What if Rome Never Fell?

[SG-17]

What if The Roman Empire remained at its peak (circa 70-120 AD) past the 6th century and continues to keep that power(possibly increasing it) in current times?
How much more different would the world be.
There might not be an America as we know it, but Rome may have colonized it much sooner that the Europeans of our reality. Technology would be roughly 600 years more advanced because there would have been no Dark Ages as well.
I could see Rome going to war with the Huns early on(around 400 AD). And possibly China/India in the 16/17th century. Just for territory and dominance.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Technology would be roughly 600 years more advanced because there would have been no Dark Ages as well.

I'd take issue with this. I don't necessarily exactly by the totality of Diamond's argument on this issue, but he does have a point that competition tends to foster innovation. If Rome remained the de facto power throughout Europe, North Africa, and parts of the Mideast, there's no guarantee that they'd progress at the same rate that Renaissance/Age of Discovery/Industrial Revolution Europe did. And you absolutely can't say that they'd automatically be 600 years more advanced with any degree of certainty.

After all China was comparable in power, tech, and population to Rome (if not moreso), remained more or less intact (a few splits, a few new dynasties, but still largely the same country) throughout the European Dark ages, Renaissance and onward. And they weren't conquering the Eurasian continent and they did in fact fall behind.

Its completely possible that Rome would stagnate over that time. And Rome wouldn't have the tech or motivation to conquer all the way to Mongolia in 400 AD or 1400 AD.

You're basing your 'what if' on some pretty shaky presumptions.

 

[SG-17]

Im thinking the Mongols Huns would make the first attacks on the Empire, which would lead Rome to conquer them, like how they attacked Constantinople several times.

 

[pawpaw]

Im thinking the Mongols would make the first attacks on the Empire, which would lead Rome to conquer them, like how they attacked Constantinople several times.

Think'n you got the Mongols mixed up with someone else.

 

[SG-17]

Oh, my mistake, it was the Huns.

 

[pawpaw]

Oh, my mistake, it was the Huns.

I doubt the Huns would been much of a foe--it was the avalanche of tribes driven into the empire of head of the Huns that were the problem. A united strong empire would of held them off. Conquror the Huns--No. There was nothing there to take, to move the borders of the empire to lands with no natural borders to defend or cities to tax served no purpose, same reason they never took Germania.

When you said Mongols @ 400 I was thinking, is he talking Avars maybe but @ 150 years to soon?

 

[Perfection]

You'd be talking to Imperator Perfectus right now!

 

[cybrxkhan]

so we could assume Rome would survive, but they would not be able to conquer half of Eurasia. that honor is saved for the real Mongols.

if Rome did somehow survive to a modern power, i am more than certain that it and China would be the major opponents in a world war.

 

[RedRalph]

Are we talking about all Europe under Roman rule or just what was the Roman empire surviving until today?

 

[BCLG100]

I did read an alternate history essay on a question similar to this in one of the 'What if?' books by Robert Cowley, the person in it seemed to think that the Dark Ages would have been averted similar to what the OP thinks. He said the decline (in this case) hinged on their defeat at Adrianople. He goes on to theorise there would have been no rennaisance (no need for classical literature to be reborn if it was already there) and the power of the Church would have been vastly diminished, though arguably still catholic. That if the entire Roman Empire had of survived the ottomans would have had no chance in taking Constantinople etc. Basically you would have been left with an empire similar to that of China, in that dynastys can change but you would still be left with the same empire, so to speak.

 

[Tee Kay]

Technology would be roughly 600 years more advanced because there would have been no Dark Ages as well.

The Roman times saw a general stagnation in developments of new scientific and technological advancements. Also, the Dark Ages is misleading since a lot of the classical knowledge survives and preserved in monasteries and in the Middle East and in fact a lot of scientific advances came from this so-callled Dark Ages from Islamic and East Asian countries.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Roman Empire will probably convert to Christianity as per real history in the 4th century AD. A strong Empire under a capable, zealous Christian Emperor might send a fleet to explore for new lands to convert and conquer, similar to the historical Spanish conquistadores. Perhaps the Romans might reach the Americas in AD600.

I doubt the Huns would been much of a foe--it was the avalanche of tribes driven into the empire of head of the Huns that were the problem. A united strong empire would of held them off. Conquror the Huns--No. There was nothing there to take, to move the borders of the empire to lands with no natural borders to defend or cities to tax served no purpose, same reason they never took Germania.

