Rome In 2005?

[Ursus]

Romans in Space? The Star Trek franchise did something like that with the Romulans.

 

I'm not a big Star Trek fan, just saying someone thought of it before.

[foreverRoman]

If Rome had never fallen, the Industrial Evolution would have occurred slowly and naturally, and probably been in full swing by 700 AD, or whatever calendar the Romans would have maintained, powered flight possibly by 800, and following the current historical timeline, spaceflight less than 70 years later, putting humans on the moon over a thousand years earlier. Being Romans, they would not have waited and would have pushed on to Mars soon after colonizing the lunar surface. Christianity would have been suppressed, Islam might never have existed, and there would be three major Earth powers; the Roman Empire, stretching across Europe and the Atlantic into the New World, both North and South continents, and all through Africa, down to the Cape; the Chinese Empire, most likely occupying the same space it does today, or less, if it had been conquered by the third major power, the Russian Empire, covering Asia from the North Pole to the tip of India, and from the Great Wall (if it had been built) to somewhere in present day Western Russia, where a shaky peace treaty with the Romans marks the delineation of Europe and Asia.

[caldrail]

what if the great roman empire never fell?

 

how do you think it would be today? as far a structure, leadership, military, and everything else goes? do you think the empire would have continued to grow and in present day would consume most of the world?

 

 

im really curious as to what you all think, you all know so much more about rome then i ever could. i greatly enjoy reading your posts

 

As speculation it can give all sorts of answers. Personally, I don't think the roman empire stood any chance of surviving that length of time. What we find in human societies is that cultures 'grow old'. They lose the dynamism, become stagnant, overly ritualistic, and inward looking. Roime's success, aoart from their penchant for organisation, was their willingness to commit violence to succeed. Now, in a position of necessity or strength, this is desirable (sadly), but in times of peace a culture can easily go off the boil. Humans like a certain amount of stress and we respond to dangerous situations sometimes in a very positive way - nature has designed us like that - its a major part of our social animal psyche and one reason for our success as a species (Violence is another). Without these external needs to pull together and survive co-operatively, human societies drift into a selfish hedonistic patterns, which indeed is what happened in the roman empire. The culture loses its edge, its combativeness, and younger, more aggressive cultures realise that they can assert themselves over yours. Again, this is social animal behaviour translated into politics and war. The young lion senses the old pack leader is past it, and rather fancies having the harem for himself, thus the risk increasingly begins to look worth it. Sometimes the old lion is still a force to be reckoned with, but that young male will be back.

 

Interesting point about the old star trek series. The romulans were intended to be a sort of romanesque offshoot of the vulcans although STNG rather diluted that idea in favour of the Cardassians. Also, there was an episode in ST that featured a modern roman empire that ruled an industrialised planet.

[Kosmo]

Christianity is a roman phenomenon and I can't imagine a roman empire without christianity.

We know how would the roman empire look by 1000 AD. Something like Byzantium under a absolute emperor, but richer (no barbarian invasion) and much larger. Still, with a christian religion and not clasical. So, no Colliseum in the space age.

BTW I agree with Caldrail. Evolution it's driven by competition. The roman empire would have been stagnant like China was in RL. If you have peace and stability you don't need inovation.

Modern world it's the result of the intense competition of post roman europe. Politically divided, but culturaly connected by roman heritage (christianity, language, laws etc.)

[Nephele]

Also, there was an episode in ST that featured a modern roman empire that ruled an industrialised planet.

 

Yes, but even in that old Star Trek episode (titled "Bread and Circuses") the Roman Empire was depicted as being on the verge of collapse.

 

This is revealed only at the end of that episode, when the Enterprise is about to leave and Lt. Uhura informs the Star Trek crew that she has been picking up some interesting transmissions from the planet. That "the children of the sun" (the peaceniks whom Kirk & Co. had previously presumed to be a foreign cult to Rome, consisting of sun-worshippers) were actually saying all the time that they were "the children of the Son" -- referring to a Christ-figure who had emerged that would eventually change the culture of the planet. So, according to Star Trek, even on other, industrialized worlds the fall of Rome was inevitable.

 

As for cultures tending to stagnate in times of peace... I'm not entirely convinced that this need be so. If a civilization's energies might be directed towards science, that civilization might then discover an entirely different "battlefield" in which to engage and satisfy an instinctual drive to conquer -- such as conquering disease, feeding populations, and engineering out of deserts and oceans new living environments for the world's growing population.

 

Perhaps it's all a science fiction dream, like Star Trek. But the Romans were engineering masters, after all, and I wonder whether they put as much effort into their innovations -- and science -- as they might have. I don't think our present society is doing so.

