What if the roles of the Romans and the Chinese would have turned?

In the 2nd century AD the population of China and the Roman Empire were about the same. But the Roman empire fell in decay whereas China went on and had relative times of peace and prosperity. I know China didnt exist, but there were several dynasties, but still it was more unified than the Roman provinces ever were after it broke into parts.
So what would the world look like if the roles were turned? If the Roman territories had known the stability that China knew and China fell apart into loads of nations?
 
In the 2nd century AD the population of China and the Roman Empire were about the same. But the Roman empire fell in decay whereas China went on and had relative times of peace and prosperity. I know China didnt exist, but there were several dynasties, but still it was more unified than the Roman provinces ever were after it broke into parts.
So what would the world look like if the roles were turned? If the Roman territories had known the stability that China knew and China fell apart into loads of nations?

What? The Han dynasty fell in the 3rd century and China didn't re-unite until the Sui dynasty 300 years later.

China didn't really have 'stability' until the Tang.

EDIT: And, of course, had the bolt-from-the-blue that were the Arabs not happened, it's likely the ERE could have survived in more or less intact form, and eventually gone on to once more re-take portions of the West.
 
It would be funny if the Roman Empire falls to the Mongols instead of conquering the whole world by the present day as in so many cliche TLs.
 
It would be funny if the Roman Empire falls to the Mongols instead of conquering the whole world by the present day as in so many cliche TLs.

hmm...good point.
It probally would actually assuming it was still around and they attacked.
The Roman army wouldn't work well against Mongols. And they lacked all the castles that the OTL Europeans had which would stop them.
The only possible factor is the one against mongols ever conquering europe- the terrain isn't suitable for them.
 
hmm...good point.
It probally would actually assuming it was still around and they attacked.
The Roman army wouldn't work well against Mongols. And they lacked all the castles that the OTL Europeans had which would stop them.
The only possible factor is the one against mongols ever conquering europe- the terrain isn't suitable for them.

Leej

Presuming there is still a Roman empire by the time a butterfly-resistant Genghis comes along what makes you think its will still be that similar to the classical Roman one? It might still hold Rome and value it as a city but have its centre of population in the east, or in northern Europe, or possibly even in Africa. Could well have a totally different military structure. If its been waging war with any Persian/Arab empires to the south and possibly on the fringes of the steppes, it might have significant mounted and/missile units to engage such enemies on equal terms. Or have developed fortifications as China did. [Say a Great Wall from the Baltic to the Black Sea]. This is a significantly shorter distance than the Chinese had to guard I think and with Mongol weakness at sea it might well hold if the empire was in good condition at the time a Mongol attack came. Or they could go down as did just about everybody else against the Mongols.

Steve

PS Then of course there's the other point. Because its closer to the steppes and lacks the terrain protection you mentioned China is more vulnerable to steppe attack. However if it permanently failed to re-unite might you have a continued warring states situation of the type that is often thought to have been important in Europe's rise to dominance? Could you have a fragmented China become the centre of the 1st industrial region and the great world wide empires that developed?
 
Last edited:
Top