Roman Empire

What if over several centuries Rome never fell and they ended up conquering the whole world or most of it.how do you think they could do this?.
 
Here's some good Rome-wank TLs if you're interested

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/hadrians-consolidation-reboot.388488/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...e-to-triumph-a-western-roman-timeline.445131/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-rhōmaiōn-the-restored-roman-republic.386625/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-rome-severus-dies-at-nicaea-timeline.443023/
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ory-of-rome-under-the-julian-emperors.445291/ (shameless self-plug)

No realistic timeline is going to have any empire exist in one form forever (or have that empire take over the world during antiquity), and each of these TLs focuses on changing a different aspect of Roman society to hopefully improve its odds of surviving in one way or another (whether its broad institutional or political changes or small, mundane technological changes)
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Rome had too many inherent issues to take over the world that without magic or Zeus's explicit blessing it simply isn't going to happen.
Of course. But fairly early PODs that could butterfly those issues can exist. Obviously,saving a post third Century Roman Empire is impossible and would require Magic or Zeus blessing. But there can be plenty of PODs before that for saving the Roman Empire for a World domination.
 
What about early development of gunpowder, with the Roman organizational ability they would be unstoppable.
Gunpowder won't make the romans immune to structural weaknesses in the empire, though. What rome needed was something to stabilize their economy and political system, not a military advantage - they definitely already had that.

Now, as for the question itself
What if over several centuries Rome never fell and they ended up conquering the whole world or most of it.how do you think they could do this?.
First of all, you will never get anything close to 'hard' world-conquest unless you fundamentally change the nature of states. empires fluctuate and even the strongest can't last forever. However, there are some things you could do to achieve 'soft' world-conquest with the roman empire, by which I mean an almost complete domination of essentially everywhere.
1. Germania, Germania, Germania. If the romans can conquer the area and develop the necessary innovations to properly farm it, they will have a massive new population base. Germanicus seems like a good start for this, but it would take a few generations to conquer the whole thing and many many more to settle it. If the germanics get the old gaulic treatment, then nothing prevents Germania from becoming a large, incredibly powerful source of citizens, soldiers, taxes and emperors for the empire, and a base of operation to the rest of the european plain. A large, populous meatshield protecting Italia and Gaul from any invading barbarians is also massively helpful.

2. As it turns out, economy is important, especially to a state in antiquity. Arguably, inflation did more to cause the collapse of the roman empire than any barbarian ever could, and if you want rome to be a hyper-power you have to solve their hyperinflation first. Germania, with its valuable resource in the form of amber, could help with trade deficits, but for the romans to have a truly robust economy I suggest some form of mass emancipation - having about 10% more tax paying freedmen in the empire will give rome a lot more breathing room.

3. The civil wars have got to go. Together with inflation and plague (which isn't very solvable if we're trying to keep this non ASB), civil war & general political instability were leading causes in rome's 'decline'. From the moment generals realized they could seize the throne with enough troops, the entire system became reliant on consistently good emperors to simply survive. A non-hereditary, meritocratic succession system would solve the issue of incompetent emperors, but the rouge generals are a whole other deal. My suggestion? Republicanism. Empowering the senate and local assemblies, relying on the idea of 'princeps' to legitimize an emperor's rule, and separating civilian & military power in the provinces will go a long, long way to solve the general instability of the empire. as a nice side-bonus, it would make the idea of republicanism or constitutional monarchy much more palatable for roman society when time comes for these ideas to be re-considered.

4. looking east & south. If all three of the previous criteria are met in a couple generations from the germanicus PoD, than the roman empire should be in a solid golden age, more powerful and resiliant than even the middle republic. However, that doesn't guarantee it will be anything close to a world hegemony. For that, it would need to expand a little further. in the east, both Mesopotamia, Arabia, Armenia and the vast & fertile east european planes lie, ready to be added to the empire (The Parthians and even the Sassanids could never compare to this hyper-rome). However, in the south rests an even greater treasure: the peoples of east africa are still a long long way from the likes of ghana and mali, and with a few maritime innovations the romans can add another resource-heavy, somewhat unpopulated territory to their empire. With the new juggernauts in the north and south, The empire's center of power might be drawn away from italia and rome. However, west africa holds a prized much larger than all the gold & salt in the world.

