Plausible Romano-wank?

[Basileus Giorgios]

I came up with this map while doodling last night. Is it possible for the Roman Empire to reach this size by say 150AD, and then maintain it for at least a century or two? What are the likely immediate butterflies? No Islam seems likely due to western Arabia being incorporated into the Empire, but will Christianity still become dominant? Will the Sassanids rise to power in Persia with Mesopotamia and the Caucasus under Roman rule? And how does Britannia fare with the Celts far more effectively subdued ITTL than in real life.

[Polish Eagle]

Christianity would probably still become dominant, as long as Germanic tribes continue to exist on the Northern frontier. They will one day charge across the border and sack the Western empire as IOTL. The long term effects of this Romanowank are no Islam and a larger Byzantine Empire. Of course, maybe the Parthians are a much more immediate threat.

If Rome somehow established a border at the Elbe, you could reduce Christian influence because, as I learned in Theology class, Christianity's promise of salvation was very appealing to Romans who were afraid of barbarians.

[Faeelin]

I don't know how much the Celts would matter; I think the major changse would be in Felix Arabia and Iraq, since the latter was a major source of Persian revenues.

[Ahura Mazda]

It wasn't because they suddenly had a religion the Arabs over run the middle east, it was because they had the numbers and the technology and the unity. It's gonna happen anyways, before the 11th centaury probably...

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Ahura Mazda

It wasn't because they suddenly had a religion the Arabs over run the middle east, it was because they had the numbers and the technology and the unity.

And, perhaps most importantly, opportunity. If the Roman and Sassanid Empires had not just beaten the tar out of each other (again), the OTL Arabs would have had a much tougher road.

[Nikephoros]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I don't know how much the Celts would matter; I think the major changse would be in Felix Arabia and Iraq, since the latter was a major source of Persian revenues.

Indeed. Hell, they had their capital there. Without Iraq, Parthians/Persians stay minor powers.

Originally Posted by Ahura Mazda

It wasn't because they suddenly had a religion the Arabs over run the middle east, it was because they had the numbers and the technology and the unity. It's gonna happen anyways, before the 11th centaury probably...

That is completely wrong. The Arabs didn't have numbers or technoligical advantages, but did have unity, in large part due to religion. While the Arab population was growing rapidly, even the ones inside the Empire were not a majority. They also gained their technological advantages over everyone AFTER their conquests, not before it.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Christianity would probably still become dominant, as long as Germanic tribes continue to exist on the Northern frontier. They will one day charge across the border and sack the Western empire as IOTL. The long term effects of this Romanowank are no Islam and a larger Byzantine Empire. Of course, maybe the Parthians are a much more immediate threat.

If Rome somehow established a border at the Elbe, you could reduce Christian influence because, as I learned in Theology class, Christianity's promise of salvation was very appealing to Romans who were afraid of barbarians.

The presence of Germanic tribes on the northern frontier had nothing to do with the spread of Christianity, which prior to Emperor Constantine, had the bulk of it's followers in urban centres from Alexandria to Ephesus. Whats more, the Germanic tribes at the best of times were too politically divided and conflicted to pose a serious threat to the Empire's security. Civil wars between aspiring Emperors, though, would have been a good time for them to team up and strike.

The particular Christian sect which would later be known as the Roman Catholic Church had followers in the Imperial household since around the time of Emperor Commodus, whom seemed to employed a few Christians as advisors, and whose' mistress, Marcia, was apparently even a Christian herself. The future Pope Callistus I was a friend of hers, and was released from doing hard labour in Sardinia through her influence. No matter how appealing their promises of "salvation" were, having friends in high places was ultimately beneficial to the faith.

Other than that, I do agree with securing and fortying the Elbe River, which would have also reduced the number of hostile tribal forces from bursting into the Empire, while pacifying those already living between the Rhine and Elbe.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

The Arabs would make a big move north and west at some point, but without Islam they'd share the fate of most of the peoples that invaded Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Levant. They'd assimilate, contribute to some degree to the local culture, maybe even have their language spread like the Aramaeans, and likely be forgotten within centuries by anyone who wasn't a historian.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by Nikephoros

Indeed. Hell, they had their capital there. Without Iraq, Parthians/Persians stay minor powers.

