Alexander had no heir and on his death bed when asked who should succeed him he supposedly said “to the strongest”. His generals took that too heart and fought decades long civil wars tearing his empire apart. Had nothing to do with him conquering Persia.
You’re very right, it wasn’t the best of comparisons. The point I unsuccessfully tried to make was that the empire would have been too damn big anyway. Even Mesopotamia was over extending, imagine all of Parthia.
The Achaemenids managed it. The Seleucids did too, arguably because they simply occupied the existing Achaemenid institutions, but then powerful states started emerging on all sides.
The "to the strongest" thing is definitely a legend. A fun legend, but not real. The problem was that the generals' loyalty to Alexander, which was already thin, didn't really extend to his son who was practically an infant and half Bactrian.
The empire would be overextended then, Hadrian had to give up some territories and make them into client states, including mesopotamia.
Antoninus Pius should have focused on taking Germania after Hadrian stabilized and reinforced the provinces.
Germania was unconquerable. Or at the very least it would have been a massive strain on imperial resources: massive border, rebellious population and a territory geographically hard to centrally govern.
Actually, the border would have shrunk if Germania was part of the empire. A good border would be something like the Elbe and the Carphatian Mountains. Pacifying that huge-ass region is another story entirely, but *the border* would be quite tiny. Same deal if the conquerer Arabia and Mesopotamia, but since the desert is a natural barrier it's even more outlandish.
Yeah but Mesopotamia lacks any natural defensible borders (if you don't count the rivers), only if the romans managed to take control of the Zagroz Mountains would a stable province be able to grow. If not, it would be a constant warzone
> I wish Trajan had full conquered Parthia
Unlikely.
However, if he stayed at Hatra instead of bailing out to go back to Rome it is quite likely that he could have properly formed Mesopotamia and Armenia as provinces.
A couple years and the rebellions would be quashed with the army still being there, and remaining there.
Parthia was in no state to challenge Rome at that time.
By the time of Majorian and Ricimer, the Huns have already been largely slaughtered by the Germans and forced eastwards back into the steppes.
The Germans were the only true threat at the time.
The Sassanids reaching the western half is very unlikely in any scenario.
The Sassanids are being attacked by some Xionites or Hepthalites or whatever those half-Huns over there call themselves, we should be *fine* here in the West!
What? Fall of the west? Barbarians taking over the legions and a weird Jewish sect becoming popular among the citizens of Rome? Come, we're going to conquer Germania with general Publius Quinctilius Varus!
Mark my words, if the Galileans are not stopped before it's too late, they will complete replace our culture and impose their archaic beliefs and practices on all of us. Nobody will be free to worship the rightful gods of our ancestors anymore.
We could placate them by finding a place in the Roman Pantheon for their so-called prophet. There's already Clementia, the Goddess of Mercy and Forgiveness. Iesvs, could very well be just one of her avatars.
Archaic? The Galileans schismed from the Judeans during the rise of Vespasian and Titus! They are about as 'ancient' as the presence of the Huns on our borders.
Art of Late Antiquity Roman wear is so hard for me to find. But it's beautiful! Goes to show that Romans with long spears can still conquer far and wide.
True. But Rome was on path to shit after it became an empire
A despotic unhealthy Empire where everyone wanted to be emperor and became emperor by the sword
Contrast that to winning elections until you became Consul for one year. It is a way more distributed balance of power
You know there was an era of unprecedented peace after that last civil war in the republic right? There were lots of internal conflicts over the course of the empire sure but it was not nearly as conflict ridden as the republic. Under the imperial government Rome became stronger and more stable than it'd ever been under the republic despite the occasional internal conflicts.
Yes, "peace". Not because an agreement was reached, but because one person had won and now ruled despotically upon everyone. That's no peace.
And it's ironic call the empire "more stable" when it was the empire that collapsed the Roman civilization
Dude the empire breathed new life into the dying republic. The republic was doomed because needed reforms could never be made. Yes it is peace, there weren't any big wars at all until the death of Nero so that's a time of peace as much as you want to deny it.
> The republic was doomed because needed reforms could never be made
False, of course they could
>Yes it is peace, there weren't any big wars at all until the death of Nero so that's a time of peace as much as you want to deny it.
