What if Maxentius would have defeated Constantine at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge 312 AD?

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

Please check out and subscribe to my new channel "Ultra Future": kzbin.info/door/yMpW_xDwvRD4zEHP_F1t1Q The revenue from this channel will be used to create better videos on Maiorianus.

[@commentfreely5443]

the next Christian guy would have come along and changed the empire from its old shittyness to christianity.

[@nowthenzen]

Subscribed!

[@anti-liberalismo]

The revenue from this channel should be used to raise new comitatensis legions

[@HS-su3cf]

Maybe with a Roman Europe we would get a situation like China, with periods of a united Empire alternating with periods of separate small kingdoms.

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

Good one! A very Romanized Europe uniting and dividing over and over. Maybe each “Empires” would get more nationalists according to their respective regions. Empire of Hispania vs Empire of Gaul, Empire of Britannia vs Empire of Germania etc

[@TheUrobolos]

Impossible. China is a giant flatland surrounded by mountains, sea and deserts, It's very geography makes cultural and political unification cyclical. Europe is too fragmented and mountainous to be unified.

[@macgordonaberese-ako4587]

Exactly the point.

[@macgordonaberese-ako4587]

The empire was built at the point of the sword. By the sword the Germans were inevitably going to take it. Germania has fought Rome over many centuries. Corruption, nepotism Varus was no soldier but Augustus put him in charge of 3 legions annihilated in the Teutonberg forest. Empires die.

[@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump]

The capitol was moved East for a reason. The West fell because it was untenable, and the center would have inevitably moved East, or an Eastern power would have developed and threatened Rome.

[@ziomudru]

This video should be titled "what if everyone stops being a power hungry backstabber and starts playing for the team"

[@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump]

This channel has not impressed. Like 90% of "alt history" it's really just fan fiction.

[@AlexVictorianus]

The empire should have been divided anyway. Otherwise it was overstretched. Emperors attempted to reunite the empire again and again, but their success was short-lived, while the land took damage every time, this was done.

[@frankketalo]

if a good divorce were achieved without loosing north africa the empires could survive maybe longer who knows.

[@jirikrumpl482]

It should not cuz every province needed the other

[@athiocordatus9572]

@@jirikrumpl482 Not really. Africa (modern Tunisia) largely served the same function as Egypt

[@marcocecini]

I would like to thank Sebastian for the extraordinary work he has been doing for years with 'Maiorianus'. It is not easy to build such a popular and followed channel by never deviating from its main topic, the Late Roman Empire. Sebastian has succeeded, and this means only one thing: that he is competent, prepared and capable. I am proud of the attention he has paid to my reconstruction, physical through historical re-enactment and academic through the publication of scientific papers, of the lost memory of Emperor Maxentius. I thank him for his sensitivity in understanding that even the defeated must have a voice and dignity if we are a modern and civilised people. The damnation of memory may have been justifiable in Roman times, but today it is terribly anti-historical. On the contrary, I believe that knowing Constantine's adversaries better and ennobling them will also make him who won greater greatness. Then, of course, it is left to everyone to prefer one or the other protagonist of history. Thank you Sebastian for the excellent video, one of many hundreds, thousands of possible uchronies, but undoubtedly very fascinating. A hug my friend, see you soon.

[@roykay4709]

I was wondering the same thing. Definitely a more welcoming situation for the Arian Christian Germans. And yes, Rome would retreat if it didn't fall, at some time. The next question might be "What if Justinian fled Constantinople?" roughly leaving it in a state of civil war - but likely preserving both the Visigothic and Vandal kingdoms, perhaps even with a break away Egypt. The joker in the deck would be the evolution of Bellisarious' career.

[@ansibarius4633]

Speculative history can go in many directions, depending on how many and which parameters you choose to switch on or off, and even then there will be a certain unpredictability due to what we call 'coincidence'. Still, it would be interesting to speculate what might have happened if the Mediterranean and Near Eastern powers wouldn't have exhausted themselves in these over-ambitious all-or-nothing type wars of the mid-6th to early 7th centuries. Maybe the expansion of Islam would have been nipped in the bud, which would surely have resulted in a vastly different medieval and modern history timeline.

[@jl696]

Thanks for your high quality historical videos.

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

Thank you so much for your generous support! It is highly appreciated.

[@cheesepatrol2376]

KZbin creators are in the same boat with musicians these days. Digital serfdom. Big respect for your dedication.

[@marcusathome]

One issue that plagued the Roman Empire and is neither discussed nor considered here is that they heavily relied on slave work, driving the economy. Long term, this might have prevented the development of power machinery, even though the skills and fabrication methods were ripe for it. Short term, where to source further slaves in an already overstretched empire?

[@AleksandrPodyachev]

I found out that later in the empire, they had a shortage of slaves and paid employees, so they might have developed it, even if it was later

[@prototropo]

Well, as in our era, some restless slaves, and some ethical intellectuals, quite likely would eventually have formulated a worldview that condemned slavery. I think that shift in thinking is historically inevitable, whether it takes a hundred years or a thousand. Some fraction of people who are literate and scholastically inclined will value logic and will recognize the qualitative difference between animals and humans, the gratuity of domination and enslavement. Unfortunately those who benefit from the institution of slavery will always mount a refusal to change. But as we know from the three Servile Wars against Rome itself, the enslaved will rise up time and again when there's so little to lose.

