WI: German-Roman Empire vs. Slavic-Roman Empire

Which are your thoughts about this scenario (by 10-11th centuries)?

TwoRomes.png



The basic timeline behind this scenario would be the following:

- The ERE eventually falls to the Sassanians in the 570s/610s/you can choose.
- The western part of the new enlarged Empire is left to settle by Avars/Slavic tribes, which were allies to the Sassanians. This would be analogue when at some point Romans allowed German tribes to settle in the West in order to control peripheral lands they could not control anymore.
- The enlarged Sassanian Empire develops with time into a Slavic-Roman(Greek) West which is mostly (Nestorian) Christian and a still mostly Zoroastrian Iranian East, so at the end, they split up.
- The Sassanian Empire and their successors remain strong enough to fight back the surge of Muslim Arabs, but not enough to prevent some Islamic expansion into Egypt, the Nile Valley, Palestine etc.
- The German-Roman kingdoms of the West gradually merge into a Carolingian/WRE/HRE analogue which encompass most of the Nicene Christian peoples, in order to keep Nestorians/Muslim threat under control.

EDIT: Just for clarification, neither the RGE nor the SGE would be centralized entities at all, and the elites would be German(ic) in the West and Slav(ic) in the East.
 
Last edited:
The enlarged Sassanian Empire develops with time into a Slavic-Roman(Greek) West which is mostly (Nestorian) Christian and a still mostly Zoroastrian Iranian East, so at the end, they split up.
That seems the weakest part, I guess:
- that would be either the Eastern Sassanian Empire (with strong Greek/Roman/Slavic elements)
- or that would be the Western Slavic Greek/Roman Empire with Iranian elite;

a different independent entity/empire I mean.

And the Khazarian Khaganate would be a strong player in this game (from the Caucasian part) and it might devour this entity or snatching the juiciest Mesopotamian part from it so dividing Slavic/Avar/Roman Empire and the Iranians. Which is bad for the Iranian-Roman world. But the Khazars would inevitably clash against the Arabs, which is good for the world traditional world order.

* nice map! ))
 
I call unlikely. There was a reason the Roman empire didn't rule over Ireland, or Scotland. The Places were simply to expensive to set up an extractitive tax farming system to maintain order in the region. England while wealthy required 4 legions to hold making it at the same time more expensive. The Entire British Isles would be better served as petty kingdoms (A united Isles would be interested in meddling in Roman rule). And I have a hard time imagining Italians would be able to keep control of all those Germanic people. At a Certain point The Germans would try to move the center of the Empire north and I doubt the rest of the lands would do it.

And the Slavic Rome would have a horrendous time controlling Poland, and Ruthenia, especially being unable to hold the Greece it's self.

I don't mean to be harsh but the directions of political tension being pulled on these states make it unlikely they would survive more than a century or two. IMO Rome only ruled because their neighbors were somehow more decentralized, and they could only rule their massive empire through decentralized autonomy. Any attempt at centralizing would have been a failure, and once it's neighbors got their acts together they could smash through Romes decentralized rule.
 
I call unlikely. There was a reason the Roman empire didn't rule over Ireland, or Scotland. The Places were simply to expensive to set up an extractitive tax farming system to maintain order in the region. England while wealthy required 4 legions to hold making it at the same time more expensive. The Entire British Isles would be better served as petty kingdoms (A united Isles would be interested in meddling in Roman rule). And I have a hard time imagining Italians would be able to keep control of all those Germanic people. At a Certain point The Germans would try to move the center of the Empire north and I doubt the rest of the lands would do it.

And the Slavic Rome would have a horrendous time controlling Poland, and Ruthenia, especially being unable to hold the Greece it's self.

I don't mean to be harsh but the directions of political tension being pulled on these states make it unlikely they would survive more than a century or two. IMO Rome only ruled because their neighbors were somehow more decentralized, and they could only rule their massive empire through decentralized autonomy. Any attempt at centralizing would have been a failure, and once it's neighbors got their acts together they could smash through Romes decentralized rule.

The Roman-German Empire would be a sort of enlarged Carolingian/HRE entity as I pointed out in the comment.

It would be not centralized and Rome would not be the capital. And the British Isles would be sort of in thanks to the Norman vassalage.

And regarding Slavic-Roman Empire, the elite there would be replaced by Slavs like German elites replaced Roman ones in the West. So no 'Greeks controlling Poland', but rather the opposite.
 
Are these the only countries in the entire region?

I'd imagine that the existence of a massive Slavic empire right next to their borders would diffuse enough "knowledge" (to put it bluntly) to the Balts right north of them for them to create a nation by this time. The main reason why the Balts did not create a state until the 12th century IOTL was because they were isolated from the West for most of the time, which wouldn't be the case here.
 
Are these the only countries in the entire region?

I'd imagine that the existence of a massive Slavic empire right next to their borders would diffuse enough "knowledge" (to put it bluntly) to the Balts right north of them for them to create a nation by this time. The main reason why the Balts did not create a state until the 12th century IOTL was because they were isolated from the West for most of the time, which wouldn't be the case here.

Good point. I overlooked this issue.

However, Poland was an organized state and had adopted Christianity by the 11th century IOTL, so what would make the difference with a Poland just 'recognizing' the overlordship of an Emperor?
 
Good point. I overlooked this issue.

However, Poland was an organized state and had adopted Christianity by the 11th century IOTL, so what would make the difference with a Poland just 'recognizing' the overlordship of an Emperor?
Didn't you say that it was the Slavs ruling the Empire? If the heart of this nation was so close to the Balts, there would be much higher interaction between them and Western civilization.

The Baltic tribes were already divided into small tribal states and rapidly developing into a feudal society by this point IOTL, anyway.
 
Didn't you say that it was the Slavs ruling the Empire? If the heart of this nation was so close to the Balts, there would be much higher interaction between them and Western civilization.

The Baltic tribes were already divided into small tribal states and rapidly developing into a feudal society by this point IOTL, anyway.

Yes, the Slavic elites would rule it, but just like the Germanic did in the West, not possible as a centralized Empire. So, a similar entity to OTL Poland would exist.

Even if not centralized, I don't think that the main core would be in Poland. If the Sassanians would let the Slavs to settle in the Bosphorus, a Slavic-Greek Constantinople would continue as the capital, or maybe there would be not a fixed capital like in the West. If the Rus rises earlier than IOTL, Kyiv could be an alternate centre of power. I see Poland as peripheral in any case.
 
Top