-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No it couldn't.
It actually followed a natural process.
The Republic was fine, by then it began being a victim of its own success. Its multitude of victories, swelling of territories, lands, slaves, loot and power in one State led to a concentration of economic power in the hands of a few families and ultimately, of a few individuals. As Pliny's Natural History related: "To confess the truth, the latifundia have ruined Italy, and soon will ruin the provinces as well. Six owners were in possession of half of the province of Africa at the time when the Emperor Nero had them put to death."
Wracked by corruption and glory-seeking ambitious politicians, who saw in arms the way to achieve their own personal goals, and had the support of their own troops, who after the Marian reforms were not economically self-sustained civilians and came to see their generals as their benefactors, these individuals acted towards their own personal goals rather than those of the State.
So eventually the republic itself felt the military pressure of Roman armies led by glory-seeking individuals, that the territories it had subjected had once fallen, and political power turned towards a single man.
Only that power and the succession of authority of this new imperial position was completely informal, which with time, disagreements between influential politicians and generals, who often were had competing aspirations and amibitions, along with external pressure from the Roman Empire's neighbours, led to an eventual and consequent erosion of authority, with all inherent economical, political and military consequences that derive from it, so in due time, the empire could no longer sustain its own weight, and fractured and ultimately was collapsed.
All of this came naturally.
It actually followed a natural process.
The Republic was fine, by then it began being a victim of its own success. Its multitude of victories, swelling of territories, lands, slaves, loot and power in one State led to a concentration of economic power in the hands of a few families and ultimately, of a few individuals. As Pliny's Natural History related: "To confess the truth, the latifundia have ruined Italy, and soon will ruin the provinces as well. Six owners were in possession of half of the province of Africa at the time when the Emperor Nero had them put to death."
Wracked by corruption and glory-seeking ambitious politicians, who saw in arms the way to achieve their own personal goals, and had the support of their own troops, who after the Marian reforms were not economically self-sustained civilians and came to see their generals as their benefactors, these individuals acted towards their own personal goals rather than those of the State.
So eventually the republic itself felt the military pressure of Roman armies led by glory-seeking individuals, that the territories it had subjected had once fallen, and political power turned towards a single man.
Only that power and the succession of authority of this new imperial position was completely informal, which with time, disagreements between influential politicians and generals, who often were had competing aspirations and amibitions, along with external pressure from the Roman Empire's neighbours, led to an eventual and consequent erosion of authority, with all inherent economical, political and military consequences that derive from it, so in due time, the empire could no longer sustain its own weight, and fractured and ultimately was collapsed.
All of this came naturally.
I believe that western society is getting to the point where established nations will no longer splinter and dismantle as they tended to do in older times. I don't think France for example will ever be dissolved in the foreseeable future, it's been around for so long and French people have gotten used to living together all these centuries. If Byzantium survived all this way, and still existed in its Komnenian borders and retained its strong Romano-Hellenic identity, I think it would be as stable as France in a national sense. There might have been revolutions, civil wars and such but the nation itself would stick.
Probably the most dangerous period would be WW1 and its immediate aftermath, assuming Byzantium takes Ottomans' role in this timeline as it usually does in alt-hist fiction.
That makes sense. The great improvements in communication and transportation technologies we have seen in the last two centuries indeed have made centrifugal forces much weaker.
Unlike france byzantium faced threats from all sides almost constantly, threats that would many at times bring it in the direct line of extinction. You also have written in your post that france itself wont dissolve as the french have coexisted peacefully for a long time but the problems faced by byzantium were of a different kind and it is noteworthy that relatively peaceful coexistence and lack the lack of a separate kingship didnt stop syria and egypt from being lost by byzantium just years after one another. The issues faced by komenian byzantium was not of not having a strong cultural identity but rather of being on the receiving end of turkish conquests and norman adventurism. Your point that culturally united realm that has lasted a long time wont be destroyed is invalidated as byzantium had already existed longer than most other realms ever when it was destroyed in 1453
France didn't have empires and nomad peoples with alien religion and alien culture breathing down their neck for centuries. I don't think you can compare them. And if France had been conquered by Muslim Turks or Arabs they would certainly have done away with France as a nation. It would have had to be reinvented as a modern nation state whenever their rule ended.
