The major reason why this scenarios would not happen is the fact fact that Rome was destined to fail. But not for the reason people think. Rome was split in three and later two. Because Rome already extend own bureaucratic capacity. And ironically with development of region like Iberia and Galicja, increasing effort was needed to maintain cohesion. So rapid expansion would actually make process even more devastating. Corruption and lack of manpower of course were the factor. But even prospering Rome would lost ability to respond to traversing tribes, what otherwise become Romanized, even if by ironic conquest of Roman provinces. As infrastructure and people mostly stay where they were and Rulers gradually adopt customs leading to rebirth during high medieval times. People forget that Rome was already sick man of Europe, after 3'th century. It is actually when most of infrastructure fold and fall of the Rome actually reverse this proces. As growing tribes start competing over its heritage. If West Rome would survive it would go the exact same route as Byzantium.
I completely not buying colonization of Americans by Rome! There is a reason why Age of Exploration happen and later American colonization. In short. Trade on the Silk Road was major thing even in times of Roman Empire. Rome in fact try find source of precious Silk, but could not breach through nomadic tries, especially as they economy start gradually folding. Chinese almost reach Rome, but they were scammed by Arabic Tribes, when they reach coastline of Mediterranean and give up. Anyway, with rise of Ottoman Empire, trade become heavily taxed and as such developing European nations start seriously considered attempts of finding so called Southern Route and also test even theory that Earth is round and try wind Western Sea Route, discovering America. But if Rome conquer Arabic Peninsula. They would have open door on Indian ocean and India, would be open to conquest like with East India Company. This would become obvious target for the expansion and not immensely dangerous Atlantic and Northern Sea. There would be literally no reason to invest in the costly and complicated Oceanic Ships. At least until Rome encounter and copy Chinese Junks. But even then conquest of still corrupted and weakened China would be priority.
In my opinion, what Roma needed to do to solidify his reign was to create an institution that would take care of molding future emperors, indoctrinating them in all kinds of knowledge from administration to warfare, bringing the best candidates among the children of the high nobility. To make sure that the successions and the emperors to come were at the height of such an empire, the other institutions were very solid, that was the great fort of Rome
yeah that is true, and I did not go into in the video because of time, but that is really the only way that rome would survive. If they could have somehow made a system for competent leadership, they never would have fallen, but nobody in history has ever managed that.
The second century was the high of the roman empire, and there was a succession system, but Commodus ruined it. Also, the roman empire could've survived in the fifth century if the invasion of Africa in 468 had succeded. There were an handful of impressive emperors in the late empire, with just a bit of luck they could've saved the empire. Sadly, we will never know
They did had an excellent education system, that wasn't the problem. The problem was when emperors made a mistake when choosing a successor that had moral failings, or when they died without a good heir. And it then spirals.
@@Videntis.Historyyeah because Rome was busy tearing itself apart because of people trying to consolidate all the powers to themselves and become the Emperor I doubt this system would've lasted long as Rome had way too much power hungry people.
The fact that - state which through half of its history (Imperial times) didn't have a clear, solidified system of selecting rulers and their successors manageed to survive that long, beat many crisis and became greatest empire in humankind history - is absolutely insane and epic
"What if Rome survived?" "Welcome in the third millennium of Roman history, today we will follow the land and foundation of the first Roman colony on Epsilon Eridani from the orbit, on board of one of the transport troops of the 375th Legion..."
This is incredible; I like this alternate history where most of these Emperors are more comment but savage as hell when they're on the battlefield to fight their enemies. Even took the Americas, while the Spanish had half of the North and South, and Britain used to have access to part of the territory. Well done and outstanding animation you did, my friend, for I can't wait to see more alternate history like this. I have some ideas if you're interested in hearing them, but anyway, great job, and always stay true to your dream and always fill your passion with your knowledge and art!
@@Videntis.History Really, then here are my ideas for future videos on alternate history: What if Boris Godunov (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Godunov) had lived longer as Tsar of Russia? What would Russia have been with Godunov as Tsar, and would the Ramnavos still be the ruling dynasty? What if the Mali Empire had survived and was the first African Empire to discover the Americas, resulting in other African kingdoms and empires spending expeditions for resources instead of the Europeans? What if Napoleon had accepted the Frankfurt Prosopal and remained Emperor of France? What would France be like under a peaceful reign with Napoleon as Emperor? Would Napoleon become a semi or constitutional monarch as a figurehead who shared power with the parliament? What about Napoleon II? If Napoleon accepted the proposal, would he still be alive and marry Princess Sophie of Bavaria ( Princess Sophie of Bavaria), daughter of King Maximillian I Joseph of Bavaria? There have been sources that Napoleon II and Princess Sophie have feelings toward each other and might be in love? But the question would the marriage be approved by Emperor Napoleon and King Maximillian I Joseph? Under his father's education, would Napoleon II be a good emperor, and would France have been ruled by the Bonaparte Dynasty or still become a republic? What if Song Dynasty ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty#:~:text=The%20Song%20dynasty%20(%5Bs%CA%8A%CC%82%C5%8B%5D,throne%20of%20the%20Later%20Zhou. and www.britannica.com/topic/Song-dynasty) had been able to industrialize earlier and manage the drive to invade Monaglia to prevent the rise of the Mongol Empire? What would be the consequences of China under the Song Dynasty, and would Siberia be colonized by the Chinese instead of the Russians? What if Sehzade Mustafa ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eehzade_Mustafa), son of Suleiman the Magnificent, was warned about his assassination attempts by his others and actually escaped? How would news about the Sultuan trying to kill his son, beloved by people of the Ottoman Empire, and how the public react to it? Would there be a civil war wanting Suleiman to depose? Would Sehzade Mustafa try to prevent a civil war, and what would the Ottoman Empire be like, Sehzade Mustafa as Sultuan, and how would this benefit the Ottoman Empire? What if Oda Nobunaga had become the Shogun of Japan instead of Toyotomi Hideyoshi if he wasn't betrayed and assassinated? Could Japan win the Imjin War under his leadership, and would it be possible for Japan easily Ming China? If so, would there be an earlier rise Empire of Japan, how would this Empire of Japan be different than the EOJ in our current timeline, and would it have lasted longer in the 1500s? What obstacles would this Japanese Empire face? What if Etophia had unified Africa during the pre-scamble for Africa by the Europeans? Could Ethiopia have the chance to unite Africa, and in what ways the Ethiopian Empire could be done to unify Africa successfully? What if the death and exile of Catherine of Aragon sparked higher tension between the Kingdom of England and the Holy Roman Empire under the Habsburgs? Possibility why the HRE could go to war against England because a rumor has it that King Herny VIII had poisoned Catherine, but when an autopsy was done on her, it was discovered to be a tumor around her heart that would later be melanotic sarcoma cancer. But if the rumors are true, would war be waged between England and the HRE, and which would join sides and why? Also, what about the people who are English subjects and nobility reacting to the actual death of Catherine of Aragon? Would it spark an English civil war, and could Mary Tudor, Herny's daughter, gain support from the nobility and the rest of England? How would King Herny VIII react to his daughter rebelling against him, and what would he do? Would Mary side with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V? Have you ever heard of Rani of Jhansi? If not here, think of the Sepoy Mutiny, aka the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and here are the links to learn more about her and her son, Damodar Rao: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi, www.britannica.com/biography/Lakshmi-Bai, ruclips.net/video/tKmkMVaNu9g/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/ei9IkGdcmPg/видео.html, and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damodar_Rao_of_Jhansi She was an Indian queen who ruled Jhansi, an independent state under Newwalkar Marthtra Dynasty who ruled the Marthra Empire, where the Marthra was the defeat the Mughals in the Mughal-Maratha Wars: (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal%E2%80%93Maratha_Wars#:~:text=After%20the%20death%20of%20Aurangzeb,up%20to%20Peshawar%20by%201758.) This caused the downfall of the Mughal Empire and the rise of the Maratha with Shaivaji I as Chhatrapati ( Emperor), who founded the Bohnsle Dynasty, and Jhansi was a kingdom ruled by the Maharajas. Still, Jhansi was taken over by the British authorities. Took over the state under the terms of the Doctrine of Lapse, a policy name Lord Dalhousie, governor of India ( 1848-1856), who devised to plan on questing India rather should rights succession to Indian states with the justification of the annexation by the East India Company in the Indian subcontinent had already had the princely states under their control and applied after the Company's rule over India came to an end when it was succeeded by the British Raji under the British Crown, making Queen Victoria Empress of India. What if Rani Lakshinbal had survived the retreating battle of Gwalior during the Indian Rebellion of 1857? She was one the leading figures of the Rebellion and a symbol of resistance to British rule in India for the nationalists. What if she had fled before being trapped and killed in combat? Which location would you think she uses as an advantage against the British that may find difficult in their favor? Could she even unite all the kingdoms and princely states to her cause along with her allies? What could she do for the other local rulers by being at her side if not? Would a unified army be enough to drive the British out of the Indian subcontinent, and what tactics could they use in numbers to overwhelm British forces? What would a united India be like under Rani of Jhansi and what would it be called, and what type of government be based on? Would the other local rulers want Rani Lakshimbal to be a ruler of a united India? Would they be okay with or against it because she is a woman? What about her son? Would Damodar Rao prefer to be the ruler of this united India? If Rani Lakshimbal were to lead this united India, what sovereign title would fit best for her and why? Would a united India be able to modernize like what Japan did during the 1800s, or wouldn't it do it because most people won't accept change? What would be better ways for India to update for it to enter an industrial revolution? Would it be bad if this united India is not industrialized because of bureaucracy and older generations who are onto the ancient traditions? Would this India be able to expand beyond their borders, and if it did, which countries or borders seem suitable for expansion and why? What are other relationships with other South and East Asian countries? Could it become a significant or global power in South Asia? What about the British? Would they even try to retake India, which is now united? If they did try to retake it with force with ease or not, then explain why is that? Could this alternate India retaliate by invading British colonies and trying to invade the United Kingdom itself? I got an idea where most RUclipsrs are playing Victoria 3, with few playing India, including the Sikh Empire, where they subjugated Great Britain using strategies; I recommended you watch some of them to get a clear picture. Imagine a united India under Rani of Jhansi leading the naval invasion to the British Isles and a land invasion of the United Kingdom, with several soldiers defeating British battalions with weaponry they use mixed with modern technology to theirs but more deadly and London being sieged similar with Ottomans did with Constantinople and having the UK fall leaving them subjugated into the might of an Indian empire with Rani of Jhansi being crowned as the new queen of her new kingdom and making it her second capital. Just imagine Europe's reaction to India taking complete control of the United Kingdom and having a foreign now ruling as queen. Most European powers would consider Rani of Jhansi the new Mehmed the Conqueror. Now that would be fantastic to see an alternate history with Rani of Jhansi survived as a mini-series, don't you agree, my friend? I'm sorry for the extra details, but I wanted to be more specific; which topics do you like best?
