What if the Roman Empire Never Fell?

[@galor4]

When you're an Orthodox priest and see yourself pictured in the video of a KZbin channel to which you have been subscribed for three years (minute mark 11:22) and are caught between struggling not to spit my tea all over your keyboard and wondering "how did my deacons and I here in Western Pennsylvania become representative of the medieval Byzantine Church?".

[@utubrGaming]

Hi! As someone who's never really been involved in the Christian community since I was in a Roman-Catholic high school, I've been recently looking into the rise of Christianity during the fall of the polytheistic faiths (So give-or-take from Constantine at the Milvian Bridge to Theodosius at the Frigidus or the closure of the Academy in Justinian's time), mostly trying to understand what IS Christianity. In that regard, can you please help me understand what exactly IS the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and what exactly does it change Christian doctrine? And also, what separates the churches that follow these rulings from say, Arianism, Macedonianism, the Gnostics, Nestorianism and Appolinarianism?

[@WhatifAltHist]

Legendary

[@AraragiUoh]

Awesome.

[@ZephLodwick]

Which one of them are you? I'm assuming the one in the middle.

[@AleXcsGaming]

call your kids send them the video and the mark and wait for their reaction haha

[@tiberiuscodius5828]

How about: "what if Byzantine Empress Irene accepted Charlemagne's marriage proposal?" I would be fascinated to see you tackle that one.

[@WhatifAltHist]

That's next video

[@tiberiuscodius5828]

@@WhatifAltHist I'm pumped. I'm reading History of the Byzantine State by George Ostrogorsky right now (I'm one of your Byzantine fans I guess)

[@taptiotrevizo9415]

@@WhatifAltHist Yes Yes Yes, first to tackle that topic

[@taptiotrevizo9415]

@Dave The Credible yes it is

[@tiberiuscodius5828]

@Dave The Credible if it's the next video, I won't bother commenting again, now will I? Lol

[@Catman2123]

The Western Roman collapse was the most supreme example of Balkanization in history. Literally half a continent just blew apart into various warlord states and petty kingdoms and didn’t really coalesce again for another 700 years or so.

[@harshjain3122]

That's more than half a continent

[@dimkovskigoce]

During that time, the Balkan was one country and stable. So don't use the Balkanization term, since it is recency biased.

[@Baccanaso]

@@dimkovskigoce use germanization since all the petty states in Germania makes "balkanization" look like a split between the WRE and ERE

[@MrEnric98]

You don't know about Chinese history

[@maddogbasil]

Yh that's basically most of chinese history

[@enoughothis]

Pupienus has a name that sounds like a Monty Python sketch.

[@debarpandutta6722]

BIGGUS dICKUS AND iNCONTENTIA bUTTOCKS ARE VERY PLEASED

[@robert506007]

So where is Bigus anyway and civil war wa he in.

[@sharkronical]

Shitibuthol

[@colonelgraff9198]

5:18 “Balbinus and Pupienus” Balls and what?

[@davigurgel2040]

Ah, fuck, i just commented that. Guess i gotta delete it

[@drunknhamster4708]

So you’re telling me a guy named Pupienus could have been the savior of Rome? That’s now my favorite history fact

[@k.umquat8604]

sus

[@SaxandRelax]

@@k.umquat8604 sus (backwards)

[@joshuamueller3206]

I still cannot believe that was a real name!

[@zasproductions9258]

@leictreon “he has a wife, y’know? Do you know what she is called?”

[@mr.mystery9338]

Pupienus and Balbinus were amongst the very worst emperors of rome. This comentator has 0 idea what he is talking about.

[@Mr.Flame2000]

Instead of the roman empire never colapsing what would happen if the byzantine empire had manage to reconquer all of romes former borders?

[@lovefrompraha]

10/10 would be interesting to know

[@AleXcsGaming]

it would fall without reforming it's monarchy. 2 sequential incompetent leaders can prove fatal to any empire.

[@AleXcsGaming]

if it reformet tho it would be similar to this timeline but with more barbaric cultural aspects integrated since they would be separated for some time

[@Mr.Flame2000]

@@AleXcsGaming thats the point, it would be similar to this timeline but there would be time to at least some part of the western civilization to be formed, think byzantium manages to do this in 1453, it would be basically a completely different rome from this one

[@AleXcsGaming]

@@Mr.Flame2000 byzantium in 1453 should just be let to rest

[@DogWalkerBill]

While the term "Butterfly" effect is new, the concept is old. There is that old poem: For loss of a nail a horseshoe was lost. For loss of a horseshoe a horse was lot. For loss of a horse the rider was lost. For lack of a rider a message was lost. For loss of a message a battle was lost. For loss of a battle a war was lost. For loss of a war a kingdom was lost. For loss of a kingdom the empire was lost. The concept of proximate cause and dominoes falling has been part of insurance for centuries. That something, apparently trivial, can happen far away and cause a global impact is part of our modern world. Say, for example some scientists in Wuhan China are studying bat coronaviruses and cause a global pandemic.

[@bcs332]

As far as I know, this poem is by Genghis Khan, is it true?

[@DogWalkerBill]

@@bcs332 I don't know.

[@josephdestaubin7426]

You had to go there didn't you. lol

[@rdelrosso2001]

@@bcs332 No, the Poem was by Benjamin Franklin!

[@ririshutabarat6367]

A nail that destroyed a whole Empire

[@SacredCowStockyards]

Interesting thing about the likening of Rome to a fascist dictatorship: To be precise, fascism is Mussolini's ideology, and it's inspired by the Roman fasces, which symbolized unity under the authority of the Roman magistrate. So, it's not a far stretch to say the Roman empire was the original Fascist regime.

[@duckgames8168]

Aleksei Corleone you are big brain

[@forgetful9845]

I wouldnt say the roman empire was fascist. Fascism is a modern idea and it feels weird imposing it on Rome.

[@surperian4340]

No, the Roman Empire wasnt fascist. Fascism is many things, but ancient Rome doesnt even come close to it.

[@DovahFett]

In fact it's a stretch of about 2000 years.

[@SacredCowStockyards]

@@forgetful9845 that's actually precisely backwards. Fascism, moreso than being a strictly modern idea, is actually Roman revivalism. So, it's probably more accurate to say fascism is Roman, rather than saying Rome was fascist.

[@chrisamon4551]

The Industrial Revolution was sparked by the invention of the steam engine, whose primary use at first was to drain water out of coal mine shafts in Britain. Had the Roman Empire not fallen, a larger European population might have gone through the easy to get at surface coal faster and they might have developed the steam engine sooner as a result. I always kinda pictured Alternate History Rome going through the industrial revolution in the 14th century as a result.

[@thijsvandenberg7843]

In ancient Rome, a Greek guy made a steam engine

[@allangibson2408]

The Romans suppressed technological development that had the potential to put people out of work. Water mills for example were very limited by political controls for example.

