Alternate History Discussion #1
The rise and fall of the Roman Empire
>what if Rome failed, and was conquered by barbarians early on in its development (pre 0AD)
>what if Rome never failed (allowing East and west Seperation, what if Rome didn't fall to barbarians late 4th century?)
Discuss
Looking for discussion on the resulting immediate (100-500 years) and long term (500-present) changes in everything these scenarios could cause
>>25786
>Alternate history
Literally the worst fucking thing in the world. How could you possibly fucking know?
It's just gonna be 'here's what I pulled out of my arse and this is why you're wrong'
These threads should be banned.
>>25814
>What is an educated guess
>what is a debate
>>25786
>>what if Rome failed, and was conquered by barbarians early on in its development (pre 0AD)
Which ones?
The Celts?
Those cunts just want to rob people. They didn't want to rule Rome or something.
The closest thing resembling to a barbarian invasion of the Republic was the Teutones one. Which was just to get to settle in the Alps.
Otherwise the gravest threats to the republic were other Italians, Carthage, and Epirus. None of those are "barbarians."
>>25838
But you can't possibly debate this shit, nor can you make an educated guess.
It's just ridiculous because everything has such a bizarre knock on effect there's no way of knowing what is shit and what isn't.
Anybody who claims otherwise is lying.
>>25905
>Those cunts just want to rob people. They didn't want to rule Rome or something.
Wrong, they'd been creeping south for hundreds of years at the beginning of the Roman Republic.
>>25786
There's a book series about this.
I always wondered what would happen if Rome fell to Carthage in the Punic Wars (dunno if they count for the sake of the thread). Christianity and Islam would probably not exist, and I imagine Europe wouldn't be nearly as influential.
Why did the western Roman empire really fall?
Please respond.
>>26029
Civil wars. Large sections of the aristocracy turning away from their civic duties due to the tax burdens being placed on them. A combination of failures to get enough money into the treasury to pay Roman soldiers led to foederati troops being hired. Had to be given land to settle instead of cash since there was none, foederati then used to fight other Roman warlords. Less and less tax from land now goes to the treasury since a bunch of Goths are now squatting on it so there's an even greater reliance on the foederati, who in turn want ever more land. Manpower shortages due to aristocrats helping their tenant farmers avoid conscription. Eventually the state just essentially collapses in on itself and palace intrigue leads to the short tenures of the remaining emperors. There was no barbarian invasion. Barbarians did not invade Rome, they wanted to be Roman. The only thing that can be considered something close with the 406 invasion (70 years before the fall) which led to a bunch of tribes wandering around Gaul and Spain until they were settled.
I wrote a dissertation on the subject, there's a shit ton of reasons that all coalesce into one another.
If you hear the words
>decadent
>degeneracy
>Christianity
>manly vigour
Or anything like that, just discount whoever said it, since they've either had a cursory glance at Edward Gibbon's work or are /pol/.
Most of the damage was done (imo) around 410 when Honorius fought a massive civil war against Constantine III who led the British legions back to the continent and fought the emperor while a bunch of barbarians were fucking up half the west.
>>27230
What happened to foederati and their descendants after Rome?
>>27278
became seperate kingdoms in their own right, of which France has been the most succesful
>>25814
This. Causality is a hell of a wonder.
>>27278
The foederati often created their own kingdoms within Roman territory e.g. the Anglo-Saxon-Jute kingdoms in Britain, the Frankish kingdom, Visigothic kingdom, Burgundian kingdom, Vandal kingdom. The former foederati population just assimilated into local Christian society over time until their former tribal identities mostly vanished. It often happened when they converted from Arianism (which often symbolises an attachment to non-Roman culture) to Catholicism (which symbolises Roman culture). Some modern nations are essentially direct descendants of former foederati. England was formed by Anglo-Saxons who had previously been the foederati of a Briton warlord called Vortigern in the 5th century AD. France can be said to be directly descended from the kingdom of the Franks established across the Rhine in the 5th century which expanded to cover most of modern day France under the powerful Clovis.
>>27278
They consolidated and used the knowledge of their former masters to create lasting kingdoms. France is a direct descendant of the Kingdom of the Franks which Clovis I created when he annexed the Roman rump state of Soissons.
The British Isles were invaded by the Saxons who created their own unique Romano-Germanic-Briton culture until the invasion of the Normans.
