How could a Medieval Western Roman Empire look like?
>>43844420
France probably gets conquered by Saracens.
>>43844420
Well...what's the point of divergence? What changed, that the Western empire wasn't a rotting pile of land and ambitious, disloyal generals?
>>43844420
One of the defining points of the Medieval era was that Rome wasn't there anymore>inb4 butthurt Greek pretenders
It would be utterly different from the Medieval Europe we know.
>>43844420
On a related subject, how is /hist/?
Is it polluted with racial/nationalistic dickwaving and overused memes like /int/, or is it relatively pure?
>>43844762
The time I went there it was very heavy with Communists and people from Eastern Europe, who hate the former. Also, like history threads on /tg/, nobody actually knows anything.
>>43844762
The first one.
>>43844762
It's actually kind of dull.
I miss the /tg/ history threads.
>>43844762
/his/ has memery and stupid crap, but it's decent.
not OP btw
>>43844762
/hist/ is to /int/ as /int/ is to /pol/.
Wouldn't recommend it?
>>43844470
Probably not, if the west stood they would be faced with an empire that wasn't in a long series of attrition wars with it's powerful neighbor.
>>43844762
circlejerking edgelords with no one who actually knows his shit as far as I've seen so far
>>43844804
>Implying the Western Romans wouldn't be locked in conflict with the Eastern Romans over control of the Adriatic and Africa
>>43844850
I see where you're coming from but remember that the Empire was still united (at least nominally), it was only really split in terms of administration.
Of course, this goes out the window should yet another civil war happen as a result of some overly ambitious twat wanting to rule that entire clusterfuck all by himself.
>>43844420
I honestly cant see anything changing much, what the fall of rome did to europe was basically atomize its power into smaller kingdoms that had to start all over again with some help from the scientific advancements that rome had left behind with the church acting as a central power that kind of unites all these kingdoms. Now if Rome doesnt fall then the church loses power but still has the cultural influence and Rome acts the unifying factor of europe which would still be splintered into different tribes of barbarians, cities would become much more prevalent and perhaps the center of power for many roman nobles, generals and barbarians. I honestly cant see how the idea of "Roman culture" can survive as they will inevitably intermingle with the different people (Franks, Goths, whatever) as the years go by diluting this idea and eventually turning into a "Holy German Roman Empire" type of thing earlier and thats actually tied to Rome.
>>43844850
Could the Eastern Roman empire really support such conflict with both the West and Persia?
>>43844908
That's what I imagine happening. You could already see the bureaucracy gaining more momentum on either side than the broken co-emperor system manage. No way it manages to stay cohesive when they'd already drawn up a nice 'us vs them' situation.
Both sides would happily start naming their own appointees to both the Western and Eastern halves.
>>43844996
I guess it depends on where we make the changes to history to allow OP's scenario to play out. I can see a tripartite war between Western Romans, Eastern Romans, and Persians playing out in the southeast Mediterranean and Holy Land.
>>43844777
>>43844782
>>43844786
>>43844798
>>43844835
Well, that's kind of a shame, but almost exactly what I expected.
I remember being against a /his/ because I knew it would turn into that, but anons insisted it would be different, because "even history threads on /pol/ are surprisingly enjoyable."
Yeah, bullshit.
>>43845026
I honestly cannot see that conflict go any other way than worse for the Byzantines than for the others
>>43845070
Oh yeah, they've getting the most assfucked by the situation, but (hypothetically) the Romans might be able to work together well enough to preserve the East and co-ordinate some of their efforts against the Persians.
The Emperor in Rome might not like the Emperor in Constantinople, but he'll be damned before it becomes Istanbul.
And of course, this isn't covering what's happening in northern or western Europe that would keep the Western Romans from bringing their full strength to bear against their cousins.
>>43845055
dont listem to them, they're just ignorant peasents incabable of rational talk, /his/ is a very good board trust me.
and theres nothing wrong about discussing racial/national stuff.
>>43845301
>trust me
Words only said by the untrustworthy.you write like a slav
>>43845118
>this isn't covering what's happening in northern or western Europe that would keep the Western Romans from bringing their full strength to bear against their cousins
Also a factor. There's still the issue of the hordes arriving in the Empire.
