Alternate History - Roman Republic and the Renaissance

[Kristopher]

As part of an ongoing project in worldbuilding, I'm reworking one of the major cultures in a fantasy setting. The basic concept is one of a "renaissance" Europe that had no preceeding medieval period, no fall of Rome, and no Empire, but instead grew directly out of the Republic. (Yes, I know it's hard to actually have a renaissance if there was no down-time before hand, but it's an easy tag for the general type of culture I have in mind.) The political system is still based around the Senate and the Consuls. The religion is still polytheistic (but with a different set of specific gods).

I'm interested in any comments or thoughts that others might have about this idea.

This is the kind of thing I would have posted to Usenet ten years ago, before it became almost useless. SHWI used to be a decent place to discuss these subjects.

[Curufea]

You could have a renaissance after a depression other than the fall of an empire. It could be a major famine or plague - or even a sudden revitalisation of culture if the republic was becomming decadent and corrupt.

Any kind of major change, fad, religion, political movement, technological advance or social improvement could trigger a renaissance period.

Well, I think so, anyway :)

[sinanju]

As part of an ongoing project in worldbuilding, I'm reworking one of the major cultures in a fantasy setting. The basic concept is one of a "renaissance" Europe that had no preceeding medieval period, no fall of Rome, and no Empire, but instead grew directly out of the Republic. (Yes, I know it's hard to actually have a renaissance if there was no down-time before hand, but it's an easy tag for the general type of culture I have in mind.) The political system is still based around the Senate and the Consuls. The religion is still polytheistic (but with a different set of specific gods).

I'm interested in any comments or thoughts that others might have about this idea.

This is the kind of thing I would have posted to Usenet ten years ago, before it became almost useless. SHWI used to be a decent place to discuss these subjects.

The first thing that occurs to me is that if the Roman Empire never fell, it's very likely that your renaissance culture is going to be explicitly and openly polytheistic, just as was the Roman empire. The Roman gods (i.e., the Greek gods with different names) will still be worshipped. There may or may not be a christian religion, but if so it will probably simply be one cult among many.

[Lord Liaden]

Well, one thing to keep in mind is that the positions of power in the Roman Republic were dominated by the patrician families, rather than being representative of the people as a whole. Perhaps your cultural Renaissance could have been inspired by a movement to include other classes in government. That probably would not include any subject peoples of this civilization, but could be extended to official "citizens" (which had a pretty flexible definition under the Roman Empire). OTOH you could keep the patricians as a ruling oligarchy, patterned after the plutocratic oligarchy which ruled Renaissance Venice.

There are also indications in philosophical writings from the late Classical period that the conception of the polytheistic gods was moving toward a more monotheistic model, with Zeus or Jupiter being seen as an inherently higher order of deity than the rest of the pantheon. It's possible that if Christianity had not taken hold, classical theology might have evolved toward a more Zoroastrian or Hindu model, with the lesser gods recast as aspects or avatars of the supreme godhead. That would actually be a handy way to incorporate the tolerance and even assimilation of foreign gods that was common during Roman expansion; a new god can be interpreted as one more manifestation of "God."

[Curufea]

I don't think all 100 of the original patrician families (or at least the 100 most honoured) would have survived. A number would have died out, and a number would have been killed off.

[Kristopher]

I appreciate the responses and thoughts.


Keep in mind that, as I said, I was refering to "renaissance" as shorthand for the culture and atmosphere, not necessarily an actual renaissance as an event.

[Kristopher]

Well, one thing to keep in mind is that the positions of power in the Roman Republic were dominated by the patrician families, rather than being representative of the people as a whole. Perhaps your cultural Renaissance could have been inspired by a movement to include other classes in government. That probably would not include any subject peoples of this civilization, but could be extended to official "citizens" (which had a pretty flexible definition under the Roman Empire). OTOH you could keep the patricians as a ruling oligarchy, patterned after the plutocratic oligarchy which ruled Renaissance Venice.

The latter was what I had been thinking off, but still across an entire Republic instead of in individual city-states. The idea of political upheaval of some sort, lasting for some time, as the period predating the present of the setting, does have some potential.

