-
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.
why would they want to conquer Germany?
it's not like Rome was hurting for land, after all... the Rhine was a defensible frontier and the Germans on the other side of it were relatively open to trade.
The Danubian frontier was horribly extensive (and let's not forget that the Germanic peoples crossed not only the Rhine but often also the Danube, as with the Marcomanni). Moving the frontier from the Rhine to the Elbe could help "rationalizing" the borders, shortening how extensive they were.
That wouldn't remove the problem, of course, that many of the Roman empire's troubles were internal, and that it was only due to these domestic conflicts that it became weak to external pressure.
Every empire has internal problems. It comes with being an empire.
But China always came back, whereas Rome didn't.
Every empire has internal problems. It comes with being an empire.
But China always came back, whereas Rome didn't.
We say that China always came back because we think of the culture and society, not of each individual Chinese dynasty's state. If we were to apply the same standards to Rome, it would appear vastly more successful: not only did Latin societies survive until our days, but they have expanded far beyond southern Europe.
The Danube was a trade facilitator more than a fortress.
Most of the Roman/German contacts were friendly and peaceable. Between the Teutoberg Forest and Marcus Aurelius' invasion - 150 years, there was a general peace. Even afterwards, the Germans were largely pro-Roman and the relationship wasn't one of constant warfare.
Rome's issues were internal, by and large. Now, Atilla showing up was going to be destructive to any state, but it was exacerbated and fatally wrecked the Western Empire due to internal squabbling and other failures. But Rome's issues were solveable, and the value of controlling the entirety of the Mediterranean... I can easily see them surviving another 1500 years.
Have you looked at a map recently? There's this huge country called "China" on it. It's been there for a couple hundred years since it last fell apart.
No, we say China came back because the Empire of China (in various reincarnations) always came back and ruled over pretty much the same people. That did not happen with the Roman empire.
Italy, France and Brazil are all cultural successors to the Roman Empire. In the case of France, it managed to far surpass the Roman empire in global impact.
they also rule/d over a fairly homogenous region, ethnically, linguistically, culturally.
the romans did not.
china is a natural state, the Roman Empire was not.
It was made homogeneous through a fairly comprehensive (and at times violent) effort by various emperors.
The Romans AFAIK also had a culturally homogeneous realm in their western half, didn't they? The western provinces were fairly thoroughly christianized and romanized and the local pre-roman cultures all but disappeared. I was the east where Greek, Armenian, Syriac and a bunch of other cultures stuck around for far longer than the empire lasted. Even so, the east remained around for longer. I don't think that's the explanation.
Who was that one fella who tried to re-unite, and almost did, the entire Western Empire... oh yeah...It was made homogeneous through a fairly comprehensive (and at times violent) effort by various emperors.
The Romans AFAIK also had a culturally homogeneous realm in their western half, didn't they? The western provinces were fairly thoroughly christianized and romanized and the local pre-roman cultures all but disappeared. I was the east where Greek, Armenian, Syriac and a bunch of other cultures stuck around for far longer than the empire lasted. Even so, the east remained around for longer. I don't think that's the explanation.
But the Mediterranean Sea had turned into a barrier by that time. The Yellow River never sprouted 1000 foot high walls on its banks. Moreover, there were other factors that had emerged to prevent a reunification of that empire - the Saracen, for one - which never occurred in Chinese history.
Charlemagne? Oh hell yes, if his empire had stuck together we wouldn't be having this thread, would we?
Yeah, the Saracens... China had all those mountains and deserts protecting it from the Muslims. Would have been interesting if there had been a 200 mile wide open stretch of land connecting northern India to the Sichuan basin, instead of the Himalaya mountains. I need to play a Civ game some time with such a map.
There are millions of Chinese Muslims, prominent mosques in every city from Langzhou to Kaifeng/Luoyang(maybe even farther East, but I haven't been there), and the muslim influence is clearly felt in the popular culture of Northern China. Just saying.
Charlemagne? Oh hell yes, if his empire had stuck together we wouldn't be having this thread, would we?
Charlemagne's empire was a Germanic one though, so I wouldn't consider it a continuity of Rome.
And the Yuan started out as Mongols, yet they become throughly Chinese.
That's true of West Francia (after some centuries). But there's simply no way to tell what would have happened had West and East Francia remained united, if the Germanics would have assimilated the Latins, the other way around, or if the ethnolinguistic situation would have remained essentially the same.
The education reforms which Charlie pushed were all about improving the standard of Latin knowledge and some rudimentary knowledge of the classics, were they not? I don't think Latin culture was facing extinction.
In any case it wouldn't be like with China where the conquerors rarely contributed much culture - it would be something different with strong germanic influences. But it would still consider itself as a continuation / rebirth of Rome, and seek to emulate it's civilization model if it had lasted long enough to develop am urban culture of it's own. I.e. if there had been frankish cities and a real frankish imperial court with a capital city.