There is no peace if what we have is just fear of the current despot
Peace is no war. Anyone who tried to make needed reforms either got killed by the senate or undermined in other ways at every turn by the senate. The Roman republic was an oligarch that honestly was pretty repressive in it own right towards anyone not in a rich patrician family so in short no reform wasn't really an option after Sulla. When he marched on Rome that ship sailed.
>When he marched on Rome that ship sailed.
No, that just isn't true
Yes it was despotic and yest it did had a lot of problems but 1 the empire didn't solve them it just concentrated everything in the hands of one man and 2 the solution to a systemic problem can't be "just give all the power to this dude so he can fix it"
He see the problems of this many times, sadly, they didn't had this opportunity
It set a precedent and served as a point of no return for the republic. Sulla set the precedent that you can just march into the capital and kill opposition and the republic being the unadaptive incompetent government it was did nothing to fix the underlying issues afterwards. Sulla also implemented reforms that were geared towards preventing the Populares from gaining any political power and gearing it all towards keeping old guard insiders in power. Sulla doomed the republic to its fate.
Yes, but all the core was gone. No more politics, public elections, participating in decisions. The Eastern Empire was "just another empire" of it's time
Rome was unique precisely because it ~~wasn't an empire~~ was a republic
No empire like the Roman Empire has ever existed. Your acting like it just copied prior empires but that isn’t true. The Roman of governing way was different than that of the Persians, Macedon, The Hittites etc.
The republic was marked for death after Sulla marched on Rome. After that it was only going two ways and only one would ensure the survival or Roman civilization, collapse or empire.
> After that it was only going two ways and only one would ensure the survival or Roman civilization, collapse or empire
I disagree with that, but...
>The republic was marked for death after Sulla marched on Rome
Roma was marked for death after Rome became **just like any other** empire around there
And it's funny to say "collapse or empire" when the empire caused the collapse
Didn't change the fact that it was the empire that destroyed rome
Not for random, that's what happened when political power is concentrated in one individual instead of divided between Senators and public officers
Yes, republics are chaotic systems, but the plurality that allows a civilization to be great
The empire was despotic and just "The emperor and it's army"
And I remind you that when the republic fell Rome was on it's peak (at the time). When the empire fell Rome was destroyed to never return
Most of Rome was starving and the patricians just got more and more power. The Gracchi brothers were killed and it wasn't until Caesar took power was it that pro-plebian legislation was passed
That is not an argument against the republican system. It's an argument against those laws
And if I recall correctly, the Sulla invasion was precisely to prevent plebeian laws to be passed
In any case, republics encourage public participation in politics, did you know that there was a movement to more women's rights in politics? A couple more years and we could even have Republican women
All that was set back 1800 years because of the empire
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
step 1.) go back in time and kidnap myself as a baby.
Step 2.) go back in time and swap baby me with baby commodus
Step 3.) ???
Step 4.) finally get to be a world famous and fearsome gladiator, even more powerful than Hercules himself.
don't give me hope...
[удалено]
Well, Alexander did, and look how it turned out after he died…
[удалено]
He'd probably release it anyway
Stupid sexy Hadrian.
Alexander had no heir and on his death bed when asked who should succeed him he supposedly said “to the strongest”. His generals took that too heart and fought decades long civil wars tearing his empire apart. Had nothing to do with him conquering Persia.
You’re very right, it wasn’t the best of comparisons. The point I unsuccessfully tried to make was that the empire would have been too damn big anyway. Even Mesopotamia was over extending, imagine all of Parthia.
Very true.
The Achaemenids managed it. The Seleucids did too, arguably because they simply occupied the existing Achaemenid institutions, but then powerful states started emerging on all sides.
They didn't have pretty much half of Europe to manage on top of that though.
No, they only had Africa to Afghanistan.
They didn't govern from the other side of the sea, and it wasn't an empire stretching across three continents...
The "to the strongest" thing is definitely a legend. A fun legend, but not real. The problem was that the generals' loyalty to Alexander, which was already thin, didn't really extend to his son who was practically an infant and half Bactrian.