Okay, but here's the counteraargument. Mesopotamia is a bit aways from the rest of the Empire, logistically. And whatever state continues to exist in Parhtia will be a thorn in the Roman side. Will it really make that much of a difference

Carlton? Anyone?

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by Nikephoros

Indeed. Hell, they had their capital there. Without Iraq, Parthians/Persians stay minor powers.

Except that the Romans captured Mesopotamia in OTL and found it too hard to hold. They quickly withdrew after only a few years. Also, the Sassanids originated IIRC in Fars province, significantly east of Ctesiphon. Who's to say the Romans would be able to hold onto Mesopotamia when faced with a resurgent Persia under the Sassanids? IOTL the region was contested for centuries (but usually reverted to Persian control in the end), so obviously the Persians were capable of putting up something of a fight.

[jkay]

It's looking not too unreasonable to me. It's not hopelessly bigger than the OTL borders; delaying the fall of the Republic a century might do that, for example (dig :-)). The OTL Empire was stable in that period, so that's reasonablish. Having Pictland/Scotland is probably particularly unlikely, because it was so far away from their center of gravity for them to care that much. It's a little unlikely in that all the frontiers are stretched instead being moved, but hardly ASB, I think.

I think it'd've made little difference, religionwise. The OTL Empire already had western Arabia, in a wider but shorter belt than on your map. Maybe some reason to treat it differently than OTL? Seconly, 150AD + 2 centuries = 350AD, and Muhammed showed up in Mecca in 610, much later.

And the Sassanids were a Big Macedonia successor house, so they were long established by 150AD.

Is it possible to keep Islam from happening? I imagine so. BUT - I tend to think we'd see some other kind of more tolerant or syncretistic religious explosion. Personally, I think Islam was so popular because all the the Christian alternatives available were pretty intolerant by Muhammad's time. So, I tend to think you'd need a substitute, which could even be a tolerant or syncretistic Christianity.

Looking interesting. Have fun!

[DuQuense]

POD 58 BC
In response to southern Anglo land sending Men and supplies to Help their revolting Brittany brethren, Caesar, Governor of Gaul invades across the Channel with 2 legions.
by the time He leaves for Rome in 54 BC [OTL] to shore up his Political problems, Rome controls most of south coastal England from Cornwall to Norwich.

By 10 BC Rome has been pulled North by multiple Campaigns till it controls the entire Island of Britannia. As it expands along the Eastern North Sea shore of Britannia, it also expands along the Frisian Side of the North Sea.
In 9 AD Rome sends 3 roman Legions across the Rhine to put down several tribes the have revolted against Roman Control. Accompanying the 3 Legions is a 4 legion composed of British and Frisian Foderiti.
Unlike the Romans in their Uniforms, and unused to the North Sea weather, the Foderiti are prepared for the Weather, and are in Fur Tunics with Long Kilts and Trous.
Due to the Foderiti the German Ambush is a dismal Failure, and Rome continues it's advance into Germania, eventually reaching the Elbe, where It stops, believing that there is nothing of value past the river.

By 100 AD Rome has taken the Western Shore of the Black Sea along the Danube, and begun pushing east from the north shore of Anatolia.
This increased activity causes more roman intrest in the Crimea and the Sea of Azoz.
Explorations up the Don and down the Volga, allows elements of the Roman Navy/Marines to Portage into the Caspian.
Able to Hit the Sassanids both from the North and from the East, Allows Rome to take and Hold Mesopotamia.

Having Mesopotamia, gets Rome involved in the Sassanid's attempt to take Arabia, and Rome ends up with Green and Fruitful Yemen. To control Yemen Rome establishes outposts and Fortifications along the Red Sea.
With good relations with the Axumites Rome sets a Southern Border on the Western Shore in Nubia.

by the 4th Century when the Volkswandertung begins, Rome has had two Centuries to establish it'self in the Expanded borders.

