No Dark Age?

[SCFalken]

If the Roman Empire had managed* to give rise to TWO equivalent Successor States (Western as well as Byzantium), instead of a more or less complete collapse in the West (with barbarians camping in the ruins), where would we be now (in 2008AD or 2761AUC)?

 

Technologically, scientifically or culturally?

 

IOW, in the space of 400-1200AD, what could the Western Empire (and the Eastern Empire, without the western barbs breathing down their necks) have accomplished that was completely beyond the Mediaeval "states"?

 

Obviously, strong Eastern and Western Empires will complicate any attempt by the Muslims to establish a foothold in Europe (especially during the rapid expansion after death of Muhammad), as well as implying a much better logistics/transport/trade network in the Mediterranean Basin (and, to a lesser extent, the North Atlantic and Black Sea).

 

Falken

 

 

*-for the purposes of this discussion, the Western Empire at 400AD is about as strong and secure as it was at the height of the Empire, controlling territory equivalent to what it had ~120AD (minus what the East now owns). Pure handwaving, of course, but it smooths out the thought experiment. Assume an Aurelius/Hadrian-type character renews the Imperial chutzpah, and pushes the borders back (rather, secures the important areas), replenishes the treasury and keeps domestic unrest to a dull roar. Perhaps no Crisis of The Third Century? The Empire might undergo a transformation, but no Collapse is likely.

Edited February 3, 2008 by SCFalken

[Yama]

If the Roman Empire had managed* to give rise to TWO equivalent Successor States (Western as well as Byzantium), instead of a more or less complete collapse in the West (with barbarians camping in the ruins), where would we be now (in 2008AD or 2761AUC)?

 

Technologically, scientifically or culturally?

 

 

As many a scholar is ready to tell you, "Dark Ages" is bit of a misnomer. Technology did advance during Dark Ages (metallurgy particularly). Science, not so much (at least not in Europe) but OTOH, it did not really advance in Roman times either. East Rome, despite its power and civilization, became introverted and increasingly stagnating and seldom willing or even able to practice any kind of dynamic foreign policy and was eventually overtaken by upstart civilizations in both East and West. Obvious question is, even if Western Rome had avoided collapse, why it would have avoided same ultimate fate?

 

As we see, having old and estabilished civilization in itself does not guarantee anything. Whatever else, Romans were not great visionaries. They were nation of lawyers, engineers, politicians and soldiers, experts on mundane matters but not interested in theory. Whilst they were adaptable, they were not innovative. It was hard work and earthly ambition which had built their Empire, not fancy philosophies and theories of some pompous Athenian scholars, and such things were looked down at. After all, though they to at least some degree recognized how much their culture owed to the Greeks, it was the Romans who had conquered the Greeks, not other way around.

[SCFalken]

As many a scholar is ready to tell you, "Dark Ages" is bit of a misnomer.

 

But it is easier to type than "post-Imperial Western Europe, between 476 and 1200AD"....

 

The collapse of the infrstructure likely slowed technological and cultural development significantly (even in the East, where they had to fend off threats that a strong Western Empire would have taken care of).

 

Would a continuing Empire (or equivalent Successor States) have stagnated? Perhaps. Perhaps not. That's one of the things we can only guess at.

 

An educated, urban civilization, with a massive trade and transport net, is (IMHO) a lot more likely to produce semi-rapid advances than a civilization that is agricultural, rural and, outside of monasteries, nearly totally uneducated (and busy fending off Vikings and Mohammedans).

 

Falken

Edited February 3, 2008 by SCFalken

[SCFalken]

Much of the technological progress after the dark ages was due to intense competition between many small states in close proximity. A large beureucratic hegemony without serious neighborly competition (or intercontinental competition if you have planes and other means of power projection) is actually very stifling to progress IMO.

 

2 items:

 

a.) Both the Eastern and (notional) Western Empires would have the Persians, and then Muslims (perhaps both, if the Persians manage to fend off the Muslims) on their borders. Not to mention the remnants of the Migrations (the premise being that the Empires rode out or defeated the largest parts of the Migration).

 

or

 

b.) The Western Empire could schism into several Successor States, but with the culture and infrastructure (trade & commerce) intact. This puts Europe a good 3-400 years ahead of the OTL. You could have a unified, economically powerful Britain in 700, versus 1600. Spain, without needing a 500 year Reconquista.

 

 

Falken

Edited February 3, 2008 by SCFalken

[KingSargent]

The Industrial Revolution happened in England because England had raw materials and power sources in close proximity.* They also had captive colonial markets for manufactured goods and discouraged/outlawed manufacturing in the Colonies. It also helped that they weren't being invaded every few years.

 

If England were a satrapy of a Western Roman Empire with funding dependent on Roman investors for example) would the conditions arise?

 

* Africa (for example) had readily accessible surface iron deposits but no coal nearby. This meant that iron manufacture was on the individual blacksmith level over wood or charcoal fires.

[Degenerate]

An educated, urban civilization, with a massive trade and transport net, is (IMHO) a lot more likely to produce semi-rapid advances than a civilization that is agricultural, rural and, outside of monasteries, nearly totally uneducated (and busy fending off Vikings and Mohammedans).

 

Falken

 

Dont forget that one of the prime causes of medieval backwardness was in fact the dominant religion Catholicism. Catholic teachings and practices basically prevented most people from accessing any form of education, it taught them to be happy with the crud lot they were dealt in life (as they would be rewarded in the afterlife apparently). Most important was the idea that there were no rich men in heaven. This leads to people only doing the minimum work necessary to survive and having no desire to innovate and find new and better ways of doing things. As Max Weber pointed out in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism the protestant revolution literally kick started parts of sleepy Europe as people now saw wealth and success as a sign of gods favour and strove to achieve them. Hence capitalism and rational scientific investigation.

[p620346]

Much of the technological progress after the dark ages was due to intense competition between many small states in close proximity. A large beureucratic hegemony without serious neighborly competition (or intercontinental competition if you have planes and other means of power projection) is actually very stifling to progress IMO.

 

Kennedy in his RISE AND FALL OF THE GREAT POWERS credits the military competition between the various European mini-states, as opposed to the "centralized" empires of India and China, as the reason for European hegemony by 1850

[pikachu]

A minor quip there. India was never a centralized empire during the Dark and Middle Ages. If anything, India suffered from exactly the opposite condition to China's stifling superbureaucratism. India was also at this time at the butt end of the Migrations, resulting in repeated invasions (primarily by Muslims after the 8th century) and generally unstable political climate. India in fact had a very similar situation to Western Europe, and the intense competition between Indian states also created a flowering of culture and knowledge the way it did in Europe. The catch is that, whereas Eastern Europe successfully held back the tide of the Migrations for the West, northern India fell to successive invaders, exposing the subcontinent to continuing instability and, eventually, the Mughals. After that it was the usual story of Islamic conservatism and decline for much of the country.