Very true. Then again every person that was born more than a century after the point of departure would realistically be butterflied away. So I just stick to calling it the Napoleonic wars so we have a historical reference point. But you are correct. If it really bugs you replace Napoleon with another name in your mind. France was the dominant power on the European mainland at the time, and attempted to dominate the continent. There are other things that would realistically change. Such as the word for America. Since Amerigo Vespucci wouldn't exist.
@@Neatling maybe Rome would still lose Corsica to France,maybe as a way for France to secure it's ports in the Mediterranean?Corsican nationals might also try and break away from Rome allowing for France to take hold
@@dad9979 Sure, let's make that the canon-lore in this world lol. It's a simpler explanation. I'll just make Corsica French in future parts of the series.
@@Neatling And without the Arabs invading Spain and then attacking France, Charles Martel might never obtain the legitimity gained bt the battle of Poitiers who indirectly permitted to his grandson, Charlemagne, to become king of Francia.
Lets just forget that Romans have track record for being extremely adaptive and incorporated successful systems or technologies. If Rome survived it would thrive, the only true enemy Rome has ever known was itself.
@@sampledpuppet5023 nah the huns got their asses handed to them at the battle of the Catalunian Plains but then everyone thought the huns werent coming back so they went back to fighting eachother
ik thats kinda true but I thought they rejected a new type of material for plates that was more resistant to damage and they rejected because it would disrupt the industry
I feel like once Charlamagne's kingdom fractured, the Roman's would be more than able to retake their territories in Hispania and possibly even Gaul. The world would be immensely different if the Roman Empire was successful in that. And I'm not so sure Rome would be quite as behind in industrialization as the Ottomans. By virtue of a closer connection to Western Europe as well as holding more resources. Plus, having Italy itself would keep Rome squarely in charge of church affairs for quite some time, and that would make for a very interesting relationship with Christian states outside the empire. The Renaissance as we know it wouldn't take place, since Europe would never really need to rediscover many ideas lost with Rome's fracturing. And it's interesting to think about how nationalism would affect a Roman state like this. I can picture divisions within the Balkans and the Caucuses and Levant, but Egypt and Africa and Italy would have spent so much time securely within the empire that I don’t really see them looking to form their own states.
a lot of nationalist ideas were rooted in a nostalgia for the Roman Empire's greatness and each nation's tiny fragment of that glory. If Rome were still around, they would at most be supporters of reunification with Rome. Except France, which was mostly inspired by Vercingetorix and Germany, which was mostly inspired by the Battle of Teutoberg Forest
@@durrangodsgrief6503 british & french empires ended in a loss of most colonial possessions apart from a few very minor exceptions (british and french guiana, indian & atlantic isles etc)
African Romance would indeed survive and evolve. I'll delve more into it in part 2. But my thoughts on it at the moment is that there would be a clear divide between the African Romance spoken within the Roman Empire, and the African Romance language spoken in Mauritania, or our worlds Morocco and western Algeria. In general the Romance languages within Rome would have been influenced a lot by Italian vulgar Latin, as well as Greek. And would probably still be referred to as Latin. There would be no "extinct" version of Latin used by the Catholic church. Just the standard Roman Latin, based mostly on the Language spoken in Italia. That language would also be used in Roman-Orthodox churches (which would be this worlds Catholicism and orthodox Christianity, as they never split). But what would eventually become Mauritanian, French, Spanish, Lusitanian etc. would be free of this influence, making them more distinct languages.
@@Neatling I would like to explore more on Mauritania, It would be interesting how it would develope as a 100% african country more conected to europe, i imagine it would be part of the colonization of america or something
I think that some of the events later down the line in the timeline wouldn't happen at all, such as the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of communism, etc. I also think that if Rome were to stay alive, it would kind of be like China; switching around who has political control, who was conquering who, and what ideology was in power and such, but overall still a continuous and unending civilization. Much like China, I think don't think Rome would stay under the same system of rule for very long, certain provinces might break away, barbarians might even conquer the entire empire at some points, but overall Rome would become solid enough to never have a threat of dying as a civilization, and the Roman culture and ethnicity would still be alive and well in 2021. Just a few thoughts, great video overall :-)
Agree Flapjack. I think the core lands (Italy, Greece, Tunisia/Carthage, and Anatolia) stay Roman but the fringe lands such as Egypt & Syria might break away or be conquered. I do think Rome handles the industrial age better than what is described in this video (and better than the Ottomans).
@@volbound1700 The thing about Egypt and Syria though, is that if the Arabs didn't conquer them, they would likely have been fully Hellenized. After doing some pretty thorough research, it seems they were almost fully Hellenized in our world by the time of the Arab invasions. With the cities already speaking Greek, and with Coptic Egyptian and Assyrian being limited to the more remote rural regions. I actually think that would help a lot with keeping a common identity alive, and holding the east together. Not that it's a guarantee it will stay together, the Muslim caliphates did fall after all. But it could help quell separatist movements when nationalism begins to rise.
@@Neatling Possibly. I can see your arguments but the Egyptians still really held onto their cultural identity. I could see a separate, Christian Egypt coming into existence in this scenario. Also Egypt/Syria would be hard to hold.
@@volbound1700 It don't see why they would be that hard to hold. They are pretty close to the Anatolian heartland, the Mediterranean making it even easier to transfer soldiers. IMO holding Egypt would be much easier than holding Italy. And if they are througholy helenized they will be outrighted incorporated into the empire's heartland.
@@SuperCrow02 especially since their united under a secular religion and have been in the empire for thousands of years dating back to Augustus syria too they would be the easiest held and in striking distance what effected the ottomans wouldn't effect Rome
In the broadest of strokes, this actually isn’t too implausible, given the constancy of human nature has been known since the days of Thuycidides. You can see the similar paths taken between this timeline & the OTL, Rome utilizing appropriate use of Diplomacy & Military force to maintain peace and/or placate foreign forces, just with the added economic & military strength from maintaining the good condition & control over the Levant, Egypt, the province of Africa & Italy. Not only that, but given Roman’s characteristic trait of adaption from foreign powers to their own benefit, I’d see Rome fair much better during the Ages of Exploration & Colonization; being essentially the Christian equivalent of the Ottomans during those time periods. Overall, fantastic work as always! I’d reason that Rome wouldn’t establish direct control of Hungary, and that they would eventually retake Numidia & Mauritania given time & the necessity to compete with the Hispanic states overseas, much like how the Ottomans also pushed across N. Africa following Spain’s discovery of the New World.
Yeah, either Rome would take Mauritania, or Spain would. And Hungary would make an excellent client buffer state for Rome, perhaps even with Rome funding them against other powers in the area.
@@majormarketing6552 TBF Rome was probably weakened the most during Justinian's reign, with the plague and the Sassanids having their best Shahanshah. Having Justinians ambitions actually working out would make the empire much stronger. There were definitely some competent leaders after Justinian, like Heraclius, but it's utterly impossible to predict who would be in charge, so it was fair for the video to just assume there were competent emperors. There definitely should have been more civil wars though, Rome was way too stable in this video.
Fuck no, this video is all fancy, if Rome had survived there’s no telling whether Prussia or even Napoleon would exist. And they probably would taken over Arabia (seeing they were thinking of taking over certain parts of it in our own timeline)
4 minutes in, I already have a major nitpick Charlemagne didn't invade italy for fun he had a claim on the title due to his short-lived marriage with Desiderata of Lombardy without that, he'd be more inclined to keep pushing east and convert the poles to catholicism a few centuries early 11 minutes in, I got another complaint the reformation in the HRE ended up the way it did, because local nobles recognized that becoming protestant gave them a more solid powerbase. a Germany that is anatagonized by rome, and is trying to further centralize power, everyone but the most zealous catholic, would become protestant; there would simply be no war, the germans would be protestant
@@jackyex Perhaps, but there are major differences that need to be overcome, Iconicism, Patriarchal Authority, and How to interpret the Bible, the Great Schism of 1053 has to be avoided at all costs for the Roman state to succeed.
@@awesomedolphin9675 The main cause of the schism was how the both patriarchates were under different sovereignty, with Constantinople under the Byzantines and Rome under Charlemagne, with both under the same rule the schism would not have happened, the differences between Catholicism and orthodoxy came much later, before that the church was much more similar, the only problem that may happen is a power struggle between the patriarchs.
Just a slight bit of criticism: With the support of of a Protestant France as well as the lack of the ultra-catholic Habsburgs of Austria, it is far more likely that Germany would be entirely protestant in this timeline, preserving the authority of the Kaiser, thus resulting in eastern expansion into the collapsing Poland-Lithuania as well as the establishment of several overseas German colonies, likely in South Africa and India, or less likely taking over Lusitania's colonies in South America
I'm living in the wrong timeline. A world where the Roman Empire succeeded for thousands of years actually sounds like a brighter future. So many small states and wars in these areas could have been avoided had they been united.
This is awesome. Why would the protestant reformation happen here? The Catholic church wouldn't have abused the power here as it did in our timeline. The Roman emperor would have as much control as the pope(s), nor would the great schism have happened so the Eastern patriarchs would have divided power with the Roman patriarch.
Because the author is ignorant of the proper differences between the Orthodox and Catholic religions. Like a Tsardom of Russia not having close ties with Rome, and recreating a Crimean war without a Balkan Orthodox population to be freed from Ottoman rule. He just made a Christian Ottoman Empire timeline.
It would be one of the most powerful nations. France and Germany had a big population, and other nations would be in trouble. If they would join colonisation then they would be really powerful and might build a huge colonial empire . Maybe they would dominate great portions of the world, since Carolingian empire remaining united would mean the Normans wouldn't be able to form their duchy in France and later take England, and later take advantage of a divided France to get more land. Thus the 100 years war would be avoided, as England would remain under the Saxons, and maybe remain uninterested in colonisation, maybe only building a small colonial empire (like Sweden), or maybe colonise some northen dipshit far away, like Danmark with "Green"land
Just a few things: Your video is excellent and it is great that you took the time to research many aspects however you glossed over something’s. 1) You glossed over the Renaissance and I am assuming that you are continuing history, just with Rome. This means that thethe Renaissance would not need to necessarily happen because again, Rome never would have fallen, so you would have to remember that the European nations would in-fact for a large part of the “Middle Ages” seek Rome as a guardian and higher authority. 2) You referred to Rome as the sick man of Europe by the time we arrived to the Crimean war era, however I have to remind you that the reason the Ottomans were called the sick-man of Europe was because of the civil strife that would have been occurring within the Empire. This is something that would not be happening in this version of Rome because there would be no religious or class division that can be necessarily seen. Not to mention, even by then the Western Nations would still see Rome as their progenitor and would retain quite a lot of respect for it as the OLD man of Europe.
