Challenge: Roman Empire Anno Domini 1500

Greetings gentlemen. I was reading a thread here a few months ago where someone was comparing Han China to the Roman Empire. He commented that China had remained unified because the idea of a "United China" had become, over two millennia, cemented in Chinese culture. Well, what if such an idea had developed in the west for the Roman Empire? What if a common cultural belief that there "Must always be a Roman Empire" had developed amongst the peoples who inhabited the OTL lands of the Empire?

Your challenge here is to make such an idea take hold in the west, where the idea of a United "Roman World" is seen as necessary for the preservation of peace and prosperity. It must also have expanded to at least the borders presented in the map beneath this paragraph by OTL 1500 AD. This is just the mainland Empire and surrounding islands. I'll leave whether it has any overseas colonies or not up to you, though I personally doubt it. Given it's easy access to Indian trade, there wouldn't be much of a reason for them.

RomanEmpire.png

Roman Empire 1500. The eastern borders, especially the Persian border, is highly subjective. The northern border and Svalbard is also a bit much, but yeah...

In addition to these requirements, the Roman Empire must also be Christian, including it's Arabian territory. Islam never develops and so there is no Arab attack upon the Roman world. The exact form of Christianity however I'll leave up to you. Whether it is similar to OTL Christianity or is greatly different is in your hands, just so long as it stays true the basic tenets and teachings of Jesus, who himself must remain the same as OTL as per the Gospels.

Otherwise, your POD can be any time after the rise of Augustus. I would personally prefer a POD around the death of Marcus Aurelius however. Perhaps a more competent Commodus? In any case, stabilizing Imperial succession at some point is a must. Perhaps this alternate Commodus institutes reforms in the early 3rd century, officially codifying rules of succession for the throne, where the Emperor's son is to always succeed him, be he biological or adopted. That is my personal suggestion, you can choose to run with it or not.

Anyway, good luck! Also, I'd love to know what your opinions on Sino-Roman relations throughout the ages would be. I don't see a lasting Roman Empire butterflying away China as it already existed, so I would imagine they would interact with each other with increasing frequency over the centuries.

Edit: Ah, and any discussion on how you believe technology within the Empire would develop in this alternate timeline is also, of course, welcomed and encouraged. :)
 
Last edited:
Greetings gentlemen. I was reading a thread here a few months ago where someone was comparing Han China to the Roman Empire. He commented that China had remained unified because the idea of a "United China" had become, over two millennia, cemented in Chinese culture. Well, what if such an idea had developed in the west for the Roman Empire? What if a common cultural belief that there "Must always be a Roman Empire" had developed amongst the peoples who inhabited the OTL lands of the Empire?

Your challenge here is to make such an idea take hold in the west, where the idea of a United "Roman World" is seen as necessary for the preservation of peace and prosperity. It must also have expanded to at least the borders presented in the map beneath this paragraph by OTL 1500 AD. This is just the mainland Empire and surrounding islands. I'll leave whether it has any overseas colonies or not up to you, though I personally doubt it. Given it's easy access to Indian trade, there wouldn't be much of a reason for them.

RomanEmpire.png

Roman Empire 1500. The eastern borders, especially the Persian border, is highly subjective. The northern border and Svalbard is also a bit much, but yeah...

In addition to these requirements, the Roman Empire must also be Christian, including it's Arabian territory. Islam never develops and so there is no Arab attack upon the Roman world. The exact form of Christianity however I'll leave up to you. Whether it is similar to OTL Christianity or is greatly different is in your hands, just so long as it stays true the basic tenets and teachings of Jesus, who himself must remain the same as OTL as per the Gospels.

Otherwise, your POD can be any time after the rise of Augustus. I would personally prefer a POD around the death of Marcus Aurelius however. Perhaps a more competent Commodus? In any case, stabilizing Imperial succession at some point is a must. Perhaps this alternate Commodus institutes reforms in the early 3rd century, officially codifying rules of succession for the throne, where the Emperor's son is to always succeed him, be he biological or adopted. That is my personal suggestion, you can choose to run with it or not.

Anyway, good luck! Also, I'd love to know what your opinions on Sino-Roman relations throughout the ages would be. I don't see a lasting Roman Empire butterflying away China as it already existed, so I would imagine they would interact with each other with increasing frequency over the centuries.

