Can we
pinpoint a time when the Roman Empire fell?
We’re speaking of
the Western Empire, which after a long decline symbolically fell in Ravenna in
476. But an enhanced Senate continued to exist for more than a century after ward.
The Roman concept of state was continued for almost a millennia, as the Holy
Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire continued to exist ‘on paper’, but
only as a legal formality. Let’s also not forget that the Eastern Empire continued
until the 15th century. Given all that, it’d be a phenomenal situation if Rome
never fell. ‘Never’ is the key idea here. For a Western Roman Empire still in existence
today would have to be so different from the reality of what made it the Roman
Empire that we could hardly call it that at all! A surviving Western Empire
might well hold vastly disproportionate influence over human affairs
everywhere. It would encompass, and indeed define, most if not the whole of Europe,
as well as other parts of the world.
How
possible is it for Rome not to have fallen; what would have to be different?
From the end of the
2nd century, levels of trade and prosperity fell, never again achieving the
levels of the early Principate. By the mid-3rd century, when the empire split
into three competing empires and widespread civil unrest massively disrupted
the trade network, the degeneration of imperial finances escalated. The state’s
inability to pay its troops increased too.
Essential items
such as weapons, clothing and food became part of soldiers’ pay, and much trade
took place without currency. One response was to debase the currency. In the second
half of the 3rd century the silver content of the antonianus collapsed, causing
hyperinflation, which had to be dealt with by Aurelian in 271 and 274 by
raising taxes and eradicating the bad coinage in Rome and Italy, but not the provinces.
To prevent continual currency devaluing, Rome would have needed to grow its
silver and gold reserves. Mines in Italy were not large or reliable enough, so
instead Rome could stem the amount of silver it exported to India in return for
spices, curtailing its taste for luxuries. Difficult! Preferably, they could
discover new sources that exist in Central Europe or sub Saharan Africa, or by
voyaging to Mesoamerica where silver and gold is plentiful and fairly easy to
reach.
Excellent cartography and astronomy borrowed
from Persia is key to making this possible. In the Mesoamerican scenario, the
Romans come up against the Maya, sparking conflicts the Romans would be
hard-pressed to win in harsh jungles, and greatly outnumbered. Instead, they
muster their advantage in technology and international connections to cajole
the Mayans into trade alliance to
develop their civilisation – exchange steel, machinery and urban planning for
Mayan gold and hardwood. With diplomatic outposts established in Mayan cities, Roman
legions, consisting of Mayan warriors as well, march to the gold regions of
Peru and California, returning to Rome with spoils that make the treasure of
the Temple of Jerusalem look like a prize at a village fete lucky dip.
How would
Rome’s government be different?
To keep the empire
stable, a balance would have to be struck between tight, autocratic rule by an
elite oligarchy, intelligent decision making, and the machinations of
prestigious, well-connected individuals. The expensive civil wars that contributed
to the collapse could be averted if Rome had reformed the system by which the
emperor was selected after the 3rd century, when the senatorial class was
marginalised and any connection with the imperial family was sufficient to make
a claim. Almost all emperors after that time were army officers or imperial
officials, and that stratocracy led to rivals and bloody conflicts. From the
mid-3rd century, emperors also wasted time with matters that previously were
dealt with by an imperial legate. If he was unwilling to trust anyone else to
deal with a distant problem it would be neglected, and the trend toward smaller
provinces made it even harder to get things done than
ever before.
Diocletian’s
Tetrarchic system from 293 quartered the empire,
each part ruled by
a sovereign emperor. But each group selfishly favoured its own aims over the
empire. So the system crumbled from near-constant civil wars. With much more
radical reform it might have worked if the Tetrarchy reformed into a Supreme Imperial
Office comprising more regional co-emperors, who were chosen only from the
Senate. And if reform included the chance to become a senator – or any official
– on personal merits, not just for being one of the landed classes
Intelligence and
capability also have to carry real political influence, basically an oligarchy
of technocrats. Each office is decided by a small closed election, a bit like
the way the Pope is chosen from a group of cardinals. But the periods of ervice are fixed, like the president of the
United States, so no office gets too much influence over the rest. Only
soldiers are allowed to keep their jobs as long as they are performing well, but
no general can become emperor. That’s very mportant, as is keeping the army properly
paid. It’s a system where anyone can become an official, or even emperor. Yet till oligarchal and Roman enough to preserve
the ideals that work so well in the empire’s favour – conquest, assimilation, xpansion.
That’s the basic theory, anyway.
How might
Rome have progressed beyond the 5th
century
and onward?
In the 7th century
the new religion of Islam galloped out of Arabia, and Muslim armies began a war
against both the
Romans and the
Sassanians, already fighting since the 3rd century. Many factors
would have to go into Rome winning the
war against this
fresh expansion. For one, Rome would need the resources to defend the Middle
East, which supposing they still have western Europe and north Africa, and are
investing deeply into gaining a foothold in Mesoamerica as I nvisage, it is still questionable unless they
can make up with the Sassanians. It’s a logical step for them to build strong diplomatic
relations with other empires; the Hunnic, Sasanian, Rashidun, Umayyad, Mongol,
and subsequent empires.
Despite all the
negative connotations of being an empire, a surviving, generally
non-belligerent Western Roman Empire
would in some sense
be the model of a well-governed, prosperous, cosmopolitan society, having
evolved beyond the strife and economic problems that dogged its early history, exacerbating
its actual demise. On the other hand, the cost of this may well be an even more
hierarchical and brutal society, with slavery still rooted, and a very harsh
law code.
Would the
world as a whole be more or less technologically advanced?
In certain areas I
suggest it would be a lot more advanced, provided there’s no stagnation of
scientific enquiry that happened in Europe
across Late Antiquity. Instead of the intelligentsia putting so much effort
into Christian religious doctrine and hoarding ancient knowledge in closed monasteries,
there is a freer circulation of information that allows engineering
to innovate much faster. Steel was known to the Romans, and sooner or later
they must have realised that making tools from it instead of just apons,
would increase agricultural productivity, and architecture would develop faster
for its use in tools, cranes and girders. The principle of steam power was
already known to the Ancient Greeks.
If the Romans had
cottoned onto the possibilities of that, combined with iron and steel, it’s
feasible they could have invented the steam engine, hence locomotives, revolutionizing
long distance transport, a rail network spanning the empire.
The Industrial
Revolution could have started a thousand years earlier, marking the beginning
of the end for the slave system. This isn’t necessarily for everyone’s benefit.
More powerful engines of war, including firearms, might well have encouraged emperors
to expand the empire’s boundaries, igger wars and extra pressure on state
finances and reductions in the overall standard
of living. But if the empire is not to fall, ambitions of conquest must be held
in check, maintaining the delicate balance of international relations.
Are there
any key events that could have stemmed Rome’s fall if they went differently?
One that stands out
is the Battle of Adrianople in 378 when Roman forces of the Eastern Empire lost
some 10,000 lives to the Visigoths under Fritigern. This gave the Goths free
rein in Thrace and Dacia, a major instigator of the process that led to the fall of the
Western Empire. The blame for this calamity rests with Emperor Valens (364 to
378). During negotiations, premature attack broke out from the Roman side, and
Valens allowed this to force his hand, ordering an attack that spiraled into a
disaster, including his own death. If Valens had kept his head, who knows?
Instead of being the ‘Last True Roman’ as he’s been called, he might have been
the greatest of them all.
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق