Questions Regarding the Survival of the Roman Empire

Having drawn inspiration from the Timeline The Emperor Who Lost His Nose; The Magnificent Rhinotmetos, I'm creating a Timeline on the wiki titled Age of Glory. The Roman Empire is reformed under Justinian, and holds onto Italy. However, unlike Sargon's Timeline, mine stretches to present-day, detailing how Rome's survival effects the world, and other minor POD's.

I'm in debate with a few people on the wiki who consistently veto any creative idea I have. Yes, there's a need for possibility, but when creativity is always shunned, it gets boring. Which is why I'm also inquiring here.

My first question is: will Rome ever become the capital of Romania? The people there say no, not ever, because Constantinople was far more wealthy and powerful blah blah blah...which I can understand-to an extent.

Rome was basically Rome's Detroit until the early-late Renaissance. So naturally, Constantinople would be first choice. But-this is the Roman Empire, Rome is it's historic capital, and well, they're Romans. I'm fairly certain that using the wealth of the newly stable empire, the reigning dynasty would have made an attempt to bring back glory to Rome, and eventually make it the capital once again.

So, could it have been restored as capital? Or are the extremely-negative-uncreative-people correct, and Rome won't ever be the centre of Rome?
 
Rome isn't a very good capital, and hadn't been one for a generation prior to the founding of Constantinople. No Western Roman Emperor ever ruled from Rome- it was much easier to rule the Western Empire from Milan and Trier. And Constantinople is just a very, very good site, which, unlike Rome, has all the governmental apparatus in place.

I wouldn't say the capital going back to Rome is impossible. But I think it's very, very unlikely- Byzantine imperial ideology depended on the idea that everything good about the old city of Rome was now present on the Bosphorus.
 
Possibly, the biggest problem is that Rome isn't very fortified and its too far from the frontier to be a particularly good capital, if you could reduce the empire to include less northern land then you may have a shot of it being put back in Rome.
 
I recall reading a timeline somewhere on a Byzantinian claimant to the throne retreating to Rome to try to rebuild his powerbase from there because 'Rome also had a Senate.'

I can't remember which timeline it was, or whether it was plausible, but it sure was interesting.
 
1. Rome was very well fortified since Emperor Aurelian (late 3rd century).

Rome's problem was the dependance on the aquaeducts. Cutting those would let the city run dry. Also, opposite to Constantinopolis, it had no direct access to the sea in case of a siege. It would need "Murae longae" to Ostia (akin to Athen's link to Piraeus) to change this, a huge project.

2. Despite Rome being the historic capital, even an Empire which holds on to Italia will be predominantly Greek-speaking (at least the elites), especially if this empire holds on to the Levante/Egypt.

3. If Roman Reconquista does only extend to Italia and doesn't hold on to the other conquests of Justinian (Africa, Baetica, the West-Med Isles), Roma is still a backwater.
The means of travel (and Communication) is still quickest by sea, so to reach the rest of the Imperium, you first have to get around Southern Italy and from there onwards... Constantinopolis is far more central!

Conclusion: A surviving Roman Empire with the whole Med at its feet....Rome as a capital is imaginable.
Italia as an appendix to the Byzantine Empire? Then....no.
 
Top