Concerning Rome Survives TL's

[Rex Romanum]

But Alexander was never effectively able to project his power east of the Zagros: witness his long drawn out campaigns out there after Gaugumela.

Yet his achievement was still something that people can marvel at, as he start with much smaller state and smaller population base than Rome.

Alexander's Empire was Mesopotamian based, not Mediterranean.

Who said that it was a Mediterranean-based one?

Furthermore, look how long his state lasted after the man himself died.

Yeah, and Rome wasn't a "one-man empire", like Alexander's, Attila's, or Charlemagne's empires...where the death of its ruler means the collapse of the empire.

Again, it's a comparison that does not work.

Of course it doesn't, Rome was much better in logistics, assimilation, and military flexibility than Macedon.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Of course it doesn't, Rome was much better in logistics, assimilation, and military flexibility than Macedon.

Then why are you trying to use Alexander's achievement as an attempt to justify a Roman conquest of Persia? Or did I get confused somewhere along the line?

 

[Rex Romanum]

Then why are you trying to use Alexander's achievement as an attempt to justify a Roman conquest of Persia? Or did I get confused somewhere along the line?

I am mentioning Alexander because Tomb said that the Europeans never got far into Middle East until modern age...
But anyway, after you mentioned it...yes, actually Alex's conquest can be used as a justification for a successful, pre-gunpowder, European conquest of Persia...

 

[MNP]

I am mentioning Alexander because Tomb said that the Europeans never got far into Middle East until modern age...
But anyway, after you mentioned it...yes, actually Alex's conquest can be used as a justification for a successful, pre-gunpowder, European conquest of Persia...

That lasts all of 5 minutes.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

I don't like Rome Survives timelines because they become cliche-fests.

I'm sorry, but Rome holding all of the Med and conquering/vassalizing Persia and constantly expanding sounds too much like Europa Universalis to me.

 

[Mikestone8]

I don't like Rome Survives timelines because they become cliche-fests.

I'm sorry, but Rome holding all of the Med and conquering/vassalizing Persia and constantly expanding sounds too much like Europa Universalis to me.

And more to the point sounds a lot like "Roma Aeterna" - the same rubbish the Romans themselves often talked about their Empire being immortal. All nonsense of course. Empires are just as mortal as individuals. It's a bit like the supposed Californian belief that "death is optional".

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

And more to the point sounds a lot like "Roma Aeterna" - the same rubbish the Romans themselves often talked about their Empire being immortal. All nonsense of course. Empires are just as mortal as individuals. It's a bit like the supposed Californian belief that "death is optional".

The Roman Empire could have lasted a bit longer I guess, but I think it would definitely be a "diminished" Empire.

 

[Rex Romanum]

That lasts all of 5 minutes.

1. I said conquest, not assimilation. I've also said in my earlier posts that the Romans could assimilate (and thus holding) conquered people much better than Macedonians.
2. I think most of historians around the world have come into agreement, had Alex lived longer and appointed a successor by himself, his empire might survive longer.
3. Rome have much better administration system than Macedon, thus make rebellious generals much less common.

 

[Russian Sailor]

I was wondering, if there is a roman wank (that isn't ASB or the slightest bit unrealistic) what could be Romes Largest territorial extent

 

[I Blame Communism]

The Caliphate had little trouble, and surely they were no better than Rome.

This being the same Caliphate that dissolved itself into independent states before all that long, yes?

I detect a pattern.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I was wondering, if there is a roman wank (that isn't ASB or the slightest bit unrealistic) what could be Romes Largest territorial extent

I would say the best case plausible scenario for Rome (ie involving areas that the Romans had the ability and inclination to conquer and rule) would be the Empire of Hadrian, plus the entirety of the Black Sea coastline, the region between Pannonia and Dacia and Dacia and the Black Sea, a little more of Armenia, and the coastlines of at least the northern part of the Red Sea. Then maybe add in a few extras- coastal Germania around modern Holland is an outside possibility, as is Caledonia and Hibernia. Beyond that, you're going beyond the boundaries of how the Romans actually behaved in OTL.

 

[MNP]

1. I said conquest, not assimilation. I've also said in my earlier posts that the Romans could assimilate (and thus holding) conquered people much better than Macedonians.
2. I think most of historians around the world have come into agreement, had Alex lived longer and appointed a successor by himself, his empire might survive longer.
3. Rome have much better administration system than Macedon, thus make rebellious generals much less common.

The Roman Empire is good at avoiding rebellious generals? Uh, well let's just disagree on that.