@@Videntis.History You're welcome and take your time; no need to rush those scenarios, but I do have a question: Are you saying you have never seen an alternate history video on Mali Empire survived and discovered America or other alternate history scenarios weren't commonly appeared in alternate history youtube channels and forgot to ask does this Rome ruled by the Julio-Cludain Dynasty similar with Japan being led by the Yamato Dynasty over centuries?
@@benjaminobienu5297 no, I have not seen a video on an alternate history where Mali colonized America. It sounds cool though. Also, the Julio-Claudian would continue to rule Rome over the centuries.
"Rome just ran out of men to fight back." That's exactly why I always say that "Rome was the crown of the world, it makes sense that everyone would want the crown, it wasin't one event, or people who conquered Rome. Rome was conquered when it ran out of Romans to defend her." Even in the last battles of the eastern empire, it was clear that Rome could still fight, but they could never muster an army large enough to match their neighbors.
China was the crown of the world by any metric. Population, technology, structure of the state. This Roman wankfest is just comedy to historians to read.
@@WarriorofChrist612 Rome allowed forgieners into there army in the late stages. Same thing is happening in the USA. Talk of allowing illegals to join the military even police forces. USA is following in the same steps of decline as Rome.
Hard to imagine Rome standing strong for centuries while stretched so thin. Even if the mixing of peoples works corruption and opportunism in time will tear border provinces off the empire, that'll 'cause a domino effect. Certain parts will get consumed by the bordering tribes and kingdoms while others will manage to adapt.
@@accidiaet yeah rome here reads like a marie sue " my empire is the biggest, strongest and coolest, they conquered everyone who fought them, they never had a bad emperor, no one can beat their army, their people are perfectly united and no revolt can win, they never have civil wars and did i say they're the coolest already? because they are "
Honestly it wasn't that unreasonable until he got to America. Like are the Aztecs and Incas nonexistent? The only reason Europe matched to conquer America was because of guns I doubt Roman at this timeline would have guns.
I think this really needed to be split into multiple parts. I love the idea but so much time passes and it isn’t all that detailed for most of it, like talk about the emperors, the changes to dynasties if any, the dynamic changes to government, maybe a new religion, one that follows Sol and not Christianity, stuff like that. Talk about more critical crisis, because for one, this is Roma we’re talking about, corruption, opportunism, greed, etc… would’ve brought periods of economic crisis, civil wars and so on. Love the idea but I’m not a fan of everything going so perfectly. Definitely a good video tho and I love your passion, keep it up and I’ll keep an eye out for your next videos!
I really love the idea of it, but it seems so unlikely that so much happened in only 200 years or so (the conquest of Parthia and Scandi, e.g.). Very cool vid, I've rarely seen sth so well done like this before.
@@Videntis.Historyyou have to realize that that was during the republican period where the average man had much more upwards mobility in the military. These military aspirations of those republicans generals expanded the Roman lands. Rome was also much smaller and their manpower was much more willingly to serve in the army.
Romans just didn't wanna admit Atilla came with the numbers of 1-3 legions and clapped the entire Roman military east and west + decimated the Germans Atilla was lowkey 1 of the greatest generals in history
@@Fatherofheroesandheroines well just like Hannibal and Napoleon he lost in the end doesn't mean he isn't a higher ranked general than Europeans give him
Also the inflation under Nero was largely dealt with by both Vespasion (who massively increased taxes) and Domitian who increased the silver standard from like 86% silver to 98%, granted it went back down to 92% but other it can't be blamed on Nero unless you want to say he created the precedent for it, otherwise no-one forced other Emperor's to do that.
@@pels_stacked That's exactly how Vespasian and Domitian dealt with inflation, since people won't be spending as much beyond just essentials so they can pay off their tax, where then shop vendors decrease prices as to increase the demand for their goods, it is basic economics.
@@pels_stacked They did, otherwise they could be overthrown, as the Neo-Assyrians were, likewise the Goths pretty successfully revolted against the Romans after they were forced to sell their children as slaves to buy dog meat. That and part of the role of an Emperor was just overseeing court cases. Augustus on his death awarded every citizen some of his wealth for them to enjoy, Trajan implemented a Welfare program for poor children, Aurelian increased the food dole, Valentinian the Great provided medical care for the poor within Rome. What the Flavians did with their Tax increases were appropriate for the time to deal with the inflation, likewise Domitian in particular used the tax money to then give Roman citizens jobs through massive building projects that benefited the entire Empire unambiguously, likewise his revaluing of the coinage helped give more confidence in Roman coinage which lead to a boom in trade.
I like the idea more that what if Rome had not fallen, or retained it’s old glory, but rather stagnated. What if Rome had discovered gunpowder, and were able to field massive weapons the likes of those the world had never seen? What if even those weren’t enough to prevent it’s partial destruction but keep it as a regional stagnated power in the Italian Peninsula, with the Alps to the north and west, and a small easily defendable plain to the east? With that Rome would be a tough nut to get through. They would then become a fallen empire, one that while still alive, is in a stagnant state. Perhaps one day however it could retake it’s former glory and unite the world under it’s banner and then look to the stars, conquering the galaxy just as it had done to Earth.
Honestly, I loved the first half of the video (everything up to conquering the Persians), I felt it was very well fleshed out and covered in sufficient detail to understand the causes and effects of what was being proposed. It felt much more real as a result, as history is made up of those millions of tiny details. The primary issue of succession wasn't really discussed though, and without that being resolved (ideally by Augustus laying down some kind of system being the First Emperor as precedent) the Roman Empire would have torn itself apart over and over again like in OTL due to perpetual political infighting, rendering it too weak to do any of the cool stuff later on that is discussed. In order for this video to have occurred, that issue HAS to be resolved, just..in the background I guess. Everything from conquering the Persians on felt, honestly, like bad alt history fanfiction. It takes the idea that Rome achieves some kind of "critical mass" and runs with it, swallowing up Persia in what is a xerox copy of Alexander's campaign with the serial numbers filed off, replaced with "Rome". History wouldn't repeat in the same way with over 1000 years of technological, social, and economic differences. The Persia that Rome fought was a much tougher and more advanced cookie than what Alexander faced, with the lessons of the fractured Hellenistic kingdoms fused with native Persian capabilities. They would not fall just because a couple of their rulers fell in battle, it would be a very rough campaign. In addition, a bigger issue is that Rome grew too big to govern and administer/control without more advanced technologies that they did not possess, or think to use in specific ways. While their roads were the envy of the world, and they had the "Pax Romana" turning the Mediterranean Sea into one giant safe pond for Roman rule, and they did have a Pony Express-esque courier/messaging system to send messages faster than marching infantry (even with 2000 years of less developed/shorter/slower horse breeds, messengers could cover a distance of about 200 miles a day on main roads by changing horses every 10 miles or so, and took only about 6 days to reach Britain from Rome (a record that was not improved upon until the invention of modern automobiles in the OTL 20th century)... ...they did not have semaphore towers (more fantasy-like, but possible), they did not have railways (even wooden ones). Without those concepts (and with a cultural disdain of cavalry to boot), Rome couldn't have extended to such a bloated state, like a Mongol Empire but from the west. The Mongols had 1000 years edge on the Romans technologically, plus internal Mongol cultural influences that translated into superlative highly mobile military forces that could ride across the largest continent on Earth and allow them to outmaneuver any medieval army thrown at them (a level of army mobility not re-achieved until WW2 in many cases). Rome did not have those critical things needed to conquer and maintain in the long run (centuries) an intercontinental empire on the scale of what is shown on those maps of yours (heck, the only comparable entity in our world is the Mongol Empire, and even they fell apart within a few generations as their rulers lost their edge from their original culture, diluted by other cultures they conquered, and fractured into easier to administer chunks). So even IF Rome conquered Persia successfully and Romanized it somehow, the video would end at the "administrative zones" bit, Rome permanently fractured into smaller pieces that could be ruled separately (which again IRL that is what happened with the Tetrarchy established by Diocletian). The same problems persisted with the "Islam" and "Viking" parts of the timeline. Islam only occurred the way it did (I'm reading right now "The Silk Roads: A New History of the World" by Peter Frankopan, it covers the origin of Islam and a lot of other stuff in detail) due to a confluence of political conflicts between the Byzantine and Sassanid empires, clashes between competing versions of Byzantine and Persian Christianity (plus lots of native Arabic religious turmoil too). There was a severe food famine/economic crash going on, all of which spurred on the unique events that led to Mohammed's revelations in the cave by Gabriel that led to Islam being founded, the Hegira, etc. Long and short of it, if Rome just swallowed up the entire "world" around Arabia and was the sole superpower, then none of that would have happened. If a competing religion to Christianity had ever emerged, it would have been so different as to not warrant calling it Islam at all. The Viking thing just...made me wince. Like, in this timeline the Romans conquered most or all of Scandinavia, which was where the Vikings largely came from. I doubt there would be enough "free Vikings" to have what is described happen, as they would be so thoroughly Romanized by over 1000 years of regional access they wouldn't be who we call Vikings. Those would be ROMANS crossing the seas with Viking capabilities, but they wouldn't be Vikings, swallowed up by Roman cultural and religious hegemony. Everything about the New World, industrialization, Mongol Wars, etc, is just...a fantasy, really. So...sorry for ripping into the video so much. I've always loved reading about the Roman Empire and what-ifs, so this was something I could really sink my teeth into. But I really did love the first half!
