Would Europe have been better off if Roman Empire had lived longer?

albanopolis

Banned
Messages
551
Reaction score
32
Points
0
Studies of 6th century Bavarian Graveyards proved that the cause of death was plague. Historians think that 2/3 of Roman Empires population were dead because of plague that lasted 200 years. This was one of the main causes of Roman Empire demise. Since the plague was not spread to Slavic populated areas it brought the explosion of Slavic populations. So plague its one of the causes, that we have South Slavs in places where they do not belong, namely Balkans They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more. Whole areas of Balkan were filled with barbaric Slavic tribes that never brought anything to the area, than the savagery. What is your hypothetical view, would Balkan been better of without Slavs, Worse off, or the same as it is. Without plague Slavs had no chance of entering Balkans Roman Empire woould have had the manpower to protect its possessions.
 
Albanopolis "They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more."

Not true, Albanopolis.

Thracian specifically, but would apply to most Balkan ancient tribes. Excluding the Greeks, because of the rugged territory.

"The ancient languages of these people had already become extinct and their cultural influence was highly reduced due to the repeated barbaric invasions of the Balkans by Celts, Huns, Goths, and Sarmatians, accompanied by hellenization, romanization and later slavicization." wiki
 
Why don't Slavs belong in the Balkans? which populations belong anywhere apart from, maybe, Africa?

To be honest, I don't even understand what your complaint is. This "They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more." as ebAmerican said, is false. Centuries of Hellenisation and Romanisation had altered these people to the extreme. Justinian, Constantine (before the Slavic migrations) and so on did not speak "Slavic" as a primary language nor did they speak Thracian or Illyrian or Pannonian. So another problem is your assumption that somehow the Roman Empire losing the western part in the 5th century, meant the end of the Roman Empire. But to quote John Burry, the Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453.

This "Whole areas of Balkan were filled with barbaric Slavic tribes that never brought anything to the area, than the savagery" is only true if we assume that the Illyrians, the Thracians and so on were the creme de la creme of civilisation. And they weren't.
 
Why don't Slavs belong in the Balkans? which populations belong anywhere apart from, maybe, Africa?

To be honest, I don't even understand what your complaint is. This "They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more." as ebAmerican said, is false. Centuries of Hellenisation and Romanisation had altered these people to the extreme. Justinian, Constantine (before the Slavic migrations) and so on did not speak "Slavic" as a primary language nor did they speak Thracian or Illyrian or Pannonian. So another problem is your assumption that somehow the Roman Empire losing the western part in the 5th century, meant the end of the Roman Empire. But to quote John Burry, the Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453.

This "Whole areas of Balkan were filled with barbaric Slavic tribes that never brought anything to the area, than the savagery" is only true if we assume that the Illyrians, the Thracians and so on were the creme de la creme of civilisation. And they weren't.
They were not the creme of civilization but they had absorbed the Roman culture which was very advanced for the time. Local cultures had a lot of local flavors aside Roman. Original home of Slavs are Russian steppes, no? Do you think Slavs belong to Czechoslovakia or Poland? They are German lands, no? Regardless the luck has been on Slavs side, is another matter. I appreciate your comment anyway, we can't change anything now. The question is hypothetical. Would Europe been better off if the empire lasted longer?
 
Slavery helped Islam to bring down the Roman Empire as it was more tolerant towards slaves.

Though slavery was maintained, the Islamic dispensation enormously improved the position of the Arabian slave, who was now no longer merely a chattel but was also a human being with a certain religious and hence a social status and with certain quasi-legal rights. The early caliphs who ruled the Islamic community after the death of the Prophet also introduced some further reforms of a humanitarian tendency. The enslavement of free Muslims was soon discouraged and eventually prohibited. It was made unlawful for a freeman to sell himself or his children into slavery, and it was no longer permitted for freemen to be enslaved for either debt or crime, as was usual in the Roman world and, despite attempts at reform, in parts of Christian Europe until at least the sixteenth century. It became a fundamental principle of Islamic jurisprudence that the natural condition, and therefore the presumed status, of mankind was freedom, just as the basic rule concerning actions is permittedness: what is not expressly forbidden is permitted; whoever is not known to be a slave is free. This rule was not always strictly observed. Rebels and heretics were sometimes denounced as infidels or, worse, apostates, and reduced to slavery, as were the victims of some Muslim rulers in Africa, who proclaimed jihad against their neighbors, without looking closely at their religious beliefs, so as to provide legal cover for their enslavement. But by and large, and certainly in the central lands of Islam, under regimes of high civilization, the rule was honored, and free subjects of the state, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, were protected from unlawful enslavement.

