What If Everything Went PERFECT For Rome?

[@possiblehistory]

Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: www.masterworks.art/possiblehistory Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more.🎨 See important Masterworks disclosures: www.masterworks.com/about/disclaimer?Viewer+of+Possible+History&

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Thanks man! Love your channel!😊😊😊❤❤❤❤

[@SirBoggins]

​@@danielsantiagourtado3430 Me too!!

[@Aarvaagen]

Ew

[@socialistrepublicofvietnam1500]

Bro, don't fall for it, it's a scam

[@dbks_8483_idjw]

Are trying to scam people or just gullible?

[@Cheesenommer]

But would they even be Romans without a succession crisis every third emperor?

[@bobboo101]

No. They definitely would not. And, we can even throw in "is rome even roman without a plebian strike?"

[@lazysunside]

They would be Roman, just not as we know it. Civil war would happen naturally but it will only strengthen them since they have plot armor and the power of “how do you turn this on” on their side.

[@whoareyouyouareclearlylost323]

Would it even be a Chinese Dynasty if a warlord didn't pop up every other generation?

[@whoareyouyouareclearlylost323]

But would they even be a Iranian empire if it wasn't threatened by a Eastern hordic invasion?

[@alexandrostheodorou8387]

Not a rome i wanna read about.

[@Onezy05]

Can we get part 2 for how a 'perfect' Rome would deal with the events of the middle ages

[@wargamesmaster]

Wouldn't a "what if everything went perfect for Eastern Rome" video be more adequate?

[@stigrabbid589]

That would be neat, especially if it became a small series that went to the modern era.

[@NovikNikolovic]

69th like

[@TaeSunWoo]

Super based Eastern Roman/Byzantine time

[@wargamesmaster]

But I suppose a video on what if everything went perfect for Western Rome could be nice too.

[@LNER_Nerd]

About Carthage being conquered immediately being unrealistic: it nearly happened. One of the Roman consuls jumped the gun in the demand of surrender, which only strengthened the Carthaginian war effort and led to its survival for three whole wars with Rome.

[@Yomesto]

it was markus atillius something something

[@Yomesto]

you know, big booty steve

[@SirBoggins]

​@@Yomesto 😂😂😂😂

[@wargamesmaster]

@@Yomesto It's Marcus Atilius Regulus.

[@unocualqu1era]

@@wargamesmaster Should've been called Previous Crassus Mediocritus

[@chinchillaruby4170]

I don't think comparing Rome to China in this matter makes much sense. Chinese geography is much easier to unite than the Mediterranean, in a way, everything did go perfect for Rome already.

[@chinchillaruby4170]

Also the religion thing seemed a bit too much of a butterfly to me as Christianity changed the familiar structure of Europe among other things, making a sequel video hard to predict.

[@habibcicero3833]

and its not like china didnt have countless rebellions and wars, and most of china was and still is ethnically and culturally diverse speaking different languages from locale to locale

[@buddermonger2000]

​@jasontod5843 Well no it's over 90% Han Chinese with a relatively united language required for the leadership class.

[@buddermonger2000]

I don't think Chinese geography is significantly easier to unite than the Mediterranean given you still have to move around China by foot or horseback except along the coast. While for the Mediterranean, with its expansive coastline and population centers hugging that area, is far easier to manage since you can sail since it in real terms acts as one big lake.

[@chinchillaruby4170]

@@buddermonger2000 water makes things harder to control, not easier. If water made things easier to control, Taiwan would not be a geopolitical issue right now. The mountains in Europe are more annoying to cross than the ones in China/Tibet because the slope is gentle from the Chinese plains but is steep from the Indian plains.

[@jucelinofilho2290]

While I agree with most of the video, I believe it would have believe that Rome should have actually conquered Dacia sooner in this timeline, preferably as a replacement to Britannia, and continue its conquest to control all of Panonia as well. My reasoning being that Dacia, tho a difficult provence to hold, was greatly rich in gold, silver, iron, timber, and many other resources that provided a boon to the Roman's. Panonia is a relatively fertile land that could act as another bread basket to the empire as well as grazing land for horses and cattle, which was of great importance to the empires economy according to Casus. In addition to all this, mountains are far easier to defend than a river. While with a river you need to protect the entire breath of the river, with the carpatian mountains providing a natural land barrier for the Romans, they need only fortify the mountain passages and keep one or two legions in reserve, one in Panonia and one in Dacia. This would free up the Danube to possibly become a major river for trade as well as a secondary fallback line, further protecting the Roman core while also providing stability for further prosperity for the Roman provences in the Balkans.

[@jucelinofilho2290]

@eon gerbe east of the Carpathians is only problematic if Rome was seeking to expand across it. With the natural barrier that is the Carpathians it would act as a fortress to blunt any oncoming nomadic peoples, be it the Huns, Alan's, Goths, etc. If they where to somewhere cross the mountains, break through the fortess gaurding the path, and defeat the roman garisoning troops in Panonia or Dacia, only then would they be able to make it to the Danube. And thats presuming they dont take time to pillage, regroup and tend to the wounded, or that the romans dont fall back and establish defenses along the Danube until reinforcements arrive. I could see a relief force being able to make it to the Danube or already stationed as a secondary line of defense. As for the communication thing, the Carpathians are closer to Rome than Jerusalem or Britannia. If the capital where to move to Constantinople then communication using the Danube would be even easier as they'd just sail up the black sea and follow the Danube and roads.

[@Memelord1117]

It's also a good source of manpower in the form of civilizable Dacians, heck, Aurelian's wife was from that area; the Restitutor Orbis had great taste.

[@arched3954]

They also converted quite easily to roman culture, its surprising how romania could hold its latin heritage all the way to modern day with only 50 years of cultural conversion.

[@jucelinofilho2290]

@@arched3954 also true! And with the Panonian basin settled there'd be a large area of romanized citizens on the boarder to provide manpower. It's possible this would stop the southward expension of the Slavs, possibly stopping the Huns as well at the Carpathians

[@buddermonger2000]

​@eongerbeWell being able to use the Danube for communication would also be a helpful boon here that they don't have if they're trying to guard the river

[@francogiobbimontesanti3826]

I disagree with the Danubian border. Rivers aren’t as good as a defensive border as people think, especially on a time where armies and information travels slowly and where heavy equipment doesn’t exist yet. One lucky set of circumstances can get a whole army in the other side in under a day. The Carpathians into the Sudeten mountains into the Oder river would be a better border. The border is shorter, away from population centres and armies can only cross in specific choke points. The Great Hungarian plains are also really fertile.