Another thing that seemed really off for me is the complete neglect of Africa. In our history Portugal began exploring and colonizing the African coast way before the discovery of Americas. Here, even Australia and New Zealand are colonized with Africa still being unknown. I know the Europeans were looking for a sea route to India as a result of the Caliphate controlling the land route, but I think the Romans would explore Africa nonetheless.
@@SereglothIV Ancient Kush/Ethiopia is the Most neglected of the Classical civilisations, along with the medieval West African empires,I mean just how do many people know Ethiopians fought in the Trojan Wars??,or that Ethiopia was one of the earliest monotheistic nations?(Belief in one God),When Most of Europe was still pagan and polytheistic..
At first I saw this as a bit of a fun unrealistic scenario but then I realized this really was basically "What if Europe was completely united by Rome and then carried on the European legacy of empire building on its own rather than multiple Kingdoms within Europe competing over it." Would love to see the history books in this timeline hahah. Also can't help but wonder what the relationship with China would be like in this time line. A part 2 would be so so so cool!
To say Caracalla's citizenship reform limited the size of the army I think is pushing it, it did remove an incentive but at the same time the Roman army would massively increase size in size a bit under 100 years later in the Dominate, bringing the army from 250'000 to 300-500'000 depending on what period you look at, likewise the real limit was what the Empire could actually afford, they still paid for Auxiliary troops afterall.
@@Videntis.History I covered that earlier, that the Western Roman Empire during its fall simply lacked the resources to actually afford an army due to the reduced tax intake from lost/ravaged territory, that and the military pay was not great, generally what you will see Emperors do when they want to increase the size of the army/increase the loyalty of their troops they will increase their pay, Domitian did it, Trajan did it and Septimius Severus did it, it's basic economics, that increasing wages also increases the supply of workers since you can attract more people to work for you, but as a consequence it increases price inflation as a partial consequence of putting more money in the system as was seen under the Severan Dynasty. That's also how Anastasius was able to reverse the barbarisation of the Eastern army by increasing military pay which attracted more Roman citizens to join. Otherwise given that Auxiliary troops were always half of the Roman army, they were present from the inception of the Empire, the difference being when it came to the Fall of the Roman Empire, said Barbarians were drawn from separate legal political entities that were not part of the Empire, not having any loyalty to it, which was done as an expedient given that they offered their services for cheap, for while Theodosius was able to raise another army after the battle of Adrianople, its quality was insufficient to actually deal with the Visigoths given their lack of experience, which created another incentive to hire Mercenary troops, especially during the Civil Wars that ensued in his reign. So for the time given how Roman culture worked, it was the states lack of funds and immediate needs that lead to them hiring mercenaries, rather than a change in a citizenship law. Where again I can point to the East in where once their economy was able to flourish, they were able to hire more locals by increasing military pay. Although really if the West wanted to raise a large army they could have followed Gallienus's/Septimius's example and massively devalue the coinage to raise a massive army.
Although I do mention culture since during the Republic while they did institute pay, people were generally expected to provide their own armour and weapons, with pay more just supplementing what they would otherwise lose from not farming for a given year, it would have been next to nothing compared to the pay of a Roman Legionary, since they largely fought for their Virtus rather than for pay, it was for a time their sole means to attain value in society.
@@Videntis.Historythere were recruits but people need money to risk their lives in war. Money the failing Roman economy did not have. Also 😂 sorry there would never be a crusade against Muslims why? Because the crusades happened to retake the holy lands. In your alternate reality the Muslims never had the holy lands so the pope would never have a good reason for the crusade.
You forgot the most basic rule: “The empire long united must divide, long divided must unite; this is how it has always been.” ― Luo Guanzhong, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Vol. 1 of 2
Extension (my head cannon for after this): Most of the American colonies would be either taken over or split off, and Rome would experience another golden age where the Roman-Sino Trade Network increased, and thus the world became stable. Rome for a short time would fade, however after a new Dynasty in China known as the Yunn Dynasty would form, WW1 would break out in 1587. However, the war would last 24 years but with no end in sight they would sign a peace, agreeing to hand over their claims. Many more nations would form, and the emperor would become a figure head.
@@Videntis.History Rome: Who are you? Yunn: I am the Mongol Empire, Conqueror of China. Remember when you thought you “utterly destroyed” me and my empire. Yeah, your rumors of my destruction is… G R E A T L Y E X A G G E R A T E D!
@@Videntis.History World War 2, The Conquest of India and the Sahara World War 3, The Migration into Africa, and the conquest of A L L of it, and the Protestant Revolution, as The Pope leaves orthodoxy and becomes Protestant!
China may have been powerful, but they simply would not be able to combat a Rome of this scale. Even in our own timeline when (400) Roman soldiers fought against the Han Chinese, they were reported as skilled, and hard to defeat. Even as an equal in the world, the chinese were still having difficulties with Roman soldiers who were in poor condition. Though still with their scutums (Which their conversations speak of)
Great vid, I think overall corruption was also a major issue, the nobility getting more and more able to avoid paying taxes towards the later centuries for example.
For real man, i hate how some people hate towards Tiberius as if he was militarily incompetent, or just an old boring emperor. He was pretty interesting for his military approach, for example, his slow yet genius way of warfare. Germanicus wouldn't have stood a chance of conquering Germania if Tiberius didn't solidify the Roman position.
People who ask this question are missing something so profound and yet so subtle. The Roman Empire never did fall. It just changed or evolved over the centuries. You're living in it right now and don't even know it.
It would be a pretty big leap to say that a continent spanning empire that was land based for 2000 years would develop the kind of technology to be able to establish efficient trans-atlantic trade. Not impossible, but I believe lack of imagination in development is constantly given as a large factor in the decline or at least stagnation of many autocratic states.
Rome had a good navy and many merchant ships. Not a leap of faith to think that would grow as the empire grew. Greed does many wonderful things, and those merchants would want the raw materials the Americas had to offer. Not to mention, I believe Rome would set up bases and colonies in Africa to facilitate sea lanes to India and China.
I'd wonder if Constantinople or some city like it would be made in the same spot due to it being a better capital which would connect the empire better
I didn't really elaborate on this in the video, but Pella, the old macedonian capital was built up into the main roman city in greece, so constantinople would never really be needed.
Part 1 of Rome Alternate History was ( Augustus , Germanicus , Nero Julius Caesar , Brittannicus , Gaius Drusus , Vispanius , Romulus II , Avitus ) 229. Part 2 229 Avitus dies when Germanicus II becomes emperor, he will go to war with the Saxon tribes in a rebellion. 267 Scythians Wars in Crimea and Germanicus II dies in battle and loses the Crimean Peninsula. 268 Germanicus II had no sons and Rome went into a civil or depression era with 4 generals becoming emperor with “ Marcus of the East “ Cyprian of Persian Rome” Aurelian of the West Rome”, “Postumus of Germanic lands” 274 Aurelian kills Postumus in battle ending the Germanic break away Rome” 268 Aurelian dies His daughter Hilaria takes over 293 Cyprian dies his general Maximus takes over the Persian part of the Empire and Marcus of the east dies and his son Constantius I takes over eastern Rome. 301 Constantius I converts to christianity and makes east Rome more richer, city Constantinople is found and builds new cities in Egypt. 303 Constantius married Hilaria and unites East and West 308 Maximus goes to war with Gupta Empire 314 Maximus dies and his best soldier Justus takes over and continues the war. 336 Constantius II takes the throne 374 Justus dies and his son Justus II takes over 378 Constantius II dies and has no son he adopted Theodosius I to be his heir 392 Romes Explore southern Africa to the city of Tamanrasset 410 Rome lost scandinavia to the Norse 412 Justus II dies makes his son Augustus II 422 Theodosius I dies and his son Honorius takes over , huns start attacking east part of the empire losing parts of Romania 451 Huns take over Germania and parts of Rome, Suebi make a Kingdom in northern Germany. 460 Honorius dies Licinia Eudoxia becomes Empress and the empire goes to a crisis, hunnic empire collapses 467 Suebi takes over Germanic Rome and Gaul 475 Rome left Denmark and move there army to Britain, Augustus III dies in Roman Persia 493 Licinia dies, Eudocia becomes Empress and annexes Roman Persia from Augustus III. 502 peace in the world no battles no nothing and Eudocia dies making Constantius III the new ruler of Rome. 544 Constantius III died and his legacy was going south to Africa in the modern city of Bamako. 545 Vispanius II takes over and tries to take over Suebia but fails 568 First Turkic Khaganate attacks to the east of the empire where Avars are time 571 Vispanius II dies and makes his son Augustus IV , Turkic Khaganate splits up to west and east. 592 Khaganate falls Tang dynasty makes rome not go further 623 Augustus IV dies and splits the empire for good in 3 Persian Rome,Middle Rome or Byzantine Empire and Western Rome. 624 Germanicus III gets West, Augustus V gets Middle , and Seneca Persia 643 Rashidun Caliphate rises and takes over Arabia and Persia Rome, Seneca rules east rome from Bandar-e Torkman. 659 Persian Rome falls to the Rashidun Caliphate 662 Rashidun Caliphate falls to Umayyad Caliphate 665 Augustus V dies and Constantius IV takes over while now Middle Rome is called Byzantine Empire and only controls Turkey and the Balkens. 670 Germanicus III dies and Theodosius II takes the throne of the West. 674 Umayyad attacks Constantinople but just barely survives Constantius IV save the Byzantine Empire for now. 685 Slavs take over most of the Balkens. 690 west rome leaves Britain for good due to the Norse 695 Umayyad control all of North Africa 704 Theodosius II dies and West was a mess with Rome having Italy,parts of Gaul and Spain and the Faroe Islands. Constantius IV steps down the throne and makes a new guard Emperor, he was Philippicus. 713 Philippicus dies and Nero II takes over 719 Umayyad control almost all of Spain 731 West Rome was just Italy and parts of the Balkens Germanicus IV steps down for losing so much land, and his son Remus takes over. 776 Suebi Kingdom takes over half of italy and Remus moves the capital to Naples. 777 Nero II dies Constantius V takes the Byzantine throne. 798 Remus died and had no sons but a daughter maxima. 800 Pope Leo III crowns Gutumarus King of the suebi, Roman emperor Part III 3 Romes maxima of Western Rome, Gutumarus Suebi Roman empire , Constantius V of Byzantine empire.