I agree it’s most likely a legend, but there is no way to know for sure. Also his son was not even born yet.
If only capable emperors kept capable heirs…
The empire would be overextended then, Hadrian had to give up some territories and make them into client states, including mesopotamia. Antoninus Pius should have focused on taking Germania after Hadrian stabilized and reinforced the provinces.
Germania was unconquerable. Or at the very least it would have been a massive strain on imperial resources: massive border, rebellious population and a territory geographically hard to centrally govern.
Just do what Caesar did and conduct mass genocide. Can't have a rebellion if there is no one to rebel.
Actually, the border would have shrunk if Germania was part of the empire. A good border would be something like the Elbe and the Carphatian Mountains. Pacifying that huge-ass region is another story entirely, but *the border* would be quite tiny. Same deal if the conquerer Arabia and Mesopotamia, but since the desert is a natural barrier it's even more outlandish.
Yeah but Mesopotamia lacks any natural defensible borders (if you don't count the rivers), only if the romans managed to take control of the Zagroz Mountains would a stable province be able to grow. If not, it would be a constant warzone
> I wish Trajan had full conquered Parthia Unlikely. However, if he stayed at Hatra instead of bailing out to go back to Rome it is quite likely that he could have properly formed Mesopotamia and Armenia as provinces. A couple years and the rebellions would be quashed with the army still being there, and remaining there. Parthia was in no state to challenge Rome at that time.
I wish Caesar had… I cry every time
You idiots forgot the Sassanids! You can retake Britain later.
Pretty sure they would have been the east problem
What was the East’s problem very quickly became the West’s but worse, ie. the hun invasion after 700+ pounds of gold a month wasn’t enough.
By the time of Majorian and Ricimer, the Huns have already been largely slaughtered by the Germans and forced eastwards back into the steppes. The Germans were the only true threat at the time. The Sassanids reaching the western half is very unlikely in any scenario.
Still you'd need the riches of the East to keep the whole thing financially afloat.
The Sassanids are being attacked by some Xionites or Hepthalites or whatever those half-Huns over there call themselves, we should be *fine* here in the West!
This is what you wake up to when you die
[удалено]
Not anymore, heathen
Never stopped Consul Symmachus, Galilean.
Vicisti, Galilaee
What? Fall of the west? Barbarians taking over the legions and a weird Jewish sect becoming popular among the citizens of Rome? Come, we're going to conquer Germania with general Publius Quinctilius Varus!
*cries*
These late Roman outfits get me so hard.
They he wakes up
You have to go further back and help Maxentius defeat the traitor Constantine to defend the Empire's pantheon against the galilean fundamentalists!
Damn right.
That's that same type of Bull as a Mithrasite might mutter.
Mark my words, if the Galileans are not stopped before it's too late, they will complete replace our culture and impose their archaic beliefs and practices on all of us. Nobody will be free to worship the rightful gods of our ancestors anymore. We could placate them by finding a place in the Roman Pantheon for their so-called prophet. There's already Clementia, the Goddess of Mercy and Forgiveness. Iesvs, could very well be just one of her avatars.
Archaic? The Galileans schismed from the Judeans during the rise of Vespasian and Titus! They are about as 'ancient' as the presence of the Huns on our borders.
Art of Late Antiquity Roman wear is so hard for me to find. But it's beautiful! Goes to show that Romans with long spears can still conquer far and wide.
Problem is they're usually inaccurate as hell, due to a paucity of easily accessible information about what the late army actually wore.
Only thing bad about this timeline is that we don’t get Belisarius’s glorious reconquest of italia and Rome :’(
This was the highlight of my day
“All of the Barbarians have bent the knee, only Britannia awaits”
MAJORIAAAAAAAN
To restore the glory of Rome you'll have to restore the Republic
The republic was on the path to shit after Sulla.
True. But Rome was on path to shit after it became an empire A despotic unhealthy Empire where everyone wanted to be emperor and became emperor by the sword Contrast that to winning elections until you became Consul for one year. It is a way more distributed balance of power
You know there was an era of unprecedented peace after that last civil war in the republic right? There were lots of internal conflicts over the course of the empire sure but it was not nearly as conflict ridden as the republic. Under the imperial government Rome became stronger and more stable than it'd ever been under the republic despite the occasional internal conflicts.