There are also indications in philosophical writings from the late Classical period that the conception of the polytheistic gods was moving toward a more monotheistic model, with Zeus or Jupiter being seen as an inherently higher order of deity than the rest of the pantheon. It's possible that if Christianity had not taken hold, classical theology might have evolved toward a more Zoroastrian or Hindu model, with the lesser gods recast as aspects or avatars of the supreme godhead. That would actually be a handy way to incorporate the tolerance and even assimilation of foreign gods that was common during Roman expansion; a new god can be interpreted as one more manifestation of "God."

And that would fit nicely with a religious shift I have in mind, in which one particular god is trying to assert supremacy over the others.

[Curufea]

It's doubtful that christianity (being a minor cult at the time) would have survived as a religion for very long if the Roman empire hadn't become enamoured of it, adopting it and spreading it throughout the world. Judaism would have survived though. Possibly the latter monotheistic influence would be Judaism?

[Kristopher]

It's doubtful that christianity (being a minor cult at the time) would have survived as a religion for very long if the Roman empire hadn't become enamoured of it, adopting it and spreading it throughout the world. Judaism would have survived though. Possibly the latter monotheistic influence would be Judaism?

In our world, possibly.

In the setting I'm working on, a bit difficult, since there is no Judaism, Christianity, etc.

[Eosin]

I have always been fond of the Roman bastard Byzantium, which leads me to a few defining the issue type questions.

1. Split or no?

2. Physical boundries - Have they assimilated all the surrounding cultures? Did they advance and have set backs? In part, the Roman machine depended on perpetual conquest to glue the society together. Maybe the culture is blooming because the threat of a barbarian invasion is now over (Huns). There is territory to be recovered and plunder to be had but in a not so distant and alien land.

3. Physical Boundries - what is the shape of their domain? Is there an "inner sea" to facilitate commerce and funnel supplies back to the capitol.

4. Advances in Warfare - This is both hard and easy. What kind of advances have they mastered? The horse column? Armor? What do the legions look and act like other than a well oiled machine. I would expect Roman equites to become something even more astounding than the knight.

I am sure that there are plenty more questions. Sounds interesting.

[Eosin]

In our world, possibly.

In the setting I'm working on, a bit difficult, since there is no Judaism, Christianity, etc.

I like Mithrism... Fun stuff with many of the same "skins" as Christianity.

[Lord Liaden]

Yes, the Zoroastrian model has much to recommend it, including Mithras being adopted as the Roman Legionnaires' special cult.

[Basil]

I'm afraid you'll have to drop the idea of your "renaissance" growing out of the Roman Republic, unless you want to start your divergant timeline at around 125-100 BCE, predating the careers and actions of Sulla, the Gracchi, Marius, etc.

Even then, you'll have to face the fact that the communications technology back then could not sustain both the slow processes of the Republic and the enormous tracts of land Rome controlled. There was no way to administer those land with such slow methods of communication except by having a central, coordinated rulership, since only such a rulership can disburse power to the local governor without losing control.

So, I'm afraid you need to build your setting from the Empire, not the Republic. Given that, the best way to avoid the Dark Ages is (A) Smarter emperors, especially early on (i.e., no Caligula, Nero, Commodus, etc.) (B) Tighter control by the governors and the central rulership over the generals, thus keeping them from setting themselves up as "emperors" which lead to repeated rebellions and civil wars, (C) Eliminate xianity (which you said you've done), (D) wider-spread learning and literacy, (E) more done about public hygiene.

Of course, you can ameliorate some of this by changing the Roman attitude to sailing; frankly, the average Roman reacted to large bodies of water about the way the average house-cat does. Which meant few messages were carried by ship, even when that would have saved much time.

[Captain Obvious]

A couple of people seem to imply that Rome could not have survived with Christianity in existence. Anyone care to explain?

[Curufea]

Hmm - was christianity particularly anti-slavery in those days? I'm not sure how the transitional period went when the Empire adopted christianity and it spread throughout europe. I do know they still had slavery and christianity at the same time - I just don't know for how long, or when it started becoming anti-slavery.

That could be a reason for it to come into conflict.

[Dale A. Ward]

Here's my take on it, FWIW.

As has been stated earlier, the Patricians dominated the scene in the original timeline.

Suppose the Plebians decided that they had had enough of Patrician excesses and forced through their own Magna Carta. This created the "Council of Plebians" to counterbalance the Senate, and led to the development of a true democratic republic.

