desired goals, the Japanese conquest of China. In addition to being one of his dreams, the invasion would also serve a practical purpose of mitigating the possible civil disorders resulting in the excess numbers of samurai and soldiers left over from the unification wars. As early as 1587, Nobunaga had been negotiating with Korea in order to get them to grant safe passage for his troops to march through and attack China. In this endeavor, Nobunaga was supported by the Europeans. Under Nobunaga’s patronage, the Jesuits had naturally enough been exaggerating their successes, leading many Europeans to the mistaken conclusion that Nobunaga himself as well as the country was Christian. The Europeans, thus saw Nobunaga’s planned invasion of China as a way to spread the gospel to the Chinese.

The first such negotiation was a diplomatic mission sent by Nobunaga headed by Tokugawa Ieyasu. Ieyasu, himself a famed warrior, personally despised the Koreans, who he felt were weak and effeminate, though attempted his best to forge a peace treaty, as he felt a war would be a mistake. This negotiation failed for cultural as much as practical considerations, Korea being firmly entrenched in the Chinese tribute system, which saw both China and Korea as superior to Japan. A second failed negotiation attempt resulted in an ultimatum delivered in 1591. This ultimatum, which demanded that Korea join Japan in an attack on China, was rejected, and Nobunaga declared war on Korea.



[1] Yes I am horribly ashamed of the bad pun, though not enough to not find it amusing.
 
The initial conditions are a bit iffy for me. Macedon wasn't really interested in invading Rome per se, but rather gaining concrete benefits in Greece itself. IMHO Philip V was more interested in protecting what he had and gaining extra land than acting as a foederatus of the Barcids. So even if the Sazan "debacle" doesn't occur and Philip wipes out the tiny Roman squadron, he might not actually go on to attack Italy. And even if he does proceed with the "Illyrian plan", Rome has plenty of men, despite the defeat at Cannae. Philip's preoccupation with Illyria would be a perfect opening for the Aetolians and a small Roman allied force to hit him from behind, with the same basic outcome as later. Even acquiring the stepping stone to reach Italy is iffy at this juncture now, much less attacking Italy itself.
I kinda need to research this, but:
- I really don't think Philip V wanted to become a province/vassal of Carthage, but that's an opinion = not concrete = not important to our discussion.
- Illyrian campaign would be much faster if his navy is allowed to roam around there (which it would be since the Roman navy was on the other side of Italy), and Philip V would be able to get his troops out of there and on his other borders faster. ITL, the first Macedonian war was a stalemate/tie: this might just tip the balance in the favor of Philip.
- The Italy thing again is a matter of opinion (and mine happens to be different than yours, but oh well...)

@qoou, 'FF' isn't really enough - how did your Celtic empire survive the German and Scandinavian migrations, or further steppe and Berber incursions. Why are there Jagellions centuries after rome fails? Or arab invasions for that matter.
- I agree with the migrations, but they would mostly be directed at the eastern part. With some good diplo, the western part could create buffer zones and allied barbarian states that would barely defeat other barbarians, etc. (Germanic tribes were in still ~Denmark/northern Germany by that time.) The Berbers, and any other migrations from Africa (Arabs, Almovarids, etc.) would collide with Carthage first.
- I really don't understand what the Jagiellons have to do with Rome, but I do agree that the same ruling house probably wouldn't be around. However, similar events can be assumed to have taken place since the Baltic tribes would still be there and the Slavs would still invade Poland. That state might be smaller, it might be larger, Poland and Lithuania might've never united (although they probably would've since Lithuania was way bigger than Poland), but something would still be there. Also, since they'd have no or almost no major enemy to the west, it'd be harder for Russia and Sweden to take it apart.
Also there was a hell of a lot more to industralisation, and commercialization and why it happened in Europe then, than 'envy'. Plus there are about a million reasons why it wouldn't happen to the Zulu and in Africa. Plus the Zulu as a clan were only founded in the 1700s, and the Zulu empire was in part a consequence of conflict with the Voortrekkers...who probably wouldn't turn up in a Celtic empire scenario.
- IMO, the reasons were "envy" (which led to superior knowledge of sailing and currents/age of exploration), a relatively weak producing economy (compared to China, India, etc.), and a sudden boom in wealth from colonies.
- I really need to read more about African history :(. The Xhosa would work though wouldn't they?
 