[@jasoncuculo7035]

Agreed, one less thing for me to describe in my comment. His choice of the Danube is wrong. Eventually, even in this time line the Goths fleeing west from the Huns and then later the Hunt themselves would attack. The much shorter easier to defend border and added furtile agricultural land could make the difference thereby preventing the fall of the Western Roman Empire entirely.

[@ADogNamedStay]

​@@jasoncuculo7035I mean, alot of people beat the dead horse and claimed themselves as roman long after the empire collapsed.

[@matiasmosquella1830]

I would agree in that sense but the issue of communication between such far regions comes back into play. I kinda agree though when you consider that multiple times the danubian river froze over enough for armies to March through

[@eccoeco3454]

Problem is, that's a whole lot of territory to add to the empire, territory the late empire wouldn't have the population to man and control

[@cristipopa4665]

Danube was not a defensive barier it was a logistic hiway suplying the forts and legions on the border.

[@porter5224]

Your four governments idea was literally tried and failed by Diocletian's Tetrarchy, and it just didn't work. The ruler of any of the four Romes always simply wanted to control the other three, because the greatest problem to Rome was that, after the conquest of Dacia and the failure to hold Mesopotamia, that there was never a reason to use their vast militaries to go outward when there was infinitely more wealth to be gained by using it against your internal rivals. Honestly, the best way to stabalize Rome's position would be to weaken the military's political power significantly. Honestly a tumultuous and tiring eternal conquest/occupation of Parthia might've been for the best, both because it was the only significant other source of wealth that Rome hadn't taken, as well as the strain it would put on the military to actually do its job.

[@Szpareq]

So the best way for Rome to survive would be to feudalize and turn into HRE?

[@porter5224]

@@Szpareq what?

[@KaiHung-wv3ul]

@@Szpareq In that case the feudal lords would just rip the empire apart in a massive battle royale to be the one on top.

[@t0xic661]

When you cannot expand the pie the goal of the nations elite instead becomes to divide it. Conquest or Slow rot from the inside. Human power structures are not very stable.

[@arched3954]

Not really, Diocletian created a system with two major emperors and two minors, this is a really bad system, but he isn't talking about various emperors but rather administration centers, which could be governed inside the provinces of Rome like beaourocratic districts. Also Mesopotamia would have been a pain in the ass to defend, there is really no way of defending it against persia, Hadrian didn't retreat because he had an option, also all of this is to evade overextension, how would you do it? Or do you think the romans didn't have problems with overextension?

[@thenamesianna]

As somebody from Rome, thank you for making this video.

[@SirBoggins]

When in Rome!

[@erketyrettile4734]

​@@SirBogginswhen in paris! Niggas

[@hatebeing_sober]

Where in Rome?

[@WeBlanchin]

How in Rome?

[@nitishkumarjurel241]

What in rome?

[@josephknott6174]

Could you do a video on what if the world was united? Either looking back in history to see when this was most likely to happen or looking forward and saying what conditions would be necessary to bring this about. This could either be under 1 empire/ country or as 1 alliance block

[@SirBoggins]

Starship Troopers go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!

[@SirBoggins]

Galactic Republic go brrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

[@robert9016]

The Mongolian-Habsburg empire was founded when Charles V married a Mongolian princess, converting to Tengrism and uniting the somehow still existing Mongolian Empire with the Habsburg empire at its peak. With Mongolian and Chinese land power combined with the Spanish fleet, England and France were quickly invaded, and Eastern lands were taken by the Mongol hordes. As European technology improved and was shared with the Mongols, quelling rebellions and holding onto land in the New World, Europe and the East became a lot easier, as did taking over Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. The Mongol Iberian Empire, yes.

[@SirBoggins]

​@@robert9016 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@yeetyeet5079]

The best bet would be some sort of United Hapsburg empire that then merges with the Other major dynasties and does colonialism dynasties via marriage

[@jvbrod]

"A religion that unifies the Empire but is more tolerant" Sol Invictus: Am I a joke to you?

[@ajax1475]

I was thinking the same, 🙏🌞

[@lolloblue9646]

DEVS•SOL•INVICTVS

[@julian9898]

Rome was very close to having a working steam engine (they had a small prototype, but nothing on an industrial scale). With early industrial technology (railroads, factories, telegraphs, etc) they could have overcome the communication issues and expanded even further

[@VenusFloh]

Imagine a game about a steampunk Roman Empire

[@historyman9436]

yeah its honestly impressive how often and how many people underestimate the romans and greeks. Sure, we are now WAY more advanced on LOADS of levels than the romans. At the same time you need to remember that the dark ages were called that for a reason. So many of romes technologies, advantages etc were lost for hundreds of years. We still have not seen a country get close to forming a proper, united europe on the scale that the Romans did - some got "close", but never to a level that their hold was slightly solidified.

[@10gamer64]

The question is whether or not they had good enough metallurgy to create effective steam engines. The aeolipile is incredible inefficient, even more so than the Newcomen engine (A primitive steam engine only useful for pumping water out of coal mines, and only coal mines) and so is unlikely to be economical on any large scale. In fact the only known account account of an aeolipile being used for anything other than a party trick (i.e. opening doors, rotating spits) was a highly questionable account of a steamship in 1543, which only appeared as a copy in 1826, with no original account being known. In addition, after the Opium Wars, the Qing attempted to construct steamships using traditional metallurgy, but were unable to build an effective example until western experts were brought over.

[@someonenew439]

Christianity would make Rome more stable in the long run. Christianity is widely considered to have saved the Roman Empire.

[@bonzoluv]

​@@someonenew439 how so?

[@DistantLights]

Imagine they had a printing press, and understood the value of the steam engine they invented (but used as a party trick to open doors lol)

[@sosig6445]

The stean engine they invented was REALLY weak and had no potential and worked on different principals than those invented in england in 1700's, not to mention they didn't entirely understood the physics behind it hampering their chance of improving it neither did they have metallurgy technology good enough to build resilient steam boilers. Roman steam engines were crudely made novelty, toys, and curious artifacts for merely lifting curtains, operating waterorgans (hydraulis) and opening temple gates. English steam engines were important precision made tools made out of quality metal alloys, for mining manufacturing and transportation.

