The Roman Empire's Powerbase

[Erizium]

Assuming a surviving and united Roman Empire (the handwavium/PoDs are ambiguous as much as possible), what would be the wealthiest and most important part of the empire in the long run.

I have some ideas in mind, but would love to hear more.

1. The City of Rome: arguable the first city to reach a milliom inhabitants, capital of the Empire and a powerful location in the Central Mediterranean, Rome could potentially just see its wealth and importance skyrocket should the Emperors choose to concentrate more on the city.

2. Northern France: inevitably became a fertile breadbasket and Europe's foremost population center for centuries before being surpassed by Russia. Easy to grow, easy to exploit,

3. Constantinople: One of the most strategic locations in the world for trade and defense, and historically became Europe's largest and wealthiest city. Nexus of Greek culture.

4. Egypt: home to Alexandria and the immensely fertile Nile River as well the most efficient point of trade with the East

 

[Sceonn]

France and the Po Valley.

 

[Magnum]

It's possible that all four of them retain their importance

 

[TheHandsomeBrute]

It's going to be the same as it was at the Roman Empire heights. The entire Mediterranean basin.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Northern France has the problem of being closest to the barbarian frontier unless in this scenario Rome has expanded to the Elbe instead of the Rhine, in which case all bets are off.

Constantinople/Bosporus/Anatolia/Greece aren't bad but they don't produce a ton of food (lots of hills).

Latium isn't bad but Egypt is my pick. Food is power and there's no source of it in the Mediterranean world that's both larger and more stable than the Nile and her yearly floods.

 

[kasumigenx]

I think Marseille/Lyons area works.

 

[Dolnikan]

A lot depends on how things go and what actually is within the Empire. But in the long run, the focus would have to be in the east, meaning Constantinople or Egypt.

 

[John I of Brazil]

It depends on what you consider "united" (for, at least de jure, the WRE and ERE were just administrative divisions of a united Romania). In any case, if the changes on agricultural production that happened during the Middle Ages still happened in this timeline, the northern provinces of the Roman Empire would grow in relevance. Also, maybe some (western) roman emperor(s) could expand into Germany like the franks did in our timeline, and thus focusing on the northern affairs instead of the traditional mediterranean core of the empire.

 

[Count of Crisco]

In a scenario where the empire focuses on the western regions I could see France/western Europe become major economic hubs. They have the space, the resources, and are closer to the "capital" traditional economic hubs like Egypt and Greece would likely decline, and assuming a Muslim religion still emerges ITTL it could destroy much of the Eastern empire, with other successive eastern invasions wrecking more.

 

[profxyz]

I originally voted Rome, but have now changed my vote to Constantinople. Originally, I reasoned that as Roman Western Europe developed in economic importance with the medieval agricultural boom and especially the discovery of the New World, the economic 'center of gravity' of the Empire would shift back to the northwest, which would encourage a political shift back to Italy (with capital at Rome, Milan or similar).

However, after considering the experience of the Chinese Empires, I now think that a similarly-sprawling empire like Rome wouldn't have relocated its powerbase in line with economic shifts, just as the Chinese Empires rarely placed their capitals in the Lower Yangtze. Instead, the Chinese placed their capitals in regions close to their key security threats, most notably Beijing vs the Mongols.

A surviving Roman Empire would probably require a pretty permanent neutralization of the "Germania threat", which leaves the Pontic Steppe and Persia as the two major threats remaining. Constantinople was very well-positioned to intercept either of those, so it's quite likely that a surviving Roman Empire would continue to have its political center there, with maybe a subsidiary capital back in Italy (like Nanjing).

 

[Atterdag]

Assuming that this Roman Empire retains all the above regions I don’t see why it’s power base wouldn’t remain in Italy. Such and empire would continue to be uncontested in the Mediterranean Sea, so Rome would be totally out of harms way unlike anything in the eastern Mediterranean. And it wouldn’t matter that it’s a bit further away since Rome controls the Mediterranean highway.

 

[stevej713]

Assuming that this Roman Empire retains all the above regions I don’t see why it’s power base wouldn’t remain in Italy. Such and empire would continue to be uncontested in the Mediterranean Sea, so Rome would be totally out of harms way unlike anything in the eastern Mediterranean. And it wouldn’t matter that it’s a bit further away since Rome controls the Mediterranean highway.

Agreed, even in its fractured state (Northern) Italy was one of the wealthiest regions in the area throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. This wouldn't change until Atlantic trade really gets going in the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

[Gloss]

Agreed, even in its fractured state (Northern) Italy was one of the wealthiest regions in the area throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. This wouldn't change until Atlantic trade really gets going in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Northern Italy becoming the center is already a big change form the Roman period when southern and central peninsular Italy was relatively more important. Also Northern Europe historically became incredibly rich by the 13th and 14th century already and demographically this was happening already earlier, if the patterns are the same just about the same amount of people are going to be living in Gaul, southern Germany and Britain than the entirety of the Asian and African provinces combined.

