I think the "Rome never fell" scenario ignores how much civil war actually wrecked them

Honestly, every time I see people talk about a Roman Empire that survived to the modern day, they act like it was just one big happy republic that kept expanding. But I dug into some primary accounts from the 3rd century crisis last month and like, they had like 26 emperors in 50 years and most got assassinated. Even if it never "fell" to barbarians, I think internal fighting would have split it into separate states anyway. The Byzantine Empire basically proves that. Anyone else think the alt-history fans romanticize this too much?

3 comments

3 Comments

karenh5619d ago

Yeah, totally agree with @angela_harris on that.

jason_lewis318d ago

strong administrative backbone" held for rome but byzantines lost tons of land anyway, so how strong was it really?

angela_harris19d ago

Oh man, I gotta push back a little here. The 3rd century crisis was bad, yeah, but Diocletian and Constantine actually pulled it back together pretty hard. If anything, the split into East and West was almost like a survival move, not a collapse. The Byzantine Empire kept going for another thousand years after the West fell, so to me that says the structure was actually pretty solid when managed right. I think people overestimate how much civil wars alone can destroy a state when it has a strong administrative backbone. Rome had that more than most.