The greatest threat to the Romans will not be the Huns, but rather the Sassanids and, later, the Muslim Arabs. A strong Roman Empire could well conquer Mesopotamia and subdue the Sassanids, but then it will have to deal with the rise of Islam. If the Romans is in a strong position the Islamic conquests of the Middle East as we know it might not happen. Instead, Islam could spread east into Asia (via trade routes, particularly south India) and south into Africa instead. The Middle East north of Arabia would've remained Christian or, in the case of Persia, Zoroastrian and Buddhist (Persia shielded from Islamic armies by Roman Mesopotamia). The whole religious map of the world would've been vastly different.

 

[Dachs]

He said the decline (in this case) hinged on their defeat at Adrianople.

I got an issue with this; Adrianople was a bellwether, but it wasn't the epochal event itself. The main issue was, as previously stated by pawpaw, that the Huns were driving loads of tribes into the empire. The first decade of the fifth century was far more devastating for the Romans in any event. Besides, if Adrianople was so bad, then why did that battle, which took place in the Eastern Empire and which saw the use of primarily Eastern troops, cause the fall of the Western Empire?

He goes on to theorise there would have been no rennaisance (no need for classical literature to be reborn if it was already there)

Absolutely. You can't be born again unless you die, the famed Christian expression notwithstanding.

and the power of the Church would have been vastly diminished, though arguably still catholic.

Very much so. In fact, we may have a pentarchical system (or a variant thereof) in place, since the Pope won't have so much power. That swings the balance of power to the Church in the East...

in fact a lot of scientific advances came from this so-callled Dark Ages from Islamic and East Asian countries.

Yes, but not all. The Eastern Empire was the best in the world at chemistry during the "Dark" Ages. I'm pretty sure they exploited a bug in the game to get napalm a millennium and a half early.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Roman Empire will probably convert to Christianity as per real history in the 4th century AD. A strong Empire under a capable, zealous Christian Emperor might send a fleet to explore for new lands to convert and conquer, similar to the historical Spanish conquistadores. Perhaps the Romans might reach the Americas in AD600.

That's entirely dependent on the mindset of the Romans themselves. Besides, by the fifth and sixth centuries AD the barbarian lands in, say, Germany and the like are economically viable to take over. Why not go after those territories and shorten the imperial line of defense at the same time?

A strong Roman Empire could well conquer Mesopotamia and subdue the Sassanids, but then it will have to deal with the rise of Islam. If the Romans is in a strong position the Islamic conquests of the Middle East as we know it might not happen. Instead, Islam could spread east into Asia (via trade routes, particularly south India) and south into Africa instead. The Middle East north of Arabia would've remained Christian or, in the case of Persia, Zoroastrian and Buddhist (Persia shielded from Islamic armies by Roman Mesopotamia). The whole religious map of the world would've been vastly different.

I began an alternate history timeline many months ago on this very topic, sort of: Justinian goes East instead of West, and the Goths under Amalasuntha (who doesn't have the political problems that the Vandalic War brought her) become somewhat culturally assimilated in Italy and start a Gothic Western Roman Empire. I may repost that and restart serious work if there's any particular interest.

 

[BCLG100]

I got an issue with this; Adrianople was a bellwether, but it wasn't the epochal event itself. The main issue was, as previously stated by pawpaw, that the Huns were driving loads of tribes into the empire. The first decade of the fifth century was far more devastating for the Romans in any event. Besides, if Adrianople was so bad, then why did that battle, which took place in the Eastern Empire and which saw the use of primarily Eastern troops, cause the fall of the Western Empire?

Well Valens was killed and upto 35 high ranking officials, not to mention the core of the Eastern army. Massive effect on morale across the empire. The loss of so many men when the empire was already stretched meant that the Visigoths were free to do as they pleased as Rome no longer had the luxury of bouncing back, instead they were forced into a position of having to use mercanerys. Strauss i believe compares it to Verdun for its psychological and military effects it played.

He says if adrianopole had of been won, then the military reforms needed would have been called for and would have given the Romans time to regroup because that would have surely not been the end of the barbarians. They could have bounced back in a similar way to their decline in 188-284.

Very much so. In fact, we may have a pentarchical system (or a variant thereof) in place, since the Pope won't have so much power. That swings the balance of power to the Church in the East...

Ah but would the Schism have happened/been allowed to happen, by the time of the recorded date of the Great Schism it is highly likely the Roman empire would have a far more centralised and beuracratic state, probably inline with late seventeenth century european kingdoms.

 

[Dachs]

Well Valens was killed and upto 35 high ranking officials, not to mention the core of the Eastern army. Massive effect on morale across the empire.

