If Rome survived....

[Thrawn05]

The Pope has no authority to become or even select a leader. A leader might ask the Pope for a blessing but that's it.

I used to think that Popes could be emperores but that is not true.

EDIT: I will say, that Popes can be military leaders, and muster an army of navy, such as Battle of Lepanto, or on 9/11/1683, when a Polish general (John Sobieski), with a blessings of the Pope at the time, defeated a muslim army outside of Vienna.

[Ned]

Thrawn05 - You do know that the Pope anointed Pepin to be King of the Franks and later appointed Charlemagne, his son, to be Emperor of the Western Roman Empire?

The Franks forged a so-called Donation of Constantine to legitimize the appointments. This Donation was proven to be a forgery circa 1400.

Shi's rendetion of the Fall of the Western Roman empire is what happened. In the early 400's, the Goths (Visi) led by Alaric began ravaging first the East and then the West. The Western Duke called in legions from the German frontier to defend Italy against the Goths. The defense was successful and Alaric retreated. However, the Germans then invaded Italy. They were forced to surrender but were allowed to retreat to Germany. This is 406. In 407, they then invaded Gaul, ravaged it and went to Spain were they stayed. Later, the Vandals, invited by the Romans themselves to Africa, took Carthage circa 432. In the meantime, the Roman Duke (who is a Vandal himself) who held Alaric at bay was executed. Alaric returned to Italy. After having been bought off twice, he sacked Rome in 410. He then took his people and settled in Western Gaul.

Spain, Western Gaul and Africa are now gone.

At about the same time, 407, the Roman commander in Britain, moved most of his legions to Northern Gaul and set up an independent government.

Britain is lost. Northern Gaul, though still Roman, is independent.

Eastern and Central Gaul, Province, "Yugoslavia" and Italy are still in the Empire.

However, Attila devastated Eastern and Central Gaul and Northern Italy in 451-52. A plague hit Italy in 452. In 453, the Vandals sacked Rome for the second time, again after being invited to intervene in a Roman civil dispute.

At this time, 460, the Romans put together a very large army and fleet in cooperation with the East, planning to retake Africa. Their fleet was sabotaged and the effort failed.

This was the last serious effort by the Roman army of the West. In the late 400’s, the Goths moved their borders East until nothing was left of Central Gaul. The Franks took Northern Gaul. The Saxons took Britain.

As Shi explained, when the army pulled out - and it didn't pull out everywhere at the same time, civilization largely collapsed and the Dark Age came in its place. To an extent, the Brits held on under the legendary King Arthur. However, even they succumbed in the end.

The Dark Age came to Italy during the Gothic wars, which were closely followed by the invasion of the Lombard’s. There was a small renaissance during the time of Charlemagne, but when he died, the Empire was beset by Moslems from the South, Vikings from the North and Magyars from the East. A second dark age ensued. Things did not turn around until Otto the Great beat the Magyars in the mid 900's. This event marks the beginning of the end of the Dark Ages. Civilization is thereafter stabilized on the continent. British stability comes with the Normans in 1066.

[Traianvs]

Yes, but you are forgetting that in North-West Gaul a roman General kept fending off attackers even after the western roman empire had fallen and that a mini roman empire stayed for some time


Btw what you just said is nice, do you know that all by heart?(Those dates etc ) or did you go looking in some books or so?


Btw it's stupid to think that the romans would have sustained an empire for over 2000 years... impossible..
And besides, when the western roman empire was at its end, it already had undergone lots of influence from other cultures (mainly germans!!). If you look at the roman soldiers in the 5th century... they very much resemble germans (only better equipped of course)... the troops were also a lot less disciplined and more disorganised... Valerius II (i think) also complained about the fact that the soldiers didn't want to carry the heavy equipment (such as the lorica segmentata, armour) anymore so they were not even armoured like the earlier imperial troops...

All the good things of the romans declined so it was destined to be overthrown!

[Lord Merciless]

Rome wouldn't have gone anywhere technological wise. Byzantine Empire was the best example.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Trajanus
Btw it's stupid to think that the romans would have sustained an empire for over 2000 years... impossible..

Why not, the Chinese have.

[Traianvs]

it has? (i have no knowledge of china whatsoever)

But still it can't be in the same form... it's not because it is the same territory that it's the same empire... you could say likewise about the indians then...

[Ned]

Tajanus, I know it by heart. Ned

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why not, the Chinese have.

Someone finally stated the obvious. Thanks, che.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
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.