I take a bit of issue with this timeline, firstly one of the driving factors for the western powers interest in exploration was not wishing/being able to trade with the Turks but wanting goods from the east really only Venice was trading with them heavily as was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth albeit more sporadically. Since Rome retained control of the Levant for the most part along with Italy Venice as a trade power let alone even existing as a nation would be called into question since most of its trade/political clout was due to the crusades and subsequent trade with the Turks after the fact, which would also imply that the western powers could still freely trade with Rome to obtain goods from the east along the silk road/Persian Gulf/Red Sea so that main driving factor for exploration would be non existent. Secondly without those empires that came about due to that exploration none of the western powers would really have all that much political clout or military power to challenge Rome on equal footing and would more than likely be in a similar state to much of eastern Europe in the 16th-20th centuries namely Britain would be basically a backwater like it was in the Roman era only exception to that would be if they had been fully conquered by the Norse whom had reached the Americas long before the age of exploration and the Norse actually retaining a permanent settlement in Newfoundland and then expanding out from there, at which point the other western nations jump on the bandwagon. Thirdly I don't buy the Arab conquests actually succeeding in any meaningful way if Rome had not been in such a weakened state as it was after the Justinian plague since that plague also effected the Sasanian empire heavily as well in our timeline, two events could have occurred instead 1. Being both Rome and the Sassanids beat the Arabs back independently of each other or 2. They could have established a temporary alliance to beat back the Arabs like they did historically during the battle of Firaz since they would both be in a better state without the plague weakening them both in the financial and manpower spheres . So if the Arabs had been contained to the Arabian Peninsula and not allowed to spread as happened historically Islam would have ended up as nothing more than a minor Arabic cult however, that is not to say it couldn't spread via other more passive means such as trade routes or contact between individual people similar to how early Christianity or Buddhism spread but it still would likely have stayed a minor cult unless a ruler of a nation decided to make it a state religion like how King Tiridates III did with Christianity in Armenia.
Mh, the Teutonic order was created only thanks to the crusade against the Muslims. It was invited by the polish king there because Poland was losing its war against the original Prussian pagans. An answer to that would pose more questions than they actually answer.
@@pascalbaryamo4568 there would probably be knightly orders just not for the same reasons, they would probably serve as fancier troops or special guards.
1. Without Henry VIII's annulment crisis, England would remain Catholic/Orthodox. 2. Neither Poland nor Lithuania would have enbraced Protestantism or Communism.
I always Love your videos on Eastern Rome!!! = still waiting on the access to all the artworks by the way if you don’t mind… both old and new ones forthcoming alike in future vids. Are you going to show + talk more on the inner workings of this new Eastern Rome timeline here in modern day times like you did with your part 2 video previously??? = Would love to see all that, pretty please… and how it differs from the previous ones. My only recommendations on this video in flaws is that I did notice in previous maps and works in history that Eastern Rome did have control over all the Mauretania provinces in north Africa + Numidia and more of the Levant to the south between Egypt + Israel and between Arabia = Jordon for a short time during Justinian’s reconquests… could you add them too please, just as an update? Got some more ideas as well if its ok with you to do after the next one… What if the 4th Crusade never happened? = Could Eastern Rome make a comeback without that tragedy of events ever happening? How would it recover from its previous problems with the religious divisions + economic decline and rivalry with later medieval Europe and Venice = no thanks to the Byzantine-Venetian treaty of 1082 + religious rivalries with catholic Europe and the papal state of Rome + political divisions back at home with dealing with corruption and the nobles + reforming military comeback after the high and late medieval ages come about + introduction of gunpowder weapons, the renaissance + age of discovery = introductions of new trade and ideas + early modern era + industrialism and still fighting on against the Anatolian Turks + other Arab Muslims and others in the middle east. Long story short: What if the Komnenos dynasty and its successor dynasties of Eastern Rome were far more stable and successful in organized leadership throughout??? = What if the Byzantine-Venetian treaty of 1082 never happened under Emperor Alexios I Komnenos?
Also the crusades may still hapen as many European kingdoms will want to expand christianity. The crusades may happen in Persia, Arabia and India and posibly China and Japan. The crusades would have been more successful since the Justinianic code and trade would have florished during this timeline since the Mediterranean would in control of rome.
I couldn't understand why it didn't lost any lands ??? For example what is the reason behind the muslims couldn't conquered Egypt and north Africa?? And why would they retake Levant after the muslims successfully invaded Persia?? And why would the Romans stand against the mongols ?? What happen with the magyar and slavic migration into the Balkans??
Me an Lombardian seeing this video: "damn! If the Longobards never invaded Italy, half of my ancestors are gone! Even my hometown was founded by the Longobards!"
I really don't see history being the same with the exception of a largely stagnant Roman empire replacing the Ottomans. First off, the Byzantine-Sassanid war of 602 would not necessarily have ended with massive Roman territorial gains. In fact, the Roman-Sassanid war was triggered by a specific incident, and began more as a civil war against Phocus (at least in the eyes of defecting Byzantine troops) than a proper invasion. Without the murder of Maurice, Khosrow II would have invaded. And without the shortage of funds in the late 6th century, the Byzantine army would not have revolted against Maurice. Rather, the two empires would have continued to cooperate, at least through the life of Maurice. I don't know if some other event might have triggered a similar war, such as Maurice dying of natural causes and a civil war against his teenaged son. But, it is more likely that both empires would focus on other fronts. The resurgent Byzantine empire has more than enough to worry about it Italy and Spain, in addition to the historical Balkan issues, while the Sassanids were focused on Arabia at the time. If both empires were at peace, the Muslims would probably not expand out of Arabia, and might have even lost to the Sassanids in Arabia, provoking more Sassanid and Byzantine intervention in the region. (For example, the Muslims attack Sassanid Yemen, the Sassanids respond by expanding up into Hejaz, while the Ghassanids (clients of Rome) expand down south from trans-Jordan.) That would mean Islam does not exist for most practical purposes, probably surviving as a minority religion in Arabia. That means of Zoroastrian Persia surviving, a Christian North Africa (and probably West and East Africa in the later middle ages), no crusades, and so on. But conversely, we shouldn't assume perpetual smooth sailing if one disaster is averted. Maybe, after Maurice died of natural causes at 70 (in 609), there was a civil war between his sons. During the war, the Avars attack the Balkans and take Constantinople, and the Empire permanently splits into Western empire centered in Rome and North Africa, and a Monophysite Eastern empire centered in Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt. The Eastern Empire falls during the Muslim expansion, while the Sassanid empire keeps all its territory east of the Euphrates. The Muslims expand up into southern Balkans in the 7th and 8th centuries, being welcomed as by the Christian Greek population as liberators from the barbarous and pagan Avars. The Western Empire loses North Africa, but is able to maintain control of Italy and most of the Mediterranean islands. In this timeline, the Roman Empire re-Latinizes, but Italy is conquered by the Magyars in the early 10th century. Eventually, the Kingdom of West Francia liberates Rome, and France is titled the "Holy Roman Empire" is this timeline.
10:41 tho how did protestantism even exist considering the fact justinian conquered rome before the great schism, and thus cathoilicism won't exist altogether in this timeline, and thus no reason for a reformation to happen ?
Protestants would exist in some form because Rome would exert a lot of political power using Christianity. Protestants would not recognize that power because they would no longer be under the Roman patriarchs.
I enjoyed this a lot. Is it simplified? Certainly, but when talking about keeping Rome together, and existing over such an extensive time period, there is no way to handle this without either going super simplified, or falling down a million rabbit holes of possibility. I also enjoy the look and feel that these maps give.
It may be more useful for Justinian to stop at Italy. Rapid expansion is already problematic. But continuing with conquering the relatively poor Spania before consolidating the other provinces is a recipe for disaster.
There would be something very interesting & almost funny: Bulgaria & Romania would have switched places lmao Explaination: Proto-Romanians were the Romans of the Balkans, but the Balkans irl were invaded by Slavs, and only the Proto-Romans the North of the Danube river resisted assimilation (There were also Dalmatians, and still Albanians but i simplify) But here, the Bulgarians stabilize at the north of the Danube, and local Proto-Romanians are assimilated, but not those southern to it, and less Dalmatians, so Romania would be in actual Bulgaria, with some still resisting in pockets in the carpathians, just like Aromanians in the Balkans irl. There would be some slavs in the balkans, but mostly greek-influenced Dalmatians and Romanians, thus making a true continuum of languages from Lusitania and France to Romania, passing by Italia & Dalmatia. PS: There would also be an African romance language & culture, because Arabs never got there
Would the big cities still depopulate if Justinian succeeded? Would classical science still get lost and only partially recovered later during the crusades (of which there would be no need)? Wouldn't Rome employ its naval expertise to colonise the East (India, China, Japan, Indonesia) and become even richer, as the East was already developed, contrary to the Americas? Would there be a scramble for Africa in the 1400s, and industrialisation in the 1500s, as Rome could simply skip feudalism? Would there even be a Great Schism, and a Reformation? Would the Ancient World become a more peaceful place without Islamic expansion, or all the contrary? Keeping Rome alive and strong would have so massive social, technological and cultural consequences that all parameters that we take for granted would shift. I like the fact that you produced such a powerful alternative history, but it only scratches the surface.