From there, the arts and sciences blossomed due to greater freedom granted to the lower classes and a general levelling of the playing field.

Just my two coppers!

[Outsider]

What time period (our dating system) are you planning on having your renaissance in? If you arent going to have a 'dark age' or medieval period, and diverge your timeline sometime in the republic era, you could be talking about having it pretty early. If you're looking for a 'city states' feel, diverge from actual history somewhat before the Social War, and have that never actually take place. If your reniassance takes 100 years to get into full swing, then you could be having the whole thing pre-Christian anyway, and not have to deal with explaining that interaction at all :)

If you're thinking this renaissance will be in the ~1500 AD (our dating) time range, then you'll have a whole lotta history to fill without a 'dark age' or 'medieval period'

[Cancer]

I think Basil has a key point. Communications and transportation limits forced real limits upon Rome's ability to control and support the full extent of their empire. If you haven't read The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, get it and do so.

I don't think Rome could have expanded further without a complete restructuring and decentralization of their state. Both the Republic and the Empire were far too concentrated on the actual city of Rome itself. I think you'd have to posit a "Roman Confederation", where urban centers other than Rome itself were given permanent self-administration powers, including control over their large supporting districts, with some kind over looser overgovernment coordinating the entire empire to some end other than the personal ambitions of the heads of the patrician families. To a limited extent that sort of happened with the establishment of Byzantium but it was too little, too late. Five or six such "New Romes" distributed across the climax of the Republic could allow each to expand systematically and organize itself effectively.

[Kristopher]

What time period (our dating system) are you planning on having your renaissance in? If you arent going to have a 'dark age' or medieval period, and diverge your timeline sometime in the republic era, you could be talking about having it pretty early. If you're looking for a 'city states' feel, diverge from actual history somewhat before the Social War, and have that never actually take place. If your reniassance takes 100 years to get into full swing, then you could be having the whole thing pre-Christian anyway, and not have to deal with explaining that interaction at all :)

If you're thinking this renaissance will be in the ~1500 AD (our dating) time range, then you'll have a whole lotta history to fill without a 'dark age' or 'medieval period'

I'm not looking for a specific timeline so much as the culture itself, combining aspects of Roman culture, etc, with aspects of renaissance Italian city-states culture, etc.

As such, I say the former, with little chronological gap between the two.

[Kristopher]

I think Basil has a key point. Communications and transportation limits forced real limits upon Rome's ability to control and support the full extent of their empire. If you haven't read The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire, get it and do so.

I don't think Rome could have expanded further without a complete restructuring and decentralization of their state. Both the Republic and the Empire were far too concentrated on the actual city of Rome itself. I think you'd have to posit a "Roman Confederation", where urban centers other than Rome itself were given permanent self-administration powers, including control over their large supporting districts, with some kind over looser overgovernment coordinating the entire empire to some end other than the personal ambitions of the heads of the patrician families. To a limited extent that sort of happened with the establishment of Byzantium but it was too little, too late. Five or six such "New Romes" distributed across the climax of the Republic could allow each to expand systematically and organize itself effectively.

I do like this idea, with powerful local governors and councils responsible to the Senate and consuls in the capital. A blending of republic and city-states.

The setting has some magic, so there are means of communication available to the elite and the weathly that no Roman had access to.

[Captain Obvious]

One thing that was happening towards the end of the Roman Empire, the thing that led directly to the rise of Christianity, was a move towards religions with a promise of a happy afterlife. The Romans decided they weren't all that into an eternity of chilly darkness, and started looking around for something better. Christianity ended up winning out in the real world, but other big contenders were Mithraism and the cult of Osiris and Isis.

If your decision to leave Christianity out is because you want to avoid potentially insulting one of your players' religious beliefs, you could use these and/or some similar religions as the rising frontrunners. If you wanted to leave it out because of its overwhelming influence in the real world, you could just tone it down and make it part of the crowd of afterlife religions.

Of course, in either case, the standard Roman gods would still be around, serving their official/ceremonial functions in state holidays, etc.

Assuming you don't want to diverge too far from real world history, the Black Plague would have happened regardless of whether Rome fell or not, and a lot of its aftereffects (labor shortages, increasing wages, and the rise of the middle class) would have happened as well.