[@TheHoveHeretic]

Breed them, I'd imagine. You need to remember, these poor sods were regarded in the same category as wives and cattle. Life expectancy would have depended on a slave's use. A tutor serving successive generations of a senatorial family could be expected to last longer than an eight year old sent down the lead mines.

[@jackhallander6706]

Today, we’d be able to visit the Tomb of Achilles and Alexander, the Serapeum… and the untarnished Acropolis of Athens , the Acropolis of Pergamon, and the Platonic Academy. It just goes on forever how different the world would be.

[@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526]

Are you sure?Without Constantinople bribing the barbarians and huns what would stop them from destroying Greece? Egypt would fall to the persians or to the arabs anyway .In the later scenario Searapeum as a pagan temple would be razed.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

Most of the damage to the acropolis happened in the medieval period. Similarly, Alexander's body would have been destroyed by the Muslims.

[@jackhallander6706]

@@huntclanhunt9697 The damage happened in the medieval period because the Christians had let it fall into disrepair. No hellenes = why preserve monuments to ‘evil’ gods. They also may have deliberately looted it, like they may very well have done with the Statue of Zeus at Olympia. As for Alexander’s tomb, that’s impossible to say, but it disappears from the historical record when the Christians had control of the city. My comment is purely speculative, but I have to imagine that such a sacred place to Greco-Roman polytheists (Roman emperors frequently visited it) likely would have survived if people still revered him as they did in the classical world.

[@davidkeane1820]

Thanks!

[@happyslapsgiving5421]

If only, man. If only!

[@palacehaunter5442]

Genius Constantine ended pagan losers. Sainr Constantine outsmarted the heathen

[@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526]

Atila would destroy Greece and the slavs settle there,Germanic tribes would conquer the western territories anyway,Egypt would fall to Persians or Arabs.

[@ivandrago4852]

I push for a debate with Schwerpunkt on such topics. It would be confrontational but amazing. I love Late antiquity being discussed more in depth

[@Chaika1974]

Schwerpunkt shilling his channel from this account again

[@dpwXXIPolskaPolak]

SDebasian you do not lke empre Constantine victory over Maxencius and Licinius?Why?

[@BernasLL]

Ahah, so smooth. Way too smooth sailing here.

[@shamsishraq6831]

As a rule of thumb, his ideal Rome always manages to: 1. Remain pagan 2. Remain tolerant (apparently an extension of point 1) 3. Dominates Persia to the extent fighting them is no deal 4. Swats Arabs and Muslims remain a minor religion, with no explanation beyond the Persia issue 5. Somehow kickstarts Industrial Revolution (or even the colonization of Mars, lmao) earlier because obviously anything associated with Rome equals science and progress

[@BernasLL]

​@@shamsishraq6831 Ahah, yeah. I do agree with 1, and 4, the rise of christianity to prestige and islam to empire were definitely consequences of a Rome's social and political instability, a bit less of that and they would likely not have happened. Islam in particular would not have happened in a power vacuum, since it's first and foremost Mohammed's political project, and he simply wouldn't have survived raiding caravans and sowing civil unrest if arabia was still a roman controlled province. Maybe he would have instead risen in the local ranks by embracing roman religion instead of being raised in a deeply pre-islamic arabian paganism jahiliyyah community, his set of skills would certainly be useful in service of rome, and he was very much an eager social climber. The remainder is not straightforward at all.

[@shamsishraq6831]

@@BernasLL I think you have some misconceptions. Roman Arabia was far away from Mecca or Medina, and mostly out of touch (by Roman choice) from the Roman Empire. Also, anyone who has actually studies Islamic history would understand the nuances before reducing Muhammad's activities to raiding caravans and "sowing civil unrest" (???). He spread his religion in Mecca, and as a result they tortured him and his followers until he left for Medina. Then the property of Meccan Muslims was simply acquired. Only after that, as a way to make money for his now dispossessed followers, does he order the raiding of Meccan caravans. All of this was happening and the ERE never bothered, for the simple reason that it was not relevant to them. The same would go for Rome. All of that means nothing stops Muslims from expanding throughout Arabia. After that, nothing is certain. What if a larger Rome simply means having to divest resources to even more fronts while the Arabs invade? What if a suppressed Persia means that in this timeline, they actually look at this as an opportunity to attack Romans? What if Arabs themselves realize the situation, and are able to play off the big powers? What if the Hellenic-Gnostic religion creates masses of dissatisfied Christians in the East (which it definitely will), who readily accept the Arabs as a better choice (just like Jacobites and other non-Orthodox Christians in our own timeline)? The problem is too often these scenarios turn out to be exactly as a Romaboo would want them to be, and the usual Romaboo does NOT like Muslims, at all.

