What if the Roman Empire survived?

[Butterbar]

The Roman Empire by 476 was Roman in name only.  The economical, cultural, and political center of the Empire was clearly at Constantinople and had been after the third century.  Yet we have no problem with still calling it the "Roman Empire", and Constantine the "Roman Emperor".  Also, the term "Byzantine" did not come into use until much after the Romans had fallen.  To the Turks and the Europeans, the Byzantines were the "Romans" - when the Turks conquered Anatolia from the Byzantines, they formed the "Sultanate of Rum", or literally, the "Sultan of Rome".  The Europeans, on the other hand, had to balance the political interests of aligning with the Byzantine Empire (Which was a extremely powerful and centralized force in the Balkans and Eastern Europe for much of the Middle Ages) or the Holy Roman Empire, came into the habit of calling the Byzantine Empire "Romania", or the "Empire of Romania".  Since the Byzantines called them Basileia ton Rhomaion (Empire of the Romans), "Romania" and "Rhomaion" were acceptable interchanges.

In several letters to the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Komnenos during the 1100's, the Pope (From Rome) addresses Manuel as "Emperor of Romania".  When Muhammad wrote a letter to Heraclitus during the early years of Islam, he refers to him as the "powerful Emperor of the Romans".  When Mehmed II, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, fought the heavily reduced Byzantine Empire in 1453, he referred to them also as the "Empire of the Romans" and Constantine XII as the "Emperor of the Romans", even though he had nothing but a now-impoverished city and some nominally loyal vassals in the Peloponnese.  The Byzantines themselves prided themselves on their "Roman heritage".  In the Alexiad, written from the point of view of the daughter of Alexios I during the First Crusade, multiple references are made to Roman history in which she refers to them in a patriotic tone.  The Byzantines definitely saw themselves as more "Roman" than Greek, and if anything, saw the term "Hellene" as a insult for much of their history, since the term "Hellene" meant Pagan and they took their faith in Christ seriously.  The burn-the-heretic seriously.  

The Byzantine Empire was Roman since it was a direct political continuation of the Roman Empire and continued to be referred to as such by it's contemporaries, all of which had a reason to challenge it's Roman heritage.  They saw themselves as Roman, not Greek.  Contemporary documents refer to them as "Roman". Their nobility knew the history of the Roman Empire as their own.  The idea of them being a "Greek" or "Byzantine" Empire is a modern invention.  How else would they not be Roman?  

Also, no, a unified Roman Empire would not have become spacefaring by 1100AD.  The Medieval Ages, contrary to popular belief, were not a time when technological progress completely stagnated - this whole idea only happened during the "Enlightenment" when people tried to distance themselves from the past of Christianity.  I believe a better bet is an early industrial revolution in the Southern Song Dynasty around 1100AD that could lead to a spacefaring status by 1800AD or 1900AD, but no earlier.  The Southern Song had hydropower dams, steel production that would not be seen until 19th century Britain, large ocean going ships, a blue-water navy, a relatively high literacy rate for the time, heavy urbanization, a need to recover the lands that had been conquered by the Manchu Jin Dynasty to the north, and an ever-increasing population density, all of the factors which helped to trigger the Industrial Revolution.  

Edited April 3, 2016 by Butterbar

[daniel l.]

12 minutes ago, Butterbar said:

How else would they not be Roman?  

Its a Cultural thing, The Eastern Empire was centered in the Greek city of Byzantium which was renamed Constantinople after Constantine. The Empire didn't have its old capital, Nor did the people speak Latin they spoke Greek instead, And their culture devolved into a medieval one.

You can tell the differences by these portraits:

Roman Emperor Hadrian 10 August 117 – 10 July 138

You can tell by these portraits easily how much changed and was lost.

Isaac II Angelos, Byzantine emperor 1185–1195-1203–1204

Edited April 3, 2016 by daniel l.

[Butterbar]

7 minutes ago, daniel l. said:

Its a Cultural thing, The Eastern Empire was centered in the Greek city of Byzantium which was renamed Constantinople after Constantine. The Empire didn't have its old capital, Nor did the people speak Latin they spoke Greek instead, And their culture devolved into a medieval one.

You can tell the differences by these portraits:

Roman Emperor Hadrian

You can tell by these portraits easily how much changed and was lost.