In a lot of ways, I'm thinking that aside from stalled technology for a few hundred years, the world wouldn't have been too different if Rome hadn't fallen. Roman civic structures would have lasted a lot longer, rather than moving to a feudal system. Other than a few flavor changes, you could probably graft Roman government onto Italian city-states and have a convincing extrapolation.

[Basil]

Here's my take on it, FWIW.

As has been stated earlier, the Patricians dominated the scene in the original timeline.

Suppose the Plebians decided that they had had enough of Patrician excesses and forced through their own Magna Carta. This created the "Council of Plebians" to counterbalance the Senate, and led to the development of a true democratic republic.
Something like this actually happened. It was not, however, enough to prevent the rise of emperors, as it did not centralize control sufficiently.

From Warfare in the Classical World by John Warry:
"The Roman civil wars of the first century BC[E] were is some sense 200 years overdue. In semi-legendary times, the class struggle between the privileged patricians and the unprivileged plebeian majority had centred on the right demanded by the plebeians to hold high offices of state. In eventually winning these rights, the plebeians secured for themselves other rights into the bargain, which theoretically made them the dominant partner in the Republic. For the plebs possessed their own officers (tribunes) and the power to pass resolutions in their own assemblies which had the force of law, binding on the whole community. A tribune had also the right to veto any action of a Roman magistrate. Indeed, significantly, as it later turned out, he possessed the right of veto against his fellow tribunes.

"The Senate, by contrast, had always been a consultative body and its resolutions did not amount to laws. But it advised the consuls and other magistrates, who were normally elected for yearly terms. Its own memberships, in the early days of the Republic, was based on the selection of the consuls and continued to include men who had served as consuls. Its wisdom and experience provided a thread of continuity which was otherwise lacking and its consuls were indispensable. The annual elections were a precaution against tyranny, but such precautions could have led only to chaos in foreign policy and defeat in war, if the Roman people had not been willing to accept senatorial guidance, together with the supremacy of those noble families which provided the nucleus of the Senate.

"The fact that the Romans were willing, although by no means legally obliged, to accept such guidance meant that the Republic, in the early centuries of its development, closely approached the ideal of aristocratic government --- just as fifth-century [BCE] Athens had been able to present itself as the model of democracy. But with the meteoric rise to Mediterranean domination, the Roman ruling caste was faced with problems and temptations which proved too great for it, and public confidence in its wisdom and integrity consequently declined."

The result, after the civil wars, the demogoguery of the Gracchi, the dictatorships of Sulla and Marius, and the triumvirate(s), was the empire; started by Julius Caeser, and established by Octavian/Augustus. Frankly, I see no way Rome's history could have avoided an empire, except at the cost of losing, or never conquering in the first place, most of Gaul, Iberia, Anatolia, Egypt, and North Africa. IOW, the Senate/consuls/assemblies model could have held onto not much more than Italia, coastal Gaul, Illyricum, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and probably Greece.

At least, that's my reading of the historical setting and social forces.

[Basil]

I don't think Rome could have expanded further without a complete restructuring and decentralization of their state. Both the Republic and the Empire were far too concentrated on the actual city of Rome itself. I think you'd have to posit a "Roman Confederation", where urban centers other than Rome itself were given permanent self-administration powers, including control over their large supporting districts, with some kind over looser overgovernment coordinating the entire empire to some end other than the personal ambitions of the heads of the patrician families. To a limited extent that sort of happened with the establishment of Byzantium but it was too little, too late. Five or six such "New Romes" distributed across the climax of the Republic could allow each to expand systematically and organize itself effectively.
Perhaps true, but the structure of the early Empire was admirably suited to administering the size of empire there was. After Varus lost those three legions, Augustus pretty much froze the empire, which made no major expansion, save for Dacia, thereafter.

The governors did have a fairly free hand in their adminstration, but since most of them were appointed by, and could be freely removed by, the emperor, their loyalty was primarily to the emperor and the empire. In a situation such as you describe, due to a larger-sized empire, and major control residing in the provinces, you run the risk of "satrapy-ization." That is, the provincial capitals will have more power, and be harder to oversee from the central capital; this will lead to the provinces becoming independant in all but name (note, this tended to happen in the later Empire, moderated mostly by ambitious generals trying to seize control of Rome rather than being content to control a single province).