[@BernasLL]

​@@shamsishraq6831 Fair point. But It would still be neighbouring the roman sphere of influence, and in the way of islamic expansion to Egypt and the Magreb, which was a huge pillar in Islam's finances. I didn't reduce the current timeline, but without them the remainder simply wouldn't have happened, Mohammed's success as a caravan raider was a catalyst to getting a following of warriors, the drivers of his expansion. And a pool of lawless warriors only exists because no imperial trade routes call for security, which would have been enforced by Rome conquering, or sponsoring a regional ally with power claims. Most likely Rome and Persia would sponsor a buffer state of suitable neutrality, everyone proffiting in peace times and security not allowing for the prosperity of a non state warrior religion. Or one of the powers would have expanded into Arabia, though its meager resources don't make it likely. So in this scenario, yes it would have been reduced to that, or not happened at all. Let us not forget that "prophets" existed in the hundreds or thousands in the middle east, it was political success that made Mohammed an historical figure. Without conditions for such a new religion to rise and prosper the way it did, the world would just keep spinning. Even if he somehow managed to control Arabia entirely, the reason it was so ignored by Rome and Persia is because it was a backwater void of geographical value. Controlling it with such two collossus on both sides would be short-lived in any such scenario, a legion would have squashed islam in its infancy, never mind the fact that it wouldn't be rising. Now, if in this scenario Persia became a rump state, Rome would simply do what it always wanted to do, expand eastwards. I just don't agree with the remainder of your hypothesis being the most plausible, is all :) Am enjoying the chat though, thank you!

[@xedaslopes3975]

@@shamsishraq6831 indeed

[@AleksandrPodyachev]

How realistic would it be for the worship of the Classical Greco-Roman Gods to the present day

[@jackhallander6706]

As realistic as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Scandinavian Pantheons, and Shintoism surviving to the present day.

[@colbystearns5066]

I have been hearing about new modern Greco-Roman temples being built today in Italy and Greece if that helps, perhaps in this alternate timeline there would just be a lot more of them.

[@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526]

Probably not. Western Europe and maybe Rome would adopt the Norse religion. Greece would adopt slavic paganism. Egyptian religion may well survive in a Persian Empire,but would be supressed by the Arab expansion.

[@AndreaMoletta-s3c]

I was thinking that the cult of Sol Invictus would become the State-Religion.

[@masterexploder9668]

Greco-Roman polytheism was fading even back then, because why else other cults like Isis, Sol Invictus, Mithraism or Christianity started to make traction. It looks like there was a pull to monotheism, so it was a question of time which of the cults became dominant enough to assert control and stamp out the rest. Christianity proved to be most effective, it was inclusive to all groups, you had one book (Bible) and one "canonical" version to spread, it was also eager to spread it's faith. Seems like in general, monotheistic religions are more interested in spreading their faith, than polytheism, which is more about syncretism and just joining more gods to their pantheon. I think they just couldn't keep up.

[@alanhunter2019]

Thanks

[@stillbrian9448]

Seems like a highly optimistic alternative timeline

[@xedaslopes3975]

14:00 thats just a fever dream, like in a world when nothing really goes wrong and you achieve everything just because, no way they would conquer germania or the entire iranic lands

[@fabianmiron2782]

I like you’re content in general for showing an often forgotten period of history and showing the fall of the west as not just a permanent decay but you’re heavy bias towards the classical idea of imperial Rome is really showing in videos like those. It’s practically just fanfiction. The idea that policy changes were the most decisive reason for the increasing border problems in Rome instead of economic stagnation and political instability and an increasing disability to integrate foreign people (and the advancement of those people btw) is more than adventurous. I fail to see how a Rome that strengthens and actually fights its border regions and leads expeditions to Dacia would be more equipped to fight a gigantic war with Parthia and somehow win against a competitor state on the same level as Rome in economy and warfare. The idea that there would emerge a more „tolerant“ (I guess you mean pluralistic and only because I hope you don’t mean just good or better) Christianity would emerge ignores the incredible revolution in thought that Christianity established. To simplify it very much instead of religion being a part of culture which needs to enacted in a very legalistic and routine way Christianity established a personal relation to the divine. The entire of faith and therefore religion being a separate thing from culture comes from this distinction. This created a personal requisite for salvation which includes (from there Point of the State) the possibility to includes this fervent believe to the Defense of the Christian realm. Instead of Christianity weakening the imperial Ideologie it strengthened it but only when it was ingrained into the culture meaning that when only looking at the late Roman western empire it looks like a destruction but an ideological foundation that could be destructed by that didn’t deserve to exist further. Rome splitting was inevitable when looking at the cultural divide between the Greek and Latin sides. The unstable borders would create constant trouble for a centralised government while the splitting of the empire creates the possibility for usurpers like the Gallic and pymerian realms. Like it or not but Rome like all empires would not only change but in the end fall . Constantine was one of the best emperors because he’s changes made the Roman Empire survive for century’s longer while keeping the empire stagnant trough fundamentally old and obsolete ideas in new colours like in the video it would be finished way sooner. Plus the Christianity bashing is like always cringe and feels like pagan LARP

[@Americancrusader2112]

Yeah, the dumping on Christianity isn't great, take it from me, one of my favorite eras is the medieval era. So, it's painful to listen to sometimes. Peace ✌🏻

[@imaginemyshock8067]

I think the key to the industrial revolution is the fact that slaves are expensive to maintain, and once someone would have imagined the idea of steam power [in any century] it would have opened up the possibilities of cheaper ways of getting tasks done with machines and without having to feed slaves. We are seeing the same thing happening now as computerized machines are replacing people which couldn't be replaced before.

[@TheUrobolos]

Maxentius was not the bloodtristy tyrant the later propaganda portrayed. But he sided with the city of Rome and the senators simply for lack of other allies. Had he won he would had just switched to the army and moved his capital elswhere where he could had absolute power without competitors. And dont forget with him the praetorians would had remained a cause of trouble and early "retirement" of emperors

[@rosskourtis9602]

I don't think a Maxentius victory would have been all that great for the empire. First, it's by no means certain that there would not have been a civil war between Maxentius and Licinius. Second, it would be impossible for the empire to conquer Germania. By this time, the Germanic tribes were competent fighters, having learned from their interactions with the Romans. Additionally, there is the problem of the natural border-there's a reason why Rome never expanded past the Rhine and Danube, namely, the topography enabled them to defend their frontier. Finally, you still have all the problems of inflation, disease, natural disaster, climate change, Huns, and, of course, human frailty-how can we be sure that Maxentius' successor would not be another Commodus or Valentinian III?