[@DistantLights]

@@sosig6445 exactly, I wish they understood how to use the engine like the english did

[@sosig6445]

@@DistantLights Theyd need hundreds of years of mathematical and physics advamcements

[@DistantLights]

@@sosig6445 just let me have my steampunk roman empire headcanon lmao, I know it's not actually realistic

[@sosig6445]

@@DistantLights They did know of the waterwheel and helix used to gain kinetic energy and to transport water upstream respectively so IF they were to use steam commercially it would likely be used on ships revolutionising commerce and communication across the mediterran

[@AureliusLaurentius1099]

Considering how Byzantium aka Rome 2, lasted a thousand years despite being Christian, it is still possible to have a Christian Roman Super empire. The Edict of Milan just tolerated every form of worship including Christianity. It was only later when paganism was banned. Also Hellenism was already falling out of favor and the rise of debauchery and social degeneracy because a breeding ground for new religions. Christianity also had to compete with Neoplatonism, Manicheanism and Sol Invictus, the latter of which was Constantine's original faith

[@krosskreut3463]

​@@InsertAccountthem all pre 300s must be strange for you

[@JVPierre142]

An early rise of the cult of Sol Invictus could have laid the foundations of a very smooth conversion to Christianity down the line. With Sol Invictus, the fast assimilation of foreign religion remain while the idea of a dominant sun God develops over the centuries. By the time the Empire Empire form, Hellenism is reduced to secondary folklore and the cult of Sol Invictus is made official. Later down the line, Christianity is seen as compatible with the cult and the religion can spread incredibly fast in the whole Empire.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

@@krosskreut3463 Yes

[@CaptainGrimes1]

What do you mean debauchery? As if republican Rome didn't have orgies and drinking bouts 😂you think Christian rome had more of these?

[@utubrGaming]

Hear me out fellas, if his: Initials are JC He claims to be of royal or divine descent from his mother's line He's wildly popular with the people Practiced a doctrine of clemency Upended a few laws of the established political scene Made a few good speeches that made the people love him Had a few adventures while on a boat Refused the position of king a few times when asked Was betrayed and ultimately killed by those who claimed was closest to him Ascended into divinity after his death. Had a cult built around who claim legitimacy from their proximity to him Established a legacy that's intertwined with the Roman world and identity, and still persists today then he's not Iesous Christos Ben Yosef the Nazarene, he's Julius Caesar! Not sure whether Caesarism or Julianism would be the better name for the religion though.

[@SomeGuy1896]

Christianity was gonna come to Rome, one way or another. One thing it did help with though, was providing unity between the Christian sections of the Empire. Maybe if it spread faster, it might have helped keep Rome together?

[@capadociaash8003]

Another commenter said the edict of Milan gave legal tolerance for all religions when Rome was Christian, maybe have it never be repealed but Christianity continues to spread well

[@MrInkSpot]

As I have said on all these videos, you should do a video like this but for the Colonial and European Dutch Empire from the 1600s until 1941, seeing how large it could have gotten to be if everything went well for it.

[@SirBoggins]

Dutch Brasil go brrrrrrrrrr! 🇳🇱🇧🇶🇧🇷

[@ZenikkTF2]

Dutch North America would be insane

[@diegoyqulki]

​@@ZenikkTF2very insane and Brazil

[@rizkyadiyanto7922]

if only the dutch traded normaly like indians, arabs, and chinese in indonesia instead of colonializing local people as second class citizen.

[@venezemapping9920]

If you are making this series, I should suggest you to do a "What if Everything went Perfect for Gran Colombia / France / Spanish Empire"

[@polishherowitoldpilecki5521]

I imagine in this timeline, the Roman Empire would eventually collapse. But the people of Gaul, Britannia, Hispaniac, Greece, Germanía and Egypt. Would have a Roman identity and ethnicity. Like how the Arab caliphate Arabized 22 countries.

[@NewLightning1]

Greeks would definitely remained greeks since alot of "romans" thing came from greek and greek culturally conquered rome. But I get what you're trying to saying

[@bhagwa_badger72]

Aren't France, Spain and Portugal just romanized versions of Gaul and ,Hispanic

[@archived2714]

The best ending is that Caesar salad gets a different name than in our own timeline.

[@danielgareth4205]

Haha good one 😂

[@lordavy7469]

This is one of my favorite series, the idea is so unique in this space since so often the focus is just on singular events. Keep up the good work!

[@vihanuyyuru6]

Scenario Idea: What if everything went perfectly for Post-Napoleonic France

[@d.dante_vergil]

And that scenario is, my friend, definitely what Napoleon III had been dreaming about. A Post-Napoleonic France that is replaced by a... well, Neo-Napoleonic France. Diplomacy, modern nation-building and a race for East Asia.

[@HackerArmy03]

12:30 huh, that's actually great! The Emperors picking the most intelligent/ideal man to be his successor from his own family -- making one's choices broader and, quite possibly, better IMO since the actual supposed heir and son of the current Emperor will have to work his crap off to be recognized.

[@o-pitamask4698]

1:55 I think for the same reason why Rome should have expanded to the Elbe, it should have to the caphatian mountains. Furthermore I think (but don’t know) that the Pannonian basin would be a great bread basket

[@mivapusa]

Rome *survives nearly 2000 years. PH: "Rookie numbers"

[@RandomOrthodoxMan]

“Augustus adopted many men to groom” -Possible History

[@YD39222]

16:14 critical mistake there, the early Christians weren't Catholic in the modern sense of the word. Although the pre-ecumenical councils did establish a canon for the "Universal" Church and Universal is Catholic in Greek, this can be incredibly confusing for less educated viewers who will view that "Catholic" Church aka the Universal one, as the same one presided over by Pope Francis

[@Onezy05]

Aye. People seriously underestimate how many various sects there were in Christianity for a while before the likes of Constantine and Theodosius tried to stamp out the quote on quote 'heresies'

[@__Man_]

Jesus founded the Catholic Church, there was doctrine before Constantine. We have a direct line of succession from Pope Francis to St.Peter. Heresies were declared because they went against the established doctrine.

[@IntelligentDumbass]

@@__Man_ is correct. Our core doctrines were established by Jesus Christ himself and laid out in the Bible. Our Protestant friends will dispute this but any good Catholic can attest to it.

