Roman Empire survives and stagnates

[Krall]

Something that's always interested me is how the Chinese empire's unity and stability in history ultimately prevented it from advancing, whilst the downfall of the Roman empire caused Europe to enter a dark age, which was exactly what they needed to try and innovate in order to catch up and overcome their weaknesses. However, could the Roman empire have stabilised, survived, and stagnated like China? How would this be achieved? And if it does happen, does the scientific and industrial revolutions still happen in Europe, or does another area become the centre of innovation in those areas? What do you all think?

[lscatilina]

Something that's always interested me is how the Chinese empire's unity and stability in history ultimately prevented it from advancing

What do you mean? Not only China went regularily into periods of disunity (at the point it impressed traditional Chinese historiography into a circular conception of empires : unity/division/unity), but China remained largely in advance on all matters (technologically and financially, for exemple) for most of its history up to the mid-XIXth century.

whilst the downfall of the Roman empire caused Europe to enter a dark age

dun, DUN, DUUUUUN!!!

More seriously..."Dark Ages" is about an historiographical point, as in there's few or no litterary sources avaibles making the period dark for whoever tries to study it, and it might concerns mainly England and Ireland on this matter, rather than the whole period.

If something, the IXth/Xth period was more traumatic and with more material evidence of regression than the Vth

Long story short, most of Early Medieval history is about the continuation of Late Roman features on most of matters.

I think that you're mislead into your understanding of both of these cultures : Roman culture didn't provided much qualitative leap compared to its predecessors (Roman engineering is often praised, but barely differs from what existed on the hellenistic period, for instance), while China toyed with chemistry principles in the same time, continuously advancing on these (think one millenia of advance on hellenistic experiences at worst).

[Krall]

Mar 10, 2016 0:14:50 GMT lscatilina said:

What do you mean? Not only China went regularily into periods of disunity (at the point it impressed traditional Chinese historiography into a circular conception of empires : unity/division/unity), but China remained largely in advance on all matters (technologically and financially, for exemple) for most of its history up to the mid-XIXth century.

dun, DUN, DUUUUUN!!!

More seriously..."Dark Ages" is about an historiographical point, as in there's few or no litterary sources avaibles making the period dark for whoever tries to study it, and it might concerns mainly England and Ireland on this matter, rather than the whole period.

If something, the IXth/Xth period was more traumatic and with more material evidence of regression than the Vth

Long story short, most of Early Medieval history is about the continuation of Late Roman features on most of matters.

I think that you're mislead into your understanding of both of these cultures : Roman culture didn't provided much qualitative leap compared to its predecessors (Roman engineering is often praised, but barely differs from what existed on the hellenistic period, for instance), while China toyed with chemistry principles in the same time, continuously advancing on these (think one millenia of advance on hellenistic experiences at worst).

Sorry, I wrote this post rather quickly, so it appears I didn't do a good job of explaining what I meant. Well, to a certain extent I'm not sure why I worded it as I did, but I remember the general idea I was trying to convey and I'll have a go at describing it a bit more clearly now.

My understanding was that China's size and access to resources prevented it from taking advantage of certain technologies, most notably industrial machinery, whilst Europe's disadvantages (low population, high wages, trade deficit) made it so they were able to take advantage of these technologies, ultimately leading to the industrial revolution and an era of European dominance worldwide. The concept I was trying to get across (again, I worded it very badly) was: What if the Roman Empire survived (in some form) and encountered the same issues as China did when it came to industrialisation?

Basically I was trying to subvert the usual "Roman survives and industrialises/survives because it industrialises" trope which I've seen a few time, and instead have Rome be unable to take advantage of industrial technology.

[lscatilina]

Mar 10, 2016 0:28:41 GMT Krall said:

My understanding was that China's size and access to resources prevented it from taking advantage of certain technologies, most notably industrial machinery, whilst Europe's disadvantages (low population, high wages, trade deficit) made it so they were able to take advantage of these technologies, ultimately leading to the industrial revolution and an era of European dominance worldwide.

Well, I can see where this understanding comes from, but it's quite unfounded : most of pre-industrial or even industrial features known to world can be traced back to China.
I don't want to pull a name-dropping, but between hydraulic-powered mettalurgy or floor loom (whom saying about that it allowed the industrial rise of Europe is an understatement) you had an insane ammount of industrial feature at least since Song dynasty : in fact, you had a more voluntary use of machinery to compensate the relative lack of industrial taskforce. (Which also pushed to a real rationalisation of ressources, such as gas or coal)

Features as mechanisation of time (which provoked in Europe the appearance of a pre-modern salary) shouldn't be overlooked.