>>43844420
>I don't read alternative history books
Then go to library. I guarantee there will be an entire shelf full of AH books and novels where Rome survived.
>>43844420
It wouldn't. Medieval Europe as we know it was defined by the absence of the Roman state and its replacement with feudal states - one of the reasons I hate that arbitrary division of history. But anyway, society won't be the same at all if you have Rome still there, unless you change what Rome is. You won't have a feudal Rome unless it's the Holy Roman Empire and you just made it led by Italians and wear compulsively wear togas.
>>43844762
>implying you're going to get an actually good community of historians on the internet unless it's restricted to calling out people for being bad at history
>implying that if nobody's compulsively citing their sources or actively engaged in academia it's not possible to not have a history discussion that isn't based on people just trying to justify their political beliefs
I don't want to live in this gay-ass series of tubes anymore.
>>43846017
what about the Carolingians?
>>43844739
>spoiler
Byzantine is an academic term applied long after they were gone, they were Romans. They followed Roman law, were Roman citizens according to the edict of Caracalla in the early 3rd century. There was no pretending, they were Roman.
>>43844420
Play Crusader Kings 2. Pick Holy Roman Empire
>>43844420
>Medieval Western Roman Empire
it would probably look a little like this IMO
>>43846918
The Franks were still the Franks, no matter whether or not they called themselves by Roman titles. Their state wasn't remotely similar to the Roman one in terms of its administration or structure.
>>43844420
Honestly? I can only see the WRE avoiding their historical total collapse by eliminating the dual-administration system. You'd need Constantine to elect to keep the empire united instead of splitting it again after he won his civil wars.
Even then, it'd look more like post-colonial Africa than feudal Europe.
>>43844762
Either it's armchair philosophers that believe their inane actually makes sense.
People who have a big hard on for the crusades and believe they were a noble triumphant event and that any who say otherwise are probably muslim.
People who call anything they don't like memes
or /pol/
Maybe in a universe where Odoacer took the throne for himself, married a Roman, and had a (culturally) Roman heir take up the title? I could see the medieval era taking root if everything collapsed save Italy.
All potency in the Empire was long dead by 476, though, and it would have been indefensible. So... not really possible.
>Just for fun.
Lets say we interject a person or event that lead to Romes biggest issues being fixed.
I would go with some new dynasty taking Title of Emperor. Or some reverse Julius Ceaser restores the Republic and roots out the corruption.
>>43850671
What killed Rome was the Cult of Personality and the gradual erosion of law under the influence of mob rule and violence. To counteract both of these Rome would need a strong central government that couldnslap the nobilities shit without getting assassinated and a strong constitution that restored and expanded upon the freedoms and rights originally given to the plebians and gradually taken away by the equites because muh social order
>>43850685
What killed rome was rich fucks not paying taxes.
>>43850850
Plus climate changes that led to mass migration.
So the same issues we are facing now.
>>43844835
Same as /tg/ then
What if...
Alternate universe where the spanish and british allied via marriage into one empire.They all speak Spanish with english accent or english with spanish accent, the one that annoys you the most
>>43847279
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
>>43852044
This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.
>>43852079
That is exactly what I was implying.
>>43852079
EXCUSE me. The Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire simply MUST essentially be the same empire, otherwise we'd be living in the eternal Kingdom of God by now.
These silly little heathens, I swear...
>>43844500
Let's go really far back. To the Republic. Say Sulla never gives up power as dictator and dies in office after a decade as dictator. After that the Senate, so cowed by Sulla and the fear of another civil war, decide to continue with the dictator for life and elect one of their own (similar to the Cromwell protectorate). That would, in theory, provide the empire with enough democracy to satisfy the masses, but enough stability to ensure long term growth of the Empire.
>>43844762
Some threads are great, especially when the topic is historical figures.
But when it comes to historical geo-political topics it becomes /pol/ in all aspects.
>>43844908
>>43844850
They should have just reverted back into a full republic. Fucking Marcus Aurelius didn't go with it. Instead he placed Caligula in the throne.
>>43844762
It is chock-full of redditors.
>>43844420
>>43844420
Like a Red Dragon and a White Elephant.
>>43852279
lol I remember that thread. shit that was a long time ago
>>43852230
>Roman space program using a Greek god name
>>43852230
>medieval
>>43852348
Don't you know? If the middle ages didn't happen, we'd have FTL travel by now.
