Design if the Roman Empire survived?

I'm curious as to what things would physically look like had Rome not fallen? What clothes would look like, what buildings would look like, the design of the military uniform, how things as basic and varied as carts and wagons and containers would look, etc.
 

wormyguy

Banned
I'd imagine men would wear skirts forever - maybe pants would be "exotic" clothes. Military uniforms would look similar, but with skirts and camouflauge leggings. Medieval castles/architecture would look fairly similar - I think there would still be a "gothic" building style with flying buttresses and vaulted ceilings that develops, but it would probably be less ornate. I'm not sure if they would adopt wooden houses, but I suppose that would be an eventual development.
 
Yes, trousers won't be in vogue TTL.

A big factor is that Roman concrete would not be lost.

And ultimately, the lack of a collapse of central Roman authority would mean no feudalism, no European nation states as we know it.
 
I'm curious as to what things would physically look like had Rome not fallen? What clothes would look like, what buildings would look like, the design of the military uniform, how things as basic and varied as carts and wagons and containers would look, etc.

There are a lot of butterflies concerning fashion over 1500 years. Look at the history of the tie, e.g., and you realize that it is a far from inevitable item.

So, you can pretty much do most things you like - but in the long run, they have to make a little sense. For inspiration, maybe get a closer look at changes in late antiquity or in Byzantine culture, concerning the design of things. Maybe you can find a line you can continue there.

I'd imagine men would wear skirts forever - maybe pants would be "exotic" clothes. Military uniforms would look similar, but with skirts and camouflauge leggings. Medieval castles/architecture would look fairly similar - I think there would still be a "gothic" building style with flying buttresses and vaulted ceilings that develops, but it would probably be less ornate. I'm not sure if they would adopt wooden houses, but I suppose that would be an eventual development.

* a tunic is not a skirt, but a dress, technically. But I agree when it comes to medieval regions. When I travel there in summer, I often wish I could still dress like a Roman! In the Northern parts of the empire, even Romans adapted to leg-clothing OTL, as far as I know, and I guess this would develop into our sort of pants (took ages OTL as well!). Maybe in these parts (if they are still Roman in the timeline), traditional "Roman" clothing would only be worn on formal occasion.
* Same about wooden houses. Of course there were wooden houses in places where there is a lot of wood, and this would be the case in a Roman Northern Europe.
* medieval castles would not exist the way we know them. A surviving Roman empire would probably still rely on a sort of professional army instead of a cadre of feudal elite soldiers based in castles. Roman fortresses would rather directly develop from antique form into the early modern "Vaubanesque"-forms
* Gothic building style is a bit like trousers. You can of course let it happen, but I do not deem it probable. In OTL, the most prominent examples of Goth architecture are Northern European; it didn't get very influential in OTL-italy even (that's were the term comes from, Italians called it Gothic meaning Barbaric). Maybe we see rather an emphasis in domes, meaning that churchbuilding develop directly from the Hagia Sophia to Rome's St. Peter.
 
And ultimately, the lack of a collapse of central Roman authority would mean no feudalism, no European nation states as we know it.

Feudalism, or a recognizeable form of it anyway, was already being put into use in the Western Empire about 100 years before Rome fell, so, no, there'd still be feudalism.
 
Rome not falling is not the same as Rome not changing. Look at the Roman Empire of c. 1430 for an idea of the changes that are possible.

In general, I would say it is impossible to make predictions. Roman society had several competing elements that determined style. Each of them could have had influence to varying degrees. Cicero dressed differently from Clodius or Crassus for reasons that had nothing to do with ethnicity.

My money is still on trousers, though. They were practical, enormoiusly popular in the Romanised border areas, and commonly worn by the military from at the latest 250 onwards. Of course they could disappear again as they did OTL, but I doubt they would never make it into the mainstream.
 
The classical Roman tunic, with bare legs was practical Mediterranean wear similar to our shorts and tee shirts based on the climate of the time, the Roman Warm Period, which as far as we can tell was warmer than our current climate. With the coming of the cold post-Roman climate (IOTL the Dark Ages) starting around 600 AD and lasting to around 1000 AD, would have encouraged the northern habit of trousers and jackets or hoods down into Italia and Iberia.
 
Yes, trousers won't be in vogue TTL.

A big factor is that Roman concrete would not be lost.

And ultimately, the lack of a collapse of central Roman authority would mean no feudalism, no European nation states as we know it.

I'm not sure the trousers will not be used in the Roman Empire today. Even it survived, the Empire will remained in contact with Germanic people, so the legions could adapted the use of the trousers on their soldiers. The legions were constanty adapted to the enemies they fought.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I suspect given mediterranean fashion we'd see a compromise akin to OTL knee breeches, although stockings might well be something that's only worn in winter.
 
Not to mention that in places where the weather is a little colder than Italy - such as Britain - you would freeze to death in only a tunic over winter.

I may be exaggerating a little, but you get my point.
 
Not to mention that in places where the weather is a little colder than Italy - such as Britain - you would freeze to death in only a tunic over winter.

I may be exaggerating a little, but you get my point.

People underestimate the nastiness of North Italian winter. Roman foul weather gear (tunic, undertunic, leggings, vest, hood and/or cloak, socks and shoes) was perfectly adequate for anything this side of Russia or the Polar region. Aside from possible considerations of practicality (in a culture where you occasionally might have to ride), the reason for adopting trousers seems to have been cultural. After all, Germanic-cut tunics also came into fashion, and they suck for cold-weather gear.
 
Feudalism, or a recognizeable form of it anyway, was already being put into use in the Western Empire about 100 years before Rome fell, so, no, there'd still be feudalism.

That would very much depend on the POD. If you go for a shiny modernizing Empire, one would opt for a very different development.

But even "Roman feudalism" is only recognizable as feudalism when you regard it in comparison to the non-Roman society developing later on. Still in late antiquity, the Roman state, with its in the end rapidly growing bureaucratic apparatus and with its re-organized army which is only indirectly relying on the "feudal" elements of its society, is very far away from the sort of feudalism we know from the 9th century onwards.

Last but not least, feudalism as a description of a whole society fits a far more agricultural society than even the late Roman Empire was. Even in OTL, feudal elements were comparatively weak in the "core regions" of the Western Roman Empire, i.e. pre-Reconquista Iberia, Italy and Southern France.
 
Top