Which historians say that? I'm honestly not aware so I'd like to read this opinion because it sounds pretty interesting. Looking at the career of Seleucus indicates that its possible but very hard and requires some sort of militarily talented person like himself or Antiochus III.

You said conquest not assimilation then say Rome was good at assimilation. So which is it? The Achaeminds had to reconquer large parts of their empire each time there was a new ruler. The Seleucid had provinces drifting away even before Seleucus died. The Parthians themselves were run more like a feudal federation than a centralized empire. The area itself had a culture that was comparable to Greece's in terms of its legacy and robustness and we know that Rome merged with and accommodated Greek culture so that when Rome was gone it triumphed over the ERE. Rome is going to to better at maintaining control over Persia than these native dynasties at the same time as dealing with its OTL borders on the north and northwest?

Well anything is possible but even if someone runs around sacking all the Persian cities, I would be astonished if Roman influence lasted more than a very short time.

 

[Rex Romanum]

The Roman Empire is good at avoiding rebellious generals? Uh, well let's just disagree on that.

If you read my post carefully, you'll find out that I said better, not good. Moreover, the "Roman Empire" you're talking about must be the Roman Empire during Crisis of Third Century, when the combination of plague, rise of Sassanids, and increasing pressure from Germanic tribes have crippled the Empire very badly. While the "Roman Empire" that I'm talking about was an Empire that have overcame all of things above (except maybe plague) through the conquests of Germania and Mesopotamia during 1st and 2nd century, respectively.
You should compare it with the OTL Roman Empire during the Principate BEFORE the third century, when rebellious generals weren't really a problem for Julio-Claudian, Flavian, and Nervan-Antonine Emperors. They could quickly crush any rebellion in the absence of powerful threat from either North or the East.

Which historians say that? I'm honestly not aware so I'd like to read this opinion because it sounds pretty interesting. Looking at the career of Seleucus indicates that its possible but very hard and requires some sort of militarily talented person like himself or Antiochus III.

In the absence of a long and useless Diadochi Wars that have wasted many soldiers, wealths, and time, that could be used to secure the borders and maintain control of the provinces, of course it is very possible.

You said conquest not assimilation then say Rome was good at assimilation. So which is it? The Achaeminds had to reconquer large parts of their empire each time there was a new ruler. The Seleucid had provinces drifting away even before Seleucus died. The Parthians themselves were run more like a feudal federation than a centralized empire. The area itself had a culture that was comparable to Greece's in terms of its legacy and robustness and we know that Rome merged with and accommodated Greek culture so that when Rome was gone it triumphed over the ERE. Rome is going to to better at maintaining control over Persia than these native dynasties at the same time as dealing with its OTL borders on the north and northwest?

All of your examples above have a much worse ability in assimilating conquered people than Rome (except maybe Achaemenids). And although Greeks themselves influenced the Romans to a certain degree, let's not forget that those "Greeks" called themselves "Romans" even after the fall of Rome herself. So, like you said, everything is possible.

 

[Mikestone8]

The Roman Empire could have lasted a bit longer I guess, but I think it would definitely be a "diminished" Empire.

I have no trouble with it lasting another couple of centureies, but imho things must fall apart once the Arabs start to move, whether under Muhammad or smeone else. My impression is that the Eastern Empire survived the 5C mainly because the southern and eastern border were quiescent, and is mor or less bound to fall back on its Anatolian core once they liven up.

 

[Rex Romanum]

I would say the best case plausible scenario for Rome (ie involving areas that the Romans had the ability and inclination to conquer and rule) would be the Empire of Hadrian, plus the entirety of the Black Sea coastline, the region between Pannonia and Dacia and Dacia and the Black Sea, a little more of Armenia, and the coastlines of at least the northern part of the Red Sea. Then maybe add in a few extras- coastal Germania around modern Holland is an outside possibility, as is Caledonia and Hibernia. Beyond that, you're going beyond the boundaries of how the Romans actually behaved in OTL.

Sigh. Let me give some examples:

1. In an ATL where Phillip II of Macedon or Alexander the Great died earlier, will people believe that the Macedonians would be able to conquer the entirety of Persian Empire, all the way to India?

2. In an ATL where Rome were destroyed much earlier, will people believe that one city-state had an ability to dominate the entire Mediterranean, as well as wage war with both Germanics and Persians for so many centuries?

3. In an ATL where Muhammad never born and Islam never existed, will people believe that the Arabs would be able to conquer anything from Atlantic to Indus?

