Location of Capital for Trans-Atlantic Roman Empire

Geographical centrality is not really the most important feature of a capital, and certainly not important enough to overwhelm others to the extent that a small and isolated archipelago somehow becomes attractive.

Most of the world's capitals aren't really anywhere near the georgraphic "centre" of their nation - Washington D.C and Moscow are close to the eastern/western edge of their respective countries. New Delhi and Beijing are far off to the north of their countries whilst London is off to the very south-eastern part of Britain.

More important than centrality is proximity to major population and economic centres, which in the case of a surviving Roman Empire would very definitely be in Europe short of anything absolutely catastrophic or a much smaller empire. You would need the American provinces to have a far, far higher economic and demographic weight that the European ones rather than the rough parity they have now, and that would be challenging given that a united and continuing empire for all those millennial has the expected impact of more positive demographic trends in Europe (less destruction and fighting between nations) and more negative ones for America (fewer large waves of immigration early on triggered by one conflict or another).

Of course, if you do want to go for the catastrophic or smaller empire route, far more opens up. A rump Italian/North African state would be an interesting colonial competitor to other states based on the Atlantic seaboard, and could ostensibly (via ports based in OTL morocco which would be fairly favourable to colonial development) develop a large enough overseas empire and sustains it long enough that it becomes desirable to transfer administration there.

Or you can just nuke everything in Europe. Nukes have this funny way of flattening alternate history implausibilities.
 
Geographical centrality is not really the most important feature of a capital, and certainly not important enough to overwhelm others to the extent that a small and isolated archipelago somehow becomes attractive.

Most of the world's capitals aren't really anywhere near the georgraphic "centre" of their nation - Washington D.C and Moscow are close to the eastern/western edge of their respective countries. New Delhi and Beijing are far off to the north of their countries whilst London is off to the very south-eastern part of Britain.

More important than centrality is proximity to major population and economic centres, which in the case of a surviving Roman Empire would very definitely be in Europe short of anything absolutely catastrophic or a much smaller empire. You would need the American provinces to have a far, far higher economic and demographic weight that the European ones rather than the rough parity they have now, and that would be challenging given that a united and continuing empire for all those millennial has the expected impact of more positive demographic trends in Europe (less destruction and fighting between nations) and more negative ones for America (fewer large waves of immigration early on triggered by one conflict or another).

Of course, if you do want to go for the catastrophic or smaller empire route, far more opens up. A rump Italian/North African state would be an interesting colonial competitor to other states based on the Atlantic seaboard, and could ostensibly (via ports based in OTL morocco which would be fairly favourable to colonial development) develop a large enough overseas empire and sustains it long enough that it becomes desirable to transfer administration there.

Or you can just nuke everything in Europe. Nukes have this funny way of flattening alternate history implausibilities.
Washington was the center of the US when the US only has 13 states.
Oh, totally. Just not as a capital. Hell the only way around Gibraltar if you want to communicate between the med and Britain/America would be either a Suez Canal/Walk across Egypt (why oh why would you choose that?) Or a Rhine-Danube Canal - and I shudder to think of the cost for that behemoth.

Solid fortresses to deny shipping there would be fantastic, it'd essentially be a fortress equivalent of Britains "Wooden Wall". Keep them modern and up to date with the introduction of cannons, etc - and there isn't anyone who'll be entering the Mediterranean if the Romans don't want them to. Chuck a military port in the bay at Algeciras and Tangiers with powerful (if short-distance) fleets, and forts at Gibraltar, (Algeciras), Ceuta and Tarifa, and you'll be laughing.

Hell, a really clever trick would be the introduction of sea mines that can be deployed (relatively) rapidly from Algeciras, Tangiers or Ceuta upon a signal from Tangiers or Tarifa, and you'd be laughing (again!). Watertight kegs of gunpowder (if invented), attached to anchors - even the largest and most nimble fleets would be in trouble. Then afterwards, use the arming ships to disarm and retrieve them.

That or Greek fire. Both are good.

Oh dear, I may have gotten carried away there....

It will save a lot of time getting information to the capital.
 
Washington was the center of the US when the US only has 13 states.

The point was more that the capital wasn't moved to some isolated area in the middle of the Great Plains once the country expanded in order to be closer to the west coast.

Don't get me wrong, centrality is not irrelevant in determining the value of a capital, but it is one of many factors. For some countries, these factors exist in a central location. But these factors do not exist anywhere between the atlantic seaboards of the Americas and Europe.
 
The point was more that the capital wasn't moved to some isolated area in the middle of the Great Plains once the country expanded in order to be closer to the west coast.

Don't get me wrong, centrality is not irrelevant in determining the value of a capital, but it is one of many factors. For some countries, these factors exist in a central location. But these factors do not exist anywhere between the atlantic seaboards of the Americas and Europe.
It wasn't moved because by then,railroads and telegrams have been invented,decreasing travel and communication time.

On the other hand,Roman capitals are strongly linked to strategic positions,preferably being centers of communication,where news from parts of the empire can travel fast to.It's one of the reasons why the empire was divided in the first place and it's also the reason why the capital was relocated to Mediolanum in the West and Nicomedia(later moved to Constantinople) in the East.
 
Top