The professional slave soldier, so characteristic of later Islamic empires, was not present in the earliest Islamic regimes. There were indeed slaves who fought in the army of the Prophet, but they were there as Muslims and as loyal followers, not as slaves or professionals. Most of them were freed for their services, and according to an early narrative, when the Prophet appeared before the walls of the Hijaz town of Ta'if, he sent a crier to announce that any slave who came out and joined him would be free. Abu Muslim, the first military leader of the Abbasid revolution which transformed the Islamic state and society in the mid-eighth century, appealed to slaves to come and join him and offered freedom to those who responded. So many, we are told, answered his call that he gave them a separate camp and formed them into a separate combat unit. During the great expansion of the Arab armies and the accompanying spread of the Islamic faith in the seventh and early eighth centuries, many of the peoples of the conquered countries were captured, enslaved, convcrted, and liberated, and great numbers of these joined the armies of Islam. Iranians in the East, Berbers in the West, reinforced the Arab armies and contributed significantly to the further advance of Islam, eastward into Central Asia and beyond, westward across North Africa and into Spain. These were, however, not slaves but freedmen. Though their status was at first inferior to that of freeborn Arabs, it was certainly not servile, and in time the differences in rank, pay, and status between free and freed soldiers disappeared. As so often, the historiographic tradition foreshortens this development and attributes it to a decree of the Caliph 'Umar, who is said to have ordered his governors to make the privileges and duties of manumitted and converted recruits "among the red people" the same as those of the Arabs. "What is due to these, is due to those; what is due from these, is due from those." The limitation of this concession to the "red people," a term commonly applied by the Arabs to the Iranians and later extended to their Central Asian neighbors, is surely significant. The recruitment of aliens, that is, non-Arabs and often non-Muslims, was by no means restricted to liberated captives, and the distinction between freed subjects, free mercenaries, and bought barbarian slaves is often tenuous.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.asp

The plague also helped bring down the Byzantium Empire.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/plague-helped-bring-down-roman-empire-graveyard-suggests-134835636.html
 
Slavery helped Islam to bring down the Roman Empire as it was more tolerant towards slaves.


Today there was a GOOGLE news. Plague, that lasted from 4th to 6th century, decimated the population of empire. 65% of
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/lewis1.asp

The plague also helped bring down the Byzantium Empire.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/plague-helped-bring-down-roman-empire-graveyard-suggests-134835636.html
people died of plague. Roman Empire was brought down by this sickness. That is the recorded time of Slavic invasions in Balkans. Do you think Europe would have been better off, worst off, or the same without presence of Slavs. Its an hypothetical question. .............
 
They were not the creme of civilization but they had absorbed the Roman culture which was very advanced for the time. Local cultures had a lot of local flavors aside Roman. Original home of Slavs are Russian steppes, no? Do you think Slavs belong to Czechoslovakia or Poland? They are German lands, no? Regardless the luck has been on Slavs side, is another matter. I appreciate your comment anyway, we can't change anything now. The question is hypothetical. Would Europe been better off if the empire lasted longer?

I think it's the other way around. As I said, these people were Hellenised and later Romanised. Again, look at the major figures from these areas before the Slavic migrations but after centuries of Romanisation and Hellenisation. They didn't speak the languages you associate with their ethnicities. So again I don't believe it was the Slavs that destroyed these people's customs and languages.

