A literal Third Rome: A Roman Metropolis after Rome and Constantinople

Albert.Nik

Banned
@metalinvader665 No I mean the Caeseria Maritima which was the capital of the Roman province of Judea and is a major city in today's Israel. Tiberias,I meant,the one on the Sea of Galilee. The city was very centrally located,near to the Byzantine Christian important spots like Jerusalem and Bethlehem and also the Sea of Galilee holds very important significance to the Christians. So that could be a very good capital for a Southern Roman Empire. Also,development of this region and settlement of large number of Greeks due to that,the region could be more immune to the Islamic and the Persian invasions and hence keeping even Egypt too safe. Both these cities are very strategic and worthy for capitalhood for the Southern Roman Empire if it was created.
 
@metalinvader665 No I mean the Caeseria Maritima which was the capital of the Roman province of Judea and is a major city in today's Israel. Tiberias,I meant,the one on the Sea of Galilee. The city was very centrally located,near to the Byzantine Christian important spots like Jerusalem and Bethlehem and also the Sea of Galilee holds very important significance to the Christians. So that could be a very good capital for a Southern Roman Empire. Also,development of this region and settlement of large number of Greeks due to that,the region could be more immune to the Islamic and the Persian invasions and hence keeping even Egypt too safe. Both these cities are very strategic and worthy for capitalhood for the Southern Roman Empire if it was created.

It's harbor silted up at the end of the first millennium, and Judea has been one of the most fought over spots on Earth since the Bronze Age (there's a reason no great empire ever rose in Judea). It's also too close to the Arabs who will be settling in sizable numbers in the area in Late Antiquity with or without Islam. It's somewhat remote from rich provinces like Egypt or Syria or Africa.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
It's harbor silted up at the end of the first millennium, and Judea has been one of the most fought over spots on Earth since the Bronze Age (there's a reason no great empire ever rose in Judea). It's also too close to the Arabs who will be settling in sizable numbers in the area in Late Antiquity with or without Islam. It's somewhat remote from rich provinces like Egypt or Syria or Africa.
Judea is the adjacent province to both Syria and Egypt. Arabs rose mostly after the third century with the first ones rising at Palmyra. Others were mostly tribal like the Nabateans. In one timeline,Greeks and Romans would leave the Petra and surroundings alone and build massive settlements in Golan Heights,West Jordan,regions around the Galilee and Caeseria Maritima. You could have large amount of settlers from the core regions of the Roman Empire like Italy,Gaul,Hispania,Greece,Anatolia into this new capital in an effort to make it the center of the new empire. Arabs who come and settle inside can be assimilated quite easily. With a strong provincial government and strong borders around this region,Islam as in OTL couldn't exist. It would be a lot different.
 
Judea is the adjacent province to both Syria and Egypt. Arabs rose mostly after the third century with the first ones rising at Palmyra. Others were mostly tribal like the Nabateans.

Then why not put your capital in Alexandria or Antioch (which wouldn't count as the Southern Roman Empire), the two most important cities of Syria and Egypt instead of a place people travel through to get to somewhere else?

In one timeline,Greeks and Romans would leave the Petra and surroundings alone and build massive settlements in Golan Heights,West Jordan,regions around the Galilee and Caeseria Maritima.

So even more of a borderland? That doesn't really make sense militarily or economically (since the local economy will not lure that many Romans and Greeks and there's a limit as to how many people you can drag from across the Empire to settle there). It wouldn't make sense to drag settlers from a prosperous land like Italia or Africa to move them to a marginal borderland. Landowners would be pissed too that you're stealing their labour, possibly enough to help raise up an usurper or get you assassinated.

You could have large amount of settlers from the core regions of the Roman Empire like Italy,Gaul,Hispania,Greece,Anatolia into this new capital in an effort to make it the center of the new empire. Arabs who come and settle inside can be assimilated quite easily.

See above. It makes no sense. The equivalent would be like if the United States decided to relocate the federal capital--bureaucracy and all--to Albuquerque, New Mexico, or some other city out of the way, and then demanded that people start moving to that part of the country.

With a strong provincial government and strong borders around this region,Islam as in OTL couldn't exist. It would be a lot different.

You can't get much stronger borders on paper than the deserts surrounding yet, the three legions in the area, friendly Arab client tribes, and the limes Arabicus, yet the region still ended up being the site of numerous battles and invasions in Late Antiquity.
 
Well, technically Ravenna took such a role for a while, from the moment the WRE felt there, and was the major Italian hub and capital...
 

Raigaua

Donor
A bit ambitious, but maybe Tolose or Bordeaux would be good.
Centrally located near Italy, Gaul and Spain, with the possibility of an early Canal de Midi connecting the Atlantic and Mediterranean (even horse-drawn); Which would improve communication with the Channel Fleet and the Rhine.
And while not as good as the Alps, I think having the Pyrenees south and the Massif highlands north is an alright position.
 
