I think those European borders for the Roman Empire are quite reasonable for an Empire that lasts into the 20th century.
The lack of land outside of Europe, much less so.
The lack of land outside of Europe, much less so.
Is it possible for a surviving Roman Empire to have these borders by 1900?
Well since you have it be centered in the West and not include the majority of the Eastern Empire I guess that means it’s the western half that has to do better.
Here’s an idea: the western empire is able somehow deal with the Germanic invaders. Perhaps the battle of adrianople is a crushing Roman victory? Or stilicho isn’t executed and doesn’t allow the empire to start falling apart? Or my favorite one where Majorian is able to take Carthage, rule for many years enacting many reforms, forcing the Germans to integrate, and having a competent successor assume power peacefully. Either way we might see a more Germanic influenced western empire just like how the east was Greek influenced.
Here’s an idea: the western empire is able somehow deal with the Germanic invaders. Perhaps the battle of adrianople is a crushing Roman victory? Or stilicho isn’t executed and doesn’t allow the empire to start falling apart? Or my favorite one where Majorian is able to take Carthage, rule for many years enacting many reforms, forcing the Germans to integrate, and having a competent successor assume power peacefully. Either way we might see a more Germanic influenced western empire just like how the east was Greek influenced.
But they were getting free grain, many of them, for much of the Empire's history...
In the North, any expansion beyond subsistence farming is likely to take the form of Latifunda. This is a problem, because it discourages innovation both by owners and workers. Slave workers or serfs have no incentive to innovate if any beneficial results go to their masters, while the masters have no reason to innovate when they can buy more slaves. For innovation on a proto-industrial level to take off you have to get to the point where human labor is more expensive than machine labor in terms of up-front costs as well as operating costs (IMO the reason Europe began to innovate in economic matters was the labor shortage resulting from the Plague). As long as you keep some female slaves and as long as you feed and shelter your slaves the bare minimum neither of these costs are high. Maybe the Plague still happens ITTL but the absence of the Muslim expansion means a radically different central Asia. If Mongol conquests are butterflied away it gets much harder for the plague to spread.
Well the Medieval Period would still look the same, minus the chaotic period early on after the fall of Rome on the continent. The Middle Ages in Europe were not backwards, as too many people assume; it was the most advanced that Europe was, and the architectural achievements were things the Romans would have been hard pressed to have imagined. Add into that the knowledge that was indeed lost in the West but which was preserved in the Muslim world being preserved in the West as well. Byzantium comes to mind as a benchmark. Just imagine if the Byzantines had dominance of Western Europe and ruled it as their forebearers did into the Renaissance and its as good a picture as anything. It'd be a hybrid of the Middle Ages of the West with Byzantium and the intellectual and philosophical achievements found in the Islamic World in the period.
And that is interesting because that would mean we could be slightly more advanced as a species as time progresses. Not like "we lost 1000 years of advancement" silliness some people assume, but slightly more advanced. You'd have the interplay of a Roman Empire, the tribes of the Celts and Germans (which the Celts were already being pushed out by the Germans), and depending on how history goes, an Islamic state. Rome was Rome. The Europeans who were not Roman were advanced metal workers and craftsmen and owned a lot of gold, and were very big as traders (they were very wealthy). And the Islamic world was very intellectually and scientifically advanced, philosophically innovative, and the bastion for civilization in that OTL era. So all of these would be interplaying with one another and pushing one another forward. And you'd have things that fell away until the Crusades, such as the Silk Road, surviving. So it's trade, exchange of people, and exchange of knowledge and philosophy.
Projecting further than the Medieval period is something I would have no clue how to begin to conceive.
I think the biggest overall change will be a long period of economic stability over a wide area and everything that comes with that. Which is a lot.
IMHO those borders are probably not probable. Rome at its height never managed to properly police the Rhine, and its expansion into Eastern Europe was always limited. With the continued migrations into Europe from Asia (and the constant struggles to maintain central authority in Rome/Constantinople) I think it's more likely you see something akin to the Byzantine Empire under Justinian (sans Spain, and perhaps North Africa) with Italy, the Balkans and Anatolia being the centers of the Roman Empire.
With a POD from the founding of Rome to 476, it's not impossible but I would stress unlikely given our understanding of Roman history. But for my 0.02$ the most likely surviving "Roman" empire stretches from the Alps to Anatolia by 1900.
