Just to be clear, this is fiction. I fully realize that this scenario is not my most realistic one. And it is more about the world building, as well as being a fun thought experiment, than actually predicting what would've happened.
I noted something very strange which is that the British would still have the Industrial Revolution and become more advanced than Rome, but we have evidence that showed Rome had early Industrial style factories before they collapsed, so idk if Britain would still be able to out compete Rome
just to be clear, Julius Caesar was never appointed as first Roman emperor, but as "dictator perpetuus" (the dictator was a charge in the Roman political system given to a person in order to govern with special powers in exceptional situations, normally the executive power was managed by two consuls), his nephew too, Ottaviano Augusto, wasn't actually the first emperor, but was appointed as a Prince, in fact the political asset of the Roman territory was named princedom
I don’t think Rome would adopt feudalism simply because feudalism developed as a result of the collapse of Rome. Europe became war ravaged and very dangerous and so banding under a social hierarchy was necessary. With Rome still around I can’t see that happening.
@@eunaoseivireifanfiqueir2529 And they already had dealt with that through governors, regional prefects, and other systems. How do you think the Roman Empire held the entire Mediterranean in our timeline for literal hundreds of years?
I think Rome would conquer Arabia’s weak divided kingdom states, before the cultist pe//d/0 prophet would. They thought about conquering certain parts of the region before, just after the Egyptian/Jewish campaigns. They would think about doing it again, if they had the spare resources and extra manpower to do it (unlike in our timeline, where it was just Byzantine focusing in fighting against Persia, after the failed campaigns in Europe thanks to the plague).
@@memezoffuckery3207 you have been on this site for at least 9 years, you play call of duty and your youtube account is literally called ¨memez of *fuckery* ¨ yet you censor the word pedo whilst degrading the second largest religion in the world???
@@spacedoutorca4550 and how do you think they fell? One of the reasons Rome fell was just because it was to big to handle at the time. That’s why Diocletian split Rome to west and east which messed up Rome even more. Some emperors just became maniacs with so much land and power they had. One bad emperor could lead to Rome falling. And You couldn’t even say Rome had that. Many Roman emperors died because of generals or senates assassinating them. And usually emperors wouldn’t even listen to what the senate said they would just do what they wanted. It’s more like one person had control and is manipulating everyone else to maintain his status as the emperor. An emperor has full control in our timeline nothing else mattered but them. In the Roman world a emperor couldn’t trust anyone not even there best friend or sibling. An example is Commodus’s sister trying to kill Commodus. Another example is Brutus (Julius’s best friend) killing Julius Caesar and the senate killing Caligula (Caligula in a way deserved it). And also Caligula killing Tiberius.
Your alternate history videos are so much better than any other channel's. You show detail by detail and every border change and describe what happens to said territory even after its lost. Very nice video!
Losing Egypt/Africa would be a lot more critical, that's where all the food was. And Slavs were a germanic tribe that popped up around the 4th century. Celts separated from Britain because Britain wasn't protected by romans. I don't see whats stopping romans from simply invading England/bretonia. Also you have to consider Civil war.
It would more "realistic" to have Rome completely break apart for no more than century and later reunite, much like China. A bit as if the Franks (or another german warband) did not split, kept conquering and unified with Byzantium.
Here's an idea that's somewhat related to this one: What if Rome never invaded Dacia?The point of departure would be during Caesar's Civil war with either Burebista deciding not to send Akornion to Pompey and remaining neutral in the civil war which could open up later diplomatic options for Rome and not sour relations at all,or with Burebista deciding that Caesar would be the better ally and sending Akornion to Caesar instead of Pompey to create an alliance and fight on his side,resulting in Dacia gaining some goodwill with Rome and Burebista possibly also the extra bit of loyalty from his nobles from the successful fighting in Rome,which could be just enough to keep them from assasinating him. On the short term this wouldn't change too much as Caesar would still be assasinated,though his plans after the civil war would probably be changed so that instead of fighting Dacia and then going to Persia to fight them as well to use the Dacians that are now his allies in some way or another,with the only real important change being that Dacia would instead of becoming an enemy of Rome become an ally of Rome which without Dacia collapsing from Burebista's assasination would likely continue to be allies in the future as well,at least for a while. In the long term however this could have an extremely major butterfly effect because Dacia would instead of just being a speed bump be more like a brick wall to migratory tribes as they wouldn't be genocided by the romans later on decimating their population ,instead still remaining a tightly packed wall of people who thought themselves immortal who were renowned for their capabilities in battle,making for a pretty hard to pierce wall which could very well save Rome from a lot of the problems it had irl with migratory tribes as many of the big ones came from the east and attacked through Dacia which in this timeline would if not outright stop them thin them down to a level Rome could deal with much more easily. This would result in a timeline where instead of just Rome there are 2 major powers in Europe,with Rome's border actually likely being helped tremendously by Dacia due to it if it wouldn't have broken up during Burebista's rule taking up a good majority of Rome's european border,from western Austria all the way to the Black sea. This would take a lot of pressure off the Romans if they could maintain good relations with the Dacians,especially since it's unlikely after the massive expansion the Dacians had during Burebista's rule to expand much more,at most only taken parts of south-western ukraine and the Bosporan kingdom over before stopping completely to start trying to centralize and possibly change the ethnic map of europe rather drastically.
It was just to simplify things. In practical terms he was an emperor, and it was due to him Rome from then on had emperors. But yes, technically Augustus was the first and Caesar was "just" a dictator.
a touch unrealistic, but ok. rome wasn't this unstoppable power, if they hadn't done anything about internal rot, the romans would've still collapsed or remained a loose federation with rampant corruption and an overall declining vibe, rome relied on conquest to get new slaves, not conquering anything for so many years wouldn't be good. the original caliphate used light cavalry, and the romans used heavy infantry, the light cavalry can just harass their infantry and run away, keep exhausting them, theres no way the romans can defend against the caliphate, sure they could slow them down but north aafrica would still be conquered by the caliphate also, the roman trade routes would have already been blocked by the caliphate, since most trade routes were over land and the ones over sea would require them to cross the red sea, which is controlled by the caliphate, losing egypt would just mean losing a huge grain supply to the roman empire, it wouldnt cause them to try and search for some mysterious continent the vikings had rumours about. i do not believe that the romans would've taken any interest into the americas, since the vikings managed to keep canada a relative secret from outsiders for all those centuries, rome, ravaged by famines caused by not having egypt would be stuck dealing with internal chaos instead of trying to search for america, even more unlikely is the romans having large colonies in the caribbean but not in the fertile plains of the rust belt, even IF the romans had gone and searched for the americas, they would go through the north, as thats what the vikings would have told them, the romans were not very focused on navy and were more of a land force, they would not have had established small colonies in africa. yet again, its the same as the caliphate with the mongols but even more effective, the mongols can just keep charging in shooting their arrows and then charging out, the roman heavy infantry is helpless against them due to cavalry archers just being too op.
You make great points. But remember that Roman military strategy and government would likely change a lot during this time. It would adapt to new situations. Still, great points. I wasn't going for a very realism focused scenario, more so one that can be entertaining, where Rome becomes a civilization much like China. Since there were already so many parallels between them.
@@Neatling Also one thing to point out, China experienced technological stagnation and economic stagnation for many centuries (if not millennia) and it was due to the fact that it was such a large civilization with so many resources and a near infinite source of wealth and population that the leaders and governors just got lazy and never strived to develop. I'd expect the same thing to happen to the Romans. Also a little suggestion i have is for you to elaborate on how Rome reforms and such, that would make it more interesting to watch.