[@frankvandorp2059]

Other natural borders are possible, Augustus considered the Elbe for example, and you could also use rivers like the Dnepr. But you're right that a new age of conquest seems highly unlikely, that would require Maxentius to find some magic cure for all of the empire's ills, and some previously unthought of genius governing system allowing to unite and strengthen the Romans to such a point that they have resources to spare again for foreign conquest.

[@HHHSHAAD]

I have been waiting for this. Bravo!

[@frankvandorp2059]

This looks like an absolute best-case scenario. More likely, 3 years into Maxentius' reign something stupid would have happened, Maxentius would have died because of it, and a civil war between six emperors would have started tearing the empire apart again.

[@Maiorianus_Sebastian]

🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus

[@julianadeau5797]

If Maxentius was victorious, the Burning Times might never have happened...

[@prototropo]

I love your loyalty to an integrated empire, Sebastian! Even if things had gone differently, though, and the army, security and prosperity of Rome was rejuvenated and restored, there are always unexpected forces waiting in the wings. Like the Huns or Mongols or Slaves, ready to throb or be pushed, destructively, across the limes. Or the discovery and clash with other civilizations, like perhaps the kingdoms of the Gangetic Plain, or the Khmer and China. And eventually whole new worlds meet each-other, like Jesuits and Japan, Conquistadors and the Inca or Aztecs. Rome might have met its match in the formidable Maya. So many empires begin as defensive maneuvers, and then a string of victories fills the wrong heads and hearts with ambition for more. And under the perennial excuse of security (identity) honor (patriotism) and virtue (religion), a new ideology becomes the tip of the spear of offensive conflicts, appropriation of land and loot, and the careful dehumanization of the enemy--which is always everyone but us. So the vanquished become our slaves, and we take the fruits of their labor; consequences that have nothing to do with simple defense against uncivilized invaders. In their rise against such barbarians, how many small societies have forgotten why they first sent sons over the horizon, where barbaric impulses were indulged, terrible violations of women and children grew common, and as atrocities accumulate on both sides, distinctions between the virtuous defenders and the invading barbarians dissolve, and the confluence of their savagery becomes a dark-red pond, seeping into the earth that both sides' forbears once trod, plowed and shared. Longterm, universal moral reasons eventually undermine the reason for empires' very being, I think. Even if particularities and technicalities, like bureaucracy, treachery and mediocre leadership, also share blame.

[@anti-liberalismo]

Even with the victory of Maxentius i still believe Christianity would triumph due to its prolific and missionary nature, and now with a tolerant ruler it could spread far more than before, especially in the east. I really dislike the idea of destruction of statues and pagan temples and pagan persecution on one hand, as i believe tolerance would be a better way of taking the word of Jesus Christ to the pagans, but the idea of this religious mixing is as dislikeable to me as the persecutions, and to be honest they already happened in some forms with the many heresies that sprang up ever since the founding of Christianity, with many a pagan philosophy incorporated in their ideals, just as in Latin Catholicism as well. Note: i'm brazilian orthodox christian, in here we actually have this religious mixing in some religions called Umbanda and Quimbanda.

[@frankketalo]

Is Umbanda and Quimbanda African?

[@anti-liberalismo]

@@frankketalo yes and no, it is a mixture of western African religions with spiritism, Christianity and indigenous Brazilian religions

[@ovomaltine357]

Oloco mano, nunca pensei que acharia um irmão ortodoxo Brasileiro por aqui, abraço de SP e que Deus te abençoe e que a Santa Theotokos interceda por nós assim como todos os Santos e a igreja. (É ótimo ver como a ortodoxia tem se espalhado por todo o mundo atualmente, inclusive em nossa amada terra!)

[@anti-liberalismo]

@@ovomaltine357 Deus o abençoe, querido! Admito que não sou perfeito e que devo ser melhor, mas meu coração agora pertence apenas a Jesus Cristo!

[@reeyees50]

We would be living in an utopia today if so

[@lerneanlion]

I can see the Coptic Revolution happened in this timeline eventually in the alternate version of the Crisis of the Third Century. And if it succeeded, Egypt will become an independent nation once again with Pharaoh as the Head of State. And to secure the safety of the route between Rome and Carthage, Sicily will become an important strategic location. And sometimes, Sicilian cities such as Syracuse or Palermo might even occasionally become the capitals because of such a reason as well. But aside from that, I do not know how will Europe and North Africa will looked like at all. The only other things I that I am certain is that Rome will do everything it can to keep Carthage and Sicily, and that Islam might looked southward for the expansion instead. Who knows, maybe the Caliphate based in Mogadishu twill come to dominate the Swahili coasts down all the way to Zanzibar Island in the south while also launching raids against Ethiopia when it was under both the Zagwe and the Solomonic dynasties in the manner similar to how Caliph Harun al-Rashid conducted raids against the Roman Empire based in Constantinople in our world.

