If Rome survived....

[Thrawn05]

The Pope has no authority to become or even select a leader. A leader might ask the Pope for a blessing but that's it.

I used to think that Popes could be emperores but that is not true.

EDIT: I will say, that Popes can be military leaders, and muster an army of navy, such as Battle of Lepanto, or on 9/11/1683, when a Polish general (John Sobieski), with a blessings of the Pope at the time, defeated a muslim army outside of Vienna.

[Ned]

Thrawn05 - You do know that the Pope anointed Pepin to be King of the Franks and later appointed Charlemagne, his son, to be Emperor of the Western Roman Empire?

The Franks forged a so-called Donation of Constantine to legitimize the appointments. This Donation was proven to be a forgery circa 1400.

Shi's rendetion of the Fall of the Western Roman empire is what happened. In the early 400's, the Goths (Visi) led by Alaric began ravaging first the East and then the West. The Western Duke called in legions from the German frontier to defend Italy against the Goths. The defense was successful and Alaric retreated. However, the Germans then invaded Italy. They were forced to surrender but were allowed to retreat to Germany. This is 406. In 407, they then invaded Gaul, ravaged it and went to Spain were they stayed. Later, the Vandals, invited by the Romans themselves to Africa, took Carthage circa 432. In the meantime, the Roman Duke (who is a Vandal himself) who held Alaric at bay was executed. Alaric returned to Italy. After having been bought off twice, he sacked Rome in 410. He then took his people and settled in Western Gaul.

Spain, Western Gaul and Africa are now gone.

At about the same time, 407, the Roman commander in Britain, moved most of his legions to Northern Gaul and set up an independent government.

Britain is lost. Northern Gaul, though still Roman, is independent.

Eastern and Central Gaul, Province, "Yugoslavia" and Italy are still in the Empire.

However, Attila devastated Eastern and Central Gaul and Northern Italy in 451-52. A plague hit Italy in 452. In 453, the Vandals sacked Rome for the second time, again after being invited to intervene in a Roman civil dispute.

At this time, 460, the Romans put together a very large army and fleet in cooperation with the East, planning to retake Africa. Their fleet was sabotaged and the effort failed.

This was the last serious effort by the Roman army of the West. In the late 400’s, the Goths moved their borders East until nothing was left of Central Gaul. The Franks took Northern Gaul. The Saxons took Britain.

As Shi explained, when the army pulled out - and it didn't pull out everywhere at the same time, civilization largely collapsed and the Dark Age came in its place. To an extent, the Brits held on under the legendary King Arthur. However, even they succumbed in the end.

The Dark Age came to Italy during the Gothic wars, which were closely followed by the invasion of the Lombard’s. There was a small renaissance during the time of Charlemagne, but when he died, the Empire was beset by Moslems from the South, Vikings from the North and Magyars from the East. A second dark age ensued. Things did not turn around until Otto the Great beat the Magyars in the mid 900's. This event marks the beginning of the end of the Dark Ages. Civilization is thereafter stabilized on the continent. British stability comes with the Normans in 1066.

[Traianvs]

Yes, but you are forgetting that in North-West Gaul a roman General kept fending off attackers even after the western roman empire had fallen and that a mini roman empire stayed for some time


Btw what you just said is nice, do you know that all by heart?(Those dates etc ) or did you go looking in some books or so?


Btw it's stupid to think that the romans would have sustained an empire for over 2000 years... impossible..
And besides, when the western roman empire was at its end, it already had undergone lots of influence from other cultures (mainly germans!!). If you look at the roman soldiers in the 5th century... they very much resemble germans (only better equipped of course)... the troops were also a lot less disciplined and more disorganised... Valerius II (i think) also complained about the fact that the soldiers didn't want to carry the heavy equipment (such as the lorica segmentata, armour) anymore so they were not even armoured like the earlier imperial troops...

All the good things of the romans declined so it was destined to be overthrown!