Awesome, Strategos - a written TL that isn't just a list, focusing on an area that isn't often looked at in these threads, with one of the coolest guys in history SURVIVING too. Everybody loves Oda Nobunaga. :) Question, though: why is Tokugawa in charge of the Korean campaign as opposed to Hideyoshi? Hideyoshi has seniority after all. And as to the Christians - while their influence has "increased", what does that mean in concrete terms: what kind of conversions are we seeing, if any? Has Nobunaga himself converted? (:p)
- I really don't think Philip V wanted to become a province/vassal of Carthage, but that's an opinion = not concrete = not important to our discussion.
Which was my point; he wouldn't just send his troops over to Italy, fight Rome for Carthaginian gain, and then leave. What's the benefit there? He's just allowing Hannibal to use the Macedonian army, and Macedon doesn't get anything out of it, because Roman influence in Greece has thus far been minimal as compared with their influence in the western Mediterranean (and there isn't really any reason to suspect that Roman success or failure in the western Med will create circumstances allowing them to move into Greece; assuming Rome wins, the Romans will be far too busy integrating their gains in the western Mediterranean to worry about Greece and Macedon...or so the train of thought would go).

And since much of what we know about this period of time is from written history from people with agendas (like Polybius), I contend that opinion is very important, if not critical. :p
qoou said:
- Illyrian campaign would be much faster if his navy is allowed to roam around there (which it would be since the Roman navy was on the other side of Italy), and Philip V would be able to get his troops out of there and on his other borders faster. ITL, the first Macedonian war was a stalemate/tie: this might just tip the balance in the favor of Philip.
The Illyrian campaign would have been faster, yes, but it wouldn't have concluded in a particularly short time to guarantee any sort of security in Illyria itself conducive to maintaining a supply line there. And "faster" doesn't necessarily mean "fast enough to prevent Roman redeployment and response". The Roman Senate will be furious at the loss of ten ships (or, in any event, an act of war directed at Roman sailors and soldiers) and will if anything respond faster to an attack than it did in OTL.

Roman manpower reserves are such that even after Cannae, despite the brief display of hysteria, Rome was never really threatened by the size of the Punic army, and they easily outnumbered their Carthaginian enemy by at least an order of magnitude. Taking a few gallons out of this ocean of manpower really isn't going to change the fact that both Hannibal and Philip are going to be inundated.
 
Awesome, Strategos - a written TL that isn't just a list, focusing on an area that isn't often looked at in these threads, with one of the coolest guys in history SURVIVING too. Everybody loves Oda Nobunaga. :) Question, though: why is Tokugawa in charge of the Korean campaign as opposed to Hideyoshi? Hideyoshi has seniority after all.

Tokugawa was head of the negotiations, not the campaign, which hadn't started yet. Tokugawa was head of the negotiations because the first negotiations began in 1587, while Nobunaga and Hideyoshi were still fighting the Hojo.

And as to the Christians - while their influence has "increased", what does that mean in concrete terms: what kind of conversions are we seeing, if any? Has Nobunaga himself converted? (:p)

Nobunaga has not yet converted, though thanks to the Jesuit exaggeration of their success, Europe is under the impression that he has. The main Christian success has been in the economic sphere where Japanese-Christians are beginning to monopolize trade thanks to their connections with the Jesuits. Conversion wise Christians are doing the best in the western part of Japan and among the neo-samurai who were elevated do to their merits and who tend to be more "Europeanized."
 
The Africa part is a iffy, frankly there is there isn't much wealth or land to grant as spoils, there are nasty diseases for man and livestock, the Sudd and the Ethiopian highlands present significant barriers and the the profits of control of the eastern coast are to long term to interest a conquest orientated state.
I referring expansion into Central Africa, rather than that of east Africa. But also while I am at it, I ask what could cause the original Christians to be exiled from Europe and the Middle East, to the southeast Africa where their main center of power could be?
 
I referring expansion into Central Africa, rather than that of east Africa. But also while I am at it, I ask what could cause the original Christians to be exiled from Europe and the Middle East, to the southeast Africa where their main center of power could be?

Central africa has all the problems of East Africa, but squared. I really can't think of a cicumstance that would a) send all christains and b) actually get most of them to go.
 
Nader's Indian campaign alerted the British East India Company to the extreme weakness of the Mughal Empire and the possibility of expanding to fill the power vacuum. Without Nader, "eventual British rule [in India] would have come later and in a different form, perhaps never at all - with important global effects".[25]

Do you lot find this likely with a lack of Nadir Shah?
 
"Alerted" being the key word. The weakness was already there, and just about any other incident could make it clear. Hell, if anything it would be even better if the Mughal Empire collapses by itself (i.e. from revolts) without any Persian assistance.

Besides, it's not as though the Mughals need to fall for the British to take over India. They could work through them instead, if anything.
 
