A World Without Rome?

[Bear MacMillan]

What if the Roman Empire never existed? What if, instead of suckling Romulus and Remus, the wolf had eaten them? What if there was no Rome, and only "Barbarians"? Would our world be much different than today?

Cultures labeled "barbarian" by the Romans were actually quite sophisticated and technologically capable, in fact, most Roman inventions were based off of earlier Greek and Persian devices, there is evidence that Celts were adept at building sophisticated roads made of planks of wood hundreds of years before the Appian Way was built, Heron the Greek built the world's first steam engine almost a thousand years before the technology was "discovered". Certainly there would have been no Papacy, which would have had a huge impact on medical, technological and philisophical contributions during the middle ages and even today. The most important attribute of Roman identity was Romanitas, or, "Romaness", in which things like compassion were viewed as something for cowards and women; a true Roman should have delighted in bloodshed and gone to see the Gladiatorial games as much as possible. Romanitas was pushed on conquered people. (that is to say, the people who weren't ethnically cleasned) If it wasn't for that, our cultural morality could have been more empathetic and modern capitalism may have never developed.

Your thoughts?

[Dros]

Yes. The world would be much different. It's important to remember a few things:

Firstly, Romans shaped culture and politics over most of Europe and the Mediterranean for the better part of a millennium. The impact on geography, culture, language, religion, and politics that Rome had on Europe is hard to over state.

Secondly, to speak of "barbarians" without Rome is meaningless. In a lot of cases, these "tribes" did not even exist before Rome characterized them and labeled them as such.

Thirdly, while many of these cultures had certain technological sophistication, the influence of Roman science and culture has shaped Europe up until today.

So yeah. The world would be very different.

[Sentinel]

There would likely have been some other empire(s) which would have set the course of european history. Perhaps the Parthian empire or some of the hellenistic successor states of Alexander's empire might have established their hegemony over the Middle East and eastern Europe. Carthage might have succeeded with the same in western Mediterranean. But it's impossible to know, really.

[ckaihatsu]

Chapter 5

Rome’s rise and fall

‘The glory that was Rome’ is a refrain which finds its echo in most Western accounts of world history. The rise of Rome is portrayed as the high point of the ancient civilisations, its eventual decline as a historic tragedy. So one of the great works of the European Enlightenment, Edward Gibbons’ Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, begins,

‘In the 2nd century of the Christian era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth... The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury’.49

From one angle Roman civilisation was impressive. A small town in Italy rose to rule the whole Mediterranean area—Egypt north of Aswan, all of Europe south of the Danube and Rhine, Asia Minor and Syria, and Africa north of the Sahara. The western part of its empire lasted some 600 years, the eastern part 1,600. Everywhere the rulers of the empire oversaw the construction of public buildings and temples, stadiums and aqueducts, public baths and paved roads, leaving a legacy that was to impress subsequent generations.

Yet the civilisation of the empire as such added very little to humanity’s ability to make a livelihood or to our accumulated stock of scientific knowledge or cultural endeavour. It was not characterised by innovation in the same way as early Mesopotamia and Egypt, classical Greece or the last half millennium BC in India and China. Ste Croix goes so far as to insist that, apart from ‘two or three contributions in the realm of technology’, the Romans only surpassed their Greek predecessors in two fields: first, in the practice of ruling, of creating structures capable of holding together a great empire; second, in the theory of ‘civil law’, concerned with the regulation of property and inheritance (as opposed to Roman criminal law, which remained arbitrary and oppressive).50This is an exaggeration. Certainly, Roman engineering and architecture is impressive, with its viaducts, amphitheatres, temples and roads. But in most fields the main impact of the Roman Empire was to spread across central and western Europe the earlier advances made in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece. It added very little to them. What is more, the very basis on which the empire was built ensured its eventual collapse, leaving nothing in the west but the memory of the achievements it had borrowed from elsewhere.

[...]

The republic and the class wars

The constitution of the early republic gave a monopoly of power to a hereditary elite of ‘Patrician’ families. The Senate, the consuls chosen each year to implement policy, the judges, the quaestor administrators and the praetors responsible for law and order were all Patricians. There was an assembly, which had the nominal right to elect magistrates and decide on questions of war and peace. But 98 of its 193 votes went to the highest class, and the delegates from the ‘Plebeian’ small peasants had no say if these were unanimous in their view, while the propertyless Romans, known as the proletarii, had only one vote between them.

