Roman Re-unification

[RandomIdeaGuy]

What is the best POD to have a re-unified Rome by about the AD 700s. I was thinking, maybe the Bubonic Plague doesn't hit the Eastern Roman Empire (along w/ other things happening/not happening). Also, how would Roman re-unification affect colonization, whenever that happens.

[Polish Eagle]

Best possible POD in my opinion is that Justinian's conquests, for whatever reason, are far more successful and less bloody than OTL. He could get Italy, Iberia, North Africa, and maybe even Southern Gaul. Wouldn't be total reunification, but it would be close enough. This would probably butterfly Islam away, so Egypt, North Africa, and the Holy Land are safe in Roman hands.

Normans might not conquer England, through butterflies. Maybe there is less crusading drive because there are no muslims to fight off. Teutonic knights don't exist, being a crusading order, and thus parts of north-eastern Europe, meaning Poland, Balts, scandinavians, might have been pagan longer. Not forever, someone would launch a war of conversion at some point, but probably for 1-2.5 centuries extra.

When colonization roles around, it is because some Roman merchant bound for the Ivory Coast for slaves gets blown off course and lands in Brazil. He brings back word of it, and the Emperors first see it as a place to drop off felons and dangerous nobles and royals. Then, someone gets the bright idea in the 14th century to use it as a refueling and watering base for expeditions to Asia. The mongols might have shown the silk roads and such, if they aren't butterflied away. If not, the Persian empire would still have some goods from India and China to sell to Romans who would want more.

The first expedition to find the west coast of Brazil lands in Panama, or the Caribbean. The next one lands on the Yucatan in the early 15th century and meets the decaying Maya civilization. When they hear of gold, an expedition to find it is launched and settlements in early years are gold mining, military outposts against the natives, or ports for the continued search for the Northwest passage equivalent.

Seeing as the Normans might be butterflied away, there might be some more viking, maybe even Saxon, presence in East Canada, possibly New England.

Any comments?

[RandomIdeaGuy]

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Best possible POD in my opinion is that Justinian's conquests, for whatever reason, are far more successful and less bloody than OTL. He could get Italy, Iberia, North Africa, and maybe even Southern Gaul. Wouldn't be total reunification, but it would be close enough. This would probably butterfly Islam away, so Egypt, North Africa, and the Holy Land are safe in Roman hands.

Normans might not conquer England, through butterflies. Maybe there is less crusading drive because there are no muslims to fight off. Teutonic knights don't exist, being a crusading order, and thus parts of north-eastern Europe, meaning Poland, Balts, scandinavians, might have been pagan longer. Not forever, someone would launch a war of conversion at some point, but probably for 1-2.5 centuries extra.

When colonization roles around, it is because some Roman merchant bound for the Ivory Coast for slaves gets blown off course and lands in Brazil. He brings back word of it, and the Emperors first see it as a place to drop off felons and dangerous nobles and royals. Then, someone gets the bright idea in the 14th century to use it as a refueling and watering base for expeditions to Asia. The mongols might have shown the silk roads and such, if they aren't butterflied away. If not, the Persian empire would still have some goods from India and China to sell to Romans who would want more.

The first expedition to find the west coast of Brazil lands in Panama, or the Caribbean. The next one lands on the Yucatan in the early 15th century and meets the decaying Maya civilization. When they hear of gold, an expedition to find it is launched and settlements in early years are gold mining, military outposts against the natives, or ports for the continued search for the Northwest passage equivalent.

Seeing as the Normans might be butterflied away, there might be some more viking, maybe even Saxon, presence in East Canada, possibly New England.

Any comments?

Great start. Only thing though: I'd prefer if Rome (and Europe) stayed pretty isolated from Asia, at least for a while, as I plan on combining this w/ another idea I have, and thus set up an epic Cold War between the Roman and Chinese Empires.

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by randomideaguy

Great start. Only thing though: I'd prefer if Rome (and Europe) stayed pretty isolated from Asia, at least for a while, as I plan on combining this w/ another idea I have, and thus set up an epic Cold War between the Roman and Chinese Empires.

Well, they are until the Mongols. I can't figure out any way to keep the Roman aristocrats and their money away from silk and spices.

[RandomIdeaGuy]

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Well, they are until the Mongols. I can't figure out any way to keep the Roman aristocrats and their money away from silk and spices.

I have plans for the Mongols...

