WI Europe of Three Empires

Eurofed

Banned
Let's assume that ITTL the Roman Empire suffers no collapse and expands early on to conquer Mesopotamia, all of Germania, Cimbria, Arabia, Nubia, Caledonia, Hibernia, (through the means discussed here, here, here, and here), up to the Vistula-Dniester and Zagros borders, and bonds Persia into vassal status. The 3rd century crisis is made much lesser in severity and permanent consequences by the lack of Germanic and Persian invasions to multiply its effects. So Rome never enters a death spiral with regression to manorialism. Roman economy and society continue the gradual transition to proto-capitalist market economy with decline and marginalization of slavery that had started in the early Roman Empire.

Germanic and Arab invasions of course do not occur because those peoples have long since being absorbed by Rome, and Islam is butterflied away. The Hunnic invasion and migrations by Slavic peoples and residual unassimilated Germanic (Gothic) peoples from Scandinavia are withstood and eventually absorbed into the empire or repulsed into Sarmatia. Likewise it happens for later Avar and Magyar invasions and Norse incursions.

However, at some point the Roman Empire suffers a permanent division into a *WRE and an *ERE when an emerging East-West religious split entrenches a dynastic crisis and the latent Latin-Greek linguistic divide into political and cultural antagonism. The split causes Persia to break vassalage.

The settlement of Norse peoples is largely diverted by *WRE strength to the Baltic lands and in western Sarmatia, alongside the Dniepr and Volga trade routes. Their mingling with Baltic, Slavic, and Gothic peoples causes a third empire, a partially-Romanized Norse-Slavic-Gothic *Rus, to emerge. Norse kingdoms eventually take shape in Scandinavia and Iceland as well.


2wr3ts8.png
 
Last edited:
Not too bad, but I think it may be far likelier that the third empire formed around Scandinavia and Western Russia rather than the Ukriane
 
Woah!!! First of how the heck did the Byzantines conqer all of Persia. They had a hard enough time holding just mesopatamia and now you want them to hold the whole freaking thing... ASB.... Also with sub a POD Romans have no chance to survive and you expect them to expand. Their was already a hunnic kindom in that area. Complete ASB this is IMHO
 
Persia is a Roman vassal, not directly conquered territory. I don't think this situation is ASB, just unlikely. I think *the Byzantines holding that much of Ethiopia is pretty unlikely though. I also don't think the Romans would be able to keep Persia under vassal status indefinately. Eventually some new dynasty would rebel, or some tribe from the steppes would come through, like the Seljuks.

Also, that Slavic-Gothic-Hunnic state in Ukraine isn't going to last long, unless they have gunpowder weapons or something.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Not too bad, but I think it may be far likelier that the third empire formed around Scandinavia and Western Russia rather than the Ukriane

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.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Woah!!! First of how the heck did the Byzantines conqer all of Persia. They had a hard enough time holding just mesopatamia and now you want them to hold the whole freaking thing...

Mesopotamia is conquered and Persia made a vassal, centuries before the WRE-ERE split occurs.

Their was already a hunnic kindom in that area.

Which collapsed after not too long, as nomadic empires typically did. Here the hypothesis is that Gothic and Slavic peoples, and the Huns, are repulsed by a much stronger Rome into southern Sarmatia, triggering the formation of Kievan Rus some centuries earlier.
 
Mesopotamia is conquered and Persia made a vassal, centuries before the WRE-ERE split occurs.



Which collapsed after not too long, as nomadic empires typically did. Here the hypothesis is that Gothic and Slavic peoples, and the Huns, are repulsed by a much stronger Rome into southern Sarmatia, triggering the formation of Kievan Rus some centuries earlier.


Oh!!! Srry I shouldve read the whole thing:eek: But how did Persia get vassalaized IMO that's borderline ASB the size is too much it was huge....
 

Eurofed

Banned
I think *the Byzantines holding that much of Ethiopia is pretty unlikely though.

Perhaps, although I think they would have little trouble holding north Sudan at the very least.

I also don't think the Romans would be able to keep Persia under vassal status indefinately. Eventually some new dynasty would rebel, or some tribe from the steppes would come through, like the Seljuks.

Quite possibly, which would make this a history of four empires for western Eurasia, actually. However, TTL Persia is quite likely going to be the underdog of the *ERE in the foreseeable future.

Also, that Slavic-Gothic-Hunnic state in Ukraine isn't going to last long, unless they have gunpowder weapons or something.

When the Mongols turn around, no doubt. Although ITTL gunpowder weapons could have been quite possibly invented in the 13th century. OTOH, it is quite possible that the *Kievan Rus successfully withstands the Avar and Magyar incursions.
 