As for disadvantages of Europe, the population reached a point in XIVth that if Black Death didn't showed up, you'd have ended with a loop of starvation crisis due to the lack of productive capacities associated with growing demographics.
Not that trade wasn't booming, but their main issue was the "metallic starvation", as in lack of enough precious metal to make up for the huge demand on money, that loomed up to the discovery of Americas and the appropriation of Peruvian mines (which incidentally didn't served to coin money, but to liberate thesaurized money in Europe)

Trade deficit may be a bit tricky there : it's not obvious Europe suffered a real trade deficit with other continents (while some countries did, but as trade didn't provided the main part of financial wealth, it's a bit moot).

What may have separated more China from Europe, IMO, would be more cultural concepts : so to speak, China saw itself as the essence of the world, what the world had to offer and ameliorated : it dominated trade on land and sea and there the existence of a super-block may have prevented the equivalent of the Age of Discovery to fully blossom (Zheng He's expedition, however do point that it existed).
It's really not before China loose the domination over its traditional trade partners (China Sea, India, Central Asia) that it become ripe for unfair treaties, altough one can argue that once Europeans get the hold on Americas, their dominance was going to be far more certain.

What if the Roman Empire survived (in some form) and encountered the same issues as China did when it came to industrialisation?

Interestingly, Roman Empire *may* be more akin to what you postulated about China. For instance, there's a lot of talk about this Gallo-Roman reaper machine but it was really a make-do used in Northern Gaul to compensate the lack of manpower and whom use never get widspread because it was both easier to use an unqualified taskforce and because the harvester damaged hay (which was a problem to cavalry or animal use).

Without stagnating, Romans didn't really innovated (partially due to the widespread use of slavery in the mediterranean regions) while they helped hellenistic innovations getting widespread within their empire. As such it's a formative period for European history, rather than a technological boom.

At some point, tough, the hellenistic corpus was going to get develloped on its own (a bit like IOTL Arabo-Islamic world develloped new features from it) critically with the development of chemistry or levers in a first place.

I think it eventually comes down to how long this maintained Roman Empire could sustain on a relatively decentralized agrarian production and a stress on trade that if would have a relatively important state intervention, would be still at least partially let to big entrepreneurs (rather than smaller ones) on a regional level.

Let's remember that the main financial asset in Middle Ages wasn't trade, but loan. One can wonder if a less ingrained loan culture (as it was since the XIVth) and a more "regionalized" agrarian production couldn't play a delaying role.
Just thinking it out loud, but it might be a clue.

I doubt it would prevent Romans to ever, ever go to Industrialisation : China underwent several steps, India as well, etc. But it would be something different from our pre-modern and modern industrialisation, that's a given.

So, no steampunk Caesar on an unlimited quest for technology and scientism (if the treatment of Alexandrine technological "games" gives any clue, at least).
That said, without more precision about how the classical and late classical Roman Empire managed to stay afloat, what the PoD is...It's hard giving you some clear answers onto how it would look. But giving IOTL ERE situation, it would be closer to contemporary China (as in, not unindustrialised, but with a different take on it both for cultural, political and economical reasons)

[punkrockbowler805]

I think there's a definite possibility. This is a favorite scenario of mine too and since China did it OTL, Rome should be able too as well, theoretically.

I'd say your best bets are either:

1: Have Rome remain officially pagan and butterfly Christianity so the internal religious strife that helped bring the fall of Rome in OTL is avoided somewhat.

2: Have the Crisis of the Third Century be worse, Rome break up into Brittanian, Hispanian and Palmyrene successor states for a longer period, then reunify again, thus preserving Roman cultural vitality and energy somewhat in the long run.

3: Have Belisarius accept the Goths in Italy's offer of the kingship, then have them become more re-Romanized, then have the Eastern Empire take over a more solidly controlled Italy later, OR, just have them get more control of Italy and North Africa and Spain and hold on to it during that period, and integrate them more.

[punkrockbowler805]

Or if you want to be darker and edgier, have Attila the Hun live, force Honoria into marriage, then use his dowry of the Western Empire to make himself Emperor and that could sustain it longer, though it would be Hun ruled for a while...

[lscatilina]

At my great sorrow, I've to disagree...