@@geno3911 Very true, that is for one also why they would be pushed around by the technologically advancing Britannia for quite some time. I will also be making more parts to the scenario. This is supposed to be an overview of the history of this world. Just scratching the surface a bit. The next episode will likely be one focusing specifically on Rome today. Looking at how it reformed, it's ethnic and linguistic makeup, administrative divisions etc.
The bizantine empire adapted to the mongol invasions, and stopped them. Roman infantry could get killed if they got out of their walls, but if they remained in their forts light cavarly could not do anything. Rome had also good cavalry, so it would just take a failed assault of a city or a cavarly battle won by the romans for the chaliphate to loose a lot of importance, since the roman infantry could just siege and take everything. Plus, it's not like the vikings kept the secret of canada, they found it like they found greenland. A waste land that they tried to colonize but got killedby natives. It's not like canada was a secret, it just had little to no importance
@@Placeholder333 romans used heavy cavalry, they physically cannot match up against the horse mounted archers of the mongols unless they built a fort line in th ehills on anatolia like the byzantines did
@@kaylen4930 You are very off. North Africa was Christian because of the Roman Empire, and the reason they are Islamic now is because of the Arabic invasions. The point of departure for a timeline this could be if the Arab army faced a catastrophic defeat around Suez and were never able to break into North Africa again.
Too be honest By the 1500s Roman Naval power would begin to crumble as technological advancement by others would soon go to outcompete romes Old grand power meaning at some point Its Naval dominance would fall apart But its Ground dominance would continue to grow And thats why i love this video because it pointed it out :)
Roman naval power crumbled in the 1st and 2nd century, but was revamped in the 3rd and 4th, but crumbled again in the 5th, but was revamped in the 6th and 7th centuries. And it crumbled a few more times.
Rome: *Controls all of Europe has the longest Coast ever in history* Britanni and Scandinavia: "haha you no no ships we more ships haha" Yes i am poking fun at that logic i love your vids mate but I’d like to point out that when you consider that Rome had so many overseas colonies i do not see them not having a Navy that outnumbers all the navies of the rest of world combined
Just a clarification, Julius Caesar was never an emperor. Shortly before his assassination, the Senate gave him the title of ' Dictator for Life.' It would be his adopted heir and nephew, Octavius, who became Augustus- the First Imperator ( Latin for Emperor) of Rome.
This was fun to watch but ultimately I think there were too many similarities with how the things unfolded in real life as for such a massive change like the Roman Empire surviving and basically the whole of Europe being one country for 1500 years. I do believe Europe would've stagnated without the internat competition it experienced in real life and would not be able to dominate the world the way they did in this video. Also Lithuania would never be a threat to the Romans, the Roman Empire would outnumber it like 100:1 population-wise and there's no reason for Lithuania to have economic or technological advantage to give them a fighting chance with this disparity, the Baltic states were some of the least densly populated and least urbanised areas in medieval Europe.
Possible, but I'm skeptical. It would be extremely busy just existing, as there would be frequent wars with the Romans. Russia would also be much less developed, as they have basically no access to the ocean. But in my scenario there certainly has been some Slavic influence in western Siberia just east of the Urals, where I imagine some hybrid culture would emerge.
I don't think you understand how powerful Rome would be if it controlled basically ALL of Europe... There's no way that Britannia could have won against Rome...
Well you could say the same about Japan compared to China in OTL. Technology simply allowed the Japanese to out compete them for a long time. It would be a very similar situation with Rome and Brittania. It's actually kind of an interesting coincidence that Mainland Europe, excluding Scandinavia/British isles, is around the same size as China. And the British Isles are around the same size as Japan. The difference in population would also be around the same. With China having around 10 times as many people as Japan, and Europe having around 10 times as many people as the British Isles. But of course population numbers would be different in this timeline. And Brittania didn't "win" against Rome. They simply industrialized, and managed to defeat Rome on the seas, much like Japan did against China in our world. But Brittania would never manage to conquer mainland Rome, and Rome would eventually industrialize, becoming a more powerful nation than Brittania once again.
I don’t think that, after Rome conquered Germania and Dacia the would lose Brittania, simply because of the fact that they could pull legions from Germania which, is now pacified. I also think the Rome would DEFINITELY, not let Egypt have any independence because Egypt was Rome’s most valuable province outside of Italy. Rome would also probably focus the military efforts towards the east due to the fact the the east was much more developed than Scandinavia or Russia. After Rome made colonies in places like India, the Caribbean, and west Africa I do not think they would lose those colonies that quickly because of how valuable they are for trade.
It would be interesting to postulate the development of Latin in a surviving Roman Empire and its possible dialects in 'Cornelia' and other areas of the world.
Just a proposal! Make a video of Europe consisting of 7 Empires and 10 Kingdoms (in order of population): 1. Russian Empire 2. German Empire 3. French Empire 4. British Empire 5. Greek Byzantine Empire 6. Italian West Roman Empire 7. Spanish Empire and 1. Kingdom of Poland 2. United Kingdom of Scandinavia 3. United Kingdom of Benelux, 4. Kingdom of Yugoslavia 5. Kingdom of Wallachia & Moldavia 6. Kingdom of Hungary 7. Kingdom of Czechs & Slovaks 8. Kingdom of Portugal 9. Kingdom of Bulgaria 10. United Kingdom of Baltic
I do have a list, and I write down all the suggestions I get. But which scenario I choose from that list isn't really set in stone, I might change my mind when I start researching a topic. And as this is just a hobby, and not my full-time job or anything, it unfortunately takes a long time to get to all the suggestions I get.
As for which video I will make next, I do in fact know it will be one linking all my viewers to a collaboration video I did with a larger channel. I will also probably be making another irredentism video at some point, more parts to this scenario, and then of course move on to a new scenario later on. I don't know which scenario it will be after this one yet. I also plan on experimenting with a few videos that aren't history related here and there. An example of that would be my "what if RUclips channels were countries" video.
@Paul Frei Fuck no, the USA wouldn't be the new Rome. It has a lot of better options: the Carolingian empire, the Bizantine empire, the Spanish and Portuguese empires, First colonial French empire etc. All former territories of Rome, all great empires.
The Middle Ages woulda been a lot different, and that would alter history a lot, seeing as how after the Middle Ages came the Renaissance and the European Exploration. Rome would easily be the leading superpower and anything(like I said before) past the fall of Western Rome can pretty much be erased and rewritten. Also I'm a dumb 12-year-old so please correct me on anything I might've said wrong
According to the Kardashev scale; Human civilization is currently at a Type 0 Civilization here on earth. Had the Western Roman Empire not fallen, civilization's current level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy it is capable of harnessing and using would be at a Type 1 Civilization perhaps even crossing over into a Type 2 Civilization at this point. The scale is hypothetical, and refers to energy consumption on a cosmic scale. Various extensions of the scale have since been proposed, including a wider range of power levels (Types 0, IV, and V) and the use of metrics other than pure power (e.g., computational growth or food consumption). A civilization "close to the level currently achieved on Earth, with an energy consumption of ≈4×1019 erg/sec" (4×1012 watts). A Type I civilization is usually defined as one that can harness all the energy that reaches its home planet from its parent star (for Earth, this value is about 2×1017 watts), which is about four orders of magnitude higher than the amount currently achieved on Earth, with an energy consumption of ≈2×1013 watts by 2020. The astronomer Guillermo A. Lemarchand defined Type I as a level close to today's terrestrial civilization, with an energy capacity equivalent to Earth's solar irradiance, between 1016 and 1017 watts.
