Would Rome have been destroyed...

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2003-03-07 03:16pm

... if they hadn't been christians?

I heard that Rome fell because the "barbarians" wanted to be part of the Empire but Rome wouldn't let them, and the barbarians got angry. I don't know but I think this sounds a lot like christian mentality, not letting other people join because they aren't christian and/or of another race.

What do you think? Would Rome have stood if it had been ruled by people like Julius Caesar or Augustus and not by the pope? And where would we be today Rome hadn't been destroyed and the Dark Ages never took place? What kind of technology do you think we would have?

von Neufeld · Post by **von Neufeld** » 2003-03-07 03:34pm

I mostly blames the fall of Rome on the general decay and decadence of the Roman people. It is not healthy for a nation to be dependable of foreign mercenaries for its defence.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-07 03:55pm

It's a contributry factor IMO. there are many others.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-07 04:01pm

Well, the Byzantine Empire was a Christian theocracy and it surivived until the early 1400's.

Interesting thought. Most things I've read say that Christianity prolonged the empire, and preserved some of it's knowledge...

Artanis · Post by **Artanis** » 2003-03-07 04:23pm

First off, the Romans didn't want the barbarians because they were Roman and it was their empire, not because they were Christian. Combined with the decay seen in pretty much every empire, attacks from pretty much every barbarian from Germany to China (driven west by the Huns) and the Romans' habit of starting a civil war at the drop of a hat, religion wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Also note that the splitting of the empire is part of that decay: the West suddenly found itself without the rich Eastern provinces (like Greece) to tax while they kept the problem of attacking barbarians regardless. The West more or less just ran out of money, manpower, and time while the rich-as-hell East kept going for centuries.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-03-07 04:27pm

von Neufeld wrote:I mostly blames the fall of Rome on the general decay and decadence of the Roman people. It is not healthy for a nation to be dependable of foreign mercenaries for its defence.

Quite right.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-07 04:27pm

which was of course split by.. Constantine, a christian

I'll get back to this in the morning.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-07 04:52pm

Did Christianity cause the fall of Rome?

No, it hurt them in some ways and helped in others. Realistically though what doomed the Roman Empire was internal division, a seriously weakened military, and a social stangnation. They simply died because they were in every way unprepared as a society for the growing might and cunning of the barbarians.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-07 05:07pm

What do you think? Would Rome have stood if it had been ruled by people like Julius Caesar or Augustus and not by the pope?

Rome was ruled by the Emperors. They were effectively the head of the Church while the Roman Empire endurded.

Even Julius Caesar or Augustus couldn't have saved Rome. It was too far gone for that to happen. They were fucked thanks to the decay that had set in. Roman society was fractured, decadent, weak, and with out the will to fight properly. Maybe some one of the caliber of Alexander the Great could fought off the barbarians but Rome was doomed anyways.

Now if the quality of leadership had been better in the generations prior Rome might have had a real fighting chance.

And where would we be today Rome hadn't been destroyed and the Dark Ages never took place? What kind of technology do you think we would have?

Rome would have fallen sooner or later. It couldn't, wouldn't last forever. No society can remain dominant in the way Rome did for long. And when it broke it probably would have turned out something like the Dark Ages.

Even if it had broken more peacefully things would still go down a similar path. War would sooner or later have broken out. There were too many different groups crowded into Europe for it too have been otherwise.

Technology wouldn't be radically different. It is a process that is simply cumulative and the problem was that until much later there wasn't anything resembling a proper scientific method. The application of rational science, even if the concepts weren't fully understood, did more to advance things than any Empire.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2003-03-07 05:22pm

Would Rome fall? Yes, but it would have been gentler. The barbarians would start to outnumber the Romans and they'd be a war to replace them. The Romanized barbarians would repel the other barbarians and maybe spread back into their old lands after the Huns are defeated. If the Arabs are stopped before completely taking over Egypt and Syria, I see a powerful, but loosely connected, empire akin to the Holy Roman Empire with the strongest groups being the Greeks (Balkans, Anatolia, Syria, Egypt), Romans (Italy), Romanized Britons (England), and Barbarians (Gaul, Iberia). However, with the Arabs in Mesopotamia, they essentially take the place of Sassanid Persia, so you could get the same situation but 250 years in the future. Don't forget that this doesn't affect the Vikings, Mongols, or many other barbarian hordes in the Russian steppes.