1 : "Pagan" isn't one system of belief and even less an organised religion. Instead, we're talking of a very proteiform, regional set of beliefs without that munch unicity other than cultural romanisation (and indeed, what's that common between Epona, Ba'al 'Adir, Mars Thingus*, Zeus Olympian, etc.)
It's noteworthy that the only real unifiying rites were civic/imperial cults, and that with the centralisation of Roman political power ongoing since the IInd century they had a broader importance.

Meaning that emperors usually pulled an "imperial cult" as a poliical device, would it be Sol Invictus of Christianity as IOTL.

One shouldn't forget that, eventually, the religious strifes while existing, weren't something akin to a civil war : most of the West remained largely unchristianized, and by sheer status quo, the more christianized East was competing more or less peacefully with other religions (traditionnal or new, as Manicheism).

It's when the Empire pulled an exclusive religion and stand with it, that you had a real religious policy akin to other imperials' and civic religious tensions.

An Empire that would not Christianize (altough I don't think that it would mean keeping traditional religions as such, you had a really important spiritual demand at this point) may be slightly different or more so, as in maybe a lesser stress on religious policies. (Which shouldn't be exagerated, until the VIth century and later in western Europe, religious differences weren't seen as an existential threat by itself).

That said : an empires divided onto "duchies" (see below) with various Roman rulers having different religious take may make the situation going quite bad.

---

2. We had some similar toughts about this (altough that it must be understood that IIIrd "break-away" empires never were scesessionist attempts but usurpers that both didn't make it up to Rome but weren't defeated immediatly by the emperor in Rome.

With an harsher IIIrd century crisis, with a more widespread "provincialism", it could get interesting.

You could just pick among early Aurelian's reign usurpers. You don't even need that the "official" emperor fails in battle : Gallienus was skilled, and it didn't prevented several rebellions or secessions for instance.

Eventually, you'd end with a more or less stable situation, with more or less autonomous if not independent regions (altough less ruled by usurpers, that having leaders de facto aknowledging Roman rule, but acting on their own. That said, you could have some usurpers, as Gaul's, formally acknowledging some sort of "suzerainty" from Rome).
Something we could call a "ducal" system (reference to the Dux Oriens title that Palmyrenians had, more or less vice-emperor or co-emperor) with Dux Hispaniae, Dux Occidens, etc. on a military-based command.

While organised, the Barbarian peoples weren't as strong they became later trough a process of structuration (with Roman support, concious or not).
You may have a more gradual Barbarian presence, as auxiliaries/laeti/foederati, than a general takeover at least in a first time.

Maybe ending as Barbarians eventually turning into patricians, à la Odoacer, ruling de facto over a given region in the name of the duke and/or emperor.

Eventually, the roman Duchies could form post-Imperial roman states that you're looking for.

---

3. Goths were romanized. The image of Barbarian kingdoms as a Germanic takeover onto foreign institution needs to die slowly and painfully.

Since the Ist century, contacts and exchanges with the Barbaricum (roughly Europe not taken over by Romans) boomed, at the benefit of Rome (not unlike why American culture is dominant even in countries not taken over, and still importantly present in countries whom rulers are hostile to American policies)

And I'm going to divert a bit the thread...Sorry.


German peoples, even before entering in Romania, where romanized to a huge extent : it helped that a good part of them was made of Romans by the early Vth and that you had a Germanic presence inside Romania since the Ist century trough deportations or mercenariship.

Not only institutionally, trough military and administrative matters (Sitilicho is the most flamboyant exemple, but it was repeted for basically anyone). But as well culturally, by the use of roman goods or tastes.

Does that means Romano-Germans were deprived of distinct features? Obviously not. But we have to check these carefully.
Francisca or eagle gibular are often described as being typically Frankish or Gothic. Fair enough. But these simply doesn't appear before their entry in Romania.
Nothing, nada, que dalle.

If it was the only one thing : but it applies as well to clothes, laws (even Salic law is hugely influenced by roman law), historiography (basically a mix of Aeneid, Bible and possibly folk tales), etc.
And still, these formed the bulk of romano-germanic identities. What did happen?

It's a common feature to see identitary features being exacerbated.
Hypenathed-American could be a fitting, if somewhat misleading ("It's like a bubble. Well it's not. But picture a bubble")

Romans were never too much about giving other people the same importance than their. Ethnographycally, it went to denying other peoples an history of their own. Meaning that once they identified (or mis-identified) a group of people, everything going in the same rough region was considered as the same. It's why Vandals by the IIIrd century were considered as Celts (well, admittedly, Germans were in great part influenced by Celtic features, but that's another issue).