[@versmex87]

In the Maxentian timeline. Indian numerals did not make it to Bagdad,s House of wisdom and so modern mathematics would not have Made it to the west. It's a good bet to Say the industrial revolution could not have happened.

[@EmperorCaligula_EC]

Ah what a great, perfect vision. For SOL INVICTUS!

[@AndreaMoletta-s3c]

Really cool timeline to enjoy. Howerever, i doubt Germania and Dacia could be conquered. I mainly think they would either retreat from Britannia or make it a simply a Vassal State, simplifying the borders of the Empire to a vast but simple North-facing front.

[@andreweaston1779]

What happened in Egypt after the fall of the Empire, and how, and in what way, did that differ from how the province was treated under the Empire? I was just watching your video: When did the Middle Ages Start? And you went over how it happened west to east and said what that looked like, but in Egypt, you simply said was conquered and converted.

[@ryanprosper88]

Egypt was always a part of the Eastern Roman Empire, up until the Arab conquests.

[@andreweaston1779]

@@ryanprosper88 I am aware of that. Hence me saying "simply said it was conquered and that was that"

[@robertfranklin422]

What sources did you read and use for this video?

[@PhilosoShysGameChannel]

Great stuff as always. Just started making alternate history ourself ^^

[@viniciusvyller9458]

Can't watch it without feeling weird, it's just too good to have happened.

[@fatherofhistory]

Imagine a world where Constantine lost at the Milvian Bridge. This video explores the ripple effects, from a fortified Rome to a blended Christian-Pagan faith. It's a fascinating alternate history, prompting questions about our own timeline's

[@fredhercmaricaubang1883]

Ave, Frater! This was VERY GOOD! On the thought of a Speculative Future on Rome, may I recommend the book "Roma Eterna" by Robert Silverberg? And, based on your premise that Maxentius defeated Constantine, what would the effects be around the rest of the world? From what I've seen, you mostly focused on Europe, which is understandable since you are a European but what of the Americas? And, from the viewpoint of Maxentius' Rome, what of trans-Asia, that is, east & south-east Asia? Looking forward to your kind response.

[@Uncle_Fred]

I think Christianity was destined to become the predominant religion of the Roman Empire regardless of the victor. By the third century, it had already firmly established itself across the population and had a strong missionary component. You'd have to change events much earlier in the timeline. I'd argue you'd need to go back and disrupt the activities of the 1st-century missionary apostles. Even if this was successful, I think some sort of expansionist monotheism was likely to emerge from Judaism. In our timeline, we see this happen in the form of Islam.

[@jackhallander6706]

Christianity was not firmly established among the population. Even in the time of Constantine, it constituted roughly ten percent of all Romans. Which is a shockingly small amount in my opinion. As for Islam, well that’s a different story because I would say that the ideology of Islam is inseparable from the caliphate. As a result, the relationship between Rome and Islam (the caliphate) always would have been hostile because the Romans would have seen them as just another enemy like Persia.

[@milosv123344]

Just go back and kill Jesus as a teenager or something, before he got schizophrenia and everyone knew who he was in the first place. Next tell Hadrian to finish the job later on and delete the "chosen people" from history including any mentions that this war ever happened, do not take slaves from the area. Mohhamad would probably never exist in this timeline and the Abrahamic blight that plunged the world into a 1000 years of darkness and technological regression, would have never existed. It's nice to imagine how the world would have turned out in that timeline..

[@ecurewitz]

It could have been any number of religions that became dominant. Christianity would have had some impact though

[@alanpennie]

Bart Ehrman has argued, rather counter intuitively that the conversion of Constantine wasn't important in the triumph of Christianity.

[@huntclanhunt9697]

​@@jackhallander6706 10% is still a very large minority. That's firmly established.

[@primrosehill24]

Without an industrial revolution I cant personally see how the Romans could maintain control over such a large swathe of territory. They would have needed enhanced logistics and military technology as the barbarians at the borders caught up with their superior armies. Theres also no indication that the crippling civil wars would have stopped had the battle gone the other way. Although I love the idea that Rome could have reached the stars had it survived...sadly nothing lasts forever...except Roman concrete 😂

[@BryantMoore87]

Would it not have been more likely to have fortified Porta over Ostia, as it had replaced most of the shipping to/from Rome?

[@bogdancirovic1217]

Roman Succesor States and their importance: 1. Italic or Roman Empire (dominates the Mediterranean, afterall, they own every single island in it and if they would have the strongest Mediterranean fleet, it would be a Mediterranean hegemon), 2. Byzantine Empire (has the city which connects the road to Asia and Europe called Byzantium in this timeline), 3. Gaulic Empire (giant france with Rhineland and Britannia most prominent continental power), 4. Hispanic Empire (dominates Iberia and therefore controls the entrance to the Mediterranean), 5. Carthiginian Kingdom (controls all the grain that used to go to rome), 6. Egypt (could build the Suezus (latin for Suez or something idk) in the future, but until then it's just a rich ex province), 7. Anatolian Empire (controls Middle East and probably dominates it (not counting Egypt) and in the future has a lot of oil which would be important), 8. Germanian Empire (has the Dutch coast and knowing how ludicrous it was in OTL, Germania could a strong colonial power alongside Gaul and Hispania (beacuse of Atlantic and North Sea coast) if the age of exploration even happens in this timeline). What's your opinion on this?

[@patavinity1262]

*What if Maxentius had defeated

[@ImAMassiveBender]

I like the counterfactual but it seems a bit like a 'good ending' where every decision is the correct one. If Maxentius won then there might be a major Christian uprising, possibly with Persian intervention.