[@justchilling704]

You were right then you added some nonsense. The Nicene council did not establish any doctrine it just confirmed the majority position and the correct position which is that Jesus claimed divinity and was God. Early Christianity didn’t have “sects” there were some heretical groups here and there but there was always a pattern of orthodox doctrine Christianity did not start from scratch with Jesus, it was a movement within 2nd Temple Judaism, which accepted Jesus as being Messiah. This is why it’s incorrect to class Arians and Gnostics as Christians, Gnosticism makes very blasphemous claims about the Old Testament and is clearly Greek not Hebraic, and Arianism denies blatant claims Jesus made. Edit: You’re treating a outdated and bogus view of early Christianity as if it’s valid.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

No, there was a Church before Nicaea. They were even councils (synods/pre-ecumenical councils) that declared sects like modalism, gnosticism, valentinianism, montanism, pelagianism heretical. The 1st proper council was the Synod of Jerusalem in 49 AD. The Council of Nicaea did not establish the Biblical canon. It was only about deciding whether Christ is divine or not!

[@dr.gnomeson904]

Scenario Idea: What if everything went perfectly for the Soviet Union from 1922 onward?

[@FollowCarrier1997]

I think there is a video about That, but its name is what If the sóviets son the cold war

[@davidbofinger]

I think there's a lot to be said for Rome conquering Mesopotamia, not so much because it's valuable to them, though it would be, but because it would gut the economic basis of Persian strength. It's been said that empires of this era are an alliance between somewhere that makes excess food, somewhere with cities and somewhere with soldiers. By taking Mesopotamia, Rome locks down all the cities and food surpluses in the east, leaving those dangerous Iranian cavalry hopelessly underfunded.

[@SirBoggins]

I'd love to see one on if the Ancient Greeks had the best outcome, especially considering how the concept of Democracy might itself spread & if it would become dominant earlier on.

[@Michael_the_Drunkard]

That is 21th century romanticist nonsense. In Ancient and definitely Hellenistic Greece, democracies were only present in a few city-states. Mark the latter word, that system was not designed to govern over whole kingdoms, let alone empires. With the ascendancy of monarchic Macedonia, the Greek experiment of democracy was put to rest for good. Before you say muuh Roman Republic: This particular system of government did not come from or was influenced by the Greeks. Their systems have more differences than similarities. The Roman Republic was mostly oligarchic (Optimates & Populares). The senate was the only institution that granted the common folk some power, but it was prone to corruption. This system too died when the republic expanded and singular consuls like Julius Caesar rose up and "crossed the rubicon".

[@jonathankriesler2037]

@@Michael_the_Drunkard Yeah but you still could have the very concept of democracy present in thought for many people. Perhaps a sort of struggle-of-power-states, like Roman Empire and British Empire, where the king and the senate both share power with a changing dynamic between them. Even a king who handles the big issues and a senate that handles day to day life. All of these options would drastically increase western type democracies’ development

[@neogrimm]

As an Italian, I’m excited for this.

[@muhammadabdullahhanif8860]

Can you make what if everything went perfect for the Caliphates? I think they always got the short end of the stick in alternate history.

[@atrebuchet5267]

Honestly, I think things already went perfect for the Caliphates. A state in the middle of nowhere desert with the singular goal of spreading some new religion nobody's heard of flanked by 2 millennia old empires, accomplished it's goal and it's religion reaches from Morocco to Indonesia.

[@muhammadkashif1276]

​@@atrebuchet5267 what if things went even MORE PERFECT

[@atrebuchet5267]

@@muhammadkashif1276 The point is to keep it plausible and somewhat realistic.

[@mappingshaman5280]

@@atrebuchet5267 But they didn't. If the umayyads won the battles of constantinople and Tours, they could have converted most of europe. The abbasid revolution too was a terrible thing as it divided the muslims, allowing for things like the reconquista and the rise of the fatimids.

[@mcbeaty3971]

@@mappingshaman5280 And why would the Europeans convert to a sand monkey religion exactly?

[@whoareyouyouareclearlylost323]

As someone not from Rome, great video

[@ZephLodwick]

Commodus wasn't his dad's top pick for a successor; it was his son in law Pompeianus, but he turned it down.

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

I'm sorry but the part about Dacia is just silly. Dacia actually was a good province for some time before its mines went dry. They didn't spend unecessary resources defending it. It would be better to just abandon it after the mines go dry rather than never conquering it

[@Kidd-In-Charge]

Can you PLEASE do what if Britain never restored the monarchy after the English Civil War?

[@andyreginald9272]

“Cromwell! Cromwell! The greatest British king!”

[@kalejdoskop9425]

Great video as always, I have an interesting "challange" for you. ->Do what if everything went perfect for Poland BUT since the year 1794 (date of Kościuszko Uprising)

[@sebema6117]

Do a what if everything went perfect for britain

[@twomp5613]

@Kyran-er9kwhow so America is literally just the British empire part two.

[@rileymulaba2463]

Love this channel

[@SirBoggins]

So do I.

[@waltuhgoodman3427]

British Empire please ☕️

[@oskaranddaniel7582]

That would honestly be a great idea

[@theofficial8858]

You legit released this vid at the perfect time I was looking for this specific video lol

[@SirBoggins]

Next up, try one on other ancient empires like Persia, Cathage, and Alexander the Great's Macedonian empire! 😀

[@torikeqi8710]

Alexander's empire wasnt greek. He actually killed and massacred greeks

[@tompatterson1548]

Buddhism tends to be pretty compatible with other religions so I would think that Buddhism would be subject to interpretatio, maybe combining the isles of blest with Nirvanah, or something. Could probably have Tartarus, Asphodel, and Elysium as some of the various worlds one can be reborn into.

[@irgendwer3610]

17:00 How about a henotheistic religion based on Sol Invictus? Something similar was kinda already developing and it was popular with soldiers in the late empire. It might also bridge the differences between the pagans and christians

[@happyslapsgiving5421]

