- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Reaction score
- 2,125
- Location
- North America
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
If Ceasar had not crossed the Rubicon, the Empire would have fallen far sooner. At least, that was my distinct impression after working my way through Gibbon and a bunch of other works. (He always gets blamed for destroying the republic, but the republic was effectively dead at least 100 years beforehand. The Patrician-Plebian divides were growing apace. I don't see much reason to think it could have lasted as a republic that much longer). Without imperial control, Rome would have had a lot tougher time holding onto territory and keeping the various Goths, Ostrogoths, Sycthians, etc., at bay. I suspect it'd have fallen far sooner, perhaps even before establishing a solid eastern section.
And if the Empire had fallen far sooner (I'd guesstimate maybe 100 AD), there's a good chance that Christianity would not have spread anywhere near as widely, and thus, any "Jesus" - historical or imagined - would not have nearly as much impact.
It's a fair point.
Well, not just that. Pagan-Christian strife between citizens was its own problem, as well. But yes, it was a political move. (ie, so too was the Council of Nicea and the decision to side with Athanasius).
The Republic was indeed in trouble, it was suffering from the same ailments our own republic is suffering from. An elite class of nobility usurping wealth and influence from the institutions that govern the Republic.