Roman Empire in year of 2015?

That's why the Genghis Khan Mongols are still totally run Eurasia.

Clearly peoples change. The biggest changes are that the more success you see, the more corruption. If the bribe or even the old-buddydom are how generals are decided, isn't it stupid to expect anything other than that fine perfect Battle of the Teutoburg Forest? That happened because, unlike Caesar, Varus wasn't smart to start from the easy turf, but went the stupidest way, by mountain and forest.

And peoples get tired of empire and war and conquering. Italy and Turkey today are tired of empire and war.
 
I tell you that Genghis Khan is still alive and chopped off your heads, Roman-
empire believers. What actual group of conquerors has lasted this long? For Rome was mostly a loser by the time it split, and only got worse. As you expect for corrupt empires.

The longest I know that's lasted was 8 centuries, a long-lived Indian democracy,
 
I tell you that Genghis Khan is still alive and chopped off your heads, Roman-
empire believers. What actual group of conquerors has lasted this long? For Rome was mostly a loser by the time it split, and only got worse. As you expect for corrupt empires.

The longest I know that's lasted was 8 centuries, a long-lived Indian democracy,
In term of unified long-lasting political entity, I'd like to postulate the French from Clovis to the Revolution, or even from Charlemagne.

One territory which was never entirely subdued, and it ended on a good note in term of territory (by that I mean it was not taken apart like Turkey). Could still count to today as there is a clear power continuity on the same territorial power base
 
In term of unified long-lasting political entity, I'd like to postulate the French from Clovis to the Revolution, or even from Charlemagne.

One territory or military which was never entirely subdued, and it ended on a good note in term of territory (by that I mean it was not taken apart like Turkey). Could still count to today as there is a clear power continuity on the same territorial power base

From the Carolignian Dynasty to today- actually, almost 100% of the time, the territory directly under the control of the central French government (kings, presidents, what have you) has increased. The kings started with the Ile-de-France, and ended up with Modern France. World War Two (the closest thing I can think of to an exception) still had a Free-French government in exile, with several unsubdued colonial territories.
 
From the Carolignian Dynasty to today- actually, almost 100% of the time, the territory directly under the control of the central French government (kings, presidents, what have you) has increased. The kings started with the Ile-de-France, and ended up with Modern France. World War Two (the closest thing I can think of to an exception) still had a Free-French government in exile, with several unsubdued colonial territories.

Yup, longest lasting country in Europe!
 
Going off of what Euromellows said, the Byzantine half of the empire was not destined to fall either. And who says Rome can't end up like China? It might be possible, over time, had the west survived the migration period, to perhaps have Romanization happen to barbarians in the same way sinicization happened whenever China was overtaken. The point is that a Roman Empire that can reasonably claim descendence back to Romulus in the same way current day china can trace themselves back to the Han (meaning, there can certainly be interruptions) does not have to be ASB.

Also, even if there were no OTL examples, it still wouldn't require an ASB. It's incredibly unlikely but not impossible.

This
You mean Italy?

A surviving Western Roman Empire changes so much that it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty what 2015 would look like. The best we could get is a restoration sometime in the late medieval or modern age.
 
Yup, longest lasting country in Europe!

Oh definitely. Despite the "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" trope, France is basically the only country in Europe from the Middle Ages to today (Portugal and Switzerland maybe?) to have never been fully invaded and subdued or destroyed by a foreign power or ruler. Even Britain has been.
 
It is possible for the Roman Empire to come back in force, if let's say the Justinian Plague does not take place.
"As the disease spread to port cities around the Mediterranean, the struggling Goths were reinvigorated and their conflict with Constantinople entered a new phase. The plague weakened the Byzantine Empire at a critical point, when Justinian's armies had nearly retaken all of Italy and the western Mediterranean coast; this evolving conquest would have reunited the core of the Western Roman Empire with the Eastern Roman Empire. The plague may have also contributed to the success of the Arabs a few generations later in the Byzantine-Arab Wars."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian
 
I tell you that Genghis Khan is still alive and chopped off your heads, Roman-
empire believers. What actual group of conquerors has lasted this long? For Rome was mostly a loser by the time it split, and only got worse. As you expect for corrupt empires.

The longest I know that's lasted was 8 centuries, a long-lived Indian democracy,
As mentioned below, France has complete continuity for around 1500 years. The Roman Empire itself had complete continuity from its hight for at least 1200 years (if you count the break at the sack of Constantinople in 1204). England has complete continuity for over 900 years. China, as I pointed out in my post, at least has more or less complete cultural continuity for almost the entirety of Chinese history. Greece has mostly complete cultural continuity since their rise out of the Greek dark ages.

The Roman Empire isn't the Mongols, a nomadic horde who basically conquered and pillaged their way across the world.

In term of unified long-lasting political entity, I'd like to postulate the French from Clovis to the Revolution, or even from Charlemagne.

One territory which was never entirely subdued, and it ended on a good note in term of territory (by that I mean it was not taken apart like Turkey). Could still count to today as there is a clear power continuity on the same territorial power base
This.
 