>>43852181
>Going back to the Republic
It would have failed even faster at that point.
>>43852345
>Romans
>Not obsessed with greek mythology
Pick one
>>43852079
Aww, I wanted to be the one to say it.
I'm getting ready to play a game that isn't quite like this, but set in the mid and eastern Mediterranean. It's looking like it's going to be loads of fun.
>>43852181
>back into a full republic
>Caligula
Pic very related.
>>43852181
>Aurelius
>In the same century as Caligula
The fuck am I reading?
>>43844762
Hurr durr /pol/ meme.
It's doing well aside from the right wing x left wing shit that commies and nazis keep trying to pull
>>43852181
>>43853892
Adding to this for an actual reply.
The Empire had known its greatest period of prosperity and reached its largest size under the Nerva-Antonine dynasty. They're called the Five Good Emperors for a reason.
One of the reasons for this is that going from Nerva, each successive emperor was adopted after proving they were actually capable leaders.
It's less clear in Hadrian's case if he was actually adopted. He was heir presumptive of Trajan without any official declaration on Trajan's part as to his intentions but Hadrian attested that Trajan had adopted him on his deathbed. I'm getting off point though.
The same was true in the case of Marcus Aurelius. He named his adoptive brother Lucius Verus co-emperor and was intended to succeed him but died before Marcus so he had no choice but to name Commodus as his heir, being his own son, and having no time to groom another in his old age.
>>43851315
so if Bloody Mary's nickname wasn't so literal?
>>43852780
they had their own names for everything though
>>43852780
>>43854068
I went to check what a more apropriate name would be for a roman space mission, and it turns out they didn't use any other name for Apollo: He was Apollo to both romans and greece.
>>43844951
>from the scientific advancements that rome had left behind
We got surviving writing of their own hand that painfully illustrates their inability to understand the notations of vector mathematics and how the theory illustrated by it relates to real-world objects, Anon.
They left telling documentation of their inability to participate in the existing scientific culture of the days and their unique addition to the sciences is basically nonexistant. Rome's reign stopped the advancement of knowledged and it only ever picked up again long after they were dead. In the department of mathematics, it basically took well until the 19th century until all methodes employed by the greek had been redeveloped and rediscovered by our ancestors to the point where we could actually understand all of what they left in writing, which is the smallest part of everything they produced according to secondhand mentions we found spread throughout other unrelated works.
>>43844420
Like the Frankish Empire, but without retarded succession laws. Whether or not they'd be able to hold the frontier against the Moors is debatable. Either you say that they're better organized than the North Africans, Iberians and Franks separately and thus better able to defend their lands, or you point out that they were spread out mostly along the Rhine to defend against Germanic barbarians and thus wouldn't be able to dedicate as many troops to fight the Moors.
Nevertheless, assuming this Western Roman Empire survives, we would most likely see a more coordinated defense/counterattack against the Islamic world by both Roman Empires. Chances are that, because Charlemagne was never crowned emperor, Catholocism never comes into existence and the Schism never happens. There'd be no denominations, there'd just be "Christianity" (and Arianism but they're semi-pagan anyway).
Other than law it wouldn't be much different from the Frankish Empire, I believe, because:
1. The Franks were gigantic Romeboos (I think they even adopted Latin as an administrative language)
2. The Roman Empire was already being flooded by Germanic tribes seeking to settle in their lands, and the last emperors were all puppets of Germanic generals. Romulus Augustulus was deposed without push or shove because everyone already knew Odoacer was calling the shots and he simply decided he had no more use for his puppet. Even if Odoacer had somehow not dethroned the emperor, the Germanification of the West was already a fact. In the same way that it was unavoidable that the Eastern Empire would become more Greek.
This is why the "they're Greek so they're no longer 'true' Romans" argument makes no sense to discredit the "Byzantines": the West was already in the process of heavily being Germanized. I wouldn't be surprised if Latin would evolve into some Germano-Latin bastard language.
>Inb4 French
>Inb4 English
>Inb4 Franglais
>>43854503
>There'd be no denominations, there'd just be "Christianity"
Yeah, no. Splitting up into different camps is pretty much inevitable in every movement given enough time/people because nobody agrees 100% on matters of religion, politics, or anything else.