Apologies if this isn't very neat or a complete thought, I'm a little out of it today...

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-07 05:56pm

A better question is whether or not Rome would have fallen had it begun the Industrial Revolution of the late 1700's?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-07 06:59pm

rome fell because so many barbarians wanted to be part of the glorious roman empire and invaded to take it for their own but in doing so destroyed its greatness.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-07 07:00pm

jegs, rome could have so easilly initiated an industrial revolution, as could have greece. the technology was there.. such a shame *sigh*

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-03-07 07:44pm

However, they lacked the industrial infastructure too support anything beyond Italia at best. Especially a lack of iron for rail ties. But nonetheless had they developed effective mining techinques they could of practically started shoveling out legions and railroads. And if there is a need for mining techniques I'm sure the Roman engineers could devise something.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-07 07:47pm

could they not have used say.. bronze for rail ties? and also, the romans used iron for their armor and swords so i dont see a real lack.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-07 08:16pm

I have a great essay on this sitting around. I'll post it when I get home.

Rome was going to fall ever since the mid-2nd century, it was inevitable.

Shrykull · Post by **Shrykull** » 2003-03-07 08:35pm

Dooey Jo wrote:... if they hadn't been christians?

I heard that Rome fell because the "barbarians" wanted to be part of the Empire but Rome wouldn't let them, and the barbarians got angry. I don't know but I think this sounds a lot like christian mentality, not letting other people join because they aren't christian and/or of another race.

Well, all the money was being used to buy the position of Emperor, they "hired" the visigoths to guard a large area of thier territory, but didn't pay them, so they marched on Rome.

What do you think? Would Rome have stood if it had been ruled by people like Julius Caesar or Augustus and not by the pope? And where would we be today Rome hadn't been destroyed and the Dark Ages never took place? What kind of technology do you think we would have?

Who says we would be way technologically advanced? Remember there were a lot of things that the Romans didn't believe in studying, like the higher maths, and even medicine which often a slave administered. Philosophy was at the top of thier list mainly. However, the greeks did however once create a steam engine, but never thought of putting it to use in steam ship or the like.[/quote]

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-07 08:56pm

shry, already mentioned. apparently they were too caught up with philosophy rather then practical science. fools.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2003-03-08 06:36am

Shrykull wrote:Who says we would be way technologically advanced? Remember there were a lot of things that the Romans didn't believe in studying, like the higher maths, and even medicine which often a slave administered. Philosophy was at the top of thier list mainly. However, the greeks did however once create a steam engine, but never thought of putting it to use in steam ship or the like.

True, but at least they weren't afraid of science like the church was during the Dark Ages. I don't think they would have killed people for not agreeing with them.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-03-08 11:39am

Rome didn't fall as much as it simply melted away over the course of a century and a half. The splitting of the empire accelerated the process, but in reality the seeds for Rome's downfall were sown when they ceased to be an expansionist power and attempted to defend what it had with no further foreign wealth coming in and with large contingents of barbarian mercenaries in the ranks of its armies. The strains of fighting several treasury-draining defensive wars, combined with slavery which negated any incentive to develop a viable economic machine not dependent upon simply stealing the wealth of other peoples, and the strains of overexpansion made the Roman Empire a system which could not endure.

Any superstate which depends upon a bloated military to sustain itself must inevitably collapse or split apart due to the financial pressures involved in attempting to maintain itself, as the Soviet Union found out.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-03-08 12:46pm

Dooey Jo wrote:... if they hadn't been christians?

Tempting though it is to make the christians scapegoats for this, it wouldn't have changed much.

And where would we be today Rome hadn't been destroyed and the Dark Ages never took place? What kind of technology do you think we would have?

In order to have such massive changes the most likely point of divergence is the disaster in the Tuetobuger Wold caused by the defeat of multiple legions by one Arminius, the great german folk hero who managed to set germany back centuries. Anyway, if they had not been defeated, and had conquered germany, then there may have been a radically different history, as there would have been far more rescorces available to the empire (and a shorter frontier) In addition this disaster took the imptus from Roman Expansionism.