If, as is likely, the governors in such a setting make their office hereditory, you land up with a situation pretty much like feudal Germany.

Note that this wouldn't lead to an Italian renaissance city-states setting, as the "duchies" would be much larger. Thus, though a central city would be important, it wouldn't have the overwhelming importance of a true city-state.

Still, an interesting setting could come from a Roman empire that kept expanding during and after Augustus's reign. :)

[Basil]

The setting has some magic, so there are means of communication available to the elite and the weathly that no Roman had access to.
:jawdrop: :shock: :eek: That changes everything. Utterly. :jawdrop: :shock: :eek:

Now it becomes vital to know when Rome gains this instant (or quick) communication magic. That will be when your prospective timeline diverges from the Real World™. All the wars and other 'international' events will change with this ability, as will everything about how Rome administers the provinces, how trade and commerce are carried on, etc., etc.


BTW: I think you mean "no ordinary Roman."

[Lucius]

Hmm - was christianity particularly anti-slavery in those days? I'm not sure how the transitional period went when the Empire adopted christianity and it spread throughout europe. I do know they still had slavery and christianity at the same time - I just don't know for how long, or when it started becoming anti-slavery.

That could be a reason for it to come into conflict.

Christianity never did become “Anti-slavery.” There are scriptures specifically urging slaves to be obedient.

However, starting around, I think, the 1600s, large numbers of Christians (individuals and whole churches) did become Anti-slavery.

I do like this idea, with powerful local governors and councils responsible to the Senate and consuls in the capital. A blending of republic and city-states.

The setting has some magic, so there are means of communication available to the elite and the weathly that no Roman had access to.

You don’t even need magic to have a printing press.

As it happens, in the Real World ™ the printing press was invented in the 15th century. There is no reason it COULDN’T have been invented much earlier. The ancient Romans had wine presses, ink, access to both parchment and papyrus, and for that matter, making paper is not really high-tech either. The Chinese had already been producing paper when the Roman Empire rose.

Had the Romans discovered paper (and they did import silk from China, so there was some indirect contact) and woodblock printing, they’d have been only one conceptual leap from movable type and the printing press. As it was, the Roman Empire at its highest had a literacy rate of, if I recall correctly, something like 15% - higher than any culture would have again for many centuries. With the printing press, widespread literacy would have followed, with books and even newspapers. With a largely literate populace (especially among “citizens” who were about 1/6 of the population according to sources I’ve seen) and newspapers, posters, and political pamphlets, then participation in the political process could have become possible even for a much larger population, most of whom were not in or near Rome itself. I think that it might have been quite possible for Rome to both expand, and avoid developing the entirely autocratic institutions associated with the historical Empire. As it is, by the way, it is worth remembering that as an idea the Republic endured for many generations after the reality became a dictatorship.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary notes that the Romans were also fortunate enough to have the Roman alphabet.

[Kristopher]

One thing that was happening towards the end of the Roman Empire, the thing that led directly to the rise of Christianity, was a move towards religions with a promise of a happy afterlife. The Romans decided they weren't all that into an eternity of chilly darkness, and started looking around for something better. Christianity ended up winning out in the real world, but other big contenders were Mithraism and the cult of Osiris and Isis.

If your decision to leave Christianity out is because you want to avoid potentially insulting one of your players' religious beliefs, you could use these and/or some similar religions as the rising frontrunners. If you wanted to leave it out because of its overwhelming influence in the real world, you could just tone it down and make it part of the crowd of afterlife religions.

Of course, in either case, the standard Roman gods would still be around, serving their official/ceremonial functions in state holidays, etc.

Assuming you don't want to diverge too far from real world history, the Black Plague would have happened regardless of whether Rome fell or not, and a lot of its aftereffects (labor shortages, increasing wages, and the rise of the middle class) would have happened as well.

In a lot of ways, I'm thinking that aside from stalled technology for a few hundred years, the world wouldn't have been too different if Rome hadn't fallen. Roman civic structures would have lasted a lot longer, rather than moving to a feudal system. Other than a few flavor changes, you could probably graft Roman government onto Italian city-states and have a convincing extrapolation.