Isaac II Angelos, Byzantine emperor

1. The manuscript that the second picture was obtained from originated in Western Europe, IIRC.  Not really a good source as to "Byzantine Art".

2. They were called Roman by their contemporaries.  Also, the Roman aristocracy spoke Greek in place of Latin long before the official switch by Heraclitus.  Were the Roman aristocracy, by extension, therefore "not Roman"? 

3. Their culture did not devolve.  For much of it's history until the very end (When it became necessary), the Empire was very centralized and cultured compared to it's western neighbors (Emperor Michael II Palaiologos, an aristocrat and general at heart, later switched the Empire to a more feudal model in 1260, if that's what you're talking about).  The city of Constantinople had a greater population than any other city in Europe all the way up to 1204, before making a recovery in 1261 after it's recovery by the Nicaeans.  The Byzantines had a higher literacy rate than the western kingdoms, and they ate with forks and spoons, something that completely baffled the Crusader lords when they arrived in Constantinople.  The standard of living in the Byzantine Empire was also higher, and unlike the other European militaries of the time, it had a standing army assisted by it's own governmental bureaucracy, something that it maintained from the Roman era.  

Also, stating that a culture "devolved" isn't really a good way to put it.  Whether or not the Byzantine Empire was Roman is completely an argument of other you trust the cultural changes in the Empire or whether you trust the political changes.  Culturally, it was different from the old Roman Empire.  Politically, it was not.

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by Butterbar

[PB666]

5 minutes ago, fredinno said:

If the capital of the US moved from DC to New York, would it no longer be the US?

Now but we don't call the US the DC empire (although some Americans believe there is a something called inside the beltway).

@Bill Phil Germanic tribes true, but it was also roman, I think in the sense that the appointed roman emperor defended the papacy in Rome, entitled his authority, just like roman generals who were born outside of rome could become emperors because of their exploits. Thats not a particular problem. The bigger problem was authority, because the capital of the empire was moved to Nova Roma; however when constantinople fell to the Turks that issue dissolved. The roman emperors of the late period were basically house of Habsburg (king of central european trade), rather meaningless in light what was going on with England, the Dutch and Spain/portuguese.

[daniel l.]

24 minutes ago, Butterbar said:

the Roman aristocracy spoke Greek in place of Latin

That was an academic thing, Like how latin was used for all scientific texts until the 18th century.

[kiwi1960]

Stick around people, all questions will be answered when THIS society falls....

BUT... to answer your question, all empires fall from within, due the arrogance and corruptness of the leaders!

Yes, we are nearly there now. The workers can only take so much.

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by kiwi1960

[daniel l.]

I made a KSP flag for Rome, Imagine this on the Mun!  

[kerbiloid]

The "Roman" culture was originally a primitive tribal culture greatly improved by Etruscans (by Numa and others), who had arranged a disorderly mob of barbarian shepherds/bandits into a military formation with a barrack-like discipline, using the early Romans like a building material for their own small kingdom.
Etruscans acted like a Dr.Frankenstein assembling a golem for his personal needs.
So, the Roman gods mostly were incorrectly pronounced Etruscan gods, the Romans had a complete set of Etruscan superstitions, all their life was strictly scheduled, and even their religious practice looked like a guard mounting (rather to the Eastern mysteries).

To prevent usual criminal squabble between the collected tribal rabble there was established a complicated and rigorous set of rules, which in its every detail stood against any attempt of one family to bend others.
Due to this - a paranoic fear of having a position held by a single officer. There were at least two at once: two consuls, two censors, two tribunes, etc.
The most dangerous part of society - their army or "legion", afaik, was originally ruled by six tribunes changing every day, while the legate was just a military consultant for them. Two consuls were changing each other every day: one in the army, one in the city.
To prevent this system against the newcomers from other tribes there was a strict red line between the fully legitimate longtimers ("patricians") and the newcomers ("plebeians").

All this tuned system worked wonderful (even when the kings were gone) while the Roman Empire was just Latium, then Italy, i.e. while all the events appeared near at hand, and any tribe to be incorporated differed from the Romans just with a hair style.

