If Rome survived....

[Dracon II]

I was watching the movie Titus (based on the Shakespearean play) and it made me think....
what would have happened if the Roman Empire survived into the modern era? What do you guys reckon?

[Boris Godunov]

Well, I am having a hard time thinking of a scenario under which Rome could have survived. Her problems were systemic, so I can't see her surviving without changing so much as to not be Imperial Rome anymore.

Plus, theorizing 1500 years of alternative history is kinda difficult...

[monolith94]

It would've been interesting to see how their architechture would have turned out…

[Gatekeeper]

There's one thing you can *never* take away from the ancient Romans, and that was their skill at building structures such as roads and aqueducts. Some of these are still in use today, I believe.

Gatekeeper

[Ned]

By the late 400's, the empire had descended into complete despotisim and self destruction. But had it survived, I believe the Romans would have discovered the New World by 800 or so, and modern times would have arrived 600 years sooner.

[Oerdin]

Well, The Roman Empire did survive until 1453. Winston Churchill wrote an excellent history of the Roman Empire which included all sorts of conjecture in his encyclopedic "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire". It's an epich 12 volume read but well worth the effort for anyone who's interested.

[Sarxis]

Half of us probably would be living on Mars already.

[Nubclear]

Rome has survived......

[The Mad Monk]

...and it's called the Vatican?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
...and it's called the Vatican?

Not quite

+6 Diplomats.

[Oerdin]

I love EU2.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I love EU2.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ned
By the late 400's, the empire had descended into complete despotisim and self destruction. But had it survived, I believe the Romans would have discovered the New World by 800 or so, and modern times would have arrived 600 years sooner.

I seriously doubt it. The Roman Empire would become completely reactionary and suppress any and all new discoveries and inventions, particularly after they had adopted Christianity. The Dark Age was bad enough without a big empire backing it.

[Oerdin]

Of course the Dark ages were considered dark because there wasn't a big empire keeping things in order anymore.

[Urban Ranger]

The Dark Ages were dark because of the systematic repression carried out by the Church, with stupid things such as the Crusades and the Inquisition.

[Oerdin]

Hardly, read about the dark ages and you will find they were called dark because of the lack of knowledge about them. In other words there was no longer a large governmental body recording all sorts of info about daily life. BTW the Crusades didn't start until the middle ages and the Inquisition didn't begin until after the end of the Spanish reconquesta in 1492.

Damn, why don't people get a quality history education any more?

[Urban Ranger]

It depends on whom you ask. Some consider the Dark Ages continued to around 1500AD, i.e, until the Renaisance began.

Edit: this webpage has it till 1300AD just as an example.

[Oerdin]

When I went to school the middle ages was said to begin after the Norman invasion of England, the high middle ages were charactorized by the Crusades and the building of cathedrals throught Europe, and the Rennaisance began around 1450 in Italy.

[Ramo]

and the Inquisition didn't begin until after the end of the Spanish reconquesta in 1492.

The Inquisition as a movement to suppress percieved heretics and infidels (it was originally simply a different judicial technique) started well before the conquest of Granada. Even the Spanish Inquisition started a decade and a half prior to 1492.

The Inquisition as we recognize the term really got going in the early 14th century with the Pope suppressed a certain faction of the Franciscans by unleashing inquistors on them.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The Dark Ages were dark because of the systematic repression carried out by the Church, with stupid things such as the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Now this is complete and utter nonsense.

Have you ever read Gregory of Tours?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Hardly, read about the dark ages and you will find they were called dark because of the lack of knowledge about them. In other words there was no longer a large governmental body recording all sorts of info about daily life. BTW the Crusades didn't start until the middle ages and the Inquisition didn't begin until after the end of the Spanish reconquesta in 1492.

Damn, why don't people get a quality history education any more?

I think UR is well educated in the Revisionist History which obviously has a strong anti-Catholic bias.

[TheStinger]

The dark ages can be considered as the time from the fall of the empire to the rennaisance. It is a highly subjective term anyway. The term medievil much better described the period from C500 AD to C1450 AD. There isn't a set start or finish.

[Heresson]

Again, Rome - both eastern and western- survived as Byzantium. And I'm its only heir.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Likely most of you would be slaves.

[mandarin]

We'd all be more homosexually inclined lol? didnt the romans have a special penchant for that kind of thang. Then again the greeks werent known for their sexual inhibitiveness.

Guess their military might needed an outlet in the far reaches of their empire....