[@appa609]

lol no

[@imperiumromanum7375]

We would have landed a men on the moon by the 11th century if Rome had not fallen

[@adamnesico]

Industrian revolution was triggered by german mining. That thing of english steam engine is the own english national myth.

[@kaihinton6623]

“Can we have content that isnt rome?” Monsier Z: no Whatifaltist: no

[@jstump8768]

At least it isn't Confederates or Nazis.

[@goodluckgorsky3413]

J Stump I’m pretty sure Mr. Z is an unironic ethnostatist. So yea his content could be much worse

[@pergys6991]

Good Luck Gorsky plus his AH stuff is really bad

[@goodluckgorsky3413]

Ryse dead How is it bad? A lot of people say that but is it like inaccurate or something? The person is an idiot but his normal content didn’t seem that bad to me

[@aetu35]

>Mr. Z. is an unironic ethnostatist. you say that like that's a bad thing

[@Angryp0nY]

I'm going to disagree with your assertion that the world would've been backwards technologically if the Romans had stuck around longer. They regularly used internal plumbing and heating and practiced public sanitation as well as having public firefighters. Features of their civilization that did not appear in Europe again until after the dark ages ended. Also the gunpowder thing... The Romans would have immediately adopted it's use. They were the world's greatest copiers. They invented road building and sewers, but any time they saw something better,they used it. Chainmail, Lamellar Armor, Cataphracts, maniples, all things they did not invent but copied, then adapted to use in their military.

[@phyoishere]

I was gonna say exactly this. The Romans had the keenest of insight when it came to adaptation. Their entire legion to many of their public facilities were from all parts in and out of their empire. They didn't have the stubbornness that other nations had when it came to adopting, adapting and assimilating those around them. Furthermore, Rome isn't and won't be Rome without continual warfare and invasion. This makes me think that they will take the regions up to the rhine at least, complete their full invasion of the British and Irish Isles, expand East to all of Arabia and more, not contract to the Olive Country line. I'm more interested to see what kind of renaissance and industrial Europe would be like, or the onset of the world wars if any.

[@manmaje3596]

They also suppressed innovations that put large numbers of people out of work, with no jobs for people or no jobs for slaves to do. Slavery was the bedrock of the Roman economy. One reason for the collapse is because their economy relied so much on slavery. They stopped conquering new lands and people which stagnated the economy which was then made worse by the debasing of the currency. Then they had the problem of fighting off the previous 1000 years of enemies they had made who were coming for their borders and lands just like they had done to them. Meaning any resources they did have went to propping up depleted armed forces which later adopted a policy of allowing barbarians to fight for Rome as pawns. All of this had disastrous consequences. Rome started with the all mighty and powerful Romulus and ended with little Romulus Augustus who was barely a child. The symbolism couldn’t be more powerful. Rome rose and got bloated and then sank under its own weight. It was meant to happen as it always does. The irony between Romulus at the start and Augustus at the end just blows my mind.

[@JRobbySh]

His use of China as a control works against this. The industrial revolution is a singular even in world history. Consider the fact that the Low Countries of north west Europe are said to have had more machines than the whole Roman Empire. That Europe had mechanical clocks. That Monasteries operated with the regularity of a factory, which mean their management had a different mindset than that of the local military lOrds. etc.

[@lancesvensson1703]

Yes but the thing is, is that they would adopt the tech from someone else rather than make it. Europe as well as the muslim world (before its states all clumped up into new empires) were the greatest technological innovators for the last 1,000 years and would collectively contribute and adopt more idea's then the Romans would've had. Lets not forget Islam's golden age of learning gave us our modern counting system, algebra. Lets also not forget the Christians with their approaches to science in the renaissance. Just like the Romans Christians and Muslims liked learning but they also went and tested their hypothesis rather than just philisophical knowledge (which Romans and Chinese liked).

[@NerdManReturns]

I have a idea for three French Revolution related What If’s: “What if France during the French Revolution of 1789 remained a Constitutional Monarchy instead of becoming a Republic in 1792”, “What if the Flight to Varennes had been successful”, and “What if the French Revolution of 1789 had never happened”.

[@scholaroftheworldalternatehist]

If the French Revolution never happened France would remain a monarchy and power would rest with the existing elites. There's a theory that the Revolution was just two groups vying for power (the rising upper middle class against the pre-established order), and thus we would expect the middle class remain oppressed. Also, what are you thinking in terms of Point of Divergence? Do the French not help the Americans and they remain colonies? It all boils down to the POD as well.

[@Sean12248]

What if Robespierre wasn't killed

[@carlosjavierpalacios6194]

the flight to Varennes would be a fun one

[@timvanrijn8239]

@@Sean12248 he shoots himself out of fear of it.

[@BigHenFor]

Louis XVI was a constitutional monarch for a short time for the final year of his reign. After his failed escape in June 1791, a new constitution was forced upon him in September, removing his absolute power as king, but retaining him as a constitutional monarch with the National Assembly being the sovereign legislative body. Louis was to lead the executive branch of government. This decision was not supported by the radical Jacobins Republicans, who considered Louis a traitor because of his mismanagement of the economy, his disregard of the common people, his attempted flight, and the suspicion that Louis was secretly in league with the monarchies that were fighting the First War of the Coalition against France. Louis unwisely used his veto to protect non-jurist priests, and to prevent the raising of militias to defend the revolutionary government. By doing so, he set up his final crisis. Protests against Louis in Paris were met with violence resulting in the Champ de Mars massacre ordered by the Royalist supporter Lafayette on the 17th July, 1791. This only inflamed the Republican sentiment in France, and on August 10th, a insurrection of the Paris Commune and supporters from Marseilles and Brittany stormed the Tuileries Palace. Louis and the Royal Family sought safety with the Legislative Assembly, but this was suspended and was unable to protect him. Louis effectively was powerless to prevent the Republicans wresting power away from the moderate Feuillants. A National Convention was called, and elected a new National Assembly, the first to be elected by universal male suffrage. Robspierre was elected as its first Deputy. On the 22nd September, 1792 the National Assembly voted to declare France a Republic, formally ending Louis reign. I don't think Louis was up to the job of a constitutional monarch. To be so, he would have had to understand and empathise with the goals of the revolution, and repudiate his absolutism. He did not show any evidence of this.

[@TSGC16]

Video idea: What if the Norse kept colonizing the Americas after discovering Newfoundland?

[@m.a.t.a.s]

It'd me more like Oldfoundland then :D

[@bigbobtank1563]

When is old ?

[@SC-zq6cu]

Instead of "North America", it would be "Norse America". :-D

[@MrAlepedroza]

@Palpatine McSenateFace Caribbean Vikings....mayunn, sounds dope as hell. Can imagine those blond and ginger hunks blasting some reggae on their drakkars while raiding the white sand beaches of the proto mayans and aztecs.