The war between the Communists and Germany in this timeline would definitely result in a world war that would outright destroy the USSR or all the Western empires in this timeline, there won’t be a Cold War since this conflict will have developed the same mindset both sides of WWII developed in our timeline: not settling with anything less than total victory. Most communists unlike Stalin in our timeline wanted to ignite a “world revolution” and would probably not be as calculating as Stalin was with his deals he brokered with the West (which many communists at the time hated him for) since they hoped their ideology will take over the world. Communism in this timeline would be seen as the fascism of our timeline if this were to happen. Also, the odds of the USSR industrializing were very unlikely since many communists unlike Stalin thought the country was better off functioning as an agrarian one and if there is no industrialist like Stalin to develop the country in this timeline, the already low chances of winning such a world war in this timeline would drop to 0. Even then, the communism as described in this video is very unlikely to exist at all let alone a version that is nearly identical to the one of our timeline. Why would an ideology like syndicalism, distributism, some variant of anarchism, or ethnonationalism (since the empires of this timeline would incorporate even more peoples) not become prominent but communism, as we know it, would? Would Liberalism even exist since a strong imperium like the Roman one would oppose such changes ever taking control anywhere? Since every Western power would look up to the now very alive and existing Rome of this timeline, no one would have liberalism take over their country since Rome would exist to crush it and would rally all the other Western nations to crush it as it would have a strong martial and very traditionally imperial culture that would oppose such reforms.
I think you were a bit too lenient on Rome's earlier wars with the Persians, Arabs, and Mongols. One of the major factors that lead to Justinian unable to fend off a Sassanian invasion during/after his reconquest of Rome was the massive draining of the Roman treasury that funded his reconquest. The same would occur here, if Rome had already split with the eastern living on and the western under the control of Germanics. This means that Persia would still be a very capable fighter in this Perso-Roman war, although Rome may be in a slightly better position. Rome during this time would control all that Justinian had reconquered as well as the entirety of Iberia and Italia. However, during both of their recoveries, the Arabs would attack. The Arabs are native to desert warfare, and while Rome fought a war for territorial integrity, the Arabs fought a religious crusade, to spread Islam far and wide. For the sake of benefitting Rome, let's say the Arabs attack the Persians first. Like in our timeline, they are successful, but this gives Rome plenty of time to prepare her defenses in Egypt, the Levant, and Anatolia. However, the Arabs were able to overcome heavy fortifications on the Zagros Mountains, they can almost certainly overcome defenses in native desert environments. The Arabs would take control of the Levant, taking Jerusalem as trophy. Now, Roman Egypt is separated from the Roman mainland, all supply lines are restricted to maritime. Luckily for them, the Arabs only recently got hold of mediterranean ports, and their navy was not very existent by that point. This gives Rome time to fortify the Sinai peninsula even further, the only land-based chokepoint available to the Arabs. This will hold for the duration of the Rashidun Caliphate (the Umayyad will never come, as they came from North Africa, which Rome currently controls), but during the Abbasid conquests, Rome will likely lose Egypt and North Africa east of Tunisia. Losing Egypt would be devastating to Rome, as Egypt would be one of Rome's most populous and prosperous regions, due to the amount of grains provided from the Nile. This would logically lead to a famine, which would lead to political infighting. However, Civil War would be avoided. During this time of strife, the Frankish Empire would invade, taking the Alps and all land to the north of it as well as all land north of the Pyrenees. Now Iberia is wholly separated from the Rest of Rome, while there is only a tiny strip of Roman land connecting Italy to the rest of Rome, all the while Rome still has not solved her food problem. This issue would be resolved through the invasion of the fertile lands in Crimea and the Ukraine (assuming they win), winning Rome a new bread basket to replace Egypt (international trade was still rather protectionist at this point, trading for food was not as universally accepted). This would mark a new Roman shift to the east, to protect the Ukraine and Crimea. During this time, Iberia would be neglected, and would erupt in revolt, breaking away from the Empire and into infighting over who should rule. Seeing this failure, Rome would reinvest more effort into Italy to prevent a second Iberia. during this time, Rome would be controlling Italia, Carpathia, Romania, the Balkans, Greece, the Ukraine, Crimea, the Caucasus, and Anatolia. Roman lands would remain relatively unchanged, able to fend off any invaders, up until the Mongols came. The Mongols would swift invade and conquer the Ukraine and the Caucasus, but be kept out of Anatolia, They would take Romania, putting them too close for comfort to the Roman Capital at Constantinople. The Romans would now be putting their effort into keeping the Mongols far away from Constantinople; luckily for them, the Mongols had to retreat to mourn the death of their Khan. Now the Mongols are split into 4, all formidable factions. During this time, Rome would reconquer Wallachia, but the Ukraine and Crimea would no longer be Roman, and accompanied by the Black Plague, Rome experiences the worst famine she's ever had. During these times of strife, Rome will experience a series of civil wars which will result in the loss of Italia as an independent state, but the Pope and the city of Rome remaining under Roman control. After the times of strife, however Rome would assist the Russian principalities in removing the Golden Horde once and for all. Rome and Russia will become allies, and by this point, there is not much left that is predictable, as now the existence of the Renaissance would be uncertain.
I’m not sure if Egypt or Mesopotamia would be hellanised but I think Libya, much of the balkans and modern Tunis would either speak Greek or a latinised language
It might be a big second language. One where a large ethnic minority in the regions and it is large enough where it could be learned as a second language
Well most of the balkans were historically romanised (Romano-Illyrians, Romano-Thracians, Romanised Pannonians) apart from the areas closer to Greece such as Northern Thrace and Scythia Minor. As for Egypt, they already used a modified version of the Greek alphabet known as Coptic, so it would be safe to assume that they would gradually become more hellenised over time. Africa would probably still speak a form of Latin (African Romance language) as they are still in the influence of the See of Rome and this factor would make them keep it rather than Greek.
I still believe that the linguistic difference between Latin-speaking Italy and Greek-speaking East would make Italia a seperate state in this timeline too. In Balkans the border is more realistic below the line Burgas-Dyrrachium (Greek zone linguistic-cultural influence).
Was thinking the same. That may not occur during the middle ages but with the rise of nationalism in the early modern era it is likely that those entities would have split.
@@tonit4233 That might not necessarily be quite the case. As evident during the modern day (outside of Mussolini's regime) Greece & Italy, despite linguistic difference, recognize a common & shared identity from the cultural influences that The Greeks & Roman had on each other. It was recognized that after the Greek conquests that Hellenic influence began permeating Roman society quite thoroughly, not to mention their time under Etruscan influence (whom themselves were heavily influenced by the Greeks due to Adriatic & broader Mediterranean trade). This goes the other way too: The last Roman Territories were those still in Greece & Anatolia, and some Balkan & Anatolian Greeks in the hinterlands still refereed to themselves not as Greeks, but as Romans (admittedly, only up until the early 20th Century in most parts).
This is really good. Rome and the German Empire outlive the USSR, no rise of fascism, but it doesn't go off the deep end with Rome conquering half the world as some kind of unstoppable juggernaut after regaining Italy. Rome would probably end up as the last true empire, as it's hard to argue the point with 20 centuries of continuous rule.
Having a territory in Egypt and in the Atlantic Ocean, Rome could have built the Suez Canal and sent an expedition on the Americas way ahead of everyone. If Rome successfully did that, they could take advantage of their holdings in the Suez Canal, Straight of Gibraltar, and the Panama Canal in the future. Controlling the world trade would catapult them into one of world's superpowers in the modern world. Although in exploiting the Suez Canal they will need to establish a holding in the Indian Ocean first, and maybe a colony at the tip of southern Africa to prevent explorers from circumnavigating Africa...
It’s as if Ancient Rome back then had no competition other than the Parthians until many centuries later in Europe starting with the United Huns and Visigoths. The situation would’ve worsened with the upcoming Arabs and Slavs
I really enjoyed the video mate, it was really precise and felt realistic but may I mention a few points that might've been overlooked? First off I think the Roman's would've gotten into colonizing america as latecomers taking some minor territories, and they'd probably have colonized Indonesia, southern tip of arabia, indichina and maybe even india...just a thought
I think the idea of Italy remaining perpetually stable in this timeline is questionable. East and west had been divided for centuries at this point, still within "Rome" but under separate emperors. The greek-dominated east seizing all this territory and keeping it for an extended period just doesn't make sense. I think the Franks would've found a Latin populace in Italy who were already resentful of greek dominance. I think the the empire would've struggled to hold out against the franks in northern Italy, in a largely hostile occupied Italy. I think Charlemagne likely would've gained support from the Roman senate as emperor of the west, with the east retaining control over southern Italy only. After the death of Charlemagne, the unified identity of the Latins and the wars of Carolingian succession likely could've allowed for an independent Latin state in Italy, which would've unified the peninsula over the next several hundred years. I do think this prevents the great schism until the protestant reformation props up, however, and due to the dominance of greeks over the Roman church the reformation would've gained a lot more popularity in Italy. The identities of eastern and western Romans were just too distinct by Justinian's time for them to remain totally stable under a single emperor, I think.
I was thinking of the establishment of an Holy Roman Empire centered around Italy (instead of Germany). Or a new Western Roman Empire declaring independence from the East.
Hey, I think there may have been some historical events that you did not consider, even though they may have played a huge role in deciding the hegemon of europe. In your alt history, Napoleon Bonaparte is born french, however wasn't Napoleon born in Corsica which in this reality belongs to rome? So, it is possible that Napolean, after having been a successful general of the Roman Army for a little while, also attempted a coup d'état in Rome like he did in France in our timeline? Considering this could actually change a lot that would have gone through in Europe, since Rome already had control over egypt, this could mean that India(my country), in this timeline, would have probably become a Roman Colony, as Napoloan had also tried to do this when he had control of France in our timeline but couldn't as he wasn't able to get control over egypt. This also means that, with the resources from India and transporting manpower for soldiers from India(which would be easy, as Indian Sepoys could be transported from Mumbai to the Roman Empire through the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden), the Roman Empire would be able to conquer the Iberian Peninsula and even most of France, if not all, and establish puppet states throughout Europe and also conquer Morroco and Mesopotamia. This due to the fact that in this reality, Napoleon has less enemies, as the likes of Austria would be a part of Bavaria, as per your Alt history, and Bavaria would be a Roman ally, due to the commonality of religion and also the eventual marriage of Napoleon and Marie Louise. Also, due to the large manpower of the Indian Sepoys, Napoleon may have also been able to have defeated the russian empire, through many bloody battles using the Indian Sepoys' sheer numbers. This may have caused a lot of discontent amongst the Indians back in India, and the Indians would have revolted causing the first Sepoy Mutiny(which also happened in our timeline in 1857 against the british) which would have probably occured in 1815 in this timeline. Napoleon would have probably relinquished control of India, and would have allowed India to become an Independent country, which would be a monarchy led by Akbar II. Napolean would do this to shift is resources towards maintaining control over Crimea(and other Ukrainian territories) which would be annexed from Russia, and also maintain control over France which would have many rebellions, considering that it would be protestant in this reality. Napoleon will also not die in 1821 like he does in our reality, as he is the emperor of the Roman Empire and is not poisoned(which he may have been in our timeline). With Napolean growing to an old age, he manages to crush revolts in France and keep it, and also manages to cripple Britain's economy through the Continental Blockade, and hence Britain will also become a puppet of the Romans. With his death in the 1850's/1860's, he is also able to teach his son(Napoleon II) how to be a good, future emperor of Rome. Finally, with Napoleon II on the throne after his father's demise, there starts to be growing tensions between Rome and the the Rising German empire, which leads to all out war between them in 1871. Spent a lot of time working on this, hopefully you see this and share your thoughts on it as well. :)
This video started out well but then progressed as if it was just current timeline with a Rome being just an enlarged, Christian Ottoman empire. This doesn't take into account any of the massive technological advances the Roman empire had, which, in our timeline, were lost and the rediscoverer of gained a substantial military, technological, financial and cultural boost. Also, the reformation would not have happened since the excesses of the catholic church would not need to be supplied by indulgences. However, a religious divide would have taken place way earlier in the form of Nestorian Christianity or another sect among the gothic kingdoms.
