Is it possible for a surviving Roman Empire to have these borders by 1900?

[NAF]

You can choose any POD from the founding of Rome to the fall of the western empire.

• Is a surviving Rome with no core territories outside of Europe too unrealistic?
• What polities could arise to ensure Rome is confined to these territories?
• Could any political, cultural, or religious beliefs arise in Roman history that would justify not controlling territory outside of Europe?

Bonus: Assuming that Rome manages to maintain these borders to the modern day, how assimilated would the empire be?

Note - Rome is still allowed to have overseas colonies, so long as they are not in the non-European portions of the Mediterranean.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

The Eastern Emperor dropped the ball.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Sure, why not. If we can have late ERE revivals why not this. Methinks this Rome dropped the ball still losing North Africa and Anatolia, though.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Honestly, if you're going all the way back to the start of Rome for the POD, anything is possible. In terms of Rome as we know it, the Eastern Roman Empire was always going to be better off than the Western Roman Empire. And history showed as much, since the West fell long before the East fell. The East had all the easily administered ancient cities whereas the West was Celts and Germans (and a perfectly lovely wooden town in Gaul is not the same as Athens). Therefore, the White territories around Greece would be more likely Roman.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

View attachment 408345

You can choose any POD from the founding of Rome to the fall of the western empire.

• Is a surviving Rome with no core territories outside of Europe too unrealistic?
• What polities could arise to ensure Rome is confined to these territories?
• Could any political, cultural, or religious beliefs arise in Roman history that would justify not controlling territory outside of Europe?

Bonus: Assuming that Rome manages to maintain these borders to the modern day, how assimilated would the empire be?

Note - Rome is still allowed to have overseas colonies, so long as they are not in the non-European portions of the Mediterranean.

The problem with this map is that it is clearly marked by the Arab conquests of the 7th century. The lands which Rome does not control are precisely those that became Muslim. This is anachronistic, because with a PoD before 476 where west Rome doesn't fall, the world is likely so changed that Islam cannot be assumed to happen.

There is no logical reason why Rome would not control north Africa, as it was an integral part of the Mediterranean world and had been so since at least the last ice age around 10,000 BC, when it was populated by Berbers, a middle eastern/mediterannean people who are still there today.

 

[Rion_marcus]

The problem with this map is that it is clearly marked by the Arab conquests of the 7th century. The lands which Rome does not control are precisely those that became Muslim. This is anachronistic, because with a PoD before 476 where west Rome doesn't fall, the world is likely so changed that Islam cannot be assumed to happen.

There is no logical reason why Rome would not control north Africa, as it was an integral part of the Mediterranean world and had been so since at least the last ice age around 10,000 BC, when it was populated by Berbers, a middle eastern/mediterannean people who are still there today.

I agree, the problem isn't with the European borders, but with the Asian and African ones. Rome would have maintained control at least over the coastal region, as the Arabs would not face the weakened Byzantines and Persian Empires, but the full force of Rome (although it is still reasonable that Rome and Persia would be rivals).

 

[Wendell]

Why is Jutland free?

 

[Tempered Zen]

Letting Egypt and Mauretania go is a shot in the leg for Rome.

 

[Avrorrange]

Letting Egypt and Mauretania go is a shot in the leg for Rome.

Maybe they just develop Europe into much better granaries with improved technology?Europe had better potential than North Africa.

 

[Tempered Zen]

Maybe they just develop Europe into much better granaries with improved technology?Europe had better potential than North Africa.

They already had a constant supply of grain from the African provinces + Sicily. Aside from local farming throughout the provinces, the cities were almost entirely supplied by surplus. Unless they somehow predicted an Arab invasion (unlikely due to butterflies) they wouldn't have the desire to revolutionize European farming.

 

[Avrorrange]

They already had a constant supply of grain from the African provinces + Sicily. Aside from local farming throughout the provinces, the cities were almost entirely supplied by surplus. Unless they somehow predicted an Arab invasion (unlikely due to butterflies) they wouldn't have the desire to revolutionize European farming.

Local farmers and landlords in Europe are capable of and will want to innovate if they want to improve their yield.It's not like they are getting free grain from Africa.Besides that,prior to the 20th century,the government's rarely involved in technological innovation,most are done privately by enterprising individuals.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Local farmers and landlords in Europe are capable of and will want to innovate if they want to improve their yield.It's not like they are getting free grain from Africa.Besides that,prior to the 20th century,the government's rarely involved in technological innovation,most are done privately by enterprising individuals.