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by randomideaguy

I have plans for the Mongols...

Even without Mongols, the Persian empire and its various incarnations (Parthians, etc.) could have introduced Rome to eastern luxuries. But, have it your way. Are you really going to fuse my ideas of Justinian success into a TL? If so, post soon. I'd like to see it.

[RandomIdeaGuy]

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Even without Mongols, the Persian empire and its various incarnations (Parthians, etc.) could have introduced Rome to eastern luxuries. But, have it your way. Are you really going to fuse my ideas of Justinian success into a TL? If so, post soon. I'd like to see it.

Well, I think I can avoid European-Asian Contact till about the 700s, right?

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by randomideaguy

Well, I think I can avoid European-Asian Contact till about the 700s, right?

I was thinking of almost no contact besides wars over Mesopotamia until the 13th century. I completely ruled out large scale trade until then. I, for one, can't think of a way to avoid the Roman/Byzantine Empire from fighting the New Persians. But that isn't really contact because no European ever goes much further than Iraq, and no Persian bothers to visit the Mediterranean.

[Wolf]

Originally Posted by randomideaguy

Well, I think I can avoid European-Asian Contact till about the 700s, right?

Except there was some contact between the Romans and the Chinese as early as the days of Marcus Aurelius.

[xchen08]

I would say the main problem is the Roman tradition of successful generals overthrowing the Emperor in order to usurp the throne. The whole being proclaimed Imperator by the Legions thing really needs to go. As long as this problem exists, the Emperor either needs to be the main Imperial general, exert very close control of his generals, or hire only incompetent generals/never give competent generals enough troops. The first two solutions practically guarantee a divided Empire, since the Empire faces two main threats, the tribal peoples to the North, and the Persians to the East. No Emperor can keep watch on both threats at once, meaning you need two emperors. The third is no solution at all, since it would inevitably lead to disaster. A hypercompetent Emperor, like Justinian might be able to control a unified Empire, but even he resorted to inefficient division of command, starving his best general of troops, and playing his better generals against each other in order to avoid coups.

Notice that even the later, much reduced Exarchate of Italy was practically an independent Kingdom. The Emperors in Constantinople pretty much have to dispatch most of their fleet and army in order to "peacefully" remove an Exarch.

[Germaniac]

Possibly if Justinians conquest are held longer a more "civilized" north can develop. If Justinian can bow to his own feelings about the "barbarians" possibly a deal could be struck with the Merovingians to the north, thus Justinian can mostly shorten his watch to the Danube and Persia.

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

I think the plague that hit the Eastern Roman Empire of Justinian's time would effectively weaken its hold on Italy, Spain, and North Africa even without the other problems. Plus, Constantinople's inevitable wars with Sassanid Persia may leave it unable to consolidate its control over territories in the western Mediterranean. But if southern Gaul gets reconquered around that time, that may still stunt the growth of the Frankish Kingdom, and missionary efforts in Britain and Germany might not get as much support from home. Celtic Christian efforts in England might go unimpeded, but without the Catholic Churches' progress in northern and eastern Europe, anything could happen. The Lombards could still potentially conquer Italy from the Byzantines, or leastways they would settle in the north between the Alps and the Po River.

[Alex Richards]

If Justinians conquests are more successful, you could butterfly away the great plague. Creating a deal with the Merogovinians in which catholicism is allowed to be practiced in France, along with trading links etc. makes the catholic church a steadily growing religion here. Celtic church converts Brtain, followed by missionaries in Viking Scandinavia, Iceland and Greenland.

Normons are butterflied away, and Europe ends up with a three way religious split:

Celtic in Britain, Scandinavia, the Baltic and Northern Germany/Poland
Catholic in France, Germany, the Low countries and Poland
Orthodox in roman Empire, Russia and the Caucasus etc.

Islam is butterflied away, Zorastrainism becomes a dominant force in Asia and any colonial empire of the Romans will come initially from the establishment of slaving ports along the East/West coasts of Africa, then accidental discovery of the Americas. Merogovinians able to hold empire together with help from Constantinople, found their empire in Florida-New York
Viking colonialsim in New England/Canada

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

How can one prevent a plague from occuring in the pre-Modern era?

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Best possible POD in my opinion is that Justinian's conquests, for whatever reason, are far more successful and less bloody than OTL. He could get Italy, Iberia, North Africa, and maybe even Southern Gaul. Wouldn't be total reunification, but it would be close enough. This would probably butterfly Islam away, so Egypt, North Africa, and the Holy Land are safe in Roman hands.