I really like your choice of borders, but I'd make just a couple of adjustments. 1) *Walls.* A double line of fortified walls similar to Adrian's Wall in the real timeline. As much as possible, they should be built behind large rivers, to improve on the already efficient natural border defense, building the forts ideally on the weaker points of the river. So the outer one should follow the Elbe border and then continue South and East and follow the Danube, wile the inner one should be built on the Rhine and then either connect with the Danube wall or follow some inner minor Danube tributaries, like the Sava river. A third, important wall should be built on the Persian border, North to South, mountain range to mountain range (with possibly a second line along the Tigris river going North to Trebizond). A fourth/fifth wall might be placed along the Southern side of the Caucasus mountain range, with forts mostly where invaders would cross the mountains. This would also mean extending the territory a bit East-Northeast to a much more defendable position, filling the southern side of the Caucasus, Armenia, Shirvan, etc. 2) *Sea.* No matter how thin and irrelevant, I'd try to conquer (or, ideally, peacefully annex) some small amount of coastal land to connect the Georgian holdings to the Crimean ones. Granted, these areas (including the Georgian and Crimean/Moldavian coastal areas) wouldn't have the same land defences as everything else (considering the deserts, the ocean and the previously discussed borders). However, it would be worth to hold them for one simple reason. If any future nomads and/or invaders from the East wanted to spread into Roman territories through the sea, they would have to first invade our land and fight us, and then be able to hold that land, before they could even think about building a fleet to spread West. This naval domination strategy should be completed by having five large ports and five large fleets, placed at: - the Constantinople choke point; - either Alexandria or somewhere between the Nile and the Sinai peninsula; - the Gibraltar choke point; - somewhere along the Northern coast of France, ideally at Rotomagus / Rouen, which is only slightly inland along the Seine, and thus in the perfect location for a port; - and ideally, considering the slight land adjustment above, at a new settlement placed where the river Tigris empties in the Persian Gulf.

[@NateTheGnat]

They should have done a "tetrarchy" system a lot earlier. Too many years in the empire were ruled by one insane monster after another with no one to challenge him. Multiple emperors ruling at once would solve this problem. They had experimented doing joint rule with Marcus & Lucius but it never was implemented properly.

[@abyssstrider2547]

That's more like an Oligarchy.

[@Finn_the_Cat]

The problem with that is that it causes more internal strife than its worth. The two emperors are usually more focused on getting more power over each other than dealing with external threats, which causes the slow chipping of land as the empire can't effectively mobilize a force against during internal strife. Lust for power is a constant problem, and the empire being so large and difficult reach some areas of it seriously exasperated the issue

[@Lorthein]

I mean, if you've managed to make the Roman State stronger and capable of withstanding an extra couple centuries or more, Christianism could become that unifying religion if given time to spread more

[@edwardmiessner6502]

NO. Christianism proved bad for the Empire mostly because of Constantine and Theodosius

[@jacobscott7261]

@@edwardmiessner6502I’m not so sure. Rome never needed a reason to have a civil war

[@capadociaash8003]

@@edwardmiessner6502religion was the excuse for a lot of wars, not the cause

[@kooldogkid149]

Do you think you could do an alternate scenario where everything went perfectly for the British Empire? It’d be quite interesting to see how far they would go with territorial conquests.

[@CaptainGrimes1]

Everything did go perfectly up until 1914 lol

[@KaiHung-wv3ul]

Just have them keep their 1914 borders, and have the United States, Russia, Germany, and eventually China massively weakened somehow. Maybe have the CSA win the American Civil War, and WW1 never happen. Other than that it's hard to weaken Germany, Russia, or China that much without one of the others profiting. Maybe getting the Prussian king to accept the 1848 deal to become a constitutional monarch of the German confederation, therefore reducing Germany as a threat, and later having everyone team up against Russia perhaps? China was damaged a lot by Maoist rule, but maybe they can keep it locked in the warlord era for longer.

[@richardthomas5362]

@@CaptainGrimes1 Except the American Revolution. Although, if America remained part of the Empire it makes me wonder if Australia and New Zealand would have been settled?

[@CaptainGrimes1]

@@richardthomas5362 trading the east coast of America for the riches of India and Africa was a good swap 😂

[@vespid8960]

@@CaptainGrimes1the British empire was destroyed by British lol

[@TVG_07]

Nice vid Could you do Spain I think it would be a cool video to see them still with there colonies and be world power

[@dominicadrean2160]

Here is a fun scenario what if Richard the lionheart survived because if he did that would have changed a lot of history surprisingly there's not a single alternate-history video on what if Richard the lionheart survived not one

[@AlHyckGaemsTAD]

Yeah, but Richard the Lionheart was an idiot king who bankrupted his nation in the name of religious glory and personal zeal, while leaving a mess for his successor who promptly became regarded as the worse because of Richard's fuck ups.

[@smal750]

Richard CoeurDeLion

[@wegdhass5587]

You should do one of these on either the North Sea empire or the kalmar Union.

[@TaeSunWoo]

The based timeline. I would have kept direct children heirs though. Feel like the future emperor/empress could be raised right knowing that they’re next. Feel like it’d save time in potential civil wars letting them have a chance anyways😊

[@andreamarino6010]

Just look at monarchies during any era.

[@TaeSunWoo]

⁠@@andreamarino6010current governments aren’t much better 😫

[@andreamarino6010]

@@TaeSunWoo yeah, but i don't support burgeois government

[@nijadbahnam9859]

Something that could help if Augustus was succesful at conquering and annexing Arabia ( western part : Hijaz ) and Nubia . It would give access to spices , ivory and ebony and precious stone that would help Rome have better trade and economy.

[@JVPierre142]

Regarding religion, making Sol Invictus thrive at the end of the Republic would be best IMO. It's better than the roman pantheon in regards to the assimilation of foreign cults, and in the long term it could transition smoothly with a rising monotheistic religion.

[@blastedsneeze4460]

Due to the weakness of the mongol empire at the Roman republic’s founding, they should have little trouble capturing Cuba who had been in a decline for the last 1000 years

[@earthball2024]

Bro what

[@SrJomba]

The mongols may have been in decline, but their allies, the Burmese Caliphate, would definitely intervene if Rome threatened Cuba. Roman conquest of that province would open the way through the Baltic Sea to the Burmese capital of Stalingrad, and Sultan Napoleon VI definitely wouldn't allow that to happen.

[@slovakvillageboi5635]

What about instead of retreating to the Danube, the romans expand to the carpathian mountains, with this they have a easily defencable borders and having the rich lands of Dacia and pannonia

[@calmkat9032]

While we're talking about political and army reforms, Rome would need to eventually adopt feudalism, or something similar. Basically, have those 4 "administrative zones" eventually break into smaller zones still, basically making a top-down proto-federalist system, eventually paving the way to satisfying calls for Democracy without Rome crumbling.

[@Onezy05]

When it comes to the role of religion in the empire, I think it would have just sufficed if Constantines Milan Edict was maintained that tolerated freedom of any worship. People tend to forget that it wasn't Constantine who made Christianity the new religion and opressed the pagans - it was Theodosius.

[@CaptainGrimes1]

He would have done though if it would have worked politically. He did promote the church, Christians and banned traditional forms of pagan sacrifice. Theodosius only managed it because after decades of pro Christian legislation and promotion most of the rich and powerful people in the empire were Christians.

