PC:Western Constantinople?

[Chamonix]

What are the chances of Constantine placing his city in Gaul or Brittania rather than Greece? Would this lead to a WRE rather than an ERE surviving?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

He'd have to put it somewhere as defensible as Constantinople and with as great a range of geographic control, and I can't offhand think of such a place...

Maybe where Toulon is?

[Basileus Giorgios]

Slim to nonexistant. Constantinople was where it was to put it near the Persian front, and the Atlantic Ocean will never be as threatening to Roman interests as the Sassanid Empire. :p

[maverick]

How about Alexandria?

"Look at me, I'm greater than this other guy"

Athens is also an interesting place, and there's also Ephesus and Pergamum, although I don't know how defensible they are.

Carthago and Syracuse might be too far.

Jerusalem might be good from a propagandistic point of view, but not from a strategic or military perspective.

Note: for a second I turned into a moron and forgot the OP. Only a few actually fit the criteria for a "western Constantinople."

For this, you might need to find a way to destroy the Persians, although in that case they might just get replaced by another Persian state.

[Rex Romanum]

What are the chances of Constantine placing his city in Gaul or Brittania rather than Greece? Would this lead to a WRE rather than an ERE surviving?

I think the best candidate for this would be Ravenna, it is surrounded by swamps and marshes that make it quite hard to be attacked, it is near both Rhine and Danube, and in the case of a siege, Ravenna can be supplied by sea (although now it is landlocked).
That's why Ravenna becomes capital of the Western Roman Empire (from 402), Ostrogothic Kingdom, and Exarchate of Ravenna.
However, a strong capital won't help much for the West...

[Uxi]

How about Alexandria?

Not on the point, but definitely an interesting idea.



Note: for a second I turned into a moron and forgot the OP. Only a few actually fit the criteria for a "western Constantinople."


Possible to build a huge urban metropolis at Gibraltar? :p :eek:

[DuQuense]

The Idea was to split the Empire, in order to shorten communication times.
While Rome only controlled a small piece of Crimea on the black sea north shore, the sea was a important trade centre for Rome.
Constantinople was chosen to allow control of the Straits. But was not intended to surpass Rome. And Rome took steps to prevent any other western city from outshining it.

[Wolfpaw]

Venice was a disease ridden swamp of a lagoon, but then the Romans were rather competent at environmental engineering. Perhaps this could become a potential "Western Constantinople?"

That being said, Byzantium may well become the fortress city it became IOTL, just without the imperial splendor. Basically a giant keep on the Bosphorus.

[Douglas]

I seem to remember a bunch of Western emperors holding court at Trier every once in a while. Perhaps that could be a fortress-capital aimed at containing the barbarians beyond the German border?

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

What are the chances of Constantine placing his city in Gaul or Brittania rather than Greece? Would this lead to a WRE rather than an ERE surviving?

Constantine didn't put it in Greece, he put it in Thrace. Putting it in Greece would have been a bad idea.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think the best candidate for this would be Ravenna, it is surrounded by swamps and marshes that make it quite hard to be attacked, it is near both Rhine and Danube, and in the case of a siege, Ravenna can be supplied by sea (although now it is landlocked).
That's why Ravenna becomes capital of the Western Roman Empire (from 402), Ostrogothic Kingdom, and Exarchate of Ravenna.
However, a strong capital won't help much for the West...

I think you guys are missing the "Gaul or Britannia" part of the OP.

Ignoring that, Ravenna would have been decent defensively, but it isn't a port or astride any major waterways. Constantinople controlled access from the Black Sea, which was an important defensive measure, and it was literally at the center of the world.

In Britannia, I guess it wouldn't matter too much as long as a navy were maintained. Probably about where London is would be pretty convenient.

In Gaul, definitely the South - I like Toulon because it's defensible and a port.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

How about Alexandria?

"Look at me, I'm greater than this other guy"

Athens is also an interesting place, and there's also Ephesus and Pergamum, although I don't know how defensible they are.