Map: the Aquitaine controlled by the Visigoths was the northern one (A. Prima & A Secunda), which for some reason you place (too early?) under Frankish control. Their control of A. Tertia (alias Novempopulania, later better known as Northern Vasconia and later as Gascony) was filmsy at best. Only the Franks would eventually conquer it but took them lot of effort and several major defeats.
Hey man video idea!: What if every country had its borders drawn based upon their cultures. Like you would have to break something like Belgium into Flemish and French.
Great video. I suggest also considering the religious tensions between coptic Alexandria/Egypt and Constantinople. I think it was one of the main reasons why Egypt fell to the Arabs in the first place, as the last were seen "more religiously tolerant" than the romans. I believe North Africa could easily "fall" to the caliphate, but I wouldn't exclude resistance pockets around Carthage and a possible "reconquista" campaign started from Italy.
I like your take on the altenate Thirty Years War that involves the changes in religion, language and culture that parallel the geopolitical changes of a much stronger Roman Empire (which I assume would still be based in Constantinople). With the Empire holding unto Italy for much longer, the Papacy won't grow influential and the Great Schism didn't happen ITTL. However, France, Germany, England, Scandinavia and the PLC would set up their own national churches with their own Patriarchs claiming to be on the same level as the Pope, but still in communion with the "Roman Orthodox" Church of the Empire. So the alternate Reformation would occur via these national churches formally breaking ties with the Roman Orthodox and forming their own "league" of churches, much like how the OTL Oriental Churches exist today. As for language: Portuguese, Castillian and French would go into a more Greek-influenced direction. North Africa would develop its own Romance language which might be more or less a widespread version of Sicilian. With no Norman conquest of England, English would retain its mostly Germanic roots and have more Nordic influence, especially if through the centuries England would maintain close ties with Scandinavian kingdoms to oppose the Empire.
There won’t be a second sassinad war because I am assuming that phocas never rebels and Maurice is still in charge. So there will never be a second war because Maurice’s death was the cause of the second war. Also Maurice was going to defeat the avars so there would never be that threat too. Also Maurice had an alliance with the sassiands so when the Arabs/Muslims they would be defeated the Middle East would be split in half with no threat in the East. Also Russia was influenced by Rome so I doubt they will fight them. Instead I see Russia and Rome allying in my opinion
I doubt Islam would become as widespread in this timeline if Rome is able to successfully fend it off. It would, at worst, be one of the many religions and cultures lost following the Mongol invasions and would not see widespread adoption as it would be crushed between two empires. Or it would, at best, be more of a regional religion like Hinduism is in India. Then again, Rome lasting this long as it is attacked on multiple fronts by barbarians and other enemy powers makes it very unlikely to succeed as much as this video portrays it would.
Wow, just found your channel. Dont know if you have a discord yet but id be down to join. Looking forward to alternate histories, history and mapping. Theres plenty of scenarios other youtubers havent covered id be interested for you to cover :)
Something that you miss, would be the development of the west. Without the fall of Constantinople, there would not be development of universities in Italy that later spread in the rest of the West. So in this scenario, the scientific development would stil be "locked" in Rome. The West were hundreds of years behind compared to the Persian or the Romans and without the fall of Constantinople they will stil be.
I disagree, the renaissance started in Italy because the byzantine scholars fled there from the ottoman empire. The biggest problem will be that we have to endure the behavior of Greeks. Middle ages Greeks were the most arrogant people of the world, they easily surpassed French.
I would like to think that when Justinian conquered the Vandal Kingdom, many Vandal and Alan refugees fled to the western area of the Atlas Mountains. With the Berbers they founded a new Arian Kingdom that successfully defended itself from Roman aggression and became the last haven for Arian Christians. In the Age of Discovery, they too colonised large areas of the world in much the same way as the western European kingdoms. Their capital city could be a choice of modern day Rabat or Casablanca. Perhaps in time they would go to war eastwards and reconquer their "ancient" homeland of old Roman Africa and retake Carthage. Also they may conquer north to retake their other "ancient" homeland, Vandalusia in southern Iberia. They would Christianize the Canary Islands quite quickly, then colonise the Azores, Madeira and Cape Verde Islands. And then, the world is their oyster! At least until the other nations bully their way in.
Can you do a video if Ireland in the 11th century under Brian Boru and his heir survive long to keep Ireland united. I know you're busy but would you ever consider it.
Really interesting video, thank you for that it is well-built. I would just point the fact that you could have take into account to propension of Roman politics to go on civil wars.
I'm the master of postponing. But I'll let everyone know if I have to take a break longer than a month. Otherwise if it hasn't been more than a month, I'm probably just working on something in the background. Slowly. But hopefully I can pick up the pace when it comes to uploads.
There would have been some sort of alternate scramble for Africa. If you pay close attention you can also see Rome's borders expanding to some rather arbitrary lines in the Sahara. That would have happened perhaps a bit before and during the scramble for Africa.
After this Can you do this 2 scenario about WW2 What if Western Allies joined Axis aganist the soviet? What if Hitler never suicide and decided to surrender?
Hitler not committing suicide will probably no stop him for being executed for the holocaust also the axis would betray the allies like how they betrayed the Soviets
Napoleon was from Corsica though. Which is in the Empire. So he would either fight for Rome or not be a general at all
Very true. Then again every person that was born more than a century after the point of departure would realistically be butterflied away. So I just stick to calling it the Napoleonic wars so we have a historical reference point. But you are correct. If it really bugs you replace Napoleon with another name in your mind. France was the dominant power on the European mainland at the time, and attempted to dominate the continent.
There are other things that would realistically change. Such as the word for America. Since Amerigo Vespucci wouldn't exist.
@@Neatling maybe Rome would still lose Corsica to France,maybe as a way for France to secure it's ports in the Mediterranean?Corsican nationals might also try and break away from Rome allowing for France to take hold
@@Neatling Well yeah. I think America would be named after some chad lusitanian explorer
@@dad9979 Sure, let's make that the canon-lore in this world lol. It's a simpler explanation. I'll just make Corsica French in future parts of the series.
@@Neatling And without the Arabs invading Spain and then attacking France, Charles Martel might never obtain the legitimity gained bt the battle of Poitiers who indirectly permitted to his grandson, Charlemagne, to become king of Francia.
Lets just forget that Romans have track record for being extremely adaptive and incorporated successful systems or technologies. If Rome survived it would thrive, the only true enemy Rome has ever known was itself.
And the huns
@@sampledpuppet5023 nah the huns got their asses handed to them at the battle of the Catalunian Plains but then everyone thought the huns werent coming back so they went back to fighting eachother
ik thats kinda true but I thought they rejected a new type of material for plates that was more resistant to damage and they rejected because it would disrupt the industry
dumb comment
and it was when the empire was already declining,
in fact that was the last great stand of the western roman empire @@someone-wh2rb
I feel like once Charlamagne's kingdom fractured, the Roman's would be more than able to retake their territories in Hispania and possibly even Gaul. The world would be immensely different if the Roman Empire was successful in that.
And I'm not so sure Rome would be quite as behind in industrialization as the Ottomans. By virtue of a closer connection to Western Europe as well as holding more resources. Plus, having Italy itself would keep Rome squarely in charge of church affairs for quite some time, and that would make for a very interesting relationship with Christian states outside the empire.
The Renaissance as we know it wouldn't take place, since Europe would never really need to rediscover many ideas lost with Rome's fracturing.
And it's interesting to think about how nationalism would affect a Roman state like this. I can picture divisions within the Balkans and the Caucuses and Levant, but Egypt and Africa and Italy would have spent so much time securely within the empire that I don’t really see them looking to form their own states.
a lot of nationalist ideas were rooted in a nostalgia for the Roman Empire's greatness and each nation's tiny fragment of that glory. If Rome were still around, they would at most be supporters of reunification with Rome. Except France, which was mostly inspired by Vercingetorix and Germany, which was mostly inspired by the Battle of Teutoberg Forest
Nah rome would stil get split up into small states overtime.almost no way to keep a empire that huge without issues thts why they split it
@@wingedhussar1453 russia
@@wingedhussar1453 the British and french colonial empires
@@durrangodsgrief6503 british & french empires ended in a loss of most colonial possessions apart from a few very minor exceptions (british and french guiana, indian & atlantic isles etc)
Roma aeterna- also Carthage would be speaking African romance so it’d be interesting see how that language evolved within the empire.
African Romance would indeed survive and evolve. I'll delve more into it in part 2.
But my thoughts on it at the moment is that there would be a clear divide between the African Romance spoken within the Roman Empire, and the African Romance language spoken in Mauritania, or our worlds Morocco and western Algeria.