Once the Roman state went out from the Italy boundaries, they had met the adult problems:
- So brave and beautiful they - are not alone on the Earth.
- The more tribes and states are being incorporated - the more distinctions and contradictions are to be defused inside one country.
- When they incorporate every new "nation", they would either endlessly compel its military aristocracy (kings, princes, chieftains, etc), loosing stamina in their endless rebellions, or let them make a political career, to the top management of the Empire.
- Some of the incorporated "nations" (Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, Persians, etc) had much higher experience in knowledge, engineering, economy and religion - and looked at the Romans like at sh... barbarians.
- Almost total Mediterranean (from Carthago to Persia) was already more or less hellinized due to the Macedonian pacificators and to particular aspects of the Ancient Greek mindset. (For example: to execute victorious generals to prevent from their personal dictature. That was always a reliable source of competent officers for, say, Persia and Carthago.)

So, the only reason why the Roman Empire has not disappeared 600 years earlier - because they accepted the role of the Empire's S.W.A.T., step by step allowing the advanced and competent outcomers from other places make a career treating the "Roman" (mua-ha-ha) Empire as their own.
As a bonus: they could still count themselves as bosses and enjoy the beauties of metropolitan life.

Also, this was a sentencing decision for the Empire as "Roman": as the own Roman culture was at much lower level than the Hellinistic, Egyptian or Syro-Palestinian one, in had not much to do inside the huge empire, rather than a small tribal state.
So, all the "Roman" empire became hellinized from top to bottom, partially accepting Egyptian, Syrian and Persian gods (for example: in the late Roman Empire the personal emperor's "chief god" was Sol Invictus, while the soldiers worshipped Mitra), while the civilians were fond of Iset and Cybele.

Also the society "heads" were bothered with this spaghetti of gods and got acquainted with the Judaic pantheon simplicity, while "tails" were affected with the Judaic communes like "trade-unions".
Meanwhile the Gnostics messed up all the said with their abstract constructions, leading to the pantheon unification.

Any cultured Roman person should be able to speak Ancient Greek just as sigil of his selectness. (First - because the most trained teachers were between the Greek slaves, then - just because of the total Mediterranean mainstream.)

Population of the Empire mostly consisted of Germans and Mediterranean people, rather than Romans, while the Romans themselves were just a small, not the most advanced, but though still the most privileged ethnic group in the "Roman" Empire.
This caused numerous rebellions and civil wars, which in III century caused the "Roman" rulers to establish new social order: international "nobles" instead of specifically Roman "patricians", new religion (Christianity) instead of the existed ones, etc.

So, there was never such thing as "Roman Empire" at all.
First there was a small tribal "Roman Republic".
Then there was a Mediterranean Empire with Rome as a capital; Roman army like S.W.A.T.; numerous Romans at the leadership (just by force of habit); Latin language as official and vulgar, but Ancient Greek as a aristocratic language; Mediterranean gods.
The Rome itself became just a not the most important province of it, while the center of decisions shifted (back) to the Hellinistic regions.

So, in conclusion, in V century the Roman commander-in-chief, an ethnic Vandal, Flavius Stilicho, for the last time repulsed the German attacks. Several years later his compatriot, an ethnic Vandal, chieftain Alaric just disbanded the remains of the Mediterranean Empire in the Italy, finishing this intra-Vandal squabble around the Rome and Ravenna property.
While the Mediterranean Empire still remained as Byzantine one.

So, the questions like "why the Roman Empire fell down?" or "what if Roman Empire would survive?" have no substance -
because "could the Mediterranean Empire (with the capital in Rome or another city) stay consolidated when:
- Hellinistic nations were no more interested at all in Rome/Italy - but in their own Byzantium, with blackjack and hetaeras;
- German nations were not satisfied with their conditions in the "Roman" Empire and had not much common with it psychologically (because beer+schnapss+cabbage rather than wine+olives);
- Middle-East nations were occupied with their domestic intrigues, with the "Roman" Empire or without".

A funny thing about all this: while in Medieval and modern culture the Latin language is a "High Speech", a language of bright paladins and dark cultists; Nero and other worthy and experienced Roman persons treated it like a vulgar speech, rather to Ancient Greek as "High Speech".

Edited April 3, 2016 by kerbiloid

[PB666]

10 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

Stick around people, all questions will be answered when THIS society falls....

BUT... to answer your question, all empires fall from within, due the arrogance and corruptness of the leaders!

Yes, we are nearly there now. The workers can only take so much.

