0
What if the Roman Empire never declined? Where would we all be today and what sort of differences would there be? These are a few questions I ask myself when I think about Rome and its demise. Many things would be different today and history would have taken a different route on its long and bumpy journey.
Simply, there isn't an exact answer to my questions but assuming that the Roman Empire survived more or less at its peak during Trajan's time and continued on progressing as it had, fending off its enemies and miraculously having relatively strong, wise leaders interested in the greater good of the empire rather than their own personal gain and glory. There were many others who also wanted to be emperor, however with Rome being free of the constant usurping intrigues and civil wars brought about by the constant struggle, there were many other powerful Romans wanting to be Emperor.
The only way I could see that realistically happening in that time period is if somehow the Romans maybe would come up with a type of Constitution and return to their republican ways where all of the various nationalities and races were considered equal and all people of the empire had satisfactory representation in government. I sit here laughing just thinking about it because it was not the "Roman way." Their self perceived superiority got them into a lot of trouble throughout their history. Let's also assume they remained Pagan because with the adoption of Christianity it really seems like many doors in the area of science, medicine and technology were closed, because instead of instilling a degree of national unity by adopting Christianity it actually created a lot of religious fervor by a lot of uneducated people which of course turns science and technology into heresy and witchcraft. Assuming this happened to some degree we can postulate what might have happened.
At the time of Trajan, Rome was by far the most advanced and well organized nation in the Western Hemisphere. Its armies were adaptable and flexible. There are technological advances made by the Romans that were absent from the world since their fall and were not seen again till modern times. There are advances that we still have yet to discover as well. Science, technology and learning were accepted and sought out. Rome's neighbors for the most part feared these things. They all coveted Rome's wealth.
Rome at the time was big and unwieldy, hard to manage with the slow transportation and communication systems, so I would predict a stagnant or very slow expansion of the empire but with fertile environment for technological advancement and learning. It is clear that Rome would have at the very least could have through annex or conquest controlled all of Europe and the Middle East given that their expansion was tempered by well managed consolidation and assimilation of the conquered territories and people.
Ultimately it is safe to say that the human race in today's age would be at least two hundred to four hundred years more advanced than we are now. This would mainly be the case because with the fall of Rome and with the beginning of the Dark Ages-science, medicine, education, sanitation, personal hygiene and technology for the most part was put on hold or all together wiped out by the Barbarians that shunned or feared these things. Finally that would have set all of us back.
I believe that the Earth's population would be much higher due to less people dying of plagues and sickness as well as lower infant mortality rates. In the long run the world would have been better off if Rome had survived. They carried their laws, education and advancements everywhere they went. If only they were more into assimilating rather than subjugating to those they conquered perhaps they may have been able to create a nationalism that united all peoples, however, like I said before this would not have been the Roman way.
All the countries of the empire would speak one language (some form of Latin) and depending on whether the empire would support Germany in WW2 (Italy did) the Axis powers would probably had won WW2. The US and Canada would be populated by beaners and the English language would never had come to exist. The cold war would be between Germany, Russia and the Roman empire (the American continents would be a part of the Roman empire). Asuming that the Romans didnt lose any part of Africa either, the entire African continent would be Roman when technology evolved enough (due to the closer location to Africa it is more likely the Romans would get the continent that any of the other super powers). Australia would probably get taken by the Romans too. That means that the Roman empire would be four and a half continents big, while Germany would have to settle with half a continent (unless they take North America before the Romans).
Also, homosexuality would be accepted from the start and racism would barely exist within the empire.
Answer 1
If Rome never fell then we would be an extra 800 years advanced in technology, because when the dark ages came we forgot most of the stuff the Romans had invented. The world would also be more largely populated because there would never have been the dark ages, and we would probably be speaking Latin.
Answer 2
This is a good question. The fall of Rome did indeed mark a great turning point for history in Europe and the world, Europe for it lost its knowledge and 'civilized' appeal and the world lost great traders and allies (or foes).
If Rome did not fall it would most likely improved our advancements however it depends on a few things.