In general the Romance languages within Rome would have been influenced a lot by Italian vulgar Latin, as well as Greek. And would probably still be referred to as Latin. There would be no "extinct" version of Latin used by the Catholic church. Just the standard Roman Latin, based mostly on the Language spoken in Italia. That language would also be used in Roman-Orthodox churches (which would be this worlds Catholicism and orthodox Christianity, as they never split).
But what would eventually become Mauritanian, French, Spanish, Lusitanian etc. would be free of this influence, making them more distinct languages.
African romance was part of the Southern romance languages, a group which comprehends Sardinian. Thus we should look at sardinian to make hipothesis
@@Neatling I would like to explore more on Mauritania, It would be interesting how it would develope as a 100% african country more conected to europe, i imagine it would be part of the colonization of america or something
@@Neatling that makes sense. Just as Greek didn't break off into numerous languages, Latin could have been considered as such too
@@Neatling
*BROTHER COULD U PLS MAKE A VIDEO ON FRAXINETUM, THE MUSLM EMIRATE OF SWITZERLAND‼️‼️🙏🏽🙏🏽*
I think that some of the events later down the line in the timeline wouldn't happen at all, such as the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of communism, etc. I also think that if Rome were to stay alive, it would kind of be like China; switching around who has political control, who was conquering who, and what ideology was in power and such, but overall still a continuous and unending civilization. Much like China, I think don't think Rome would stay under the same system of rule for very long, certain provinces might break away, barbarians might even conquer the entire empire at some points, but overall Rome would become solid enough to never have a threat of dying as a civilization, and the Roman culture and ethnicity would still be alive and well in 2021. Just a few thoughts, great video overall :-)
Agree Flapjack. I think the core lands (Italy, Greece, Tunisia/Carthage, and Anatolia) stay Roman but the fringe lands such as Egypt & Syria might break away or be conquered. I do think Rome handles the industrial age better than what is described in this video (and better than the Ottomans).
@@volbound1700 The thing about Egypt and Syria though, is that if the Arabs didn't conquer them, they would likely have been fully Hellenized. After doing some pretty thorough research, it seems they were almost fully Hellenized in our world by the time of the Arab invasions. With the cities already speaking Greek, and with Coptic Egyptian and Assyrian being limited to the more remote rural regions. I actually think that would help a lot with keeping a common identity alive, and holding the east together. Not that it's a guarantee it will stay together, the Muslim caliphates did fall after all. But it could help quell separatist movements when nationalism begins to rise.
@@Neatling Possibly. I can see your arguments but the Egyptians still really held onto their cultural identity. I could see a separate, Christian Egypt coming into existence in this scenario. Also Egypt/Syria would be hard to hold.
@@volbound1700 It don't see why they would be that hard to hold. They are pretty close to the Anatolian heartland, the Mediterranean making it even easier to transfer soldiers. IMO holding Egypt would be much easier than holding Italy. And if they are througholy helenized they will be outrighted incorporated into the empire's heartland.
@@SuperCrow02 especially since their united under a secular religion and have been in the empire for thousands of years dating back to Augustus syria too they would be the easiest held and in striking distance what effected the ottomans wouldn't effect Rome
In the broadest of strokes, this actually isn’t too implausible, given the constancy of human nature has been known since the days of Thuycidides. You can see the similar paths taken between this timeline & the OTL, Rome utilizing appropriate use of Diplomacy & Military force to maintain peace and/or placate foreign forces, just with the added economic & military strength from maintaining the good condition & control over the Levant, Egypt, the province of Africa & Italy. Not only that, but given Roman’s characteristic trait of adaption from foreign powers to their own benefit, I’d see Rome fair much better during the Ages of Exploration & Colonization; being essentially the Christian equivalent of the Ottomans during those time periods.
Overall, fantastic work as always! I’d reason that Rome wouldn’t establish direct control of Hungary, and that they would eventually retake Numidia & Mauritania given time & the necessity to compete with the Hispanic states overseas, much like how the Ottomans also pushed across N. Africa following Spain’s discovery of the New World.
Yeah, either Rome would take Mauritania, or Spain would. And Hungary would make an excellent client buffer state for Rome, perhaps even with Rome funding them against other powers in the area.
As much as i would want a clean sweep, i see few leaders suited after Justinian to do it. Just civil wars and betrayals and then defeats follow.
@@majormarketing6552 TBF Rome was probably weakened the most during Justinian's reign, with the plague and the Sassanids having their best Shahanshah. Having Justinians ambitions actually working out would make the empire much stronger. There were definitely some competent leaders after Justinian, like Heraclius, but it's utterly impossible to predict who would be in charge, so it was fair for the video to just assume there were competent emperors. There definitely should have been more civil wars though, Rome was way too stable in this video.
Fuck no, this video is all fancy, if Rome had survived there’s no telling whether Prussia or even Napoleon would exist.
And they probably would taken over Arabia (seeing they were thinking of taking over certain parts of it in our own timeline)
4 minutes in, I already have a major nitpick
Charlemagne didn't invade italy for fun
he had a claim on the title due to his short-lived marriage with Desiderata of Lombardy
without that, he'd be more inclined to keep pushing east and convert the poles to catholicism a few centuries early
11 minutes in, I got another complaint
the reformation in the HRE ended up the way it did, because local nobles recognized that becoming protestant gave them a more solid powerbase.
a Germany that is anatagonized by rome, and is trying to further centralize power, everyone but the most zealous catholic, would become protestant; there would simply be no war, the germans would be protestant
Also Catholicism wouldnt exist or would be very weak. Orthodox would be sole power.
@@majormarketing6552 Catholic and Othordox would be the same thing
@@jackyex Perhaps, but there are major differences that need to be overcome, Iconicism, Patriarchal Authority, and How to interpret the Bible, the Great Schism of 1053 has to be avoided at all costs for the Roman state to succeed.
@@awesomedolphin9675 The main cause of the schism was how the both patriarchates were under different sovereignty, with Constantinople under the Byzantines and Rome under Charlemagne, with both under the same rule the schism would not have happened, the differences between Catholicism and orthodoxy came much later, before that the church was much more similar, the only problem that may happen is a power struggle between the patriarchs.
@@jackyex yeah, I also think that the patriarchs would in fact unite against the emperor in a type of controversy of the investitures.
Just a slight bit of criticism:
With the support of of a Protestant France as well as the lack of the ultra-catholic Habsburgs of Austria, it is far more likely that Germany would be entirely protestant in this timeline, preserving the authority of the Kaiser, thus resulting in eastern expansion into the collapsing Poland-Lithuania as well as the establishment of several overseas German colonies, likely in South Africa and India, or less likely taking over Lusitania's colonies in South America
LoL. Why would Protestantism even born, if christianity wont be divided to Catholic and Orthodox?
I just don’t see how history goes exactly the same apart from the Romans existing as a strong state
I'm living in the wrong timeline. A world where the Roman Empire succeeded for thousands of years actually sounds like a brighter future. So many small states and wars in these areas could have been avoided had they been united.
Romaboo spotted
Or you would’ve been born in slavery
That would probably be the only pro of the Roman Empire still existing today.
You would have probably lived under Civil War no. 47575783.
*Ave Justinianus!*
YES
*AVE JUSTINIANUS*
AVE IVSTINIANVS
Wouldnt it be
Haire Justinian or sth
@@greekhuman8706 nope, the Greekifacation of the empire happened later
This is awesome.
Why would the protestant reformation happen here? The Catholic church wouldn't have abused the power here as it did in our timeline. The Roman emperor would have as much control as the pope(s), nor would the great schism have happened so the Eastern patriarchs would have divided power with the Roman patriarch.
Because the author is ignorant of the proper differences between the Orthodox and Catholic religions.
Like a Tsardom of Russia not having close ties with Rome, and recreating a Crimean war without a Balkan Orthodox population to be freed from Ottoman rule. He just made a Christian Ottoman Empire timeline.
Do “ what if the carolingian empire survived? “
It would be one of the most powerful nations. France and Germany had a big population, and other nations would be in trouble. If they would join colonisation then they would be really powerful and might build a huge colonial empire . Maybe they would dominate great portions of the world, since Carolingian empire remaining united would mean the Normans wouldn't be able to form their duchy in France and later take England, and later take advantage of a divided France to get more land. Thus the 100 years war would be avoided, as England would remain under the Saxons, and maybe remain uninterested in colonisation, maybe only building a small colonial empire (like Sweden), or maybe colonise some northen dipshit far away, like Danmark with "Green"land
small correction: Abu Bakr As-Sadiq was a friend and not a relative of Muhammad
He was Muhammad's father in law: his daughter 'Aisha was the Prophet's last wife.
@@rodolforagionieri Oh, yeah I forgot about him being her father. Thanks for the correction
Just a few things: Your video is excellent and it is great that you took the time to research many aspects however you glossed over something’s.
1) You glossed over the Renaissance and I am assuming that you are continuing history, just with Rome. This means that thethe Renaissance would not need to necessarily happen because again, Rome never would have fallen, so you would have to remember that the European nations would in-fact for a large part of the “Middle Ages” seek Rome as a guardian and higher authority.
2) You referred to Rome as the sick man of Europe by the time we arrived to the Crimean war era, however I have to remind you that the reason the Ottomans were called the sick-man of Europe was because of the civil strife that would have been occurring within the Empire. This is something that would not be happening in this version of Rome because there would be no religious or class division that can be necessarily seen. Not to mention, even by then the Western Nations would still see Rome as their progenitor and would retain quite a lot of respect for it as the OLD man of Europe.
I take a bit of issue with this timeline, firstly one of the driving factors for the western powers interest in exploration was not wishing/being able to trade with the Turks but wanting goods from the east really only Venice was trading with them heavily as was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth albeit more sporadically.
Since Rome retained control of the Levant for the most part along with Italy Venice as a trade power let alone even existing as a nation would be called into question since most of its trade/political clout was due to the crusades and subsequent trade with the Turks after the fact, which would also imply that the western powers could still freely trade with Rome to obtain goods from the east along the silk road/Persian Gulf/Red Sea so that main driving factor for exploration would be non existent.
Secondly without those empires that came about due to that exploration none of the western powers would really have all that much political clout or military power to challenge Rome on equal footing and would more than likely be in a similar state to much of eastern Europe in the 16th-20th centuries namely Britain would be basically a backwater like it was in the Roman era only exception to that would be if they had been fully conquered by the Norse whom had reached the Americas long before the age of exploration and the Norse actually retaining a permanent settlement in Newfoundland and then expanding out from there, at which point the other western nations jump on the bandwagon.
