WI No Roman Empire following the Republic

What if the Roman Republic still rises to become the superpower of the Mediterranean of OTL, then collapses into civil war, anarchy, and despotism, more or less as it did OTL -- but then, instead of its influence being bound together under the power of a single Principate as OTL, the "empire" of the former republic remained carved up by warlords, not to be reunified for at least a couple of centuries.

How is history in the western world changed by this? Try looking at this in the broadest possible light, over the longest time possible; for example, does this post-collapse world effectively revert to a new Hellenistic Era? Even more broadly, is the legacy of Rome in western history (millennia from our PoD) now greatly diminished?
 
What if the Roman Republic still rises to become the superpower of the Mediterranean of OTL, then collapses into civil war, anarchy, and despotism, more or less as it did OTL -- but then, instead of its influence being bound together under the power of a single Principate as OTL, the "empire" of the former republic remained carved up by warlords, not to be reunified for at least a couple of centuries.

How is history in the western world changed by this? Try looking at this in the broadest possible light, over the longest time possible; for example, does this post-collapse world effectively revert to a new Hellenistic Era? Even more broadly, is the legacy of Rome in western history (millennia from our PoD) now greatly diminished?
You demand too much, I guess.
I mean it's plausible to see the Roman statehood collapse and fall, when a few bad things happen at the same time, like invasion of Cuimbri and Teutones simultaneously with some Roman civil wars, slave rebellions and a couple of other wars.
But in this case if Rome survives - it would be too little to disintegrate, that would return to conservative old facioned city-state format.

But if you want big Roman republic to disintegrate into parts ruled by warlords... that's extremely difficult to imagine. There was nothing like this in OTL, not even close, not a hint; that would be total un-Roman.
The closest you can get is keeping triumvirate as long as possible, making it stick, making it a tradition; so division the Roman Empire into 3 parts, into three independent Roman entities.
Ok, that would be definitely a stretch, but we can make four independent Roman polities, jelous of each other and trying to keep this division permanently.
But I am not sure, that this would qualify as "warlords", those are supposed to be stable dynasties...
 
@Russian So what would have happened had, for exampke, Octavian lost the Battle of Actium? He'd still be top dog in the west, I'd think; and what are the prosoects here for Antony and Cleopatra in the east?
 
@Russian So what would have happened had, for exampke, Octavian lost the Battle of Actium? He'd still be top dog in the west, I'd think; and what are the prosoects here for Antony and Cleopatra in the east?
Octavian losing the Battle of Actium shows everybody that he doesn't deserve to be top dog; most naturally Antony does. I mean the whole Roman Empire, East and West.
That's why this division the Empire in two was not stable at this period - one battle and 'the winner takes it all'...

If the Empire is divided into three (better four) parts - there is/are other emperor(s) helping the loser and thus saving this system; that's a bit more stable.
 
Top