 

-- Nephele

[Nerva]

If the Western Roman Empire had somehow not collapsed in the 5th century and survived to this day alongside the Eastern Empire, I think it would have looked a lot more like Constantinople than traditional Rome. I don't think they would have pushed the borders much beyond where they are now. If the Empire remained strong, they would have crushed the Arab tribes riding out of the Arabian Peninsula and either assimilated or subjugated the Germanic tribes causing trouble on the northern frontiers. With solid trade all throughout the Empire, cities like Carthage, Alexandria, and Antioch would still be major cities. Hard to tell what cities like London and Paris would look like. They were not on the major trade routes, but I think at least one or two cites of Hispania and Gaul would have blossomed in size (especially if they were spared the barbarian invasions). I think the city of Rome would still have been a major seat of power in Italy, but I think it would have been more like a second city to Constantinople, somewhat like Nanjing in China vs. the current capital of Beijing. Rome would always have a special place and would certainly be a tourist attraction since its ancient non religious structures would be preserved. I would think the Circus Maximus and the Colosseum would still be in place and in use as well (Colosseum would be used for animal hunts or bull fighting, but not gladiatorial games) as the numerous baths, but most of the old pagan buildings would be gone or converted into churches. St. Peter's would be there and it would probably rival Hagia Sohpia. What it would look like? Who knows?

 

I don't think they would have discovered North and South America simply because there was no need to search out new trade routes. They could get all they needed from Europe-Asia trade. The discovery of the Americas came about after the fall of Constantinople when there was a hostile power along the trade routes in the form of the Ottoman Empire. It would be politically impossible to discover the Americas also because the powers that be in Constantinople would not want competition for the best trade route to Asia. I think it's certainly possible that the Romans would have discovered gunpowder if they continued to trade with Asia, but as far as industrialization, that would depend on whether they gave up the slave trade. It was such a part of their society, but who knows, maybe some Patriarch would have championed the idea of freeing the slaves and it would have gained the support of the government and the people. I don't think the concept of "The Pope" would have ever formed. There would be a Patriarch of Rome, but more theological authority would have come from the Patriarch of Constantinople. Of course all that is just my opinion and imagination, so it's all open to interpretation, but it was a fun exercise.

[caldrail]

Whats often forgotten about industrialisation is that there were religious reasons not to proceed. Romans were very superstitious and creating a machine to do something a man cannot would have been considered an affront to the gods (especially if it didn't work or did something terrible0. Ok, there was always going to be romans who laughed up their sleeve at such things, and we know that some industry was in existence. There was a water powered stone cutting machine in one quarry for instance - obviously the profit motive succeeded against slave labour in that instance. However, roman technology was usually isolated. I don't mean the common or garden stuff, or the military items that once accepted would have been used by legions everywhere, but the really clever innovations are almost invariably limited to one site.

[ASCLEPIADES]

what if the great roman empire never fell?

Well, not completely. The Pontifex Maximus is still there (Benedict XVI); the Theocratic Absolute elective monarchy of the Vatican is sovereign over approximately 44 hectares and more than a billion of catholics, approximately one-sixth of the world's population.

 

That said, here comes The Vatican Observatory .

 

And also Do space aliens have souls?

 

Cheers!

[Faustus]

what if the great roman empire never fell?

 

Having read through all the ideas presented here , I note that as usual the comments have covered most all of the possibilities in a scholarly manner, but this subject, first of all lends itself to a fictional treatment of a Rome never having fallen.

 

You can explore that possibility In Robert Silverberg

[ASCLEPIADES]

I think all the questions pondered here are explored in Roma Eterna

 

http://www.majipoor.com/novels/nromaeterna.html

 

Interesting dates (ten) were selected for the alternative History within this book:

 

The prologue is set at 1203 AUC (450 AD).

 

The last date ("promised land") is 2723 AUC (1970 AD).

 

The ten stories of this book were written between 1989 and 2003.

[G-Manicus]

what if the great roman empire never fell?

 

Having read through all the ideas presented here , I note that as usual the comments have covered most all of the possibilities in a scholarly manner, but this subject, first of all lends itself to a fictional treatment of a Rome never having fallen.

 

You can explore that possibility In Robert Silverberg

[RomanItaly]

I think some people here are considering this too much in ancient terms.

