Counterfactual history: What if the Roman Empire had survived?

Computer Sci

I have often wondered what our world would be like in 2011 had the Roman Empire survived, and the decline and stagnation of 1,000 years had been averted. For instance, would we be

(a) A space faring civilisation, with colonies in the far reaches of the universe?

(b) Would things like computers, the internet, airplanes, rockets etc. have been invented over 1,000 years ago?

(c) Would we be immortal and disease free thanks to 1,000 years of medical advances.

etc.

Cellach

You believe humanity will be immortal by the year 3000? I'd have to disagree. The problem with questions like this is that they tend to be based on a simple propisiton when history is anything but. How would the Roman Empire have survived? At the expense of the advancing Germans. So Roman Empire survives, no England. There are millions and millions of possible consequences coming from that one single propositon.

Then the question of what happens next. Does Rome expand? Does it stay static? What other empires grow. Rome survives, no England, no France, no Holland, no Spain and no Portugal, there for no colonies of the above, but doubtlessly more Roman colonies. Legionaires slaughtering Aztecs. Germans battling the Mongols in the Russian caucas because if Roman survives they can't expand west.

What about religion? Rome survives, Christianity is the state religion throughout the Empire. Is there crusades? A lot of the knowledge that started the Renaissance came from the wars with Islam, particularly in matters medical and scientific. In fact, the money that funded the Portuguese exploration came from Jewish merchants who fled Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire to Portugal and Spain, bringing their wealth with them.

Why do people assume that the years after the Roman Empire were ones of lost knowledge? Knowledge was indeed lost, but other technologies were developed that were unknown to the Romans and could well have stayed that way. An example you be clinker built hulls, which allow oceanic sea faring.

So in answer to your question I'd wager a no to A) no to and the question to C) will always be no, regardless of the circumstances. We will never be immortal.

The Roman Empire could easily have survived for another 1000 years of blood, fire and chaos as it could in a golden age of scientific advancement. Call me a cynic, but I'd lay my coin on the former.

dpe

None of the above. Romans were great engineers, but not brilliant original thinkers (they didn't do much to advance on the theories of the Greeks). There was a very conservative streak to the Romans (which later manifested itself in the control freakery of the Catholic Church), so while I'm sure an empire that held together might have progressed, it doesn't follow we would have progressed more than we have. Also bear in mind the Roman Empire only collapsed in the West; the Eastern Empire didn't end until 1453, and funnily enough (and not entirely coincidentally) Western development and the end of the middle ages, kicked off shortly after (the age of exploration in the west was heavily driven by the fact that the Turks had cornered the eastern trade routes with the fall of Constantinople and western trade needed a plan b).

Wibbs

Cellach wrote: »

The problem with questions like this is that they tend to be based on a simple propisiton when history is anything but. How would the Roman Empire have survived? At the expense of the advancing Germans. So Roman Empire survives, no England. There are millions and millions of possible consequences coming from that one single propositon.

+1. If I try this thought experiment I come up with China. IMHO Rome would be not unlike China in how it might have progressed. A large monolithic empire expanding and contracting making leaps forward but not capitalising on them. Inward looking and without competition from other states not moving nearly as fast as if the same area was split up into smaller competing states. Competition makes progress and faster progress.

Slavery and serfdom would likely have lasted much much longer too. The Roman church wouldn't have prevented that for a while either going on existing evidence. The pope sent Augustine(of Canterbury) to England to convert the locals(a bit tardily mind as the Irish had been there for ages). He came to this idea while walking through the slave markets of Rome where he came upon two English children for sale. He inquired were they from as was told they were "Angles" at which point considering their beauty made a lame wordplay joke in Latin about how they looked like "Angels". This tells us a couple of things. 1) the pope was no comedian, 2) there were active slave markets in Christian Rome and 3) he didn't have a religious issue with this and neither did his church and he didn't free those "angels".

A lot of the knowledge that started the Renaissance came from the wars with Islam, particularly in matters medical and scientific.

Yep again with the competition. Though C in examples you give a goodly proportion of those advances came about because after the fall or Rome the western European world had lost access to a goodly chunk of the Greek library on such matters(and indeed a goodly chunk of the Roman library with it). A library the Islamic empire gained access to and were able to improve on. If Rome had survived they would still have them. Though again medical advances in a continuing Rome under Christianity even with such Greek knowledge would likely have stalled because of their attitude to the sanctity of the body(no dissections etc). Islam had no such issue. I suspect if Rome had remained as the superpower Islam itself would likely not have survived, or be a tiny cultural faith on the fringes. The second they sniffed them nibbling at their borders all military hell would have broken loose.

Why do people assume that the years after the Roman Empire were ones of lost knowledge? Knowledge was indeed lost, but other technologies were developed that were unknown to the Romans and could well have stayed that way. An example you be clinker built hulls, which allow oceanic sea faring.

+1 again. One advantage of losing previous knowledge across a region is when it's rediscovered(if it survives somewhere like it did in Ireland and other isolated centers of learning) it's often looked at afresh. The rediscovery and interpretation and rejig of Roman law under the Carolingian Renaissance being a good example.

Aside; its often been a bugbear of mine whenever the subject of the "Dark ages"(ominous music) comes up. We seem to have a bit of trouble with it and it's often glossed over, even dismissed as an important period. As if nothing happens between recognisable empires waning and new ones waxing. /aside

and the question to C) will always be no, regardless of the circumstances. We will never be immortal.

No logical reason why not, beyond putting a date to when it happens. It's purely an engineering problem. There's no scientific barrier to it so if it's understandable it's therefore achievable.

The Roman Empire could easily have survived for another 1000 years of blood, fire and chaos as it could in a golden age of scientific advancement. Call me a cynic, but I'd lay my coin on the former.

Ditto or like I reckon a 1000 years of "meh" with the odd leap, but nothing world changing.

Capt'n Midnight

dpe wrote: »

the Eastern Empire didn't end until 1453,

/thread


What point of change would you pick for the alternative history /

Perhaps the banning of Lead Acetate as a sweetener for the upper class or discovery of sugar beet ?


China did not make the same technical progress as the Eurpoeans even though they had made lots of discoverys. The Europeans were in small kingdoms competing with each other. Middle ages inventions like the more efficient plough may not have happened in an empire with slave labour.