5. Land on the horizon. At this point, centuries have probably passed. The mediterrenean remains unbroken from the christian-muslim split, and as such trade and development in the entire empire is booming. At the risk of venturing too far into ASB, I believe that a highly populous & prosperous empire could innovate faster than its OTL counterparts of europe and the middle east, and so a good equivalent to 15th century technology could be placed somewhere in the 11th century at the earliest. At this point, African-Roman sailors/explorers are highly likely to stumble upon either brazil, or the island chain leading to the carribbean.
The following colonialisation proccess could be compared, I imagine, to conquistadors on huge amounts of steroids. Spain, with its measly population, managed to devastate and conquer most of the americas in a few hundred years; this is an empire with a size and population larger than china, and the literal inventor of the word "imperialism". Now, you can add the mississippi basin, the amazon and the west coast to rome's ever growing pool of manpower, and after a few centuries most of the world's population will be speaking latin and praying to the divine caesar before going to the local bath house. At this point, any further conquests are overkill - No power on earth can even compare to the empire, and while a temporary collapse is not only possible but likely, the idea of 'roma invicta' is probably so heavily ingrained in everyone's mind that a permanent collapse is simply unthinkable.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
A simple POD is that if Romans somehow get the Germanic Tribes,Alans,Sarmatians and the Dacians to 'listen' and join the Empire earlier itself like how they did with the Continental Celtic Gauls and Galatians,Assyrians,Berber North Africans,Greeks,Anatolians,etc. This would make the Roman Empire almost immortal. This would eventually happen but as per a few reports,a Mega drought somewhere in the East Asia sent the Turks and the Huns outward who pushed the Alans and the Sarmatians who in turn pushed the East Germanic people into the Empire. Scary to even imagine! Just one and a half Century ago,it was like "God rules the Heavens as Rome rules or will rule the Earth" but after One and a Half century,it was all in shambles. If this had happened earlier and the Romans had expanded into the Steppes,they would crush the Huns or the Mongols and either send them out of the borders or assimilate them into the Roman Empire as they did earlier. This one POD just unveils a "Rome Immortal",the ruler of the World here and the Worlds to come,who rules the things visible and invisible,Dyson Spheres here and elsewhere,Galaxies near and far under her massive umbrella!
 
Of course. But fairly early PODs that could butterfly those issues can exist. Obviously,saving a post third Century Roman Empire is impossible and would require Magic or Zeus blessing. But there can be plenty of PODs before that for saving the Roman Empire for a World domination.

No, there cannot be. Do you know why? There are other civilizations of mankind outside of Europe who rivaled and even surpassed Rome's zenith.
 
Gunpowder won't make the romans immune to structural weaknesses in the empire, though. What rome needed was something to stabilize their economy and political system, not a military advantage - they definitely already had that..

Barbarian outside of Europe was always a problem until gunpowder armies evolved. Once that happened they never endangered Europe again.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
No, there cannot be. Do you know why? There are other civilizations of mankind outside of Europe who rivaled and even surpassed Rome's zenith.
If I am not wrong,you are talking about Umayyad Caliphate and the Chinese Empire. Umayyad was an indirect product of the Antiquity including Rome's and Europe's and rose as a result of Rome's demise. Chinese Empire didn't have the advantages in terms of Geography that Rome did. So Rome gets the edge.

If Rome did go through the PODs I talked about,the Umayyad Arabs and North Africans would be some good legions or Citizens of Rome or maybe even Pontifex Maximus of Rome.
 
