Nope is very normal for this to happen as that was discussed long ago a lot of people forget about it and new members never knew about it to begin with
Rome survives like China
- Thread starter Siberian Tiger
- Start date
This I sorta of agree just because the roman identity survives for much longer and would result in the conquerors of some provinces becoming very romanized
And defending it demain a managerial system far more complex the system used to rule latium.
There Hards Limits on a land Region, Rome is not britain and once you pass the alps is all open plains
Rome was essentially a maritime rather than land-based empire. It controlled its provinces from sea-based trade and connections that drew various regions together and created a common imperial culture among elites. But this geographical distance (and natural barriers in Europe) also made command & control for the empire MUCH more difficult than China which has 2 rivers + a great central plain as its power base.
Also, while trade can create a common imperial culture among elites, it's inevitable that the various regions culturally drift from each other after Roman colonisation and eventually start speaking different dialects. This is unlike China where there was a Mandarin that was at least spoken in the North by a large number of ppl albeit in varying different dialects. It was still far easier to centralise language around this language family. Rome on the other hand has Latin, but the dialects drifted apart very quickly and this led to collapse/instability as the provinces all became culturally alien from each other. They also have a Greek-speaking east.
If you want to preserve Rome:
1) Preserve and expand the Mediterranean trade which was the heartbeat of the empire and drew regions together. It also ensures financial solvency.
2) This entails fixing the currency problem, by discovering more gold and silver. Historically the purity decline of gold/silver coins made long-distance sea trade impossible. Since Roman gold/silver was exchanged for silk/spices in the east, make the Romans discover the secrets of silk-making very early.
3) More technology to connect the provinces together: Steam ships and railways would be ideal as would a telegraph system.
4) Limit the spread of Greek. At the very least, make most of Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt Latin-speaking. Remove Greek as a prestige dialect over time.
Last edited:
And yet Even with OTL public works fell easily to whatever come north or East...to hold France you need People, People willingly to kill and die any human wave and mid to late rome have problem getting thoseAnd a number of large rivers.
But just look at how they face in opposite directions. To use them to get from the North Sea to the Baltic you have to round Iberia or cross the Alps. This is not the Yellow and the Yangtze.And a number of large rivers.
Again that is what boats are for. Boats carry a lot more material, a lot more quickly.
Water transportation being better than land transportation does not make Europe's rivers equally favorable to holding "the Empire" together in general or shipping vast amounts of agricultural produce to the south in particular as China's rivers, though.
It's one of multiple problems that complicate Rome's situation no matter how many geniuses we can come up with to staff the imperial government with.
That the northern plains can grow and support civilization/s of their own (as opposed to being the heartland of the Romans and not of "barbarian" kingdoms) to the extent they can is probably more serious than how hard it may be to ship wheat from Gaul and Germania to Italia or troops from Italia to Gaul.
It's one of multiple problems that complicate Rome's situation no matter how many geniuses we can come up with to staff the imperial government with.
That the northern plains can grow and support civilization/s of their own (as opposed to being the heartland of the Romans and not of "barbarian" kingdoms) to the extent they can is probably more serious than how hard it may be to ship wheat from Gaul and Germania to Italia or troops from Italia to Gaul.
Last edited:
But a lot of chinese crisis would have broke rome far easily, China Resilence seems to be the Culture itself
I think people are overstating the Mediterranean as a border and making things difficult. Its not. If it wasn't for the islamic conquests dividing the Mediterranean in half, then we likely would associate the whole sea with one region and northern europe with another. More over, trade and connections tied these people together long before Rome came about and long after Rome fell.
The big thing is legitimacy, successive empires or republics or what have you, uniting the region and being to claim that they are rome and for others to respect that claim. That is really what matters. In regards to Identity I can easily see where over time the Mediterranean basin considers themselves roman but with many other ethnic groups scattered about. Just like how in China today you have the Miao, Yi, Yue, Zhuang, Hui, Tujia, Kam, Bouyei, Yao, and Bai, just to name some of the many ethnic groups in China.
In regards to language, the main difference between China and Rome isn't the spoken language but the written language. There are man Sinetic languages in China, Manderian, Cantonese, Wu, Min, Jin, Xiang, Dungan just to name several of the languages. However till the modern era they generally used the same writing system. the easiest way I can see to have something like that is to have the romans adopt the greek script. This also would help bind the empire together more, thus helping overall.
When it comes to clothing, that also evolved. We today might call it all hanfu, but to say that there weren't differences over time is silly when the records show otherwise. fashion historians can identify the dynasty just from the dress. Likewise clothing of the various eras of Rome changed, the various eras of the Byzantine period share a commonality with classical garb. So I can see an evolution continuing for the rest of the empire if it managed to rebound and survive. How it would evolve I am not sure, but we might see more similarities, perhaps trousers never really become commonplace for the roman citizens? Hard to say really.
The big thing is legitimacy, successive empires or republics or what have you, uniting the region and being to claim that they are rome and for others to respect that claim. That is really what matters. In regards to Identity I can easily see where over time the Mediterranean basin considers themselves roman but with many other ethnic groups scattered about. Just like how in China today you have the Miao, Yi, Yue, Zhuang, Hui, Tujia, Kam, Bouyei, Yao, and Bai, just to name some of the many ethnic groups in China.
