Rome In 2005?

[caldrail]

I notice that these alternative histories always assume the Rome was victorious and conquers all. That doesn't work. No culture has ever been able to complete such a victory although there's been plenty of ambitious or megalomaniac leaders who tried. Any culture has a finite number of population from which it can draw its military personnel. The more people it uses to fight, the fewer people there are to support them. In other words, you reach a point where further conquest becomes too difficult or expensive. Rome expanded quickly during the republic partly because it was stronger than its rivals, but also because those rivals had an existing infrastructure that Rome could absorb. A wilderness does not, as Augustus found out. Also, without modern communications, it becomes increasingly difficult to control armies at the frontier of your conquest, and also increasingly difficult to support their efforts. Its like blowing up a balloon. At first it will expand rapidly then slow down as the volume increases and your breath runs out. Furthermore there's a human trait that reappears time and again in expanding cultures. They seem to run out of the urge to conquer further. Particularly noticeable with 'barbaric' tribes such as gauls, huns, vikings, or any others I can't recall at the moment, it also afflicts more civilised cultures. Macedonia conquered territory as far east as the Indus valley but had to stop, even with the charismatic Alexander urging them on. Trajan pushed into the middle east and conquered territory as far as the Caspian Sea, but Rome was unwilling to retain its conquest under the less militaristic Hadrian. Clearly, the expansion of cultures is partly dependent on the leader who sets it in motion. Conquest does not occur by itself - it must be set in motion, and there is a balance between the power and leadership of the individual responsible and mass of soldiers or civilians that enact it. For Rome to conquer the whole world is assuming that roman culture remains essentially unchanged. No culture is static - it evolves - it changes from something often young and fresh to something older and more tired, as if waiting to be replaced by another in a sort of analog with natural life.

 

Rome in 2005? They never stood a chance. You might argue it was possible because say... Egypt had a coherent civilisation for something like 3,000 years. Thats true, but notice also that egypt as a nation was gobbled up by Rome and therefore afflicted by its fate, and also that - importantly - the early coptic christians destroyed the religious life of egypt that had helped preserve their national identity for so long. There's a temple on an island along the Nile with a stone plaque commerating the efforts of those who had vandalised the pagan images on the walls. Rome on the other hand did not base its culture on the bounty of a large river (Yes, I do know about the Tiber!), but turned from agriculture to conquest and in doing so ensured their empire would eventually wear out. Throughout the Pax Imperia, Rome was living off the fat of conquest and as such was economically doomed in the long run. Their economy was unsustainable because it was not developed enough to sustain more conquest, thus the roman legions were increasingly turned toward a defensive stance, further encouraged by the pressure of barabarian incursions.

 

As for America, I've said similar things in that their nation is based on classic principles and ideals. But its not Rome. Its a nation with some parallel development, inspired by the ancient world in some respects.

[Adelais Valerius]

But aren't we focusing on the What if though?

[caldrail]

Thats the problem with What If situations, you can ignore how the world actually is and end up with an episode of Star Trek. Allegorical, and entertaining up to a point, but without any sense of reality the whole story is no more than a fairy tale. Possibly my views are different to most peoples, but the story is actually intended to depict a 'real' alternative history then human dynamics cannot be ignored. People act in certain ways, cultures come and go, and when the limits of society are exceeded it fragments. Of course, if you prefer science fiction, then be my guest, as long as the story is honest about what it is.

[Northern Neil]

Thats the problem with What If situations, you can ignore how the world actually is and end up with an episode of Star Trek.

Indeed. Also, the 'what if' factor in this discussion is a moot point - the empire indeed did survive the fall of the west, and retained the wealthiest provinces with the longest history of learning and science. The Empire had, in effect, 1000 more years than suggested at the start of this thread to do all these amazing things, but it didn't.

[caldrail]

This is part of the problem. The Byzantine empire managed to achieve some stability, and although it wasn't entirely continuous until 1453 I concede that it represented the roman empire - they certainly thought of themselves as such. However, the price of cultural stability is a certain amount of stagnation. Without change, a society loses its dynamic qualities. It also builds ettiquette and ritual. The Byzantines weren't alone in that, Egypt did so too - so did medieval europe and japan - increasingly burdened with complex patterns of behaviour and traditions that in some cases become parodies of romantic illusion. I'm not sure how far the Byzantines went in that direction, but I notice the bafflement and alarm they suffered in dealing with the crusades.