The fundamental problem is that the Romans lost the will to sacrifice in order to maintain their rights under the Republic. Once the independent farmers were pauperized, they were just another despotism.
Yeah, that was definitely a missed opportuinity. Given the fact the Romans had conquered the Sassassinds in this timeline, the Chinese would have been able to make contact with the Romans or vice versa.
@@theemperor3557 1, it's just a request for this to be expanded on so we could see what would happen throughout time, eventually to the time of 2023 and so on. 2, I just want to see what he would do as a Expansion to this. 3, And why would it be a Wet Dream? This could be history in a different dimension/universe, and we are still exploring for other species in known Space.
Adrian Goldsworthy is of the opinion that Augustus did want to reconquer Germania, which is why he had Tiberius retake territory rather than just give it to clients right away, our source for him saying that he didn't want Germania retaken comes from Tacitus I believe who got it from Tiberius, who also said it was under Augustus's orders to have Agrippa Postumus killed, which has been doubted to say the least, where it may just be the case Tiberius used Augustus's name to justify a policy he wanted to do regardless rather than reflecting Augustus's wishes who was ordering the reconquest prior to his death, the Germanic lands only being relinquished by Tiberius to their clients kings rather than by Augustus.
I have only read Tacitus on this time period, but I will look into it more. I have read Goldsworthy's book on anthony and cleopatra and I hope to read his book on augustus in the future
If the romans kept legal citizenship strict but also dismantled slavery to incentive a sort of industrial revolution within the empire then yeah could og survived imo
My position is, Peter Gibbons is wrong in his analysis, Rome never fell. Just like moving the Capital of the empire from Rome to Revenna, the "Roman Empire" did not fall, it just melted into something different. What fell, what ended, was the office of Emperor of Rome. By forcing Augustulus to abdicate, Odoacer was esentially aboloshing a useless, money draining institution. The Roman Emperor by then was just an empty shell. Charlamange more or less followed the same procedure when he abolished the King of Franks, and was crowned Emperor of Rome. Esentially, Empires melt into Kingdoms which inevitably melt into Republics.And the cycle continues.
just discovered you, i have seen your videos about italy and rome and you seem very good. i'm gonna subscribe. (but i'd like you to make videos about how do you think those alternate histories would go on in the future
Love the history, but considering the fact that Rome wasn't that far away from an industrial revolution in real life, I think it would've happened before the 1400s if they infact did survive the fall in 400 and continued to thrive.
You're absolutely right about Tiberius causing the fall of the empire by recalling Germanicus. A similar situation, albeit with less consequences, occurred when an emperor (Trajan?) recalled Agricola from present-day Scotland.
Everything after the conquest of Susa is very “Rome Eternal” type of alternate history. I would say everything before Susa could’ve possibly happened but Rome would have to commit ALOT of resources & time to pacify Germania & all of Dacia. If they couldn’t then they would make a defensive line from the Vistula to the Bug Rivers
If you look at the map of the world as it was known at that time, where everything else was unknown, you could say that of what the Romans knew back then, and what the British knew after that, the Romans conquered more than the British. If you were to look at it fairly. But the great Romans didn't just conquer. They romanticized people and rescued the various peoples from barbarism. The great Romans were one of the few empires that really did something for the people they conquered instead of just occupying them. They even let them have their own gods, although that was very often not something you saw in those ancient times. Hence all the negative things that go in that direction, even to the point where people start to demonize the great Romans. You can be 99% sure that it's just anti-Roman propaganda.
It seems like Emperor Romulus did a good job administering Rome during the Golden Age of the Empire. Why hasn't HBO done a Hysterically correct mini series about his reign?
Fun fact: the battle of Cape Ecnomus, is the largest naval battle in human history (256 BC? - First Punic War anyways) Fun fact 2: in the first Punic war the Romans had 5 entire fleets destroyed and kept rebeuildi g and rebuilding. Their grit and determination was incredible
LOVED THE VIDEO, but as much as it pains me to say this, the logistics just wouldn’t be possible, 600k men marching into Mongolia?? Other than that, amazing
Interesting idea, but there is a major problem, one of the main reasons for the fall of the roman empire were the constant civil wars and empire divisions, Rome had a huge manpower, Rome alone had 1/2M people in its peak, that alone was more than all the german tribes combined. The constant civil wars in the roman empire devastated the armies and the political power, there were emperors that only ruled for a few hours because they rose to power in the morning and by the end of the day they were dead by the some men that put them into power or another usurper. if the romans had a more stable political power and military, there was not a single power on Earth that could defeat the roman empire. We can see this even in the end of the roman empire, with the western part all fragmented, there was an emperor called Majorian that almost restored the western roman empire defeating the goths, the alamani, got the gaul almost all back, the iberian penisula and almost got the North of Africa back from the Vandals. There was still power in rome even in the 5th century. There were alot more problems like inflation, migrations, plagues, but to me the biggest problem were the civil wars, many legions left the roman frontiers and even abandoned completly some provinces like Britania and North of Gaul to cease power, this allowed the barbarian invasions, sack of cities, this led to the population to fear to live in big cities and fled to the fields seeking protection of the rich people that gave the protection in trade of labor, this is where was born the feudalism and the midle age castles like we know. Many cities were completly abandoned, and looked like ghost cities, Rome went from 1/2M people to 100k after the 3 sacks, now imagine living in a city prepared to have 1/2M people and then have 100k only, imagine NY with its 10/11M people sudnly have 1M people or less, we are talking of a 90% population decline in the big cities at least in the west. Also the sacks would leave a path of death and destruction and this would call for plagues beacause of the boddies, it would also have been a huge decline in economy due to a decline in taxes, trading etc. So all the other major problems can be associated with the civil wars and lost of military power and political stability. We are talking managing an Empire without cars, planes, trains, cell phones, satelites, gps etc, to travel from Rome to Britania would take days, weeks, so when the news of invasion arrived to Rome the city had already fallen or was starving in a siege. So yeah civil wars were the main cause of the end of Rome.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Make sure to check out by new alternate history where Athens won the Peloponnesian War: ruclips.net/video/4q7EZERJL7M/видео.html
pls make a par 2
Noice!
The major reason why this scenarios would not happen is the fact fact that Rome was destined to fail. But not for the reason people think. Rome was split in three and later two. Because Rome already extend own bureaucratic capacity. And ironically with development of region like Iberia and Galicja, increasing effort was needed to maintain cohesion. So rapid expansion would actually make process even more devastating. Corruption and lack of manpower of course were the factor.
But even prospering Rome would lost ability to respond to traversing tribes, what otherwise become Romanized, even if by ironic conquest of Roman provinces. As infrastructure and people mostly stay where they were and Rulers gradually adopt customs leading to rebirth during high medieval times. People forget that Rome was already sick man of Europe, after 3'th century. It is actually when most of infrastructure fold and fall of the Rome actually reverse this proces. As growing tribes start competing over its heritage. If West Rome would survive it would go the exact same route as Byzantium.
I completely not buying colonization of Americans by Rome! There is a reason why Age of Exploration happen and later American colonization. In short. Trade on the Silk Road was major thing even in times of Roman Empire. Rome in fact try find source of precious Silk, but could not breach through nomadic tries, especially as they economy start gradually folding. Chinese almost reach Rome, but they were scammed by Arabic Tribes, when they reach coastline of Mediterranean and give up.
Anyway, with rise of Ottoman Empire, trade become heavily taxed and as such developing European nations start seriously considered attempts of finding so called Southern Route and also test even theory that Earth is round and try wind Western Sea Route, discovering America. But if Rome conquer Arabic Peninsula. They would have open door on Indian ocean and India, would be open to conquest like with East India Company. This would become obvious target for the expansion and not immensely dangerous Atlantic and Northern Sea.
There would be literally no reason to invest in the costly and complicated Oceanic Ships. At least until Rome encounter and copy Chinese Junks. But even then conquest of still corrupted and weakened China would be priority.
the music, while beautiful, is mixed too loud. struggling to hear your cometary.
I appreciate your work on this regardless.
Just imagine by like 1600 the Romans set foot on the moon
yeah they would have been way more advanced than we are today
@@Videntis.History Turn this into a stellaris playthrough/history
@@stupidmonkey1015 I don't have Stellaris, but that would be cool
more like 1000
@@jboydayz Only reason I said 1600 cause in his storyline he said they industrialised around 1400
In my opinion, what Roma needed to do to solidify his reign was to create an institution that would take care of molding future emperors, indoctrinating them in all kinds of knowledge from administration to warfare, bringing the best candidates among the children of the high nobility. To make sure that the successions and the emperors to come were at the height of such an empire, the other institutions were very solid, that was the great fort of Rome
yeah that is true, and I did not go into in the video because of time, but that is really the only way that rome would survive. If they could have somehow made a system for competent leadership, they never would have fallen, but nobody in history has ever managed that.
The second century was the high of the roman empire, and there was a succession system, but Commodus ruined it. Also, the roman empire could've survived in the fifth century if the invasion of Africa in 468 had succeded. There were an handful of impressive emperors in the late empire, with just a bit of luck they could've saved the empire. Sadly, we will never know
They did had an excellent education system, that wasn't the problem. The problem was when emperors made a mistake when choosing a successor that had moral failings, or when they died without a good heir. And it then spirals.
@@Videntis.Historyyeah because Rome was busy tearing itself apart because of people trying to consolidate all the powers to themselves and become the Emperor I doubt this system would've lasted long as Rome had way too much power hungry people.
And then the noblefamilieswill try to kill the other candidates, sounds logical but human flaws will always find away to crash.
The biggest part of this is the new meaning behind “all roads lead to Rome”
WE DEMAND YOU TO MAKE PART TWO!
It was an excellent video! Please do part 2 of this video
yes sir
Hell yeah
What would it even be though, rome doing a WC?
@@ishthewall1915 Yes.
Please make part. 2
And Here I am again after deciding not to think about Rome anymore.
I loved the alternate version, its really fascinating to continue into how everything would have been affected
The fact that - state which through half of its history (Imperial times) didn't have a clear, solidified system of selecting rulers and their successors manageed to survive that long, beat many crisis and became greatest empire in humankind history - is absolutely insane and epic
Mother: Careful, men these days only think about one thing
Daughter: Sex?