 

The workers are part of the problem, its not either or. There is a saying that democracies fail when people realize that the can vote that give themselves everything they want. The reality is that true freedom can only exist when the individual realizes what their responsibilities are, and this can only exists when there is perfect information. In the case of the workers their responsibillity is to work, to take care of their well-being (which includes health at home, the capital class is responsible for health at work) to raise their children well, and to properly steer the children into productive careers, and away from unproductive occupations (both at work and off work). Currently a large section of workers fail on two of three regards, this is why the current employment rate is not reflective of employability, there is underemployment in certain areas of the economy. The issue of information is also problematic, when the major information networks are full of misinformation and that feed on superstition, ignorance and bias for corporate self promotion. If the career class was properly organized according to demand, the unemployment rate would be 4% and wages in the middle class would be 20% higher than what they are now. This is not a corporate problem, its a lower middle class and middle class problem. You take alook right now at interest rates and fed-reserve, they are trying to raise interest rates, but they can't. The reason is very simple, underemployment, there are careers out there that go unfilled. In know a company right now in Houston, $50,000 per year jobs, start in level, 4 positions open, sales with technical experience. Sales they can get, technical experience, nope. Worse, be in a managerial position and try hiring a technician, lol. The problem is social, science and technology are disrespected in certain theo-social sects of society, because of that the kids are steered into demandless or payless careers. These positions are being filled by second-generation immigrants who are not burdened by these career restrictions, but even so the demand still outstrips the supply. One thing that you see in these immigrants, stable families, sacrifice of the individual for the sake of the family, a more or less incorperated family attitude.

I can give you a recent example, female, nursing student, parents are both from a latin american country, father works in construction, wants to raise money to buy house, gets a low level job at sales company, moves within year to intermediate position at 50,000/year, a year later moves to a different company, is learning medical technology, still in sales, 3 years out of school, formal field specific training 100k per year with bonuses up to 200k (which she will likely recieve). Another student, strait out of UHD, technician at 30k for 1.5 years, gets a job with chemical sales company, 120k/year.

Lot of these kids out there, their parents are no less than a ball and chain.

 

[PB666]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The "Roman" culture was originally a primitive tribal culture greatly improved by Etruscans (by Numa and others), who had arranged a disorderly mob of barbarian shepherds/bandits into a military formation with a barrack-like discipline, using the early Romans like a building material for their own small kingdom.
Etruscans acted like a Dr.Frankenstein assembling a golem for his personal needs.
So, the Roman gods mostly were incorrectly pronounced Etruscan gods, the Romans had a complete set of Etruscan superstitions, all their life was strictly scheduled, and even their religious practice looked like a guard mounting (rather to the Eastern mysteries).

To prevent usual criminal squabble between the collected tribal rabble there was established a complicated and rigorous set of rules, which in its every detail stood against any attempt of one family to bend others.
Due to this - a paranoic fear of having a position held by a single officer. There were at least two at once: two consuls, two censors, two tribunes, etc.
The most dangerous part of society - their army or "legion", afaik, was originally ruled by six tribunes changing every day, while the legate was just a military consultant for them. Two consuls were changing each other every day: one in the army, one in the city.
To prevent this system against the newcomers from other tribes there was a strict red line between the fully legitimate longtimers ("patricians") and the newcomers ("plebeians").

All this tuned system worked wonderful (even when the kings were gone) while the Roman Empire was just Latium, then Italy, i.e. while all the events appeared near at hand, and any tribe to be incorporated differed from the Romans just with a hair style.

Once the Roman state went out from the Italy boundaries, they had met the adult problems:
- So brave and beautiful they - are not alone on the Earth.
- The more tribes and states are being incorporated - the more distinctions and contradictions are to be defused inside one country.
- When they incorporate every new "nation", they would either endlessly compel its military aristocracy (kings, princes, chieftains, etc), loosing stamina in their endless rebellions, or let them make a political career, to the top management of the Empire.
- Some of the incorporated "nations" (Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, Persians, etc) had much higher experience in knowledge, engineering, economy and religion - and looked at the Romans like at sh... barbarians.
- Almost total Mediterranean (from Carthago to Persia) was already more or less hellinized due to the Macedonian pacificators and to particular aspects of the Ancient Greek mindset. (For example: to execute victorious generals to prevent from their personal dictature. That was always a reliable source of competent officers for, say, Persia and Carthago.)

