WI Europe of Three Empires

[Eurofed]

Additionally, Europe's geography is much more conducive to the survival of a patchwork of factions than China's is.

First of all, that's not quite true, since the northern half of Europe is a huge nice plain which armies can freely roam from the English Channel to Poland. History shows that the Alps and the Pyrenees were not meaningful military barriers, unless the powers on both sides, and their allies, were equally balanced. There is no compelling geographical reason why the Treaty of Verdun division had to happen in most TLs, and a power that controls both France and Germany is almost always going to conquer Iberia and Italy and crush all opposition. And a power that holds France, Germany, and either or both Spain and Italy is going to control Europe, no excuses.

Roman history shows that the Romasphere had a tendency to break up, during civil wars, in 2-4 splinters, well below the power fragmentation threshold which makes geographical barriers a significant issue. Moreover, in Roman culture, apart from the East-West cultural split, there was no significant cultural or political factor that drove the continent to fragmentation, on the contrary there was a powerful drive to return to unity, just like in China. Only the Germanic migrations changed the game, and Romanization of Germania removes them.

To keep a pan-European empire from shattering, and then staying shattered, you need both a strongly unitary cultural context

Which existed (look at how powerful an imprint the imperial ideal of Rome left on Europe) and is only going to grow stronger and stronger, over time. One may argue that Rome and China followed parallel paths on this, only Rome was cut short before the process could make the pull to unity irreversible. By making Rome more successful and giving a longer lifetime, eventually unitary self-consciousness is going to become irreversible, no matter the occasional political crisis.

Moreover, this TL already pays a tribute to particularism, by assuming that a cultural butterfly (religious divergences) entrenches the only meaningful fault line within the Romasphere. Without the Germanic migrations, there is no compelling justification for continental Europe to fragment any further, and history shows that an ERE state can withstand the passing of many centuries, especially if we remove the Arabs.

 

[Rex Romanum]

The Hunnic-Slavic-Gothic state in Ukraine seems a bit...odd. I think Germania itself should be included in the NRE (Northern Roman Empire), because Germania that have been undergo a Romanization would be very suitable for a new center of the empire (huge population base, etc). And also because I have a feeling that the combined Slavic-Gothic-Hunnic invasions will be able to breach the Roman fortifications at Vistula-Dniester line (during the period of civil wars, maybe?).
So the three empires would be Mesopotamia-based, Mediterranean-based, and Germania-based empires...

 

[Aranfan]

I don't really have time to get heavily into this, and I'm not all that well informed about European geography, but:

1. The Alps and Pyrenees are significant militarily just by being there. Yes, anyone competent can get past them, but they require a lot more preparation and time than attacking over a flat plain. This more easily allows for equality to be achieved.

2. Rome was a Mediterranean Empire, and that sea was always it's core. Italy and Iberia therefore start off with a stronger base than France and Germany, even if the the northern areas will do better in the end and have more strategic depth. This provides for a more balanced post-collapse situation than you usually seem to acknowledge.

3. Even with a strongly unitary social context, before the US demonstrated working Federalist principles, reunification is always going to be a hotly contested thing between areas who have tasted independence and want to keep the way they do things.

4. The right distribution of competence can keep the different factions balanced for a long time.

5. While getting Gaul/Germania together might be relatively easy, keeping it together after the conquer dies is not so easy. Especially if other areas interfere in the inevitable succession dispute so as to keep the area divided.

6. The longer division lasts, the less unitary the social context becomes.

 

[thekingsguard]

A Norse-Slavic-Baltic *Novgorod Rus instead of a Kievan one ? Well, that's another possible outcome. It mainly requires Norse invasions, instead of Hunnic ones, to be the trigger for the formation of the third empire. I need to point out, however, that even IOTL Norse expansion pushed the formation of Rus in southern Russia and Ukraine.

Yes, thats what I was getting it. I do agree that it is likely they would expand into Ukraine as well, bet this way sll of the steppe people that drive through the region won't just wipe them out.

 

[Eurofed]

The Hunnic-Slavic-Gothic state in Ukraine seems a bit...odd. I think Germania itself should be included in the NRE (Northern Roman Empire), because Germania that have been undergo a Romanization would be very suitable for a new center of the empire (huge population base, etc).

All the more reason why Germania stays in the WRE.