[@Onezy05]

@@CaptainGrimes1 Still, Constantine kind of swayed the middle ground. He threw himself into church debates over Christian doctrine and at the same time allowed for pagan symbols and iconography to be used in regards to Sol Invictus. It's very possible that he was actually a henotheist who identified Jesus as being Sol Invictus. Though, there is a convincing argument that Christianity would have eventually become the state religion of the empire regardless of Constantine and Theodosius's actions. It's unique components compared to other faiths at the time would have ensured it's spread, and the concept of a separation between politics and religion wasn't as pronounced back then as it is now.

[@tompatterson1548]

@@Onezy05 That just sounds to me like Interpretatio.

[@Onezy05]

@@tompatterson1548 In what sense?

[@tompatterson1548]

@@Onezy05 the equating of other gods with roman ones. Constantine equated Jesus with the Roman god Sol Invictus.

[@evolution565]

Yessss! I was waiting for a video like this!

[@hellboyhero7819]

Didn't expect rome.

[@winter2888]

>Abandons britain >moves the Germanian border to the Elba Tacitus liked that

[@Mindfr3k24]

I do not agree with the idea of replacing Christianity as the religion of Rome, its spread was not something that could be crushed by the Romans nor supplanted by some far eastern religion that had barely expanded to modern-day Afghanistan at that point, Rome also wasn't pacificistic nor could be. Christianity greatly aided by the empire's political unification and extensive road system, as well as the belief among many Christians that the religion was something anyone could adopt, regardless of regional or religious background, unlike Judaism or other many of the Pagan faiths of the time which were ethno-religious and did not allow gentiles to adopt it. It is less what religion could replace Christianity and more how long could Rome go without addressing it, considering it made of up over 30 million followers by 350 AD, and eventually adopting it. As well ending various terrible practices within the Roman Empire and greater Christendom, such as infanticide, a push towards emancipation for slaves, and ending clan systems throughout Europe. It seems to be the only religion that could unite the Empire. IRL, were it not for the Rise of Islam, Chritianity would likely have spread far further into the Old world than anyone could imagine, and with Rome as the Bulwark for Christendom, it would likely not have schismed as much as it had in IRL, and would remain a holy catholic and orthodox faith.

[@bigger_mibber6029]

tsmt, a lot people just like to say "Rome fell because of Christianity" even tho The Empire was on the decline before The Son of God came to Judea. Plus with all the new age and scientism bullshit going around, a lot of people love to say "The world would be a better place if we adopted the eastern religions instead of Christianity" not knowing anything about orthodox theology and philosophy and comparing them to other paradigms and world views.

[@whoareyouyouareclearlylost323]

Changing the recruitment process from militairy back to a political decision would be much better, it would give the militairy it much needed troops but also be better for the soldiers since their retirement and pay is guaranteed by the state rather by how the mood was in the camp.

[@LemonSaber]

17:46 *Click*

[@antonieconstantin2636]

I have an idea for the next episode of this series "What if everything went perfect for Romania" and yes while i know Romania is not that old it'll still be interesesting to see an episode of Romania

[@sinoist742]

Scenario idea: What if Japan kept their Siberian lands that they seized during the Russian civil war?

[@colterbaltes]

The persecution of christians in the Roman Empire was actually rare and was not organized but Sporadically in a single province

[@louisxix3271]

Great video! Personally, I think the Carpathians would have been a much better frontier than the lower Danube. Yes, Dacia was hard to control, but have lets say Hadrian conquer the entire Carpathian basin due to him believing it would be strategically imperative for the safety of Illyria/Moesia/Thrace. Now Gothic, Iazyges, Sarmatian or Alan tribes would have to fight (and migrate) through mountain passes to reach the riches of Pax Romana. Rome conquering to the Elbe? From my knowledge of the tenacity and freedom loving spirit of the classical German tribes, this seems impossible. It was densely forested and colonization would have been extremely difficult as no Roman would want to move there. But maybe. I do think abandoning Britain would have been smart. Perhaps by the 3rd century or so some king would consolidate rule over the island, and Rome could have developed an Armenia-like relationship with them. Also, modern Iraq or lower Mesopotamia was undefendable longer-term for the same reasons as Persia: communication too slow, and climate too hot for Roman soldiers (as experienced during the campaigns of Julian). Changing the tradition and laws around succession would definitely, although very high chance charismatic and all-powerful emperors would ignore this without revolt. Geographic division of the defense of the empire was done IOTL, so no changes here. Its not like 1 general can conduct operations against the Franks and Parthians simultaneously lol, the Romans obv knew this. Major problem was revolts when the authority of the reigning emperor weakened (which was pretty much an inevitability spanning centuries). Problem with "the identity of 'Romanness' spreading deeply throughout the empire, thus allowing the empire to keep getting back up after defeats like China", is that that already happened. The vast majority of the population identified with "Rome", bar perhaps Arabs/Berbers/later Germanic migrants. The problem was, after plagues depopulated the provinces, and barbarian migrations into the empire took place, this couldn't work. This only worked in China because China was traditionally literally shaped like a circle. Communication and centralization, and thus unification, was always easy. The (Western) Roman empire definitely could have lasted longer, but not much longer. The combination of geography, plagues, barbarian migrations and human weakness made it pretty much inevitable. One little talked about reason, is that due to the empire's nature as *literally controlling the entire 'advanced', known world*, it had little competition and thus hardly developed technologically from the time Augustus ascended till the invasion of the huns, so an unbeatable technological advantage over the barbarians would never have happened.