The leading families used their political control to increase their already substantial landholdings at the expense of the peasantry, pushing them into debt, taking their land and relying on the judges to find in favour of the Patricians. What is more, as commanders of the armed forces, they ensured they took the lion’s share of conquered land after each military victory. The bitterness caused by such behaviour boiled over into two great waves of class struggle.

www.istendency.net/pdf/2_05_romes_rise_and_fall.pdf


- Harman, _A People's History of the World_

[which doctor]

I think it would be interesting if American cities rose to prominence and stayed there. Instead of Rome there would be cities like Cahokia, Tenochtitlan, and Tiwanaku.

[Bear MacMillan]

The two biggest things Rome passed on to it's descendents were the standing army; all Roman soldiers were professional soldiers and had no other job, and could thus be fielded much longer than their enemies, because soldiers of other nations and empires were still farmers and peasants and had to return home to tend to the crop etc. The second thing is probably the "good lie", most Roman authorities regarded their religion as total bollocks (especially around the empire's conversion to Christianity) and used it to keep hold of the populace.

But yes, I suppose it would kind of be impossible to tell what it would be like.

[Dimentio]

Another City or kingdom had unified all of the Mediterranean world. Rome turned into a natural economic unit.

[Panda Tse Tung]

I don't think the question should be posed as 'what would world without Rome look like', but rather 'what significant impact does Rome still pose on current-day society'.

I think a lot of the technology's developed by the Romans we're inevitable to be established. You can see several different types of human inventions popping up on completely unrelated places, some are mere characteristics of human beings such as music. Whilst others are more concrete, such as bows and arrows ( i can name three places where these we're 'invented').

I think life wouldn't have the exact same shape as it has now, but i dont think the difference would be significant. Perhaps the industrial revolution wouldn't have occurred last century, but this or next century.

edit: when reading last century read: 19th century :p.

[Dimentio]

I don't think the question should be posed as 'what would world without Rome look like', but rather 'what significant impact does Rome still pose on current-day society'.

I think a lot of the technology's developed by the Romans we're inevitable to be established. You can see several different types of human inventions popping up on completely unrelated places, some are mere characteristics of human beings such as music. Whilst others are more concrete, such as bows and arrows ( i can name three places where these we're 'invented').

I think life wouldn't have the exact same shape as it has now, but i dont think the difference would be significant. Perhaps the industrial revolution wouldn't have occurred last century, but this or next century.

edit: when reading last century read: 19th century :p.

If Christianity had'nt held its grip and Rome had continued to prosper, then maybe the industrial revolution would have happened before year 1000.

[PRC-UTE]

If Christianity had'nt held its grip and Rome had continued to prosper, then maybe the industrial revolution would have happened before year 1000.

The industrial revolution wouldn't've taken off under the Roman empire as its rise would've supperseded the very class that held Rome together. I think also that Europe's disintegration into a patchwork of political states rather than one unified state facilitated the rise of the capitalists quite well. Stronger more stable states weren't able to transition to capitalism as easily.

[Andres Marcos]

hmm interesting, I like alternative history scenarios. Possibly most of Europe would have been invaded by the Mongols(who just adopted the culture of their populace it conquered) or Arabs, or Slavs. If it wasn't for Rome I don't think Christianity would have taken off in all of Europe. You could have very well seen an Islamic Europe, America might have been colonized by China, good topic reminds me of Turtledove books.

[Bear MacMillan]

If Christianity had'nt held its grip and Rome had continued to prosper, then maybe the industrial revolution would have happened before year 1000.

As I mentioned before, a Greek inventor named Heron invented the first steam engine called an "aeolipile" some time around the 1st century. The Romans knew about it, but didn't see it's military potential, so it wasn't considered very important. The Romans did this with alot of technology that could have made the industrial revolution happen much sooner.

[RedAnarchist]

hmm interesting, I like alternative history scenarios. Possibly most of Europe would have been invaded by the Mongols(who just adopted the culture of their populace it conquered) or Arabs, or Slavs. If it wasn't for Rome I don't think Christianity would have taken off in all of Europe. You could have very well seen an Islamic Europe, America might have been colonized by China, good topic reminds me of Turtledove books.