No I don't think Slavs "belong" in the steppes. What's the original home really and why trace it back to Russia? the original home of every human is Africa. But so what?

And longer than what? part of the Roman empire fell in 473. But the Balkan regions were in and out of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years after that. I have no idea what Europe would look like today if the Slavs had never arrived - and neither does anyone else.
 
I think it's the other way around. As I said, these people were Hellenised and later Romanised. Again, look at the major figures from these areas before the Slavic migrations but after centuries of Romanisation and Hellenisation. They didn't speak the languages you associate with their ethnicities. So again I don't believe it was the Slavs that destroyed these people's customs and languages.

No I don't think Slavs "belong" in the steppes. What's the original home really and why trace it back to Russia? the original home of every human is Africa. But so what?

And longer than what? part of the Roman empire fell in 473. But the Balkan regions were in and out of the Roman Empire for hundreds of years after that. I have no idea what Europe would look like today if the Slavs had never arrived - and neither does anyone else.
Look! If you go to Russia, the place Slavs belong there is not a trace a civility. So I think without Slavs Balkans would have been as prosperous as Italy.
 
Look! If you go to Russia, the place Slavs belong there is not a trace a civility. So I think without Slavs Balkans would have been as prosperous as Italy.

so you saying slavs have kept there nomadic gypsy like "genes"?
 
Look! If you go to Russia, the place Slavs belong there is not a trace a civility. So I think without Slavs Balkans would have been as prosperous as Italy.

I really don't share that Idea.

historically Slavs gave another 'air' in Balkans and manage to create alternative cultures and civilisations,
from what Balkans suffer is mercenairies, and corruption,

even before Ottomans Balkans was a pool for mercenairies troops,
since you are an Albanian you know about that,
a Balkan man can kill his neighbor for money or religion,
or shut his mouth in criminality just to save his 'fellow' that share same religion or has money,

West Europe learn from religion wars, Balkans did not,
don;t go back, before 100 years, Turkish army in Balkans had 60-70% Balkanic people troops,
who and why? ask your shelf,
Balkans were much prosper, find out what time,

It is not coinsidence that before WW I & II some South Slavic areas were so heavily industrial and prosper that some West European would envy.

tell me, before the 80's would you buy a Dacia or a Zastava car, or a fine Bulgarian parfume to support Balcanic prosper?
Even today Dacia produces cars, tell me how many of us support that Balkanic effort to prosperity?
 
That is the recorded time of Slavic invasions in Balkans. Do you think Europe would have been better off, worst off, or the same without presence of Slavs. Its an hypothetical question. .............
Germanic and Gothic tribes invaded West Roman Empire, Empire collapsed, followed by centuries of dark ages. Do you think Europe would have been better without all the Germanic peoples?
As Boss mentioned East Roman Empire, known as Byzantium, survived another 1000 years, and in vicinity of Slavs.

Do you think Balkans would be better if instead of Albania there was Little Italia in its place?
 
Germanic and Gothic tribes invaded West Roman Empire, Empire collapsed, followed by centuries of dark ages. Do you think Europe would have been better without all the Germanic peoples?
As Boss mentioned East Roman Empire, known as Byzantium, survived another 1000 years, and in vicinity of Slavs.

Do you think Balkans would be better if instead of Albania there was Little Italia in its place?

How many years did the Slavs hold the Balkans for anyways? was it really that long? I mean, the Ottomans ruled the Balkans for more than 400 years (and I did mention the Romans who reconquered many areas and repopulated them with Roman citizens from the 5th century with Justinian until the fall of Empire). Even if what he says is true (Slavs "destroying" the apparently not-so-magnificent-but-still-better-than-the-Slavs Thraco-Illyrian civilisations), Slavic influence is hardly the only post-Roman influence in the Balkans.

In almost no other region in the world do the people dump their problems on foreign conquest as much as people in the Balkans do.
 
Probably not. Would have just been delaying the inevitable. Plus we can't change history, however fascinating it is to speculate.
 