Sigh. ASB scenario. A Roman Empire of such a size would balkanise, leading to a far worse Third Century Crisis, and a near impossibility to put things back together. I know you like big Empires, Eurofed, but your mega-Rome wank just doesn't work.
 
I'm thinking that when some powerful steppe tribe (Avars, Magyars, Khazars, Pechnegs, Mongols, you name it) comes along, that state on the Pontic Steppe won't stand a chance. They will be destroyed, just like the Visigoths were when the Huns invaded. Then, the remnants will try to enter the Roman Empire and you will have the same situation as the 4th and 5th centuries, only worse.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Sigh. ASB scenario. A Roman Empire of such a size would balkanise, leading to a far worse Third Century Crisis, and a near impossibility to put things back together. I know you like big Empires, Eurofed, but your mega-Rome wank just doesn't work.

Sigh, another fan of geographical determinism, a concept I long since stopped to take seriously altogether. Sorry.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I'm thinking that when some powerful steppe tribe (Avars, Magyars, Khazars, Pechnegs, Mongols, you name it) comes along, that state on the Pontic Steppe won't stand a chance. They will be destroyed, just like the Visigoths were when the Huns invaded. Then, the remnants will try to enter the Roman Empire and you will have the same situation as the 4th and 5th centuries, only worse.

But this *WRE is neither Balkanized feudal Europe, nor the moribund OTL 5th century Rome. They withstood the Huns already, it is wholly plausible they repel Avars and Magyars which were lighter fare than the Huns. And by the time Avars and Magyars show up, the Pontic Steppe state already got some centuries of settler existence, it is quite possible that the steppe invaders displace native rulers and place themselves on top, or fuse with the natives, without triggering large-scale migrations.
 
Mesopotamia is conquered and Persia made a vassal, centuries before the WRE-ERE split occurs.

I find it tremendously unlikely that Persia wouldn't make it's escape from vassalage when the ERE/WRE split happens. Persia is far enough away from the political core areas of the Roman Empire that a split or major crisis would let it slip it's leash fairly easily.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I find it tremendously unlikely that Persia wouldn't make it's escape from vassalage when the ERE/WRE split happens. Persia is far enough away from the political core areas of the Roman Empire that a split or major crisis would let it slip it's leash fairly easily.

Very good point. On second thoughts, I agree thay I should have indicated so in the writeup and map. Going to make the necessary adjustments. :D
 
Europe was not suited geographically for China-like empires. Rome would've eventually broken apart.

Your second sentence has no causual relationship to the first one. The first one implies that it would be a bitch to create or reconquer a European Empire, but once those areas are under control there is no innate reason for Rome to break apart.

I agree that once a split is established you're more likely to get a patchwork of states instead of a big empire again, but nothing innately forces the empire to fall apart, or for a split to get entrenched if it does happen.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Your second sentence has no causual relationship to the first one. The first one implies that it would be a bitch to create or reconquer a European Empire, but once those areas are under control there is no innate reason for Rome to break apart.

I agree that once a split is established you're more likely to get a patchwork of states instead of a big empire again, but nothing innately forces the empire to fall apart, or for a split to get entrenched if it does happen.

All true. Not to mention that historically, up to the Germanic migrations that entrenched fragmentation, the Roman Empire showed no substantial tendency to permanent fragmentation, except perhaps the East-West plsit, which gets indeed finalized ITTL. During its civil wars, Rome was reconquered to full unity again and again, so the thesis that Roman Europe was inevitably bound to fragmentation is disproved by its history. Apparently Roman legions were so good, and the cultural and political pull of Rome back to unity so strong, that the geographical barriers did not were a significant factor.
 
All true. Not to mention that historically, up to the Germanic migrations that entrenched fragmentation, the Roman Empire showed no substantial tendency to permanent fragmentation, except perhaps the East-West plsit, which gets indeed finalized ITTL. During its civil wars, Rome was reconquered to full unity again and again, so the thesis that Roman Europe was inevitably bound to fragmentation is disproved by its history. Apparently Roman legions were so good, and the cultural and political pull of Rome back to unity so strong, that the geographical barriers did not were a significant factor.


Eurofed. While I am not a geographical determinist, you do often underestimate the importance of geography. People want to do things their way, this means there are strong tendencies for any large empire to break apart. Additionally, Europe's geography is much more conducive to the survival of a patchwork of factions than China's is.

This is not to say that the various civil war disputes couldn't be resolved quickly enough to maintain the empire, or that a Napoleon or Alexander couldn't reunite a shattered empire, just that it's highly unlikely.

To keep a pan-European empire from shattering, and then staying shattered, you need both a strongly unitary cultural context and an unusually lopsided distribution of competence.

I am pessimistic regarding the long term survival of megaromes, but it is neither as ASB as some claim nor as likely as you make out.
 
Top