Edit: Ah, and any discussion on how you believe technology within the Empire would develop in this alternate timeline is also, of course, welcomed and encouraged. :)


Both sides seems to hold each empire in high regards...when they describe each other....both sides view each other as civilized..
 
Well this is interesting. The map is close to what I proposed in my TL a few years back in my "A larger roman empire that lasts until the present day" thread. Check it out sometime, maybe you'll find it interesting. In my TL I went for a unified China that opposed a much larger and stable Roman Empire, with a few minor powers scattered throughout the world.
 
With a Roman Empire that large, this should be moved to ASB.:rolleyes:

Plus you did not take geography into account, for the most part. Up until modern times, most of the Sahara was not de facto controlled by a central state. The same with most of Cyrenaica, and the Nejd.

I do agree that the Romans could have developed a Chinese-style empire given enough time. They sort of did, because the Roman Emperor survived in name until 1806... but not the way you envisioned.
Also keep in mind that for most of its history China was much smaller than it is today. It did not get Mongolia until the 17th century, and then Xinjiang and Tibet only in the 18th century. Before the Manchu invasion, it was smaller.

So unless you want to draw some parallels between the two (maybe the Huns or Mongols serving as the Manchu of Europe?) the empire would not expand that much.
 
With a Roman Empire that large, this should be moved to ASB.:rolleyes:

Plus you did not take geography into account, for the most part. Up until modern times, most of the Sahara was not de facto controlled by a central state. The same with most of Cyrenaica, and the Nejd.

I do agree that the Romans could have developed a Chinese-style empire given enough time. They sort of did, because the Roman Emperor survived in name until 1806... but not the way you envisioned.
Also keep in mind that for most of its history China was much smaller than it is today. It did not get Mongolia until the 17th century, and then Xinjiang and Tibet only in the 18th century. Before the Manchu invasion, it was smaller.

So unless you want to draw some parallels between the two (maybe the Huns or Mongols serving as the Manchu of Europe?) the empire would not expand that much.

We're talking about 1500 years of potential growth here. It really isn't that much expansion when you think about it that way. Also, yeah, I did kind of ignore the vast deserts in regards to Arabia and the Sahara, but the Romans would have 'claimed' it probably, and they would have as good of a claim to the nomadic region as anyone in any case.
 
We're talking about 1500 years of potential growth here. It really isn't that much expansion when you think about it that way. Also, yeah, I did kind of ignore the vast deserts in regards to Arabia and the Sahara, but the Romans would have 'claimed' it probably, and they would have as good of a claim to the nomadic region as anyone in any case.

But what state has continually expanded for 1,500 years? Actually closer to two thousand, because the republic was established in 508 BC. Not even China has expanded continuously for that long. Between 0-1000, more often than not it was weak and divided.
 
But what state has continually expanded for 1,500 years? Actually closer to two thousand, because the republic was established in 508 BC. Not even China has expanded continuously for that long. Between 0-1000, more often than not it was weak and divided.

The Roman Empire was always larger than China when it was unified. Most people forget that. Not modern China mind you, but the China of it's era. Assuming the Empire maintains it's aggressive policy of expansion, which IOTL devolved into a more defensive policy, this is very possible. It's optimistic, yes, very optimistic in fact, but impossible or ASB? No, I don't think so.
 
If they could establish a carpathian-elbe-north sudetenland border and a stable monarchy it wouldn't be too ASB.
I doubt they'd expand into Ukraine and up the baltics though. You'd probably see romanophile slavic states and a germanic state along the vistula.
 
The Roman Empire was always larger than China when it was unified. Most people forget that. Not modern China mind you, but the China of it's era. Assuming the Empire maintains it's aggressive policy of expansion, which IOTL devolved into a more defensive policy, this is very possible. It's optimistic, yes, very optimistic in fact, but impossible or ASB? No, I don't think so.

It was actually more the Republic that did the expanding. The emperors conquered, when they did, peripheral areas that were usually lost soon after. Dacia, Mesopotamia, southern Scotland, bits of Germania, etc.
 
