• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Roman Resources

Go to CruxDreams.com

Loxuru

Graf von Kreuzigung
The great unknown is, how the hypothetical political structure in the area would have influenced, facilitated or prevented the rise and spreading of islam in the area, six centuries later;
 

Frank Petrexa

Governor
But that's the problem, using 'republican' in the modern sense, or at least as a label for the pre-imperial institutions.
The Romans themselves wouldn't have called or thought of them as 'republican', only as older forms of the res publica.
When I was in Rome years ago I recall that the sewer covers said "SPQR"--Senatus Pubilusque Romanus. So I agree it wasn't really a republic in the sense that someone like Ted Cruz, say, could run for the Senate, but the Empire did end a more inclusive kind of rule--patricians had more say.
 

phlebas

PRIMUS POENUS
When I was in Rome years ago I recall that the sewer covers said "SPQR"--Senatus Pubilusque Romanus. So I agree it wasn't really a republic in the sense that someone like Ted Cruz, say, could run for the Senate, but the Empire did end a more inclusive kind of rule--patricians had more say.
The Senate and the people of Rome, yes indeed. Even then they paid lip service to the popular will :)

The great unknown is, how the hypothetical political structure in the area would have influenced, facilitated or prevented the rise and spreading of islam in the area, six centuries later;
Would it have mattered which of two political camps had won in the late 1st century BC? Maybe not much, in the long run. But someone above is suggesting that Christianity may not have thrived in that world, and that itself could have impacted Islam, which draws heavily from Judaism and Christianity.

There is a strong argument that it is not the fall of the Western empire but the rise of Islam in the Mediterranean that marks the true end of the classical world. We can never really know what impact changes like the defeat of Octavian could have had. Every change leads to numerous other changes. Some argue that there is an inevitability to history one way or the other, ie that WWI would have happened, it was just a question of when. Would we have still had largely the same type of empire one way or the other? Or is Octavian/Augustus truly significant in creating the world that followed him? Killing Julius Caesar did not prevent the rise of autocrats.
 

Migoz2

Governor
Would it have mattered which of two political camps had won in the late 1st century BC? Maybe not much, in the long run. But someone above is suggesting that Christianity may not have thrived in that world, and that itself could have impacted Islam, which draws heavily from Judaism and Christianity.

There is a strong argument that it is not the fall of the Western empire but the rise of Islam in the Mediterranean that marks the true end of the classical world. We can never really know what impact changes like the defeat of Octavian could have had. Every change leads to numerous other changes. Some argue that there is an inevitability to history one way or the other, ie that WWI would have happened, it was just a question of when. Would we have still had largely the same type of empire one way or the other? Or is Octavian/Augustus truly significant in creating the world that followed him? Killing Julius Caesar did not prevent the rise of autocrats.
This post almost exactly articulates the questions which prompted me to post my original idea. I do not generally subscribe to a theory of history which depends on 'Great Men', but Rome under Octavian / Augustus seems to have taken a very specific direction which fed into the next years and decades (possibly even centuries?). On reflection, that side of things, I feel, would have happened anyway (historical inevitabilty), but the geo-political things are what are truly unknowable. Would the seat of power have shifted to Alexandria? Would that have made a difference to the rise of Christianity and then Islam?

O for a time machine! (Unless you end up like the protaganist of Michael Moorcock's novel, Behold the Man!)
 

RacingRodent

Potent Rodent
This post almost exactly articulates the questions which prompted me to post my original idea. I do not generally subscribe to a theory of history which depends on 'Great Men', but Rome under Octavian / Augustus seems to have taken a very specific direction which fed into the next years and decades (possibly even centuries?). On reflection, that side of things, I feel, would have happened anyway (historical inevitabilty), but the geo-political things are what are truly unknowable. Would the seat of power have shifted to Alexandria? Would that have made a difference to the rise of Christianity and then Islam?

O for a time machine! (Unless you end up like the protaganist of Michael Moorcock's novel, Behold the Man!)
I tend to the view that Rome, which may well have been home to over a million people as early as the Punic Wars, was by this stage too powerful a force to be held in check for long. That said the old Republican norms were collapsing so it is likely another strongman would have come to dominate. Would he have been as capable as Octavian/Augustus? Perhaps, perhaps not but it is likely that any Antonine Empire would have been short lived.
 
Top Bottom