4. In an ATL where Genghis Khan never born and Mongol tribes never become unified, will people believe that the Mongols could conquer most of Eurasia, including the entire China and Middle East?

And many other examples for ASBish OTL events...

I'm just feel that it is really annoying when people always scream "ASB!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!! NO WAY!!!" to a scenario about things that didn't happen in OTL...yet he didn't realize that many OTL events can be classified as ASB...

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I'm just feel that it is really annoying when people always scream "ASB!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!! NO WAY!!!" to a scenario about things that didn't happen in OTL...yet he didn't realize that many OTL events can be classified as ASB...

In all of those cases, the conquering powers actually had something to conquer, as opposed to just scattered tribes and trees, as in the case of a Roman Germania. I have to go to lectures now, but I'll refute your points in more detail this afternoon.

 

[MNP]

If you read my post carefully, you'll find out that I said better, not good. Moreover, the "Roman Empire" you're talking about must be the Roman Empire during Crisis of Third Century, when the combination of plague, rise of Sassanids, and increasing pressure from Germanic tribes have crippled the Empire very badly. While the "Roman Empire" that I'm talking about was an Empire that have overcame all of things above (except maybe plague) through the conquests of Germania and Mesopotamia during 1st and 2nd century, respectively.
You should compare it with the OTL Roman Empire during the Principate BEFORE the third century, when rebellious generals weren't really a problem for Julio-Claudian, Flavian, and Nervan-Antonine Emperors. They could quickly crush any rebellion in the absence of powerful threat from either North or the East.

In the absence of a long and useless Diadochi Wars that have wasted many soldiers, wealths, and time, that could be used to secure the borders and maintain control of the provinces, of course it is very possible.

All of your examples above have a much worse ability in assimilating conquered people than Rome (except maybe Achaemenids). And although Greeks themselves influenced the Romans to a certain degree, let's not forget that those "Greeks" called themselves "Romans" even after the fall of Rome herself. So, like you said, everything is possible.

You said they were better at administration and it was the improved administration that result in a reduction in rebels. This is an important difference because as you point out in the followup, once that administration starts to crack as it did in 3rd Century it gets pretty crazy. In fact it didn't even need to be a long time. Year of the Four Emperors for instance which also a Batavian rebellion. Vitellius and Vespasian for instance were both generals. Any time there was political confusion at the center, rebellions could and did spring up we saw that with the Byzantines. Even if Rome overcame those, it's never a guarantee. As you pointed out in regards to the Seleucids, absent threats on the other borders you have a better chance, but there is no guarantee of that. You're now bordering the steppe nomads from the Danube to the Oxus and all the Persian rulers had to deal with incursions from the steppes. What if you get an emperor that's not great or makes a few mistakes?

Anyhow, there's a reason the Byzantines were known as the Greek Empire to the Europeans. They were very far removed from significant aspects of the Roman culture which they had been subordinated to for centuries which is not happening with Persia for a long while.

Basically there is a really low margin for error here. Maybe it's possible if everything goes right, but in order to Romanize Persia you are going to need things to go right for a very long time which is why I consider this so unlikely as to be nearly impossible and even if it does happen, you're going to need so many lucky events that it's very hard to have it come off as anything but a wank.

 

[Russian Sailor]

I say the thing that hurt rome the most a was the rapid expansion..... if the romans were able to have a much more steady rate of expansion it might be able to reform itself to a governement that is suited to administering and ruling a larger swath of territory then to just a small city state.

What does everyone else think

 

[Rex Romanum]

In all of those cases, the conquering powers actually had something to conquer, as opposed to just scattered tribes and trees, as in the case of a Roman Germania. I have to go to lectures now, but I'll refute your points in more detail this afternoon.

My point was that you can't really say that something is impossible just because it didn't happen in OTL.
About Germania...actually both Julius Caesar and Augustus had expressed a desire to conquer the entire Germania. (until Arminius ruined that)
Caesar himself said that although the Germanics were far more savage than Gauls, they posed a great threat to Roman Gaul, and so had to be conquered.

 

[Chairwoman Roxelana]

I say the thing that hurt rome the most a was the rapid expansion..... if the romans were able to have a much more steady rate of expansion it might be able to reform itself to a governement that is suited to administering and ruling a larger swath of territory then to just a small city state.

What does everyone else think

Slow Growth wont help. Rome is still going to wither an die from un-connected reasons. Its like saying British colonies would have survived if the just gone slower in the colonial period. There is also a point when all possible technology can`t administer an area.