How would the world have turned out if Rome never fell?

>If the huns did not push the germans into the empire

This is mostly a myth perpetuated by German nationalist historians.

One could make the argument that the Roman Empire never "fell", we just call it the Roman Catholic Church these days.

would not be as advanced as today.
the advancement from Europe came from many states trying to one up each-other for political power/military strength and cultural superiority. The states of the time realized that individualism produced this, and this it prospered, for better or worse.

That is why eastern countries aside from japan with their crazy invention scene, cant make anything new, they have a culture of collectivism, everything you do is for the state/ the state controls all. Western civs made the belief of changing the state and culture around you.

>no empire
>no ties to actual Roman culture, aside from use of their language
>don't even get that right

the world would be extremely white which basically means we would've progressed further 1000 years due to not having to deal with these sub-human savages holding us back

>implying the Roman Empire was wholly comprised of whites
Rome had a lot of land in predominantly non-white areas. They didn't just move all the locals somewhere else or kill them all; they assimilated them.

>no empire
>no ties to actual Roman culture, not even the use of their language

??????????????????????

Like a big clusterfuck with everyone speaking a disgusting version of Latin

Europe?

No empire? Couldn't you argue that any country that has a majority of Catholics is its empire? If my logic is correct, then I can conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is the greatest, largest, ost powerful empire on Earth.

kek

Probably not much. Rome was unimportant by the time it fell.
A better question is what wouldve happened if the empire never fell into decay culminating in the disintegration of the West.

I'm glad this board came to its senses, I was SICK of hearing about 'fall of Rome'. I have a hard time imagining it even fell the more I read about it. It was transformed, it was inevitable. Everything gets transformed once every corner of the Empire becomes developed enough to obey the central authority. Not even Republican Rome and Constantine Rome were similar.
It lives today in the modern nations forged in 19th century, it lives in Catholicism, law, insititutions, architecture, language, our western perception of the world. It also lived in British Empire and it lives in modern America.

The Church is the one part of the Roman state that survived...

Rome killed Greek science

There was no scientific progress in Rome

>Significando Romam cecidisse
maximus cachinnus
hoc

retard indeed

When people say the fall of Rome they are talking about the institution of the emperor, in both west and east. They're not talking about the loss of Romanised culture.

Like China.

It's neighbors will hate it for its imperial weight-throwing-about and none of the "Muh Romeboory" will exist.

>German nationalist historians
>German historians
>nationalist

>It was transformed,

did it turn into a pretty butterfly???

...

*countries invaded by england

Nah. Not the same thing, they just have the same capital.

By the time Christianity became the state religion the Empire might as well have already fallen. It was only thirty years before the sack of Rome.

True Rome was Hellenistic. Christianity was a symptom and arguably a major cause of its demise.

> Couldn't you argue that any country that has a majority of Catholics is its empire?
No

>By the time Christianity became the state religion the Empire might as well have already fallen.
It didn't fall for another 1100 years after the fact, what are you talking about

>B-bu ,muh Byzantium.
Byzantine is not Roman. Different culture, Different place. It's like saying American is English.

You knew exactly what I was talking about. And you also know that I'm right.

...

Not that guy but..
>Different culture, different place
Ahh yes, reminds me of how 2016 Oregon isn't American since after all, it wasn't one of the authentic 13 colonies.
>It's like saying American is English
Yeah you know, it's not like we were founded by Brits or their colony or anything...

Not him, but it's different from those examples and you know it is. For example, you stated that his logic wouldn't allow Oregon to be considered part of the US, but I don't think he'd dispute that a province of the Roman Empire circa 100 AD wasn't Roman just because it wasn't part of the original city-state.

It's hard to identify the exact point in time that the Byzantine Empire stopped really being 'Roman', but I'd probably be inclined to think post-Justinian. I don't know if there's really a good word to capture all the complexities of the Roman-Byzantine split, but I'd say 'successor state' might be a better term.

>it's not like we were founded by Brits or their colony or anything.

Missing my point this hard. Do you think I just picked the two at random?

My gif didn't show up...

I am me, this guy knows how to read. Completely agree.

Any recommended readings on the Roman-Byzantine split?

Do you mean the dividing of the Roman Empire into eastern and western halves or books about the Byzantine Empire after the west collapsed?

The dividing

Byzantium: The Early Centuries by John Norwich explains it all pretty well - though bear in mind it shifts focus onto the Eastern Empire pretty quickly. Any book generally on the fall of the Roman Empire will also probably go into a bit of a detail about how the Empire was divided, although I'm not really aware of any books that focus exclusively on it sorry.

The Byzantine world never stopped "being Roman". The fact is that the Roman Republic world was a far different one than the Pax Romana, which was different than the late empire. Societies evolve, which is exactly what happened in the east. At the end of the day though, the ERE followed Roman laws, customs and considered themselves roman. Practically everything they had evolved directly from the Romans.
On a semi unrelated point, if Maurice hadnt bee overthrown by Phokas, its probable he would have installed his son as a western emperor again.