Thirdly I don't buy the Arab conquests actually succeeding in any meaningful way if Rome had not been in such a weakened state as it was after the Justinian plague since that plague also effected the Sasanian empire heavily as well in our timeline, two events could have occurred instead 1. Being both Rome and the Sassanids beat the Arabs back independently of each other or 2. They could have established a temporary alliance to beat back the Arabs like they did historically during the battle of Firaz since they would both be in a better state without the plague weakening them both in the financial and manpower spheres .
So if the Arabs had been contained to the Arabian Peninsula and not allowed to spread as happened historically Islam would have ended up as nothing more than a minor Arabic cult however, that is not to say it couldn't spread via other more passive means such as trade routes or contact between individual people similar to how early Christianity or Buddhism spread but it still would likely have stayed a minor cult unless a ruler of a nation decided to make it a state religion like how King Tiridates III did with Christianity in Armenia.
not even close we got more powerful general that would beat them both again he never lost a battle he was op that the caliphate had to demote him.
Love your map style bro 👍
Same
Pretty cool! I see you like Roman history a lot. Can't really for the next one!
Would Poland and Lithuania even unite without the threat of the Teutonic order? And napoleon while Corsica had no ties to France?
Mh, the Teutonic order was created only thanks to the crusade against the Muslims. It was invited by the polish king there because Poland was losing its war against the original Prussian pagans. An answer to that would pose more questions than they actually answer.
@@n.c.kupfermann1023 since no Catholicism in the proper sense and no crusade for Jerusalem, probably no knightly orders at all
@@pascalbaryamo4568 there would probably be knightly orders just not for the same reasons, they would probably serve as fancier troops or special guards.
@@j.a.hernandez9742 maybe, as a way to integrate western knighthood into the more bureaucratic/ centralised Roman state so they don’t pose a threat
1. Without Henry VIII's annulment crisis, England would remain Catholic/Orthodox. 2. Neither Poland nor Lithuania would have enbraced Protestantism or Communism.
I always Love your videos on Eastern Rome!!! = still waiting on the access to all the artworks by the way if you don’t mind… both old and new ones forthcoming alike in future vids.
Are you going to show + talk more on the inner workings of this new Eastern Rome timeline here in modern day times like you did with your part 2 video previously??? = Would love to see all that, pretty please… and how it differs from the previous ones.
My only recommendations on this video in flaws is that I did notice in previous maps and works in history that Eastern Rome did have control over all the Mauretania provinces in north Africa + Numidia and more of the Levant to the south between Egypt + Israel and between Arabia = Jordon for a short time during Justinian’s reconquests… could you add them too please, just as an update?
Got some more ideas as well if its ok with you to do after the next one… What if the 4th Crusade never happened? = Could Eastern Rome make a comeback without that tragedy of events ever happening?
How would it recover from its previous problems with the religious divisions + economic decline and rivalry with later medieval Europe and Venice = no thanks to the Byzantine-Venetian treaty of 1082 + religious rivalries with catholic Europe and the papal state of Rome + political divisions back at home with dealing with corruption and the nobles + reforming military comeback after the high and late medieval ages come about + introduction of gunpowder weapons, the renaissance + age of discovery = introductions of new trade and ideas + early modern era + industrialism and still fighting on against the Anatolian Turks + other Arab Muslims and others in the middle east.
Long story short: What if the Komnenos dynasty and its successor dynasties of Eastern Rome were far more stable and successful in organized leadership throughout??? = What if the Byzantine-Venetian treaty of 1082 never happened under Emperor Alexios I Komnenos?
Did Rome just stop constantly having stupid self destructive civil wars?
My thoughts exactly.
Also the crusades may still hapen as many European kingdoms will want to expand christianity. The crusades may happen in Persia, Arabia and India and posibly China and Japan. The crusades would have been more successful since the Justinianic code and trade would have florished during this timeline since the Mediterranean would in control of rome.
You're finally back! Yay!
Love it dude. Amazing content
Since there were far less brutal wars in Germany and Italy, they may have similar populations to Russia
I couldn't understand why it didn't lost any lands ???
For example what is the reason behind the muslims couldn't conquered Egypt and north Africa??
And why would they retake Levant after the muslims successfully invaded Persia??
And why would the Romans stand against the mongols ??
What happen with the magyar and slavic migration into the Balkans??
You do realize that with Rome, not only not worn out by the sassanids war but also with more power than in our timeline would crush arabia very easily
not even close we got more powerful general that would beat them both again he never lost a battle he was op that the caliphate had to demote him
@@the3zoooz1 So says your religious text. Reality is unfortunately different.
Rome exists, still history plays out almost exactly as it did.
your 4.5k subs should be 4.5 million im falling in love with this channel
This is basically what if eastern Rome replaced the Ottomans and survived until today and I think it’s really interesting
I don't really see this scenario has plausible, to me it just feels like Rome became the Ottomans
really like the video, hope you can get more recognition for your work
earned a sub :]
It almost feels like romes recovery had no actual effect on history. Most major events played out the same
Me an Lombardian seeing this video: "damn! If the Longobards never invaded Italy, half of my ancestors are gone! Even my hometown was founded by the Longobards!"
What was the music at 17:30
It's been two years since this masterpiece came out, but I still come to watch it every now and then. Very good work
I really don't see history being the same with the exception of a largely stagnant Roman empire replacing the Ottomans.
First off, the Byzantine-Sassanid war of 602 would not necessarily have ended with massive Roman territorial gains. In fact, the Roman-Sassanid war was triggered by a specific incident, and began more as a civil war against Phocus (at least in the eyes of defecting Byzantine troops) than a proper invasion.
Without the murder of Maurice, Khosrow II would have invaded. And without the shortage of funds in the late 6th century, the Byzantine army would not have revolted against Maurice. Rather, the two empires would have continued to cooperate, at least through the life of Maurice.
I don't know if some other event might have triggered a similar war, such as Maurice dying of natural causes and a civil war against his teenaged son. But, it is more likely that both empires would focus on other fronts. The resurgent Byzantine empire has more than enough to worry about it Italy and Spain, in addition to the historical Balkan issues, while the Sassanids were focused on Arabia at the time.
If both empires were at peace, the Muslims would probably not expand out of Arabia, and might have even lost to the Sassanids in Arabia, provoking more Sassanid and Byzantine intervention in the region. (For example, the Muslims attack Sassanid Yemen, the Sassanids respond by expanding up into Hejaz, while the Ghassanids (clients of Rome) expand down south from trans-Jordan.)
That would mean Islam does not exist for most practical purposes, probably surviving as a minority religion in Arabia. That means of Zoroastrian Persia surviving, a Christian North Africa (and probably West and East Africa in the later middle ages), no crusades, and so on.
But conversely, we shouldn't assume perpetual smooth sailing if one disaster is averted. Maybe, after Maurice died of natural causes at 70 (in 609), there was a civil war between his sons. During the war, the Avars attack the Balkans and take Constantinople, and the Empire permanently splits into Western empire centered in Rome and North Africa, and a Monophysite Eastern empire centered in Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt. The Eastern Empire falls during the Muslim expansion, while the Sassanid empire keeps all its territory east of the Euphrates. The Muslims expand up into southern Balkans in the 7th and 8th centuries, being welcomed as by the Christian Greek population as liberators from the barbarous and pagan Avars. The Western Empire loses North Africa, but is able to maintain control of Italy and most of the Mediterranean islands. In this timeline, the Roman Empire re-Latinizes, but Italy is conquered by the Magyars in the early 10th century. Eventually, the Kingdom of West Francia liberates Rome, and France is titled the "Holy Roman Empire" is this timeline.
10:41 tho how did protestantism even exist considering the fact justinian conquered rome before the great schism, and thus cathoilicism won't exist altogether in this timeline, and thus no reason for a reformation to happen ?
Protestants would exist in some form because Rome would exert a lot of political power using Christianity.
Protestants would not recognize that power because they would no longer be under the Roman patriarchs.
I enjoyed this a lot. Is it simplified? Certainly, but when talking about keeping Rome together, and existing over such an extensive time period, there is no way to handle this without either going super simplified, or falling down a million rabbit holes of possibility. I also enjoy the look and feel that these maps give.
Wow, this vid is fucking awesome. There must be so much hard work going into making this, I just can't even imagine.
Protestant France? What a cool concept, and one that is a very reasonable outgrowth of this Roman survival scenario.
for a small channel you make really great content, keep up the good work man
Dude the amount of history that would be preserved if Rome stook around like this is astronomical! If 1204 never happened, God!
Amazing video! I enjoyed it very much. Have a good day
It may be more useful for Justinian to stop at Italy. Rapid expansion is already problematic. But continuing with conquering the relatively poor Spania before consolidating the other provinces is a recipe for disaster.
Love this guy very under rated the wait is so worth it
Very enjoying. Good work!
I think the greeks should have gotten southern Crimea back after WW1 as it would likely have quite a few greeks. Hard to know for sure though
There would be something very interesting & almost funny:
Bulgaria & Romania would have switched places lmao
Explaination:
Proto-Romanians were the Romans of the Balkans, but the Balkans irl were invaded by Slavs, and only the Proto-Romans the North of the Danube river resisted assimilation (There were also Dalmatians, and still Albanians but i simplify)
But here, the Bulgarians stabilize at the north of the Danube, and local Proto-Romanians are assimilated, but not those southern to it, and less Dalmatians, so Romania would be in actual Bulgaria, with some still resisting in pockets in the carpathians, just like Aromanians in the Balkans irl.
There would be some slavs in the balkans, but mostly greek-influenced Dalmatians and Romanians, thus making a true continuum of languages from Lusitania and France to Romania, passing by Italia & Dalmatia.