>>43854693
Most people aren't aware that the Middle Ages saw multiple rises of massively popular christian sects the catholic church and lay authorities had to stamp out or re-integrate into catholicism.
>>43854693
>>43854854
I'm aware of that. The thing is that the Catholic Church wasn't a popular uprising and an actual breakaway movement motivated in part by political disagreement. The West remaining intact and the rise of Charlemagne as a replacement emperor never happening would most likely mean that the unified authority of the original church would remain intact. Popular uprisings would of course still exist, but it'd still be correct to say that there most likely wouldn't be a Catholocism (unless you use the Catholic definition of Catholic, under which there would be no Orthodoxy).
Though that does raise the impossible to answer question how the Reformation would turn out, if it'd happen at all.
>>43855142
how corrupt was the pre-scism church?
the Reformation was kicked off by priestly hedonism
>>43854354
>>adorable barbarian noises
Get back to your side of the Rhine, little one, you're drunk.
>>43855142
what about the pope? would he remain bishop of rome or become some kind of patriarch of the west
>>43856210
I guess he'd have the originally intended function of first among equals: still the most important figure, but nowhere near as powerful as the papacy in our timeline.
>>43854354
Sure but the barbarian kingdoms didnt start from zero after rome fell, a lot was lost but not all of it.
>>43855142
Saying "there'd be no Catholicism" is different than saying there'd be no denominations. Catholicism was not the first or the last time there was more than one Christian church/sect/priesthood.
There's no Catholicism in Judaism/Islam/Buddhism/Hinduism/etc, but they all have separate theological institutions with competing dogma, religious authorities, and traditions too.
>>43844762
>Is it polluted with racial/nationalistic dickwaving
>I'm smart because I can see past the groupthink of those gullible racists/nationalists
>at least, this is what my parents, teachers, college professors, media sources have always told me.
I would find people like you funny, but unfortunately you can vote.
>>43856509
*tips trilby
>>43856559
sharp comeback. was it folded over 5000 times by any chance?
>>43856296
The loss of technology and knowledge began during the age of Rome, Anon. Took us a thousand years to reverse the damage the Romans wrought on our collective knowledge.
>>43844420
one thing I want to know is what can we do that's makes the WRE roman and not the holy roman empire with different borders
>>43857536
Keep up Roman administration, pretty much. Centralized authority, Roman law, Res Publica and all that jazz.
>>43857898
yeah that's pretty much it
>>43856210
>>43856258
This. From what I've gathered, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was the main issue that led to the dispute between the East and West Churches. The Filioque clause was secondary but gave it the religious grounds it needed to cause the split.
Like >>43856258 said, primacy was supposed to be first among equals. My guess as to how that would work is that should an urgent theological issue arise, the Bishop of Rome would respond as he saw fit and that would be the working solution until such time as the Five Pentarchs could hold council together or gets overturned by a subsequent Bishop of Rome or perhaps even the Emperor, though he may be in Constantinople.
The main idea though is that primacy would not equate to supremacy.
>>43857898
Another major point, though it may not actually be possible this late in the Empire, would be to stop recruiting German mercenaries to serve as the Army.
>>43844762
It's basically like /tg/, but without anybody sharing a comradely or common interest like we all do here, so it's a bit more hostile.
It's not like /pol., it just lacks a certain ingredient or humour that tg has
>>43860781
so recruit more roman citizens or Romanize the Germans
>>43863930
>so recruit more roman citizens
That'd be impossible. The republican conscription system would completely back support from the population. They were perfectly happy with Germanic warriors doing all the fighting for them.
As for Romanizing the Germans, even if the fall of the WRE could be avoided (Odoacer decides Romulus Augustulus would make a good puppet) and somehow the lost territories were recovered, it was already too late. Excuse me for sounding a bit /pol/, but the Germanics were already too numerous, too concentrated in "their" territory and too loyal to their own ingroup. Imagine if St. Denis was as large as the most Northern bits of France and all of Belgium. That's what the Romans had to deal with with just the Franks, not even mentioning the other tribes that settled in their territory.
I can't even begin to think of how they would be Romanized without using anachronistic methods. Maybe offering them free education but only in the Latin language (a sort of Roman answer to the Ferry laws)?
