What if ROME didn't fall?

[bitmapmedivh]

I don't know of any.

--edit: Actually after googling "Roma Aeterna" i noticed I appear to have misremembered the name of the original alt-hist scenario I mentioned. "Roma Aeterna" appears to be the title of a nonsensical alt-hist novel by Robert Silverberg (various nonsensical PODs spun together to make the Roman empire survive to the present day without any stagnation). The EU3/4 mod attempt was for this novel, not the scenario I had in mind.

The "Roma Aeterna" alt-hist scenario I had in mind, was by a different author and not published in book form. I remember stumbling over it while browsing the website of another alt-hist scenario (dealing with the popular what if the Nazis won premise) http://valtakunta.eu/ . I don't know the name of the author unfortunately, and this website seems to have been changed so that you can't actually view most of the content. And it's no longer accessible in english but only in Finnish, perplexingly.

The Rome scenario was AFAIK also by the same author, but as a bit of a side project. The premise was basically, that Christianity for some reason got suppressed by a more vigorous Roman Empire and instead Neoplatonism more or less took its place (as much as a philosophy can take the place of a religion, that is.) The scenario itself then dealt with the course of history in Europe as well as in China from roughly 60AD to the 16th century (by our reckoning). It was a thinly veiled swapping-of-roles between the European and Chinese civilizations - Europe under the Romans embraced Neoplatonism in the way the Chinese had embraced Confucianism historically, and fought organized Christianity in the same way the Chinese had fought organized Buddhism in the middle ages. Basically destroyed it as a political force. Europe/Rome then basically has a couple of dynasty changes but remains culturally Roman, and ends up in a complacent stagnation in the 17th century. No/little world exploration etc. Meanwhile China for some reason develops not as a united empire but as several empires (a little along 3 kingdoms lines) from the 3rd century to the 17th, and consequently (according to the scenario) embraces a more diverse, more outward-looking, and more adventurous course which of course leads to Chinese discovery of the Americas.

The scenario isn't really as fleshed out as it would need to be to form the basis of, say, a EU4 mod. It appeared more as a speculative philosophical exercise.

Could be I stumbled upon it on an alt-history site. The scenario you describe sounds very familiar. IIRC one of the Chinese states even get their own ersatz Hong Kong at Gibraltar.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Could be I stumbled upon it on an alt-history site. The scenario you describe sounds very familiar. IIRC one of the Chinese states even get their own ersatz Hong Kong at Gibraltar.

Yeah that sounds exactly like it

 

[secretam]

That is a fair point Galaahd.
I was thinking of Rome with north africa and egypt, and italy with the balkans to constantinople.

Isn't that the Eastern Roman Empire which lasted into the 1400s CE?

 

[Henry IX]

I would see the general course of the ERE as a good guide to what might happen in the west. Rather than the total collapse of the empire it just slowly decays, gradually becoming a powerful kingdom centred on ?Northern Italy?

 

[secretam]

I would see the general course of the ERE as a good guide to what might happen in the west. Rather than the total collapse of the empire it just slowly decays, gradually becoming a powerful kingdom centred on ?Northern Italy?

Why would it be centred on Northern Italy? Wasn't Southern Italy much richer?

 

[yerm]

Yeah, and the reasons for our specific north > south outcome don't strike me as sensible if the WRE stays stable. That's not to say you couldn't have a shift away from Italy/Rome for the western half. Europe's best land is northern France; maybe you get a shift to somewhere like Marseille as a go-between of Mediterranean trade and the developing richest area. Maybe a shift towards the straits if the Empire becomes a heavily Atlantic-based naval power. I have trouble picturing what kind of circumstances would move things to Milan or some other Northern Italian city though.

 

[secretam]

Yeah, and the reasons for our specific north > south outcome don't strike me as sensible if the WRE stays stable. That's not to say you couldn't have a shift away from Italy/Rome for the western half. Europe's best land is northern France; maybe you get a shift to somewhere like Marseille as a go-between of Mediterranean trade and the developing richest area. Maybe a shift towards the straits if the Empire becomes a heavily Atlantic-based naval power. I have trouble picturing what kind of circumstances would move things to Milan or some other Northern Italian city though.

What makes Europe's best land Northern France? I always thought it was Italy which helped it become so rich.

 

[yerm]

What makes Europe's best land Northern France? I always thought it was Italy which helped it become so rich.

Northern Italy's boom was not land quality, not that it was particularly bad land. It had a very well developed urban production setup and was at the forefront of both trade and banking. Milan was always massively important but the emergence of northern > southern in general isn't until at least Justinian, arguably not until the 16th+ centuries. The problem with northern Italy (eg Diocletian using Milan as his capital) is that while that city was large and important, the region isn't quite the Renaissance-era powerhouse it would become yet. The bulk of the empire's population is to the east, which is why Constantinople worked so well.

French land allowed massive population growth that held for a long time despite a lack of urbanization.