Carthago and Syracuse might be too far.

Jerusalem might be good from a propagandistic point of view, but not from a strategic or military perspective.

Note: for a second I turned into a moron and forgot the OP. Only a few actually fit the criteria for a "western Constantinople."

For this, you might need to find a way to destroy the Persians, although in that case they might just get replaced by another Persian state.

Alexandria is utterly defenseless, and no amount of defense works will ever make it anything else. There's really no match for Constantinople.

[Douglas]

In Gaul, definitely the South - I like Toulon because it's defensible and a port.

I think Trier has a shot. It was the seat of one of the four subdivisions of the Empire, and held a commanding position along the German border. If you wanted a capital to focus on repelling any barbarian invasions, that would be a damn good choice, IMO.

[mailinutile2]

you need a rich area as well as a strategical important place.
Thus half starven illitterate briton towns are out of the argument.
Gaul had some moderate wealthy zones, but it was nothing compared to the fabulous treasures of the East

[Rex Romanum]

I think you guys are missing the "Gaul or Britannia" part of the OP.

Ignoring that, Ravenna would have been decent defensively, but it isn't a port or astride any major waterways. Constantinople controlled access from the Black Sea, which was an important defensive measure, and it was literally at the center of the world.

In Britannia, I guess it wouldn't matter too much as long as a navy were maintained. Probably about where London is would be pretty convenient.

In Gaul, definitely the South - I like Toulon because it's defensible and a port.

Ah alright, sorry about that...
Then my choice would be:
-Treverorum (Trier) because it's near the Rhine
-Londinium (London) because it's near the Firth to Forth and relatively protected from any Germanic invasion, especially if reinforced with a powerful navy
However Abdul, I disagree with you about Ravenna isn't a major seaport.
In 31 BC after the battle of Actium, Octavian builded a military harbor in the city which make Ravenna an important base for Roman Imperial Fleet, and it remained a major seaport in Adriatic Sea until Early Middle Age.

[mailinutile2]

Ignoring that, Ravenna would have been decent defensively, but it isn't a port or astride any major waterways.

Afraid you are using an atlas from the wrong century.
Ravenna is not a port now, because after 1700 years of sediments coming from a nearby river the coastline moved and the city is now inland.
But then it was the main port of the central mediterranean.
Indeed, ravenna was officially the seat of the eastern med fleet of the roman empire (Misenum was the seat of the western fleet)

[fortyseven]

Too bad Lyon is fairly defenseless.

[Axeman]

Perhaps Rome somehow conquers Germania, but then splits the Empire anyway for whatever reason? So we could have Rome build a brand new city in the area North of Switzerland between the Danube and Rhine.

Thus you have the Alps covering the south approach, the Danube blocks off most direct east paths except for a few narrow passes, the Rhine does the same, to a lesser extent, for the west, and the gap in between the 2 can be fortified to high-hell.

Thus you have a city in between Italy, Gaul, on 2 of the Empire's major rivers, though not on the Ocean, and the capital is moved closer to stop Invaders from Capturing Germany.

[Rex Romanum]

Perhaps Rome somehow conquers Germania, but then splits the Empire anyway for whatever reason? So we could have Rome build a brand new city in the area North of Switzerland between the Danube and Rhine.

Thus you have the Alps covering the south approach, the Danube blocks off most direct east paths except for a few narrow passes, the Rhine does the same, to a lesser extent, for the west, and the gap in between the 2 can be fortified to high-hell.

Thus you have a city in between Italy, Gaul, on 2 of the Empire's major rivers, though not on the Ocean, and the capital is moved closer to stop Invaders from Capturing Germany.

Now this is one of interesting idea...