[@onijaanjonu3367]

I agree with most.of this, but I feel like the point about the germanic tribes is overstated. In OTL, augustus came very very close to successfully incorporating Germania, with the province being relatively quiet and less prone to revolt than longer term roman holding such as illyria - it's in almost solely due to armenius that Germania was lost, and even during that episode, rome's local German allies had attempted to warn Varus of armenius's treachery to no avail, so one can hardly conclude that there was something innate within the germanic peoples which made them unamenable to romanization The actual population of the germanic tribes which entered roman territory during the migration period is also quite a bit overstated. even in the most extreme cases, the germanic population never amounted to even a third of the local roman population, except for perhaps in britain. Roman identity was also less sticky than one would expect, compared to the post roman Greeks, who, even missing the eastern roman empire continued to at least self identify as romans long after the state collapsed, the local populations of the empire dropped roman identity in only a few generations

[@MariaRodriguez-zb8ye]

Possible History, Id like to see a “What if History went perfect for Poland” it would start at 1815 during the congress of Vienna, and ends at 2009

[@Marche_Ottomane]

Please consider taking this video down and issuing an apology post if you're not stuck in a contract. The sponsor is at best a terrible investment scheme. Masterworks essentially allows you to buy "shares" in a painting, yes in an object that has no inherent value and represents nothing. You don't know where that painting is, if it is actually being properly maintained, and if it's safe from theft. They will eventually sell each piece, or you can sell off your share. The problem comes in the fact that the shares are not at all liquid - if there's no buyers, too bad, just wait until the company decides when to sell it. Using this technique they can sell get the statistics you see on screen, they just sell the profitable ones. Literally anyone in "the elite class" would be absolutely losing it laughing at the people who invest in something like this for returns over, I don't know - AN INDEX FUND? Best part of an index fund is there is normally a 0.1% fee on transactions, not a full: not 0.2, not 2 but TWENTY PERCENT fee with masterworks, With an annual maintenance fee added on, it's just ridiculous. Okay so, 2 points so far: 1 - in basically every way shape and form masterworks is an inferior investment to a stock market. 2 - Masterworks is kind of shady and in no way transparent. But there's more. For starters, you're sponsorship is insanely predatory in nature: "Watching your life fall apart in front of your eyes in some of the worst economic conditions ever? Try new, shady investment! I'm partnering with a businessman who used to spend his days patenting shit like computer mouses, then swamping small companies to drown them in legal fees if they don't give in to my demands, and thus it's we get a sweet trade where everyone wins but you, the viewer If you're actually just not the sharpest tool in the shed and didn't think to research something before promoting it to thousands, do the right thing - take it down and apologise. Edit: okay I got a bit too angry lol but please do something

[@Marche_Ottomane]

@Karl Von Lytovski if not an outright scam it's awful financial advice

[@gengarzilla1685]

You definitely did get too angry, because demanding to pull down a whole unrelated video of nearly 19 minutes because of one badly mishandled ad drop in the middle is a massive overcorrection on your part. Calm down. This is like using a nuclear bomb to kill one solitary spider.

[@andreadantuono3517]

Maybe you could make a video if history went perfect for Italy starting maybe from its unification with Sardinia-Piedmont after the Napoleonic wars

[@shorenadarcmelidze7199]

5:05 bruh

[@pawedobrosz152]

One thing about the borders: It is a HUGE missconcepion to think, that a river border was a big deal in an ancient times. That is simply due to a size of armies back then - Roman army rarely exceeded 0,5 mln men, and in order to properly man a border of this magnitude, you would need milions (pretty much WWI level of army sizes). On a contrary, it's actually the mountains that were easy to defend: since you can close every single mountain passage by building a fortress there, which requires just some garrison to be maintained. Therefore the proper Roman border would consist of: Sahara to the south, Kaukasus mountains to the north-east, Karpathian Mountains to the north-centre, alps to the north, and then Gallia and Mesopotamia would have to be guarded heavily due to lack of mountains.

[@ThatOneMiacid]

I have an Idea, how about what if everything went wrong for rome?

[@confusedmango6557]

No Rome...

[@corporalcorgi4948]

Remulus and Romulus get sunk by Poseidon during their trip from Troy. The end.

[@The_Starfleet_Ensign]

omg I completely forgot about rome! :O Best idea for this series!

[@Onezy05]

Oh hell yes. I've always wanted to see how the succession system could have been improved

[@atticusp6592]

Primogeniture succession was only bad in the early Empire since it'd be literal teenagers gaining absolute power, Titus and Domitian succeeded their Father and both were perfectly fine Emperors, both were also grown adults at the time of their succession.

[@Kemot300]

5:00 - is this AI made?

[@Kalmoire]

Obviously, which is why it looks like shit lol other AI generated arts in this vid also have atrocious hollywood outfits

[@mikekalinski5735]

Creeped me right out! I had to go back to make sure I didn’t just have a mini-stroke

[@Jrobidy2]

Having Dacia as a Roman Province actually makes more since. The Carpathian’s are the best border to defend in Europe.

[@i_ased_i3705]

Can we get an iranian alternative as well? Love your work btw keep it up

[@MSNL123]

So, whole I agree that, is said reforms worked, the Empire would be better as a whole, there are a few caveats. - Dacia, even though indefensible and by the time it was effectively abandoned, hardly worth it, had a prodigiously invigorating effect in the Roman economy after its conquests. One reason why Hadrian wouldn't let it go was the immense gold mines it boasted. - Britannia, while a prestige project, was essential for Claudius' legitimation, and he was one of the better emperors. While taking Britannia out is less clear cut for Claudius' reign than Dacia for Trajan or Hadrian's bottom lines, its effect would certainly not be positive in Claudius' short term. - Sucession by adoption excluding direct descendants was attempted by Diocletian. The result was a sucession of gigantic civil wars, ending with a blood son of an Emperor becoming Emperor and declaring his blood son his heir. I completely agree that ending slavery would be a boon to the Empire, especially considering the efforts Emperors actually made to keep it alive.

[@suleyth]

I love your videos PH but I'd 100% prefer you to use stock footage than weird AI generated stuff. It's really offputting!

[@colorsred2771]

You effectively implemented the innovations of the 10th century Byzantine empire a few centuries earlier

[@samventi8160]

Britannia is important in early Roman history. Cornwall is one of the only places in Europe that had large tin largely accessible near the surface. The celts were largely using Iron but for the lower class celts used bronze without tin there is no bronze so no armed enemies to face the Romans. The Celts were the largest group of peoples in Europe in early Roman history.

[@cart4092]

that sponsor transition actually pissed me off man

[@dominicadrean2160]

One major factor for Rome's decline is it Society its moral corruption even during the time of Augustus it was getting pretty bad when a society becomes hedonistic or like how America is with its pleasure It suffers moral decay

[@davidecatena3824]

More than anything else, the great problem of the Roman Empire was the excessive power that was given to the army, the generals literally competed to become emperor with the result that the empire was continuously overwhelmed by civil wars and internal tensions with the barbarians who in the meantime crossed the borders as if they did not exist

[@chadthundercock4806]

What Christianity does to an empire

[@sawyersprott]

@@chadthundercock4806Christianity had the opposite effect my dude. Hellenism (and it’s offshoot of the Roman pantheon) were very open to debauchery and degeneracy. Christianity teaches the opposite.