[@benjaminsmith1324]

They kind of did considering the Danes colonized large part of England and their ancestors later colonized North America

[@randomletterhead6681]

Rome every 10 years:"does anything" :YOUR FREE TRIAL OF STABILITY HAS ENDED.PLEASE PRESS "CIVIL WAR" TO CONTINUE.

[@olliejobson6371]

Random letter head pretty much chinese history 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@geraldchurchill5576]

That was true for a lot of big empires.

[@explorerofyoutube1066]

China: amateurs

[@KaiHung-wv3ul]

@@olliejobson6371 Tbf, China usually only had a civil war every century, not decade.

[@patstudios1184]

“Unless you’re part of the diehard Byzantine fanboy crew...” Also known as Greece

[@imperiumromanum7375]

The Byzantines WERE Romans

[@mrmcboomboom]

@@imperiumromanum7375 said the ruski. Yet you look like mongols lol

[@alexiosikomnenos7749]

@@mrmcboomboom Russians are not only Slavs lol

[@iwreh2836]

@@mrmcboomboom we're as much mongolian as any of the western europeans, idk what you're talking about

[@cazwalt9013]

@@imperiumromanum7375 they were romans but ethnically greek

[@tylerlachney1616]

I feel like the Anglo saxons would still migrate to the British isles and dominate the region since Rome wouldn’t be able to hold on to it. I think we could possibly view this timeline’s version of Britain much like japan in the east. However This timeline’s England/Britain wouldn’t advance as quickly technically because of its lack of competition from mainland Europe like France, however I think this timeline’s Britain would industrialize

[@georgecatton]

If the empire was stronger I think the native Celts would have been able to hold out (or the Anglo Saxons would get ingrated like the Norman conquers) but would become independent anyways as britian is to far way to hold as sailings technology increses

[@HaloFTW55]

Rome could retain Britannia as a client state like before. Anglo-Saxons converts to Christianity and a client kingdom, Rome gets a client and steady tribute and manpower from client.

[@DavidbarZeus1]

As the Vikings would still exist, the Norman invasion would still happen and thus England and France would still go to war over who had the right to the French crown, thus they WOULD improve in technology due to their rivalry, leading Rome and their neighbors to grow due to trade

[@alejandroojeda1572]

With the amount of good coal there IS in britain, almost in any timeline It gets to industrialize

[@darthcalanil5333]

"fell spectacularly" Proceeds to explain how it took more than 1000 years later to finally fall😂

[@callido592]

The only way for Rome to survive was, if it had stayed a Republic and the Marian Reforms had been changed so that the Soldiers woudnt be devoted to their generals, but rather to the state.

[@vansen5425]

Not possible, you need propaganda machine.

[@longyu9336]

@@vansen5425 The Senate rejected Marius original proposal to let the state directly pay the soldiers. The compromise was to partially pay a wealthy general who pays the rest out of his personal wealth so that the legionary only sees his commander paying him.

[@rdelrosso2001]

Well, Rome was a Republic from 509 BC to 44 BC, when Julius Caesar became Dictator. That's 465 years. The USA has been a Republic from 1787 to 2021 or only 234 years.

[@JCDenton3]

Republic =/= better The Republic was filled with immense issues and would need incredible reform to govern the immense empire it's patricians created. The Roman oligarchy simply shifted to what it needed to in order to maintain stability, a system where one oligarchy held the others in line, until that facade was removed and the whole house of cards started caving in (crisis of the third century)

[@MP-dn4bs]

if you ever get asked by a time traveler if you want to do something even if it's going to cause the collapse of your nation in 500 years you should absolutely do it because just by pure entropy, *not* doing it is going to cause it to collapse sooner than that like 500 years is longer than most civilizations last period. If Rome hadn't become an Empire, I guarantee it takes less then 500 years for an external force that didn't get annihilated by said empire to conquer them.

[@callido592]

I've got a few things i disagree with, mainly, that in the timeline you described, Christianity wouldve never spread. At least not to the scale it did in our timeline. This has multiple reasons. Let me explain: Your timeline starts with the establishment of a new Roman republic in 238AD. What this means is that the crisis of the 3rd century, which was started by Maximinus Thrax, never happened. The crisis of the 3rd century, I think, had a profound impact on the spread of Christianity. Christianity, unlike Roman paganism, was very strict. The bible gave rules on how to act and what to do and so on. Also the bible contained the notion, that you will be rewarded with heaven if you live according to the bible. To sum up, Christianity provided stability and calm, something that was desperately needed throughout the duration of the empire from Commodus to its fall, but especially in the Empires most unstable and turbulent time - the crisis of the third century. Another reason why it wouldnt spread so strong would be the re-establishment of Republican institutions. During the Republic, state and religion went hand in hand. Religion was thus also a very public thing, unlike in the Empire, where it became rather personal, due to the "res publica" being a "res privata". The citizens in the reformed Republic wouldve been involved in the political process and thus in the religion, making paganism much more influential and "resistent" to Christianity. These two aspects lead me to believe that in the timeline you described, Christianity would never become a state Religion of Rome or even influential. Next up 12:01 . I honestly dont undestand why you say that the late-ancient focus was on hierarchy, while the Christian medieval focus was on individualism. This is wrong. Individualism was the focus of the Republic. In it, every individual should, so Cicero, add to the common good. Cicero means with adding to the common good, the entering of politics by everyone (accedere ad rem publicam). Therefore the emphasis was not on hierarchy, but on the individual, who should always do his best for the state. This stance on individualism is also seen in the works of Titus Livius (Livy), whose histories have, like many ancient histories, a strong emphasis on individualism. Remember that Livy wrote his work during the Empire times as a means to "educate" the people. The fact that he wrote his works as an education or correction is a hint, that in his time, the focus on individualism was declining, probably due to public and political discourse being shut down in the empire and thus preventing most from doing their individual best. Skip a few years forward and we have Seneca, whose stoic writings and writing style show, that he has basically given up on individualism, since its not possible in the empire. Instead you recognize the message to just give in to the hierarchy and that striving for bigger things is irrelevant. Yes, this is a stoic idea, but a late stoic one. This can be seen in Cato the Younger, who was a strict stoic who dedicated his life to politics. In fact it was a stoic ideal, during mid-stoicism, that you go into politics. Seneca and late-stoicism threw this ideal away as it was impossible to achieve. The Empire turned Rome from an individual to a hierarchical society. This idea was later strengthened by the establishment of the Dominate. Hierarchy became everything and was everything until the enlightenment. You say that Christianity's influence resulted in a focus on individualism which is not true. The whole idea of "ordo" (Order) "scala naturae", which was first invented by Plato and later redefined by Augustine for Christianity, is probably the most influential social structure of the middle ages. This Christian idea of ordo proposed a divine hierarchy of things, starting with god and ending with minerals. It was this fundamental idea which prohibited any social mobility or any chance on individualism. It was a hierarchy which could not and should not be broken. So to summarize, individualism declined with the fall of the republic and hierarchy became the main ideal during the empire and also during Christianity, with the idea of the "scala naturae", cemented by Augustine.