[@TheLeonhamm]

That is .. for the most part .. fairly easy to suggest: 1) had he died or been captured, Licinus would have battered his way through to Maxentius (in time) with vengeance in mind. 2) had he lived and escaped, Constantine, that most Roman of all late Roman claimants to the empire, would have returned the capital city (no, not 'Rome' .. but Milan). 3) if he had returned to Milan, Maxentius - as Roman as the next man in the empireat the time - would have started counting beans .. or least the grains of sand, pip-pip-pipping until history's inevitable rematch was set; for Constantine savoured revenge, served cold (ask Licinius). I would not have liked to remain in Rome with Constantine out for blood .. not just victory - Justinian's efforts would have crushed down upon it two hundred and some-what years earlier. 'Oh! but Constantine was supposed to be a Christian ..' comes the lame reply; yes, and a Roman, and a imperial contestant to boot; Christianity, like its Jewish inheritance, was not all weak tea and crust-less cucumber sandwiches with the Vicar - it was: The Maccabees (with an excuse and not just a chip on the shoulder). ;o)

[@carlosfilho3402]

They Would Still Haver Constantine's Brothers,Son Of Constantius With Theodora Sister Of Fausta,Yes,Wife Of Constantine Daughter Of Maximian And Sister Of Maxentius.

[@Litany_of_Fury]

I've been looking forward to this

[@NoelBalfour]

What if the mauryan empire had survived and continued till modern time?

[@huntclanhunt9697]

You would have had the Praetorians continue to exist, for one. For another, you'd never see the Empire shift power eastward, meaning when Rome fell (and it would) the east would not survive. You also would have seen renewed persecution of the Christians, which would further divide and weaken the empire as well as set back all the progress brought forward by Christianity. All in all, a much worse timeline than what we got.

[@solinvictus8093]

Now, as a result of this very interesting video I just purchased an old time classic book as an e-book: The Last Pagans of Rome by Alan Cameron. Should be interesting to read! 😎

[@michaellovinon3467]

Soo many if's but i guess that's why it's fun.

[@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526]

Well without Justinian there would be no Constantinople. It means that: -The empire would fall much earlier not only in the west,but in the east too. -Atila would make havok in Greece,destroying what was left of the greek culture. -The germans would still not care about the preservation of classical works: most of it would be lost without the church or the byzantine basileus. -Even if Rome and part of western territories hold the germans,the eastern part of the empire would fall to either Sassanid Persia or the Arab expansion.

[@-NovaRoma.]

Nobody responded lol also i guess you mean constantine not justinian right?

[@Meirstein]

BRB, going back to the past to merk constantine.

[@FairyWeatherMan]

It is said that the II century was the pinnacle of Roman Empire. What if a proto industrial economy had evolved? Would the germanic invasion have occured differently? Imagine a fourth century Roman army equipped with fire weapons

[@jasoncuculo7035]

Think Christianity would remain due to the high level of literacy among Christians and the need for literate civil servants. It would slowly grow but not overtake paganism. This would prevent the Great Schism in 1054 AD from dividing the religious allegiance of Europe. Without a Great Schism Constantinople would not of fallen in our timeline in 1204 due to the Fourth Crusaders attacking fellow Christian Constantinople. In this timeline there is no Constantinople just an old Greek city of 50,000 people Byzantium. This is very strong outcome for Rome. The Roman Empire began in 27 BC under Augustus Caesar. In 1453 when Sultan Mehmed II killed Constantine XXI conquered the remaining Roman Empire until now represents only 27 percent of the time from 27 BC until now. I t is possible that the stronger Roman Empire survives until the present largely intact. The Black Death (1347-1352 AD), and especially the Mongols would still be issues. The Mongols would not be faced with powerful Islamic Sultanates acting as effective buffers in their advance westward and they might not of run out of steam in Eastern Europe. However, access to North African grain would greatly strengthen the Romans and the Mongols would still be vastly overextended if they attempted to conquer all of Eurasia. It all depends of how good successive emperors are in this timeline. If reforms reducing corruption and more important even than corruption, solve the succession issues insuring competent emperors and preventing civil wars, then the empire would probably survive, and still exist today. Industrial Revolution is trickier, could go either way. Yes the precise mechanisms that led to revolution in our time line would not happen guaranteed, but there are other conceivable ways that it could including a more gradual approach that avoids the upheavals and solve environmental issues along the way. This still is tricky as greed vs global warming and pollution would still exist but emperors wanting to make an enduring name for themselves might pass laws dealing with these issues for posterity. The rate and level of advancement century by century is unpredictable totally as it involves to many variables. It could lead to a world more advanced than ours in some ways, less in others and the same in others. Then there is the issue of possible imperial colonization of the Western Hemisphere. Many possibilities.

[@stevenvallarsa1765]

The Industrial Revolution required two things than happened: The elimination of slavery, which would therefore require alternatives methods of labour, and laws that prevented the seizure of personal property, so kings and others in high power wouldn't be able to confiscate your inventions, allowing you to profit from your industry. Roman times were far from both these, so an Industrial Revolution couldn't have taken place back then. But perhaps your blending of Pagan and Christian would have made slavery disrespected much sooner than the late 18th century, enough that perhaps the spark of innovation could have started way sooner.

