WI: The Roman Empire Never Fell

What if the Roman Empire never fell?

Would the countries we know today have existed, brake away perhaps?
There is a possibility Hispana would not become Portugal and Spain. And the Scots and Celts may take
Britannia.

Would Latin and Greek be the dominant languages of the world?
I would say yes to this. It's seems obvious.

Would the Romans have expanded their territory eastward?
I think they may have held expeditions of the sort and if they reached India (which was already discovered) it would help for the next question.

What would happen to the the new world?
Possibly, they would sail west having held Ptolemy and Aristotle believed the world was round, the question was, is it the fastest way to India?

Would they conquer Scandinavia there is a higher possibility of they did not, and Leif Erikson would have found the new world without the Romans knowing.

What are you're thoughts on this?
 
Step 1. Define what you mean by roman empire.

Step 2. Define what you mean by fall.

Step 3. Figure out how to preserve the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire not falling is a consequence, not a point of divergence. Points of divergence are small - deaths, births, slightly different outcomes of battles and policies and other events in which random chance plays a significant factor. The survival of the Roman Empire is huge.

4. Once you know how your Roman Empire survives and in what form, only then can you have a meaningful discussion of consequences.

The Romans and Greeks had maritime contact with India and the East for centuries, btw.
 
Step 1. Define what you mean by roman empire.

We should assume that he means the classical Roman empire of Augustus, Nero and Trajan.

Would the countries we know today have existed, brake away perhaps?
There is a possibility Hispana would not become Portugal and Spain. And the Scots and Celts may take
Britannia.

Never ever. If Rome never falls, there is no reason for the existence of countries like France, Spain etc.

Would Latin and Greek be the dominant languages of the world?
I would say yes to this. It's seems obvious.

Not necessarily. Chinese and Hindi might prove quite strong as well and compete with Greek and Latin.

Would the Romans have expanded their territory eastward?

That depends on your POD. The Romans can expand eastward as long as the Parthians dominate Mesopotamia (for example during Trajan's reign), but with the Sassanids in the east its more a question of surviving than of expanding.

I think they may have held expeditions of the sort and if they reached India (which was already discovered) it would help for the next question.

Quite possibly, if Romans controlled Mesopotamia, we would see more Roman and Greek trade in the Indian Ocean (and in OTL, Roman merchants had a strong presence in India). Though, conquering India is another question.

Would they conquer Scandinavia there is a higher possibility of they did not, and Leif Erikson would have found the new world without the Romans knowing.

Leif Erikson is butterflied away once you change one atom in the 1st century.
If they have a good reason to conquer Scandinavia, they will do it. Don't forget that the Viking raids and invasions will not be possible if a strong Roman Empire exists.
 
Step 1. Define what you mean by roman empire.

The Roman Empire prior to 476 AD when Romulus Augustilius w

Step 2. Define what you mean by fall.

Step 3. Figure out how to preserve the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire not falling is a consequence, not a point of divergence. Points of divergence are small - deaths, births, slightly different outcomes of battles and policies and other events in which random chance plays a significant factor. The survival of the Roman Empire is huge.

4. Once you know how your Roman Empire survives and in what form, only then can you have a meaningful discussion of consequences.
The Roman Empire is The Empire which was ruled by Augustus and his successors

I consider the Fall of Rome in 476 AD by the Huns and the Fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 by the Turks the end of the Roman Empire, However, the Fall of the Roman Empire that I meant is actually called the demise of the Roman Empire, my mistake. At this time, the Goths, Visigoths and Vandals were attacking the Western half Roman Empire.

In this timeline I guess, the Romans were trained hard in the force of arms every male patrician and plebeian who was a citizen of Rome was trained as soldiers, all except the emperor and the senate.

Due to this the Romans had a strong force, every man had his armor ready in his home if there was a battle to be fought. Every city’s proconsul was also the general of the army in the area. In Rome, it was the same way, if the Emperor was not able to do his duties as a leader politically and for the people’s welfare the army had the right to terminate him. This is why Caligula and Nero were killed not being good generals.

The Germanic Tribes tried to invade Gaul and Hispania and Southern Italia. After a series of battles the Romans emerge victorious and the Goths and Vandals were banished. Due to this, the Huns wouldn’t have a straight path to Rome, Romulus Augustilius wouldn’t have been Emperor and the Huns wouldn’t have conquered Rome in 476 AD.

Is this okay?
 
Top