Mother: Shows her this video
"What if Rome survived?"
"Welcome in the third millennium of Roman history, today we will follow the land and foundation of the first Roman colony on Epsilon Eridani from the orbit, on board of one of the transport troops of the 375th Legion..."
"Oh no, the Covenant are on Reach..."
Proceeds to destroy the entire Covenant fleet.
"Anyway."
The good timeline
This is incredible; I like this alternate history where most of these Emperors are more comment but savage as hell when they're on the battlefield to fight their enemies. Even took the Americas, while the Spanish had half of the North and South, and Britain used to have access to part of the territory. Well done and outstanding animation you did, my friend, for I can't wait to see more alternate history like this. I have some ideas if you're interested in hearing them, but anyway, great job, and always stay true to your dream and always fill your passion with your knowledge and art!
Thanks for the kind feedback. I would love to hear your ideas for future videos.
@@Videntis.History Really, then here are my ideas for future videos on alternate history:
What if Boris Godunov (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Godunov) had lived longer as Tsar of Russia? What would Russia have been with Godunov as Tsar, and would the Ramnavos still be the ruling dynasty?
What if the Mali Empire had survived and was the first African Empire to discover the Americas, resulting in other African kingdoms and empires spending expeditions for resources instead of the Europeans?
What if Napoleon had accepted the Frankfurt Prosopal and remained Emperor of France? What would France be like under a peaceful reign with Napoleon as Emperor? Would Napoleon become a semi or constitutional monarch as a figurehead who shared power with the parliament? What about Napoleon II? If Napoleon accepted the proposal, would he still be alive and marry Princess Sophie of Bavaria ( Princess Sophie of Bavaria), daughter of King Maximillian I Joseph of Bavaria? There have been sources that Napoleon II and Princess Sophie have feelings toward each other and might be in love? But the question would the marriage be approved by Emperor Napoleon and King Maximillian I Joseph? Under his father's education, would Napoleon II be a good emperor, and would France have been ruled by the Bonaparte Dynasty or still become a republic?
What if Song Dynasty
( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_dynasty#:~:text=The%20Song%20dynasty%20(%5Bs%CA%8A%CC%82%C5%8B%5D,throne%20of%20the%20Later%20Zhou. and www.britannica.com/topic/Song-dynasty) had been able to industrialize earlier and manage the drive to invade Monaglia to prevent the rise of the Mongol Empire? What would be the consequences of China under the Song Dynasty, and would Siberia be colonized by the Chinese instead of the Russians?
What if Sehzade Mustafa ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eehzade_Mustafa), son of Suleiman the Magnificent, was warned about his assassination attempts by his others and actually escaped? How would news about the Sultuan trying to kill his son, beloved by people of the Ottoman Empire, and how the public react to it? Would there be a civil war wanting Suleiman to depose? Would Sehzade Mustafa try to prevent a civil war, and what would the Ottoman Empire be like, Sehzade Mustafa as Sultuan, and how would this benefit the Ottoman Empire?
What if Oda Nobunaga had become the Shogun of Japan instead of Toyotomi Hideyoshi if he wasn't betrayed and assassinated? Could Japan win the Imjin War under his leadership, and would it be possible for Japan easily Ming China? If so, would there be an earlier rise Empire of Japan, how would this Empire of Japan be different than the EOJ in our current timeline, and would it have lasted longer in the 1500s? What obstacles would this Japanese Empire face?
What if Etophia had unified Africa during the pre-scamble for Africa by the Europeans? Could Ethiopia have the chance to unite Africa, and in what ways the Ethiopian Empire could be done to unify Africa successfully?
What if the death and exile of Catherine of Aragon sparked higher tension between the Kingdom of England and the Holy Roman Empire under the Habsburgs? Possibility why the HRE could go to war against England because a rumor has it that King Herny VIII had poisoned Catherine, but when an autopsy was done on her, it was discovered to be a tumor around her heart that would later be melanotic sarcoma cancer. But if the rumors are true, would war be waged between England and the HRE, and which would join sides and why? Also, what about the people who are English subjects and nobility reacting to the actual death of Catherine of Aragon? Would it spark an English civil war, and could Mary Tudor, Herny's daughter, gain support from the nobility and the rest of England? How would King Herny VIII react to his daughter rebelling against him, and what would he do? Would Mary side with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V?
Have you ever heard of Rani of Jhansi? If not here, think of the Sepoy Mutiny, aka the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and here are the links to learn more about her and her son, Damodar Rao: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_of_Jhansi, www.britannica.com/biography/Lakshmi-Bai, ruclips.net/video/tKmkMVaNu9g/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/ei9IkGdcmPg/видео.html, and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damodar_Rao_of_Jhansi
She was an Indian queen who ruled Jhansi, an independent state under Newwalkar Marthtra Dynasty who ruled the Marthra Empire, where the Marthra was the defeat the Mughals in the Mughal-Maratha Wars: (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal%E2%80%93Maratha_Wars#:~:text=After%20the%20death%20of%20Aurangzeb,up%20to%20Peshawar%20by%201758.)
This caused the downfall of the Mughal Empire and the rise of the Maratha with Shaivaji I as Chhatrapati ( Emperor), who founded the Bohnsle Dynasty, and Jhansi was a kingdom ruled by the Maharajas. Still, Jhansi was taken over by the British authorities. Took over the state under the terms of the Doctrine of Lapse, a policy name Lord Dalhousie, governor of India ( 1848-1856), who devised to plan on questing India rather should rights succession to Indian states with the justification of the annexation by the East India Company in the Indian subcontinent had already had the princely states under their control and applied after the Company's rule over India came to an end when it was succeeded by the British Raji under the British Crown, making Queen Victoria Empress of India.
What if Rani Lakshinbal had survived the retreating battle of Gwalior during the Indian Rebellion of 1857? She was one the leading figures of the Rebellion and a symbol of resistance to British rule in India for the nationalists. What if she had fled before being trapped and killed in combat? Which location would you think she uses as an advantage against the British that may find difficult in their favor? Could she even unite all the kingdoms and princely states to her cause along with her allies? What could she do for the other local rulers by being at her side if not? Would a unified army be enough to drive the British out of the Indian subcontinent, and what tactics could they use in numbers to overwhelm British forces?
What would a united India be like under Rani of Jhansi and what would it be called, and what type of government be based on? Would the other local rulers want Rani Lakshimbal to be a ruler of a united India? Would they be okay with or against it because she is a woman? What about her son? Would Damodar Rao prefer to be the ruler of this united India? If Rani Lakshimbal were to lead this united India, what sovereign title would fit best for her and why?
Would a united India be able to modernize like what Japan did during the 1800s, or wouldn't it do it because most people won't accept change? What would be better ways for India to update for it to enter an industrial revolution? Would it be bad if this united India is not industrialized because of bureaucracy and older generations who are onto the ancient traditions? Would this India be able to expand beyond their borders, and if it did, which countries or borders seem suitable for expansion and why? What are other relationships with other South and East Asian countries? Could it become a significant or global power in South Asia? What about the British? Would they even try to retake India, which is now united? If they did try to retake it with force with ease or not, then explain why is that? Could this alternate India retaliate by invading British colonies and trying to invade the United Kingdom itself? I got an idea where most RUclipsrs are playing Victoria 3, with few playing India, including the Sikh Empire, where they subjugated Great Britain using strategies; I recommended you watch some of them to get a clear picture.
Imagine a united India under Rani of Jhansi leading the naval invasion to the British Isles and a land invasion of the United Kingdom, with several soldiers defeating British battalions with weaponry they use mixed with modern technology to theirs but more deadly and London being sieged similar with Ottomans did with Constantinople and having the UK fall leaving them subjugated into the might of an Indian empire with Rani of Jhansi being crowned as the new queen of her new kingdom and making it her second capital.
Just imagine Europe's reaction to India taking complete control of the United Kingdom and having a foreign now ruling as queen. Most European powers would consider Rani of Jhansi the new Mehmed the Conqueror. Now that would be fantastic to see an alternate history with Rani of Jhansi survived as a mini-series, don't you agree, my friend?
I'm sorry for the extra details, but I wanted to be more specific; which topics do you like best?
@@benjaminobienu5297 I will definitely look into these, thanks for the full break down. I like the Mali scenario, I have not seen of anything like it.
@@Videntis.History You're welcome and take your time; no need to rush those scenarios, but I do have a question: Are you saying you have never seen an alternate history video on Mali Empire survived and discovered America or other alternate history scenarios weren't commonly appeared in alternate history youtube channels and forgot to ask does this Rome ruled by the Julio-Cludain Dynasty similar with Japan being led by the Yamato Dynasty over centuries?
@@benjaminobienu5297 no, I have not seen a video on an alternate history where Mali colonized America. It sounds cool though. Also, the Julio-Claudian would continue to rule Rome over the centuries.
"Rome just ran out of men to fight back."
That's exactly why I always say that "Rome was the crown of the world, it makes sense that everyone would want the crown, it wasin't one event, or people who conquered Rome. Rome was conquered when it ran out of Romans to defend her."
Even in the last battles of the eastern empire, it was clear that Rome could still fight, but they could never muster an army large enough to match their neighbors.
China was the crown of the world by any metric. Population, technology, structure of the state. This Roman wankfest is just comedy to historians to read.
You a poet or something?
Rome lost tons of its manpower to civil wars. Legions fighting Legions.
@@MuffHamAlso, no one wanted to fight for their very corrupt government.
@@WarriorofChrist612 Rome allowed forgieners into there army in the late stages. Same thing is happening in the USA. Talk of allowing illegals to join the military even police forces.
USA is following in the same steps of decline as Rome.
World: Best Ending
Hard to imagine Rome standing strong for centuries while stretched so thin. Even if the mixing of peoples works corruption and opportunism in time will tear border provinces off the empire, that'll 'cause a domino effect. Certain parts will get consumed by the bordering tribes and kingdoms while others will manage to adapt.