If I am not wrong,you are talking about Umayyad Caliphate and the Chinese Empire. Umayyad was an indirect product of the Antiquity including Rome's and Europe's and rose as a result of Rome's demise. Chinese Empire didn't have the advantages in terms of Geography that Rome did. So Rome gets the edge.

If Rome did go through the PODs I talked about,the Umayyad Arabs and North Africans would be some good legions or Citizens of Rome or maybe even Pontifex Maximus of Rome.

I believe that his point is that no power in human history ever attained world conquest, ever. Even hyperpowers such as the UK, France and Russia during the Victorian Era, or the US and the URSS in the Cold War, never achieved it, with modern communications, naval, military and logistical technology, it is impossible (if not, statistically very improbable) that a pre-modern empire might have it. Before anyone mentions the Mongols and other nomadic Asian empires, you'd have to consider that they simply did not last long, simply because they couldn't hope to ensure a permanent administrative and military control over such a vast empire by using medieval dynastic power structures. What to say about Rome, with pre-modern technology, slave-holding, with complicated institutions that utterly failed to prevent civil wars? And that can be said of any pre-modern empire. The probability that any of them would obtain global domination (even if a soft hegemony) is nigh-impossible, either because there are parts of the world that are too difficult to impose direct foreign dominion or because in other regions that are consolidated and strong regional powers (in Southeast Asia, in India, in Persia, in North Africa and Arabia).

Even if we limit to the "Known World", we'll have problems: Germania and Scandinavia are poorly developed and logistics of a Roman conquest would be prohibitive; the Pontic Steppe is a corridor to a multitude of nomadic invaders, and would their invasions drain the Empire completely. Beyond North Africa, only the southern parts of Egypt and perhaps some provinces in the transaharan route will have anything remotely of interest. Beyond Persia, everything is too far, and, from the Roman POV, would implicate a dominion over Arabia, another sink to drain manpower and money. Yes, yes, Alexander did it, but, after conquering Persia, his base of power was there, and the Romans will never invest in going this far.

That said, the Roman Empire could certainly lasted longer than it did. The "Byzantine" Empire weathered storms even worse than what we saw in Late Antiquity, so it is almost certain that if we prevented the complete collapse of the borders in the early 5th Century, the Empire would have a lease in life - hell, the Goths, even after sacking Rome, were in a path towards assimilation, and were convenient allies against the Vandals, Alans and Burgundians. Also, Stilicho, Aetius and Majorian's victories demonstrate that even in its sunset years the Empire could pack a punch.

I don't think the Romans even wanted Germania. If they really wanted it, they would have conquered it as they did with Dacia and Britannia, adversaries that ushered a long and bloody conflict no one seems to remember. What I believe could entice expansionist projects would be Armenia + Mesopotamia if somehow Sassanid Persia collapses (Hephtalite invasions, succession wars, you name it), and this could have a very serious and lasting impact for the Empire's survival. A more direct control over Crimea and the Caucasus might drive some more ambitious Emperors to send a few expeditions, the same regarding western Arabia, and perhaps a reconquest of Dacia itself as a sort of proto-revanchism, and a means to secure the Danube frontier. But Germania and the rest? I doubt we'll see a lasting Roman presence in it. In fact, a surviving Rome likely will go to great length to ensure that no Germanic confederation rises to dominance such as the Franks did in the 6th Century, something that will probably delay even more the social and political development of the region. We cannot forget that IOTL Franks were largely responsible for developing ancient Germania, and by integrating it closely into the western Mediterranean world. Without them, it is possible that we'll see a slower trend of urbanization and agricultural development. Even so, as the centuries pass, Rome might not be that interested in outright annexing Germania, but rather in establishing allies clients states forming a border curtain.
 
Last edited:
Chinese Empire didn't have the advantages in terms of Geography that Rome did.