[@martincristian4567]

Is nice to put a face on that voice. Good luck with your new project! Also, is that Borsec in glass bottle? Good for şpriț, and no microplastics. 👍

[@alanpennie]

I don't think there's any reason to suppose that the shift in The Empire's centre of gravity would have been reversed by the defeat of Constantine. What is more likely is that with its capital remaining at Nicomedia The Eastern Empire collapses completely during The Great Sassanian War, with huge consequences for subsequent West Eurasian history.

[@Dark-Mustang]

Maxentius was a better Roman than Constantine

[@MBP1918]

End of the Empire

[@carlosfilho3402]

Julian Could Still Emerge After All,He Was The Son Of One Constantine's Brothers And Could Claim The Sucession.

[@jasonhudson739]

He would also have tried to make Rome great again

[@erynn9968]

It was like, what if the other guy had won AND the rest went according to the best case scenario, which is of course unrealistic. I’d be happy if Roman culture survived longer BUT its heritage would have had too many opportunities to be broken later anyway just because of the huge time span (2k years) that it needed to survive.

[@michaeijn67]

Not a problem My friend I will subscribe to the other channel.

[@conflagrantcortex8577]

But I’m sure he would have, had he been able to. I often wonder what would have happened if Maxentius had defeated Constantine, regardless of what he would have done.

[@toledomarcos70]

Sebastian, please tell you viewers to type in ultra future as one word if they type in as two words all they will get is iPhone and puma shoes and jazz sites

[@colbystearns5066]

Interesting alternate history scenario, so it seems like the West would've fared better in this timeline and Christianity would still have an influential cultural role to play in Roman society but just taking on a different flavor than the one we're familiar with.

[@cfoa13]

i like your video , but can you do something for the "bip" sound it give me headhache when i watch your videos.

[@aleksandarvil5718]

AT > IRL

[@carlosfilho3402]

Was A Great Vídeo

[@robinharwood5044]

“What if Maxentius had defeated Constantine…” is the correct form. The “would have” does not go in the “if” clause. This is not difficult.

[@pavelstebl9966]

The correct 3rd conditional form in English in the clause is 'What if Maxentius had defeated Constantine'. Just saying...

[@pridefulobserver3807]

I like that world better

[@johnking6252]

They should have relocated to Sicily it was more central to the empire, geographically! Just a thought. 👍

[@Monkeysfist221]

I’m pretty sure one of the Eastern Roman emperors tried doing that during the 600s.

[@-NovaRoma.]

Yeah i think he was constantine the second if im not wrong but he was assassinated and the capital was moved from Syracuse back to Constantinople

[@johnking6252]

Thx. for the info? 👍

[@Monkeysfist221]

@@johnking6252 Could’ve been Constans who was a member of the Heraclian dynasty if memory serves.

[@johnking6252]

Thx. 👍. on second thought not as defendable as a capital?

[@andreweaston1779]

You can also argue that Constantinople doomed itself by existing. By doing all the things you said about power base economy etc... this led to the fall of Rome. Letting in the barbarians. Who Christianized and 'converted' the Pope from an Imperial office to a barbarian power. Barbarians who sacked the city and formed the Latin empire 1000 years later....

[@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526]

Nah ,Atila,the Sassanid Persia or the Arabs would destroy the roman empire .

[@andreweaston1779]

@@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526 maybe, maybe not. i'm talking about stuff that actually happened tho

[@Thumbdumpandthebumpchump]

That whole "1000 years later" kind of ruins your point.

[@youtischia]

Good video. But the title is wrong. It should be "What if Maxentius HAD defeated Constantine at the ....". Can you see the difference ?

[@me67galaxylife]

Christianity shortening the empire’s life ? I’m not aware of any big rebellions due to anti christian sentiment. If anything it made the empire live longer after death. After all, we often forget the reason everyone looked up to rome so long after its fall is in big part its religious significance

[@davsalda]

Maioranus, respectfully I disagree with the idea that Christianity is a part of the reason for the breakup and downfall of the western Roman empire. This is a huge topic and this thread will only touch the surface... I don't think the rise of Christianity was a top down event, Christianity was already rapidly spreading decades after the death of "The Christos". Had pagan emperors insisted on persecuting Christians it would have led instead to more shaky control of power. Remember many of the invading Germanic barbarians coming from outside of the empire were ALREADY CHRISTIANIZED. The empire's soft/cultural power extended beyond the empire's borders, and the barbarians absorbed elements of Roman culture, most notably the dominant Roman religion = Christianity. Just imagine the amount of momentum/popularity the Christian religion had inside the empire by the time of the late western empire (not to mention the east where it originated). If anything, the new Christian religion once established in the ruling institutions (after Constantine), would lead to a more unified single religion across the empire. When the empire was pagan prior to the death of "The Christos" there were multiple different pagan religions, cults and beliefs. New cults would spring up in the east like new fads and would spread all over (Mithras, Isis). But as long as the cult of the emperor was respected (the Roman pledge of allegiance) all other religions were tolerated. We know Christianity famously resisted this. Christianity is more dogmatic. I don't see Christianity as a net positive or negative change that affected the empire's demise. It seems it was inevitable. Not all the Germanic barbarians were Christian but once they invaded they all quickly assimilated the Christian religion in order to incorporate themselves as the new legitimate overlords of their Roman/Latin subjects in the west. If an alternate history had occurred with a pagan religion winning out as the dominant religion, the same outcome would have occurred. The main reason for the downfall of the western (and eastern) empire was the never ending cycles of civil wars. The reorganizing of the empire into a tetrarchy and later into east and west halves were meant as solutions to stop the problem of incessant civil wars. Also, these planned partitionings of the empire did not mean that the different parts would not cooperate with each other. On the contrary the separated parts of the empire were meant to maintain ties and cooperate with each other. Diocletian makes this clear. Christianity simply beat out the pagan religions (including other monotheistic religions) in popularity among the masses. I also think it's a bias of modern historians to look at classical pagan Rome as the ideal, it's a contagion from our modern secularist western culture that sees paganism as preferable to the recognizably Christian Roman empire at the end. The fact that the eastern Roman empire was coined as Byzantium in history books and not called the surviving or Eastern Roman Empire is at the heart of this topic. But that is a whole other rabbit hole 🐰

