lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,851 
Likes: 45,995
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 31, 2017 17:09:40 GMT
Would a TTL Rome (the city not the empire) be bigger than OTL Rome as we might not have some things happening like raids, black plague and so sort of things. Bigger than the city in its periods of decline, most certainly. Bigger than OTL Rome or Constantinople when their empires were at their apex, not sure. I seem to remember reading the cities were pushing the envelope in terms of what premodern technology would afford re size and complexity, even taking Roman top-class organization into account. But I might be misremembering. In any case, this version of the Roman Empire is going to have a much bigger population than OTL, thanks to its much greater size and ongoing prosperity. There is not going to be any equivalent of the barbarian or Arab invasions (ITTL these enemies are thoroughly assimilated into Roman civilization, they pay taxes and fight for Rome in the legions). They do suffer a couple serious steppe nomad breakouts and period of Norse raids, but they contain them in the border regions and fight them back after a while, so they are much less damaging than OTL. This version of Rome does not suffer any socio-economic collapse into manorialism and feudalism, it remains an highly urbanized integrated market economy and expands its model to absorb the entire northwestern portion of the Old World. They do suffer a few serious plague bouts (notably an equivalent of Justinian's plague and quite possibly the Black Death as well), but as a rule they are rather less damaging thanks to Roman excellent sanitation and greater medical knowledge than OTL. I'm just unsure how much of this extra population is going to stay in the fields to feed the rest, how much is going to live in a much larger and more developed urban network, and how much to go in the capital. No doubt ITTL the mystique of Rome as Urbs Aeterna and Caput Mundi is going to mind-boggling and entirely justified. As for the Roman Empire, we simply don't have an adequate OTL comparison on how much influential TTL Rome is going to be on Western, nay human civilization at large. By the time they set foot on the Moon and build the Internet, they would have been writing the manual of civilization and ruling one-third to half of mankind for the better part of two millennia. Now that you mention Constantinople, will a TTL Rome be able to survive intact ore do we see at one point a split between as what we saw in OTL. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Aug 31, 2017 18:10:12 GMT
Theoretically speaking, a Roman Empire that avoids its OTL decline and absorbs the rest of Europe and the Middle East might still suffer a lasting West-East split similar to the OTL one, due to factors like the Latin-Greek cultural division and the Roman space's tendency to split in western and eastern halves in times of crisis. Anything more than that would be impossible if the decline spiral is avoided and the Germanic, Slavic, Persian, and Arab enemies are assimilated and turned into resources before they can become a threat. But it would likely require something like lasting religious antagonism to make it a likely occurrence and get it entrenched. As a matter of fact, such a dual division is much more likely in a scenario where both the Carolingian and the Byzantine empirs become success stories than as an evolution of Classical Rome that overcome the domestic and external causes of its decline. Otherwise, the universalist character and organizational efficiency of the Roman civilization suggest an evolution towards a Chinese dynastic cycle trajectory, where all strife and division periods are ultimately temporary.
As a matter of fact, in my TL a couple such periods are factored in during the first millennium, but they last a few decades to a century at most, and are universally seen as aberrations. I'm tentatively assuming the dynastic cycle pattern is still present but much less frequent and damaging for all TTL civilization-empires for various reasons (more efficient cultural progress thanks to greater circulation of ideas and mutual competition/imitation, greater resources and less threatening external threats from more successful expansion). So my bet is the dynastic cycle tends to lessen more and more the older and more successful Eurasian civilizations become, to be almost entirely erased once they achieve Early Modernity or so. E.g. I expect the Mongol rampage to be much less damaging for Eurasian sedentary civilizations than OTL, more like a most serious border conflict with some painful damage in peripheral regions than a takeover or devastation of Europe, China, the Middle East, or India. Of course, major convulsions such as an analogue of the Atlantic Revolutions are still possible and even likely at the onset of modernity, but likely not so much as to cause a collapse or breakup. A possible exception might be a lasting independence of faraway colonies such as the New World ones.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,851
Likes: 45,995
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 31, 2017 19:53:39 GMT
A possible exception might be a lasting independence of faraway colonies such as the New World ones. You mean that the Roman colonies in the New World might do a American Revolution on Rome. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Aug 31, 2017 21:09:57 GMT
A possible exception might be a lasting independence of faraway colonies such as the New World ones. You mean that the Roman colonies in the New World might do a American Revolution on Rome. Yep. Far from inevitable or especially likely, and perhaps not the most likely outcome, but also far from impossible in the right circumstances. Uncertainty about this is one of the reasons that prevented me from completing my TL; the other issue is a writer's block about getting the same level of detail for the non-Roman events. Anyway, I'm trying to revise what I have available according to new ideas ad make it fit for posting. It is more or less the only other exception I'm willing to acknowledge as plausible to TTL Rome's effective immunity to permanent breakup. Because of distance, it looks a lot more feasible than a lasting West-East split, which would likely require something like the two halves embracing different and antagonist religions or denominations. Even so, it would require something like a neo-republican and democratic revolutionary ideology getting momentum in the Roman colonies in the New World and China giving support to the rebel colonies to weaken its rival. For that matter, the same scenario is more or less equally likely to happen for the Chinese colonies in the New World. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,851
Likes: 45,995