He declared himself dictator for life, just before his assassination. The word emperor is defined as "a sovereign ruler of an empire". Which he certainly was, even if only for a hot second before his death. But yes, Augustus was the first "real" emperor, that actually lived to rule the empire. I just thought it was clear what I meant, as I also mentioned his assassination. But apologies if there were any misunderstandings there.
I think it would be more interesting if The Romans instead of conquering Poland and Ukraine would try securing the Mediterranean or either pushing until the Persian gulf and Novgorod being a Scandinavian puppet while the Slavs would do Thier own settling the south such as the black sea
I would have to learn a lot more about writing, and need the money for getting it published which I don't really have as a freshman college student. But I might consider writing in the future. And don't forget this will be a series!
2:30 They only converted to the religion after the Germanic tribes (that had been influenced by the Abrahamic sect) had took over the capital. The last remanence of the polytheistic religion, was convinced of the Abrahamic deity being true, because it was more powerful than their own gods in the barbarian campaigns.
Ngl,seeing how similar the situation between Rome and China in this world is,I could totally see them having some sort of alliance to regain their former glory,seeing the world as one where the weaker nations teamed up on them and humiliated them far too much and need to be punished severely for their insolance (aka being usual superiority complex Rome and China)
Wow! that was a pretty harsh fall. What? Fall of rome? Byzantine Empire? Julius Caesar Dead? Those are some wacky ideas! Come on, let's get back to hunting.
They were lost as part of the treaty following the war, and became the fully independent nations of Mauritania, Egypt and Assyria. In modern times they still have close ties with Rome, and rely on them for defense, much like Europe relies on the US in our world. The change was minor, as they are still close to Rome. But since they are fully independent, they aren't shown as Roman tributaries from then on. You will get a clearer picture of their relationship with Rome today in future episodes.
I enjoyed the story telling. As for Rome in this timeline based on the video never was split causing them to split up their forces. A united empire was always better in the long term. It is sad they didn't figure out a better way to govern and run their military. As for the Cornelias would be a major issue. As they would likely have retained all the knowledge of inventions. The Roman road system and aqueducts would be a big improvement. They knew how to build sewers and they had their own version of an analog computer. If they had the situation shown in this video. Rome likely would have looked in past inventions and found the steam engine. The Roman colonies would benefit from this invention as they could produce things at a much greater rate. Rome having gun powder and manufacturing would see them winning far more engagements. The Romans would do its best to not allow Britannia or Scandinavia to have gun powder. Their push into the new world would be very fast and likely see an explosion in population far earlier as food production chains are increased. The Romans also had manage to steal the secret to make silk. So the silk road trade would die off. Thus Persia would be weaker for it. The experiences in making full cities in Germania would have groomed them for settling in the new world. The gold coming in from the Americas would be huge along with slaves. The native Americans would have all been enslaved along with African nations they could take over. They in our world knew of all of North Africa. So they would had an idea about the ivory coast.
you could've done something cool with the great lakes, instead of leaving them blank for most of history, maybe make them british or scandinavian, since they both could control the st. lawrence
My dear friend .... 100 years after Trajan the empire was almost to be named Dacian Empire , so .... no use to see anything after min 1:52..... as you have no ideea about that era geopolitics....
@@Neatling my youtune just closed itself while watching this video and after it told me that it got deleted i pressed watch again (on the recommendations) and i saw it again
It was pretty disappointing that this was basically just real life already but with bigger countries. I love BIG COUNTRY more than most, the borders at the end are very nice, but still it was dissapointing to see things be so so similar politics wise. Rome would have industrialized a lot faster due to their esrly steam engine. They likely would have colonized America a lot faster too. And whats with this weird idea some people have of everything always eventually becoming a democracy? Rome and Greece both stopped being democracies on their own why would they go back? They should have remained authoritarian, but besides that it was nice. Although Rome really should have eventually put down their historic middle Eastern rivals. Oh yeah, worst part was probably decolonization. It was really the Marshall plan and the economic collapse of 2 world wars back to back that forced them to abondon their colonies. Considering they had even less in this time line they easily should have been able to make all their territories besides India British homelands.
That will be covered in future episodes! I plan on covering all the major nations. I haven't completely decided on it yet, but I imagine there would be both Greek and Latin speaking communities in the colonies. But Latin would be the most widespread. Right now I'm thinking The United Provinces will be majority Latin speaking (A dialect of Latin that does differ a bit from the one spoken over in Europe). But there will be a few greek speaking regions, and Greek will be a popular secondary language. So overall, most would speak variations of Latin. But with smaller Greek communities, centered round specific regions. And with widespread use of Greek as a language of Science and Philosophy. There might also be some more Greek-leaning colonies in South Cornelia/America. But again, I still haven't completely decided, or written all the scripts yet.
It didn't, the end... well we use roman roads, roman style education, roman names for the planets, roman political and legal system, roman religion it never left it just rebranded, look at how much land the Vatican owns, in technically foreign territories
🇮🇹😏WHAT IF MASSENTIUS WON? What if Maxentius had won at Ponte Milvio by eliminating Constantine forever? We cannot make serious calculations on the consequences, because we do not know all the variables that would have intervened in this new situation. We do not know how hard Maxentius' life would have been because, if he had lived for a short time, he would have had little influence on the fate of Rome. However, in the event of a long life we can reasonably assume that the city of Constantinople would never have been founded, and perhaps the empire would not have lived for another 1000 years as it did. But perhaps Rome would have survived, which would have returned to being not only the symbolic but also the political capital of the Empire, and the Western Emperors, residing there, would have prevailed over those of the East. Maxentius in Rome would have returned his political and military prerogatives to the Senate; the restoration of an imposing garrison stationed in Rome and Italy, made up of praetorians, equites singulares and urban cohorts (urbaniciani), as in the time of the Severans. Rome would continue to adorn itself with splendid monuments, and the religion would continue preserving the myth of the origins, the legendary gods such as Romulus, Saturn, Janus, Hercules and the heroic ancestors such as Aeneas and Evander. Christianity would have become a religion like the others, joining the other oriental ones a bit gloomy and sacrificial, while the state religion would have preserved the ancient gods, perhaps incorporating the Sol Invictus, followed above all by the military. After all, Constantine honored him and celebrated until the last Christmas of his life (Natalis Solis Invicti), although he advocated his conversion to Christianity. Polytheism would continue to exist that allowed men to choose the divinity they liked most, without having to submit to the severe monotheism that occupied a good part of the day in prayers, ceremonies, sacrifices and continuous duties that invaded every corner of life. Maxentius was a man of good balance and in fact restored the freedom of worship, returned the properties confiscated from the Christian community during the persecution of 304 AD, but exiled the troubled bishops, imposing others of his own designation. He even built the first Christian Basilica in history, now known as San Sebastiano Fuori le Mura. In short, there would have been no persecutions towards other religions or heresies (about 600) within the same Christian religion, thus restoring the famous "pax deorum" so dear to Augustus, thus sharing the rights of "religio licita" with the other religions of empire, but without privileges and without horrifying predictions of the end of the world. There would be no tax exemption for Church property, nor would the state bear the expenses of the ecclesiastical community. We would not have had the "privileium foro" granted to the clerics, or rather the possibility of evading the Roman courts to be judged by the ecclesiastical ones of the diocese. Furthermore, there would have been no sanctions and persecutions against aruspicine and domestic divination, and conversions to Christianity no longer obligatory, under penalty of exile, alienation of property and even death. The new religion would remain within its limits following a little the