However there would still need to be a shift in thinking towards the scientific meathod, in which case the industrial revoloution could/would have taken place (off the backs of slaves at first, but eventually the new industrialists would work out as the real ones did, that employees are basically slaves who you rent) quite easily.

In order to achieve the first there is a relatively minor change is neccesery, namely send a compotent legate to germany instead of the assclown who got the job. The second would be slightly more difficult, as it would require more changes from the known timeline, possibly a visionary emperor would be needed.

It would also help long term if at some stage they managed to restore the Republic. An alarming number of emperors were seriously deranged (Caligula Nero Commodus etc.)

Both of these would need to happen before AD 100-150 in order to save Rome. If it is any consolation a shift to scientific thought would preclude christianity ever taking in the empire.

For a start if the shift to scientific thought had taken place roman armies probably would have become unstoppable (imagine the US army loose in AD 1000

Though some seepage of tech would be neecesery to keep the drive to inprove miltech to our level or beyond, it would probably happen anyway.) Again with that essential shift they would probably conquer the planet (followed by a tremendous economic downturn)

{Now all I need is a time machine and some tech to ensure I become emperor, and big tech library}

Technology wise, a whole pile of stuff would be possible, and you can be sure they wouldn't stop after going to the moon a few times.

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2003-03-08 01:42pm

I favor the "lead plumbing" theory myshelf. The well-to-do and poweful getting lead poisioning would probaly weaken any country.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-08 06:25pm

Lonestar wrote:I favor the "lead plumbing" theory myshelf. The well-to-do and poweful getting lead poisioning would probaly weaken any country.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGH!!!!!!

*dives on top of and begins pumelling Lonestar*

*With each smash of his head into the concrete I shout*

NEVER EVER SPEAK OF THAT THEORY AROUND ME AGAIN!

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-08 06:38pm

OK, I can't find the essay I wrote so I'll quickly summarise reasons for the fall.

East-West split in the Empire.

200 years + of incompetent leadership interspersed with coups to try and get competent leadership... and failing. Most emperors were in power for less than 5 years before being knocked off by the military, not nearly enough time to even begin to implement changes in the Empire.

The foundation and collapse of the tetrarchy system had a lot to do with this.

MASSIVE inflation, precious metal content of coins going through the floor, meaning that they became essentially worthless, but without the associated changes in the listed value of the coin. This meant that the economy was sliding downhill rapidly.

Religious divides, only a minor issue early on, Christians had been tolerated in the empire for years, the fact that they had become a recognised religion made little difference. Oh - and Constantine was not a fucking Christian. Later however you get the Emperors granting more power to the Christians (this is once the capital has been moved to Constantinople, effectively alienating the senate and the rest of the Western Empire), who begin actively purging (think Holocaust) those who follow the traditional gods. This is again part of the East-West divide.

Barbarian tribes, not a real problem, they'd always been a thorn in the side, but they were no greater threat now. One the empire collapsed however, they made significant land grabs.

Lead pipes. Hisssssss. Stupid fucking theory. Had about as much to do with the fall as fluoridisation has to do with a Communist conspiracy to corrupt or bodily fluids...

Malaria, a recent "fad" theory. Stupid. Some archaeologists find a some remains that bore the signs of death from malaria in a remote Roman city and conclude that a malaria plague wiped out the empire... Dumbarses.

To quote what I remember the closing lines of my essay were:

"There was no single cause of the fall of the Roman Empire, there were many causes that over the course of three centuries had matured to such a point that it was impossible for the empire to endure the problems further."

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-03-08 07:17pm

Lead pipes probably didn't matter as much as the Romans' love for "sugar of lead" (lead acetate), which was formed by boiling wine down in lead vessels. Sure, it was the world's first artificial sweetener, but it's also very toxic. The fact that they used it in many different foods and drinks says something...

But lead poisoning was probably the least of the Romans' worries.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Would Rome have been destroyed...

Would Rome have been destroyed...

Re: Would Rome have been destroyed...

Re: Would Rome have been destroyed...