>>43856509
>I love my country, I think it's a great place to live - though I could always be better
vs
>I only love people in my country who act and agree with me, also everything is the kikes and spics fault
Big difference.
>>43844762
It's a shitfest of commies and /pol/tards triggering each other, and every other thread is about "post dictators who did nuffin wrong (cue Hitler or Stalin)" or "where Egyptians niggers?".
>>43867801
>Big difference.
Charles de Gaulle, please leaveand save France once again
>>43844420
A bit like the Holy Roman Empire, except ACTUALLY Roman
I remember watching a movie, when I was little, about this. Although it was the whole Roman Empire that survived into the modern age.
I do not remember the name though.
>>43844762
It's split between /pol/ and /lit/, both arguing about their radical ideas. It's shit.
Also since it's history and HUMANITIES 50% of the threads are vegan/marxist/nationalist/leftist/rightwing baiting.
>>43867801
>"where Egyptians niggers?"
Oh, that's easy - during US after hours the answer is "yes", during all other hours it depends on the relative density of Nazis that actually went along with the party line switching from Jews to Muslims in recent years.
>>43854038
>One of the reasons for this is that going from Nerva, each successive emperor was adopted after proving they were actually capable leaders.
Kek, so even the best part of the "Imperial" era, as well as the best emperor who didn't come from this "dynasty" (being Augustus) all came to the throne through non-dynastic methods.
Looks like the Empire was at its best when it was semi-Republican.
>>43870549
but anon, a Autocratic Meritocracy IS the best form of government for humans
>>43871360
That relies on each autocrat being a meritocrat and none of them, by accident or design, simply appointing their sons or someone they like.
If men like Marcus Aurelius, Charles V or Napoleon were immortal, maybe autocratic meritocracies could work.
>>43871805
sterilisation as part of investiture and no-one with existing children can hold 1st tier power
>>43870549
>the best emperor who didn't come from this "dynasty" (being Augustus) all came to the throne through non-dynastic methods
Well, yes and no. Under Roman law, an adopted individual was seen as a full member of that family/house/whatever. There was no distinction between blood relation and adoptive.
Even the Julio-Claudian dynasty was no exception. Augustus had no sons of his own. He adopted his grandsons through his daughter as his heirs but both died before Augustus. Germanicus was the grandson of his third wife Livia and was the intended successor for a while but Livia persuaded him to name her own son Tiberius (who he had previously adopted years before) as heir.
>>43844420
Exactly like Medieval Europe, except all the European nobility at the time actually acknowledges and respects the Pope's political authority.
>>43872721
I should also add that Augustus himself was adopted by Caesar as his heir, though admittedly, they were already part of the same house.
>>43872764
>Medieval Roman Empire
>no Emperor
>pope's authority
>>43872844
Late emperors were basically pope's puppets anyway.
>>43872901
If the Western Empire could recover enough to survive into what was the medieval period then surely that would suggest there was some strong-handed Emperor or at least a general acting in a regent's capacity for a Imperial figurehead. Though that doesn't discount Papal involvement, Army revolts and generals seizing the throne were far from from uncommon.
>>43873093
How powerful was the late WRE papacy? Didn't the East Romans acknowledge him as well at the time? Would it theoretically be possible for the papacy to claim power and turn the WRE into a caesaropapist society?
That'd technically be a medieval Roman Empire with papal authority and no emperor.
>>43873391
The long and short of it is, no. Pope doesn't really become independent till the seventh century, which coincides with heavy losses for the romans/eastern roman empire.
>>43873391
>Didn't the East Romans acknowledge him as well at the time?
Yes, there was no split between "Catholic" and "Orthodox" which didn't really start until around the 8th Century and continued until they finally went their separate ways in the 11th. I don't want to call it the Great Schism since it was a very gradual thing, mostly political rather than religious. When they finally excommunicated each other in 1054, it was more a formality than anything else.
>Would it theoretically be possible for the papacy to claim power and turn the WRE into a caesaropapist society?
Not if they can't deal with the Franks, et al.
>>43856258
>originally intended function of first among equals
That was never his role, intended or otherwise.
>>43847223
>hre
>roman
AHHHRGH