So, the only reason why the Roman Empire has not disappeared 600 years earlier - because they accepted the role of the Empire's S.W.A.T., step by step allowing the advanced and competent outcomers from other places make a career treating the "Roman" (mua-ha-ha) Empire as their own.
As a bonus: they could still count themselves as bosses and enjoy the beauties of metropolitan life.

Also, this was a sentencing decision for the Empire as "Roman": as the own Roman culture was at much lower level than the Hellinistic, Egyptian or Syro-Palestinian one, in had not much to do inside the huge empire, rather than a small tribal state.
So, all the "Roman" empire became hellinized from top to bottom, partially accepting Egyptian, Syrian and Persian gods (for example: in the late Roman Empire the personal emperor's "chief god" was Sol Invictus, while the soldiers worshipped Mitra), while the civilians were fond of Iset and Cybele.

Also the society "heads" were bothered with this spaghetti of gods and got acquainted with the Judaic pantheon simplicity, while "tails" were affected with the Judaic communes like "trade-unions".
Meanwhile the Gnostics messed up all the said with their abstract constructions, leading to the pantheon unification.

Any cultured Roman person should be able to speak Ancient Greek just as sigil of his selectness. (First - because the most trained teachers were between the Greek slaves, then - just because of the total Mediterranean mainstream.)

Population of the Empire mostly consisted of Germans and Mediterranean people, rather than Romans, while the Romans themselves were just a small, not the most advanced, but though still the most privileged ethnic group in the "Roman" Empire.
This caused numerous rebellions and civil wars, which in III century caused the "Roman" rulers to establish new social order: international "nobles" instead of specifically Roman "patricians", new religion (Christianity) instead of the existed ones, etc.

So, there was never such thing as "Roman Empire" at all.
First there was a small tribal "Roman Republic".
Then there was a Mediterranean Empire with Rome as a capital; Roman army like S.W.A.T.; numerous Romans at the leadership (just by force of habit); Latin language as official and vulgar, but Ancient Greek as a aristocratic language; Mediterranean gods.
The Rome itself became just a not the most important province of it, while the center of decisions shifted (back) to the Hellinistic regions.

So, in conclusion, in V century the Roman commander-in-chief, an ethnic Vandal, Flavius Stilicho, for the last time repulsed the German attacks. Several years later his compatriot, an ethnic Vandal, chieftain Alaric just disbanded the remains of the Mediterranean Empire in the Italy, finishing this intra-Vandal squabble around the Rome and Ravenna property.
While the Mediterranean Empire still remained as Byzantine one.

So, the questions like "why the Roman Empire fell down?" or "what if Roman Empire would survive?" have no substance -
because "could the Mediterranean Empire (with the capital in Rome or another city) stay consolidated when:
- Hellinistic nations were no more interested at all in Rome/Italy - but in their own Byzantium, with blackjack and hetaeras;
- German nations were not satisfied with their conditions in the "Roman" Empire and had not much common with it psychologically (because beer+schnapss+cabbage rather than wine+olives);
- Middle-East nations were occupied with their domestic intrigues, with the "Roman" Empire or without".

A funny thing about all this: while in Medieval and modern culture the Latin language is a "High Speech", a language of bright paladins and dark cultists; Nero and other worthy and experienced Roman persons treated it like a vulgar speech, rather to Ancient Greek as "High Speech".

 

We have almost perfect information about the Great Britian late Victorian and Edwardian Era , it engaged in a couple of wars during the late 19th and early 20th century both of which they were victors, and yet the Empire collapsed.

Knowing the problem of Imperial rule and reparing them once they have peaked is not a winnable task. To say the least it was the Victorian period the created their enemies, that is to say the period was essentially self destructive. To further the problem WWII demonstrates the aftermath. The eccentricities of the period in europe can be compared with those in greece or the increasing dicotomy between port cities and inland areas of Europe during the roman period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kiwi1960]

25 minutes ago, PB666 said:

 

We have almost perfect information about the Great Britian late Victorian and Edwardian Era , it engaged in a couple of wars during the late 19th and early 20th century both of which they were victors, and yet the Empire collapsed.

Knowing the problem of Imperial rule and reparing them once they have peaked is not a winnable task. To say the least it was the Victorian period the created their enemies, that is to say the period was essentially self destructive. To further the problem WWII demonstrates the aftermath. The eccentricities of the period in europe can be compared with those in greece or the increasing dicotomy between port cities and inland areas of Europe during the roman period.