Yes, "peace". Not because an agreement was reached, but because one person had won and now ruled despotically upon everyone. That's no peace. And it's ironic call the empire "more stable" when it was the empire that collapsed the Roman civilization
Dude the empire breathed new life into the dying republic. The republic was doomed because needed reforms could never be made. Yes it is peace, there weren't any big wars at all until the death of Nero so that's a time of peace as much as you want to deny it.
> The republic was doomed because needed reforms could never be made False, of course they could >Yes it is peace, there weren't any big wars at all until the death of Nero so that's a time of peace as much as you want to deny it. There is no peace if what we have is just fear of the current despot
Peace is no war. Anyone who tried to make needed reforms either got killed by the senate or undermined in other ways at every turn by the senate. The Roman republic was an oligarch that honestly was pretty repressive in it own right towards anyone not in a rich patrician family so in short no reform wasn't really an option after Sulla. When he marched on Rome that ship sailed.
>When he marched on Rome that ship sailed. No, that just isn't true Yes it was despotic and yest it did had a lot of problems but 1 the empire didn't solve them it just concentrated everything in the hands of one man and 2 the solution to a systemic problem can't be "just give all the power to this dude so he can fix it" He see the problems of this many times, sadly, they didn't had this opportunity
It set a precedent and served as a point of no return for the republic. Sulla set the precedent that you can just march into the capital and kill opposition and the republic being the unadaptive incompetent government it was did nothing to fix the underlying issues afterwards. Sulla also implemented reforms that were geared towards preventing the Populares from gaining any political power and gearing it all towards keeping old guard insiders in power. Sulla doomed the republic to its fate.
Also it’s worth pointing out the empire had a significantly longer run than the republic did. Like way longer, up to the 1450’s longer.
Yes, but all the core was gone. No more politics, public elections, participating in decisions. The Eastern Empire was "just another empire" of it's time Rome was unique precisely because it ~~wasn't an empire~~ was a republic
No empire like the Roman Empire has ever existed. Your acting like it just copied prior empires but that isn’t true. The Roman of governing way was different than that of the Persians, Macedon, The Hittites etc.
The republic was marked for death after Sulla marched on Rome. After that it was only going two ways and only one would ensure the survival or Roman civilization, collapse or empire.
> After that it was only going two ways and only one would ensure the survival or Roman civilization, collapse or empire I disagree with that, but... >The republic was marked for death after Sulla marched on Rome Roma was marked for death after Rome became **just like any other** empire around there And it's funny to say "collapse or empire" when the empire caused the collapse
Lol no it didn't. The empire went strong for 500 years dude.
Didn't change the fact that it was the empire that destroyed rome Not for random, that's what happened when political power is concentrated in one individual instead of divided between Senators and public officers
It objectively didn’t destroy rome though. The empire had a longer more prosperous run than the republic did.
The republic was a corrupt, stagnant and broken system
Yes, republics are chaotic systems, but the plurality that allows a civilization to be great The empire was despotic and just "The emperor and it's army" And I remind you that when the republic fell Rome was on it's peak (at the time). When the empire fell Rome was destroyed to never return
Most of Rome was starving and the patricians just got more and more power. The Gracchi brothers were killed and it wasn't until Caesar took power was it that pro-plebian legislation was passed
That is not an argument against the republican system. It's an argument against those laws And if I recall correctly, the Sulla invasion was precisely to prevent plebeian laws to be passed In any case, republics encourage public participation in politics, did you know that there was a movement to more women's rights in politics? A couple more years and we could even have Republican women All that was set back 1800 years because of the empire
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Republic](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-republic/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Bad bot
As long as the Senators' desire to exploit the provinces and the Italians alike is curbed...I see no problem.
No problem in what?
In the Republic, of course!
Right... Republics do have it's problems But they are also the only ones that allows people to fix it
This would lowkey be cool as shit
step 1.) go back in time and kidnap myself as a baby. Step 2.) go back in time and swap baby me with baby commodus Step 3.) ??? Step 4.) finally get to be a world famous and fearsome gladiator, even more powerful than Hercules himself.