You should join alternatehistory.com, its a pretty good site. I use the name xphile2868 ob that site.

[ckaihatsu]

As I mentioned before, a Greek inventor named Heron invented the first steam engine called an "aeolipile" some time around the 1st century. The Romans knew about it, but didn't see it's military potential, so it wasn't considered very important. The Romans did this with alot of technology that could have made the industrial revolution happen much sooner.

It's easy to have a love-hate relationship with empire -- on the one hand it *does* improve the standard of living overall and can provide much-needed infrastructure, social services, and mass culture, across-the-board, more-or-less.

The political capital -- meaning political haggling -- that the rulers must put in for empire to be successful means that they become *very* touchy about any challenges to the edifice they have constructed -- or, rather, managed the construction of.

The edifice, or establishment, quickly moves to a position of monopoly, or oligopoly, over the politics of the empire, preferring convention and stasis so that they can milk the cow they know.

While I am generally in favor of political consolidation, if only to rescue outlying regions from parochialism, I know that the cost to society is often great, especially if there is no vibrant labor movement and class struggle from below.

Innovative thinking and grassroots initiatives will all-too-often be sacrificed on the altar of the status quo.

Those practices which do become widespread, though, will find an easier path to popular acceptance because of the pre-existing infrastructure and standards provided by empire.

Empire, of course, does *not* mean socialism -- it's not surprising to hear that the Roman Empire would have ignored inventions which could have potentially threatened the political power base. Even *news* of a liberating source of mechanical power could be politically disruptive.

One could easily make the case that, absent adequate class struggle, the revolution of mercantilism and nation-states was necessary for the social-material climate to reach a point where it *could* be receptive and supportive of innovative initiatives.


Chris




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Peacekeeper]

I think it would have been similar, but with Athens as the capital of a sprawling empire, rather than Rome. Fuck yeah, ellenikos!

[Invader Zim]

This kind of 'counter-factual' history is utter bullshit. There is no way of knowing how 'different' the world would have been if 'x' empire hadn't existed and, unlike some counter-factual history, it serves absolutely no purpose.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

This kind of 'counter-factual' history is utter bullshit. There is no way of knowing how 'different' the world would have been if 'x' empire hadn't existed and, unlike some counter-factual history, it serves absolutely no purpose.

I tend to agree.

It makes good fiction (I believe that Stephen Fry wrote a novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_History_%28novel%29) which outlines a world where Hitler was not born ) but serves no historical purpose.

In fact, I think it encourages (1) the idea that history is mechanically deterministic and (2) the role of single individuals.

[Dimentio]

The industrial revolution wouldn't've taken off under the Roman empire as its rise would've supperseded the very class that held Rome together. I think also that Europe's disintegration into a patchwork of political states rather than one unified state facilitated the rise of the capitalists quite well. Stronger more stable states weren't able to transition to capitalism as easily.

The Slave base system was already disintegrating in the third century, and at the forth century, the authorities started to tax people a'natura and not with money.

[PRC-UTE]

The Slave base system was already disintegrating in the third century, and at the forth century, the authorities started to tax people a'natura and not with money.

aye and serfdom first made an appearance at the very end of the Empire's days. The fall of the Empire coincided with fuedelism's rise and so it's arguable that the change in superstructure following the economic changes was inevitable.

[PRC-UTE]

This kind of 'counter-factual' history is utter bullshit. There is no way of knowing how 'different' the world would have been if 'x' empire hadn't existed and, unlike some counter-factual history, it serves absolutely no purpose.

Since Rome produced certain advancements and technologies, it's possible to make some educated guesses. I don't see why anyone is up in arms over this, it's kind of for a laugh.

[Andres Marcos]

I don't see why anyone is up in arms over this, it's kind of for a laugh.Yeah really <_<, it serves no purpose unless you are entertained by alternative history scenarios like myself.

[Invader Zim]

Yeah really <_<, it serves no purpose unless you are entertained by alternative history scenarios like myself.

Fair enough, but this sort of stuff actually masquerades as actual history. Yet in reality there is nothing one can really learn from this kind of history, sure you may be able to make some vague educated guesses, but its not 'real'.