So, it went down to this. A Frank, Goth, Saxon, is someone whom king is a/the king of Franks, Goths, Saxons.

Back to the main point. Romano-Barbarian kingdoms were in very large parts the continuators of the Late Empire features and institutions. I won't go point by point, as it's probably for another debate, but I'd be glad to participate.

If something Ostrogoths and Vandals were more along the continuity of a late imperial** culture than Franks or Goths (on which it's more about a post-classical romanity).
Now what about Belisarius accepting the crown?

Well, while I think he could have accepted it, but not as a king of Goths, rather as a patrice (see point above), which means subversient to Constantinople.
It would make sense...

Except that Justinian conquests were built on an idealized view of past Roman hegemony, which led to long campaigns in Italy and Africa (altough Vandals were out quickly, they had to deal with Berbers for decades), and if Romans can take Italy they will : it's a case of clear established political goals.

It doesn't help Justinian was quasi-paranoid, and that having Belisarius as a possible rival in the west (supported by his own troops AND Italo-Goths) when the general did have an history of disregarding or even disobeying Justinian orders and policies...

Let's say I don't think it would end peacefully.

You may have a better chance having the pro-Roman faction in Gothic Italy remaining dominant, making the need of a conquest due to the dismembrementn (including physical dismembrement) of these faction among Goths being butterflied away (tough it would certainly make the kingdom quite unstable and vulnerable on its northern borders)

---
4. Assuming that Huns wanted to conquer the empire (which is doubtful) they couldn't : they simply antagonized everyone there Roman as Federates, which is why Aetius managed to pull a Roman army with only federated, allied and auxiliary troops***

It doesn't help that the Hunnic "Empire" was more close to your average tribal confederation, as maybe 25% of the Huns were actually ethnic Huns, the remaining being germanic (as Ostrogoths, Heruli, Franks, etc.), sarmatic, iranian, proto-slavic, etc.

How it managed to live on charismatic rule is really highlighted by its eventual fate. In short, too shaky, too divided, and too poor (and maybe...contrary to other Barbarians, not enough "Roman" in spite of the obvious influence, when this greatly helped, say, Frankish or Gothic dominance) to pull a full-fledged conquest.

* It looks like a joke, but Mars Thingus is a real thing. It means "Mars of the Thing" and was worshippied in Danemark during Roman Times, prooving that romanisation was a real thing outside Romania proper.

** Roughly speaking, one can distinguish post-imperial romanity which is distinguished by episcopalian cities, roman law, and latin as common language; and late imperial romanity with municipal cities, maintain of classical spectacles and schools.

*** "Franks, Sarmatians, Armoricans, Litians, Burgondians, Saxons, Ripuarians, Ibriones, and some other Celtic or Germanic nations" - Jordanes

[Krall]

Mar 10, 2016 1:21:06 GMT lscatilina said:

Well, I can see where this understanding comes from, but it's quite unfounded : most of pre-industrial or even industrial features known to world can be traced back to China.
I don't want to pull a name-dropping, but between hydraulic-powered mettalurgy or floor loom (whom saying about that it allowed the industrial rise of Europe is an understatement) you had an insane ammount of industrial feature at least since Song dynasty : in fact, you had a more voluntary use of machinery to compensate the relative lack of industrial taskforce. (Which also pushed to a real rationalisation of ressources, such as gas or coal)

Features as mechanisation of time (which provoked in Europe the appearance of a pre-modern salary) shouldn't be overlooked.

As for disadvantages of Europe, the population reached a point in XIVth that if Black Death didn't showed up, you'd have ended with a loop of starvation crisis due to the lack of productive capacities associated with growing demographics.
Not that trade wasn't booming, but their main issue was the "metallic starvation", as in lack of enough precious metal to make up for the huge demand on money, that loomed up to the discovery of Americas and the appropriation of Peruvian mines (which incidentally didn't served to coin money, but to liberate thesaurized money in Europe)

Trade deficit may be a bit tricky there : it's not obvious Europe suffered a real trade deficit with other continents (while some countries did, but as trade didn't provided the main part of financial wealth, it's a bit moot).