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 31, 2017 21:16:34 GMT
You mean that the Roman colonies in the New World might do a American Revolution on Rome. Yep. Far from inevitable or especially likely, and perhaps not the most likely outcome, but also far from impossible in the right circumstances. Uncertainty about this is one of the reasons that prevented me from completing my TL; the other issue is a writer's block about getting the same level of detail for the non-Roman events. Anyway, I'm trying to revise what I have available according to new ideas ad make it fit for posting. It is more or less the only other exception I'm willing to acknowledge as plausible to TTL Rome's effective immunity to permanent breakup. Because of distance, it looks a lot more feasible than a lasting West-East split, which would likely require something like the two halves embracing different and antagonist religions or denominations. Even so, it would require something like a neo-republican and democratic revolutionary ideology getting momentum in the Roman colonies in the New World and China giving support to the rebel colonies to weaken its rival. For that matter, the same scenario is more or less equally likely to happen for the Chinese colonies in the New World. Nova Rome verus old Rome, that is a timeline i would love to read. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Aug 31, 2017 21:49:31 GMT
Yep. Far from inevitable or especially likely, and perhaps not the most likely outcome, but also far from impossible in the right circumstances. Uncertainty about this is one of the reasons that prevented me from completing my TL; the other issue is a writer's block about getting the same level of detail for the non-Roman events. Anyway, I'm trying to revise what I have available according to new ideas ad make it fit for posting. It is more or less the only other exception I'm willing to acknowledge as plausible to TTL Rome's effective immunity to permanent breakup. Because of distance, it looks a lot more feasible than a lasting West-East split, which would likely require something like the two halves embracing different and antagonist religions or denominations. Even so, it would require something like a neo-republican and democratic revolutionary ideology getting momentum in the Roman colonies in the New World and China giving support to the rebel colonies to weaken its rival. For that matter, the same scenario is more or less equally likely to happen for the Chinese colonies in the New World. Nova Rome verus old Rome, that is a timeline i would love to read. I can try and include this outcome in the 'final snapshot' segment of my incomplete TL, where it makes a summary description of the world outside modern Rome's borders, if and when I am done revising it for posting (I have yet to edit the last century of the first millennium, when Rome transitions into Renaissance, and a few bits here and there). Unfortunately I have a few general ideas about what may happen in the second millennium, but my writer's block prevents me from writing a real TL description about it in the foreseeable future, much as I love this scenario. However I was able to write the final snapshot portion, originally as an ISOT. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,851
Likes: 45,995
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 1, 2017 5:47:28 GMT
Nova Rome verus old Rome, that is a timeline i would love to read. I can try and include this outcome in the 'final snapshot' segment of my incomplete TL, where it makes a summary description of the world outside modern Rome's borders, if and when I am done revising it for posting (I have yet to edit the last century of the first millennium, when Rome transitions into Renaissance, and a few bits here and there). Unfortunately I have a few general ideas about what may happen in the second millennium, but my writer's block prevents me from writing a real TL description about it in the foreseeable future, much as I love this scenario. However I was able to write the final snapshot portion, originally as an ISOT. No worry, do whant to know one thing, is your Rome a monarchy. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Sept 2, 2017 16:25:18 GMT
Kind of. The Imperial executive system TTL Rome evolves combines features of constitutionalism (written constitution and separation of powers), elective monarchy (the Emperor normally rules for life and the designated successor needs approval by the Senate, or by plebiscite in modern times; the Senate and in modern times the Cabinet elect the new Emperor if the established line of succession breaks down), presidentalism (the Emperor has vast executive powers and is the most influential and prestigious component of government, but the Senate remains very important in its own sphere), and a succession system that ITTL replaces hereditary monarchy, appointment by the incumbent.
It has all the conceivable pomp and charisma of a powerful Imperial monarchy that rules over half of the known world. The Romans like stability and efficiency, so they do not mind keeping a sufficiently competent and popular leader in power for life, nor they have any ideological objections to nepotism if it works. On the other hand, they remain sufficiently anti-monarchical and practical they never accept to make automatic heredity the main succession system, nor for that matter they ever create a blood aristocracy. Their society is certainly quite class-based, hierarchical, and based on patronage networks, but is pragmatic enough it never loses sight of the positive value and importance of meritocracy, so social mobility always remains quite feasible for the sufficiently talented. In this sense their elites are rather more similar to modern capitalist ones than OTL European nobility.
Therefore they develop their political system as a compromise between the strengths and flaws of elective and hereditary leadership. If the incumbent Emperor happens to have a relative or protege that looks sufficiently competent and popular, and proved his worth in public life, his succession gets accepted w/o question. If the supposed heir is lacking in the Emperor's family or close circle or the potential choices look like a Caligula or Charles II of Spain case, he gets sidelined and a more suitable successor gets picked among the Roman elites at large. They long ago picked adoption as a widespread tool to settle succession problems when genetics or fertility prove subpar, so they don't really have any blood purity concerns. For the Romans, the poor talented commoner boy that joins the army or the civil service, becomes a successful general/administrator and statesman, and impresses the Emperor and the Senate into making him the successor to the Imperial throne is a rags to riches tale that proves true in reality multiple times in Rome's history.