[@samuelvine]

Thanks for this!

[@masada2828]

😯

[@brutusthebear9050]

Yeah I was going to say. The Roman Republic was based on individualism and freedom. What he said made little to no sense. The one argument I might have against your Christian theory is the theory that Christianity itself was propagated by the Romans in order to stabilize Judea and keep its people in place, set up by the Flavians. Now, this could have been reversed by a republic that didn't know this, but I'd still like to see how it would factor in

[@jasoncuculo7035]

If the belief that their is no need to use science to create labor saving devices because there are slaves was abandoned early, Europeans still had not discovered oil or coal. If they had somehow, an early industrial revolution would create greater wealth and eliminate the need for slaves, this would accelerate transportation, communication and military advances. If this then translated into trade with China which had commercial artificial fertilizer 2,000 years ago and the acquisition of technology from around the world, wealth generation and a need to be accepted as helping the masses by the Tribunes and even the Princeps would result in the freeing of slaves in the major cities to reduce the chance of uprising. This whole process could be government orchestrated like the vast advances in both economy and technology not mentioned during the Song and previous Tang dynasty in China. The stability and wealth would have eliminated the need for Constantine in our timeline to attempt to unifying the empire with one religion Christianity which would have probably remained a minor religion.

[@leonarduskarolusiuliustant7498]

The Roman Republic was a deeply classist State. Even thought the people gained more rights trough time, the government was almost monopolized by the senatorial aristocracy, which tended to be very closed (when it expanded it was only because either rebellions or emperors forced it to do so). The Christian ideal of a natural order of society was more functional than ontological- it was about obeying the legitimate authorities (God first, and then the church and the ctate, which derive their legitimate power from God, the first directly, because it was directly instituted by Christ for the salvation of mankind, and the second indirectly, because it's part of the natural order of creation - man, as a social animal, has a natural tendency to organize himself into organized communities, from the simplest, the family, to the most complex, the state). Most Christian theologians always affirmed a fundamental equality of evey man before God, and the notion that true nobility is about virtue rather than descent or wealth was very popular in the Middle Ages.

[@ggkproductions1632]

What if Germany was communist and Russia wasn't?

[@savagedarksider5934]

They would've invaded America.

[@scholaroftheworldalternatehist]

What POD are you thinking of? Perhaps communist Germans support White Russians over Bolsheviks, seeing themselves as the original progenitors of communism, and thus inherently superior?

[@ggkproductions1632]

@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist Probably something along the lines of the white army wins, some Bolsheviks flee to Weimar Germany, and somehow Hitler doesn't rise to power.

[@allesarfint]

That's really interesting to think about, since Russia and Germany were totally different countries and the communist ideas would have played at another level. Being Germany an industrialized nation while Russia was still very feudal, it's possible the vision of a true Marxist communism could have taken place given that Marx stated it more like an evolution of the industrialized capitalism of Western Europe rather than an economic system out of thin air how occurred in our timeline in those undeveloped countries.

[@endersonshaskaumali4541]

How about if the sparticus uprising succeeds in Europe?

[@Siqueirao50]

Imagine " Pupienus the Great, savior of the Great Roman Empire, the biggest and most glorious one in history"

[@DestructoMonkey]

I really enjoyed your thesis and the arguments you put behind them. Every so often throughout the piece i saw keen insights and considerations of a type i dont think ive seen in some of the bigger historically/alt-historically-minded youtube creators. This is some good stuff. thanks for this.

[@comatronic]

I appreciate that you get to the details like pre/post Islam center of civilization. You are really good at this, so imma hafta demand more. Please, sir, I want some more.

[@The_Alt_Vault]

The next step here would be how would colonialism work out, and for that it would definitely happen far latter but perhaps the English would follow some old Viking rumours about Vineland. This would lead to a situation where Rome wouldn't colinis since they would want to focus on their massive European empire while France and Germany would be more focused on Rome so the new world would most likely be dominated by England, Norway and Holland. Though England with less threats on their borders as well as a higher population would see them become predominant in the new world. I don't know how England would manage its colonies in the new world but I'd imagine a lot of effort would be put into maintaining them and seeing them prosper since this would put them on par with any of the continental powers if not on par with Rome. The other nations continental powers would get collonis mostly France but like in our timeline these would be primarily for cash crops. With all of this England would see the rise of the merchants improved naval technology and capitalism. With their power Rome may keep an alliance with them due to how they could be used against the other north European kingdoms since their spheres of influence wouldn't overlap in any way. Though this would change when the Europeans would begin to meddle in Asian afters growing more powerful as they would begin to threaten Romes monopoly on the silk road. Rome would begin to stagnant when the north Europeans experience the golden age of colonialism since the Mediterranean would become a secondary market. Though I do believe some attempts at colonialism in the new world may be tried but I doubt this would succeed due to a lack of funding or actions from the more colonial orientation nation's. Though Rome would trade dominants in the middle East and Arabia with what ever Persia is up to. Rome would mostly succeed in Africa with Ethiopia becoming a client kingdom or part of the empire. With their influence expanding as medical technology improves to deal with the harsher climate and tropical illnesses. This timeline would also see an on average weaker Germany since they wouldn't have the history of being hundreds of individual city states each trying to out compete the other. This also means the stereotype of Germany quality wouldn't exist. Germany would be under the domination of this world's equivalent of the Hanseatic league since I find it unlikely that Prussia and it's war like nature would rise to dominance. France would be more stable likely avoiding the rampant regionalism that nearly sour France conquered by England and the latter over accumulation of power that later led to the the revolution. Religion is hard since a unified Rome would mean a more unified religion though if iconoclasm manages to come about we may still have the religious split with the Northern Europeans developing a form of Christianity closer to Catholicism while Rome Russia and Poland would be orthodox. Maybe a form of Presbyterianism might develop in England but with little idea of what the church higher archy for Northern European I can't come to a conclusion other than a possible if not likely a decision between a northern and southern church. Crusaders are a different point since it's still possible that someone in Rome or Constantinople may have the idea to crusade against Zoastrian Persia or perhaps against the pagans of eastern Europe but luckily we avoid the fourth crusade so Constantinople would still be one of if not the greatest city in the world. Rough bullet points I know but I'd like to hear what people think.

[@Ivan-td7kb]

"Roman Empire and the Northern Kingdoms" Now I understand where Sapkowski came up with the idea of Nilfgaard

[@Angryp0nY]

Nilfgaard is blatantly fictional Rome. They have Latin accents in the game lol.

[@thedude5294]

@@Angryp0nY I though they were the HRE.

