In OTL, the Roman Empire got split into east and west. How can I make it so that the Roman Empire get split into a North (pars borealis) and a South (pars australis) instead of an east-west split? The North gets Italy, the Balkans, Gaul, Anatolia, and Britannia. The South gets Sicily, Iberia, Sardinia, North Africa, and other islands in the Mediterranean. What might be the effects of each empire in this scenario. How will this effect culture and the rest of history with a North-South split?
North-South Roman empires
- Thread starter Siberian Tiger
- Start date
Deleted member 109224
My understanding is that the point of an East-West split was so the Emperor in the east could be closer to where the wealth was and the wars with the Persian were being fought. A north-south divide doesn't really serve this purpose.
So let's change that, maybe he'd need to be closer to an alt-history Sudanese or Arabic Empire.
Who gets Egypt and who has to shoulder the defense for the East? Both are pretty key questions, and as noted, is why the East-West split was like it was.
Also, Italy would be very vulnerable during a civil war with the Southern Empire since they'll have a lot of Rome's grain under their control.
Also, Italy would be very vulnerable during a civil war with the Southern Empire since they'll have a lot of Rome's grain under their control.
Skallagrim
Banned
Simply prevent Constantinople from being (re)founded by Constantine, and ensure that this butterflies away the East-West power structure. The East will still be wealthier, but Alexandria will be its foremost city. Later on, just have the Roman Empire crumble roughly as per OTL. But because of strategic concerns at the time, whoever takes charge in Alexandria prioritises a reconquest of North Africa all the way to the Pillars of Herakles. Meanwhile, a rival claimant to power uses Anatolian wealth to restore order to Italy. When the dust settles, there are now two Empires. One in Europe-Anatolia (North), and one in Africa-Syria (South). Each is unable to conquer the other, and after some expensive and pointless campaigns, both Emperors simply recognise each other. The Northern Empire turns its attention to further expansion into Germania, while the Southern Empire concentrates on East Africa and the Indian Ocean.
The Studying Erudite
Banned
you could also make a civil war in roman history just not resolved. however, the southern empire just refusing to trade with the northern empire is enhauf to make the north join the south or disinterate within a century, unless the northern empire finds a new place to farm at...
Deleted member 114175
I could see the Southern Roman Empire eventually having the exact same borders as the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates and it may even Arabize.
would be quite interesting to see this happen. Especially if the Southern Roman Empire eventually turns muslim while the northern one remains Christian. I doubt there would be an orthodox-catholic schism in this TL and we would get instead a christian-muslim schism instead.
Why? Arabization is a product of Islam and the fact that Arab tribes were often straight up invited to certain areas. There are no cities in Arabia as important as Alexandria, Antioch, or Carthage. And the Arabs are just another group of barbarians, same as the Berbers or Germanics, not civilized people like Greeks and Romans.
The bigger issue is that there's not as much connecting Africa and Mauretania culturally or economically to the rest of the empire since by language/culture (Latin, not Greek), religion (they are under the Pope in Rome and not another Patriarch), and economy (their trading partners are mostly across the Mediterranean) the area has different interests. I could see a regional usurper declaring his own empire, or maybe just swearing allegiance to the Northern Emperor.
The Arabization of areas of the Middle East and North Africa was a process ongoing for centuries before Islam. Overpopulation of the Arabian peninsula makes an Arab version of the Germanic migrations likely, with areas immediately in line for migration (Egypt, Levant, Mesapotamia) more likely to be Arabized. The Romans might do as much as they did OTL with the Germans in settling specific tribal confederations across their empire to draw upon as auxiliaries, and the Arabs and Berbers would mix as well as they did OTL.
Though in the case of a no-Islam scenario, the chances of the Arabs being semi-Latinized is possible.
In parts of Mesopotamia and Syria bordering Arabia, it certainly was, but that's far different from the dense population of Egypt or remoteness of Carthage. Since culturally, the Greek Church (and local Syriac/Coptic Churches) will have great pull, any particularly widespread Arabization outside of borderlands isn't likely. Overpopulated as Arabia was, if they're dispersed and settled throughout the empire then that won't get it very Arabized. Or maybe in the same sense you could call post-Roman Western Europe "Germanicized" but long term you'd more see the Arabs absorbed into local cultures than the other way around.
If the SRE rules Arabia than Islam as we know it won't look anything alike.
Not necessarily. I used those terms simply because of consistency with the Western Roman Empire being called pars occidentalis and the Eastern Roman Empire being called pars orientalis.
I think it may be a slight fallacy to assume that the East-West divide began with Constantine. As early as the second triumvirate, the Empire was divided along an east-west axis. The official split was a long time coming. Power-sharing agreements on a geographical basis can be seen in he cause of Augustus and Agrippa, Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius, Geta and Caracalla, Valerian and Gallienus, and then of course during the tetrarchy (where Nicomedia and Antioch were the capitals in the east before Constantinople)
Skallagrim
Banned
The point I was making is more that without Constantine, there's a good chance for the divide to end up being less formal, and -- more importantly -- a good chance that Alexandria becomes/remains the foremost city in the East. That, in turn, could ultimately lead to a North-South divide in the (not implausible) event that should the Empire fracture, Alexandria chooses to prioritise securing Africa over other avenues.
Given the conditions during the Roman Empire I don't think that it makes any sense for Alexandria to focus on Africa, it would be even more senseless than trying to secure Italy, almost at the level of going after Dalmatia. They could go after Cyrene but anything further is not defensible. After Cyrene they would certainly focus on the closer lands of Syria, Judea, Cyprus, Crete, Asia Minor, and Greece, if not they would be better keeping resources than expending them attacking Carthage.
So the Arabs invade and then become Latins? Because that's exactly what happened to the Germans who settled in the former Empire.
Deleted member 114175
That's what I meant by Arabized, about the same amount of influence Germanic tribes had on Western Roman Empire (which was still quite extensive).
If you're talking linguistics it depends on the dispersal pattern. When one of the previous ME empires dispersed the Aramaic speakers it generated Aramaisation of the area because suddenly all one needed to do to communicate across the region was know someone bilingual in Aramaic since they were everywhere.
Kaze
Banned
In IRL - Britian did break free from the Roman Control establishing their own sort of kingship seperate from the Western Roman Empire -this did not last due to the Justinian plague and the Saxons.
So technically, before the Saxons came - there was a Northern (Romano- Celtic British state) and a Southern Roman Empire.
So technically, before the Saxons came - there was a Northern (Romano- Celtic British state) and a Southern Roman Empire.