I'm not sure if I should admit this, but right now this is entirely an accademic and writing exercise, which may never see a single session of gaming within the setting being discussed.

In this setting, there is no Christianity, or Judaism, or any other real-world religion, because this is not our real world. It's another world, for which I am trying to give depth and life to the various nations and cultures. I should have made that clearer from the beginning, I think.

[Kristopher]

You don’t even need magic to have a printing press.

As it happens, in the Real World ™ the printing press was invented in the 15th century. There is no reason it COULDN’T have been invented much earlier. The ancient Romans had wine presses, ink, access to both parchment and papyrus, and for that matter, making paper is not really high-tech either. The Chinese had already been producing paper when the Roman Empire rose.

Had the Romans discovered paper (and they did import silk from China, so there was some indirect contact) and woodblock printing, they’d have been only one conceptual leap from movable type and the printing press. As it was, the Roman Empire at its highest had a literacy rate of, if I recall correctly, something like 15% - higher than any culture would have again for many centuries. With the printing press, widespread literacy would have followed, with books and even newspapers. With a largely literate populace (especially among “citizens” who were about 1/6 of the population according to sources I’ve seen) and newspapers, posters, and political pamphlets, then participation in the political process could have become possible even for a much larger population, most of whom were not in or near Rome itself. I think that it might have been quite possible for Rome to both expand, and avoid developing the entirely autocratic institutions associated with the historical Empire. As it is, by the way, it is worth remembering that as an idea the Republic endured for many generations after the reality became a dictatorship.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary notes that the Romans were also fortunate enough to have the Roman alphabet.

This is a world in which at least one other, distant state almost certainly does have the moveable-type printing press, as it takes no great technology to come up with the thing (as you said), and the Chinese invented it 400 years or so before Guttenburg, and the culture of that other state is inclined to such things.

I like your suggestion.

[Kristopher]

:jawdrop: :shock: :eek: That changes everything. Utterly. :jawdrop: :shock: :eek:

Now it becomes vital to know when Rome gains this instant (or quick) communication magic. That will be when your prospective timeline diverges from the Real World™. All the wars and other 'international' events will change with this ability, as will everything about how Rome administers the provinces, how trade and commerce are carried on, etc., etc.


BTW: I think you mean "no ordinary Roman."

Did any real Roman have access to that kind of communication?

It's a world that's always had magic of some sort. The more I work on it, the more I'm leaning towards limiting magic mainly to ritual work and object-bound effects.

[Kristopher]

More information: in this particular setting, there are many gods, and in particular the people of the "Roman" culture particularly revere the God of the Sun. At this time, the Sun God is making a push for greater power and influence. (Yes, there is a deliberate parallel to the religious upheavals that the rise of Christianity was just a part of.)

[Kristopher]

Before this thread dies completely, can anyone recommend websites or books for brushing up on Roman culture, religion, etc?

Thanks.

[Theron]

You might want to see if you can find a copy of "FVLMINATA," a RPG set in a Roman empire that never fell because of the discovery of Terra Fvlminata (gunpowder). It's set in AD 248, so it's by no means a Renaissance setting, but it does provide for a strong empire where Christianity is still a small Judean cult that appeals mostly to slaves.

You might also want to take a look at Thomas Harlan's "Oath of Empire" series, which also deals with a later Rome that never fell (this time, thanks to magic.) One of the interesting subplots in the first novel (and possibly continuing, I never got through the entire series) is that someone or something magical is killing people and destroying technological innovations like moveable type and the keel.

[Kristopher]

Thanks. I'll check those out.

Any suggestions on non-fiction resources?

[Cancer]

I've just started a book titled "Following Hadrian". It is not nonfiction, but there's a fair slug of historical information that went into it. Might be useful for flavor.

[Markdoc]

Thanks. I'll check those out.

Any suggestions on non-fiction resources?

Makers of Rome by Plutarch (I've got the Penguin Classics version). Roman politics and history as written by a Roman.

Cheers, Mark

[Captain Obvious]

I'm reading The First Man in Rome by Colleen McCullough, which was recommended on another thread by Curufea, and I have to second that recommendation here. For a good Rome feel (although I realize you're not going for a true alternate Rome, but...) this book is full of examples of daily life, food, politics, religion, etc. Good stuff.