[@osobori]

@@thedude5294 too Latinized to be fake Germany

[@AntiTMG]

I thought they were French

[@cooltrainsinmontreal4883]

Imagine if the Romans had developed Steam power to build water pump Stations and developed the steel to build railroads

[@bogdan3386]

Here is the problem they wouldn't, at least not in a realistic way. Their empire was centered around the Mediterranean which wasn't known for rich coal deposits, also they used slaves for tasks which required steam power. Also steam power was a thing that everyone was aware in antiquity and was used more in temples but in the day by day life slaves were more viable. In order for the Romans to gain rich coal resources they would've needed to expand more into Central and Eastern Europe which in the first place would've overstretched the empire'e borders and lands like Germania or Russia would've needed a lot of time to develop. Also most people who make what if videos about the survival of Rome they tend to also expand the borders of the Empire which seems kind of stupid because look at Dacia which was abandoned because it was harder to defend compared to the natural frontier provided by the Danube. Expansion over the Rhine would be possible but they will need to stop at the Elba because Germania needed development. So expansion beyond the Rhine and Danube wouldn't be that possible

[@boyar1978]

who says they didnt? Perhaps they, like the usa, were beset with a plague of social justice warriors and feminists who would squawk like harpies about how it caused global warming and would not allow scribes to record it in their records.

[@90skidcultist]

Well the Greeks actually had a small steam engine. The Aeolipile. Wished we developed it... sigh

[@dariusanderton3760]

@@boyar1978 to get SJW's there needs to be full democracy and then women getting the right to vote.

[@scriminamp]

@@boyar1978 free rent

[@MIC_Enjoyer]

Here’s one: “what if the proletarian guard wasn’t full of traitors?”

[@rrs_13]

if the proletarian guard wasn't full of traitors, then slave workers would not skip during the night to get drunk at illegal taverns. I do think the praetorian guard was a more concearning matter, particularly due to them pupetteering the emperors at the later stages of the western empire.

[@lynnixvarjo9150]

It was the Pretorian Guard, not the proletarian guard. Proletariat is a term to describe an economic class, who's member own little to nothing and need to sell their labor for survival.

[@lynnixvarjo9150]

That's by the way like: 80% of the Population

[@josecastillo6734]

PRAETORIAE DELENDA EST

[@GameBanditPc]

@@josecastillo6734 I see you are an unbiased man of culture as well

[@hardlineamerican8495]

What if the 7 civilized tribes pulled a Japan and Westernized/Industrialized, surviving as a single country or as several regional powers?

[@TheMaster4534]

You mean Meiji Japan?

[@landonyoung4850]

they kind of started to. they had a big capital and made their own alphabet and shit. but the white americans decided we wanted georgia and so we just did a little genocide

[@blkgardner]

The population of the 5 civilized tribes was not high enough to establish a viable nation-state. Also, the tribes were already subject of the USA under international law, and were land-locked, so foreign intervention would have been unlikely.

[@landonyoung4850]

blkgardner so international law didn’t exist then so idk what u mean

[@BirdTurdMemes]

@@landonyoung4850 Back then international law meant England, France, Spain and USA

[@legendofloki665i9]

You just helped me solve some problems I had in my fantasy writing project. I wasn't expecting it, but you provided me with an interesting perspective that I'm not letting go to waste!

[@thedamnedatheist]

Greece & Rome had some extraordinary inventions , like the Antikythera device and the steam engine described by Heron of Alexandria. If those had made their way north, some bright spark might have recognized their potential.

[@andrewhunt8695]

Your point that Rome surviving would make Europe less technologically advanced doesn’t make sense (at least your evidence) to my knowledge China started falling behind tech was during the Ming dynasty and that was because the became isolationist similar to japan beforehand Europe was pretty backwater tech wise behind both the Middle East and China . I believe that as long rome doesn’t become isolationist they would be more advanced than current Europe before the industrial revolution (besides naval tech). Roman warfare tech was probably slower in general because they weren’t constantly battle organized nations(besides the sassanids) and were fighting barbarians but that would probably eventually change.

[@meneither3834]

Europe was not behind actually. The dark ages were good if you avoid the black death.

[@andrewhunt8695]

Me Neither So first the dark ages are a 1000 year time period so I’m assuming your referring to the end of the dark ages and right up to the renaissance were you would be Kinda right. By the time Black Death hit Europe was definitely catching up to the Middle East and China especially since the crusades brought a lot of Islamic knowledge back to Europe that being said they weren’t quite at they’re level yet outside of military technology. But before than especially during the Islamic golden age Europe was completely backwater. Europe was full of third world countries to the early caliphates (of course besides the ERE).

[@meneither3834]

@@andrewhunt8695 the dark ages go from the fall of Rome (West) to the start of the Crusades, after that is the middle ages from the the first Crusade to the fall Rome(East), (at least that's how I learned it in school.) That's not a thousand years. To address your other points. The Crusades positive impact on Europe is very overstated, the reconquista and Italian (Venetian &Genoan) trade mattered much more to European knowledge than the Crusades. The black death also hurt the middle-east by the way, not only Europe.

[@90skidcultist]

@@meneither3834 Well, Byzantium, the Italians, and the Moors were pretty advance. The rest of Europe... not so much. Some places were actually pretty backwards. Especially the Slavs.

[@meneither3834]

@@90skidcultist the Czechs, Poles and Silesian (all Slavs) were wealthy for the time. Most of Germania (the HRE) as well as France and Italy were doing fine too..

[@tegamingother]

that was the most sarcastic laugh i have ever heard in my entire life.

[@edk487]

Always did wonder how during the Punic wars Rome was able to raise these giant armies but in later antiquity they had to rely on barbarians for men.

[@elasticharmony]

Moral corruption, children not capable to fight just like the USA today. The Huns etc had no problem after all those orgies spread STD to everyone

[@HiroNguy]

5:20: Hehehehe! That wath funny, Beavith! What part did Biggus Dickus play? 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

[@crispyatom]

5:18 gosh what awful names, and that laugh afterwards tho 😂

[@medievalknyght313]

The Roman Empire still exist but how could the Teutonic order exist in this world? Maybe another group would take their place but the teutonic order needed oddly specific conditions to exist. So I don't think that the Teutonic order will exist in this timeline.

[@sumreensultana1860]

Well maybe it's different

[@haltdieklappe7972]

Teutonic order were complete assholes but you’ve gotta admit they had drip. It’s like the Templar clothes but cooler

[@Spoon80085]

0:05 Funnily enough, everything you just said also described Britian

[@zettic6783]

@Afrodisiac True but rome lasted far longer than most empires

[@SpanishDio]

not continously tho not to say Lybia was under Italian control and Egypt had basically full autonomy from Britain. so it is NO WAY near as the Roman empire.