With a POD from the founding of Rome to 476, it's not impossible but I would stress unlikely given our understanding of Roman history. But for my 0.02$ the most likely surviving "Roman" empire stretches from the Alps to Anatolia by 1900.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum
Honestly, the stereotype of the barbarian Celto-Germanic Noble Savage needs to end. The Western Empire fell simply because Constantine focused the Roman economy on the eastern portion of the empire when he founded Constantinople and focused all his efforts in defending the eastern borders from Sassanids and other Asian invaders. The problem of course is how he ended up underestimating the Germanics. He thought that the Western portion was secured but Germanic invaders proved him wrong. That, and he probably didn't expect the Huns, whose invasion even before Attila around the 370s were the beginning of the end of the WRE as their virtual surprise attack allowed Germanics to invade better and progressively conquer WRE territories.
The Celts and Germans were not mudslinging savages. Also were those groups not Hellenistic cities and nations with a comparable sense or established infrastructure of governance and administration into which the Romans could establish a power base from which to easily control. The northern tribes did not have the same sense of what a society was to be that the Mediterranean civilizations did. That does not mean they did not have civilization. It does mean that there is a disconnect between what it was and what the Roman sense of it was.
The largest oppida were around 10,000 people. Impressive, but Rome at the same time had a few hundred thousand. Greece and Anatolia were full of cities with well over 10,000 people, same in Syria and Egypt.
The west and north of the empire always lagged behind in prosperity even though Roman stability and influence did help places like Gaul develop their own urban centers comparable to Mediterranean cities albeit on a smaller scale.
The west and north of the empire always lagged behind in prosperity even though Roman stability and influence did help places like Gaul develop their own urban centers comparable to Mediterranean cities albeit on a smaller scale.
Perhaps a Rome foiled by a navally adept Egyptian Hellenic state? for Rome to be stuck on the north side of the Mediterranean it would have to be defeated at sea shortly after destroying Carthage. Perhaps a vigorous new administration from Alexandria defeats the Seleucids and decides to secure the Mediterranean for themselves. The Romans could be evicted from Carthage, but manage to secure Italy, Gaul, and Spain with land armies. This possibly leads to a northward-facing Rome that views across the Alps as the natural route of expansion, since every time they send an army across to Africa, they get smashed by the Egyptian overlords of the south.
This is a pretty poor foundation for an empire, but weirder things have happened. Someone would have to move the capital up by the Alps, though, if they want to be able to administer central Europe. Quick access to the Rhone, Rhine, Danube, Elbe, and Seine basins is necessary. It's hard to keep Spain without the naval superiority over the western Med, though. And to keep Greece without superiority over the Eastern Med is even harder.
This is a pretty poor foundation for an empire, but weirder things have happened. Someone would have to move the capital up by the Alps, though, if they want to be able to administer central Europe. Quick access to the Rhone, Rhine, Danube, Elbe, and Seine basins is necessary. It's hard to keep Spain without the naval superiority over the western Med, though. And to keep Greece without superiority over the Eastern Med is even harder.
Claudius goes after Dacia rather than Britain.
The East and Egypt are lost durring something like the Crisis of the Third Century.
Rump-Rome is suffering from significant food shortages, some Roman military engineer wracks his brain for a solution and miraculously comes up with the heavy plow.
With North Africa's near monopoly on food thoroughly smashed the Empire focuses more effort on securing the Rhine-Danube border and Dacia. This unfortunately shifts the balance of forces in North Africa to favour [Eastern Entity], facilitating that region's eventual loss later on.
With the heavy plow facilitating agriculture further north the Romans begin new efforts to make provinces beyond the traditional norther boundaries. By the time of the migration period Rome has more or less settled on a Oder-Carpathian-Dniester border, while its wars with the [Eastern Entity] cool down to only the occasional war over this island or that island.
Britain remains untouched as a Roman client state rules the areas of economic interest in Southern England and after the loss of North Africa Rome becomes paranoid about diverting too many military units from the Mediterranean.
The East and Egypt are lost durring something like the Crisis of the Third Century.
Rump-Rome is suffering from significant food shortages, some Roman military engineer wracks his brain for a solution and miraculously comes up with the heavy plow.
With North Africa's near monopoly on food thoroughly smashed the Empire focuses more effort on securing the Rhine-Danube border and Dacia. This unfortunately shifts the balance of forces in North Africa to favour [Eastern Entity], facilitating that region's eventual loss later on.
With the heavy plow facilitating agriculture further north the Romans begin new efforts to make provinces beyond the traditional norther boundaries. By the time of the migration period Rome has more or less settled on a Oder-Carpathian-Dniester border, while its wars with the [Eastern Entity] cool down to only the occasional war over this island or that island.
Britain remains untouched as a Roman client state rules the areas of economic interest in Southern England and after the loss of North Africa Rome becomes paranoid about diverting too many military units from the Mediterranean.