PS: There would also be an African romance language & culture, because Arabs never got there
Let’s go. Thank you. Keep this up
Hey, I really liked this video, definitely subbed and am waiting for the next one :)
Underrated channel
Rome is hard to predict since it had constant civil wars and those cicil wars led to its greatest defeats
Would the big cities still depopulate if Justinian succeeded? Would classical science still get lost and only partially recovered later during the crusades (of which there would be no need)? Wouldn't Rome employ its naval expertise to colonise the East (India, China, Japan, Indonesia) and become even richer, as the East was already developed, contrary to the Americas? Would there be a scramble for Africa in the 1400s, and industrialisation in the 1500s, as Rome could simply skip feudalism? Would there even be a Great Schism, and a Reformation? Would the Ancient World become a more peaceful place without Islamic expansion, or all the contrary? Keeping Rome alive and strong would have so massive social, technological and cultural consequences that all parameters that we take for granted would shift. I like the fact that you produced such a powerful alternative history, but it only scratches the surface.
The war between the Communists and Germany in this timeline would definitely result in a world war that would outright destroy the USSR or all the Western empires in this timeline, there won’t be a Cold War since this conflict will have developed the same mindset both sides of WWII developed in our timeline: not settling with anything less than total victory. Most communists unlike Stalin in our timeline wanted to ignite a “world revolution” and would probably not be as calculating as Stalin was with his deals he brokered with the West (which many communists at the time hated him for) since they hoped their ideology will take over the world. Communism in this timeline would be seen as the fascism of our timeline if this were to happen. Also, the odds of the USSR industrializing were very unlikely since many communists unlike Stalin thought the country was better off functioning as an agrarian one and if there is no industrialist like Stalin to develop the country in this timeline, the already low chances of winning such a world war in this timeline would drop to 0.
Even then, the communism as described in this video is very unlikely to exist at all let alone a version that is nearly identical to the one of our timeline. Why would an ideology like syndicalism, distributism, some variant of anarchism, or ethnonationalism (since the empires of this timeline would incorporate even more peoples) not become prominent but communism, as we know it, would?
Would Liberalism even exist since a strong imperium like the Roman one would oppose such changes ever taking control anywhere? Since every Western power would look up to the now very alive and existing Rome of this timeline, no one would have liberalism take over their country since Rome would exist to crush it and would rally all the other Western nations to crush it as it would have a strong martial and very traditionally imperial culture that would oppose such reforms.
😲 incredible man
@@smartsthemiddlename6296
That’s ok, this comment wasn’t meant for you.
@@endurovro ?? The comments increbile
@@smartsthemiddlename6296
You edited the comment.
@@endurovro Yes I wrote incredible spelling wrong
Very nice video!
@Neatling I want that world map you use in the videos. The map looks so neat and nice.❤️🙏👍😀
Btw great work.
Can you make a video on a surviving alexander empire?
I think you were a bit too lenient on Rome's earlier wars with the Persians, Arabs, and Mongols. One of the major factors that lead to Justinian unable to fend off a Sassanian invasion during/after his reconquest of Rome was the massive draining of the Roman treasury that funded his reconquest. The same would occur here, if Rome had already split with the eastern living on and the western under the control of Germanics. This means that Persia would still be a very capable fighter in this Perso-Roman war, although Rome may be in a slightly better position. Rome during this time would control all that Justinian had reconquered as well as the entirety of Iberia and Italia.
However, during both of their recoveries, the Arabs would attack. The Arabs are native to desert warfare, and while Rome fought a war for territorial integrity, the Arabs fought a religious crusade, to spread Islam far and wide. For the sake of benefitting Rome, let's say the Arabs attack the Persians first. Like in our timeline, they are successful, but this gives Rome plenty of time to prepare her defenses in Egypt, the Levant, and Anatolia. However, the Arabs were able to overcome heavy fortifications on the Zagros Mountains, they can almost certainly overcome defenses in native desert environments. The Arabs would take control of the Levant, taking Jerusalem as trophy. Now, Roman Egypt is separated from the Roman mainland, all supply lines are restricted to maritime. Luckily for them, the Arabs only recently got hold of mediterranean ports, and their navy was not very existent by that point. This gives Rome time to fortify the Sinai peninsula even further, the only land-based chokepoint available to the Arabs. This will hold for the duration of the Rashidun Caliphate (the Umayyad will never come, as they came from North Africa, which Rome currently controls), but during the Abbasid conquests, Rome will likely lose Egypt and North Africa east of Tunisia. Losing Egypt would be devastating to Rome, as Egypt would be one of Rome's most populous and prosperous regions, due to the amount of grains provided from the Nile. This would logically lead to a famine, which would lead to political infighting. However, Civil War would be avoided. During this time of strife, the Frankish Empire would invade, taking the Alps and all land to the north of it as well as all land north of the Pyrenees. Now Iberia is wholly separated from the Rest of Rome, while there is only a tiny strip of Roman land connecting Italy to the rest of Rome, all the while Rome still has not solved her food problem. This issue would be resolved through the invasion of the fertile lands in Crimea and the Ukraine (assuming they win), winning Rome a new bread basket to replace Egypt (international trade was still rather protectionist at this point, trading for food was not as universally accepted).
This would mark a new Roman shift to the east, to protect the Ukraine and Crimea. During this time, Iberia would be neglected, and would erupt in revolt, breaking away from the Empire and into infighting over who should rule. Seeing this failure, Rome would reinvest more effort into Italy to prevent a second Iberia. during this time, Rome would be controlling Italia, Carpathia, Romania, the Balkans, Greece, the Ukraine, Crimea, the Caucasus, and Anatolia. Roman lands would remain relatively unchanged, able to fend off any invaders, up until the Mongols came.
The Mongols would swift invade and conquer the Ukraine and the Caucasus, but be kept out of Anatolia, They would take Romania, putting them too close for comfort to the Roman Capital at Constantinople. The Romans would now be putting their effort into keeping the Mongols far away from Constantinople; luckily for them, the Mongols had to retreat to mourn the death of their Khan. Now the Mongols are split into 4, all formidable factions. During this time, Rome would reconquer Wallachia, but the Ukraine and Crimea would no longer be Roman, and accompanied by the Black Plague, Rome experiences the worst famine she's ever had.
During these times of strife, Rome will experience a series of civil wars which will result in the loss of Italia as an independent state, but the Pope and the city of Rome remaining under Roman control. After the times of strife, however Rome would assist the Russian principalities in removing the Golden Horde once and for all. Rome and Russia will become allies, and by this point, there is not much left that is predictable, as now the existence of the Renaissance would be uncertain.
Would Dalmatia and Africa still speak Latin?
And would the east and Egypt be hellenised or keep their native languages?
I’m not sure if Egypt or Mesopotamia would be hellanised but I think Libya, much of the balkans and modern Tunis would either speak Greek or a latinised language
@@thesoupmills1426 I’m basing it of the fact that the regions were heavily hellenised from Alexander, which is why Greek was the language of the east
It might be a big second language.
One where a large ethnic minority in the regions and it is large enough where it could be learned as a second language
Well most of the balkans were historically romanised (Romano-Illyrians, Romano-Thracians, Romanised Pannonians) apart from the areas closer to Greece such as Northern Thrace and Scythia Minor.
As for Egypt, they already used a modified version of the Greek alphabet known as Coptic, so it would be safe to assume that they would gradually become more hellenised over time.
Africa would probably still speak a form of Latin (African Romance language) as they are still in the influence of the See of Rome and this factor would make them keep it rather than Greek.
Is America the same size or bigger? Nice video
I still believe that the linguistic difference between Latin-speaking Italy and Greek-speaking East would make Italia a seperate state in this timeline too. In Balkans the border is more realistic below the line Burgas-Dyrrachium (Greek zone linguistic-cultural influence).
Was thinking the same. That may not occur during the middle ages but with the rise of nationalism in the early modern era it is likely that those entities would have split.
@@tonit4233 That might not necessarily be quite the case. As evident during the modern day (outside of Mussolini's regime) Greece & Italy, despite linguistic difference, recognize a common & shared identity from the cultural influences that The Greeks & Roman had on each other. It was recognized that after the Greek conquests that Hellenic influence began permeating Roman society quite thoroughly, not to mention their time under Etruscan influence (whom themselves were heavily influenced by the Greeks due to Adriatic & broader Mediterranean trade).
This goes the other way too: The last Roman Territories were those still in Greece & Anatolia, and some Balkan & Anatolian Greeks in the hinterlands still refereed to themselves not as Greeks, but as Romans (admittedly, only up until the early 20th Century in most parts).
This is really good. Rome and the German Empire outlive the USSR, no rise of fascism, but it doesn't go off the deep end with Rome conquering half the world as some kind of unstoppable juggernaut after regaining Italy. Rome would probably end up as the last true empire, as it's hard to argue the point with 20 centuries of continuous rule.
Having a territory in Egypt and in the Atlantic Ocean, Rome could have built the Suez Canal and sent an expedition on the Americas way ahead of everyone.
If Rome successfully did that, they could take advantage of their holdings in the Suez Canal, Straight of Gibraltar, and the Panama Canal in the future. Controlling the world trade would catapult them into one of world's superpowers in the modern world.
Although in exploiting the Suez Canal they will need to establish a holding in the Indian Ocean first, and maybe a colony at the tip of southern Africa to prevent explorers from circumnavigating Africa...
It’s as if Ancient Rome back then had no competition other than the Parthians until many centuries later in Europe starting with the United Huns and Visigoths. The situation would’ve worsened with the upcoming Arabs and Slavs
I really enjoyed the video mate, it was really precise and felt realistic but may I mention a few points that might've been overlooked? First off I think the Roman's would've gotten into colonizing america as latecomers taking some minor territories, and they'd probably have colonized Indonesia, southern tip of arabia, indichina and maybe even india...just a thought
I think the idea of Italy remaining perpetually stable in this timeline is questionable. East and west had been divided for centuries at this point, still within "Rome" but under separate emperors. The greek-dominated east seizing all this territory and keeping it for an extended period just doesn't make sense. I think the Franks would've found a Latin populace in Italy who were already resentful of greek dominance. I think the the empire would've struggled to hold out against the franks in northern Italy, in a largely hostile occupied Italy. I think Charlemagne likely would've gained support from the Roman senate as emperor of the west, with the east retaining control over southern Italy only. After the death of Charlemagne, the unified identity of the Latins and the wars of Carolingian succession likely could've allowed for an independent Latin state in Italy, which would've unified the peninsula over the next several hundred years. I do think this prevents the great schism until the protestant reformation props up, however, and due to the dominance of greeks over the Roman church the reformation would've gained a lot more popularity in Italy. The identities of eastern and western Romans were just too distinct by Justinian's time for them to remain totally stable under a single emperor, I think.