1) If the leader was even interested in advancing things
2) If there were wars to advance
Rome would have most likely invented ships which could reach America, which of course would have a massive impact on the world; it would make Rome become not just a Europe Empire but a World Empire with vast wealth and population (provided it can survive the new diseases found in the new world and wars that come with it).
Now working on past history as we know it, rulers come and go, and if a bad ruler was to appear during this 'world empire' it could have sparked a global conflict stretching from North and South America to Rome itself. Eventually an Empire of this size and scale would crumble so if Rome didn't fall when it did it would have fallen at some point, it would advanced us about 500 years, maybe making the industrial revolution happen in 1300AD and not late 1790's.
But what would happen if a ruling empire of such vast size was to end? the world would be in disarray for hundreds of years, so it would have advanced us and made the dark ages not happen but it would have only postponed it, meaning 2008 could of have been a very different place.
If you're thinking about the fall of Rome, don't forget about Egypt too, they were very advanced for their time, what if they decided to conquer?
Overall all if Rome didn't fall when it did, it could have more catastrophic if it happened if it controlled 90% of the earth's population. It's like you, being left on an island, you would know what a phone, computer and radio was, but would you be able to make one... maybe... maybe not.
Answer 3
Both of the above answers assume the greatest things about the Roman Empire would persist into the future. I am personally more pessimistic. The best evidence we have for how Rome would have persisted into the future was the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire) which survived as a stagnating and limited power from 476 C.E. to its capitulation in 1453 C.E. Rome's collapse was as much internal as external and event if the various Germanic Tribes did not conquer Rome, the Empire would have collapsed due to sectarianism and weakening central authority. If the Roman Empire of 50 C.E. had endured (without much internal governance change), it would have been much more similar to what the above answers purport.
Answer 4
Answer 3 provides a very good point but the reason Rome fell was because of the constant internal conflict as well as the Barbarian invasions and pressure from the East. Therefor if Rome were to have not collapsed it would be safe to assume that it was because civil wars and assasinations of Imperators would have become no longer and the Empire would only have to worry about invasions. Therefor, I would say unless Rome would somehow regress to once again have civil wars and assasinations (basically political instability) it would be led by people who were like Augustus and would have eventually encompassed all of Europe and much of Africa as well. The Barbarians would have easily fallen to a politically stable and unified Roman Empire and the Sassanids would have also not been too big of an issue. At this point the only thing "standing in the way" of the Roman Empire would be China and the Far East. Assuming the two forces stay on good terms Rome would progress at a rate that Asia could only dream of and eventually being the ever so prideful Empire it is it would clash with China and in my opinion ultimately win. When the New World is discovered I believe the Romans would bring Roman culture to the Native Americans and either intermarry and make the Natives Roman citizens(as the Romans did with essentially every group they captured) or just like the Europeans, simply massacre and destroy the Native culture forever and plunge the natives into a dark society plagued by Alcoholism, rape, etc. Rome's biggest problem was the constant internal instability because of the senate, assasination, and civil wars. If none of those were a problem the entire world would be speaking Latin right now so to speak. The Romans were a very cruel people as well so expect everyone to be forced to convert to Christianity at some point and women to still not have the same rights as men (which would probably change in the modern ages). Like the first two answers technology would have been advancing non-stop without any intermission period (the Dark Ages) where it actually regressed a bit.
P.S. Hopefully since the Romans valued great things like Logic, dialectic, rhetoric, and the idea of using education to create an effective well rounded member of society the modern education system in places like the U.S. wouldn't be so damn terrible like it is right now. Oh, and we would also probably be praising Imperator Gaius Octavius Augustus in school, work, and church since he was the genius who started it all.
___________
The great days of Roman technological advance ended long before even the western Empire. If the undivided state had somehow managed to limp along (unlikely given the rottenness of its system of government) it would have been as an increasingly parasitical burden on its subject populations, not to mention the five million slaves who toiled under its yoke without even the nominal forms of citizenship. It fell because of internal strains as well as external pressures, and because its day was done. And its going was no loss.
then i think the carthagians and macedonians would have conquered some parts of Europe and the rest would probably have a civilization comparable to the 13th century.
that's what i expect
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Which Roman era lasted the longest the Roman monarchy the Roman Republic the Western Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire?
