If Roman empire wouldnt have collapsed

[Kagemusha]

I got this weird thought in my mind when i was reading Adrian II´s post in The What is the most important event in European History thread.If Roman Empire wouldnt have collapsed,would it have slowed down European progress on as whole?Without competing European kingdoms.Would have Europe ever developed itself this advanced as we are?

[IliaDN]

IMO it helped Europeans to devlop before the collapse, and could have helped after.

[Kagemusha]

I agree Iliadn.But for development do you think it would have been better or worse compared to Independant European kingdoms?

[IliaDN]

Well ... maybe it is good as it happened.
Roman Empire was to corrupted and too conservative ( IMO ) to bring progress, if those could have been eridecated than - maybe they could be a better option.

[Stefan the Berserker]

This is a mostly difficult question. Anyway it is not precisely asked: The roman state OR the Empire at its largest extend?

In case of the roman state survival meaning the Imperium Romanum itself survived, the Questions are about Odovacar, Julius Nepos and Theodoric the Great if the acted differently.

The common thing in any form of a conservation of the western roman empire, was that the catholic church never succseeded: There would be a western orthodox church and a eastern orthodox church controlled by their Augustus.

However this would result in roman christianity not being a political advantage for barbarians, helping the small subsidiaries of chritianity to survive. In some cases, Arianism could have become dominant. It is also expectable that Ásatrú would have better chances to survive, since the existence of the empire would not allow any smaller nation to rise and expand into pagan countries.

Case 1) The Ostrogoth Empire



The most realistic variant was that Belisar failed, with the Ostrogoths stopping him and declaring Theoderic the Great or later Athalarich to be the roman emperor in attemp to preserve loyalty of the italian population and independence of the empire from Byzantium.

This Roman-Goth Empire could have survived and created an Italian Nationalstate with parts of Yugoslavia and Austria, always in hostility with Byzantium. However it could have destroyed Byzantium, in case Belisar did not do the opposite, with the rise of the Arabs in the East and become a strong power. Further the Goths would replace the historical role of the Catholic Chruch with an Arian Statechurch.

[King of Atlantis]

I think the fall of the roman empire was evntually good, but no the fall of civilization. I mean so much knowledge was lost from roman times to the dark ages.

[caesar44]

One should ask , why odoaker did not established himself as the new Roman emperor , like many others before him . why he deleted the Imperium Romanum ? why he became the king of Italy and not the emperor of rome ?

[The Stranger]

myabe for personal fame, he wanted to be the first king of and not the 192th emperor of rome

[Stefan the Berserker]

One should ask , why odoaker did not established himself as the new Roman emperor , like many others before him . why he deleted the Imperium Romanum ? why he became the king of Italy and not the emperor of rome ?

He declared beeing a vasall of Zenon, the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire, and reunification of western and eastern Rome with his Kingdom as a clientstate. Thus made the Greeks allies instead of enemies.

The Byzantines accepted this agreement, however they later supported the Ostrogoths hopeing the barbarians would smash each other so they could take Italy.

However, easiest way the Roman Empire could have survived was if the Byzantines, who had conquerred Italy with Belisar, declared the dissolution of the western Pontifex Maximus and fullscaled Union of Italy with Constantinople.

[Marshal Murat]

If the Empire had not collapsed, then there would be a slow modernization.
If the Empire had collapsed, but a great amount of knowlage saved, then we would be better off, because nothing breeds invention like competition.

[PROMETHEUS]

The actual technology level of the Roman Empire at the ending stage was compared as pregress to the beginning renaissance era , the society was already transforming into a feudal one with or without the barbarian invasion , the german invasions simply put down lot of technology , education , culture , litterature , setting actually the technology backward of quit some centuries .....

[Marquis of Roland]

The actual technology level of the Roman Empire at the ending stage was compared as pregress to the beginning renaissance era , the society was already transforming into a feudal one with or without the barbarian invasion , the german invasions simply put down lot of technology , education , culture , litterature , setting actually the technology backward of quit some centuries .....

