Alternate History

[Pidesco]

If the Roman Empire had not imploded when it did, the stability would have lead to increased stagnation, corruption and general backwardness in Europe. Europe would have become a bit like China, in terms of a tendency to have their backs turned towards the rest of the world. If it wasn't for the Middle Ages, Europe wouldn't have conquered the world.

 

But of course, I'd say the fall of the Roman Empire was pretty inevitable by the time Marcus Aurelius kicked the bucket, and how are you going to stop something that far reaching?

[Pope]

If it wasn't for the Middle Ages, Europe wouldn't have conquered the world.

And that would have been a bad thing?

Edited January 5, 2010 by Pope

[Pidesco]

Not for Europe. Besides, some culture would have to do it, eventually.

[Monte Carlo]

If the Roman Empire had not imploded when it did, the stability would have lead to increased stagnation, corruption and general backwardness in Europe. Europe would have become a bit like China, in terms of a tendency to have their backs turned towards the rest of the world. If it wasn't for the Middle Ages, Europe wouldn't have conquered the world.

 

I have to disagree, the Romans were the antithesis of ancient China: outward-looking, mercantile, flexible and curious. Rome, played out differently, seems a plausible candidate to climb the tech tree rapidly. you need capitalism for the rapid technological progress that launches you from fireworks, ornate sailing ships and metallurgy to engines, internal combustion and electricity.

 

And, in the early Medieval era the Muslim kingdoms of the Caliphate were the most technologically advanced.

 

Cheers

MC

[Calax]

it is interesting on that wiki how many alt timelines are horribly racist.

[Pidesco]

If the Roman Empire had not imploded when it did, the stability would have lead to increased stagnation, corruption and general backwardness in Europe. Europe would have become a bit like China, in terms of a tendency to have their backs turned towards the rest of the world. If it wasn't for the Middle Ages, Europe wouldn't have conquered the world.

 

I have to disagree, the Romans were the antithesis of ancient China: outward-looking, mercantile, flexible and curious. Rome, played out differently, seems a plausible candidate to climb the tech tree rapidly. you need capitalism for the rapid technological progress that launches you from fireworks, ornate sailing ships and metallurgy to engines, internal combustion and electricity.

 

And, in the early Medieval era the Muslim kingdoms of the Caliphate were the most technologically advanced.

 

Cheers

MC

 

 

Early on, they were, indeed the antithesis of China. What I'm contending is that if they had resisted disintegration in the state things were being run, they would have become as inward looking and conservative as the Chinese.

 

In any case this is even more empty arguing than most alternate history, as the fall of the Roman Empire stemmed from a myriad of factors, and in no small part from their flexible and outward looking nature.

 

 

I'm not sure if the Muslim were more advanced than the Chinese, in Medieval times.

[Walsingham]

If Queen Victoria had been assassinated early in her reign who would have taken the throne?

[Pidesco]

Her husband?

[Zoraptor]

IIRC the technical 'heir' to the British throne at that time would have been the Crown Prince of Prussia. Not 100% sure, but the first Kaiser was (IIRC again) Victoria's nephew.

 

[edit: nope, unless Victoria died at a very particular time and her daughter still married the future Kaiser even as heir presumptive. If she'd died prior to ascending the throne Hannover would still have had a union with Britain and if she'd died without issue it presumably would have been reestablished]

Edited January 6, 2010 by Zoraptor

[Monte Carlo]

By the early 12th Century Muslim metallurgy, mathematics, medicine and philosophy were equal to, and in some cases superior, of that of China.

 

There is a sort of consensus that a number of factors stymied further progress, namely the increasing military power of the Christian Franks, the nature of the Caliphate (theocracies tend to reach a certain point of glory then fizzle out) and last but not least the Mongol horde that by the 13th Century razed almost every centre of Muslim civilization and learning.

 

If you need to be reminded of the potency of medieval Islam go visit southern Spain and marvel at the architecture and agricultural bounty they left behind. In Europe. I ate my paella made from rice irrigated by fields established in the 12th century.

 

One of the ideological drivers for Islamist (as opposed to Islamic) bitterness with the West (etc) is the lost promise of the Caliphate. Check out some Bernard Lewis for more.

 

Cheers

MC

[Meshugger]

What were the most important factors for the fall of the caliphate? I am curious about that.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Obviously, there are different interpretations. Furthermore, 'The Caliphate' was hardly homogenous --- although classical Islam views politics and religion as indivisible it was inevitable that medieval (Almohad)Egypt might be run very differently from Mesopotamia. The Muslim cultures around the Mediterranean flourished for hundreds of years but the factors I describe had a terrible impact...

 

* Crusading Christian armies attacking, frequently, from a number of directions. The Christian nations of the Outremer in the Holy Land were hardly a recipe for stability in the Muslim lands.

 

* The Mongols destroyed, razed, ransacked everything in their path. Scholars such as Lewis genuinely believed that the impact of those events left a terrible legacy in the development of the Middle East in the Medieval period --- it was as if the Muslim kingdoms were hurtled back to the stone age by the level of destruction. By the high medieval era the Christian nations were overtaking the nations of the Caliphate not only by dint of skill and the renaissance, but because of the destruction wrought by the Horde.

 

* Others suggest that the precursors for post-feudal economic models were hindered by a theocratic society --- I'm far from an expert on this but I've heard the theory. Early Christianity "rendered unto God what was God's and unto Caesar what was Caesar's" a distinction unrecognised in Islam. This separation of the temporal and spiritual, it is argued, led to more economically productive and impactive models of governance in Christian Europe. I think if you want to look at the decline of the Ottoman Empire you can better see this argument in action, although in the 16th Century the Ottomans were a regional superpower who easily threatened Europe on numerous occasions.

 

That's just a starter for ten, like I say I'm far from an expert but am very interested in classical Islam and the Caliphate --- not least because it is so misunderstood.

 

Cheers

MC

[Humodour]

What if the Ottoman empire didn't fall apart?

[Rosbjerg]

What if the Ottoman empire didn't fall apart?

 

There are a number of ways this could have been prevented, but mostly they would've had to reform the Janissary as they were the instruments of the decline.. But a best case scenario would be a strong democratic nation controlling much of today's middle-east. How they would've faired in WW2 is also something one must take into account - Germany might have chosen to conquer Turkey and move towards the oilfields of modern Iraq and Iran... which would've helped them a lot and also provided then with a better position to strike Russia, as they could've taken the oilfields near the Capsian sea crippling Russia further. So in a worse scenario a united middle-east could've been an Axis victory.

[lord of flies]

What if the Ottoman empire didn't fall apart?

What do you mean "didn't fall apart"? No loss of territory, or just political survival with Turkey and part of Arabia? Avoiding a collapse of the Ottomans in the latter sense is pretty easy; just avoid Ottoman entry into the Great War, and they could probably ride out the 20th century intact.

[Monte Carlo]

^ You can't discuss the Ottoman Empire, WW1 and beyond without Attaturk. Secular nationalism was unleashed by WW1, but by that point 'The Sick Man of Europe' was already on it's knees. Were it not for Attaturk it is entirely possible that the region might have been subsequently gobbled up by Hitler or Stalin had it remained as it was. As it stood, modern Turkey was rescued by it's geography and by it's army.