fashion of the moment that saw several religions grow and shrink. Furthermore, the false "Testament of Constantine" which justified for centuries the papal claim to temporal power over the territories of the former Western Roman Empire, would never have existed. The Church would never have been transformed into a state, oppressing the people and constituting a fight against the power of the cardinals, with disastrous repercussions in Italy and in Europe. Above all we would not have had the terrible and nefarious Holy Office that tortured and burned heretics and witches, screaming in a bloody collective madness that only the Enlightenment will be able to extinguish. Maxentius would have continued to govern from Rome upon a senatorial appointment, in a reconstitution of the ancient Principality. The senators would once again seek glory, triumph and riches by making a military career by fighting valiantly and winning wars as army generals as they always had. Maxentius had reversed the changes made by Gallienus: the senators had reached the highest expression of the cursus honorum equestre, that is the Prefecture of the Praetorium, and had returned to lead the armies; the Emperor had returned to live permanently in the city as in the past and consequently to discuss the politics of the Empire with the Senate. The senators for their part would have circulated countless amounts of money to buy their consent, to finance games and carry out their political propaganda, thus avoiding the concentration and accumulation of land wealth, investing in trade rather than in large estates. With the preservation of the ideals of homeland, honor, virtue and glory, the city of Rome would not have been disarmed, as it actually was, in the face of the great invasions of the fifth century. Armies would not be moved from limes to large cities as Constantine did. The garrison of Rome and the praetorian fleets would be restored, the walls of Rome would be strengthened making it impregnable for any enemy army. Probably a victory against Constantine, which added to those already achieved against Severus, Galerius, Domizio Alessandro and Licinius, who from 308 to 312 tried in vain to recover Italy without ever succeeding, would have increased the prestige of Maxentius Invictus to a level such that various provinces of the West would have submitted to him or at least allied themselves without the need for him to invade them. Probably the same thing would have happened in Illyricum, where Maxentius was already in contact with a large part of Licinius's staff, which perhaps would have aligned himself with the new regime. Maxentius would have allied himself with Massimino Daia, would have reunified the West under him by expanding it to the Illyrian, and this would have given him control of all the seas surrounding the Italian peninsula as well as possession of the best recruitment basin in the whole empire. . Residing in Rome also gave him authority over his colleague Massimino Daia, to whom he would have gladly left the East and the management of the Persian problem. Both were pagans, and without the ambition of being the only rulers. The restoration of the political, symbolic and moral supremacy of Rome over all the other cities of the Empire, would certainly have provoked a turnaround at a military and economic level. Perhaps the Eastern Empire survived because it was richer and more populous than the West, but above all because it did not have to fight on two fronts as it had to do in the West. Perhaps it would not have been easy to revive the ancient senatorial class and the world of values it carried, because the world had changed and could have sparked a military revolt by the non-senatorial elite, especially the Illyrian generals who had dominated in recent times. decades, since they occupied many levers of military power. Maxentius was also the first to impose forced "donations" on the senators so that they could finance not only the army but public works. That is the direct participation of the aristocratic elite in the maintenance of the state machine, in exchange for the power and prerogatives returned. This went against the trend of the military Emperors, who preferred to let the Senators freely accumulate their wealth as long as they did not interfere in the struggle for power. In short, a restoration of that Mos Maiorum that Maxentius strove to revive. In the fifth century the strategic defense of Italy was painful, the imperial army was reduced to just over 30 thousand men, unable to defend Italy alone in the face of hordes of 40-50 thousand warriors like those of Alaric, for example, who in fact he sacked Rome undisturbed. Another notable contrast was religion, many aristocrats wanted to become bishops rather than generals, because the ecclesiastical elite influenced not only the people but also the emperors, receiving rich privileges and great power. Surely if Maxentius had won at Ponte Milvio we would not have had, since 312 and for the next 100 years, the impoverishment of the Italic defensive system, but would have strengthened it, restoring absolute control of the Mediterranean and the connection with Africa. and its supplies of grain, thus avoiding the great invasions of the fifth century with a minimum of losses: after all, from the beginning Rome always had to defend its borders, and it did so very well. But even afterwards, we would not have had the forced imposition of Christianity as a state religion, we would not have undergone the compulsory conversions on pain of loss of property and death, we would not have had the religious wars pertinent to monotheistic religions, we would not have had the Crusades and we would not have had to give up Latin due to the closure of schools. Literacy, love of country, respect for the laws, divorce to women granted by Augustus would have been maintained and above all they would not have demolished many wonderful monuments and masterpieces of architecture, sculpture and painting.
Interesting but a bit too deterministic. It parrels our history too much, and much of the developments and movements of our history could easily be butterflied away.
For Rome/Byzantium not to have fallen, the Middle East and Egypt would need not to have been lost, Arabia taken under Imperial control and whatever it was that became Islam strangled at birth.
Just to be clear, this is fiction. I fully realize that this scenario is not my most realistic one. And it is more about the world building, as well as being a fun thought experiment, than actually predicting what would've happened.
It matters on creativity and historic knowledge which you have both, yet i'm impress how could you balance this universe .
What happened to the Roman territory in North Africa
I noted something very strange which is that the British would still have the Industrial Revolution and become more advanced than Rome, but we have evidence that showed Rome had early Industrial style factories before they collapsed, so idk if Britain would still be able to out compete Rome
Come on, mate It's perfect :) To me, your best video (yeah, I'm Rome fan girl lol)
just to be clear, Julius Caesar was never appointed as first Roman emperor, but as "dictator perpetuus" (the dictator was a charge in the Roman political system given to a person in order to govern with special powers in exceptional situations, normally the executive power was managed by two consuls), his nephew too, Ottaviano Augusto, wasn't actually the first emperor, but was appointed as a Prince, in fact the political asset of the Roman territory was named princedom
I don’t think Rome would adopt feudalism simply because feudalism developed as a result of the collapse of Rome. Europe became war ravaged and very dangerous and so banding under a social hierarchy was necessary. With Rome still around I can’t see that happening.
they would struggle with the size of the territory
@@eunaoseivireifanfiqueir2529 And they already had dealt with that through governors, regional prefects, and other systems. How do you think the Roman Empire held the entire Mediterranean in our timeline for literal hundreds of years?
I think Rome would conquer Arabia’s weak divided kingdom states, before the cultist pe//d/0 prophet would.
They thought about conquering certain parts of the region before, just after the Egyptian/Jewish campaigns. They would think about doing it again, if they had the spare resources and extra manpower to do it (unlike in our timeline, where it was just Byzantine focusing in fighting against Persia, after the failed campaigns in Europe thanks to the plague).
@@memezoffuckery3207 you have been on this site for at least 9 years, you play call of duty and your youtube account is literally called ¨memez of *fuckery* ¨ yet you censor the word pedo whilst degrading the second largest religion in the world???
@@spacedoutorca4550 and how do you think they fell? One of the reasons Rome fell was just because it was to big to handle at the time. That’s why Diocletian split Rome to west and east which messed up Rome even more. Some emperors just became maniacs with so much land and power they had. One bad emperor could lead to Rome falling. And You couldn’t even say Rome had that. Many Roman emperors died because of generals or senates assassinating them. And usually emperors wouldn’t even listen to what the senate said they would just do what they wanted. It’s more like one person had control and is manipulating everyone else to maintain his status as the emperor. An emperor has full control in our timeline nothing else mattered but them. In the Roman world a emperor couldn’t trust anyone not even there best friend or sibling. An example is Commodus’s sister trying to kill Commodus. Another example is Brutus (Julius’s best friend) killing Julius Caesar and the senate killing Caligula (Caligula in a way deserved it). And also Caligula killing Tiberius.