In regards to language, the main difference between China and Rome isn't the spoken language but the written language. There are man Sinetic languages in China, Manderian, Cantonese, Wu, Min, Jin, Xiang, Dungan just to name several of the languages. However till the modern era they generally used the same writing system. the easiest way I can see to have something like that is to have the romans adopt the greek script. This also would help bind the empire together more, thus helping overall.
When it comes to clothing, that also evolved. We today might call it all hanfu, but to say that there weren't differences over time is silly when the records show otherwise. fashion historians can identify the dynasty just from the dress. Likewise clothing of the various eras of Rome changed, the various eras of the Byzantine period share a commonality with classical garb. So I can see an evolution continuing for the rest of the empire if it managed to rebound and survive. How it would evolve I am not sure, but we might see more similarities, perhaps trousers never really become commonplace for the roman citizens? Hard to say really.
Also what I didn't mention in my previous post about culture is religion, this is where China and Rome have a major difference, but also one that I do feel is a bit overblown. In that in China while you have Ruism, Daoism, Buddhism, and the various faiths all mixed in, Rome had a major turning point with Christianity. Christianity in contrast to Ruism, Daoism, Buddhism, and the various other faiths of China is an exclusive religion. Meaning you can only practice it. Now this didn't stop the Christians from including Platonism or Aristotelianism within its philosophy, but at the heart of its conception its a religious exclusive faith. So there is a cultural break here that isn't really the case with China.
The reason I feel this is often overblown is that the Romans after Christianization didn't stop being roman just because they were Christian. Again, its based on the concept of Legitimacy. If a succeeding empire is able to claim they are roman and be recognized by others as the roman empire, then that is ultimately what matters. A Christian empire can easily fulfill that goal as well as a polytheistic one.
However, if one is as I think the OP is wanting, a roman empire whose culture doesn't contain such a massive break with the past, then one would need to keep it polytheistic. This doesn't mean it can't evolve, because it did. The philosophies of Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and so on all can play a role here. Still this not necessary to have a surviving empire, but as the OP seems to indicate a cultural continuum with the 1st century then this would be necessary.
The reason I feel this is often overblown is that the Romans after Christianization didn't stop being roman just because they were Christian. Again, its based on the concept of Legitimacy. If a succeeding empire is able to claim they are roman and be recognized by others as the roman empire, then that is ultimately what matters. A Christian empire can easily fulfill that goal as well as a polytheistic one.
However, if one is as I think the OP is wanting, a roman empire whose culture doesn't contain such a massive break with the past, then one would need to keep it polytheistic. This doesn't mean it can't evolve, because it did. The philosophies of Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and so on all can play a role here. Still this not necessary to have a surviving empire, but as the OP seems to indicate a cultural continuum with the 1st century then this would be necessary.
I think if Rome broke up during the Anarchy of the 200s CE where there were several local empires with their own Emperors in Hispania, Palmyra, etc. then got back together in the mid 300s, and Christianity never became official, it would have more longevity and vitality as a culture.
As others said, what you need is a continuation of states holding the same territory, ruling the same people and considering themselves as continuations of the states that came before.
One good TL that could achieve a first step in that direction would be Justinian, his dynasty or their usurpers reconquering the west (not necessarily the entirety of it, leaving France and Britain out would be ok) and repelling the Arabian Onslaught.
Another would be the Empire of Charlemagne being recognized by Constantinople, then figuring out a better succession law and being able to reconquer Spain and North Africa.
I'm not saying that those states would need or even have a chance of surviving from the first millenium up to the third, but they would at least be part of a continuation that would keep Rome alive.
One good TL that could achieve a first step in that direction would be Justinian, his dynasty or their usurpers reconquering the west (not necessarily the entirety of it, leaving France and Britain out would be ok) and repelling the Arabian Onslaught.
Another would be the Empire of Charlemagne being recognized by Constantinople, then figuring out a better succession law and being able to reconquer Spain and North Africa.
I'm not saying that those states would need or even have a chance of surviving from the first millenium up to the third, but they would at least be part of a continuation that would keep Rome alive.
Really, weren't they bad at naval stuff compared to Carthage?
Why did they expand so much inland instead of sticking to the coasts?
tex mex
Banned
I would say China has more similarities with India than with Rome.
Rome largely conquered preceding civilizations such as the Greeks, Carthaginians, Anatolians, Aramaeans, Jews, and Egyptians. China was a civilization core that assimilated the less developed peripheries not unlike India.
For this reason, the Byzantine Empire struggled with uprisings in Carthage, Egypt, and Syria as these were nations with a history and culture that far exceeded Rome itself.
The Southern China, and Sichuan basin were largely tribal backwaters when conquered by the Chinese. Only exception is Tibet and Xinjiang which could be a more apt comparison.
In the long run, the Romans will lose Syria and Egypt.
Optical_Illusion
Banned
@tex mex, I don't know if that really makes sense; the Byzantine Romans lost Egypt to the Arabs, who are a people with a centre in Arabia who had no written history prior to the Arab expansions.