I was thinking of the establishment of an Holy Roman Empire centered around Italy (instead of Germany). Or a new Western Roman Empire declaring independence from the East.
Hey, I think there may have been some historical events that you did not consider, even though they may have played a huge role in deciding the hegemon of europe. In your alt history, Napoleon Bonaparte is born french, however wasn't Napoleon born in Corsica which in this reality belongs to rome? So, it is possible that Napolean, after having been a successful general of the Roman Army for a little while, also attempted a coup d'état in Rome like he did in France in our timeline? Considering this could actually change a lot that would have gone through in Europe, since Rome already had control over egypt, this could mean that India(my country), in this timeline, would have probably become a Roman Colony, as Napoloan had also tried to do this when he had control of France in our timeline but couldn't as he wasn't able to get control over egypt. This also means that, with the resources from India and transporting manpower for soldiers from India(which would be easy, as Indian Sepoys could be transported from Mumbai to the Roman Empire through the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden), the Roman Empire would be able to conquer the Iberian Peninsula and even most of France, if not all, and establish puppet states throughout Europe and also conquer Morroco and Mesopotamia. This due to the fact that in this reality, Napoleon has less enemies, as the likes of Austria would be a part of Bavaria, as per your Alt history, and Bavaria would be a Roman ally, due to the commonality of religion and also the eventual marriage of Napoleon and Marie Louise. Also, due to the large manpower of the Indian Sepoys, Napoleon may have also been able to have defeated the russian empire, through many bloody battles using the Indian Sepoys' sheer numbers. This may have caused a lot of discontent amongst the Indians back in India, and the Indians would have revolted causing the first Sepoy Mutiny(which also happened in our timeline in 1857 against the british) which would have probably occured in 1815 in this timeline. Napoleon would have probably relinquished control of India, and would have allowed India to become an Independent country, which would be a monarchy led by Akbar II. Napolean would do this to shift is resources towards maintaining control over Crimea(and other Ukrainian territories) which would be annexed from Russia, and also maintain control over France which would have many rebellions, considering that it would be protestant in this reality. Napoleon will also not die in 1821 like he does in our reality, as he is the emperor of the Roman Empire and is not poisoned(which he may have been in our timeline). With Napolean growing to an old age, he manages to crush revolts in France and keep it, and also manages to cripple Britain's economy through the Continental Blockade, and hence Britain will also become a puppet of the Romans. With his death in the 1850's/1860's, he is also able to teach his son(Napoleon II) how to be a good, future emperor of Rome. Finally, with Napoleon II on the throne after his father's demise, there starts to be growing tensions between Rome and the the Rising German empire, which leads to all out war between them in 1871.
Spent a lot of time working on this, hopefully you see this and share your thoughts on it as well. :)
This video started out well but then progressed as if it was just current timeline with a Rome being just an enlarged, Christian Ottoman empire. This doesn't take into account any of the massive technological advances the Roman empire had, which, in our timeline, were lost and the rediscoverer of gained a substantial military, technological, financial and cultural boost. Also, the reformation would not have happened since the excesses of the catholic church would not need to be supplied by indulgences. However, a religious divide would have taken place way earlier in the form of Nestorian Christianity or another sect among the gothic kingdoms.
Map: the Aquitaine controlled by the Visigoths was the northern one (A. Prima & A Secunda), which for some reason you place (too early?) under Frankish control. Their control of A. Tertia (alias Novempopulania, later better known as Northern Vasconia and later as Gascony) was filmsy at best. Only the Franks would eventually conquer it but took them lot of effort and several major defeats.
Hey man video idea!:
What if every country had its borders drawn based upon their cultures. Like you would have to break something like Belgium into Flemish and French.
Yep, this is an instant subscribe for me
Great video. I suggest also considering the religious tensions between coptic Alexandria/Egypt and Constantinople. I think it was one of the main reasons why Egypt fell to the Arabs in the first place, as the last were seen "more religiously tolerant" than the romans. I believe North Africa could easily "fall" to the caliphate, but I wouldn't exclude resistance pockets around Carthage and a possible "reconquista" campaign started from Italy.
Something interesting in this scenario would be the impact on Christianity. Would they continue to work out of Rome or would they return to Jerusalem?
I like your take on the altenate Thirty Years War that involves the changes in religion, language and culture that parallel the geopolitical changes of a much stronger Roman Empire (which I assume would still be based in Constantinople). With the Empire holding unto Italy for much longer, the Papacy won't grow influential and the Great Schism didn't happen ITTL. However, France, Germany, England, Scandinavia and the PLC would set up their own national churches with their own Patriarchs claiming to be on the same level as the Pope, but still in communion with the "Roman Orthodox" Church of the Empire. So the alternate Reformation would occur via these national churches formally breaking ties with the Roman Orthodox and forming their own "league" of churches, much like how the OTL Oriental Churches exist today.
As for language: Portuguese, Castillian and French would go into a more Greek-influenced direction. North Africa would develop its own Romance language which might be more or less a widespread version of Sicilian. With no Norman conquest of England, English would retain its mostly Germanic roots and have more Nordic influence, especially if through the centuries England would maintain close ties with Scandinavian kingdoms to oppose the Empire.
There won’t be a second sassinad war because I am assuming that phocas never rebels and Maurice is still in charge. So there will never be a second war because Maurice’s death was the cause of the second war. Also Maurice was going to defeat the avars so there would never be that threat too. Also Maurice had an alliance with the sassiands so when the Arabs/Muslims they would be defeated the Middle East would be split in half with no threat in the East. Also Russia was influenced by Rome so I doubt they will fight them. Instead I see Russia and Rome allying in my opinion
I doubt Islam would become as widespread in this timeline if Rome is able to successfully fend it off. It would, at worst, be one of the many religions and cultures lost following the Mongol invasions and would not see widespread adoption as it would be crushed between two empires. Or it would, at best, be more of a regional religion like Hinduism is in India. Then again, Rome lasting this long as it is attacked on multiple fronts by barbarians and other enemy powers makes it very unlikely to succeed as much as this video portrays it would.
Wow, just found your channel. Dont know if you have a discord yet but id be down to join. Looking forward to alternate histories, history and mapping. Theres plenty of scenarios other youtubers havent covered id be interested for you to cover :)
Nice concept
This would be an AMAZING Hoi4/Vic3 mod
Love this video
Something that you miss, would be the development of the west. Without the fall of Constantinople, there would not be development of universities in Italy that later spread in the rest of the West. So in this scenario, the scientific development would stil be "locked" in Rome. The West were hundreds of years behind compared to the Persian or the Romans and without the fall of Constantinople they will stil be.
I disagree, the renaissance started in Italy because the byzantine scholars fled there from the ottoman empire. The biggest problem will be that we have to endure the behavior of Greeks. Middle ages Greeks were the most arrogant people of the world, they easily surpassed French.
I wonder did anyone just annex land by buying it or trading it?
BTW, I have this music on my playlist.
What is the music in the video?
@@emperoraugustus4047 Sons of Constantinople.
An often forgotten factor was multiple megavolcanic eruptions that caused major crop shortages around the entire planet.
I would like to think that when Justinian conquered the Vandal Kingdom, many Vandal and Alan refugees fled to the western area of the Atlas Mountains. With the Berbers they founded a new Arian Kingdom that successfully defended itself from Roman aggression and became the last haven for Arian Christians. In the Age of Discovery, they too colonised large areas of the world in much the same way as the western European kingdoms. Their capital city could be a choice of modern day Rabat or Casablanca. Perhaps in time they would go to war eastwards and reconquer their "ancient" homeland of old Roman Africa and retake Carthage. Also they may conquer north to retake their other "ancient" homeland, Vandalusia in southern Iberia. They would Christianize the Canary Islands quite quickly, then colonise the Azores, Madeira and Cape Verde Islands. And then, the world is their oyster! At least until the other nations bully their way in.
Can you do a video if Ireland in the 11th century under Brian Boru and his heir survive long to keep Ireland united. I know you're busy but would you ever consider it.
"Mhm yes."
Do you like how it look Rome
It seems I'm not the only one to Restore Rome in this Blessed Timeline yes very blessed.
If I see an alternate history of Rome video I click on it. Simple as that.
Really interesting video, thank you for that it is well-built.
I would just point the fact that you could have take into account to propension of Roman politics to go on civil wars.
I was beginning to worry about you man... nevertheless great video, I see improvements, very nice indeed!
I'm the master of postponing. But I'll let everyone know if I have to take a break longer than a month. Otherwise if it hasn't been more than a month, I'm probably just working on something in the background. Slowly. But hopefully I can pick up the pace when it comes to uploads.
@@Neatling as long as do not overwork yourself and take pleasure in your projects all is fine!
@@Neatling
*BROTHER COULD U PLS MAKE A VIDEO ON FRAXINETUM, THE MUSLM EMIRATE OF SWITZERLAND‼️‼️🙏🏽🙏🏽*
Napoleonic war with roman corsica? Roman defeat to the Russian?
Split Korea? Poor butterflies.
This was a very good amd well thought out. Do you think you can do a scenario where Sweden wins the great northern war?
Did scramble of Africa by the Great Powers happened in this timeline ?
P.S. Love your videos, keep up the good work
There would have been some sort of alternate scramble for Africa. If you pay close attention you can also see Rome's borders expanding to some rather arbitrary lines in the Sahara. That would have happened perhaps a bit before and during the scramble for Africa.
@@Neatling
*BROTHER COULD U PLS MAKE A VIDEO ON FRAXINETUM, THE MUSLM EMIRATE OF SWITZERLAND‼️‼️🙏🏽🙏🏽*
Man, you scared me with that music at the end. I see you're a man of culture, however
This is very interesting.
After this
Can you do this 2 scenario about WW2
What if Western Allies joined Axis aganist the soviet?
What if Hitler never suicide and decided to surrender?
Hitler not committing suicide will probably no stop him for being executed for the holocaust also the axis would betray the allies like how they betrayed the Soviets
Damn bro…..that bass at 17:02 was so unexpected and sounded fck awesome in my new headphones lolol omggg that was epic ❤😂
how would this effect the trout population?