So you're saying that the Roman Empire would've started behaving in the same manner as the Ming Dynasty? I don't think the Romans would've been that short-sighted.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Ned
Thrawn05 - You do know that the Pope anointed Pepin to be King of the Franks and later appointed Charlemagne, his son, to be Emperor of the Western Roman Empire?

That's impossible. In no way can a Pope apoint any leader of a government. They may have asked for the Pope's blessing if they can be, but the Pope can't appoint.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Why not, the Chinese have.

After looking at the history of all of China's government, I don't consider China as a nation that lasted for thousands of years. But that's my own opinion.

[Traianvs]

Tajanus, I know it by heart. Ned

interesting.. you studied some kind of history then? or it's just something you're interested in...?

[Drake Tungsten]

China is definitely a nation that has lasted for thousands of years. They have had different indigenous governments and have been ruled by conquerors on occasion, but they have maintained their distinct culture and national identity throughout. I don't know how you can expect anything more.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Trajanus


interesting.. you studied some kind of history then? or it's just something you're interested in...?

Just a hobby, I guess. It all started after I graduated from college and read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I have since found that the reasons for the Empire's collapse are still today hotly debated. It is said that all empires decline and fall and that America will someday share the fate of Rome.

Just a point on Rome's collapse, there is point where Stilcho has Alaric trapped in Greece; but he gets away because of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius, asks him to leave. Rome never recovered from this as Alaric goes on to instigate the collapse of the West.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Thrawn05



That's impossible. In no way can a Pope apoint any leader of a government. They may have asked for the Pope's blessing if they can be, but the Pope can't appoint.

No, Thrawn, it actually happened.

As I said, the Franks were aware of the suspect legality of the Pope's acts in their favor. This is why they forged the Donation of Constantine.

[molly bloom]

I lately read a fascinating book, on the mediaeval 'industrial revolution' - based on mill/water power. It also goes into some detail about ideas/inventions that are widely assumed to have begun or originated with the Renaissance, but actually date from earlier times:

Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution Of The Middle Ages
By: Gimpel, Jean

The powerhouses of this revolution were in part monastic mills, water and wind driven, some on pontoons beneath bridges. It also talks about the mechanization of paper making, a factor in the increase in literacy and wider dispersal of knowledge, and the division of the day into regularized periods with accurate clocks.

Some inventions followed on from Roman times, some were new, and some were adaptations or improvements of Arab or Iranian or Chinese originals. The Church's members, lay and religious, were frequently the innovators- Roger Bacon in England, for example. Inventions that freed the Church of the need to employ people were frequently opposed by the populace.

As for the Inquisition, various religious movements were suppressed, including the Lollards in England, the Cathars of Provence and the Hussites in Bohemia, and the Bogomils in the Balkans- it's simply that the Spanish Inquisition is the best known. The racial and nationalist bias of the Spanish Inquisition is really what makes it infamous- trying to make an ethnically pure state, by weeding out Jews and Muslims, even conversos.

Ironically Tomas de Torquemada was partly of Jewish descent, as was Isabella's husband, Ferdinand.

Could Rome have survived? Not without an extension of the franchise, but it's interesting to think what a unifying Roman culture might have meant for Western Europe- a continuous unified culture zone, like Han China.

[Odin]

The western empire wast pretty much dead of the the water by 400 AD. The reason, I think, for the romans defeat to the germanic tribes was that the Roman army was mostly food soldiers, which were massacred by the Germans and thier Knights, which had stirrups.

I consider the Dark Ages as 470-900
The "lower" or "Feudal" Middle ages as 900-1100
the "High" Middle ages as 1100-1400
the Rennesance as 1400-1600

[Ramo]

Actually, the stirrup was developed centuries after the fall of the Western empire. Heavy cavalry (knights) didn't become the bulk of Germanic armies until after the (East) Romans started the trend in the 7th century. Heavy cavalry became the heart of Roman armies in fact partially to counter the light cavalry of barbarian invaders.

Actually, the Western Empire was ultimately doomed because of the measles and small pox epidemics.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by 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?

Watched it a few times. A great movie

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Odin
the Roman army was mostly food soldiers, which were massacred by the Germans and thier Knights, which had stirrups.

Food soldiers? You mean the Germans ate them? And they used their stirrups on them to boot? That must have blown Roman morale all to h**l.





Yeah, I know it was a typo, but it was too funny to pass up.)

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Food soldiers? You mean the Germans ate them? And they used their stirrups on them to boot? That must have blown Roman morale all to h**l.





Yeah, I know it was a typo, but it was too funny to pass up.)