 

[Avalon]

Northern Italy becoming the center is already a big change form the Roman period when southern and central peninsular Italy was relatively more important. Also Northern Europe historically became incredibly rich by the 13th and 14th century already and demographically this was happening already earlier, if the patterns are the same just about the same amount of people are going to be living in Gaul, southern Germany and Britain than the entirety of the Asian and African provinces combined.

Egypt and Tunisia around 1000 ad alone are around 6.5 million to France's 7.2. Add in an untouched Syria and Anatolia such a situation presumes then said equality of numbers doesn't exist. Medieval Britain had far fewer people than we like to think looking at the modern-day UK nevermind the strength and health of an Egypt without the Gothic Wars.

 

[Gloss]

Egypt and Tunisia around 1000 ad alone are around 6.5 million to France's 7.2. Add in an untouched Syria and Anatolia such a situation presumes then said equality of numbers doesn't exist. Medieval Britain had far fewer people than we like to think looking at the modern-day UK nevermind the strength and health of an Egypt without the Gothic Wars.

France and Western-Southern Germany in 1300 had 20-25 million people, England another 4-6 million. While for Anatolia and Syria we have no reason to assume populations figure would go above what we know existed either during the Roman era or Ottoman period, so about 9-10 million for Anatolia, 5 million for the Levant and 5-7 million for Egypt, Africa would have had another 5-10 million and the Romans historically didn't control everything there.

Also I'm not sure why you think the Gothic wars caused decline particularly in Egypt.

 

[Grey Wolf]

I'm going to vote for Trier

 

[Socrates]

Depends whether the "long run" is 200 years or 800 years.

 

[Avalon]

France and Western-Southern Germany in 1300 had 20-25 million people, England another 4-6 million. While for Anatolia and Syria we have no reason to assume populations figure would go above what we know existed either during the Roman era or Ottoman period, so about 9-10 million for Anatolia, 5 million for the Levant and 5-7 million for Egypt, Africa would have had another 5-10 million and the Romans historically didn't control everything there.

Also I'm not sure why you think the Gothic wars caused decline particularly in Egypt.

Which is why I choose 1000 ad as such was before several major disturbances from the Turks to the Mongols. And such is barely true for France and Western and Southern Germany which is a wide area from Brest to Vienna bridging Lugdunensis to Pannonia. Lapping them together to get 20 million is silly and 20 million is about it. At the same time if we're doing the same for the far more economically contiguous east from Anatolia to Egypt totals around 15 million after said invasions, destruction and chaos of the past 400 years. These figures are from the 1500s by the way. Finally, England had at most about 3 million in 1500 very likely closer to 2 million. Also, my point about the Gothic wars was about Italy, not the East which was a typo sorry.

 

[Gloss]

Which is why I choose 1000 ad as such was before several major disturbances from the Turks to the Mongols. And such is barely true for France and Western and Southern Germany which is a wide area from Brest to Vienna bridging Lugdunensis to Pannonia. Lapping them together to get 20 million is silly and 20 million is about it. At the same time if we're doing the same for the far more economically contiguous east from Anatolia to Egypt totals around 15 million after said invasions, destruction and chaos of the past 400 years. These figures are from the 1500s by the way. Finally, England had at most about 3 million in 1500 very likely closer to 2 million. Also, my point about the Gothic wars was about Italy, not the East which was a typo sorry.

I mean even during Roman times the populations of Gaul, the Danube region(before I only meant modern southern Germany under Rome, not Pannonia or Austria) and Britain had a population comparable to Roman Anatolia+Levant+Egypt, as time goes on the former will dwarf the later if the trends are the same and frankly I don't think you can blame anything in particular for the stagnation of the middle eastern population, outside the Iraqi situation.

 

[Socrates]

I mean even during Roman times the populations of Gaul, the Danube region(before I only meant modern southern Germany under Rome, not Pannonia or Austria) and Britain had a population comparable to Roman Anatolia+Levant+Egypt, as time goes on the former will dwarf the later if the trends are the same and frankly I don't think you can blame anything in particular for the stagnation of the middle eastern population, outside the Iraqi situation.

The reality is that the agricultural potential of Germany and Gaul is massively higher than Italy, Anatolia and Egypt once they have been deforested and brought into crop production. With continued civilization, I imagine that would probably happen about four or five centuries after Rome fell in OTL.