Who often fell flat or remained an obscure curiosity or, as the adage goes, if the Romans had taken interest in the Aeolipile, we'd be on Mars, supposedly. Not saying it can't happen, but it's highly unlikely that cold and harsh Gaul is going to be outperforming Egypt, the Breadbasket of the ancient western world, with ease or vague 'innovation'.

 

[Brunaburh]

In short, realistically, no. The Mediterranean is a highway not a border, it is the best way to Travel. Rome to Carthage is 4 days travel, Rome to Lyon, 12. The quick part of the second journey goes by sea, then we travel up the river. Why would we have a Roman Empire whose border is almost exactly the division between the OTL Islamic and Christian worlds at the start of the 20th century?

The continuation of a Roman state in Rome would equate to control of North Africa (they only lasted a few years after losing it OTL), the control of Iberia, if you hold North Africa, also gives you coastal Morocco and probably everything between the two.

 

[Avrorrange]

Who often fell flat or remained an obscure curiosity or, as the adage goes, if the Romans had taken interest in the Aeolipile, we'd be on Mars, supposedly. Not saying it can't happen, but it's highly unlikely that cold and harsh Gaul is going to be outperforming Egypt, the Breadbasket of the ancient western world, with ease or vague 'innovation'.

The fact that starting from the Middle Ages,that France far outstripped the rest of Europe(AND Egypt for that matter) in terms of population until the 19th century shows just how wrong that statement is. Truth is that Gaul had a lot of potential.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

The fact that starting from the Middle Ages,that France far outstripped the rest of Europe(AND Egypt for that matter) in terms of population until the 19th century shows just how wrong that statement is. Truth is that Gaul had a lot of potential.

Do note I said the ancient western world, not the medieval one.

 

[Avrorrange]

Do note I said the ancient western world, not the medieval one.

I suggest you read the OP again. It's about the Roman Empire surviving till the 1900s. This means that the Romans have plenty of time to develop Gaul into a granary that surpasses even Egypt.It's very possible that by the time the Romans lost North Africa in this timeline,North Africa would have already become marginal in terms of grain production,due to a combination of increasing development of Western Europe and desertification in North Africa.

 

[LSCatilina]

Do note I said the ancient western world, not the medieval one.

Gaul probably had a population around 10 millions prior the conquest (the fork is going between 8 to 12, outside minimalist and maximalist estimations). It's hard (next to irrelevant, one might say) to really compare with the population of Egypt in the same time, but it was at least similar enough, probably much bigger. Differences were less demographics, tough, than the capacity of surproduction and export : it was far from null in Gaul (being a large exporter of agricultural production since centuries), and especially the nature of production (Lagid Egypt went trough great lengths to field cash-crops as cotton). Eventually a sole leadership, focused on gaining the upper hand on production and trade network did the difference.

 

[NAF]

Is it possible for a Persian empire to maintain control over Egypt, Asia Minor and the Levant to the modern day as well? Would these territories be too far away for the Persians to realistically protect against a stable Roman power?

 

[NAF]

Why is Jutland free?

Honestly I may have just forgotten to fill Jutland in. I suppose that in this situation, there is no real reason why Rome wouldn't conquer the peninsula.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Europe had better potential than North Africa.

The farmland of North Africa is a lot more fertile than sometimes imagined

North Africa was the grain basket of the Roman Empire for centuries. One of the advantages was that you could harvest two crops in a year, due to the favourable climate, good soil and plentiful rainfall.

I don't know if you've seen Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia. I'd recommend it, if my personal experience is any guide. I have visited Morocco, which struck me as a very green and lush country. Arriving at Tangier, we travelled south through a landscape of lush green meadows filled with flowers and thick, tall grass.

Further south we encountered tall pine forests, full of trees with a dark green colour. It rained for several days. In the forest, we saw monkeys - they are found naturally in the wild.

Later on we drove up into the Atlas mountains, where the landscape was heavily forested with lakes. I'm told that heavy snowfall is common in winter, and ski resorts like Ifrane are well known.

Historical evidence shows that in the Roman period, groves of lemon trees were being grown even in the most arid country of North Africa, Libya (which is a long way east of where I was), in areas far inland.

While soil erosion, over-grazing, the Banu Hilal migration in the 11th century and global warming in the last century or so have all had some impact (especially in more marginal areas), North Africa is still a good deal greener than many outsiders would imagine.

I do wonder if the popular image of north Africa as a desert largely stems from the second world war, when the British army faced the Italians and later the German Afrika Korps. Commanders like Rommel were called "the desert fox", and so on. But that campaign was mostly fought in Libya and western Egypt, which are the most inhospitable desert regions.