KInd of reminds me of this

[DanS]

I like Strangelove's explanation of the fall, since it shows the deterioration of what held the empire together in the first place: trade, communications, infrastructure, and administration. With the absence of these things, urban life--i.e., what creates wealth and civilization--is impossible. And funding an army consistently is difficult.

Don't know what UR's been smoking.

[Ramo]

Well, the reasons for de-urbanization were intimately connected with the Empire's population decline. The only way you reverse de-urbanization is if you take the small pox, measles, and bubonic plague epidemics out of Rome's history.

[Ned]

Actually, the Western Empire was in a horrid state of decline even prior to Germans overrunning it. Road (and building construction) had largely ceased by the mid 300's. Road maintenance fell apart in the 400's. The Western Romans faced a chronic manpower shortage for troops, primarily caused by Diocletion's laws tying one to his father’s profession. As well, Diocletion's price controls had a lot to do with the gradual collapse of trade and Rome's monetary system and its replacement with a barter system, a.k.a., feudalism.

When government totally collapsed, the Church stepped in to fill the gaps with birth and marriage records, and with the recording of land deeds. However, the educational system vanished entirely.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
Well, the reasons for de-urbanization were intimately connected with the Empire's population decline. The only way you reverse de-urbanization is if you take the small pox, measles, and bubonic plague epidemics out of Rome's history.

I believe de-urbanization was mainly caused by the rise of feudalism which was well under way prior to the German conquests.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Ned
Just a point on Rome's collapse, there is point where Stilcho has Alaric trapped in Greece; but he gets away because of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius, asks him to leave. Rome never recovered from this as Alaric goes on to instigate the collapse of the West.

I thought that Alaric captured Athens and diverted at last minute from going to Constantinople thanks to a large bribe... He also devastated Corinth.

But the reason he left the Eastern Empire was money.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ned]

Originally posted by paiktis22


I thought that Alaric captured Athens and diverted at last minute from going to Constantinople thanks to a large bribe... He also devastated Corinth.

But the reason he left the Eastern Empire was money.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

A quote:

Stilicho responded to Alaric's raiding by going after him with an army. Alaric, however, slipped across the frontier into Arcadius' half of the empire. Stilicho went after him and had him effectively trapped, but Alaric escaped Stilicho's grasp when Arcadius ordered Stilicho to leave Eastern territory with his army. Stilicho meekly obeyed because he respected and worked to preserve the imperial system during these troublesome times. The Visigoths continued down the Peloponnesian Peninsula, sacking cities as they went. Athens managed to ransom herself from the devastation, but Megara, Corinth, Sparta, and many other Greek cities of great antiquity experienced Alaric's wrath and rapine. In the meantime, Stilicho was inspecting the defenses on the Rhine frontier. Stilicho returned and again went after Alaric, this time crossing the Adriatic and cornering him in the frozen wasteland between the mountains and the Gulf of Corinth. It is not exactly clear what happened next, but Alaric again escaped annihilation. According to Zosimus, he escaped across the Gulf of Corinth, which had frozen due to a terribly cold Winter that year. Arcadius again ordered Stilicho to remove his legions from the East. Alaric broke off his raids after he was given the post of MAGISTER MILITVM PER ILLYRICVM (Master General of Illyricum) and a place in which to settle his followers. By this time, it was hard to determine whether the men that followed Alaric were Roman allied troops following a Roman officer or independent Gothic troops following their king.

[chequita guevara]

Feudalism may have ended the empire's future, but it was necessary when it was enacted, because too many people were leaving the land. Food production was dropping and the cities can't survive without lots of farms.

[Bereta_Eder]

Ned, that's pretty much correct AFAIK.

I was pointing to the sources that say that Alaric was persuaded to leave the Eastern Empire after a huge bribe.
But there is more to it than that, you're right. He also managed to play one Empire against the other in a period were tensions were mounting.

BTW

Alaric came from one of the leading "royal" families of the Visigoths, and some sources even say he was a son of Fritigern -- leading tribal leaders spread their seed to cement their tribal federations. Like other tribal princes from all over the empire, Alaric was brought to Constantinople to attend the new military academy that Theodosius had established. The students, also part hostages, were indoctrinated and hopefully converted to the Roman/Byzantine way of thinking. He must have been a good student. After graduation, he quickly rose through the ranks, and, by 392 AD, was leading more than 20,000 Visigothic "foederatae" (troops recruited from tribes federated with Rome) at the Battle of the River Frigidus.

I think he was

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Feudalism may have ended the empire's future, but it was necessary when it was enacted, because too many people were leaving the land. Food production was dropping and the cities can't survive without lots of farms.

Yeah, and that was caused by the idiot's price controls.

[chequita guevara]

And constant German invasions.