Actually, this wouldn't butterfly Islam away. Justinian's conquest did not involve Arabia. And Muhammad was born only five years or so after Justinian died, so there is a change Islam could still arise.
Also, you are forgetting the Sassanid threat to the Levant, Anatolia, and Egypt, as well as the religious friction with the Miaphysites and others in the east.

Also, about Justinian's conquest in southern Francia: look how well "Spania" turned out for the Byzantine Empire. Any conquests in Francia will turn out the same way IMO - weak, unstable, and at the mercy of foreign aggression.

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Not forever, someone would launch a war of conversion at some point, but probably for 1-2.5 centuries extra.

Why is this a historical certainty? Christianity could have spread by trade, you know. Not everything comes at the point of a sword.

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

When colonization roles around, it is because some Roman merchant bound for the Ivory Coast for slaves gets blown off course and lands in Brazil.

For some reason this really bothers me. How can a ship get blown hundreds of miles off course like that? Were Byzantine ships even built for that kind of sailing? (I realize that the voyage around the Cape travels close to Brazil, but you specifically said the Cote d'Ivoire.

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

He brings back word of it, and the Emperors first see it as a place to drop off felons and dangerous nobles and royals.

Because the traditional standby of sticking them in monasteries is abandoned for some reason?

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Then, someone gets the bright idea in the 14th century to use it as a refueling and watering base for expeditions to Asia. The mongols might have shown the silk roads and such, if they aren't butterflied away. If not, the Persian empire would still have some goods from India and China to sell to Romans who would want more.

Why would the Byzantines use the Atlantic for trading at all, again? As long as they hold Egypt - and without Islam there is no threat to this () - they can trade directly through Asia rather than traveling west.

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Seeing as the Normans might be butterflied away, there might be some more viking, maybe even Saxon, presence in East Canada, possibly New England.

Just so you know, the term "Norman" has been used historically to apply to all Vikings, not just those who settled in Normandy. So I highly doubt that the Vikings themselves would be butterflied away. But I think the one thing we agree on is that the Norman state founded in 911 by Rollo will be butterflied away.

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by rcduggan

Actually, this wouldn't butterfly Islam away. Justinian's conquest did not involve Arabia. And Muhammad was born only five years or so after Justinian died, so there is a change Islam could still arise.
Also, you are forgetting the Sassanid threat to the Levant, Anatolia, and Egypt, as well as the religious friction with the Miaphysites and others in the east.

Also, about Justinian's conquest in southern Francia: look how well "Spania" turned out for the Byzantine Empire. Any conquests in Francia will turn out the same way IMO - weak, unstable, and at the mercy of foreign aggression.


Why is this a historical certainty? Christianity could have spread by trade, you know. Not everything comes at the point of a sword.


For some reason this really bothers me. How can a ship get blown hundreds of miles off course like that? Were Byzantine ships even built for that kind of sailing? (I realize that the voyage around the Cape travels close to Brazil, but you specifically said the Cote d'Ivoire.


Because the traditional standby of sticking them in monasteries is abandoned for some reason?


Why would the Byzantines use the Atlantic for trading at all, again? As long as they hold Egypt - and without Islam there is no threat to this () - they can trade directly through Asia rather than traveling west.



Just so you know, the term "Norman" has been used historically to apply to all Vikings, not just those who settled in Normandy. So I highly doubt that the Vikings themselves would be butterflied away. But I think the one thing we agree on is that the Norman state founded in 911 by Rollo will be butterflied away.

Response to each one:

Butterflies eliminate Islam because changed winds on a small scale make Mohammad's father's caravan end up 10 feet away for some reason. Mohammad's father's harem does not include Mohammad's mother. Mohammad never born. Something else might emerge, but I doubt it will have Islam's almost Draka-like luck.

If Justinian just controls Massilia (Marseille) and parts of the coast, he has all he needs there. Besides, my idea is that the conquests work out better on all fronts.

Christianity's spread: True, war is not a certainty now, but it is just what I find most likely.

Byzantine ship: I'm not good with west African geography. If the ship is bound for the tip of Africa closest to Brazil, it is conceivable that it could reach the New World.

Monasteries are not enough: What if the guy is perceived as too much of a threat to stuff in any monastery in the Empire? And if not that, the finding of natives there might inspire missionary activity into the region.