[@causantinthescot]

That would be more interesting if Maxentius was replaced by my man GALLIENVS. He could easily CRUSH Constantine with his strategical skills and was always pragmatic (he was somehow similar to Chen Baxian in China), no matter how great the latter was in reality.

[@Leo_ofRedKeep]

"What if Maxentius had defeated..." I can tell you're German by such mistakes ;)

[@DeusExMau5]

Welcome to another episode of Constantine bad

[@happyslapsgiving5421]

Because he was.

[@christos49]

"Constantine and Theodosius bad!"

[@DeusExMau5]

@@happyslapsgiving5421 I doubt it,

[@granddukethedan7029]

Constantine and Theodosius were one of the greatest Roman Emperors!

[@frankketalo]

man you have to look at his face he was bad . He killed his son i think it was his first born and his wife and some other family member but i know he was a good christian, christians love him especially the orthodox christians.

[@diego-nx3ti]

Lütfen türkçe çeviri eklermisiniz

[@vitorpereira9515]

It was not Constantine who defeated Maxentius. It was God, and Constantine was his agent. The will of God cannot be denied.

[@eodyn7]

C R I N G E

[@vivekkaushik9508]

Did God send you the receipt? 😅

[@goodbanter4427]

Based. Christ is King

[@granddukethedan7029]

Hail Christ!

[@SelectHawk]

Imagine if the reverse had happened. This exact person would probably be praising Jupiter lol

[@asmundukkelberg8741]

I believe that the concept of a merged state religion is a bit unrealistic. Christianity was way too aggressive and intolerant to accept that.

[@FieldHoodGaming]

Rome should of moved to Carthage

[@carlosaugustodinizgarcia3526]

Imagine Cato the elder screaming in hell.

[@coryhirsh4119]

I always asaid CHRISTIANITY was the death of The Empire?! ( Remember , YOU lookbforward to YOUR Better after life? ( ALot of Help to Those of Us who worry about THE HERE& NOW?!)🤔

[@Norralin]

Would Islam even have arisen without a fully formed Christianity?

[@bretalvarez3097]

Probably not, it borrows heavily from Christianity.

[@adamw9021]

​@@bretalvarez3097I mean it depends on what will happen if Rome was still pagan

[@MixerRenegade95]

Yeah, what happens in Rome and Constantinople does not affect Arabia as far as Culture is concerned.

[@John_Pace]

I note the christian cho-rho symbol on the shields. Some how I doubt it. Remember the victors write the history books, and the Christian monks wrote what they wanted a few hundred years later, of a battle of good (Christian) vs evil (pagan).

[@Colonel_Blimp]

Maxentius was a loser. ‘Nuff said.

[@frankketalo]

at least he was not a monster who killed his son. If you prefer this kind of winner it is your choice and it is enough do not destroy the english language.

[@nikhtose]

Interesting thesis, but heavily reductionist. A different outcome at the Milvian Bridge, one battle, would have changed the pace of change, but not its reality. The forces bearing down on Rome in the West were ultimately irresistible. The frontiers were too long and the sheer numbers of barbarian invaders too great and constant, while the overall Western economy was stagnating. Constantinople offered a far stronger defense and economic foundation, but even then, only survived by paying off the invaders, e.g. the Huns.

[@majormarketing6552]

They had same borders for centuries stop it

[@1212Diablo]

I don't think Rome would be fully restored to be the center of power in the west as it wasn't even that at the time and hadn't been the capital for many years. If I'm not mistaken first Milano and then Ravenna was capital not Rome during this time. I can be mistaken was some time since I looked into this. I also don't see how the problem of barbarian invasions over the Danube and Rhine would be halted and immigration question be solved so easily. What was the different policies. That would have made this so differed? Along with Christianity being more tolerant in this timeline? Why? I don't see that happen at all. As Christianity as a new religion full of fervor would at the first opportunity hope to erase the old order of things to assert themselves. Sure that may happen later but I don't think that Christianity could ever tolerate Paganism. Over all I don't hate this video at all. It's always good to have someone paint a picture of how things would be different. It makes it easer for me to do the same and I've hardly though about this scenario at all.

[@timhorn3829]

I think if Matt sent us had one against Constantine at the Milian Bridge, Christianity would’ve stayed in the eastern part of the empire and the west would have stayed pagan

[@h.w.barlow6693]

Europe would've been conquered completely by Islam instead of partially.

[@TheHistorian5]

Great video of "what if" ! It s pretty mind f**k to think of so many scenarios..🥸

[@jl696]

Thanks!

[@davidmackenzie5332]

Thanks!

[@wcy5042]

Thanks!