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Afraid you are using an atlas from the wrong century.
Ravenna is not a port now, because after 1700 years of sediments coming from a nearby river the coastline moved and the city is now inland.
But then it was the main port of the central mediterranean.
Indeed, ravenna was officially the seat of the eastern med fleet of the roman empire (Misenum was the seat of the western fleet)

Yes, yes, I know my history. The east coast of Italy lacks natural harbors, and while it's usable as a base if there's no serious opposition, it's an exposed position. It's defensible on land, but it doesn't have much strategic purpose or a rich hinterland to make it prosperous, nor is it on critical trade routes. It's also a bit vulnerable when it comes to water, which is another important consideration.

With regard to Trier, that's a decent idea, but don't forget the Rhine used to freeze in the winter, and Trier wasn't exactly the middle of Civilization.

If you want a capital that can maintain communications with a large empire, it really needs to be on the Med, in my opinion, but I'm not pooh-poohing Trier, at least until the whole German thing dies down.

[Alex Richards]

Ah alright, sorry about that...
Then my choice would be:
-Treverorum (Trier) because it's near the Rhine
-Londinium (London) because it's near the Firth to Forth and relatively protected from any Germanic invasion, especially if reinforced with a powerful navy
However Abdul, I disagree with you about Ravenna isn't a major seaport.
In 31 BC after the battle of Actium, Octavian builded a military harbor in the city which make Ravenna an important base for Roman Imperial Fleet, and it remained a major seaport in Adriatic Sea until Early Middle Age.

Errr what now?

Edinburgh is on the Firth of Forth. London is on the Thames Estuary.

[Rex Romanum]

Errr what now?

Edinburgh is on the Firth of Forth. London is on the Thames Estuary.

Ah, what I mean was, compared to the other candidates for "western Constantinople" (Arles, Trier, Milan, Lyon) London/Londinium is the nearest to the Firth of Forth...

[Hörnla]

So we could have Rome build a brand new city in the area North of Switzerland between the Danube and Rhine.

Thus you have the Alps covering the south approach, the Danube blocks off most direct east paths except for a few narrow passes, the Rhine does the same, to a lesser extent, for the west, and the gap in between the 2 can be fortified to high-hell.

Interesting concept, but you would be in South-Western Germany, in Southern Swabia, probably on the Northern shore of the Bodensee.

However, having a look at the map, it looks rather odd to have a major Roman center there - I would rather pick a place South of the Rhine, OTL's Konstanz oder Basel come to mind here.

Considering a Western alternative to Constantinople, I dismiss Ravenna for exactly its marshes and swampland. I would say there are limits as to how big the city could have grown.

Treverorum is not a bad place, being about halfway between the Alps and the North Sea while not directly on the Rhine. The best centre to react to Germanic threats against the West. However, it is set in a hilly region with little communication besides the river Moselle. Maybe a place further west would be able to have better communications for a more flexible response. I forgot the Roman names for Verdun, Reims and Metz, but these cities existed back then. I would place a permanent HQ in this region.

I wonder why nobody mentioned Mediolanum yet. It was capital of the Western Roman Empire for some time. In my opinion, though, it is on the wrong side on the Alps and simply a place to defend Italia.

People mentioned Londinium, then why not Lutetia? It is almost as good a position as the one I mentioned before, plus it sits on a possible defensive line on the river Seine. Also, the land is fertile and not too hilly. It makes sense that we see one of the most magnificient cities of OTL there.

[Zioneer]

I like the idea of Venice being a Western Constantinople. Sure, it had environmental problems (disease, hard to access), but so did Rome itself, did it not? Disease was a factor there as well, and with the Alps, it was hard to get to.

So Venice could serve as a similar, but different second Rome. This new Rome will probably shift into a more Carthage-like nation, however. More focused on the navy then terra firma.

[Julius Vogel]

Indeed. What about a neo Carthage? The previous inhabitants managed to run a reasonably good part of the Western Med for a while from that point.

Also, if we are back to western Europe proper - how about Cologne? I was there a couple of months back and spent some time looking at the Roman museum, which is worth a visit by the way. It's position on the Rhine is good for communications, transport and commerce and, while the Rhine may freeze over, it could certainly be fortrified to a greater extent.