In actual fact, Britain, or the U.K. as it prefers to be now called, lost the empire for these events in history...

1945 : The U.N. finally meets after the war, in the USA!
1946 - 1949 The U.N. encourages all nations to grant nationhood to all its former colonies...
1949 India gains independence...
1950 - 1970 Most other nations divests itself of colonies... (Portugal, UK, France etc etc.... including Australia and New Zealand which had a few Islands in the Pacific)

Only China (1949) and Cuba (1959) gained their freedom through revolutions! (apart from a few other lesser known nations)

Nothing really to do with a collapse of an empire in the strict sense of the words...

Edited April 3, 2016 by kiwi1960

[Vanamonde]

Having left the subject of spaceflight far behind, this thread no longer belongs in the science subforum. Moved to General. 

[PB666]

1 hour ago, kiwi1960 said:

In actual fact, Britain, or the U.K. as it prefers to be now called, lost the empire for these events in history...

1945 : The U.N. finally meets after the war, in the USA!
1946 - 1949 The U.N. encourages all nations to grant nationhood to all its former colonies...
1949 India gains independence...
1950 - 1970 Most other nations divests itself of colonies... (Portugal, UK, France etc etc.... including Australia and New Zealand which had a few Islands in the Pacific)

Only China (1949) and Cuba (1959) gained their freedom through revolutions! (apart from a few other lesser known nations)

Nothing really to do with a collapse of an empire in the strict sense of the words...

Those are essentially after the fact occurrences, the Empire started bleeding before was bleeding heavily after WWI great fortunes were lost among the peerage. The colonies would have fallen with or without the UN, the bigger problem was the corruption of the aristocracy and their essential lack of flexiblity and desire to maintain the status quo. Let me give you a brief history.

Kaiser Wilhelm II, Grandson of queen Victoria, mother of Victoria married Fredrick II of Germany
Tsar Nicholas, First Cousing of George the V.

First fall off, Boxer rebellion  . . . . . . . . . .1900 China the lions share European was British economic holdings . Although they won the conflict, the political toll on Britain was great, and most of the interior holdings and interest were eventually abandoned and with Japan moving into the vacuum Russo-Japanese War (8 February 1904 – 5 September 1905) , Despite an eight country coalition and many warships the European Allies lost the hearts and minds of chinese people, and had mediate transactions with the Qing dynasty. It began a pattern of Britian were a win was in actuality a loss. It would not be long before the Japanese had gained sufficient control to block western ambitions in China.

Gallipoli Campaign  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1915 widely regard as one of the largest British defeats of the 20th century, the waning ottoman empire was in full collapse at this point, the British sought an opportunity to take back Istabul, the battle was ill-planned. With minor german support the advance was defeated. Ottoman empire would collapse, Britain once again snatches defeat from the hands of victory.

Second fall off,  Easter Uprising . . . . . . .1916 Ireland, post war 1919 to 1921 war of independence - freed in 1921 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence.  Britian managed to win this conflict also, but in the end kept only 6 provinces of Ireland, and lost 26 

Third to fall off, 3rd Anglo-Afgan war . . . 1919 Once again the British won, and Afgan declare themselves an independents state, the british are forced to place a formal boundary between Afgan and India.

Withering influences and corruption of the mandates 1923. Unilateral abandonment of Palestine May 14th 1948. Started the first Arab-Israeli war. Although technically not a loss, the 5 year mandates became a pretense for the Balfour doctrine for establishing a Jewish homeland (sate) in palestine, it was a wholescale subtrifugation of the agreed upon British Mandate (justifyable by humanitarian means, but a pretense for the covert shipment of arms to British allies in palestine, by agents of Lord Rothchilds), was coincidentally uncovered. The first revolt occurred in late 1920s (you will have to look up the league of nations annual reports to see the documents). British responsibility was to set boundaries between religious groups, on May 14th 1947 they exectude a preannounced abdication their responsibilty. The american president H. Truman warned that such a sudden exit without a UN force in place would cause bloodshed and humanitarian crisis (which it did).  Then next day the first Arab-Israeli war started. Patial history here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict

Note the similarities between Romans and Britian, The empire does not fall to bits, its a process of wittling away at the territories until it was unrecognizable. Great Britain had two hidden nemeses Stalin and Roosevelt, both felt that Imperial Europe was the cause of WWII and both sought to undermine its influence. Both had their interest, Stalin was building the Soviet Empire, and Roosevelt and Truman wanted to expand American economic interests in Asia and in Africa. 