Last edited:
Well with 1900 years anything is possible, but analyzing this geopolitically (yeah worse than fiction I know), this is a Rome that has the power to fully control the Rhine and the Danube basins but not the Mediterranean, which would imply that they are at best a riverine and coastal power and would be unable to project power effectively across stretches of open water, which would seem to be a major shift in Roman capabilities.
Such a Rome would likely suffer immense centrifugal forces as there would be an 'Italian' economic zone centered on Italy, a 'Rhine' zone on the Low Countries, and a 'Danube' zone centered maybe around Hungary. All three zones would be separated from each other by the Alps, raising the possibility of separate cultural development presaging a political split. With such a long coastline and w/o N Africa and Asia, the 'Italian' zone would likely be constantly harrassed/vulnerable to raiding/invasion, meaning a constant southward drain of tax dollars from the Rhine and Danube zones. Difficult to see how the latter inhabitants would put up with that for extended periods of time.
One way of working around this geopolitical conundrum is by having the political center of this "Rome" right at the junction of the three zones - meaning the Alps, where access to Italy + headwaters of Rhine and Danube are located. With some investment in infrastructural and political development it's possible to see this Rome as some sort of uber-Austrian Habsburg land empire, with major political centers at Vienna, Milan, Frankfurt or Strasbourg (maybe) and the coasts becoming political and economic peripheries. Such a Rome would invest heavily in canal works linking the Rhine/Danube basins with other riverine networks (most notably the Loire/Seine and Elbe/Oder networks).
This would turn Rome into an interesting variant on the classic "hydraulic empire" where the central government doesn't control access to water but instead access to regions (i.e. internal tariffs regulating trade between the economic zones, like Qing China). Still, it's likely to follow the trajectory of hydraulic empires in becoming a despotic agricultural powerhouse, perhaps at the expense of commerce and industry.
Such a Rome would likely suffer immense centrifugal forces as there would be an 'Italian' economic zone centered on Italy, a 'Rhine' zone on the Low Countries, and a 'Danube' zone centered maybe around Hungary. All three zones would be separated from each other by the Alps, raising the possibility of separate cultural development presaging a political split. With such a long coastline and w/o N Africa and Asia, the 'Italian' zone would likely be constantly harrassed/vulnerable to raiding/invasion, meaning a constant southward drain of tax dollars from the Rhine and Danube zones. Difficult to see how the latter inhabitants would put up with that for extended periods of time.
One way of working around this geopolitical conundrum is by having the political center of this "Rome" right at the junction of the three zones - meaning the Alps, where access to Italy + headwaters of Rhine and Danube are located. With some investment in infrastructural and political development it's possible to see this Rome as some sort of uber-Austrian Habsburg land empire, with major political centers at Vienna, Milan, Frankfurt or Strasbourg (maybe) and the coasts becoming political and economic peripheries. Such a Rome would invest heavily in canal works linking the Rhine/Danube basins with other riverine networks (most notably the Loire/Seine and Elbe/Oder networks).
This would turn Rome into an interesting variant on the classic "hydraulic empire" where the central government doesn't control access to water but instead access to regions (i.e. internal tariffs regulating trade between the economic zones, like Qing China). Still, it's likely to follow the trajectory of hydraulic empires in becoming a despotic agricultural powerhouse, perhaps at the expense of commerce and industry.
Last edited:
I also do have to ponder how the Roman Empire (a Christianized nation governing Europe and vast tracts of the Mediterranean border regions) would get on with an emergent Islamic Empire.
I guess the Western Empire has to do better for a start. Maybe a successful integration of Germania early on, which of course takes a lot of time and effort, but makes Germania a second Gaul in terms of Romanization. Now, going from there, have the East-West split still happen for whatever reason, but in this case, the West is much better off and more stable. Then maybe the migrations happen differently. Perhaps the Huns or some other equivalent move towards the Caucasus and then Asia Minor and the Fertile Crescent because recent Roman-Persian wars left the area undefended and easier to cross even for cavalry armies. The Huns establish a power base somewhere, just like they did in Pannonia and devastate Anatolia, the Fertile Crescent and raid up to Egypt. Then they fracture and collapse, but this opens the way for Goths and others to roll in and Anatolia is lost to them, becoming a Gothic state. The Levant is lost to the Persians or maybe some others from the North, like Slavs, but Roman Egypt holds. However, the Vandals ITTL aim for more easy picking as sack Constantinople, and what remains of the Eastern Empire fractures, Egypt becoming one of the stronger successor states, until North Africa is invaded by the Vandals. The Balkans become the home of other Germanic tribes like Italy did IOTL. Some time later a Western Justinian reconquers the Balkans and Constantinople, but fails to pacify Egypt and Africa, which remains a mess, maybe Arabs invasions happen ITTL too. This is a good start, although I think if this Rome stays strong and stable they will likely colonize North Africa later.