And also because I have a feeling that the combined Slavic-Gothic-Hunnic invasions will be able to breach the Roman fortifications at Vistula-Dniester line (during the period of civil wars, maybe?).

Those invasions are much smaller in size than OTL Germanic-Hunnic invasions, however, and don't occur at the same time as the division of the empire, so no, it doesn't happen.

So the three empires would be Mesopotamia-based, Mediterranean-based, and Germania-based empires...

Nice attempt, but no. It is a Middle East-based, European-based, and Russian-based empire trio.

 

[Eurofed]

Yes, thats what I was getting it. I do agree that it is likely they would expand into Ukraine as well, bet this way sll of the steppe people that drive through the region won't just wipe them out.

This is a rather compelling argument. It requires to exchange the Huns for the Norse as the trigger for the formation of the third empire, and delay its creation by some centuries, but the butterflies involved seem reasonably plausible. The Norse do have a better record for successful state-building than the steppe peoples, including the Huns. So it would be a Norse-Slavic-Gothic-Baltic empire, more akin to OTL Norse-Slavic-Baltic Rus with an extra Gothic contribution.

I assume you sugget borders rather akin to OTL Kievan Rus, do you ? Since we delay the formation of the third empire to the Norse Age, then I suppose we should include the formation of Norse kingdom(s) in Scandinavia, too. I would expect that the *WRE does not bother to conquer low-value Scandinavia, even in retalition to Norse incursions, with the exception of Halland and Scania, which allow the *WRE to control the Baltic trade routes.

Hmm, I wonder about possible butterflies on India and China from a survival of strong *WRE and *ERE in western Eurasia that could manifest by the Norse Age. For once, no Muslim invasion of India is going to happen.

 

[Aranfan]

I'm not saying that a fragmented Europe is inevitable, just that the points I cited need to be addressed in any mega-rome or surviving-rome TL.

 

[Eurofed]

1. The Alps and Pyrenees are significant militarily just by being there. Yes, anyone competent can get past them, but they require a lot more preparation and time than attacking over a flat plain. This more easily allows for equality to be achieved.

It's not a relevant factor unless the power equation on both sides of the barrier are already close to balance. Otherwise, history of Italy's invasions shows that a stronger power is always going to smash its way through and the mountains are not a significant factor.

2. Rome was a Mediterranean Empire, and that sea was always it's core. Italy and Iberia therefore start off with a stronger base than France and Germany, even if the the northern areas will do better in the end and have more strategic depth. This provides for a more balanced post-collapse situation than you usually seem to acknowledge.

Romanization of Germania, if the conquest occurs in the early first century CE, which is the by far most likely case, means that by the end of the OTL lifespan of the Roman Empire, Northern Europe shall have become much, much more developed than OTL, akin to the High Middle Age. European economy and society shall hence have a distrubution of population and resources similar to High Middle Age Europe, only with no feudalism, much more balanced between the Med and Northern Europe. In this situation, while it is plausible that part or all of Italy, Iberia, and North Africa come under *ERE instead of *WRE control, it is much less plausible that an isolated Iberian or Italian splinter manages to avoid absoption by a Northern empire.

3. Even with a strongly unitary social context, before the US demonstrated working Federalist principles, reunification is always going to be a hotly contested thing between areas who have tasted independence and want to keep the way they do things.

This flaty ignores the massive cultural and political appeal to unity on European collective consciousness which ongoing surivival and success of Rome beyond the OTL lifespan is going to have. It is bound to grow and reach China-like levels, where separatism is seen as treason to one's civilization.

4. The right distribution of competence can keep the different factions balanced for a long time.

Or it might never to happen in the right conditions, at the right moment.

5. While getting Gaul/Germania together might be relatively easy, keeping it together after the conquer dies is not so easy. Especially if other areas interfere in the inevitable succession dispute so as to keep the area divided.

History of Roman civil wars appears to indicate that splinters had such large sizes, and were so few in numbers, that a division between Gallia and Germania is not really likely to happen.

6. The longer division lasts, the less unitary the social context becomes.

History of Roman civil wars, like Chinese periods of disunity, seems to indicate that division never lasts long enough for this to become a significant factior.

 

[Aranfan]

I, again, don't have much time to respond, but I'll note this: Rome only had one period of disunity as bad as those which China routinely had, and it never reunified from that. And it wasn't for lack of trying either.

