Long term effects of the survival of the Roman Emprie?

I've read all about different scenarios, and I've speculated on some myself, of what would happen if Rome survived; most timelines are set between the 400s and 1400s, and very few go beyond that. Most deal with the dark ages.

If Rome had survived well into contemporary times, existing much like Imperial China did centuries after Rome fell in real life, how do you think society and the world around would be shaped? When would an industrial revolution happen? What would contemporary times look like?
 
I've read all about different scenarios, and I've speculated on some myself, of what would happen if Rome survived; most timelines are set between the 400s and 1400s, and very few go beyond that. Most deal with the dark ages.

If Rome had survived well into contemporary times, existing much like Imperial China did centuries after Rome fell in real life, how do you think society and the world around would be shaped? When would an industrial revolution happen? What would contemporary times look like?
It would have been taken over by muslims, and gone down to defeat in WW1.
You do realise that Imperial China, either collapsed into anarchy/smaller successor states, or was successfully invaded and conquered more than once, don't you?
 
I've read all about different scenarios, and I've speculated on some myself, of what would happen if Rome survived; most timelines are set between the 400s and 1400s, and very few go beyond that. Most deal with the dark ages.

Problem is that it isn't that realistic to have a Roman TL last until modern times - time frame is just to long and without any historical evidence of what could have happened.

If Rome had survived well into contemporary times, existing much like Imperial China did centuries after Rome fell in real life, how do you think society and the world around would be shaped? When would an industrial revolution happen? What would contemporary times look like?

This all depends on what POD you choose. Does Rome remain a republic? Do you want to preserve the Empire of Trajan and Hadrian? Or is the surviving Roman Empire is Christian, Byzantine Empire? You know, late Roman society is completly different to the society of the Roman republic.

Let's assume that our stereotype Rome of 50 AD survives.

Society
- The elite is formed by well-educated officials born into rich families (senators, equites, decurions)
- Power is shared between the Emperor and the ruling class of senators.
- Without a major crisis, Christianism might stay as unimportant as it was before 200 AD
- Slavery will decline and be replaced by coloni - Roman society may evolve into feudalism at around 300/400 AD
- This means that local officials controling the coloni/serfs can get more powerful, ultimately replacing Rome as the central authority and setting up their provincial feudal states.

The World.
- Rome would, as the major economic and military power, shape the world more than the world would shape itself.
- Depending on how centralized Rome is, it would either conquer parts of the Barbaricum (Ireland, Magna Germania, Sarmatia) or lose these and some other territories (like Dacia, Britannia, Mauretania) - borders can change over the centuries, just look at China
- Persia/Parthia is another case. A weak Persia is one of the conditions for a surviving Roman Empire. A vassal Persia, influenced culturally by Rome, would be even better (just like China influenced Korea)
- India and China would roughly evolve as they did OTL, only that there isn't going to be an islamic influence in India
- Arabia might stay in unimportant desert country

Economics and Technology
- Once Rome has the heavy plow (around 600 AD), the population will explose
- This new workforce can be used in factories, leading to an industrial progress

It would have been taken over by muslims, and gone down to defeat in WW1.

Hope this is irony - since if the Roman Empire as it was in 100 or 200 AD survives, there is going to be neither Islam nor WW1.

You do realise that Imperial China, either collapsed into anarchy/smaller successor states, or was successfully invaded and conquered more than once, don't you?

This happened in Rome too. Ancient culture (comparable to Chinese culture) was united under Alexander, divided during hellenism, expanded under Rome's reign, changed due to Christian influence, was then limited to Byzantium and ended with the Turkish invasions.
 
Hope this is irony - since if the Roman Empire as it was in 100 or 200 AD survives, there is going to be neither Islam nor WW1.



This happened in Rome too. Ancient culture (comparable to Chinese culture) was united under Alexander, divided during hellenism, expanded under Rome's reign, changed due to Christian influence, was then limited to Byzantium and ended with the Turkish invasions.
Not Irony in the way that you perhaps mean, I am suggesting that in the same way that China changed, but was still China, it is equally valid to consider the Sultanate of Rum and Osmans Empire as successer states to the Byzantine Empire. Especially the Ottomans.
 
It would have been taken over by muslims, and gone down to defeat in WW1.
You do realise that Imperial China, either collapsed into anarchy/smaller successor states, or was successfully invaded and conquered more than once, don't you?

Ehh, both Islam and WW1 would be butterflied away easily if the entire Roman empire, east and west survived.
 
Not Irony in the way that you perhaps mean, I am suggesting that in the same way that China changed, but was still China, it is equally valid to consider the Sultanate of Rum and Osmans Empire as successer states to the Byzantine Empire. Especially the Ottomans.

Problem is what aspects of East Roman culture did the Ottomans take up?The Manchus,the Xianbeis etc were at least to a large extent assimilated to Chinese culture.
 
Problem is what aspects of East Roman culture did the Ottomans take up?The Manchus,the Xianbeis etc were at least to a large extent assimilated to Chinese culture.
Do the Ottomans need to take up Byzantine culture to be a successor state. The Eastern Roman empire changed considerably over its life, or lives.
But both states were monotheist, dependant on an emperor whom had to be a successful General. The turkish domed mosque was likely inspired by the Hagia Sophia. The Byzantines had the baths of Zuexippos. The turks liked a turkish bath.
 
Do the Ottomans need to take up Byzantine culture to be a successor state. The Eastern Roman empire changed considerably over its life, or lives.
But both states were monotheist, dependant on an emperor whom had to be a successful General. The turkish domed mosque was likely inspired by the Hagia Sophia. The Byzantines had the baths of Zuexippos. The turks liked a turkish bath.

You need to pick up a fair degree of East Roman culture to be considered a successor state in the same vein as China.The Turks most certainly did not take their religion(pretty obvious) or dependency upon a militarily successful general to be ruler(it's more of a nomad thing) off the East Romans.Both groups liking baths or having domed religious buildings isn't an indication of assimilation other than being influenced and simply adopting certain practices.Their core culture remained Turkish.If you look at China,the Manchus were assimilated to the point where the Manchuria nobles don't even know how to speak or write anything other than Chinese.
 
Last edited:
Top