I'm pretty sure the Yangtze and Yellow River watersheds combined outsize the rivers of most of the Roman Empire combined. And what advantages are you talking about? China wasn't conquered by an external polity with a few noted exceptions. Not to mention that even as dynasties rose and fell, many of the later dynasties managed to reconquer and even surpass their forebears in terms of land area.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
I'm pretty sure the Yangtze and Yellow River watersheds combined outsize the rivers of most of the Roman Empire combined. And what advantages are you talking about? China wasn't conquered by an external polity with a few noted exceptions. Not to mention that even as dynasties rose and fell, many of the later dynasties managed to reconquer and even surpass their forebears in terms of land area.
Rome was in the excellent Mediterranean region. It had good lands with rivers,sunny climate,less Geographical barriers to expand,more contact with other Advanced civilizations due to closer Geographical connection and stuff like that.
 
There is no single PoD IMO - but for the Romans it really comes down to addressing the twin problems of borders and institutions. The long-running joke is that the ideal borders for the Romans would either be the World, or the Vistula-Carpathian Line & Georgia/Armenia-Euphrates. The sheer population that provides, and the relatively short borders in relation to it mean that as long as the internal institutions are stable (ENOUGH) so that any civil wars aren't major openings to be shattered, you probably have a Roman Empire that could rival China in population in time, especially once the heavy plough comes into play. Plus the strategic concerns are similar. Swap Vietnam for Scandinavia, the North for the North East, etc.

Does this mean the Roman Empire never changes/shatters? Of course not - but we'd see a Roman Empire akin to China. However, I'd say with one major advantage (that we saw IOTL). The Romans could easily find the New World, much more easily than China could (in fact, with control over the British Isles, it is a given IMO). Which means they have vast, relatively accessible (compared to crossing the Pacific) which allows the Roman Economy to really flourish and I'm not convinced the Romans wouldn't have similar economic justifications for settling the New World, conquering parts of Africa to feed their industry, moving Eastwards to take control of the Spice Trade. The key difference is that outside of a hypothetically independent Russia (by the time it emerges, I expect it is part of a hypothetical Eternal Rome or a Protectorate), the only European conflicts will be civil wars (and we've had a long time in theory to resolve those in a similar way to China), Middle Eastern powers, or overseas wars. Which means a rather shocking economic potential.

Your key is to ensure you can control that border and it has been a long running discussion. I'm personally a large fan of a Maurice PoD - which is quite late by the standards of this thread it seems - but the development of an Imperial Core in the Balkans and Anatolia, combined with a significant number of Exarchates - in Egypt, Africa, Italy, etc. Effectively forming a Roman Federation. I think that has the potential to balance Imperial Power (and thus the desire for it) if has an Imperial College of the Emperor and Exarchates. That should work to both establish internal institutions that can ensure fewer civil wars, and internal competition/cooperation as needed. (i.e. Italy and Africa compete to produce the best cloth, or ships, etc). It also means that those Western Exarchates fall into the same idea of "Lets go west because it might be cheaper to import spices the short way round".

So my PoD - not a perfect or universal one - is have Maurice not winter north of the Danube. Instead have him withdraw, and prepare construction materials for fortifying lands north of the Danube for his campaign (my understanding is he was pushing for a border on the Carpathians (south side) and the Pruth (or nearby) in the North - effectively taking OTL Northern Bulgaria. That way when he continues his summer campaigns, he can have more secure quarters for winter, and can withdraw his main force behind those lines, or south of the Danube every winter during his northern campaign, but still hold the territory. This has the big advantage of butterflying the Persian Wars, and having what seemed to be a potential long-lasting peace on the Eastern border. Which means he could (in theory) continue addressing fiscal and security problems.
 

That's an interesting approach. If I may ask, how different was Maurice's exarchate system different from previous provincial governments systems of the Empire? They combined the military and administrative function of the Duces and the Praetorian Prefects installed by Constantine, is that the main feature?
 
That's an interesting approach. If I may ask, how different was Maurice's exarchate system different from previous provincial governments systems of the Empire? They combined the military and administrative function of the Duces and the Praetorian Prefects installed by Constantine, is that the main feature?