 

[Eurofed]

I, again, don't have much time to respond, but I'll note this: Rome only had one period of disunity as bad as those which China routinely had, and it never reunified from that. And it wasn't for lack of trying either.

The terminal fragmentation after the 5th century crisis doesn't count. Without the Germanic migrations, which Romanization of Germania removes, it's never going to happen to a surviving Rome. In the other civil wars, Rome showed a tendency to split in 2-4 entities, just like China.

 

[Aranfan]

The terminal fragmentation after the 5th century crisis doesn't count. Without the Germanic migrations, which Romanization of Germania removes, it's never going to happen to a surviving Rome. In the other civil wars, Rome showed a tendency to split in 2-4 entities, just like China.

China regularly had splits that lasted centuries. Rome only had one split that lasted more than a few decades.

 

[Eurofed]

China regularly had splits that lasted centuries. Rome only had one split that lasted more than a few decades.

It doesn't prove in any way that pre-Migration Period Rome had more tendency to permanent split that China, rather it seems to indicate the opposite. And as I said, the more Rome lasts, the more the attitude of Romans to unity is going to resemble the one of the Chinese.

 

[Aranfan]

It doesn't prove in any way that pre-Migration Period Rome had more tendency to permanent split that China, rather it seems to indicate the opposite. And as I said, the more Rome lasts, the more the attitude of Romans to unity is going to resemble the one of the Chinese.

My point is that Rome has a tendency to stay split if the reunification doesn't happen quickly.

 

[Eurofed]

My point is that Rome has a tendency to stay split if the reunification doesn't happen quickly.

The only possible evidence for this points to a East-West division, not any further.

 

[Eurofed]

Ok, I have changed the scenario and map so that the third empire is a Norse-Slavic-Gothic *Rus which arises from Norse settlement in the Baltic lands and in western Sarmatia, alongside the Dniepr and Volga trade routes, much like OTL Kievan Rus. This ought to make the third empire somewhat more resilient to steppe nomads' invasions (at least until the Mongols show up). It is anybody's guess which language this empire develops or adopts as a lingua franca, between Norse, Slavic, Gothic, Latin, and Greek influences.

 

[thekingsguard]

Ok, I have changed the scenario and map so that the third empire is a Norse-Slavic-Gothic *Rus which arises from Norse settlement in the Baltic lands and in western Sarmatia, alongside the Dniepr and Volga trade routes, much like OTL Kievan Rus. This ought to make the third empire somewhat more resilient to steppe nomads' invasions (at least until the Mongols show up). It is anybody's guess which language this empire develops or adopts as a lingua franca, between Norse, Slavic, Gothic, Latin, and Greek influences.

I'm happy to see my suggestions had an impact on this. I'm looking foreward to seeing this develop further.

 

[Aranfan]

The only possible evidence for this points to a East-West division, not any further.

In your opinion.

The split is by no means inevitable, and when I say it "tends" to be a certain way, I mean "tends" not "inevitably is so". There are many, many countervailing factors that could overcome this tendency, possibly indefinitely. That just didn't happen IOTL.

I still feel that Europe tends towards disunity while China tends towards unity.

 

[Eurofed]

In your opinion.

The split is by no means inevitable, and when I say it "tends" to be a certain way, I mean "tends" not "inevitably is so". There are many, many countervailing factors that could overcome this tendency, possibly indefinitely. That just didn't happen IOTL.

I still feel that Europe tends towards disunity while China tends towards unity.

The more Rome is allowed to survive, especially if it absorbed northern Europe, the more technological and cultural factors that drive Europe towards unity accumulate. Eventually a threshold may be reached, when it becomes an irreversible feature of the civilization, like it happened to China.

 

[Eurofed]

I'm happy to see my suggestions had an impact on this. I'm looking foreward to seeing this develop further.

Any other useful suggestions ?

 

[Aranfan]

The more Rome is allowed to survive, especially if it absorbed northern Europe, the more technological and cultural factors that drive Europe towards unity accumulate. Eventually a threshold may be reached, when it becomes an irreversible feature of the civilization, like it happened to China.

Eh, the Eotechnic (development of mechanical clockwork) was much more decentralist than the Paleotechnic (steam power). You're right about the cultural factors though. And the countervailing factors cut both ways, it is entirely possible for China to develop a permanent split, it's just a bitch to do so.