Your alternate history videos are so much better than any other channel's. You show detail by detail and every border change and describe what happens to said territory even after its lost. Very nice video!
Nah, Monsieur Z is the best
@@porchofgeese_crockpot nah, a lot of his alternate histories are inaccurate and he is a borderline nazi.
@@duckie7178 Monzieur Z is literally a basic conservative and isn't anything like NatSoc. Cope and seethe
I like how he actually shows the borders and history unlike some showing useless stats being in a puddle of history, which is only like WW1 and WW2
Nah, alternate history hub is the GOAT
Losing Egypt/Africa would be a lot more critical, that's where all the food was. And Slavs were a germanic tribe that popped up around the 4th century. Celts separated from Britain because Britain wasn't protected by romans. I don't see whats stopping romans from simply invading England/bretonia. Also you have to consider Civil war.
Славяне отделились от балтов,а не германцев
@@ХищныйКроль О, круто
.. Slavs ain't Germanic. We separated from Balts..
Hmm, this timeline sounds *suspiciously familiar.*
but from where?
@@derpedlerp1237 I think from our own
@@clarkstrange2142 absolutely
@@clarkstrange2142 too similar
What is it familiar too?
This was well thought out. I look forward to more such videos.
It would more "realistic" to have Rome completely break apart for no more than century and later reunite, much like China.
A bit as if the Franks (or another german warband) did not split, kept conquering and unified with Byzantium.
Here's an idea that's somewhat related to this one:
What if Rome never invaded Dacia?The point of departure would be during Caesar's Civil war with either Burebista deciding not to send Akornion to Pompey and remaining neutral in the civil war which could open up later diplomatic options for Rome and not sour relations at all,or with Burebista deciding that Caesar would be the better ally and sending Akornion to Caesar instead of Pompey to create an alliance and fight on his side,resulting in Dacia gaining some goodwill with Rome and Burebista possibly also the extra bit of loyalty from his nobles from the successful fighting in Rome,which could be just enough to keep them from assasinating him. On the short term this wouldn't change too much as Caesar would still be assasinated,though his plans after the civil war would probably be changed so that instead of fighting Dacia and then going to Persia to fight them as well to use the Dacians that are now his allies in some way or another,with the only real important change being that Dacia would instead of becoming an enemy of Rome become an ally of Rome which without Dacia collapsing from Burebista's assasination would likely continue to be allies in the future as well,at least for a while. In the long term however this could have an extremely major butterfly effect because Dacia would instead of just being a speed bump be more like a brick wall to migratory tribes as they wouldn't be genocided by the romans later on decimating their population ,instead still remaining a tightly packed wall of people who thought themselves immortal who were renowned for their capabilities in battle,making for a pretty hard to pierce wall which could very well save Rome from a lot of the problems it had irl with migratory tribes as many of the big ones came from the east and attacked through Dacia which in this timeline would if not outright stop them thin them down to a level Rome could deal with much more easily. This would result in a timeline where instead of just Rome there are 2 major powers in Europe,with Rome's border actually likely being helped tremendously by Dacia due to it if it wouldn't have broken up during Burebista's rule taking up a good majority of Rome's european border,from western Austria all the way to the Black sea. This would take a lot of pressure off the Romans if they could maintain good relations with the Dacians,especially since it's unlikely after the massive expansion the Dacians had during Burebista's rule to expand much more,at most only taken parts of south-western ukraine and the Bosporan kingdom over before stopping completely to start trying to centralize and possibly change the ethnic map of europe rather drastically.
That would be a pretty cool alternate history
Bro made the what if of the what if
correction: Ceaser was never appointed emperor in OTL he was merely given the title of dictator, Augustus created the Roman Empire.
It was just to simplify things. In practical terms he was an emperor, and it was due to him Rome from then on had emperors. But yes, technically Augustus was the first and Caesar was "just" a dictator.
Vlaedimirvs Paevtin President/Governor of Rvssia.
a touch unrealistic, but ok.
rome wasn't this unstoppable power, if they hadn't done anything about internal rot, the romans would've still collapsed or remained a loose federation with rampant corruption and an overall declining vibe, rome relied on conquest to get new slaves, not conquering anything for so many years wouldn't be good.
the original caliphate used light cavalry, and the romans used heavy infantry, the light cavalry can just harass their infantry and run away, keep exhausting them, theres no way the romans can defend against the caliphate, sure they could slow them down but north aafrica would still be conquered by the caliphate
also, the roman trade routes would have already been blocked by the caliphate, since most trade routes were over land and the ones over sea would require them to cross the red sea, which is controlled by the caliphate, losing egypt would just mean losing a huge grain supply to the roman empire, it wouldnt cause them to try and search for some mysterious continent the vikings had rumours about.
i do not believe that the romans would've taken any interest into the americas, since the vikings managed to keep canada a relative secret from outsiders for all those centuries, rome, ravaged by famines caused by not having egypt would be stuck dealing with internal chaos instead of trying to search for america, even more unlikely is the romans having large colonies in the caribbean but not in the fertile plains of the rust belt, even IF the romans had gone and searched for the americas, they would go through the north, as thats what the vikings would have told them, the romans were not very focused on navy and were more of a land force, they would not have had established small colonies in africa.
yet again, its the same as the caliphate with the mongols but even more effective, the mongols can just keep charging in shooting their arrows and then charging out, the roman heavy infantry is helpless against them due to cavalry archers just being too op.
You make great points. But remember that Roman military strategy and government would likely change a lot during this time. It would adapt to new situations. Still, great points. I wasn't going for a very realism focused scenario, more so one that can be entertaining, where Rome becomes a civilization much like China. Since there were already so many parallels between them.
@@Neatling Also one thing to point out, China experienced technological stagnation and economic stagnation for many centuries (if not millennia) and it was due to the fact that it was such a large civilization with so many resources and a near infinite source of wealth and population that the leaders and governors just got lazy and never strived to develop. I'd expect the same thing to happen to the Romans.
Also a little suggestion i have is for you to elaborate on how Rome reforms and such, that would make it more interesting to watch.
@@geno3911 Very true, that is for one also why they would be pushed around by the technologically advancing Britannia for quite some time. I will also be making more parts to the scenario. This is supposed to be an overview of the history of this world. Just scratching the surface a bit. The next episode will likely be one focusing specifically on Rome today. Looking at how it reformed, it's ethnic and linguistic makeup, administrative divisions etc.
The bizantine empire adapted to the mongol invasions, and stopped them. Roman infantry could get killed if they got out of their walls, but if they remained in their forts light cavarly could not do anything. Rome had also good cavalry, so it would just take a failed assault of a city or a cavarly battle won by the romans for the chaliphate to loose a lot of importance, since the roman infantry could just siege and take everything. Plus, it's not like the vikings kept the secret of canada, they found it like they found greenland. A waste land that they tried to colonize but got killedby natives. It's not like canada was a secret, it just had little to no importance
@@Placeholder333 romans used heavy cavalry, they physically cannot match up against the horse mounted archers of the mongols unless they built a fort line in th ehills on anatolia like the byzantines did
If North Africa stayed catholic?
When was it? England wasn’t Catholic when they colonized most of it. Mostly Protestants from other countries came over
@@kaylen4930 England didn't colonize North Africa. (maybe Egypt)
@@kaylen4930 You are very off. North Africa was Christian because of the Roman Empire, and the reason they are Islamic now is because of the Arabic invasions. The point of departure for a timeline this could be if the Arab army faced a catastrophic defeat around Suez and were never able to break into North Africa again.