 

For example, I don't think there would be any gladitorial games or even slavery at this point. Christianity served as a major "reformer" in terms of culture, and although early Christianity practiced slavery, and perhaps condoned it, the major principles reject it entirely, and I think after a couple of centuries it would have been abolished. That I think goes for gladitorial combat as well - unless, perhaps, in terms of acting and theater. Of course, I'm not saying that Roman civilization would be perfect - far from it - but I think it would evolve positively.

 

I think Greek influence would begin to decline. Latin was already dominant in the West, and I think after a while it would tend to envelop the East as well. I mean, it wasn't until far after Justinian that Greek began to truly replace Latin as the official language in the Byzantine Empire.

 

I think technology would naturally improve. Of course, slavery was perhaps an impedement to it, but I can't simply sit and think that the Romans would simply have kept slavery until 2007, or if they had, it certainly would accompany technological change. I think that part of the problem was that after the Pax Romana and the five good emperors, the chaos that engulfed the empire kind of stalled any kind of focus on technological innovation. China had more stability, and was able to grow in that sense. Had the Roman Empire not been harassed by barbarians, then it would have remained stable and grown. Even in military terms, technology would have to improve in order to keep the army strong, and I think that would inevitably lead to technology for civilian use as well.

 

Different than China, however, I think the Romans would still consider themselves open to other cultures, though maybe also adopting an attitude of cultural superiority. Chinese civilization has persisted for thousands of years, and has developed because it enjoyed such great stability. I can't help but be excited at the prospects of the Romans had they been stable politically. I wonder if the Romans would have continued to expand militarily, that's an interesting thought. I would also like to imagine increased relations with China. Think of the scientific and cultural exchange between these two mighty empires, what benefit!

 

And I also disagree that Christianity would fade. By the empire's end, Christianity was intrinsically bound with the Empire, and in effect became part of Roman civilization. It would continue to expand and develop, and would lead to more works of literature being produced, and would spread abroad too.

 

Very interesting theory.

[Adelais Valerius]

Whats often forgotten about industrialisation is that there were religious reasons not to proceed. Romans were very superstitious and creating a machine to do something a man cannot would have been considered an affront to the gods (especially if it didn't work or did something terrible0. Ok, there was always going to be romans who laughed up their sleeve at such things, and we know that some industry was in existence. There was a water powered stone cutting machine in one quarry for instance - obviously the profit motive succeeded against slave labour in that instance. However, roman technology was usually isolated. I don't mean the common or garden stuff, or the military items that once accepted would have been used by legions everywhere, but the really clever innovations are almost invariably limited to one site.

 

It seems to me that the Romans would have been able to overcome this as a society. A one time people thought the earth was flat(maybe not the truely educated, but alot of people did), its just something people gradually came to the conclusion that it wasn't true. Its mind over matter. In 1970, Birth Control was shown in alot different light than it is today, and it was seen more from a religious standpoint as sinful and wrong. Now, though frowned apon by the church, its definitely seeing its way into normal, everyday life, much like machines would with the Romans. Do disrespect, but I don't think you give enough credit for the Romans ability to adapt and survive.Not to mention by the end of the Roman empire, Christianity had taken a strong foot hold, so the polytheistic viewpoint was on the way out.

[Northern Neil]

...but, the Empire DID continue, albeit shorn of its western provinces, for a further thousand years. Not only that, but it retained the wealthiest provinces, and those which had a tradition of scientific enquiry. No industrial revolution happened before its time, and no space flight prior to the first millenium. The Eastern Roman Empire was just as medieval as any other state at the time, albeit politically better organised. Retention of the Western provinces, or the integrity of the Augustan frontiers throughout the medieval period, would not have made the slightest difference to the advancement of science and technology.

 

We must remember that the Roman Empire itself ushered in a lengthy period in which monotheism and religious intolerence virtually extinguished all scientific enquiry. A century before the Western Empire ceased forever as a political entity, science had been extinguished in the Western world. It continued in a limited form in the East - not because of Islam, but despite Islam. The near East had a tradition of science and mathematics which Islam inherited by conquest, and any science which threatened the religious status quo was supressed, much the same as in the West.

 

Science and technology only started to advance again once Northern Italy had regained the population and commerce it had enjoyed almost a millennium before.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Northern Neil

[cornelius_sulla]

There are some quite good books (fiction) written by a woman called Sophia MacDougall that are based on the premise that Rome survives to encompass the whole world as part of it's empire. The books are called 'Romanitas' and 'Rome Burning'.

Personally, I don't think that Rome ever truly died, (witness the American Capitol Hill, Senate, etc) but nor do I think the Western Empire could have survived much longer than it did.

If it had? Well, lets just say I'm glad it didn't because chances are I'd be a slave.