Yea. This reads more like a fanfic than a serious look at plausible alternate history
@oberonpanopticon Yeah this is something I'd write if I was 15
@@accidiaet yeah rome here reads like a marie sue " my empire is the biggest, strongest and coolest, they conquered everyone who fought them, they never had a bad emperor, no one can beat their army, their people are perfectly united and no revolt can win, they never have civil wars and did i say they're the coolest already? because they are "
Honestly it wasn't that unreasonable until he got to America. Like are the Aztecs and Incas nonexistent? The only reason Europe matched to conquer America was because of guns I doubt Roman at this timeline would have guns.
I think that an underrated emperor was Alexander severus..if he had more grip on the army,i think that he could had vassalized sassanid empire
thats an interesting idea, maybe I can cover it in the future
I think this really needed to be split into multiple parts. I love the idea but so much time passes and it isn’t all that detailed for most of it, like talk about the emperors, the changes to dynasties if any, the dynamic changes to government, maybe a new religion, one that follows Sol and not Christianity, stuff like that. Talk about more critical crisis, because for one, this is Roma we’re talking about, corruption, opportunism, greed, etc… would’ve brought periods of economic crisis, civil wars and so on. Love the idea but I’m not a fan of everything going so perfectly. Definitely a good video tho and I love your passion, keep it up and I’ll keep an eye out for your next videos!
The good ending
i am glad you liked it
I really love the idea of it, but it seems so unlikely that so much happened in only 200 years or so (the conquest of Parthia and Scandi, e.g.).
Very cool vid, I've rarely seen sth so well done like this before.
yeah thats true, but Rome conquered a ton of land from 200bc to 0ad, so its possible, just probably not super likely
@@Videntis.History oh damn didn't thought of that, right
@@Salvo04 The more u know
Wouldn’t Rome just turn into something like China if it stayed United for too long?
@@Videntis.Historyyou have to realize that that was during the republican period where the average man had much more upwards mobility in the military. These military aspirations of those republicans generals expanded the Roman lands. Rome was also much smaller and their manpower was much more willingly to serve in the army.
What a great video man I was surprised really how good the quality was keep doing what you’re doing.
I appreciate it!
Great work masterpiece of a video 👌
Thank you very much!
@@Videntis.History I love the vids I am your 365th subscriber!
I will be uploading more videos like this so make sure to like, subscribe, and share with your friends.
Noice!
Only one issue here. Atilla did NOT have 200000 men. It was more like 30000. The Romans exaggerated the numbers, this has been proven.
ok, fair criticism, I looked at estimates but I probably should have looked into it more. I will try and be more accurate in future videos
Romans just didn't wanna admit Atilla came with the numbers of 1-3 legions and clapped the entire Roman military east and west + decimated the Germans Atilla was lowkey 1 of the greatest generals in history
@@randomguy6152 no he actually didn't. I'm thinking you don't know how this story ends...
@@Fatherofheroesandheroines well just like Hannibal and Napoleon he lost in the end doesn't mean he isn't a higher ranked general than Europeans give him
Ma anche no!
24:07 the map alone is making me bowtublo
Also the inflation under Nero was largely dealt with by both Vespasion (who massively increased taxes) and Domitian who increased the silver standard from like 86% silver to 98%, granted it went back down to 92% but other it can't be blamed on Nero unless you want to say he created the precedent for it, otherwise no-one forced other Emperor's to do that.
yeah, Nero, created the standard to debase the currency which future emperors followed
Massively increasing taxes doesn’t deal with inflation
@@pels_stacked That's exactly how Vespasian and Domitian dealt with inflation, since people won't be spending as much beyond just essentials so they can pay off their tax, where then shop vendors decrease prices as to increase the demand for their goods, it is basic economics.
@@atticusp6592 Yeah I forgot governments didn’t actually have to give a shit about their people being able to make a living before the modern era
@@pels_stacked They did, otherwise they could be overthrown, as the Neo-Assyrians were, likewise the Goths pretty successfully revolted against the Romans after they were forced to sell their children as slaves to buy dog meat. That and part of the role of an Emperor was just overseeing court cases. Augustus on his death awarded every citizen some of his wealth for them to enjoy, Trajan implemented a Welfare program for poor children, Aurelian increased the food dole, Valentinian the Great provided medical care for the poor within Rome. What the Flavians did with their Tax increases were appropriate for the time to deal with the inflation, likewise Domitian in particular used the tax money to then give Roman citizens jobs through massive building projects that benefited the entire Empire unambiguously, likewise his revaluing of the coinage helped give more confidence in Roman coinage which lead to a boom in trade.
I like the idea more that what if Rome had not fallen, or retained it’s old glory, but rather stagnated. What if Rome had discovered gunpowder, and were able to field massive weapons the likes of those the world had never seen? What if even those weren’t enough to prevent it’s partial destruction but keep it as a regional stagnated power in the Italian Peninsula, with the Alps to the north and west, and a small easily defendable plain to the east? With that Rome would be a tough nut to get through. They would then become a fallen empire, one that while still alive, is in a stagnant state. Perhaps one day however it could retake it’s former glory and unite the world under it’s banner and then look to the stars, conquering the galaxy just as it had done to Earth.
I have a video idea where a weakened rome survived around the mediterranean.
We are waiting 😂
this is literally just fallen empires from stellaris
would you link it please?
Honestly, I loved the first half of the video (everything up to conquering the Persians), I felt it was very well fleshed out and covered in sufficient detail to understand the causes and effects of what was being proposed. It felt much more real as a result, as history is made up of those millions of tiny details. The primary issue of succession wasn't really discussed though, and without that being resolved (ideally by Augustus laying down some kind of system being the First Emperor as precedent) the Roman Empire would have torn itself apart over and over again like in OTL due to perpetual political infighting, rendering it too weak to do any of the cool stuff later on that is discussed. In order for this video to have occurred, that issue HAS to be resolved, just..in the background I guess.
Everything from conquering the Persians on felt, honestly, like bad alt history fanfiction. It takes the idea that Rome achieves some kind of "critical mass" and runs with it, swallowing up Persia in what is a xerox copy of Alexander's campaign with the serial numbers filed off, replaced with "Rome". History wouldn't repeat in the same way with over 1000 years of technological, social, and economic differences. The Persia that Rome fought was a much tougher and more advanced cookie than what Alexander faced, with the lessons of the fractured Hellenistic kingdoms fused with native Persian capabilities. They would not fall just because a couple of their rulers fell in battle, it would be a very rough campaign.
In addition, a bigger issue is that Rome grew too big to govern and administer/control without more advanced technologies that they did not possess, or think to use in specific ways. While their roads were the envy of the world, and they had the "Pax Romana" turning the Mediterranean Sea into one giant safe pond for Roman rule, and they did have a Pony Express-esque courier/messaging system to send messages faster than marching infantry (even with 2000 years of less developed/shorter/slower horse breeds, messengers could cover a distance of about 200 miles a day on main roads by changing horses every 10 miles or so, and took only about 6 days to reach Britain from Rome (a record that was not improved upon until the invention of modern automobiles in the OTL 20th century)...
...they did not have semaphore towers (more fantasy-like, but possible), they did not have railways (even wooden ones). Without those concepts (and with a cultural disdain of cavalry to boot), Rome couldn't have extended to such a bloated state, like a Mongol Empire but from the west. The Mongols had 1000 years edge on the Romans technologically, plus internal Mongol cultural influences that translated into superlative highly mobile military forces that could ride across the largest continent on Earth and allow them to outmaneuver any medieval army thrown at them (a level of army mobility not re-achieved until WW2 in many cases). Rome did not have those critical things needed to conquer and maintain in the long run (centuries) an intercontinental empire on the scale of what is shown on those maps of yours (heck, the only comparable entity in our world is the Mongol Empire, and even they fell apart within a few generations as their rulers lost their edge from their original culture, diluted by other cultures they conquered, and fractured into easier to administer chunks). So even IF Rome conquered Persia successfully and Romanized it somehow, the video would end at the "administrative zones" bit, Rome permanently fractured into smaller pieces that could be ruled separately (which again IRL that is what happened with the Tetrarchy established by Diocletian).
The same problems persisted with the "Islam" and "Viking" parts of the timeline. Islam only occurred the way it did (I'm reading right now "The Silk Roads: A New History of the World" by Peter Frankopan, it covers the origin of Islam and a lot of other stuff in detail) due to a confluence of political conflicts between the Byzantine and Sassanid empires, clashes between competing versions of Byzantine and Persian Christianity (plus lots of native Arabic religious turmoil too). There was a severe food famine/economic crash going on, all of which spurred on the unique events that led to Mohammed's revelations in the cave by Gabriel that led to Islam being founded, the Hegira, etc. Long and short of it, if Rome just swallowed up the entire "world" around Arabia and was the sole superpower, then none of that would have happened. If a competing religion to Christianity had ever emerged, it would have been so different as to not warrant calling it Islam at all.
The Viking thing just...made me wince. Like, in this timeline the Romans conquered most or all of Scandinavia, which was where the Vikings largely came from. I doubt there would be enough "free Vikings" to have what is described happen, as they would be so thoroughly Romanized by over 1000 years of regional access they wouldn't be who we call Vikings. Those would be ROMANS crossing the seas with Viking capabilities, but they wouldn't be Vikings, swallowed up by Roman cultural and religious hegemony.
Everything about the New World, industrialization, Mongol Wars, etc, is just...a fantasy, really.
So...sorry for ripping into the video so much. I've always loved reading about the Roman Empire and what-ifs, so this was something I could really sink my teeth into. But I really did love the first half!
Another thing that seemed really off for me is the complete neglect of Africa. In our history Portugal began exploring and colonizing the African coast way before the discovery of Americas. Here, even Australia and New Zealand are colonized with Africa still being unknown. I know the Europeans were looking for a sea route to India as a result of the Caliphate controlling the land route, but I think the Romans would explore Africa nonetheless.
Die gesamte Welt wäre römisch,nur das alte China und Japan wären selbstständige Staaten,
Like making a constitution with succession described by law. I thought of the very same thing.
@@SereglothIVNot only the Romans have no instentive to explore Africa, but IRL the continent was properly explored inland just over 150 years ago.
