What If Rome Collapsed In The 3rd Century?

[Emperor Goblinus]

Let's say that the powers that broke away from Rome in the 3rd century stayed independent, that territory was not reconquered and consolidated by men like Aurelian and Diocletian, and that the empire crumbled. What effect do you think that would have had on the development of the region in terms of culture, religion, politics, law, and other things?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Well then Christianity wouldn't be where it is today because then Constantine wouldn't have made the Edict of Milan wouldn't he. But I'm pretty sure the Eastern Roman Empire would still prosper.

[Emperor Goblinus]

I think that there could have been some major changes if the empire had ended in the 3rd century. First, I don't think that there ever would have been an eastern Roman Empire, just whatever state was carved out of the eastern provinces. In the West, areas that may have been more "Romanized" might not have been. We could have seen whole different "classical" thinking, culture, and philosophy separate from the Greco-Roman tradition. Also, radically different law codes may have been made far different from Roman law that influenced later European civilization. Political boundaries of future countries might have been much different.

When it came to religion, I think that Christianity would have spread, but it would have developed differently. Constantine firmly set the stage for the clse ties between monarchical governments and the Church. Without this, Christianity may have gone on to become a more personal, localized religion. With more and more converts, it would be inevitable that some monarchs take the religion as their own and make it the state religion, but I don't think that the church-state relations we saw in the Middle Ages would have been so defined. There's a good chance that the papacy would not have been founded, or at least not achieved the power that it did, because of Rome's decreased political influence. The monolithic "Christendom" that pervaded western Europe in the Middle Ages may not have come about. The Christian Church may have broken up into possibly hundreds of local denominations, sects, and rites and never be united under one rule, intermingling and gradually converting more pagans, or possibly not. Without the massive efforts of bishops, missionaries, and crusading kings, large parts of Europe may have stayed pagan much longer, or may even never have been converted. When Islam gained prominence and power, it is quite possible that Arab Muslim armies may not have been stopped in their invasion of west Europe and Europe may have ended up being Muslim, or at least with a much larger Muslim population. The possiblities are endless.

In my own opinion, I'm glad that the united empire went on for another hundred years or so. It wasn't perfect, but though some good may have come out of it, I'm glad that the Middle Ages didn't begin in the 3rd century.

[Ursus]

Let's say that the powers that broke away from Rome in the 3rd century stayed independent, that territory was not reconquered and consolidated by men like Aurelian and Diocletian, and that the empire crumbled. What effect do you think that would have had on the development of the region in terms of culture, religion, politics, law, and other things?

 

 

It would have been extremely interesting. The Gallo-British Empire was more interested in fighting the Germans than the other parts of the Empire (for obvious reasons). Left to their own devices and with their own resources under their control, could they have halted the German advance? If they could, how tremendously different would the political history of Europe have been if France and and Span and Britain evolved under the same yoke.

 

The Palmyran (or however you spell it) Empire would have carried on much the like the real Eastern Empire, but I think Christianity would have taken on a very Egyptian or Gnostic feel to it.

 

If the Gallo-British empire were successful in containing the Germans, then the Italian-African Empire would have endured. And since Africa and North Italy were relatively prosperous, there was potential. Imagine today if North Africa were still part of the Western sphere of influence, untouched by Islamic or Arabic influence.

 

Yep, things would be different. It would make for a great alternate history novel.

[Zeke]

I think the world might have decended into chaos faster then it did. There would be such a wierd mixture of Roman, German and Eastern things that today's history would look very different.

 

Though I do think honestly that Paganism was begining to wane at the time of Aurelian...though it was still strong, the Eastern cults had more influenece and eventually Christianity would have prospered in North Africa, Egypt and Syria. The Gallic Empire would have been a conservative version of the old Roman ways and it would be much easier to defend seeing how small it's territory was.

 

So I think the Gallic Empire would have been the successor empire to Rome. That might have been cool.

 

Zeke

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

So I think the Gallic Empire would have been the successor empire to Rome. That might have been cool.

 

Zeke

 

Like the West, the Gallic Empire would eventually fall too is what I think.Suppose had the Gallic Empire subdued the Germans east of the Rhine and the whole of Britannia, what would bring down the Gallic Empire then? Would the Scandinavians come to replace the Germans as the barbaros?

 

Also, would the form of medieval feudalism come to exist.

Edited December 27, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Zeke]

Feudalism might have come to exist more in the East with the Church's developement there. The Gallic Empire would realy on wealthy land owners not exacly fiefs.

And yes Flavius what would the Vikings have done about this new situation, surely the land would have been more united and the Viking threat wouldn't have been as strong.

Zeke

[Emperor Goblinus]

One thing of note is that if Rome lost a good deal of its territory outside of Italy, but its internal governmental structure kept going, Italy may have stayed a unified country up through the Middle Ages and possibly into modern times. If so, all of the unification efforts of the Italians in the 19th century would not have been necessary. Imagine if the monarchy continued and there were Caesars still ruling Italy to this day, although given the political trends, they would probably be at most a constitutional monarchy, with most of the power probably in a national assembly or congress of some sort. Maybe power would be reverted back to the Senate.

[WotWotius]

Gaul was hardly a prosperous region, so the gallic economy would have eventually collapsed.

 

Futhermore, in Aurelian's time the Gallic empeors were experiencing the same problems (e.g. constant assasination) which the Western emperors faced; showing that Gaul and her empire lacked a strong centeral government.