[@Spoon80085]

@The Nova renaissance Gibraltar, malta

[@youraveragepizzaenjoyer4575]

@@Spoon80085 Malta isn't Libya

[@haltdieklappe7972]

The british only lost their empire because it was a strain on the economy and because of guilt. Though it would’ve fell apart anyway due to current political climate

[@nromk]

I mean the Roman monarchy was an elective one, with senators possibly becoming kings after the king's death until the kings were driven out of Rome and Rome became a republic until it became an Empire with Emperors

[@richardsalmon2046]

5:20 is pure gold. Thank you. I subbed.

[@haltdieklappe7972]

Hhhhhaaaahhaahahah

[@Blalack77]

I've literally been asking this exact question lately. Had to click on this immediately lol.. And wow - as I look through your videos, I see a lot of questions I've wondered about. I think you have a new subscriber.

[@wwlb4970]

We would probably never had Middle Ages and already fought with Marco Inaros and his Free Navy fork of Outer Planets Alliance. EDIT: And yeah, our space ships would have marble columns in every section

[@RubinNischara]

Okay I do have one question: while I know that the Illyrians still existed as an ethnic group during the late Roman Empire, I also believe they were heavily Romanized to the point that there was really little distinction to the culture group you described as "Romanitas" and them. I wonder why you think they might form their entirely unique fraction within the Empire?

[@oskarnymand389]

5:21 that Laugh is the worst thing ive ever heard

[@miko5742]

better than

[@haltdieklappe7972]

That laugh made me laugh so props to him

[@Ganonmustdie2]

"Hey this is a pretty good what-if!" Whatifalthist: *Rome loses territory overall* ASSEMBLE THE LEGIONS, ROME WILL REMEMBER THIS!

[@Sharkman0625]

Could you do what if the ottomans won the Balkan wars or what if Canada joined the US during the American revolution

[@erairlines7106]

Impossible!!

[@belisarius707]

It would collapse even harder few years later

[@ChillyBenpa]

*1st Balkan war

[@haltdieklappe7972]

Canada is my favourite US state

[@talra81]

Another real eye-opener thank You

[@jasoncola6071]

So, I don't entirely get the guilt vs. shame and honor driven motivations. Those two seem very similar to me, and I don't entirely understand how they would affect one's actions. Even honor feels like a part of some high society romantic era European society. P.s. apologies for the username, I'll come up with a better one, hopefully.

[@daveharrison84]

My guess is guilt is how you perceive yourself while shame is how others perceive you.

[@JS-ju1xw]

Shame: Will society respect me for this? Guilt: Am I a good person for this/ will god approve of me for this? Fear: Will I be hurt if I do this?

[@billiramone]

Just watching older videos while doing chores. Man, this channel is amazing!

[@zoldy7548]

I think the opposite would be interesting to see: what if china fell and a heavily decentralised society emerged as in the west, would we see more technological advance? Perhaps Asian colonial empires?

[@appa609]

I'm not sure the geography permits significant disunity. Central China is a big plain with few substantial natural divisions. There have been periods where China fractured but one of the remnants would always find a way to conquer all the others and reunify China.

[@alejandroojeda1572]

@@appa609 well, northern Europe IS a big plain and despite that we didn't get frenchies in moscow.

[@longyu9336]

Probably the whole of China would more resemble the SEA area before Europeans reached it.

[@sumreensultana1860]

@@alejandroojeda1572 bruh Napoleon had controlled Moscow

[@zakuro8532]

@@alejandroojeda1572 woudn say so

[@ShnoogleMan]

Mr. Z isn't gonna be very happy when he sees this.

[@aperson5876]

Whys that?

[@aperson5876]

@Pseudo Sozi is that opinion based on your personal disgust for his political ideology or based on reason?

[@alexdunphy3716]

@@aperson5876 it's based on personal butthurt. Monsieur Z seems to have a better grasp of history than most alt history channels, including this one

[@aperson5876]

@The Nova renaissance ah,then i can't imagine Dovanhatty's reaction

[@aperson5876]

@Pseudo Sozi His videos had been more outlandish in the past,however his video's have greatly improved recently,though everyone is prone to bias

[@Somepomegranate]

A note on the butterfly effect: the users comes from mathematical concept of chaos, a property of some dynamical systems. This came about in the 60's as a result of computing power allowing for the approximation of systems for which no exact solution existed, leading to the discovery of several systems ( the most famous of which was based on simulating atmospheric movement) which were highly sensitive to the starting conditions. The term butterfly effect comes from a description by a metrologist of the effect " a butterfly flapping is wings in Brazil could cause a hurricane in the Atlantic". This effect has been proven for many systems, primarily constructed for the purpose, but also modelling some real world effects (such as the weather), it is the hypothesis that this applies to history that is unproven (how would you even attempt this? How do you put a number to culture?). Several key features of chaos are important to understand, whether chaos applies to history or not. First is that the effect is bounded, often quite precisely, the Lorenz attractor is a good example. This allows certain universal predictions to be made about the system, no matter the initial conditions, e.g. there be little rain in a desert. Second is that the time scale for this to happen over changes based on both the system and starting location. This can allow accurate predictions for quite long periods in many chaotic models. Finally, chaos is closely linked with periodicity with recognisable patterns (almost) repeating over uncertain intervals. This can make predictions easier when exact timescales are dropped. Source: am a mathematician who has studied chaos in a modeling context. p.s. apologies for formatting am on mobile

[@27senoj]

The Butterfly effect was defined in mathematics as extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. Basically, a researcher using a simulation of weather patterns noticed that small changes at the beginning of a weather cycle could have profound impacts later (leading to the phrase that a butterfly might change the weather in chicago). This is a foundational concept in Chaos theory and was used in Scifi decades later.

[@tfljmartis]

The Teutonic Knights on the map around 19:38 would never have existed, as they only came to be because of the Turks in Anatolia. Prussia and the Baltic would be a lot different in this timeline.

[@StephensCrazyHour]

For much of their history the Byzantines were more technologically advanced than everyone else they encountered. There's no reason to suggest the same wouldn't have happened in a united Roman empire.

[@sabrina1380m]

The byzantine empire wasn't the most advanced in that era especially compared with other contemporary civilizations

[@StephensCrazyHour]

@@sabrina1380m who has better technology than them?

[@Mana-xd2tp]

@@StephensCrazyHour I'm still waiting for an answer

[@rydyly1734]

Great video but something that would probably happen due to the butterfly effect would be the evangelisation of Asia and possibly China taking the place of Medieval Europe. Since the Roman empire never falls the trade between India and Rome would continue to a greater extent, thus eliminating the need to find an alternate route aka the new world. In this timeline I would think that since the trade between India and Rome continues so does the spread of ideas and religion. This would create an even bigger discussion in Rome where the Church would push for the evangilisation of India and the Nobles push for Colonisation seen in our history in the new world. China would also feel the affects of the Roman Empire staying unified. A unified Mediterranean means that most of the people of Persia and the Steppes would need to turn to another land to conquer and settle. The Mongols would probably stay in Asia, the Turks would move into China, and the Mughals would be pushed out of the newly colonised Roman India. It might even be that a multicultured China becomes the center of the rennaissance rather than Rome. It's also safe to say that since the new world isn't discovered the Aztecs would be able to establish their rule of central America and possibly even extend their reach to the Carribean. They might even start a golden era for the new world so much so that they would discover better sailing methods and cross the Atlantic into Europe thus introducing diseases at a more stable rate ensureing that the Aztecs would remain. So many possibilities with this timeline it's not even funny.