An idea of "France" or Westmark or somesuch has existed for 1500 years but not in its current state. At best Charlemagne contributed to the idea but until the 1400s OTL France could easily have become a half-dozen powerful kingdoms of varying size. Aquitane, Brittany, Burgundy, Ile-De-France, Occitania, and Gascony could easily have gone their own way, perhaps Orleans as well. If not for Limousin or any of several key battles France could have shattered, been united with England, or even become an early analog to the Balkans.
 
Besides, the discussion was already on the point that a Roman Europe (or very large Rome, etc) surviving from its founding until now is very unlikely. Pointing out that others have failed in doing the same thing ignores that point. Yes, it's unlikely, and hasn't been done to the same extent postulated here. Does that mean it's utterly impossible? Not at all, just difficult.

China always comes up in these discussions, this is the first time I've seen France mentioned. It's clearly possible for states to survive in some form for incredible lengths of time. China is steadily becoming a power to be reckoned with after more than a century of humiliation and territorial loss, France still possesses all its mainland territory and is a global Great Power.

Instead of talking about how unlikely any timeline of a surviving Roman Empire is, which we all know, we should be looking at what factors are needed to grant Rome this longevity. And then how to graft them into the Roman psyche.
 
Besides, the discussion was already on the point that a Roman Europe (or very large Rome, etc) surviving from its founding until now is very unlikely. Pointing out that others have failed in doing the same thing ignores that point. Yes, it's unlikely, and hasn't been done to the same extent postulated here. Does that mean it's utterly impossible? Not at all, just difficult.

China always comes up in these discussions, this is the first time I've seen France mentioned. It's clearly possible for states to survive in some form for incredible lengths of time. China is steadily becoming a power to be reckoned with after more than a century of humiliation and territorial loss, France still possesses all its mainland territory and is a global Great Power.

Instead of talking about how unlikely any timeline of a surviving Roman Empire is, which we all know, we should be looking at what factors are needed to grant Rome this longevity. And then how to graft them into the Roman psyche.

One thing that absolutely needs to happen is the elimination or impotency of "great estates"- which created powerful landowning families within the West and East. The problem only became even more exacerbated during the Byzantine Empire. Get rid of those families or confiscate their land, and the power of the Emperor/Basileus to push through vital reforms is much more secure.

Although, to do this, one must change the Roman philosophy of state power coming from land and taxes, and shift the attitude of people as a whole towards trade and commerce. A large powerful merchant class in most cases can only do good. A steady increase in urbanization , or a trend towards that, would help. But increased urbanization comes with a risk of plague, and with a few strokes of luck, plague can be avoided.
 
Besides, the discussion was already on the point that a Roman Europe (or very large Rome, etc) surviving from its founding until now is very unlikely. Pointing out that others have failed in doing the same thing ignores that point. Yes, it's unlikely, and hasn't been done to the same extent postulated here. Does that mean it's utterly impossible? Not at all, just difficult.

China always comes up in these discussions, this is the first time I've seen France mentioned. It's clearly possible for states to survive in some form for incredible lengths of time. China is steadily becoming a power to be reckoned with after more than a century of humiliation and territorial loss, France still possesses all its mainland territory and is a global Great Power.

Instead of talking about how unlikely any timeline of a surviving Roman Empire is, which we all know, we should be looking at what factors are needed to grant Rome this longevity. And then how to graft them into the Roman psyche.

I have to say, if we look at a map, Ancient China was much smaller. China as we know it is relatively new. The countries gone through periods of migration, balkanization and even subjugation like every other state.
 
The Germanic tribes are not your only invaders and,while China endures as a civilization, the Chinese state lacks continuity before more modern times. Indeed, the modern incarnations of China stem from a later successful invasion than the Mongols; the Manchus. It's just not possible for a state as far reaching and culturally/politically diverse as classical Rome to endure without shrinking considerably.


I'm not sure I follow you at all, sorry. China's had a pretty homogeneous territory for millennia. The Qing expansion is responsible for modern Chian's borders, but Beijing and Guangzhou have been within "Chinese" territory for about 2,000 years now.
 

Zek Sora

Donor
One thing that absolutely needs to happen is the elimination or impotency of "great estates"- which created powerful landowning families within the West and East. The problem only became even more exacerbated during the Byzantine Empire. Get rid of those families or confiscate their land, and the power of the Emperor/Basileus to push through vital reforms is much more secure.

Yes -- perhaps use the land to recreate the yeoman class for a more loyal Roman army that isn't just working for plunder?

Another essential is the Catholic Church; it can provide a common identity among citizens and perhaps actually educate them later, creating a real Roman cultural identity?
 
Yup, longest lasting country in Europe!

I always argue that Sweden takes that cake, but it all depends on how you define a "country" or "state". Roman authors like Tacitus and Pliny the Elder already describe huge confederations of villages and tribes united under a high king living in the area of modern Sweden, always with names whose etymologies seem uncannily similar to the Swedes or Svear. The society they describe seems very similar to the united petty kingdoms of the Svear that emerges in the Dark Ages and eventually grows into modern Sweden.

There isn't really a clear founding date for the Swedish nation as its beginning seems lost in prehistory, and the Swedes were never truly conquered by outsiders, either.
 
Top