 

 

     

 

 

[Matuchkin]

Well, for one thing, if the Roman Empire survived what killed it (an economic downfall), it would still have to fight German Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and the German/Polish Vandal tribes. Anyway, if Rome did survive that (slim chance), it would certainly not reach spacefaring status by 1100AD, as the empire fell in 476AD (only 624 years have passed to 1100AD). Also, I assume that the reason you asked about 1100AD and not some later date is because you assumed that the dark ages (also known as the middle ages) would not have happened if Rome didn't fall. That is not the case. If Rome didn't have its economic downfall, the dark ages would still go on around it.

[Dispatcher]

This is what the Roman empire would be like:

 

[daniel l.]

16 hours ago, Dispatcher said:

This is what the Roman empire would be like:

 

Perhaps you should have just rickrolled us.

[pTrevTrevs]

You know, people often assume that centuries of technological advancement were lost when the Western Roman Empire fell, but as far as I know, the only thing meaningful (besides records and books and such) that was lost was Roman concrete, the likes of which was not seen again until the Industrial Revolution. People also assume that the Middle Ages were a time of little to no technological and cultural advancement, which is again, simply not true. The horse stirrup, three field crop rotation, trebuchet, and gunpowder weapons (among other things) were all invented (or stolen from China) in the Middle Ages. The first universities were also founded during this time, and scientists in the Middle East also made significant contributions to the field of medicine. So not as much technology was lost of delayed by the fall of Rome as you would think. So no, I doubt spaceflight could be achieved by 1100 (Hell, gunpowder wasn't even invented by then, and its place of origin, China, was largely unaffected by the fall of Rome).

[PB666]

22 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

You know, people often assume that centuries of technological advancement were lost when the Western Roman Empire fell, but as far as I know, the only thing meaningful (besides records and books and such) that was lost was Roman concrete, the likes of which was not seen again until the Industrial Revolution. People also assume that the Middle Ages were a time of little to no technological and cultural advancement, which is again, simply not true. The horse stirrup, three field crop rotation, trebuchet, and gunpowder weapons (among other things) were all invented (or stolen from China) in the Middle Ages. The first universities were also founded during this time, and scientists in the Middle East also made significant contributions to the field of medicine. So not as much technology was lost of delayed by the fall of Rome as you would think. So no, I doubt spaceflight could be achieved by 1100 (Hell, gunpowder wasn't even invented by then, and its place of origin, China, was largely unaffected by the fall of Rome).

I'm still trying to figure out how the romans figured out how to make bleach blonds. 

[Dispatcher]

3 hours ago, PB666 said:

I'm still trying to figure out how the romans figured out how to make bleach blonds. 

From Wikipedia:  "Dying hair was popular among women, although the frequency that hair was coloured often made it weaker. Tertullian discusses how hair dye burnt the scalp and was harmful for the head.  Artificial dyes could be applied through powders, gels and bleach ... and pigeon dung was used to lighten hair."

[Stargate525]

On 4/6/2016 at 7:47 PM, pTrevTrevs said:

You know, people often assume that centuries of technological advancement were lost when the Western Roman Empire fell, but as far as I know, the only thing meaningful (besides records and books and such) that was lost was Roman concrete, the likes of which was not seen again until the Industrial Revolution. People also assume that the Middle Ages were a time of little to no technological and cultural advancement, which is again, simply not true. The horse stirrup, three field crop rotation, trebuchet, and gunpowder weapons (among other things) were all invented (or stolen from China) in the Middle Ages. The first universities were also founded during this time, and scientists in the Middle East also made significant contributions to the field of medicine. So not as much technology was lost of delayed by the fall of Rome as you would think. So no, I doubt spaceflight could be achieved by 1100 (Hell, gunpowder wasn't even invented by then, and its place of origin, China, was largely unaffected by the fall of Rome).

This. A thousand times this. You had the organization with the Romans, but you need a critical mass of burghers and merchantile drive in order to spark an industrial revolution; China never got one because the population's demand for goods never necessitated a drive to find more efficient means of doing things. Greece had a railroad on 600bc, and understood the motive power of steam by the first century. They never put the two together because... frankly, they didn't need to. Their population was too spread out and generally low to derive a benefit fitting the labor input.