[@DucadiBorgogna_]

Oh God how much do I agree on the Middle Age and Antiquity aspect.

[@lerneanlion]

What if the Golden Horde never fell? Can you tell me how can that happen and is it even possible?

[@johndevries7397]

It would be very difficult for the Golden Horde to fight off Tamerlane, a military genius that led the Timurid Empire. Tamerlane never lost a battle.

[@lilestojkovicii6618]

Kraaang

[@JRGProjects]

Star Trek The Original Series tackled this question with the episode "Bread + Circuses"

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

Long were the days gone when Rome could muster an army after a defeat,best example is when facing Pyrrhus of Epirus and Hannibal Barca, in those days Rome could quickly muster an an Italo-Roman Legion and not count on gaul and germanic neigbors

[@J0hnzie]

I think something important about the technological advancement point is competition. When you've got France sparring with the HRE, Italian city-states interwarring constantly, England always seeking to wear down its neighbors, and the Scandanavians always looking for more plunder down south, there's much greater and more locally-centralized competition than that of one empire against hordes of random barbarians. Rome wouldn't've seen itself as struggling against other states, but struggling against almost existential forces. Therefore, there wasn't much need to push harder or invent- only to improve and expand.

[@shadowthehedgehog3113]

I get that Rome is obviously different than the modern West-but you can't deny the continuities. The Catholic and Orthodox churches directly trace their roots back to the Roman Empire.

[@KingCrafter999]

Wow! What an interesting and *never discussed before topic* !!!!

[@jorehir]

10:00 populares = workers' party (optimates = capitalists' party) otium = relax (romance languages have also directly derived words, like 'ozio") honorably bankruptcy = ok, no idea v. and h. friendship = powerful friends/acquaintances and "mates"? I'm not sure i got them right, but i think you're making a bigger deal than it actually is. For instance, pilgrimage or feudalism are much more distant concepts from today's culture, despite well known definitions. Classical Roman culture was very close to todays's culture, with people looking for a simple and good materialistic life, out of the superstructures built by Christianity and feudal life.

[@dan4271]

Wow your interpretations of history are on point

[@lastword8783]

I find it interesting that the people who descended more from the people that destroyed the Roman Empire choose to identify with it more as a civilizational genesis than the people they actually descended from.

[@13gladius28]

It fell from within. Majorian,* the last great emperor, introduced reforms that greatly improved miliary functioning and had reconquered most of the empire but when he tried to reform civil codes that would have reduced the wealth, power & prestige of Roman elite families, they had him declared enemy of the people, arrested, jailed, tortured & beheaded. A few years later it all fell again, permanently. *Majorian, Latin in full Julius Valerius Majorianus, (died Aug. 7, 461, Dertona, Liguria [now Tortona, Italy]), Western Roman emperor from 457 to 461, the only man to hold that office in the 5th century who had some claim to greatness

[@gabrielzak.7942]

So basically the Russian Empire but with the capital in Italy

[@sammymeli3820]

Ngl that's probably the only sponsor on KZbin that's captured my interest

[@always4eternity1]

How about: "what if will Smith's wife never cheated ..."

[@Neversa]

Your videos always make me wake up in 7:00 with a hangover and watch them 😍

[@panayotisdamianakis3658]

I would have thought Ancient Greece was the foundation empire or culture to Europe? In any case, the Roman conquest of Greece carried many features of Greek civilisation to far-flung parts of the Mediterranean world and Western Europe. Through the mediation of the Romans, therefore, Greek civilisation came to be the founding culture of Western civilisation.

[@dinoxman8584]

Yeah it was really the Minoans and Mycenaean.

[@josephcusumano2885]

I've waited for this one for so long. In fact, I want to write a book about it lol. Thanks

[@Jedittee]

How's book going

[@innosam123]

What if the Carolingian Empire survived? What if Balhae survived?

[@fabrizio.guidi64]

They're crap compared to the Roman Empire

[@Mark-uh3un]

If I ever invented a time machine, first place I'd go to would be about 30ad. What a time to be alive

[@mistaunchained1789]

What if the Byantine Empire was able to successfully defend Egypt from the Caliphates?

[@StrawberryLegacy]

This video makes soooo many interesting points. Amazing.

[@loldiamond1017]

Suggestion, you should bring up sources to back your claims when you make most of your videos, it would help a lot both with proving you have the legitimacy to talk about these things and would help people who watch your videos but in general are bad at finding sources to be able to back their views up with actual sources

[@Dqrk1700]

I would of really wanted to see the Romans fighting the Mongols, man that would of been gold

[@scholaroftheworldalternatehist]

Interesting to hear your take on the topic. I do agree, Rome held back Europe for a long time, and we tend to idealize it when in fact it invented very little on its own (mostly it innovated pre-existing technologies). The "Fall" of Rome is the best event in technological history, as weird as it sounds.

[@ryanp987]

Yeah, it's weird how we in the modern era fawn over Rome like it was some great thing. Their main contribution was in law, not technology. Love your alt-history videos, btw!

[@suzanneskinner8851]

Yeah, true. You should maybe make a video about this subject...(if you can)

[@forgetful9845]

@@ryanp987 I would say that Romes biggest contribution was legimatizing republicanism.

[@mrbeefy1101]

I would say Rome early empire was a technological innovator but after that it stagnated

[@Angryp0nY]

@@mrbeefy1101 yeah due to strife. Part of the reason the Renaissance happened is because scholars fled Constantinople just before it fell and brought knowledge to the rest of Europe that generated a huge spike in the access and seeking of knowledge. This is of course accompanied by a bunch of other factors, but it did help create the correct climate.

[@Durthii]

whatif I watched this video, and my apparently unrelated need to find my significant other a great gift was solved by your advertisement. Thanks for the promo code !

[@unovasfinest2623]

Balbinus and.... Pupienus **EVIL LAUGHTER**

[@ian2372]

The answer to your slide at 8:07 is 2. Roman currency was so debased and devalued no merchant or solider could trust it. Diluted by cheap nickel or lead, a silver or copper roman coin was worthless (gold was still relatively pure, but only rich merchants and nobles would have access to those). Even barbarians would no longer take them without HUGE land guarantees. The women of Rome corrupted senators and demanded a huge welfare state for freeman and slaves and many expensive public works for the plebs. Much like today in the US, this led to a huge devaluing of the currency and a debt crisis. Mercenaries are expensive and a broke empire that has lost both it's own currency and the faith of its people will always be ineffective in raising any army willing to die for it.