It's harbor silted up at the end of the first millennium, and Judea has been one of the most fought over spots on Earth since the Bronze Age (there's a reason no great empire ever rose in Judea). It's also too close to the Arabs who will be settling in sizable numbers in the area in Late Antiquity with or without Islam. It's somewhat remote from rich provinces like Egypt or Syria or Africa.

Even more than that, IIRC there has never been a state based in the Palestine which was not pushed back or destroyed by invaders from Egypt/Arabia/Mesopotamia until the present day Israel, which can only work because of massive degrees of foreign support, a major influx of immigrants (in the beginning), an excellent military system, and no small shortage of luck...in short a perfect storm.

Judea is the adjacent province to both Syria and Egypt. Arabs rose mostly after the third century with the first ones rising at Palmyra. Others were mostly tribal like the Nabateans. In one timeline,Greeks and Romans would leave the Petra and surroundings alone and build massive settlements in Golan Heights,West Jordan,regions around the Galilee and Caeseria Maritima. You could have large amount of settlers from the core regions of the Roman Empire like Italy,Gaul,Hispania,Greece,Anatolia into this new capital in an effort to make it the center of the new empire. Arabs who come and settle inside can be assimilated quite easily. With a strong provincial government and strong borders around this region,Islam as in OTL couldn't exist. It would be a lot different.

Hmmm...Islam would definitely be different from OTL, but there's too much to happen with the Sassanids for some movement of desert nomads to not become a possibility. I'd say that a capital at Aelia Capitolina/Jerusalem, with a post-Constantine POD, is only possible with a total Christianization of Arabia, and even then is risky.

A bit ambitious, but maybe Tolose or Bordeaux would be good.
Centrally located near Italy, Gaul and Spain, with the possibility of an early Canal de Midi connecting the Atlantic and Mediterranean (even horse-drawn); Which would improve communication with the Channel Fleet and the Rhine.
And while not as good as the Alps, I think having the Pyrenees south and the Massif highlands north is an alright position.

On the same vein, would Faventia (modern Barcelona) be a possibility? Still close to Gaul, but defended behind the Pyrenees and also close to Spain's mineral wealth?

How big was Marseille at the time?

IIRC Massalia was essentially outgrown by other cities in the area during the Roman period. It remained an important city for education in the West and generally had a good bit of prestige, and so would be a possibility particularly if a premium is placed on naval access.
 
Tangiers would be very good only for African-centered empire, something like Almohads.

The problems with Tangiers (Tingitana back then) is that Berbers dominated most of Mauretania and would leave it vulnerable. Maybe shifting it to across the straight to the wealthier province of Baetica would be better (perhaps to Cadiz or Algeciras/Gibraltar?). Also, its position among the western provinces makes it somewhat isolated, really only able to exert power on Mauretania and Hispania as Gaul is too far and Africa is closer to Rome.
 

Raigaua

Donor
On the same vein, would Faventia (modern Barcelona) be a possibility? Still close to Gaul, but defended behind the Pyrenees and also close to Spains mineral wealth?

Unfortunately, I believe Barcelona had a shallow natural harbour that had to be expanded greatly by artificial means. And unfortunately the river and estuary at Tarraco is too far away.

Perhaps the Roussillon has a good enough harbour along its coast? Such as Narbonne or Montpelier.
 
Well, there’s some evidence that the area collapsed because of the introduction of goats with the arabs

This is possibly a reason for the increased speed, however the lesson of history is stronger. The challenge is, produce for me a powerful state based out of North Africa that was not predominantly oriented toward other nearby regions.

The only one whom I can think of or imagine, is the Garamantians.
 
The problems with Tangiers (Tingitana back then) is that Berbers dominated most of Mauretania and would leave it vulnerable. Maybe shifting it to across the straight to the wealthier province of Baetica would be better (perhaps to Cadiz or Algeciras/Gibraltar?). Also, its position among the western provinces makes it somewhat isolated, really only able to exert power on Mauretania and Hispania as Gaul is too far and Africa is closer to Rome.

It's pretty much a regional center at best, even if you conquer most/all of modern Morocco. Even then you'd still govern from Hispania (as the Romans did) or maybe Caesarea if you needed a North African city (although other cities like Portus Magnus/Oran or Icosium/Algiers might make sense too). That said, it's a fantastic gateway to both the New World and West Africa but that won't come into play for a few centuries and even then Casablanca/Anfa might be better (less reliant on holding down Baetica).
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Alexandria is definitely one good candidate. As for WRE,it would have been efficient if they could start a new Rome like city in Hispania which is somewhat more protected than Italia and also more strategic. That could work out in a three split Roman Empires. Western Empire controlling Western Gaul and Hispania along with North Africa,Central Roman Empire controlling Italy to Western Greece,Eastern Empire controlling from Eastern Greece onwards to the East. This could work out better or worst than OTL but a possibility.
 
Top