PruCo sorry, my dyslexic ass read it as North America
@@kaylen4930 bruh
Glad you did a collab with Mr Z. Great content, sad you're not massive yet.
Too be honest
By the 1500s
Roman Naval power would begin to crumble as technological advancement by others would soon go to outcompete romes Old grand power meaning at some point
Its Naval dominance would fall apart
But its Ground dominance would continue to grow
And thats why i love this video because it pointed it out :)
Roman naval power crumbled in the 1st and 2nd century, but was revamped in the 3rd and 4th, but crumbled again in the 5th, but was revamped in the 6th and 7th centuries. And it crumbled a few more times.
Rome: *Controls all of Europe has the longest Coast ever in history*
Britanni and Scandinavia: "haha you no no ships we more ships haha"
Yes i am poking fun at that logic i love your vids mate but I’d like to point out that when you consider that Rome had so many overseas colonies i do not see them not having a Navy that outnumbers all the navies of the rest of world combined
Just a clarification, Julius Caesar was never an emperor. Shortly before his assassination, the Senate gave him the title of ' Dictator for Life.' It would be his adopted heir and nephew, Octavius, who became Augustus- the First Imperator ( Latin for Emperor) of Rome.
Your maps are excellent man. Stay well out there everybody, and Jesus Christ be with you friends.😊
yes
God bless you
Amen brother. May the Lord our God be with you.
@@ΤζένγκιςΧάαν :)
i'm atheist
Having Rome turn feudal is a clever choice, it feels like an incredibly obvious thing now.
This was fun to watch but ultimately I think there were too many similarities with how the things unfolded in real life as for such a massive change like the Roman Empire surviving and basically the whole of Europe being one country for 1500 years.
I do believe Europe would've stagnated without the internat competition it experienced in real life and would not be able to dominate the world the way they did in this video.
Also Lithuania would never be a threat to the Romans, the Roman Empire would outnumber it like 100:1 population-wise and there's no reason for Lithuania to have economic or technological advantage to give them a fighting chance with this disparity, the Baltic states were some of the least densly populated and least urbanised areas in medieval Europe.
United republic of nations sound hmmm
11:14 Wouldn’t Russia have expanded across Siberia like it did in our timeline?
Possible, but I'm skeptical. It would be extremely busy just existing, as there would be frequent wars with the Romans. Russia would also be much less developed, as they have basically no access to the ocean. But in my scenario there certainly has been some Slavic influence in western Siberia just east of the Urals, where I imagine some hybrid culture would emerge.
@@Neatling I see.
You need more subs!! You videos have awesome quality
great video as always
I love this! Please keep creating more worldbuilding videos 😀 Subscribed
I don't think you understand how powerful Rome would be if it controlled basically ALL of Europe... There's no way that Britannia could have won against Rome...
Well you could say the same about Japan compared to China in OTL. Technology simply allowed the Japanese to out compete them for a long time. It would be a very similar situation with Rome and Brittania.
It's actually kind of an interesting coincidence that Mainland Europe, excluding Scandinavia/British isles, is around the same size as China. And the British Isles are around the same size as Japan.
The difference in population would also be around the same. With China having around 10 times as many people as Japan, and Europe having around 10 times as many people as the British Isles.
But of course population numbers would be different in this timeline. And Brittania didn't "win" against Rome. They simply industrialized, and managed to defeat Rome on the seas, much like Japan did against China in our world. But Brittania would never manage to conquer mainland Rome, and Rome would eventually industrialize, becoming a more powerful nation than Brittania once again.
@@Neatling ok... Fair enough
@@grindelz I'm certainly not dismissing your point! I'm just explaining why I went with this approach in my scenario.
I don’t think that, after Rome conquered Germania and Dacia the would lose Brittania, simply because of the fact that they could pull legions from Germania which, is now pacified. I also think the Rome would DEFINITELY, not let Egypt have any independence because Egypt was Rome’s most valuable province outside of Italy. Rome would also probably focus the military efforts towards the east due to the fact the the east was much more developed than Scandinavia or Russia. After Rome made colonies in places like India, the Caribbean, and west Africa I do not think they would lose those colonies that quickly because of how valuable they are for trade.
Someone should make a hoi4 mod of this scenario. It’s insane! I love it!!
It would be interesting to postulate the development of Latin in a surviving Roman Empire and its possible dialects in 'Cornelia' and other areas of the world.
Just a proposal! Make a video of Europe consisting of 7 Empires and 10 Kingdoms (in order of population): 1. Russian Empire 2. German Empire 3. French Empire 4. British Empire 5. Greek Byzantine Empire 6. Italian West Roman Empire 7. Spanish Empire and 1. Kingdom of Poland 2. United Kingdom of Scandinavia 3. United Kingdom of Benelux, 4. Kingdom of Yugoslavia 5. Kingdom of Wallachia & Moldavia 6. Kingdom of Hungary 7. Kingdom of Czechs & Slovaks 8. Kingdom of Portugal 9. Kingdom of Bulgaria 10. United Kingdom of Baltic
I can't wait for part 2!
What's the next video going to be about, and are you keeping a list?
I do have a list, and I write down all the suggestions I get. But which scenario I choose from that list isn't really set in stone, I might change my mind when I start researching a topic. And as this is just a hobby, and not my full-time job or anything, it unfortunately takes a long time to get to all the suggestions I get.
As for which video I will make next, I do in fact know it will be one linking all my viewers to a collaboration video I did with a larger channel. I will also probably be making another irredentism video at some point, more parts to this scenario, and then of course move on to a new scenario later on. I don't know which scenario it will be after this one yet. I also plan on experimenting with a few videos that aren't history related here and there. An example of that would be my "what if RUclips channels were countries" video.
Neatling French Revolution never happens?
@@ManOfTheMountain Appreciate all the suggestions, thank you. I certainly won't run out of ideas thanks to you guys.
What if China was the first Republic? POD would be the 1300's after the Mongols.
The Roman Empire will rise again.
@Paul Frei Fuck no, the USA wouldn't be the new Rome. It has a lot of better options: the Carolingian empire, the Bizantine empire, the Spanish and Portuguese empires, First colonial French empire etc. All former territories of Rome, all great empires.
Moscow in this reality be like: I ain't heard no bell
Nice! As always :)
The Middle Ages woulda been a lot different, and that would alter history a lot, seeing as how after the Middle Ages came the Renaissance and the European Exploration. Rome would easily be the leading superpower and anything(like I said before) past the fall of Western Rome can pretty much be erased and rewritten.
Also I'm a dumb 12-year-old so please correct me on anything I might've said wrong
Its not one of the Greatest Civilizations, Its THE GREATEST Civilization to ever Exist.
No.
British Empire was..
@@paulfri1569 Brits couldn't even conquer it's neighbors.
Nice video
Rome expanding in Scania and north Russia is the most cursed thin I've ever seen
Should have titled this "The American Revolution if Rome never fell"
Even in this alternate world Britain goes through brexit
According to the Kardashev scale;
Human civilization is currently at a Type 0 Civilization here on earth. Had the Western Roman Empire not fallen, civilization's current level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy it is capable of harnessing and using would be at a Type 1 Civilization perhaps even crossing over into a Type 2 Civilization at this point. The scale is hypothetical, and refers to energy consumption on a cosmic scale. Various extensions of the scale have since been proposed, including a wider range of power levels (Types 0, IV, and V) and the use of metrics other than pure power (e.g., computational growth or food consumption). A civilization "close to the level currently achieved on Earth, with an energy consumption of ≈4×1019 erg/sec" (4×1012 watts). A Type I civilization is usually defined as one that can harness all the energy that reaches its home planet from its parent star (for Earth, this value is about 2×1017 watts), which is about four orders of magnitude higher than the amount currently achieved on Earth, with an energy consumption of ≈2×1013 watts by 2020. The astronomer Guillermo A. Lemarchand defined Type I as a level close to today's terrestrial civilization, with an energy capacity equivalent to Earth's solar irradiance, between 1016 and 1017 watts.