And for trade: Maybe because the Persians or any of those empires to the East have a monopoly on trade? Besides, I think it is much quicker to go by boat anyway.

And when I say Norman, I mean resident of Normandy. By Viking, I mean Scandinavian.

[Jaded_Railman]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

If Justinians conquests are more successful, you could butterfly away the great plague. Creating a deal with the Merogovinians in which catholicism is allowed to be practiced in France, along with trading links etc. makes the catholic church a steadily growing religion here. Celtic church converts Brtain, followed by missionaries in Viking Scandinavia, Iceland and Greenland.

Normons are butterflied away, and Europe ends up with a three way religious split:

Celtic in Britain, Scandinavia, the Baltic and Northern Germany/Poland
Catholic in France, Germany, the Low countries and Poland
Orthodox in roman Empire, Russia and the Caucasus etc.

The Orthodox WAS the Catholic Church right up until the Schism in the 11th century, which isn't going to happen here.

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

Islam is butterflied away, Zorastrainism becomes a dominant force in Asia and any colonial empire of the Romans will come initially from the establishment of slaving ports along the East/West coasts of Africa, then accidental discovery of the Americas. Merogovinians able to hold empire together with help from Constantinople, found their empire in Florida-New York
Viking colonialsim in New England/Canada

Why would Zoroastrianism become any mroe dominant than it already was? Buddhism was the major transnational Asian religion at the time. I don't see a reason for that to change. And I don't see why there'd be slaving ports on the Atlantic Coast of Africa -- the existing caravan routes will be in the hands of the Romans or people friendly to the Romans, they won't be trying to sail around Africa because Egypt (and the Sinai) will be in the hadns of the Romans, etc.

There's no reason for any of these places to go colonial, even if they do discover the Americas somehow. The population pressure isn't there in the same way for centuries and the massive technological advantage the Europeans had also isn't there. They've got something of a lead, but not on anywhere near the same scale.

[Alex Richards]

Quote:
'The Orthodox WAS the Catholic Church right up until the Schism in the 11th century, which isn't going to happen here.'



Realised that a while after posting. Merge Orthodox and Christianity

Quote:
'Why would Zoroastrianism become any mroe dominant than it already was? Buddhism was the major transnational Asian religion at the time. I don't see a reason for that to change.'



If the Mongols are butterflied away, or have a less profound effect, the damage they wrought to Zorastrianism would be lessened, they are the only reason Christianity became less widespread in Asia.

[rcduggan]

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Something else might emerge, but I doubt it will have Islam's almost Draka-like luck.

Why don't you just admit that you know nothing about Islam and leave it at that?

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

If Justinian just controls Massilia (Marseille) and parts of the coast, he has all he needs there. Besides, my idea is that the conquests work out better on all fronts.

And my point was that an all-front conquest could not work out better. The Byzantines were overstretched by the time they landed in Spain. The Franks are not going to tolerate a Byzantine invasion any more than the Visigoths did. I cannot see any way for a Byzantine toehold in Francia to be successful by any definition of the word.

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Byzantine ship: I'm not good with west African geography. If the ship is bound for the tip of Africa closest to Brazil, it is conceivable that it could reach the New World.

But there would be no Byzantine ships in the area at all! The Byzantines can trade overland through Egypt and the Levant. They do not need the Atlantic for anything.

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

Monasteries are not enough: What if the guy is perceived as too much of a threat to stuff in any monastery in the Empire? And if not that, the finding of natives there might inspire missionary activity into the region.

This is all moot because there is no reason for the Byzantines to be in America in the first place. But I think the Crimea would suffice as a far-off place to exile threats to the state.

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

And for trade: Maybe because the Persians or any of those empires to the East have a monopoly on trade? Besides, I think it is much quicker to go by boat anyway.

You think it's faster and more cost-effective to travel thousands of miles overseas instead of trading along the most active trade route at the time?
The Byzantines didn't have to walk all the way down the Silk Road to trade with China. They could just trade with independent merchants who made the trek west and traded with Persia. But to trade over the Atlantic, the Byzantines have to do all the work for little return. It's just not worth it.
But then I get the sense that you are unsure as to how trade works, as well.

Originally Posted by Polish Eagle

And when I say Norman, I mean resident of Normandy. By Viking, I mean Scandinavian.

But you mention Normans before Vikings, leading to my confusion as to your usage of the terms.