What may have separated more China from Europe, IMO, would be more cultural concepts : so to speak, China saw itself as the essence of the world, what the world had to offer and ameliorated : it dominated trade on land and sea and there the existence of a super-block may have prevented the equivalent of the Age of Discovery to fully blossom (Zheng He's expedition, however do point that it existed).
It's really not before China loose the domination over its traditional trade partners (China Sea, India, Central Asia) that it become ripe for unfair treaties, altough one can argue that once Europeans get the hold on Americas, their dominance was going to be far more certain.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. In your assessment, what differences between China and Europe allowed the latter to experience an industrial revolution whilst the former did not?

Mar 10, 2016 1:21:06 GMT lscatilina said:

Interestingly, Roman Empire *may* be more akin to what you postulated about China. For instance, there's a lot of talk about this Gallo-Roman reaper machine but it was really a make-do used in Northern Gaul to compensate the lack of manpower and whom use never get widspread because it was both easier to use an unqualified taskforce and because the harvester damaged hay (which was a problem to cavalry or animal use).

Without stagnating, Romans didn't really innovated (partially due to the widespread use of slavery in the mediterranean regions) while they helped hellenistic innovations getting widespread within their empire. As such it's a formative period for European history, rather than a technological boom.

At some point, tough, the hellenistic corpus was going to get develloped on its own (a bit like IOTL Arabo-Islamic world develloped new features from it) critically with the development of chemistry or levers in a first place.

I think it eventually comes down to how long this maintained Roman Empire could sustain on a relatively decentralized agrarian production and a stress on trade that if would have a relatively important state intervention, would be still at least partially let to big entrepreneurs (rather than smaller ones) on a regional level.

Let's remember that the main financial asset in Middle Ages wasn't trade, but loan. One can wonder if a less ingrained loan culture (as it was since the XIVth) and a more "regionalized" agrarian production couldn't play a delaying role.
Just thinking it out loud, but it might be a clue.

I doubt it would prevent Romans to ever, ever go to Industrialisation : China underwent several steps, India as well, etc. But it would be something different from our pre-modern and modern industrialisation, that's a given.

So, no steampunk Caesar on an unlimited quest for technology and scientism (if the treatment of Alexandrine technological "games" gives any clue, at least).
That said, without more precision about how the classical and late classical Roman Empire managed to stay afloat, what the PoD is...It's hard giving you some clear answers onto how it would look. But giving IOTL ERE situation, it would be closer to contemporary China (as in, not unindustrialised, but with a different take on it both for cultural, political and economical reasons)

So, if the Roman Empire did survive, you're saying that it could maintain a decentralised agrarian economy which would prevent/delay innovation?

[lscatilina]

Mar 11, 2016 21:22:30 GMT Krall said:

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. In your assessment, what differences between China and Europe allowed the latter to experience an industrial revolution whilst the former did not?

I think the problems partially comes from understanding "Industrial Revolution" as a precise event in XVIIIth England.

More realistically, tough, what we had was a process that began earlier (manufactures are a good exemple) in Western world, and even earlier in China (critically during Song dynasty).

The question isn't why it didn't happened in China, rather why it happened earlier, differently and how Europe managed to fill the gap at its benefit.

Basically, the fantastic ressource boom from Americas at the benefit of Europe is a key feature. It's really what made European countries going on par with Far East and specifically China.
Others factors may include more important destruction and defiance toward foreign world due to Mongols (when it prooved being largely beneficial for Europe as a whole), and also the important role of state into economics (to NOT be caricatured into "state decided of anything OMG China was socialist all along".)
But really, IMO, Americas are a decisive factor.

As for theories issued by Weber and Diamond...Let's mention them shortly to say they're idiotic crap, with little to no actual evidence and mostly about a political stance if not agenda.

So, if the Roman Empire did survive, you're saying that it could maintain a decentralised agrarian economy which would prevent/delay innovation?

Not exactly : after all, Medieval agrarian production wasn't exactly made on a "national" level.

It's more that a lasting Roman Empire may prevent forces that made decentralization going even more of a strong thing to do entierly so ITTL. This roman state would certainly be more interested on fiscal revenues than on micromanagment letting this to landowners

If micromanagement is let to them, rather than peasants themselves, it may mean that the large loan usage that existed from XIIth onwards may not appears as IOTL or at least being delayed. Giving that this made most of capital for private entrepreneur investments, you see how it might be related to your OP.

It's just but one of exemple about a surviving Roman State not leading to a technoparadise, at the contrary.

Giving IOTL Byzantine policy, I still think you'd have a manufacturial stage, so to speak, would it be at least for trade income.