ChildServices
Banned
I know what the Crisis was, and you've failed to reinforce your point by mentioning it. The empire recovered (mostly) and continued onwards for almost another 150 years before splitting into East and West. Every nation goes through periods of instability, and this period of instability was not a "grand rebellion of conquered and oppressed peoples" who still had Roman conquest fresh on their minds. Most of the civil wars in Rome were just degenerate aristocrats and overly ambitious generals trying to murder eachother at everybody else's expense, and the 3rd Century's crisis was more of the same thing.
The only really different ones that I remember were the slave rebellion of Spartacus, and the (numerous) Germanic rebellions, and the latter of those two isn't really in your favour since the Germans were immigrants who wanted more than their host country was even capable of giving them, and not some conquered people.
So what's your point, then? That authoritarian systems without the technology to centralise along with a poorly defined succession are more prone towards violent factionalism? Well you're probably correct if that's what your point was.
But that's not what your point was, your point was that an empire built on conquest can't "work properly for a long period of time", when that's not true, or that you "don't believe that people conquered by military force can forget the oppression just like that", which neglects the fact that military conquest is not always inherently "oppressive" long-term (which is not me saying that conquering your neighbours is a good thing).
None of the things you're talking about are what killed the Roman Empire. Constant civil wars of succession, coupled thus with bureaucratic failure leading to a mismanagement of the military, resulting in the nation's defence against foreign threats being compromised (and this compromise being exploited by outside powers looking to further their own status), is not the same thing as oppressed peoples collectively throwing aside the yoke of an autocratic dictator. By the time all of these things had happened, many of the conquered peoples within the Empire hadn't been independent from it for hundreds of years, many of them believed themselves to be Roman, at least in terms of nationality if not ethnicity.
Thing is; you can conquer as many people as you want. What matters as far as keeping them in the empire, is what you do to integrate them into your empire afterwards. Many of the tribes that Rome actually conquered learned to love the empire over time because of the things it provided to them. I think the Legion will definitely be able to outlive the man of its namesake and continue to "work properly for a long period of time", because they've pretty much annihilated the tribal identities of almost all of their subjects. Most of the current and younger generations will have only ever known the legion and its overbearing militarism, and the threats to its stability will either come from some kind of slave revolt or from rival legates aiming for the title of Caesar.
The only really different ones that I remember were the slave rebellion of Spartacus, and the (numerous) Germanic rebellions, and the latter of those two isn't really in your favour since the Germans were immigrants who wanted more than their host country was even capable of giving them, and not some conquered people.
So what's your point, then? That authoritarian systems without the technology to centralise along with a poorly defined succession are more prone towards violent factionalism? Well you're probably correct if that's what your point was.
But that's not what your point was, your point was that an empire built on conquest can't "work properly for a long period of time", when that's not true, or that you "don't believe that people conquered by military force can forget the oppression just like that", which neglects the fact that military conquest is not always inherently "oppressive" long-term (which is not me saying that conquering your neighbours is a good thing).
None of the things you're talking about are what killed the Roman Empire. Constant civil wars of succession, coupled thus with bureaucratic failure leading to a mismanagement of the military, resulting in the nation's defence against foreign threats being compromised (and this compromise being exploited by outside powers looking to further their own status), is not the same thing as oppressed peoples collectively throwing aside the yoke of an autocratic dictator. By the time all of these things had happened, many of the conquered peoples within the Empire hadn't been independent from it for hundreds of years, many of them believed themselves to be Roman, at least in terms of nationality if not ethnicity.
Thing is; you can conquer as many people as you want. What matters as far as keeping them in the empire, is what you do to integrate them into your empire afterwards. Many of the tribes that Rome actually conquered learned to love the empire over time because of the things it provided to them. I think the Legion will definitely be able to outlive the man of its namesake and continue to "work properly for a long period of time", because they've pretty much annihilated the tribal identities of almost all of their subjects. Most of the current and younger generations will have only ever known the legion and its overbearing militarism, and the threats to its stability will either come from some kind of slave revolt or from rival legates aiming for the title of Caesar.
, but i'd like to see it
