Hey everyone, I've been working on this scenario where (surprise surprise) the Roman Empire survives to the present day. I have two maps. One is the Roman Empire coloured red, the other coloured purple.
SNIP
The first map represents a kind-of Latin domination over the empire in an attempt to return to the culture of the old empire of antiquity during a great revival in the early modern period. And yes, before people ask, there was an East-West split, but due to military and political co-operation the two halves reunited. I think this map would only work if the East declined for some reason, which in our own timeline the East was far more powerful and influential than the ailing West.
The second map represents a Greek dominated Roman Empire, with the main capital being at Byzantium (no Constantine = no Constantinople, by the way). I believe this is much more realistic as without the East the West would be doomed. As in our own timeline, too, the East could've easily played a massive hand in late Western Roman politics, though they were simply reluctant to intervene due to them having their own issues.
The reason I made this post is to ask you guys who would come to dominate the empire: the Greeks or Latins, basically. Thanks for reading!
No Constantine is the most interesting part here for three main reasons.
1: As you pointed out, No Constantine=No Constantinople. The impact of this upon the Roman Empire's strategic geography is impossible to overstate. As the Empire declines in this scenario, all of its great cities will lose size and stature- but there will be no "centre of gravity" on the Bosphorous, no visible symbol of material prosperity and cultural superiority which the Westerners, Balkan peoples, and even Arab enemies can look and be reminded that, whatever else, the Empire is alive and the Emperor greater than anyone else. Without the "Queen of Cities", Roman governance will be a lot more decentralised and less prestigious. Perhaps proposals to move the capital to Carthage or Syracuse in the face of Arab onslaughts might go ahead ITTL. OTOH, the Romans may accept the loss of Anatolia and the Bosphorous if it means retaining Egypt. Islam entering the Balkans seven hundred years early but never North Africa? Possible.
2: No Constantine means the history of Christianity is radically different. Legalisation will be delayed, though I have a hard time seeing it never occur. By the Fourth Century, all state attempts to eradicate Christianity had failed and it was clear to many that they'd never succeed. Many emperors were already pursuing
de facto toleration well before the Edict of Milan, and eventually one is going to formalise this. An interesting question is when, if ever, does Christianity become the formal state religion? This is easier to imagine never occurring. We may see Christianity and Paganism coexisting uneasily, possibly with different hybrid faiths (heresies) routinely condemned by the Popes/Patriarchs. Egyptian Paganism may persist for centuries longer- IIRC it took Theodosius I to stomp out the last traces in the late Fourth Century. In turn, this will likely butterfly the existence of Islam, as the same theological influences will not be present on the Arabian Peninsula.
Christianity itself will be very different in this scenario. Assuming emperors survive in Italy and the East, the Patriarchs will face serious checks on their power. If the emperors adopt Christianity, they will try and bend the Patriarchs to their will, while also attempting to "sacralise" their regimes as happened in OTL. The difference will be that the Pope is not an independent power in his own right, but a servant of the Western Emperor. Thus, expect the idea of Roman supremacy to carry far less weight. If the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem survive (as they would without Islam), Christianity will be extremely decentralised. Iconoclasm will not happen- it stemmed from political causes specific to Eighth Century Byzantium which won't happen here. Yet many of the other theological questions- the
filioque, leaven in the Eucharist, married clergy, etc- will still be hot-button issues. What's different here is that the Popes can't try to strong-arm the East into submission. Expect a greater focus on compromise and collegiality, and perhaps even a greater acceptance of theological and cultural differences. A more decentralised yet united Christian Church would be a very good thing.
There is also the possibility that, if relations between the Eastern and Western Empires deteriorate, the Patriarchs most subservient to emperors may excommunicate each other, while the ones more distant from political power (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) may form a 'third church', perhaps with more credibility since they aren't seen as political tools.
Substantial portions of the Roman Empire, especially in the West, may remain Pagan for centuries more, in which case Christianity's cultural influence would be far less and the political weight of doctrinal differences, councils, and excommunications diminished. There are parallels with the modern secular West- how much does the man in the street really care about the feuding between, say, different Protestant or Orthodox sects, or even the central question of whether or not Christianity is true? Expect a fundamentally different culture in which what we consider 'traditional morality' is seen as irrelevant and an impediment to enjoying life- for example, views on sexuality would be totally altered.
3: No Constantine means the Tetrarchy survives for at least a few more years. This is an interesting one as I don't believe the system was fundamentally stable. Either the system is formally stabilised or a man like Constantine reunites the Empire. The former is going to require generations without a civil war, the establishment of dynasties within each sub-empire, and multiple treaties codifying where the internal borders are. The latter is... probably going to be a lot easier.
Your map depicts Britain and northern Gaul detached from the Empire which makes sense. Eventually the Barbarian pressures on the West will become too strong to resist completely. At a minimum, Britain would have to go and I definitely see northern Gaul becoming a battleground. Hunnic, Gothic, and Frankish attacks (or analogues) will still occur ITTL but a better imperial response could have beaten them off. The real question as to which half becomes supreme is the emergence, or lack thereof, of Islam. If Syria, Palestine, and Egypt are permanently lost while the West survives, albiet in reduced form, the two halves will remain equal or the West will dominate. On the other hand, if butterflies concerning Christianity eliminate Islam, the East will be far stronger and richer and likely remain the senior partner for centuries. This latter scenario seems more realistic to me.
Just my $0.02.