Agree. The collapse of the Roman Empire was the precursor to the Dark Ages pretty much. Europe didn't approach the level of technology and culture until the renaissance. That was about, what, 1000 years in between? No matter how conservative you are, you must make at least some significant progress in 1000 years.

[Gurkhal]

I must actually dissagree with the idea that the Germans drew the cultural time backwards. The culture simply took a different look from the pagan ancient culture to the Christian culture, and many "barbarian" rulers were highly educated and for the most times tried the best they could to preserve the Roman civil structure, as far as I know random destruction was not greater than Roman armies made.

Most of the image of the stupied barbarians that just came down from the north and destroyed everything without knowing is a myth. Even if of course the fall of what was left of the Roman Empire was not a dance on roses.

I recently read a book called "Krigarnas och helgonens tid" (Time of the warriors and saints) by Dick Harrison. It's in Swedish and I don't know if it can be found in English. Anyway it was very intressting regarding the years 400-800 AC and I would recomend people to read it.

[caesar44]

myabe for personal fame, he wanted to be the first king of and not the 192th emperor of rome

That is a good one , but what's wrong with 192 ? are you sure about this number , cause there are other numbers (for Roman emperors) .

[cunctator]

Sure they don`t wanted to destroy the roman culture and instead use the benefits by themselfs, but the decline in technology, general education etc. through all the wars and the chaos produced by the varous invasions can`t be denied.

[AntiochusIII]

The technological "recession" cannot be denied. It is true that many "barbarians" greatly valued Roman culture and tried their best to preserve them. However, "their best" is not very good. Europe was in the Dark age indeed. The kings and higher nobility may had access to tutors who preserved some of the lost knowledge but certainly not the majority of the European people...

[yesdachi]

If the Roman empire wouldn’t have collapsed there would have still had been bathrooms. Come-on would it have been so difficult to have saved the technology of the toilet . The Palace of Versailles was built in 1623? And had no formal bathroom! Of all the empires lost secretes I consider this to have been the worst one to loose. Shameon the Romans for not putting all their learnings in a time capsul of some kind.

[Gurkhal]

but the decline in technology, general education etc. through all the wars and the chaos produced by the varous invasions can`t be denied.

That it was going down, purly techinolocigal (I know about the spelling ) isn't denied. But that decline had already been started during the Roman era. Not to forget that very much were preserved by the monks and by the Arabs later regarding the ancient times. As such the ancient time's works and ideas were never forgoten, even if they weren't main-streem.

Many peoples, such as the Goths didn't even want to replace the Empire. Better to become part of it and enjoy the advantages, even if brute force was some times needed, when the views of the Empire and others didn't go the same way.

But I don't belive that the Dark Age was less covered in blood than the ancient time. Ancient people were very warlike and imperialistic, it was in the cultural nature. Even the democaric Athen showed many times purly egostic and imperalisitc actions over and over again.

However, "their best" is not very good. Europe was in the Dark age indeed.

That is purly a defination. That it was dark regarding the works of former authors and the like true, the culture chaged and the readers for which the authors wrote weren't the same as well as the cultural climate and tradiotion had also changed. Thus new themes and subjects were writen about.

I can asure you, the best of the Dark Age are fully comparible to the best of the ancient times.

The kings and higher nobility may had access to tutors who preserved some of the lost knowledge but certainly not the majority of the European people...

But as far as I know, the vast majority of the Romans weren't to well learned in those arts either, nor could they afford books which were always writen by hands and costes the same ammount that a peseant would work years to gather. And so ediucation remanined for the rich.

[hoom]

I used to think Rome was a bit more advanced than the dark ages but not really that much.

But after RTW I've become increasingly amazed how relatively advanced they really were.

Most recently I got a book out of the library called The Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World & was particularly impressed by the Euyalos fort at Syracuse.
Its basically a Renaisance era artillery bastion but from ~300BC

I think more interesting than if Rome had not fallen would have been if Rome had not expanded as much (Carthage allowed to prosper as a merchant nation) & the Diadochi (as well as everyone else) had settled down.
If there could have been a good peace for a few hundred years instead of the rise of Rome the world would have been very different now.
I know its an impossible dream but no more so than the idea of the thread.