It's happened before; Sassanids used Valerian as the Shahanshah's personal slave, and Decius was killed by the Goths at Forum Terebronii. Besides, Theodosius (sort of) beat the Goths into submission after that. And there was no major barbarian incursion (excluding the brief attack by Uldin's Huns and Goths, which was smashed) until the West was invaded twenty-five years later by Radagaisus.

The loss of so many men when the empire was already stretched meant that the Visigoths were free to do as they pleased as Rome no longer had the luxury of bouncing back,

But the men were lost in the East; the West doesn't become overstretched because the Eastern Empire loses soldiers. And it wasn't actually that many men; less than 30,000 for the Romans IIRC, and in an army of hundreds of thousands when they get a generation of peace to recover that's peanuts.

instead they were forced into a position of having to use mercanerys.

1. The Romans always have used barbarian mercs as auxilia, even back in the time of the Republic; in addition, non-Roman troops, the alae, made up at least half of all Roman field armies in times going back to the Kings. 2. The Romans didn't actually make up their losses with mercenaries; I cite the Notitia Dignitatum, which instead refers to a transfer of forces from less threatened areas, like Egypt, to restore the field armies to full strength.

He says if adrianopole had of been won, then the military reforms needed would have been called for and would have given the Romans time to regroup because that would have surely not been the end of the barbarians. They could have bounced back in a similar way to their decline in 188-284.

Military reforms did occur (a defeat is always the best way of doing that). And I'm pretty sure that a generation of peace between Adrianople and the next major attack qualifies as "time to regroup". Victory at Adrianople means that the Goths are better assimilated in the Balkans, and maybe less of a necessity to transfer troops from less threatened theaters. Whoop-dee-doo. They would still have got hit by the avalanche of barbarian tribes in the first few decades of the fifth century, and the fact that the East is sitting relatively pretty has no effect on the ability of the West to resist those invasions. Morale had nothing to do with it; this isn't the twentieth century, where Vietnam reverberates with the American public for decades. It's the fourth and fifth centuries, where most of the inhabitants of your empire don't hear anything about military victories or losses. Tactically, the Romans still had a massive advantage anyway, so long as they didn't do anything monumentally stupid. Radagaisus, with the largest invasion in the history of the Empire, got thrashed by Stilicho in northern Italy and chased out. So morale issues don't make any sense. It's the strategic problems of having to deal with the usual barbarians they know and love, except those barbarians have had the benefit of technological progress in the last few centuries, thus becoming very populous and better armed. Then the Huns start moving and kick off the avalanche.

Ah but would the Schism have happened/been allowed to happen, by the time of the recorded date of the Great Schism it is highly likely the Roman empire would have a far more centralised and beuracratic state, probably inline with late seventeenth century european kingdoms.

What Great Schism? There were always differences between the Eastern and Western Churches long before 1054, and they had several mini-schisms over the intervening centuries. Generally, the Bishop/Patriarch/Pope in Rome had fights with not only the "orthodox" officials in Constantinople and Antioch, but also with the monophysites in Alexandria and Jerusalem. So it'd be an interesting balancing act.

 

[cybrxkhan]

speaking of the Arabs, there may have never even been Islam to start with. i am pretty sure a survived and decently strong Roman Empire would have maintained good links and influence over the Arabian peninsula. Mohammed as we know him might have simply become another famous monotheist saint of one of the existing monotheistic religions.

 

[scy12]

One of the reasons (that is sometimes ignored) regarding the Eastern Roman empire longevity other than them playing smart and bribing who they can't fight was the Wall sessions of it's capital which where reinforced in several cases. While at the 1204 Constantinople was sacked those Walls was a great reason that such event happened only once. I think it is a more important reason than people give it credit if we relate it with the strategical position of both the empire's capital , it's chief economical center and all's empire's position.

 

[RalofTyr]

Rome didn't fall. The Roman Empire exists today in a state of power in which the Roman Emperors could only dream about.

It's an Empire of Faith, but now it spans every continent.

 

[Sharwood]

Until that Empire of Faith raises a few legions and builds a tonne of roads, it's not the Roman Empire.

 

[RalofTyr]

Until that Empire of Faith raises a few legions and builds a tonne of roads, it's not the Roman Empire.

They did persude the invasion of the Holy Lands. Remember the Crusades?

 

[Sharwood]

Yep. But that wasn't the same thing. I agree, the Catholic Church is far more powerful than Rome ever was, but you can't claim it as the Roman Empire, anymore than I can claim the Orthodox Church as the Byzantine Empire.