Thanks

No
I see what you are saying though
Like how he Jews still retain sense of their culture through their religion and shit
But Christians aren't like that

Yes, societies evolve - but there's also a line, hard to define true, where you have to admit it's separated sufficiently from the original culture to be called something different.

For example, modern English culture is pretty damned different from English culture in the 11th century - but no one would argue that modern England isn't 'English'. However, consider that the English political is the product of a Norman invasion of England. For the first few centuries, the English upper classes continued to consider themselves Norman, spoke French etc. It would be rather disingenuous to say that modern England is 'Norman'.

Or what if Great Britain had been invaded and collapsed in the 19th century, but the colonial administration and units of the British Army survived in India? They might continue to call themselves 'British' and entertain thoughts of one day reviving the British Empire. Over time however, the ruling elite would likely mix with the locals and adapt to their new circumstances. After 2 or so centuries they'd still likely have some of the old trappings of Britain, but would likely have taken on some of the local customs and intermixed with Indians to the extent that you have something 'new'. It's certainly a legacy of Britain's empire, and a successor in some ways, but at some point it's not really British anymore.

Fascinating discussion in any case.

I understand what youre saying, but dont exactly agree. You can pretty much say that about any culture anyway, and Roman is of no particular exception given how integrated a culture it was with everyone else.
The main difference here is that there was no immediate "split" as there would have been in the fictional British India example. There was a slow decline in the West, which basically ended in its nonexistence anymore, and the East overtaking it.
If youre looking for a split in culture, then you can find one; however it would be much earlier than you would expect. By your argument the split would have indeed occurred while the whole empire was still intact, probably sometime after the barracks emperors. The shift to the East had been happening far before the "split", with Diocletian and many others ruling from the East.
A good argument, but I dont think it applies. I would write more but I have to be off to my girlfriends. Sorry!

Despite the memes about Germans being cucked, their historians have always been famously self-obsessed and see everything through the Germanic 'lense'. They see the fall of Rome as the decay of a degenerate state to be replaced by the vigorous Germanic master race.

Germanic tribes and Germans.are not the same thing.

Like the CHinese.

French, Italian, English, Spanish, Greek and an assortment of other languages would be considered Roman dialects.

Germany and surrounding countries would hate it but emulate everything about it.

it would be a wrong and dumb argument so pls don't make it

You get it.

We use Roman names of days, months, holidays, languages etc. In the West.

Roman society has endured unto today.

>We use Roman names of days
>Wednesday, 20 July 2016
>Wednesday aka Wōdnesdæg the day of Woden

>Monday= The Moon
>Tuesday=Tyr, Germanic god
>Wednesday=Odin, Germanic god
>Thursday=Thor, Germanic god
>Friday= Freya, Germanic goddess
>Saturday= Saturn, Roman God
>Sunday=The Sun

>the institution of the emperor
And the ironic thing is that "emperor" is a modern invented term for something that contemporary Romans did not comprehend. To them there was no "republic" or "empire" it was just "Rome", and the really, really rich guy who pledged to protect traditional Roman values and maintain the state as they thought it should be without any change or modification.

It didn't become an overt despotism until after the crisis of the 3rd century. Before then it was a hypocritical farce of a democracy.

>>Wednesday, 20 July 2016
> July

in Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese

>Lunes = Lunis
>Martes = Mars
>Miercoles = Mercury
>Jueves = Jupiter
>Viernes =Venus
>Sabado = Sabbatum + Shabath
>Domingo = Dominicus

Yeah all german historians were self obsessed nationalists. There weren´t good and bad ones like in every other civilization. It was historical trend some historians followed and others didn´t.

>Tibetan Buddhism
Why is that there

No, it was based on the roman term "Imperator" which ment the general with the biggest army

>Imperator
was a strictly military title in those days, more comparable to the modern term 'generalissimo' or 'commander-in-chief'.

The first usage of the term 'Emperor' in its modern meaning of 'unlimited executive of the state' was Charlemagne in the 9th century CE, a long time after classical Roman society had transitioned into something else.

As well, you'll notice that the Germanic gods names for those days are basically the cognates of their Roman counterparts. Either the Germans adapted the idea but replacing with more familiar gods, or proto-indo-europeans already had an established day naming system which both used.

Any Greek speakers here? Is the cognate there too?

...

...

And yet,that trend was the most popular in Germany,England and Sweden.

The Huns were the ones who've delivered the killing blow to the Western Roman Empire,the Germanic tribes have only raped the remains of it's desiccated corpse.

Which Roman era was the most aesthetic?

4th and 7th,in my opinion.

you do know the Romans won the battle of Chalons?

I'm aware of that,but at what cost?

The whole world would have become roman.
If nothing else because if the empire endures eternally, then it means nothing can defeat it and it can just wait until the opposition dies off, which invariably happens.

What cost indeed? Do tell. It's not like Aetius and Valentinian died there, it's not like it caused Gaiseric's sack, it's not like it consumed the entirety of Rome's resources or anywhere close to that.

Figuring out what inflation is and taking all of the shit currency out of circulation. Staying free market rather than devolving into feudalism, so that central authority sticks around in the west.