Longer than 2000 years? Only the Egyptian and Chinese states lasted longer than that, and you could argue that China doesn't really has a contiguous history. You can hardly say that Rome underperformed with regards to length.
And what happened in that ended the Roman Empire at that point ? To my knowledge the Emperor in Constantinople didn't just give it up. You want a year ? Pick either 1204, 1453 or 1922 (assuming the Chinese model of accepting foreign dynasties goes for Rome as well).
Last edited:
I pick 620, when it became clear that Byzantium had changed its character substantially, having adopt a more Greek than Roman character.
The Byzantine empire was a full-blown continuation of the roman dominate which was a continuation of the roman principate which was a continuation of the roman republic which in turn was a continuation of the roman kingdom. At different points in time, the Roman empire changed substantially.
You either agree that there were a half dozen of Roman states or that there was one continuing state lasting from ~750 BC to 1493 A.D.
A consequence of accepting that there were a dozen different states is to accept that no state can last more than a couple of centuries. If a state changing means it's no longer the same state and all states change out of necessity to deal with new challenges, by definition there will be no long-lasting states.
The change from Roman Kingdom to Republic to Empire is a regime change, but it is the same state, just like France didn't end in 1789, but rather, changed its regime - the state is the same.
Although for a while the Eastern Roman Empire kept its Roman character, eventually, due to the majority of the population not being culturally Roman, the state became more and more hellenized, and even its official language changed from Latin to Greek. These changes were gradual, but the end result was that the culture of the Byzantine elite was not Roman but Greek, changing the essential character of the Eastern Roman state and society, to become something else entirely.
The Greeks didn't just appear out of nowhere in the 19th century - their society is a continuity of the Byzantine one.
Last edited:
That's what I am saying: it's all the same state. States change over time and as long as there is some continuum, most people would agree it's the same state.
The eastern part of the empire was indeed Greek and the main language spoken there was Greek, even under the Roman rule before 500 A.D. Even when latin was the nominal language of the empire, the essential character of the eastern, hellenestic part of the Roman empire was Greek and latin was merely an administrative language.
But why not then see the essential end of the Roman empire at 283 A.D, the beginning of the tetrarchy? From then on, the Eastern Roman Empire was essentially Greek. I think the changes brought by Diocletian or Constantine were much, much more significant for the nature of the Roman Empire than the decline of the Western Roman Empire. People put too much focus on 476 A.D as 'the end of the Roman empire'. It just wasn't. There are plenty of other dates that saw much more significant changes to the Empire.
I don't think it could have "united most of the world". There were many great empires throughout history, but none ever came close to doing that.
But I think it could have lasted until the present day. After all, many states that were contemporary to the (eastern) Empire did survive, and several events that led to its decline were far from inevitable (Islamic conquests, Fourth Crusade, etc.).
Now maybe the Eastern Empire isn't the "real" Roman Empire since it's more Greek than Roman, but if the East could survive I don't see why the West couldn't have, had they managed the Empire better (with a point of divergence early enough, anything is possible). Though they probably couldn't have realistically kept a hold of everything from Britain to Africa.
But I think it could have lasted until the present day. After all, many states that were contemporary to the (eastern) Empire did survive, and several events that led to its decline were far from inevitable (Islamic conquests, Fourth Crusade, etc.).
Now maybe the Eastern Empire isn't the "real" Roman Empire since it's more Greek than Roman, but if the East could survive I don't see why the West couldn't have, had they managed the Empire better (with a point of divergence early enough, anything is possible). Though they probably couldn't have realistically kept a hold of everything from Britain to Africa.
The Roman empire couldn't even "unite" a bunch of swamps and forests on the east bank of the Rhine. It totally lost its enthusiasm for conquest a bit later.
The Chinese were more pushy and aggressive - they conquered / assimilated their way south through Yue jungles and turned wilderness into empire. I suppose they just had vastly more "excess population" than Rome ever did.
The Chinese were more pushy and aggressive - they conquered / assimilated their way south through Yue jungles and turned wilderness into empire. I suppose they just had vastly more "excess population" than Rome ever did.
In fact, not at all. Just because today China happens to be the most populous country in the world doesn't mean it always has been so. China had much less population than the Roman Empire. And the Yue peoples of the south were not displaced by migrating "true" Chinese, but gradually integrated into the "Chinese world", which was a long and gradual process, and actually contributed a large part of their own culture to what is now considered as "Chinese" identity.