@@SereglothIV Ancient Kush/Ethiopia is the Most neglected of the Classical civilisations, along with the medieval West African empires,I mean just how do many people know Ethiopians fought in the Trojan Wars??,or that Ethiopia was one of the earliest monotheistic nations?(Belief in one God),When Most of Europe was still pagan and polytheistic..
This really would make Rome the uncontested capital of the world
Imagine if Roman war culture never faded, against the Huns they would have had at least a million men.
At first I saw this as a bit of a fun unrealistic scenario but then I realized this really was basically "What if Europe was completely united by Rome and then carried on the European legacy of empire building on its own rather than multiple Kingdoms within Europe competing over it." Would love to see the history books in this timeline hahah. Also can't help but wonder what the relationship with China would be like in this time line. A part 2 would be so so so cool!
china would be the sparce race rival rome would win
I'm surprised you didn't include China in this video since they were aware of the Roman Empire since 97 AD.
amazing video! keep up the hard work
thanks
Crazy to see how Spain did do this to the Americas and it lasted for 300 years united.
As unlikely as this scenario is, im eating it up like popcorn, id live to see more.
To say Caracalla's citizenship reform limited the size of the army I think is pushing it, it did remove an incentive but at the same time the Roman army would massively increase size in size a bit under 100 years later in the Dominate, bringing the army from 250'000 to 300-500'000 depending on what period you look at, likewise the real limit was what the Empire could actually afford, they still paid for Auxiliary troops afterall.
ok, but than why did the military enrollments drop so much, rome did not previously rely on mercenaries before that
@@Videntis.History I covered that earlier, that the Western Roman Empire during its fall simply lacked the resources to actually afford an army due to the reduced tax intake from lost/ravaged territory, that and the military pay was not great, generally what you will see Emperors do when they want to increase the size of the army/increase the loyalty of their troops they will increase their pay, Domitian did it, Trajan did it and Septimius Severus did it, it's basic economics, that increasing wages also increases the supply of workers since you can attract more people to work for you, but as a consequence it increases price inflation as a partial consequence of putting more money in the system as was seen under the Severan Dynasty. That's also how Anastasius was able to reverse the barbarisation of the Eastern army by increasing military pay which attracted more Roman citizens to join. Otherwise given that Auxiliary troops were always half of the Roman army, they were present from the inception of the Empire, the difference being when it came to the Fall of the Roman Empire, said Barbarians were drawn from separate legal political entities that were not part of the Empire, not having any loyalty to it, which was done as an expedient given that they offered their services for cheap, for while Theodosius was able to raise another army after the battle of Adrianople, its quality was insufficient to actually deal with the Visigoths given their lack of experience, which created another incentive to hire Mercenary troops, especially during the Civil Wars that ensued in his reign. So for the time given how Roman culture worked, it was the states lack of funds and immediate needs that lead to them hiring mercenaries, rather than a change in a citizenship law. Where again I can point to the East in where once their economy was able to flourish, they were able to hire more locals by increasing military pay. Although really if the West wanted to raise a large army they could have followed Gallienus's/Septimius's example and massively devalue the coinage to raise a massive army.
Although I do mention culture since during the Republic while they did institute pay, people were generally expected to provide their own armour and weapons, with pay more just supplementing what they would otherwise lose from not farming for a given year, it would have been next to nothing compared to the pay of a Roman Legionary, since they largely fought for their Virtus rather than for pay, it was for a time their sole means to attain value in society.
@@Videntis.Historythere were recruits but people need money to risk their lives in war. Money the failing Roman economy did not have. Also 😂 sorry there would never be a crusade against Muslims why? Because the crusades happened to retake the holy lands. In your alternate reality the Muslims never had the holy lands so the pope would never have a good reason for the crusade.
Looks perfect as a timeline, basically the world is much more cohesively united.
videos like this make me realize that we all are living in a cursed timeline.
This timeline would make an awesome series.
You forgot the most basic rule:
“The empire long united must divide, long divided must unite; this is how it has always been.”
― Luo Guanzhong, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Vol. 1 of 2
Extension (my head cannon for after this):
Most of the American colonies would be either taken over or split off, and Rome would experience another golden age where the Roman-Sino Trade Network increased, and thus the world became stable.
Rome for a short time would fade, however after a new Dynasty in China known as the Yunn Dynasty would form, WW1 would break out in 1587. However, the war would last 24 years but with no end in sight they would sign a peace, agreeing to hand over their claims.
Many more nations would form, and the emperor would become a figure head.
good ideas
@@Videntis.History Rome: Who are you?
Yunn: I am the Mongol Empire, Conqueror of China. Remember when you thought you “utterly destroyed” me and my empire. Yeah, your rumors of my destruction is… G R E A T L Y E X A G G E R A T E D!
@@Videntis.History World War 2, The Conquest of India and the Sahara
World War 3, The Migration into Africa, and the conquest of A L L of it, and the Protestant Revolution, as The Pope leaves orthodoxy and becomes Protestant!
China may have been powerful, but they simply would not be able to combat a Rome of this scale.
Even in our own timeline when (400) Roman soldiers fought against the Han Chinese, they were reported as skilled, and hard to defeat.
Even as an equal in the world, the chinese were still having difficulties with Roman soldiers who were in poor condition. Though still with their scutums (Which their conversations speak of)
when did rome fight the Han Chinese?
That was very interesting. Nicely done!!!
Great vid, I think overall corruption was also a major issue, the nobility getting more and more able to avoid paying taxes towards the later centuries for example.
Yeah, that’s true
Fascinating stuff. Subscribed ❤
thanks
For real man, i hate how some people hate towards Tiberius as if he was militarily incompetent, or just an old boring emperor. He was pretty interesting for his military approach, for example, his slow yet genius way of warfare. Germanicus wouldn't have stood a chance of conquering Germania if Tiberius didn't solidify the Roman position.
I disagree, if Germanicus had the same approach as Caesar did in Gaul, he would have crushed them
People who ask this question are missing something so profound and yet so subtle.
The Roman Empire never did fall. It just changed or evolved over the centuries. You're living in it right now and don't even know it.
Reeeeeally cool video man!
Im glad you liked it, make sure to like and subscribe to see future videos
0:00 a legend was born
Nice, some cool new alternate history channely are popping up, and at last an alernate history that do good maps !
More to come!
Absolutely loved this timeline. 6 years of alternate history I’ve been following and this is my favorite. SPQR!
You seem good, im subscribing
thanks
It would be a pretty big leap to say that a continent spanning empire that was land based for 2000 years would develop the kind of technology to be able to establish efficient trans-atlantic trade. Not impossible, but I believe lack of imagination in development is constantly given as a large factor in the decline or at least stagnation of many autocratic states.
Rome had a good navy and many merchant ships. Not a leap of faith to think that would grow as the empire grew. Greed does many wonderful things, and those merchants would want the raw materials the Americas had to offer. Not to mention, I believe Rome would set up bases and colonies in Africa to facilitate sea lanes to India and China.
I'd wonder if Constantinople or some city like it would be made in the same spot due to it being a better capital which would connect the empire better
I didn't really elaborate on this in the video, but Pella, the old macedonian capital was built up into the main roman city in greece, so constantinople would never really be needed.
1500 Rome annex all of Europe
1550 Annexation of all of Africa
1600 Annexation off all of Asia
1620 The word is Roman
1650 The moon is Roman
Cardi B is Roman
1840 Rome conquers the entire Solar System.
@@VinnyUnion Cardi B is Carthaginian.
@@AndreaMoletta-s3c is that a rare kind of broccoli
@@VinnyUnion No, you.
Rome was always going to fall; every empire runs out of virility and is overtaken by younger, more vigorous identities
Yeah, it was just a fun speculation
China
@@NewLightning1China literally Collapse and split into many states and many times in history
@@FBI-A16
Do you think they collapsed now?
Part 1 of Rome Alternate History was ( Augustus , Germanicus , Nero Julius Caesar , Brittannicus , Gaius Drusus , Vispanius , Romulus II , Avitus ) 229.
Part 2
229 Avitus dies when Germanicus II becomes emperor, he will go to war with the Saxon tribes in a rebellion.
267 Scythians Wars in Crimea and Germanicus II dies in battle and loses the Crimean Peninsula.
268 Germanicus II had no sons and Rome went into a civil or depression era with 4 generals becoming emperor with “ Marcus of the East “ Cyprian of Persian Rome” Aurelian of the West Rome”, “Postumus of Germanic lands”
274 Aurelian kills Postumus in battle ending the Germanic break away Rome”
268 Aurelian dies His daughter Hilaria takes over
293 Cyprian dies his general Maximus takes over the Persian part of the Empire and Marcus of the east dies and his son Constantius I takes over eastern Rome.
301 Constantius I converts to christianity and makes east Rome more richer, city Constantinople is found and builds new cities in Egypt.
303 Constantius married Hilaria and unites East and West
308 Maximus goes to war with Gupta Empire
314 Maximus dies and his best soldier Justus takes over and continues the war.
336 Constantius II takes the throne
374 Justus dies and his son Justus II takes over
378 Constantius II dies and has no son he adopted Theodosius I to be his heir
392 Romes Explore southern Africa to the city of Tamanrasset
410 Rome lost scandinavia to the Norse
412 Justus II dies makes his son Augustus II
422 Theodosius I dies and his son Honorius takes over , huns start attacking east part of the empire losing parts of Romania
451 Huns take over Germania and parts of Rome, Suebi make a Kingdom in northern Germany.
460 Honorius dies Licinia Eudoxia becomes Empress and the empire goes to a crisis, hunnic empire collapses
467 Suebi takes over Germanic Rome and Gaul
475 Rome left Denmark and move there army to Britain, Augustus III dies in Roman Persia
493 Licinia dies, Eudocia becomes Empress and annexes Roman Persia from Augustus III.
502 peace in the world no battles no nothing and Eudocia dies making Constantius III the new ruler of Rome.
