> it didn't have a civil war at the scale of america Only barely so, and not for lack of trying, and Rome still had massive and frequent civil wars both in the

> it didn't have a civil war at the scale of america Only barely so, and not for lack of trying, and Rome still had massive and frequent civil wars both in the late Republic as well as throughout the imperial period. Republican Rome stretched from Spain to the Nile River in the south and Syria in the East. Over 350,000 (and quite possibly a lot more) Roman soldiers, out of a population estimated to be around 60,000,000 (most of whom were not citizens), fought at just the Battle of Actium at the end of the Republican era. In a pre-industrial era with a pre-industrial economy. The American Civil War had more soldiers, yes, and proportionally more with regards to population--but also had an economy that could support it. And it happened once. Not "every few years for centuries on end". Roman civil wars were titanic and they went on for decades. (The third century CE is referred to as an ongoing crisis for a reason.) As for the rest--the differences between the Western Roman Empire and the East are so significant that even if you happen to be right (and you might be, I don't find it credible myself) it strikes me as it'll be by accident.