The Art of War
[none]
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Messages
- 699
...had never fallen? Would there have been a Holy Roman Empire anyway? Would they still control most of Europe?
What if? The Roman Empire...
- Thread starter The Art of War
- Start date
Pellaken
The one and only.
I've thought about this.
they would have colonized the americas, and probably africa too, and dominated asia. basacally, they'd rule the world.
they would have colonized the americas, and probably africa too, and dominated asia. basacally, they'd rule the world.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
The problem is ALL empires eventually fall, none have lasted for ever. And the Roman empire didn't fall with the barbarian invasions of the 5th century, only the Western half did. The Eastern Roman empire (which we call Byzantine) lasted for another thousand years. But ok, lets speculate....
IF the Western Roman empire had survived the 5th century, then it would have changed over time. The West and East halves of the empire (officaly split in 396 AD) would have evolved separatley; Latin in the West and Greek in the East. Christianity, already the state religion by 320 AD, would still have grown in the medieval period. The Franks who took over Gaul would either have been absorbed by the Western empire or would have stayed in Germany. If absorbed, there may well have been a succession of Frankish emperors; so the 'Holy Roman Empire' may have been centred on Italy, or a new capital (like Constantinople) may have been built in Gaul/France.
What would have happened with the Arab invasions of the 7th century....I don't know.
What would have happened with the Viking invasions of the 9th century....I don't know.
Would feudalism have taken hold in the Western empire....I don't know.
But I know one thing....there would have been a lot of civil wars in the west! That's one of the disadvantages of emperors compaired to an established monarchy; ANYONE can be emperor.
So I very much doubt that the Western empire could have lasted much longer than than the Eastern empire did. Far too politically unstable.
IF the Western Roman empire had survived the 5th century, then it would have changed over time. The West and East halves of the empire (officaly split in 396 AD) would have evolved separatley; Latin in the West and Greek in the East. Christianity, already the state religion by 320 AD, would still have grown in the medieval period. The Franks who took over Gaul would either have been absorbed by the Western empire or would have stayed in Germany. If absorbed, there may well have been a succession of Frankish emperors; so the 'Holy Roman Empire' may have been centred on Italy, or a new capital (like Constantinople) may have been built in Gaul/France.
What would have happened with the Arab invasions of the 7th century....I don't know.
What would have happened with the Viking invasions of the 9th century....I don't know.
Would feudalism have taken hold in the Western empire....I don't know.
But I know one thing....there would have been a lot of civil wars in the west! That's one of the disadvantages of emperors compaired to an established monarchy; ANYONE can be emperor.
So I very much doubt that the Western empire could have lasted much longer than than the Eastern empire did. Far too politically unstable.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Indeed.
Despite the premise of the Civ games, a massive empire is too politically unstable and with too many economic problems. Such centralized control is also a major problem (which the Romans recognized and tried to work on by subdividing the Empire) regarding corruption, and lack of initiative. Too many corrupt Emperors too, although many were good.
IF the Roman Empire survived - and held together to some extent - there would have been much less of a "Dark Age", less political fracturing, and less religious upheavals in and around the 16th century. Colonization of the New World would have occured earlier. Overall, progress would have been more rapid - assuming the Empire held and eventually transformed itself into a capitalist democracy.
Despite the premise of the Civ games, a massive empire is too politically unstable and with too many economic problems. Such centralized control is also a major problem (which the Romans recognized and tried to work on by subdividing the Empire) regarding corruption, and lack of initiative. Too many corrupt Emperors too, although many were good.
IF the Roman Empire survived - and held together to some extent - there would have been much less of a "Dark Age", less political fracturing, and less religious upheavals in and around the 16th century. Colonization of the New World would have occured earlier. Overall, progress would have been more rapid - assuming the Empire held and eventually transformed itself into a capitalist democracy.
If the western empire had survived, it would turn inward-looking. China is a good example, being an empire of comparable size at the other end of the known world. Colonization of the New World would probably not occurred, as the rulers of the empire would crush all attempts to set up new power bases overseas (like the Chinese emperors would do). In any case, they would have more power than they would ever need over Europe.
Transformation to a capitalist democracy would also be very much more difficult. The rise of an independent mercantile class would have been a threat to the rulers of the empire, and these would have been suppressed, along with other semi-independent entities like free cities, trading cities etc. Again, fr looking at the Chinese example.
Most important of all, in a survived western empire, there'd not be much intra-national competition e.g. betw Dutch and British, betw British and French. The drive for intl trade and overseas empire and colonization would be non-existent. The world as we knew it would be chged beyond recognition.
allhailIndia
Deity
I believe that we are heedlessly going down a path that is a dead end. No matter how we look at it, the Roman Empire would have declined.
. It matters little whether in 400 AD or in 600 BC, only the coming of the Dark Ages would have been delayed.
Rome did not collapse because of barbarians.They were but a catalyst to the final destruction of a decadent ,rotting empire, which had had its day under the sun
. It matters little whether in 400 AD or in 600 BC, only the coming of the Dark Ages would have been delayed.Rome did not collapse because of barbarians.They were but a catalyst to the final destruction of a decadent ,rotting empire, which had had its day under the sun
Magnus
Diplocat
To paraphrase Gibbons: The amazing thing about Rome was not that it eventually declined and collapsed, but that it lasted as long as it did. It completely dominated the Mediterranean region for c. 500 years - no other empire has even come close to doing such a thing.
In my opinion, nothing could have prevented the West from collapsing when it did. Therefore I cannot speculate beyond guessing that if Rome did somehow survive in the West, Modern Europe would look very similar to how it does today.
In my opinion, nothing could have prevented the West from collapsing when it did. Therefore I cannot speculate beyond guessing that if Rome did somehow survive in the West, Modern Europe would look very similar to how it does today.
Pellaken
The one and only.
I've thought about it, and it would have depended on WHAT saved the roman empire. the most logical assumption is some kinda byzantine-type empire. I suspect one in the east and one in the west. France, England, would be lost, but Italy, Spain, etc...
I also think thet Rome would have had a major colonial presence...
I also think thet Rome would have had a major colonial presence...
Similar threads