544 Constantius III died and his legacy was going south to Africa in the modern city of Bamako.
545 Vispanius II takes over and tries to take over Suebia but fails
568 First Turkic Khaganate attacks to the east of the empire where Avars are time
571 Vispanius II dies and makes his son Augustus IV , Turkic Khaganate splits up to west and east.
592 Khaganate falls Tang dynasty makes rome not go further
623 Augustus IV dies and splits the empire for good in 3 Persian Rome,Middle Rome or Byzantine Empire and Western Rome.
624 Germanicus III gets West, Augustus V gets Middle , and Seneca Persia
643 Rashidun Caliphate rises and takes over Arabia and Persia Rome, Seneca rules east rome from Bandar-e Torkman.
659 Persian Rome falls to the Rashidun Caliphate
662 Rashidun Caliphate falls to Umayyad Caliphate
665 Augustus V dies and Constantius IV takes over while now Middle Rome is called Byzantine Empire and only controls Turkey and the Balkens.
670 Germanicus III dies and Theodosius II takes the throne of the West.
674 Umayyad attacks Constantinople but just barely survives Constantius IV save the Byzantine Empire for now.
685 Slavs take over most of the Balkens.
690 west rome leaves Britain for good due to the Norse
695 Umayyad control all of North Africa
704 Theodosius II dies and West was a mess with Rome having Italy,parts of Gaul and Spain and the Faroe Islands. Constantius IV steps down the throne and makes a new guard Emperor, he was Philippicus.
713 Philippicus dies and Nero II takes over
719 Umayyad control almost all of Spain
731 West Rome was just Italy and parts of the Balkens Germanicus IV steps down for losing so much land, and his son Remus takes over.
776 Suebi Kingdom takes over half of italy and Remus moves the capital to Naples.
777 Nero II dies Constantius V takes the Byzantine throne.
798 Remus died and had no sons but a daughter maxima.
800 Pope Leo III crowns Gutumarus King of the suebi, Roman emperor
Part III 3 Romes maxima of Western Rome, Gutumarus Suebi Roman empire , Constantius V of Byzantine empire.
I hope there is a part two this feels very real kind of
@akb48central53 you could probably do a timeline of my history I like the HRE timeline
I love it mate
thanks so much
As an Italian, i'm so pround for my ancienstors
So it really is the eternal city in this universe.
The fundamental problem is that the Romans lost the will to sacrifice in order to maintain their rights under the Republic. Once the independent farmers were pauperized, they were just another despotism.
Rome then conquered the entire universe.
15:51 these borders are getting a girl flustered. Beautiful
21:24 oh blesss
22:16 one of the best timelines
You should've also covered their relations with china in this alternative universe where rome's naval and industrial outreach is greater
Yeah, that was definitely a missed opportuinity.
Given the fact the Romans had conquered the Sassassinds in this timeline, the Chinese would have been able to make contact with the Romans or vice versa.
This video made me happy
Lad, you need to make a part two.
I wanna see the Roman Empire eventually become the entire planet's sole Government.
Please!
Why? This is literally a wet dream not reality.
@@theemperor3557
1, it's just a request for this to be expanded on so we could see what would happen throughout time, eventually to the time of 2023 and so on.
2, I just want to see what he would do as a Expansion to this.
3, And why would it be a Wet Dream? This could be history in a different dimension/universe, and we are still exploring for other species in known Space.
And then Part 3 is basically 'Roman Empire Does Stellaris'
Yes. @@thecatfather857
Adrian Goldsworthy is of the opinion that Augustus did want to reconquer Germania, which is why he had Tiberius retake territory rather than just give it to clients right away, our source for him saying that he didn't want Germania retaken comes from Tacitus I believe who got it from Tiberius, who also said it was under Augustus's orders to have Agrippa Postumus killed, which has been doubted to say the least, where it may just be the case Tiberius used Augustus's name to justify a policy he wanted to do regardless rather than reflecting Augustus's wishes who was ordering the reconquest prior to his death, the Germanic lands only being relinquished by Tiberius to their clients kings rather than by Augustus.
I have only read Tacitus on this time period, but I will look into it more. I have read Goldsworthy's book on anthony and cleopatra and I hope to read his book on augustus in the future
cool vid
I wanted a ROMAN CRUSADE so bad...
If the romans kept legal citizenship strict but also dismantled slavery to incentive a sort of industrial revolution within the empire then yeah could og survived imo
My position is, Peter Gibbons is wrong in his analysis, Rome never fell. Just like moving the Capital of the empire from Rome to Revenna, the "Roman Empire" did not fall, it just melted into something different. What fell, what ended, was the office of Emperor of Rome. By forcing Augustulus to abdicate, Odoacer was esentially aboloshing a useless, money draining institution. The Roman Emperor by then was just an empty shell. Charlamange more or less followed the same procedure when he abolished the King of Franks, and was crowned Emperor of Rome. Esentially, Empires melt into Kingdoms which inevitably melt into Republics.And the cycle continues.
Imagine romans with tanks 💀💀
just discovered you, i have seen your videos about italy and rome and you seem very good. i'm gonna subscribe. (but i'd like you to make videos about how do you think those alternate histories would go on in the future
I will planning on doing that for future videos
My favorite timeline by far
Love the history, but considering the fact that Rome wasn't that far away from an industrial revolution in real life, I think it would've happened before the 1400s if they infact did survive the fall in 400 and continued to thrive.
This is the best alternative history I have ever seen about Rome, because It changes the history radically, very original idea.
Thanks so much for the feedback
@invictvs:
Then you would like the SF Novel, "Roma Eterna", by Robert Silverberg, which describes a Roman Invasion of Central America!
Alternate history as directed by a cruisader kings player
You're absolutely right about Tiberius causing the fall of the empire by recalling Germanicus. A similar situation, albeit with less consequences, occurred when an emperor (Trajan?) recalled Agricola from present-day Scotland.
Captivating! I watched it all.
Everything after the conquest of Susa is very “Rome Eternal” type of alternate history. I would say everything before Susa could’ve possibly happened but Rome would have to commit ALOT of resources & time to pacify Germania & all of Dacia. If they couldn’t then they would make a defensive line from the Vistula to the Bug Rivers
yeah, that was the point of the video though, i hope you still liked it though
Best catholic timeline.
That was awesome.
Roman World Conquest frfr
they pretty much took the whole thing
If you look at the map of the world as it was known at that time, where everything else was unknown, you could say that of what the Romans knew back then, and what the British knew after that, the Romans conquered more than the British. If you were to look at it fairly. But the great Romans didn't just conquer. They romanticized people and rescued the various peoples from barbarism. The great Romans were one of the few empires that really did something for the people they conquered instead of just occupying them. They even let them have their own gods, although that was very often not something you saw in those ancient times. Hence all the negative things that go in that direction, even to the point where people start to demonize the great Romans. You can be 99% sure that it's just anti-Roman propaganda.
@@primaitalia753ong as an African it will be better if they had conquered Africa
Please do a part 2 which would include a Roman industrial revolution. I think many other viewers would also have the same request. Thanks
this was awesome
After this, I want to fire up Crusader Kings 3 again and try to restore the Roman Empire 😅
It seems like Emperor Romulus did a good job administering Rome during the Golden Age of the Empire.
Why hasn't HBO done a Hysterically correct mini series about his reign?
What bust/statue did you use for Romulus?
I used a greek statue of apollo
The best ending of humanity
An excellent video, I’ve often seen this what if but this one was especially detailed.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Salve brother, thank you for the interesting and informative video.
Liked....Subbed....Rang of the Bellicus
Fun fact: the battle of Cape Ecnomus, is the largest naval battle in human history (256 BC? - First Punic War anyways)
Fun fact 2: in the first Punic war the Romans had 5 entire fleets destroyed and kept rebeuildi g and rebuilding. Their grit and determination was incredible
So, it was BIGGER than "The Battle of Leyte Gulf", in 1944?
Thanks! I have to check that out!
At the time we were the USA 😂❤
@@Masuchi1980no that’s an insult ROME was Rome not usa
Rome would have conquered Mars by now if it had never fallen
LOVED THE VIDEO, but as much as it pains me to say this, the logistics just wouldn’t be possible, 600k men marching into Mongolia?? Other than that, amazing
The best timeline😊
second part pls?
Interesting idea, but there is a major problem, one of the main reasons for the fall of the roman empire were the constant civil wars and empire divisions, Rome had a huge manpower, Rome alone had 1/2M people in its peak, that alone was more than all the german tribes combined. The constant civil wars in the roman empire devastated the armies and the political power, there were emperors that only ruled for a few hours because they rose to power in the morning and by the end of the day they were dead by the some men that put them into power or another usurper. if the romans had a more stable political power and military, there was not a single power on Earth that could defeat the roman empire. We can see this even in the end of the roman empire, with the western part all fragmented, there was an emperor called Majorian that almost restored the western roman empire defeating the goths, the alamani, got the gaul almost all back, the iberian penisula and almost got the North of Africa back from the Vandals. There was still power in rome even in the 5th century. There were alot more problems like inflation, migrations, plagues, but to me the biggest problem were the civil wars, many legions left the roman frontiers and even abandoned completly some provinces like Britania and North of Gaul to cease power, this allowed the barbarian invasions, sack of cities, this led to the population to fear to live in big cities and fled to the fields seeking protection of the rich people that gave the protection in trade of labor, this is where was born the feudalism and the midle age castles like we know. Many cities were completly abandoned, and looked like ghost cities, Rome went from 1/2M people to 100k after the 3 sacks, now imagine living in a city prepared to have 1/2M people and then have 100k only, imagine NY with its 10/11M people sudnly have 1M people or less, we are talking of a 90% population decline in the big cities at least in the west. Also the sacks would leave a path of death and destruction and this would call for plagues beacause of the boddies, it would also have been a huge decline in economy due to a decline in taxes, trading etc. So all the other major problems can be associated with the civil wars and lost of military power and political stability. We are talking managing an Empire without cars, planes, trains, cell phones, satelites, gps etc, to travel from Rome to Britania would take days, weeks, so when the news of invasion arrived to Rome the city had already fallen or was starving in a siege. So yeah civil wars were the main cause of the end of Rome.
Pretty neat
This is the best timeline.
will you make a part 2 of this?
No probably not, but I have plenty of Roman alternate history ideas like over 40 so I just need to space them out
@@Videntis.History looking forward to them. for a relatively new channel your videos are very high quality, earned a new sub
Good video. I would suggest improving the audio, but other than that it was alright
I wish, but with the sheer size of the territory, you’ll get a usurper screaming “AVE ME!” in every corner of the empire every 5 minutes.