How could Rome survive longer?

wormyguy

Banned
A slightly ambiguous question - depending on your opinions of the various states claiming legal continuity from it, you could say it fell in 330, 410, 476, 603, 843, 1204, 1453, 1472, 1806, 1917 or 1922.

EDIT: Or never, if you count Vatican City. The Pope is the Pontifex Maximus, after all.
 
Last edited:
A slightly ambiguous question - depending on your opinions of the various states claiming legal continuity from it, you could say it fell in 330, 410, 476, 603, 843, 1204, 1453, 1472, 1806, 1917 or 1922.

EDIT: Or never, if you count Vatican City. The Pope is the Pontifex Maximus, after all.

To be ever so slighty more helpful...
Your best bet is to prevent the rise of the Sassanid dynasty in Persia; this caused massive chaos in the 3rd century Roman Empire, since Rome had never before faced an enemy that was truly its equal (not since Republican days anyway). This in turn provoked massive inflation, as new armies had to be paid for, and major chaos and anarchy, as generals of the swelled armies marched in and attempted to sieze central control. At the same time, the barbarians of the European frontiers began to reorganise themselves from primitive tribal societies to something we would recognize more as kingdoms.
By 378AD, all the elements are in place for a collapse of the Roman Imperial system, but this was by no means inevitable. Rather, it was due to a series of catastrophes; beginning with the Battle of Adrianople in 378, and ending, in my personal opinion, with the Fall of Carthage in 698. Between these two dates, Roman power waxed and waned enormously, as Constantinople attempted first to prop up, then to reconquer the west, but ultimately failed in both attempts, thanks to the efforts of the Sassanids, and then the Arabs. By the time the ERE finally abandons Rome itself to its fate in 750AD, the unity of the Roman world has been shattered, and the Empire itself has been reduced to a Greek speaking entity that was really better understood as another successor state rather than what it really was, the continuation of the Roman Empire.
Though the Imperial dream remains very much alive after the 8th century, in both east and west, few continued to entertain serious hopes of a complete restoration. The Romans of Constantinople fight back effectively, and restore hegemony from Sicily to the Caucasus, but they never make any attacks on Rome itself; meanwhile the heirs of Charlemagne tend to be more concerned with assaults on their German heartlands than restoring the Pax Romana in the Mediterranean.

Hopefully this may answer a question or two?
 
Thank you! Is there any way the Germanics could not move in to Rome? (other than the Huns not coming)
 
If there was not so much corruption in the government. And if they hadn't expanded so much. If they hadn't decided to try to invade Britain and push all the way to the Caspian Sea they might have made it another 50 years or so.
The biggest problem was, they got themselves stuck in costly wars with the European barbarian tribes.
 
Top