[@FrankDad]

If the Catholic Church didn’t restrict scientific research, we would have flying cars

[@SMunro]

It was already in decline when the romulus & remus myth was created. It was declining when it had kings. It peaked a couple of times near the end (short term peaks), but collapsed culturally with the assassination of Julius Ceasar.

[@nuncasaberas5926]

"If Rome were to endured, we wouldnt have western civ-" Yes.

[@remuj6457]

Love ur content bro

[@mcfcfan1870]

5:20 That name is so spectacular. Wow.

[@mcfcfan1870]

I mean what are the chances?

[@ortherner]

ikr

[@dillonpichols7625]

Great videos, but the bs in between with fancy scripts are kinda hard for folks to read with shit upload speeds and glasses. Maybe change the font? Thanks in advance, and keep up the good work!

[@HistoryandHeadlines]

Who would like there to be a Roman Emperor in Europe again today? If so, who would you choose as the best choice?

[@dantecaputo2629]

Well, if you mean bringing back one of the old Roman Emperors to rule over Europe, I would choose none of them. Augustus,Trajan, Nerva, Septimius Severus Aurelian, Valentinian, Diocletian, Gratian, Julian, or Constantine may have been great leaders in there time, but they would be caught completely flat footed if they had to run a post industrial society on the scale and complexity of modern nations. They would have completely different concepts of government, taxation, warfare, and morality, and wouldn’t understand things like ethnic conflict (All Of these men predate modern notions of race) or economic systems. None of these Emperors would have any knowledge of things like inflation, only rudimentary understandings of debt, and no concept of modern banking systems. Indeed, the very concept of ‘Europe’ would confuse them, as the idea of it as its own political sphere separate from Africa or Asia would make little sense to them. In short, roughly everything about our modern society, from our political and economic structures to our values and beliefs would be so alien to them, I wouldn’t trust them to run it. Post industrial civilizations would be to complicated for them.

[@HistoryandHeadlines]

@@dantecaputo2629 There was a video on Usefulcharts's channel that addresses who would be the best candidate for Roman Emperor today. Anyway, thank you for replying to me! :)

[@rrs_13]

Vladimir Putin would be the best Roman Emperor. He has proven to be able to balance the powers of the politicians, the military, and capital. He took a vast crumbling ex-empire in tatters, and not only stopped it from fragmenting and decaying even more, he expanded it and made it a world power again. But the true reason Putin is qualified for Roman Emperor is that I can't imagine the number of assassination atempts that he has survived thus far. Putin seems to be a guy to take 23 stabbings and say: "Why, Brutus? It was new toga." And then proceed to bitchslap the 60 senators, and go about his daily schedule. PS: I'm not endorsing/condoning nor condemning Putin's actions and history in our reality, but simply saying his persona seems the most adequate to a fantasy where the roman empire were to exist today.

[@tris421]

@@dantecaputo2629 Isnt Felipe VI of Spain for some reason? Can't remember where i heard that. Marcus Aurelius though, surely would be best Emperor to fit modern Europe?

[@spvrivs]

I liked the video, with just one little disaccord: We can't say how the Church would be now, because there would have been several oecumenic councils during the 2nd millenium. For the West, councils were held, but without the participation of the East which stays mostly frozen in the state of 1054.

[@biomuseum6645]

AHH and Monsieur Z had very different scenarios on this topic

[@InfernosReaper]

The point that Rome's technology stagnated a bit is a bit questionable, since a lot of its resources were squandered by the incompetent leadership that would have to be absent in order for Rome to not fall in the first place. Meanwhile, China stagnated a bit because they got too comfortable with being a key trade state and too overconfident in their combat prowess. It's not too dissimilar from when a couple of centuries of peace and isolation stagnated Japan's development. Also, historically, China somewhat suffered from focusing too much on traditionalism, which tends to stifle innovation.

[@WolfofKaos]

Aw, I was hoping to see how the Roman Empire's survival would've effected the Americas and Austronesia. Had the Romans continued on to this day, would those continents/islands have been badly colonized as they did IOT? Or would they even have been discovered at all, since the Ottoman's takeover of Constantinople (and by extension, Anatolia) is the prime reason the Americas were discovered. And actually, there wouldn't even be a Spain and Portugal to do the discovering My own personal hope would be for the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Australia, and Pacific Islands to remain the dominant population/culture of their respective regions and form nations. Or, at least, any colonization is more akin to that of India and/or Africa

[@hugosetiawan8928]

Pupienus *chuckles horrifyingly*

[@Bribridude130]

14:09 The Balkans would not be Illyrian and Thracian. The Balkans north of the Jirecek line was already Romanized and predominantly Latin-speaking before the Slavic migrations in the 6th century. South of the line, the Thracians were largely Hellenized. Albanians start to appear in written records 11th century, and whether they are related to or descendants from Illyrians has been debated. In a world where the Slavic migrations never happened, the Balkans except Albania and Greece would be Romance-speaking. In OTL, the Romance Languages of Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian, whom alongside Romanian, are all often referred to as Vlach. Also in OTL, there is the extinct Romance language of Dalmatian, which was once spoken along the Adriatic Coastline of Croatia, and is a remnant of the pre-Slavic Latin dialect of the region. The last speaker of Dalmatian, Tuone Udaina, did not die until 1896. 19:18 "Holland" or the Netherlands would not existed as a country in this timeline. The only reason why the Netherlands exists as a country is because the provices (Holland, Friesland, Utrecht, Zealand, etc) that would make up the Netherlands were all united under the Spanish crown, while being states of the Holy Roman Empire. This was the result of the Burgundians inheriting all the states of the Low Countries one by one, which in turn were inherited by the Habsburgs, and then passing to its Elder (Spanish) branch after the death of Charles V. The provinces uniting against a common enemy led to the establishment of the Dutch Republic, which made itself entirely independent of the Holy Roman Empire, and led to a separate Dutch national identity from an otherwise German identitity by the time the rise of nationalism and nation-states occured.

[@cheeriozkitty]

This video was very poorly researched in my view as well

[@meneither3834]

A interesting one would be : "what if the Punic wars ended on a stalemate ?"

[@yog-sothothery5720]

Wouldn't the roman empire border alternate nations?

[@leifleoden5464]

I had never considered the fact that the decentralization of power due to the fall of Rome was primary differentiator of Western Culture. It makes sense, it also makes sense that these smaller petty kingdoms desperate for any advantage would be forced to become more inventive.

[@schakiarligonde1736]

Nope this take is wrong

[@stevencooper4422]

16:51 I just came hearing this.

[@Alpharis972]

Thank you very much, this was very interesting to watch. Gave me a good idea on where to start on the story I'm writing about an alternate timeline where Rome is still in power in 2100.