The Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years after the “Fall of Rome”. So the hypothetical of the OP actually happened. It’s just that most of us grew up in societies that evolved out of parts of the Empire that were lost very early. And of course, eventually all of it was lost, and nobody today identifies as the lineal heirs of the Roman Empire.
Quite true, what we call the Byzantine Empire called itself Roman right to the end.
I suppose arguably at some point it ceased being very Roman or an Empire, the fall of the Western Empire wasn’t the literal end.
Personally for me the proper date is the loss of N Africa in 698 AD. When the Byzantines became essentially a Greek near abroad.
Hmmm that seems reasonable, but they maintained a hold on southern Italian territories for longerand they had earlier lost (and regained) N. Af. to the Vandals.
Good argument there, but I think there is an argument for tying it to their loss of Italian terrirories (or perhaps as well to the point where Latin ceased to be the admin language). Hmmm looking that up it’s even earlier.
Well, since after ~ 1100 the empire never has any significant Italian or Western possessions, is more Greek than anything, I think perhaps that sets the latest date.
Southern Italy, which had had Greek influence for several centuries and still has Greek speaking areas. I think that would still come under near abroad.
Well, yeah I can see the argument for Sicily and the Toe & Heel of the boot, but the Empire kept a large chunk of unambiguously Latin areas.
I see your argument, but I think there is a counter argument. Not sure where to fall.
Still if we link up the transition to Greek as the administrative language and the loss of North Africa & Egypt, all this around the same time, it does set up a strong argument that the Empire from the late 600s /early 700s was no longer really the Roman Empire in a strict sense and had become a Greek empire using the Roman brand.
So I guess I am coming down on your side in the end.
Sure, it was a process not and event. But in Herculius’s time it was still the Roman Empire (despite the adoption of Basileous as the title for the ruler) but by the time of the second siege of Constantinople it was no longer Roman.
WRT the OP I think it was the Persian Wars that did the empire in, the huge expenditure of men and material in Iraq which ultimatly caused the loss of manpower, the necessity of conscription, the devaluation of currency which ended the Roman Empire. That would have happened even without the barbarian invasions. Lets not forget that most of the Roman army was usually deployed in the East usually on the Euphrates frontier.
Right, although I wish someone who knew about the climate issue could pipe up.
That was the premise of Kirk Mitchell’s Procurator Trilogy.
Have you read them?
Were they good?
Re Germania, I don’t see any reason to suppose a win at Teutenborg would be any different than the northern British experience (or Dacia), that is an unsustainable position.
Hard to say we can talk about this forever. I mean the butterfly effect is the real unknown factor. For all we know the Roman Empire fell because some guy fell off a horse and died. I personally think that any country that gets big enough will eventually fall or split. Communication is the big factor. It would take weeks if not months to transmit even the most mundane message which is why so much of it was self governed. I think personally attacks aside that it would have become to big to manage with lack of modern logistics and communication.
“Yes Ceaser, it appears there was infact a war in that far flung province last year, we will find out who won when the tax returns come in, or don’t”.
Similarly, Robert Silverberg has his Roma Eterna short-story collection. No real Jewish presence in Palestine, so no rise of Christianity, and Islam is stopped by a Roman official meeting Mohammed, realizing the threat that his ideas pose, and killing him.
Its ridiculous really-the Point of Divergence is when Moses and the Hebrews fail to cross the Red Sea yet the Rome still rises (despite it being four centuries after the POD) and has the EXACT SAME EMPERORS for another two centuries or so.
That is rather unlikely, indeed.
Also, without chritianity no Islam. Mohammed’s mother was a christian, he went from there.
You have a cite for that? I don’t believe I have seen that claim before. What little information I have on her makes no such reference.
Odd, I can’t find a clear cite on this, just like that.
Might I be mistaken? Can’t remember where I picked that up either.
That is, admittedly, an argument against it. Christianity did produce some changes immediately, such as abolition of infanticide and gladiator combat. I’ve heard it suggested that the chief difference between the western and eastern halves of Europe was in the balance of power between religious and secular authority. In the west, monarchs and the Church heirarchy achieved rough parity, so neither had the ability to take over and squeeze the life out of political and economic activity. In the east, the emperor still ruled and the bishops never had enough power to compete. Hence, despite some early achievements, the history of Byzantium is a mainly a history of decline.
And in reality how would a W. european situation - which came out of fragmentation of power - been anything but a history of decline and even earlier submersion in the more dynamic Islamic empires?
Apples and oranges I think.