 

[secretam]

Northern Italy's boom was not land quality, not that it was particularly bad land. It had a very well developed urban production setup and was at the forefront of both trade and banking. Milan was always massively important but the emergence of northern > southern in general isn't until at least Justinian, arguably not until the 16th+ centuries. The problem with northern Italy (eg Diocletian using Milan as his capital) is that while that city was large and important, the region isn't quite the Renaissance-era powerhouse it would become yet. The bulk of the empire's population is to the east, which is why Constantinople worked so well.

French land allowed massive population growth that held for a long time despite a lack of urbanization.

So, if the Western Roman Empire survived, it would most likely be centred in Southern Italy or Northern France?

Although, I think it would be better for Northern France to not become urbanised to ensure they can still grow large amounts of food.

 

[yerm]

I was thinking Lyon or Marseille if it goes that way. I think Trier was more likely to stick than Milan if it "beat back the barbarians" or whatever. Mostly I just think the prominence of northern Italy over the long term was a bit of an anomaly specific to how things went historically rather than geography.

 

[magnusvejby]

I think this question is to hard to answer...

I think instead we should ask the question, what if Rome did fall.
Luckily I have an excellent answer right here, so you don't have to struggle your minds with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world

 

[Jos de trol]

Some Finnish guy once wrote a bit of an alternate history scenario in which Rome endured to the 17th century ad a monolithic, stagnated empire akin to OTL China while China evolved as a bunch of religiously and politically heterogeneous nations that competed in technology, philosophy and military and launched the exploration journeys that discovered America.

AFAIK it was called Roma Aeterna. The author was the same guy who had previously written a very detailed scenario about a third Reich that won WW2 and about the hegemony that ensued. Valtakunta or something like that.

In such a scenario Rome would realistically still have a great incentive to explore the atlantic vs. china exploring the pacific, and the incentive would be exactly the same as when colombus ventured out.

 

[Henry IX]

Why would it be centred on Northern Italy? Wasn't Southern Italy much richer?

Mostly because the WRE's capital had moved to the north already - Milan and Ravenna. Depending on the form of the surviving empire this is an open question, hence all those question marks I used. North Africa would also be a real possibility.

 

[diegosimeone]

Rome not falling means that Rome has to conquer northern Europe and solidify its eastern borders. We'd have some very different political ideas in order to preserve that mass land (eg. proper decentralization) so everything else from that point on is a big question mark. But if you want Rome not to fall, you have to have Rome beat the people that sacked it in the first place.

 

[Fishman786]

Rome not falling means that Rome has to conquer northern Europe and solidify its eastern borders. We'd have some very different political ideas in order to preserve that mass land (eg. proper decentralization) so everything else from that point on is a big question mark. But if you want Rome not to fall, you have to have Rome beat the people that sacked it in the first place.

I dunno, Rome's eastern borders in Europe were pretty solid already. And the people who invaded the Empire originally came from places far from their borders.

 

[Narwhal]

What if the MInoens survived up to today ? What would be different.

Minoens - not Myceneans. Sorry, Homerophiles.

 

[diegosimeone]

What if the MInoens survived up to today ? What would be different.

Minoens - not Myceneans. Sorry, Homerophiles.

what if the Minyans survived to this day?

 

[yerm]

What if the MInoens survived up to today ? What would be different.

Harambe would still be alive.

 

[Yakman]

Rome not falling means that Rome has to conquer northern Europe and solidify its eastern borders. We'd have some very different political ideas in order to preserve that mass land (eg. proper decentralization) so everything else from that point on is a big question mark. But if you want Rome not to fall, you have to have Rome beat the people that sacked it in the first place.

umm... rome's northern border was the Danube, the Alps, and the Rhine. Not a bad natural line of defense/demarcation. In the East, there's mountains and desert. As long as you can keep the Mediterranean Roman, you have interior lines of communication.

Rome's problem wasn't its enemies - it was domestic issues stemming from bad governance and poor succession planning. There were hundreds of millions of Romans - they should have been able to swat Attilla and Alaric like flies. Unfortunately, they were in too great a state of disarray.

 

[diegosimeone]

umm... rome's northern border was the Danube, the Alps, and the Rhine. Not a bad natural line of defense/demarcation. In the East, there's mountains and desert. As long as you can keep the Mediterranean Roman, you have interior lines of communication.

Rome's problem wasn't its enemies - it was domestic issues stemming from bad governance and poor succession planning. There were hundreds of millions of Romans - they should have been able to swat Attilla and Alaric like flies. Unfortunately, they were in too great a state of disarray.

Can't argue against that, but Rome's internal problems were chronic. The sacking from the Germanic tribes was a catalyst. If Rome didn't conquer Gaul, maybe they'd sack Rome for good 200-300 years later. That's basically my point. If Rome manages to get a stronghold throughout Europe, it can contain 'barbarian' invasions to the east and the south, which they could control to a large extent.

Not sure if your population figures are accurate though. I think Rome's population, including slaves(?), never exceeded 100m.