The exact powers of an Exarch is something I'm not 100% on, but generally I believe your right. My main focus on them is that whilst they combine Civilian and Military Offices, that allows regional flexibility, plus, with the addition (and I think this is important) of an Imperial College, effectively how the Exarchates and Core politically operate, we have a system that could mitigate disputes in a manner akin to the historic Senate. Plus, it means that the Emperor can limit the potential power of older Exarchates by establishing new ones. So you might see an Exarchate of Hispania (rather than it being folded into Africa) and Exarchate of Gaul (rather than it being folded into Italia). Sure that tilts whatever the balance of power is in the college, but that serves our purpose of weakening the office of Emperor in a way that doesn't directly harm the Empire as a whole.

So you could (in theory) have the army of the Exarch of Africa be completely different to that of the Exarch of Gaul - the former similar to Berber forces, light cavalry, etc - whilst the Gallic Exarchate could run on Mixed Arms with a heavy leaning towards Pikes, whilst an Exarch of Taurica could be similar to Steppe forces, etc. Whilst I think it'd be perfectly reasonable for the Emperor to receive a group of troops from each Exarchate to strength the core - their training and variety would afford the Empire flexibility in fighting style, especially if the Emperor himself went on campaign (where the Exarchs could well insist on a new Exarchate rather than the Emperor receiving more territory, via the College).
 
At the risk of venturing too far into ASB, I believe that a highly populous & prosperous empire could innovate faster than its OTL counterparts of europe and the middle east, and so a good equivalent to 15th century technology could be placed somewhere in the 11th century at the earliest. At this point, African-Roman sailors/explorers are highly likely to stumble upon either brazil, or the island chain leading to the carribbean.

Overall, a very good post and a great effort given the difficult/ASB request by the OP.

On technology, I think it's unlikely technology would advance faster in a 'Rome conquers everything' scenario. In fact, you can bet that the opposite would be the case - it's likely there would be very little or no technological advance at all.

The main reason for that is competition. In history, innovation and advances usually come out of intense competition between lots of different groups. It's the competition that drives progress. But in a situation where Rome rules all, there is no competition.

Now, it is true that the Abbasid Caliphate was an absolute powerhouse of innovation and ideas, and that was a large universalist state ruling a vast area. However the difference there was that it was a mix of many different cultures - Persian, Arab, Greek, Berber, Kurd, and many others. And also it had a culture of imperial sponsorship for the arts, scholarship and learning. This is something that Rome never really had. There was no Roman equivalent of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, which gathered all the knowledge of the world in one place and which became a centre of scholars and research which soon resulted in new discoveries in all sorts of fields from medicine to physics, astronomy etc.

As far as I am aware, the Romans were not a particularly innovative culture and produced little in the way of technological advances. They built things on a large scale, as their aqueducts, roads and public buildings attest. But much of what they did was simply applying concepts developed much earlier by other civilisations including the Persians, Greeks and others.

The Romans became even less receptive to new ideas once Christianity became the dominant religion. They closed down Plato's Academy in Athens, persecuted scholars (some of whom ended up leaving the empire to go and live at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad), and generally closed down all progress for centuries.

The issue of Romans discovering the New World with the limited naval technology of Antiquity is another major issue. OTL, the discovery of the Americas was not feasible until all the necessary technologies came together in the 15th century. But in an alternate timeline where Rome still exists, and none of the competing powers of the past several centuries up to 1492 even exist, there is no way the Romans will have the naval technology that existed OTL.

Instead we will be relying on simple ships of a relatively primitive design, with no rudder and no compass and a shallow keel, boats barely suitable for hugging the coast along the Atlantic coast of France and crossing the English channel, a distance short enough to be seen from the opposite shore.

Crossing the Atlantic? No way (although we must face it - a scenario where an encounter between the Aztecs and the Roman legions can take place would be silly but fun).
 
Top