As it concerns the Imperial cult, when the Romans successfully reform their state religion in sophisticated paganism, it transforms into veneration of the personified Roman state rather than divinization of the Emperor. There is a sense Rome as an empire and a civilization got a divine mandate by fate to bring peace, order, prosperity, and good government to mankind. The Emperor is the apex and face of the Roman state and the most recognizable avatar of this mandate and so he commands exceptional authority and respect but he is not seen as divine or infallible, nor his bloodline as any more special than a modern political dynasty. The Principate vision of the Imperial office more or less remains true with the few tweaks described above throughout TTL Rome's history, with a more successful trajectory the switch into the Dominate model never happens. So the Emperor remains the exceedingly powerful and influential, quasi-dictatorial leader for life of a republic. It never adopts the personal excesses of elaborate choreography, etiquette, or veneration seen in other OTL monarchies. Then again, the Romans do love to ostentate their power, wealth, and successes a lot in everything from architecture to spectacles to public ceremonies, and this certainly reflects on the leader of their state.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,851
Likes: 45,995
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 2, 2017 16:27:51 GMT
"presidentalism (the Emperor has vast executive powers and is the most influential and prestigious component of government, but the Senate remains very important in its own sphere) Never heard of that until now. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Sept 2, 2017 16:50:34 GMT
"presidentalism (the Emperor has vast executive powers and is the most influential and prestigious component of government, but the Senate remains very important in its own sphere) Never heard of that until now. I'm not really sure what you mean here. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,851
Likes: 45,995
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 2, 2017 16:51:16 GMT
Never heard of that until now. I'm not really sure what you mean here. The phrase presidentalism. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Sept 2, 2017 17:16:05 GMT
I'm not really sure what you mean here. The phrase presidentalism. Since IOTL the Western political systems had a wholly different trajectory after the Dominate and the fall of Rome, it is not so easy to find a simple analogy among them for the system TTL Rome develops. It has a constitution and a certain degree of separation of powers, but it is not exactly a liberal democracy. It has a powerful executive monarchy, but it is neither precisely hereditary or elective, although it has features of both. It resembles a monarchy, but it has no true nobility of blood or divine right of kings or automatic heredity. It uses a succession system (appointment by the incumbent ratified by electoral vote) that was relatively rare IOTL but becomes the norm here. Certain features do seem more akin to a semi-dictatorial presidency-for-life than anything else. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 64,851
Likes: 45,995
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 2, 2017 17:18:14 GMT
The phrase presidentalism. Since IOTL the Western political systems had a wholly different trajectory after the Dominate and the fall of Rome, it is not so easy to find a simple analogy among them for the system TTL Rome develops. It has a constitution and a certain degree of separation of powers, but it is not exactly a liberal democracy. It has a powerful executive monarchy, but it is neither precisely hereditary or elective, although it has features of both. It resembles a monarchy, but it has no true nobility of blood or divine right of kings or automatic heredity. It uses a succession system (appointment by the incumbent ratified by electoral vote) that was relatively rare IOTL but becomes the norm here. Certain features do seem more akin to a semi-dictatorial presidency-for-life than anything else. Would the Praetorian Guard still be a factor, as they where known to change emperors. |
|
johnro
Banned
Banned
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
|
Post by johnro on Sept 2, 2017 17:41:59 GMT
Sorry, a question.
"Bronze swords" - engineering products of the Roman Empire?
|
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Sept 2, 2017 19:14:37 GMT
Since IOTL the Western political systems had a wholly different trajectory after the Dominate and the fall of Rome, it is not so easy to find a simple analogy among them for the system TTL Rome develops. It has a constitution and a certain degree of separation of powers, but it is not exactly a liberal democracy. It has a powerful executive monarchy, but it is neither precisely hereditary or elective, although it has features of both. It resembles a monarchy, but it has no true nobility of blood or divine right of kings or automatic heredity. It uses a succession system (appointment by the incumbent ratified by electoral vote) that was relatively rare IOTL but becomes the norm here. Certain features do seem more akin to a semi-dictatorial presidency-for-life than anything else. Would the Praetorian Guard still be a factor, as they where known to change emperors. Not really so. As part of the reform package following TTL equivalent of the 3rd century crisis (much less damaging here since the Germanic barbarians have been assimilated and Persia nerfed), the Pretorian Guard pretty much loses its influence as kingmakers. The Emperors curb their power and build a parallel guard corps to balance what is left. The Imperial ministers and counselors, the army, the Senate, the professional civil service, the wealthy landowners, and the urban trading elites become the components of the Roman elites that have an important say in the running of the state and may influence the Imperial succession, the pretorians not so much anymore. |
|