[Lord Merciless]

Rome wouldn't have gone anywhere technological wise. Byzantine Empire was the best example.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Trajanus
Btw it's stupid to think that the romans would have sustained an empire for over 2000 years... impossible..

Why not, the Chinese have.

[Traianvs]

it has? (i have no knowledge of china whatsoever)

But still it can't be in the same form... it's not because it is the same territory that it's the same empire... you could say likewise about the indians then...

[Ned]

Tajanus, I know it by heart. Ned

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why not, the Chinese have.

Someone finally stated the obvious. Thanks, che.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I seriously doubt it. The Roman Empire would become completely reactionary and suppress any and all new discoveries and inventions, particularly after they had adopted Christianity. The Dark Age was bad enough without a big empire backing it.

So you're saying that the Roman Empire would've started behaving in the same manner as the Ming Dynasty? I don't think the Romans would've been that short-sighted.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Ned
Thrawn05 - You do know that the Pope anointed Pepin to be King of the Franks and later appointed Charlemagne, his son, to be Emperor of the Western Roman Empire?

That's impossible. In no way can a Pope apoint any leader of a government. They may have asked for the Pope's blessing if they can be, but the Pope can't appoint.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Why not, the Chinese have.

After looking at the history of all of China's government, I don't consider China as a nation that lasted for thousands of years. But that's my own opinion.

[Traianvs]

Tajanus, I know it by heart. Ned

interesting.. you studied some kind of history then? or it's just something you're interested in...?

[Drake Tungsten]

China is definitely a nation that has lasted for thousands of years. They have had different indigenous governments and have been ruled by conquerors on occasion, but they have maintained their distinct culture and national identity throughout. I don't know how you can expect anything more.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Trajanus


interesting.. you studied some kind of history then? or it's just something you're interested in...?

Just a hobby, I guess. It all started after I graduated from college and read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I have since found that the reasons for the Empire's collapse are still today hotly debated. It is said that all empires decline and fall and that America will someday share the fate of Rome.

Just a point on Rome's collapse, there is point where Stilcho has Alaric trapped in Greece; but he gets away because of the Eastern Emperor, Arcadius, asks him to leave. Rome never recovered from this as Alaric goes on to instigate the collapse of the West.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Thrawn05



That's impossible. In no way can a Pope apoint any leader of a government. They may have asked for the Pope's blessing if they can be, but the Pope can't appoint.

No, Thrawn, it actually happened.

As I said, the Franks were aware of the suspect legality of the Pope's acts in their favor. This is why they forged the Donation of Constantine.

[molly bloom]

I lately read a fascinating book, on the mediaeval 'industrial revolution' - based on mill/water power. It also goes into some detail about ideas/inventions that are widely assumed to have begun or originated with the Renaissance, but actually date from earlier times:

Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution Of The Middle Ages
By: Gimpel, Jean

The powerhouses of this revolution were in part monastic mills, water and wind driven, some on pontoons beneath bridges. It also talks about the mechanization of paper making, a factor in the increase in literacy and wider dispersal of knowledge, and the division of the day into regularized periods with accurate clocks.

Some inventions followed on from Roman times, some were new, and some were adaptations or improvements of Arab or Iranian or Chinese originals. The Church's members, lay and religious, were frequently the innovators- Roger Bacon in England, for example. Inventions that freed the Church of the need to employ people were frequently opposed by the populace.

As for the Inquisition, various religious movements were suppressed, including the Lollards in England, the Cathars of Provence and the Hussites in Bohemia, and the Bogomils in the Balkans- it's simply that the Spanish Inquisition is the best known. The racial and nationalist bias of the Spanish Inquisition is really what makes it infamous- trying to make an ethnically pure state, by weeding out Jews and Muslims, even conversos.

Ironically Tomas de Torquemada was partly of Jewish descent, as was Isabella's husband, Ferdinand.

Could Rome have survived? Not without an extension of the franchise, but it's interesting to think what a unifying Roman culture might have meant for Western Europe- a continuous unified culture zone, like Han China.