The Byzantine Empire lasted for a millennium.
After the capital of the roman empire was moved to constinople the roman empire lasted about?
After the capital of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople, the Empire lasted over 1000 years.
What empire ruled Egypt in the 2nd century AD?
The Roman empire ruled Egypt in the second century AD.The Roman empire ruled Egypt in the second century AD.The Roman empire ruled Egypt in the second century AD.The Roman empire ruled Egypt in the second century AD.The Roman empire ruled Egypt in the second century AD.The Roman empire ruled Egypt in the second century AD.The Roman empire ruled Egypt in the second century AD.The Roman empire ruled Egypt in the second century AD.The Roman empire ruled Egypt in the second century AD.
What did the eastern portion of the roman empire became known as?
It was known, while it existed, simply as the Roman Empire. In order to distinguish it from the Western Roman Empire, historians have taken to calling it the Byzantine Empire. This name refers to Byzantium, which was the original name of the city of Constantinople, the Eastern Roman Empire's capitol.
Did the Byzantine Empire crumble before the Roman Empire?
After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Constantine I founded the Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Roman Empire, on the shores on the Bosporus, in the city of Byzantium, which He renamed Constantinople after himself, in the year of 327 AD .
What building survived the fall of the roman empire?
The Roman Catholic church survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Orthodox Church survived the fall of the Byzantine Empire.
What part of the Roman empire survived after the fall of the city of Rome?
culture of the eastern roman empire survived the fall of by still being used by the byzantine empire (but i cannot give specific culture dtails)
When the Roman empire was divided the portion that survived was the?
The portion of the Roman Empire that survived after all power in Rome was reduced to nothing like its former self was the Eastern half of the empire which lasted until 1453.
Which half survived longer?
the east side of the roman empire
What part of the roman empire survived for another thousand years after the fall of the city?
You're thinking of the Byzantine or the Eastern Roman Empire.
What side East or West the roman empire survived longer?
The Western Empire disintegrated by the end of the 4th Century, the Eastern Empire survived until the mid-15th Century.
Which institution best survived the collapse of the Roman Empire?
Probably Man Utd
What role did the roman law play in creating western mentality?
Though Roman government in the form of the Byzantine Empire survived in the East. Though Roman government in the form of the Byzantine Empire survived in the East ... While Rome's absence in the West brought with it tremendous change.
Why did the Roman Empire in the east survive after the Roman Empire in the west fell?
Because the western empire was plagued by invasions and existed only in name by the 5th century. The eastern empire by contrast survived until 1447
How many years after the western roman empire fell did the eastern roman empire last?
Using the conventional date for the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire, it would be 81 years. The Roman Empire split into two parts after the death of the emperor Theodosius in 395. This was not due to a decision to split the empire. It was due to circumstances. Theodosius designated his two sons as co-emperors, with Honorius in charge in the west and Arcadius in charge in the east. Previously, co-emperorships did not involve a split of the empire. However, the co-emperors were young and inexperienced and allowed men at their courts to conspire against each other's courts. Moreover, 11 years later there were the invasions by the Germanic peoples which precipitated the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire. Historians use 476 as a conventional date for the fall of the western part of the Roman Empire. In this year the last emperor in the west, Romulus Augustus, was deposed.
How old is Roman Empire?
The Roman Empire dates to 27 BC, when Octavian was given the title Augustus by the senate. It divided permanently in 395 AD into the East Roman Empire and the West Roman Empire. The date usually given for the fall of Rome is 476, when the last emperor of the West Roman Empire was deposed. The East Roman Empire, however, survived until 1453. There is a link below.
Was the eastern or western roman empire larger?
The Eastern Roman empire was much stronger then the Western Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire had more money and soldiers. It also lasted 1000 years longer then the western roman empire