[ray243]

And Rome first Emperor would be called Augustus.

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Originally Posted by jkay

And the Sassanids were a Big Macedonia successor house, so they were long established by 150AD.

Those were the Seleucids, who by this point were long out of the picture. The Sassanids were the successors to the Parthians and still have 74 years to be established.

BUT - I tend to think we'd see some other kind of more tolerant or syncretistic religious explosion. Personally, I think Islam was so popular because all the the Christian alternatives available were pretty intolerant by Muhammad's time. So, I tend to think you'd need a substitute, which could even be a tolerant or syncretistic Christianity.

Manichaeism, though that would be butterflied away as well. But I don't take it as a given that Christianity would become the dominant religion or even a major one.

Originally Posted by DuQuense

Foderiti

It's foederati.

[Nikephoros]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Okay, but here's the counteraargument. Mesopotamia is a bit aways from the rest of the Empire, logistically. And whatever state continues to exist in Parhtia will be a thorn in the Roman side. Will it really make that much of a difference

Carlton? Anyone?

Originally Posted by rcduggan

Except that the Romans captured Mesopotamia in OTL and found it too hard to hold. They quickly withdrew after only a few years. Also, the Sassanids originated IIRC in Fars province, significantly east of Ctesiphon. Who's to say the Romans would be able to hold onto Mesopotamia when faced with a resurgent Persia under the Sassanids? IOTL the region was contested for centuries (but usually reverted to Persian control in the end), so obviously the Persians were capable of putting up something of a fight.

I know that. I was assuming that Faeelin was implying that the Romans would continue to hold Mesopotamia. As long as Mesopotamia is in Roman hands, the Persians will only be a thorn in Rome's side, instead of being a force capable of rocking Rome to it's core. But a Persian power will take it eventually.

[Frige]

If all of the British island stands under a single government, or the Picts are at least made friendly, by the migration period you remove the need for Saxon mercenaries to defend against them, so you have a shot at a surviving Romano-British polity controlling Great Britain. Instead of England/Scotland/Wales you have Super-Wales.

A more organised Caledonia/Pictland is going to prevent Gaels coming into possession of that area.

Whether the language in the future would be Brythonic with Latin influences or Latin with Brythonic influences, I don't know.

[Faeelin]

Originally Posted by rcduggan

Except that the Romans captured Mesopotamia in OTL and found it too hard to hold. They quickly withdrew after only a few years. Also, the Sassanids originated IIRC in Fars province, significantly east of Ctesiphon. Who's to say the Romans would be able to hold onto Mesopotamia when faced with a resurgent Persia under the Sassanids? IOTL the region was contested for centuries (but usually reverted to Persian control in the end), so obviously the Persians were capable of putting up something of a fight.

I actually wonder if a better Roman policy would've been to go after the Parthains less fanatically. I'd much rater have them as neighbors than the Sassanids...

[Nikephoros]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I actually wonder if a better Roman policy would've been to go after the Parthains less fanatically. I'd much rater have them as neighbors than the Sassanids...

I've wondered about that myself. The Roman offensives practically ruined the Parthians, thus paving the way for the Sassanids. But I wonder if that destruction is even needed for the Sassanids (Or someone similar) to come to power?

[Dante]

Originally Posted by Nikephoros

I've wondered about that myself. The Roman offensives practically ruined the Parthians, thus paving the way for the Sassanids. But I wonder if that destruction is even needed for the Sassanids (Or someone similar) to come to power?

I Agree, Parthia never had enough organazation to be a serious threat, they were great at defending what was already theirs, but when it came to taking and keeping Roman territory they were done in by their lack of logistics. If you could butterfly away the Sassanians Parthia would just be an annoying thorn in Romes side, a resurgent Persian Empire is a rival, Parthia is a troublesome border state.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

I would have thought that if the Romans were expansionist enough to take all of OTL Scotland, that they'd take Germania at least to the Elbe, no?