Well I would have been happy
I could see the danish peninsula become part of rome
Caesar is never been an emperor🤦🏻♂️
He declared himself dictator for life, just before his assassination. The word emperor is defined as "a sovereign ruler of an empire". Which he certainly was, even if only for a hot second before his death.
But yes, Augustus was the first "real" emperor, that actually lived to rule the empire. I just thought it was clear what I meant, as I also mentioned his assassination. But apologies if there were any misunderstandings there.
Rome: own most of scandinavia
Sweden being the only one left: AH F**K! SH*T!
STOP SCREAMING!
@@buzter8135 NO
@@RandomSwedishGuy *Incomprehensible Yelling*
I think it would be more interesting if The Romans instead of conquering Poland and Ukraine would try securing the Mediterranean or either pushing until the Persian gulf and Novgorod being a Scandinavian puppet while the Slavs would do Thier own settling the south such as the black sea
Dude, you're awesome.
Why ditch north Africa though?
...Mare Nostrum not so nostrum anymore. Sad.
So basically you just manifested an entire video
I think the main thing would be Europe would not be considered a continent but just another part of the greater landmass
Please tell me you’re going to write some sorta alt hist book about this.
I would have to learn a lot more about writing, and need the money for getting it published which I don't really have as a freshman college student. But I might consider writing in the future.
And don't forget this will be a series!
i think Britannia would be named the union of Celts
Rome seems weaker than i though tho
2:30 They only converted to the religion after the Germanic tribes (that had been influenced by the Abrahamic sect) had took over the capital.
The last remanence of the polytheistic religion, was convinced of the Abrahamic deity being true, because it was more powerful than their own gods in the barbarian campaigns.
Why the weird borders??
hoi4 modders: free real estates
Ngl,seeing how similar the situation between Rome and China in this world is,I could totally see them having some sort of alliance to regain their former glory,seeing the world as one where the weaker nations teamed up on them and humiliated them far too much and need to be punished severely for their insolance (aka being usual superiority complex Rome and China)
Wow! that was a pretty harsh fall.
What? Fall of rome? Byzantine Empire? Julius Caesar Dead?
Those are some wacky ideas! Come on, let's get back to hunting.
What happend to the tributary states at 12:50?
They were lost as part of the treaty following the war, and became the fully independent nations of Mauritania, Egypt and Assyria. In modern times they still have close ties with Rome, and rely on them for defense, much like Europe relies on the US in our world. The change was minor, as they are still close to Rome. But since they are fully independent, they aren't shown as Roman tributaries from then on.
You will get a clearer picture of their relationship with Rome today in future episodes.
Could you do a western roman empire never fell video pls
I love this serie
I enjoyed the story telling. As for Rome in this timeline based on the video never was split causing them to split up their forces. A united empire was always better in the long term. It is sad they didn't figure out a better way to govern and run their military. As for the Cornelias would be a major issue. As they would likely have retained all the knowledge of inventions. The Roman road system and aqueducts would be a big improvement. They knew how to build sewers and they had their own version of an analog computer. If they had the situation shown in this video. Rome likely would have looked in past inventions and found the steam engine. The Roman colonies would benefit from this invention as they could produce things at a much greater rate. Rome having gun powder and manufacturing would see them winning far more engagements. The Romans would do its best to not allow Britannia or Scandinavia to have gun powder. Their push into the new world would be very fast and likely see an explosion in population far earlier as food production chains are increased. The Romans also had manage to steal the secret to make silk. So the silk road trade would die off. Thus Persia would be weaker for it. The experiences in making full cities in Germania would have groomed them for settling in the new world. The gold coming in from the Americas would be huge along with slaves. The native Americans would have all been enslaved along with African nations they could take over. They in our world knew of all of North Africa. So they would had an idea about the ivory coast.
For once why cant we have an eternal Rome that stays worshiping Mars.........
Rome never fell. They just became the catholic church.
That Scandinavia make me very happy
me chilling in Scotland
I fucking love this video formula!
Nice, but it mirrors too much our timeline.
you could've done something cool with the great lakes, instead of leaving them blank for most of history, maybe make them british or scandinavian, since they both could control the st. lawrence
Britannia somehow always tend to rule the waves.
I wish I lived this universe, it's would be great.
Rome would advance way faster
Am sorry but Caesar was never ever an Emperor. But great vid :)) no hate
My dear friend .... 100 years after Trajan the empire was almost to be named Dacian Empire , so .... no use to see anything after min 1:52..... as you have no ideea about that era geopolitics....
I think that in this scenario rome would have to deal with the massive slavic migration. Since the migration happened right when the east faced islam.
Julius Ceaser was not the first emperor - he was a dictator.
I don't see how rome would fall behind technologically if anything i think they'd spearhead the industrial revolution
Basically, Rome becomes god
Was it removed the video said it was closed
Was what removed? Said what was closed?
@@Neatling my youtune just closed itself while watching this video and after it told me that it got deleted i pressed watch again (on the recommendations) and i saw it again
It was pretty disappointing that this was basically just real life already but with bigger countries. I love BIG COUNTRY more than most, the borders at the end are very nice, but still it was dissapointing to see things be so so similar politics wise.
Rome would have industrialized a lot faster due to their esrly steam engine. They likely would have colonized America a lot faster too.
And whats with this weird idea some people have of everything always eventually becoming a democracy? Rome and Greece both stopped being democracies on their own why would they go back? They should have remained authoritarian, but besides that it was nice. Although Rome really should have eventually put down their historic middle Eastern rivals.
Oh yeah, worst part was probably decolonization. It was really the Marshall plan and the economic collapse of 2 world wars back to back that forced them to abondon their colonies. Considering they had even less in this time line they easily should have been able to make all their territories besides India British homelands.
Cornelia, in opposition to colonialism, is ironic
What language would roman colonies speak Latin or Greek?
That will be covered in future episodes! I plan on covering all the major nations. I haven't completely decided on it yet, but I imagine there would be both Greek and Latin speaking communities in the colonies. But Latin would be the most widespread. Right now I'm thinking The United Provinces will be majority Latin speaking (A dialect of Latin that does differ a bit from the one spoken over in Europe). But there will be a few greek speaking regions, and Greek will be a popular secondary language.
So overall, most would speak variations of Latin. But with smaller Greek communities, centered round specific regions. And with widespread use of Greek as a language of Science and Philosophy. There might also be some more Greek-leaning colonies in South Cornelia/America. But again, I still haven't completely decided, or written all the scripts yet.
Those borders are cursed
I dont think scamdinavia would decolonise
julius would be proud
It didn't, the end... well we use roman roads, roman style education, roman names for the planets, roman political and legal system, roman religion it never left it just rebranded, look at how much land the Vatican owns, in technically foreign territories
This video can't be more anglo-centric even if the Romans spoke english, lol.
16:51 ...Vicky 2 anyone?
🇮🇹😏WHAT IF MASSENTIUS WON?
What if Maxentius had won at Ponte Milvio by eliminating Constantine forever?
We cannot make serious calculations on the consequences, because we do not know all the variables that would have intervened in this new situation. We do not know how hard Maxentius' life would have been because, if he had lived for a short time, he would have had little influence on the fate of Rome.