The Bulgarians and Slavs all had very stable and impressive Empires and Kingdoms on the Balkan.
The Osmanic invasion and rule was truly what plunged the Balkans into turmoil.

I personally only view the Byzantine Empire as the titular successor to the Roman Empire. In many ways the Carolingian Empire was the true successor of the old Roman Empire [territory, infrastructure (roads/towns), Latin Alphabet, etc.] and in that sense the Roman Empire lived on.
 
Studies of 6th century Bavarian Graveyards proved that the cause of death was plague. Historians think that 2/3 of Roman Empires population were dead because of plague that lasted 200 years. This was one of the main causes of Roman Empire demise. Since the plague was not spread to Slavic populated areas it brought the explosion of Slavic populations. So plague its one of the causes, that we have South Slavs in places where they do not belong, namely Balkans They brought destruction to long established local cultures and disappearance of nations like Thrace, Panonia and many more. Whole areas of Balkan were filled with barbaric Slavic tribes that never brought anything to the area, than the savagery. What is your hypothetical view, would Balkan been better of without Slavs, Worse off, or the same as it is. Without plague Slavs had no chance of entering Balkans Roman Empire woould have had the manpower to protect its possessions.


This?

.. and coming from an Albanian?

You have got to be kidding me.
 
The Bulgarians and Slavs all had very stable and impressive Empires and Kingdoms on the Balkan.
The Osmanic invasion and rule was truly what plunged the Balkans into turmoil.

I personally only view the Byzantine Empire as the titular successor to the Roman Empire. In many ways the Carolingian Empire was the true successor of the old Roman Empire [territory, infrastructure (roads/towns), Latin Alphabet, etc.] and in that sense the Roman Empire lived on.
Thats true that the Osmanic invasion was what plunged the balkans, but when it comes to the Albanians the slavs were no diffrent then the ottoman. They both oppresed the Albanians, and Albanian and slav have always been fighting before the Ottoman invasion. The Romans also were no diffrent, they also opressed and had slavs.
 
Thats true that the Osmanic invasion was what plunged the balkans, but when it comes to the Albanians the slavs were no diffrent then the ottoman. They both oppresed the Albanians, and Albanian and slav have always been fighting before the Ottoman invasion. The Romans also were no diffrent, they also opressed and had slavs.
Please use words Slavs and slaves correctly.

Don't you think it is about time to stop hating each other and instead work together for better Balkans?
 
The Bulgarians and Slavs all had very stable and impressive Empires and Kingdoms on the Balkan.
The Osmanic invasion and rule was truly what plunged the Balkans into turmoil.

I personally only view the Byzantine Empire as the titular successor to the Roman Empire. In many ways the Carolingian Empire was the true successor of the old Roman Empire [territory, infrastructure (roads/towns), Latin Alphabet, etc.] and in that sense the Roman Empire lived on.

What does "the true" successor mean?
 
The Bulgarians and Slavs all had very stable and impressive Empires and Kingdoms on the Balkan.
The Osmanic invasion and rule was truly what plunged the Balkans into turmoil.

I personally only view the Byzantine Empire as the titular successor to the Roman Empire. In many ways the Carolingian Empire was the true successor of the old Roman Empire [territory, infrastructure (roads/towns), Latin Alphabet, etc.] and in that sense the Roman Empire lived on.

I don't like byzantine for other reasons,. but words like Romania Romylia, Aromani,
and the Vlach existance and the Imperial CODEXes show clear that byzantine was bilingual and after crusaders the Greek part took the 'head'
 
Thats true that the Osmanic invasion was what plunged the balkans, but when it comes to the Albanians the slavs were no diffrent then the ottoman. They both oppresed the Albanians, and Albanian and slav have always been fighting before the Ottoman invasion. The Romans also were no diffrent, they also opressed and had slavs.

Albanians allied with Slavs,
remember Epirus despotate against Serbo-Albanians and Normands,
Albanians were allies with Slavs,
remember Kastrioti enthrone time names and consultats,
 

This thread has been viewed 23589 times.

Back
Top