I'm stopping on the end of part 3 (man, that was an exhausting read!), but I've always believed it was Greek culture and philosophy (i.e. love for knowledge in itself) and that "barbaric" love of sovereignty that led to Western success (ergo, I tried to establish a blatantly Greek-ish culture in the most recent JNES and a blatantly Germanic culture in BirdNES to try and nudge the regions into future powerhouses, but in the latter my statistics aren't good enough to extend that culture and I gave up on the former).

I agree so far, because it is a huge and wordy nod to my personal beliefs.
 
Very wordy...

He has it right, institutions are in my view probably the most important with scientific rationalism following a close second, however I don’t any significant mention of capital markets and property rights and his rule of law argument seems flawed...

And as an aside, I still debate the value of Greek culture and Philosophy, it was important as a holdover but I think it’s often forgotten that Greek Philosophy helped to freeze intellectual thought for a long time.

His argument about Rome’s decline is interesting; blaming a thirst for power and shallow culture for its decline seems to be a tall order. I tend to lean more towards an economy that relied on expansion and pillage for a long portion of its history. When the flows stopped or slowed Rome increased taxes on agriculture which lead to depopulation of the country side, a reduction in land being used, and a shrinking of the tax bases which in turn necessitated an increase in the taxation and again and again.

I would also blame the increasing centralised power of the Emperors; Augustus at least kept up a pretence of being subservient to the Senate, respected rule of law and was content to be power behind the Senate (I’m guessing that might have to do with the fact that the Romans hated kings, if he hadn’t live so long I don’t doubt that Rome would have become a Republic again ;)). That fell by the wayside rather quickly, with the law becoming subservient to the Emperors, the Senate losing any semblance of power and successive Emperors being soldiers (and consequently having to rely on the military to keep power, which wasn’t always a bad thing but it did destroy the abilities of the Emperors to make tough decisions).

I also find it interesting that he doesn’t make a mention of the collapse of the Roman capital markets, which was also a large factor in the Empires decline. At the height of Augustus rule the going rate for loans was an interest rate of 2% (which is a sign of a healthy stable economy, a strong rule of law and an important factor in allowing the state to function through borrowing for important ventures). The rate mirrors the decline of the Empire when the Empire was strong the interest rate was low since risk was low and when it was high the risk was high. Only an economist might be concerned about the ability of a government to borrow cheap money, but it is important to a large degree, since cheap money helps economic growth (interestingly Rome also appears to have had speculation problems on property and property crashes every now and then).

I might go into why his cultural argument strikes me as flawed time permitting.

Reasonable arguments, with flaws, take with a dose of salt like anything.
 
To nitpick one point, I believe the blogger was saying that the weakness of the economy was one of the results of what he argues was the ultimate root of the Empire's doom (not decline), namely the primitiveness of its culture.
 
Unfortunately primitiveness of culture is a difficult arguement to make and he doesnt clinch it to me.
 
I would say a careful reading indicates that he did not dismiss many of those points:

Part 10 said:
Naturally, there are many other factors in the fall of Rome; some scholars have highlighted the economic trouble that the Empire ran into in the end of its reign. Also, Arnold J. Toynbee and Joseph Tainter have both highlighted the Empire’s predatory nature, its irrational waste of economic resources and diminishing marginal return of its general design. In its later stages, Rome became increasingly bureaucatized and began to show the kind of signs associated with the fallacies of state socialism. It is in this regard, we shall understand Bruce Barlett’s statement that “excessive government killed Rome.” I think that a major part of these problems was caused by a fatal inadequacy in Rome’s political administration and its pattern of decision-making. Generally, many of the Empire’s decisions on economic questions in the later stages reinforced problems rather than reducing them.
 
True enough, but you will notice that there were attempts to save Rome from this decline, at least earlier; they all failed due to the hostile social structure, not anything else, even though the social structure is to some extent intertied with culture. The facts were that all the Roman elites were either too conservative or too short-sighted (or both) to conduct any such reforms, and also that technically they could afford all the problems this reluctance generated... until they couldn't anymore, but by then it was ofcourse too late.
 
True enough, but you will notice that there were attempts to save Rome from this decline, at least earlier;
Which were, to my knowledge, not radical breaks from this advanced theory of Rome's infantile world outlook. You can replace and modify structure all you want--if the wood and stone you're replacing it with is also rotten and cracked, it doesn't matter what you do with it, it's still going to fail.

they all failed due to the hostile social structure, not anything else, even though the social structure is to some extent intertied with culture.
Some extent? :p Two sides, one coin. Culture effects society and society effects culture. The two cannot be separated, especially if one buys into the notion, as presented here, that both were dominated by powerlust.
 
Back
Top Bottom