However, in the event of a long life we can reasonably assume that the city of Constantinople would never have been founded, and perhaps the empire would not have lived for another 1000 years as it did. But perhaps Rome would have survived, which would have returned to being not only the symbolic but also the political capital of the Empire, and the Western Emperors, residing there, would have prevailed over those of the East.
Maxentius in Rome would have returned his political and military prerogatives to the Senate; the restoration of an imposing garrison stationed in Rome and Italy, made up of praetorians, equites singulares and urban cohorts (urbaniciani), as in the time of the Severans. Rome would continue to adorn itself with splendid monuments, and the religion would continue preserving the myth of the origins, the legendary gods such as Romulus, Saturn, Janus, Hercules and the heroic ancestors such as Aeneas and Evander.
Christianity would have become a religion like the others, joining the other oriental ones a bit gloomy and sacrificial, while the state religion would have preserved the ancient gods, perhaps incorporating the Sol Invictus, followed above all by the military. After all, Constantine honored him and celebrated until the last Christmas of his life (Natalis Solis Invicti), although he advocated his conversion to Christianity.
Polytheism would continue to exist that allowed men to choose the divinity they liked most, without having to submit to the severe monotheism that occupied a good part of the day in prayers, ceremonies, sacrifices and continuous duties that invaded every corner of life.
Maxentius was a man of good balance and in fact restored the freedom of worship, returned the properties confiscated from the Christian community during the persecution of 304 AD, but exiled the troubled bishops, imposing others of his own designation. He even built the first Christian Basilica in history, now known as San Sebastiano Fuori le Mura.
In short, there would have been no persecutions towards other religions or heresies (about 600) within the same Christian religion, thus restoring the famous "pax deorum" so dear to Augustus, thus sharing the rights of "religio licita" with the other religions of empire, but without privileges and without horrifying predictions of the end of the world.
There would be no tax exemption for Church property, nor would the state bear the expenses of the ecclesiastical community.
We would not have had the "privileium foro" granted to the clerics, or rather the possibility of evading the Roman courts to be judged by the ecclesiastical ones of the diocese.
Furthermore, there would have been no sanctions and persecutions against aruspicine and domestic divination, and conversions to Christianity no longer obligatory, under penalty of exile, alienation of property and even death. The new religion would remain within its limits following a little the fashion of the moment that saw several religions grow and shrink.
Furthermore, the false "Testament of Constantine" which justified for centuries the papal claim to temporal power over the territories of the former Western Roman Empire, would never have existed.
The Church would never have been transformed into a state, oppressing the people and constituting a fight against the power of the cardinals, with disastrous repercussions in Italy and in Europe. Above all we would not have had the terrible and nefarious Holy Office that tortured and burned heretics and witches, screaming in a bloody collective madness that only the Enlightenment will be able to extinguish.
Maxentius would have continued to govern from Rome upon a senatorial appointment, in a reconstitution of the ancient Principality. The senators would once again seek glory, triumph and riches by making a military career by fighting valiantly and winning wars as army generals as they always had.
Maxentius had reversed the changes made by Gallienus: the senators had reached the highest expression of the cursus honorum equestre, that is the Prefecture of the Praetorium, and had returned to lead the armies; the Emperor had returned to live permanently in the city as in the past and consequently to discuss the politics of the Empire with the Senate.
The senators for their part would have circulated countless amounts of money to buy their consent, to finance games and carry out their political propaganda, thus avoiding the concentration and accumulation of land wealth, investing in trade rather than in large estates.
With the preservation of the ideals of homeland, honor, virtue and glory, the city of Rome would not have been disarmed, as it actually was, in the face of the great invasions of the fifth century. Armies would not be moved from limes to large cities as Constantine did. The garrison of Rome and the praetorian fleets would be restored, the walls of Rome would be strengthened making it impregnable for any enemy army.
Probably a victory against Constantine, which added to those already achieved against Severus, Galerius, Domizio Alessandro and Licinius, who from 308 to 312 tried in vain to recover Italy without ever succeeding, would have increased the prestige of Maxentius Invictus to a level such that various provinces of the West would have submitted to him or at least allied themselves without the need for him to invade them.
Probably the same thing would have happened in Illyricum, where Maxentius was already in contact with a large part of Licinius's staff, which perhaps would have aligned himself with the new regime. Maxentius would have allied himself with Massimino Daia, would have reunified the West under him by expanding it to the Illyrian, and this would have given him control of all the seas surrounding the Italian peninsula as well as possession of the best recruitment basin in the whole empire. .
Residing in Rome also gave him authority over his colleague Massimino Daia, to whom he would have gladly left the East and the management of the Persian problem. Both were pagans, and without the ambition of being the only rulers.
The restoration of the political, symbolic and moral supremacy of Rome over all the other cities of the Empire, would certainly have provoked a turnaround at a military and economic level. Perhaps the Eastern Empire survived because it was richer and more populous than the West, but above all because it did not have to fight on two fronts as it had to do in the West.
Perhaps it would not have been easy to revive the ancient senatorial class and the world of values it carried, because the world had changed and could have sparked a military revolt by the non-senatorial elite, especially the Illyrian generals who had dominated in recent times. decades, since they occupied many levers of military power.
Maxentius was also the first to impose forced "donations" on the senators so that they could finance not only the army but public works. That is the direct participation of the aristocratic elite in the maintenance of the state machine, in exchange for the power and prerogatives returned.
This went against the trend of the military Emperors, who preferred to let the Senators freely accumulate their wealth as long as they did not interfere in the struggle for power. In short, a restoration of that Mos Maiorum that Maxentius strove to revive.
In the fifth century the strategic defense of Italy was painful, the imperial army was reduced to just over 30 thousand men, unable to defend Italy alone in the face of hordes of 40-50 thousand warriors like those of Alaric, for example, who in fact he sacked Rome undisturbed.
Another notable contrast was religion, many aristocrats wanted to become bishops rather than generals, because the ecclesiastical elite influenced not only the people but also the emperors, receiving rich privileges and great power.
Surely if Maxentius had won at Ponte Milvio we would not have had, since 312 and for the next 100 years, the impoverishment of the Italic defensive system, but would have strengthened it, restoring absolute control of the Mediterranean and the connection with Africa. and its supplies of grain, thus avoiding the great invasions of the fifth century with a minimum of losses: after all, from the beginning Rome always had to defend its borders, and it did so very well.
But even afterwards, we would not have had the forced imposition of Christianity as a state religion, we would not have undergone the compulsory conversions on pain of loss of property and death, we would not have had the religious wars pertinent to monotheistic religions, we would not have had the Crusades and we would not have had to give up Latin due to the closure of schools.
Literacy, love of country, respect for the laws, divorce to women granted by Augustus would have been maintained and above all they would not have demolished many wonderful monuments and masterpieces of architecture, sculpture and painting.
Broski WHAT 💀
how much i gotta pay to live in this universe
main enemies would be germans slavs and Briton, vikings
Can you make a vid on how america could have gained more land
Well i subbed now
You picked colours that are so hard to see
10:21 the USA 🇺🇸 is a cannon event 😂
Or as it’s called in this universe the UPC
ROMA Invicta
FELICITOR Auguso
Melianor Traiano
Qh yes, A U G U S O
Interesting but a bit too deterministic. It parrels our history too much, and much of the developments and movements of our history could easily be butterflied away.
For Rome/Byzantium not to have fallen, the Middle East and Egypt would need not to have been lost, Arabia taken under Imperial control and whatever it was that became Islam strangled at birth.