It was actually more the Republic that did the expanding. The emperors conquered, when they did, peripheral areas that were usually lost soon after. Dacia, Mesopotamia, southern Scotland, bits of Germania, etc.
The republic expanded as part of the Cursus Honorarium. Meaning that you needed to have military experience to go up the ranks of the republic, and needed the money from conquests to finaince your elections (Of course, the big money was being a provenical governor after being a counsul).

The Republic could not have stayed a republic like it was, so something would need to chage. A Imperator would have trouble staying in power (just like OTL) having to fight off userpers. About the closest the came was during the "Good Emperors" period. If they could have formalized that, and found a way to make soldiers loyal to the state and not their generals....maybe.
 
A bump for an idea I had.

I don't know if it would be considered ASB, since I'm technically tinkering with Commodus's genetics, but what if Emperor Commodus had instead of being the inexperienced and incompetent ruler that he was, had been the greatest of the Five (Or six in this case) Good Emperors, and reformed the laws of Imperial succession during the later years of his reign?

I'm thinking that he would make the office of Emperor more blatantly monarchial as Diocletian did in the OTL, but also firmly establish rules of succession. It would likely be the standard "eldest son" rule, since I just don't see a policy of "adoptive heirs" taking hold, especially since Commodus himself isn't adopted. In order to permanently establish the position of Emperor as something that wasn't attainable via military coup, you would need multiple successful Emperors in a row however.

Not impossible, but after the six good Emperors, I can almost feel karma dieing for a bad one to ascend the throne. Assuming however that Rome truly has the luck of the Gods on its side and they do have multiple competent, or at least non-crappy rulers in a row, then yes, a stable form of Imperial succession could be established in the 3rd century.

Christianity with a bit of luck can still become the religion of the Empire in either the 4th or 5th centuries, though it might be a fair bit different than ours if some of the more radical (gnostics for example) branches of the early faith take hold. I feel Christianity will be a boon to the Empire rather than a hindrance. It could serve as a unifying force that gives the many varied cultures of the Empire a common belief. Something to encourage unity is definitely necessary, thats for sure.

Anyway, those are my ideas. Share you thoughts. ;)
 
Last edited:
Well. as far as I know, there was nothing pre-ordained about "decline and fall". In fact the Empire was in an excellent position to reclaim most of the lost Western provinces including the Gauls and Spain, in the 6th century under Justinian. The successful campaigns of Belisarius against the Vandals and Ostrogoths could have been just the start of this process.

It was a series of really bad epidemics that scuppered the recovery, so you have to figure a way to avoid/ameriorate those epidemics to make a recovered Empire possible.
 
Christianity with a bit of luck can still become the religion of the Empire in either the 4th or 5th centuries, though it might be a fair bit different than ours if some of the more radical (gnostics for example) branches of the early faith take hold. I feel Christianity will be a boon to the Empire rather than a hindrance. It could serve as a unifying force that gives the many varied cultures of the Empire a common belief. Something to encourage unity is definitely necessary, thats for sure.

Christianity, in practice, never really unified the Empire in any meaningful way. Other than the constant squabbeling and persecution between different sects like the Trinitarians/Catholics and Arians, the Church organizations were so greedy, to the point that funds were diverted often from the military to support them, despite their tax-exempt status. Scholarship was practically monopolized, over time, because the scribes of the church were employed by the ruling regime in favour over the more secular or polytheist literate caste, which is part of the reason why the Church often recieves credit for preserving knowledge and learning after the Western Empire's fall. When the Germanic Visigoths and the Vandals and Alans invaded parts of the Empire, they were sometimes assisted by Arian Christians in their conquests, just because they shared the same faith. Patriotism apparently didn't matter to those people compared to their religious beliefs.

So not only was the adoption of this cult as the state-religion bad for public order and patriotic spirit, but it was a an unnecessary hindrance economically as well. The people of the Empire didn't need a common religion, they needed a stronger government.

I appreciate the idea of boosting the longevity of the Empire, but I think you should find a different idealogy or revise the overall political system to help it survive.
 
Last edited:
If Rome were to expand and reach this stage, it would probably be substantially before 1500 AD, perhaps before 1000 AD.
 
If Rome were to expand and reach this stage, it would probably be substantially before 1500 AD, perhaps before 1000 AD.

I didn't say Rome had to take TILL 1500 AD to reach this size, I simply said you had that much time to do it.
 
Top