PC:Western Constantinople?

Ah alright, sorry about that...
Then my choice would be:
-Treverorum (Trier) because it's near the Rhine
-Londinium (London) because it's near the Firth to Forth and relatively protected from any Germanic invasion, especially if reinforced with a powerful navy
However Abdul, I disagree with you about Ravenna isn't a major seaport.
In 31 BC after the battle of Actium, Octavian builded a military harbor in the city which make Ravenna an important base for Roman Imperial Fleet, and it remained a major seaport in Adriatic Sea until Early Middle Age.

Errr what now?

Edinburgh is on the Firth of Forth. London is on the Thames Estuary.
 
So we could have Rome build a brand new city in the area North of Switzerland between the Danube and Rhine.

Thus you have the Alps covering the south approach, the Danube blocks off most direct east paths except for a few narrow passes, the Rhine does the same, to a lesser extent, for the west, and the gap in between the 2 can be fortified to high-hell.

Interesting concept, but you would be in South-Western Germany, in Southern Swabia, probably on the Northern shore of the Bodensee.

However, having a look at the map, it looks rather odd to have a major Roman center there - I would rather pick a place South of the Rhine, OTL's Konstanz oder Basel come to mind here.

Considering a Western alternative to Constantinople, I dismiss Ravenna for exactly its marshes and swampland. I would say there are limits as to how big the city could have grown.

Treverorum is not a bad place, being about halfway between the Alps and the North Sea while not directly on the Rhine. The best centre to react to Germanic threats against the West. However, it is set in a hilly region with little communication besides the river Moselle. Maybe a place further west would be able to have better communications for a more flexible response. I forgot the Roman names for Verdun, Reims and Metz, but these cities existed back then. I would place a permanent HQ in this region.

I wonder why nobody mentioned Mediolanum yet. It was capital of the Western Roman Empire for some time. In my opinion, though, it is on the wrong side on the Alps and simply a place to defend Italia.

People mentioned Londinium, then why not Lutetia? It is almost as good a position as the one I mentioned before, plus it sits on a possible defensive line on the river Seine. Also, the land is fertile and not too hilly. It makes sense that we see one of the most magnificient cities of OTL there.
 

Zioneer

Banned
I like the idea of Venice being a Western Constantinople. Sure, it had environmental problems (disease, hard to access), but so did Rome itself, did it not? Disease was a factor there as well, and with the Alps, it was hard to get to.

So Venice could serve as a similar, but different second Rome. This new Rome will probably shift into a more Carthage-like nation, however. More focused on the navy then terra firma.
 
Indeed. What about a neo Carthage? The previous inhabitants managed to run a reasonably good part of the Western Med for a while from that point.

Also, if we are back to western Europe proper - how about Cologne? I was there a couple of months back and spent some time looking at the Roman museum, which is worth a visit by the way. It's position on the Rhine is good for communications, transport and commerce and, while the Rhine may freeze over, it could certainly be fortrified to a greater extent.
 
Top