[@chadthundercock4806]

@@sawyersprott Rome rose when it was Hellenistic, it fell when it was Christian

[@AureliusLaurentius1099]

@@chadthundercock4806 Christianity rose because Rome was increasingly debauched Also the Eastern part of the empire were firmly Christian and lasted for another thousand years

[@Finn_the_Cat]

Rivers are great for borders because it's kind of like the line has been drawn for you in a way. But they dont make for great defensive lines all the time especially during winter when they tend to freeze over. Mountains tend to be a much better defensive border would be along Mountains when you can and rivers if necessary to connect defenses. Personally connecting the mouth of the Danube to the carpatian Mountains continuing on the danube to connect to the alpines and alsace lorane mountains finally to finnish on the rhine. I'll have to look at a map or something

[@Finn_the_Cat]

Alternatively you could move it up to the elbe river and use the sudeten mountain connect to the danube to the carpatian and back to the danube and use that as a front line and the rhine alpine danube carpatian as a back line idk

[@joaojonito3764]

Yeah, true. But having the border be on the Rhine is still much better than it being on the middle of the germanic florests

[@Finn_the_Cat]

I thought of something. Rivers aren't about defending so much as logistics. In an era with horse-drawn carriages being the fastest thing to carry supplies on land it's just easier to sail a boat down a river rather than move on land. Mountains may be easier to defend but you make it hard to supply and the elbe my shorten your line but you get all the forests of germany and the people who really want to kill you too ​@joaojonito3764

[@Finn_the_Cat]

​@@joaojonito3764I thought of something. Rivers aren't about defending so much as logistics. In an era with horse-drawn carriages being the fastest thing to carry supplies on land it's just easier to sail a boat down a river rather than move on land. Mountains may be easier to defend but you make it hard to supply and the elbe my shorten your line but you get all the forests of germany and the people who really want to kill you too

[@GeiaGregor]

What if everything went perfect for the Hellenics

[@onijaanjonu3367]

In my view, one of the most relevant factors for the long term survival of the roman empire would be early (preferably in the time of augustus) adoption of the thematic army structure, which would kill two birds with one stone. It would fix the manpower and locality issue of the roman military, saturating both the interior and frontier with cheap(er) local forces which would prevent penetration of the frontier from spiralling into territorial collapse - this effectively emmulates the organizational advantages of feudalism over classical era state structures, as the offloading of military cost and defense onto local forces is what allowed medieval post roman states to maintain territorial control of areas to romans could not due to overcentralization. This also has the second benefit of romanizating the local populations of the provices though military service and acculturation, similar to how this occured in our time line, only with vastly vastly more people passing though the thematic armies and gradually gaining roman citizenship, language, and identity in the process. Some kind of formula where 3 generations of service in the thematic army would grant fully roman citizenship would probably have the most potent effect. The other most important part of long term roman survival is stable succession, and The most straight forward was of dealing with this is instating primogeniture. Even if primogeniture produces on average mediocre leaders compared to adopting heirs, it vastly limits the space of situations where the identity of he who has the right to rule is in question when compared to the alternative system. By the time a state becomes preiminent in its corner of the world, Instability is more destructive to survival than exceptional goverenance is beneficial - so idiot proofing the solution to who currently should be in charge should take precidence Alternatively, augustus or perhaps claudius could draft up a roman constituion where the cursus honorum becomes a legal institution, and the office of princeps/emperor is its highest station - thereby turning the senior consul into the junior emperor, and establishing a line of succession which runs through a list of persons with decades of governing experience

[@wires-sl7gs]

If anything Christianity was better for Rome, especially as it made things better for women, *Was* anti-Slavery, and while it was cause some disruption, all good changes have some level of disruption, and Christianity would further unite Rome in the long run rather than some religion that doesn’t resonate with the non-Roman populous.

[@tomasdionnet812]

A little appendix. Sulla was not the first roman to seize rome by force. But it was the first that did so without consequences. He enjoy a luxurious lifestyle and then retired to his roman villa when he passed away. The consequences of that is that in the future, men like caesar and pompey magnus will try to seize power more frequently knowing well that the roman republic was powerless to stop them as it was back then, hence the latter reforms by augustus

[@mariolis]

While I get a lot of your rationale from "what if everything went perfect for X" It really shows that your expertise are on Modern history and not on Roman history Im not saying that as an insult , but there is just so much wrong with this video... First of all, its just not feasible for the empire to not conquer Brittania and Dacia , they would do it one way or another , and reversing the Army reforms would severely hurt the Empire more than it would help it , I agree with the reforms for how Emperors should be chosen , but I also dont see how changing the whole culture about the religion of the Empire would be possible , Christianity would happen one way or another anyway. And finally, splittting the empire into 3 is just a dumb idea , it never worked and always lead to civil wars , It didnt work under Diocletian and when the Empire was split between East and West in the 4th century it lead to the downfall of the West

[@General12th]

This was great!

[@Robloxian382]

Rome the best❤

[@springtrap360sniper4]

Nah, Mongolia got more meme potential, thus it's better.

[@bnw5435]

Not if you're a Celt

[@ldubt4494]

​@@bnw5435 early in the empire not, but later on celts had it good too.

[@MikoIwave]

@@springtrap360sniper4ntm the size of Mongolia to Rome

[@springtrap360sniper4]

@@MikoIwave Yeah, the empire was a certified Big Boy of it's time.

[@onijaanjonu3367]

A consul without military experience is an oxymoron.There were no consuls without it, because a prerequisite of entry into roman political life was military service

[@CptDawner]

Christianity was one of the large binding qualities that kept Rome alive for so long. I don’t think it needs removal or change at all.

[@Kingdomkey123678]

It caused internal strife early on, including a few civil wars

[@CatotheE]

15:22 Honestly, I think replacing Greek with Latin would be a good idea. It might be hard at first, since Greek was established in the Eastern European, but a unifying language would do a lot of good work in establishing an unshakeable Roman national identity.

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

YEEEEEES! Rome is best and so shall be this video!🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤

[@Kate-rj6ys]

When you said that Rome couldn't conquer Parthia, wouldn't a more realistic but more good scenario be if they did indeed keep the borders from Trajan's conquest, but also turned Parthia into a vassal state? Edit: Also, could Rome have invaded Sudan?

[@YashSudesh-n3z]

Bro please can you please do what if everything went perfect for India

[@thecrispygoldfish2739]

5:00 bro that Ai image is terrifying