[Kontiki]

IIRC, the "Dark Ages" are called such because of the perceived loss of inventiveness and spread of knowledge. I think it's been long since determined that in fact technology and knowledge kept humming along during this time, but perhaps not as quickly disseminated because of the lack of a cohesive empire. Of course, large empires with central control can just as easily shut down progress - witness China.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The Dark Ages were dark because of the systematic repression carried out by the Church, with stupid things such as the Crusades and the Inquisition.

The Inquisition didn't happen during the dark ages, and the Crusades began right at the end. Historians generally label the years between the fall of the roman empire and the beginning of the rise of the nation states of europe as the dark ages. The date of the sacking of Rome in 453 AD provides a convenient starting point. Determining when the dark ages ended and the medieval period begins is more difficult. Some historians place the end of the dark ages at the Battle of Hastings, others use the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, the christianization of the Vikings, or even the launching of the first Crusade as the date of the end of the dark ages.

In essence the dark ages mark a period of the dissolution of powerful centralized government with the attending loss of trade, wealth, infrastructure, and learning. The invasion of Atilla the Hun is probably the single most important event contributing to the transition from empire to dark ages. Not only did he humiliate and demoralize the empire, but he also stripped it of its wealth, disrupted trade, and drove the German tribes into Roman territory. Even before the appearence of Atilla the government of Rome was in decay. The average emporer in the 5th century lasted only 2 to 4 years. They were elected by faction, or worse, by knife, and seldom commanded the real loyalty of the whole empire. A combination of Atilla's destruction of the Roman military, a loss of respect for the legions and desperation to find a secure home drove the Germans to occupy various portions of the empire.

Before the end the empire began to retract towards its Italian home base. This deprived the peripheral provinces of infrastructure, since only the army held the knowledge of how to maintain the roads, forts, and baths. It is apparent that in the 500 year reign of the empire no one had bothered to provide for the teaching of civil engineering beyond the oral traditions of the army. Perhaps even if they had, the new smaller improverished states would have been unable to maintain the Roman infrastructure anyway. The retraction of the emnpire also meant the decline of trade. This furthered the decline of infrastructure, but not only in the periphery, but also in the old core fo the empire. In the 3rd century the empire had been about 25% urbanized. By the 5th century europe was less than 5% urban. Citizens who were froced out of the cities by starvation often found themselves at the mercy of landowners. This may have been the origin of servility.

By the end of the 5th century the empire was impoverished, diminished and large parts of it occupied by German tribes. Leadership was passed on to the Germans, but there wasn't a leader remaining who commanded the respect of all the tribes, so the empire finally just drifted apart. Since Italy itself became divided all hope of reforming the empire was lost.

After the fall of the empire the barbarians picked over the remains. Stability was elusive, no place was safe. Europe retracted into fortified villages and waited for the winter to pass. Eventually some of the barbarians became strong and fostered stability. The Frankish empire of the Merovingians is an example of this. Eventually the church reached out to the barbarians and pacified them. An example of this would be the end of raiding that followed the christianizing of Denmark and Norway.

All in all the Christian church had much more to do with ending the decadence of the dark ages than perpetuating it. It is easy to make the claim that it was the church which ultimately triumphed over the barbarians. One could also argue that the empire fell not because Christianity weakened its warrior values, but instead that the church was too late to prevent decadent politics from collapsing the empire from within. You can blame Atilla the Hun on either bad weather in Mongolia or the aggressive campaigns of the Chinese along their northern borders designed to quash the activities of tribal raiders.

[Thrawn05]

What happened with Rome is that the top of the government was cut off... leaving the provinces to be on their own, hence the Dark Ages. However, during the Dark Ages, many local leaders still considered themselves part of the Roman Empire.

Many people tried to unit Europe into another form of the Roman Empire. The current version is the EU, each "province" selects "senators" to "Rome" to act as their "voice".

I found somthing in an old Latin Rite missal

“OCCASIONAL PRAYERS
…
5. Fore the Emperor
141*, 142*, and 143* omitted, the Holy Roman Empire being vacant.”

THE MISSAL
IN LATIN AND ENGLISH
New York
SHEED & WARD
1950

This would suggest that the Holy Roman Empire is still here, but no one has assumed the throne yet for one reason or another. Of course I get first dibs on the Throne.

(Sorry Markos, you already are the Emperor of Apolyton.net ).

[TheStinger]

I think the Pope has decided to stay away from nominating political leaders.

[chequita guevara]

The Empire did survive, right up to 1922, when it was overthrown and replaced by the modern state of Turkey.

Assuming the Empire staryed together, there may not have been a schism between Rome and Constantinople. Nor would the Papacy have have been a political play toy of Italian city states, which means that indulgences would not have been sold to raise money, which means no Protestant reformation.