What territory would you expect a wanked Rome to control by the modern day?

[NAF]

By "control" I am referring to fully integrated provinces in which every person residing there is considered a full Roman citizen.

I'll leave the nature of this hypothetical Rome and how it came to survive to the modern day up to you. It does not matter whether it is a republic or empire so long as it is a direct continuation of Ancient Rome and uses either Latin or Greek (or both) as its main language. Any POD is allowed so long as these criteria are met.

What's to stop a roided up Roman Empire from swallowing all the Americas? Africa? Oceania? On the other hand, I imagine Asia would present many difficulties. How much of the world can we expect to speak Latin as a first or second language?

 

[EMT]

I'll leave what that'd entail to somebody else but assuming the Romans almost always rolled a 10 or higher on a d20, I'd imagine everything north of the Sahara, and west of the Iranian plateau as 'natural' borders for a Roman Empire that endures and has another phase of expansion later in its history. Including all of Arabia here, as well as the islands of the Atlantic. As for it's eastern borders, well, that one's always going to be complicated since a steppe is going to be a natural hell to defend. How far or not the Romans go there is largely going to depend on context and you can feasibly have the Roman border stay on the Danube in a conservative TL, or in a true over the top scenario a Roman conquest of the Volga and expansion into the steppe so as to break the neverending nomadic raiders.

I'd imagine the primary border would be on Oder-Dneister, Vistula-Dneister, or a border on or east of the Dneiper if you want to get really ambitious. But anything past the Vistula is going to be a mess to hold for a very long time and almost certainly not worth it. The more you expand Rome, the more likely it is to fracture as powerbases distant from Rome arise. That's exactly what's stopping Rome from eating the New World wholesale, Africa, etc. and it's perennial limitation on its potential; the fear that usurpers, rebellions, and uprisings will tear the empire apart if given any leeway. Rome split in two exactly because it was impractical in the extreme to maintain a united empire at that time.

 

[Dominic]

It really depends on how you want to define 'Rome'. Rome as an equivalent to China, that is, a large sufficiently homogenous entity that it is usually united, and when it is not united has plenty of internal forces that want to unite it, could plausibly at the least control the Mediterranean basin. Rome as 'merely' a civic and political entity is going to be much more vulnerable, as per OTL, but nonetheless could plausibly continue to control large territories. If you want a to see just how massive it could get under ideal conditions, the answer will probably the same as if you were to combine a nation like China with the particular synergies that allowed Europe to conquer most of the world. So, probably most of the world outside of parts of Asia, but there's no real OTL equivalent as to what follows such a development so it's hard to answer. The European empires collapsed primarily as a result of technology being diffused throughout the world. A massive Roman Empire complete with settler colonies may well have a 'USA' moment, but if it doesn't it would be better placed to continue some form of global primacy/leadership... but that would require any state to undergo some pretty profound internal changes.

 

[Socrates]

By "control" I am referring to fully integrated provinces in which every person residing there is considered a full Roman citizen.

I'll leave the nature of this hypothetical Rome and how it came to survive to the modern day up to you. It does not matter whether it is a republic or empire so long as it is a direct continuation of Ancient Rome and uses either Latin or Greek (or both) as its main language. Any POD is allowed so long as these criteria are met.

What's to stop a roided up Roman Empire from swallowing all the Americas? Africa? Oceania? On the other hand, I imagine Asia would present many difficulties. How much of the world can we expect to speak Latin as a first or second language?

There is no reason to believe European supremacy would happen in such a timeline. The lack of interstate competition is likely see Rome develop similar to China: internally focused and mainly concerned with internal stability.

 

[Gloss]

There is no reason to believe European supremacy would happen in such a timeline. The lack of interstate competition is likely see Rome develop similar to China: internally focused and mainly concerned with internal stability.

The interstate competion argument is more of a meme than a good and solid explanation.

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Would having the Byzantines retain Constantinople count?

 

[Silver01]

depends i can go for a byzantine route and say anatolia and the territories of modern day greece , bulgaria other balkan states and even armenia being the core that survives after centuries where the other provinces have been conquered or have split off in the modern day to make their own nations , if we want an earlier pod one could say the whole mediterranean or the whole of the empire , but the china comparison is not the best china united and kept uniting do to many things among them geography , rice ( yes really) , the bureaucrats and how they ran the place and china's barbarians been steppe nomads and while fierce did not have quite as big numbers as the western barbarians and thus assimilated much more quickly to chinese civilization and quickly became just another chinese dynasty see the jurchen , mongols and manchus .
if somehow depending on the pod rome turns to be europe's china and last long enough for as @Socrates said and i may add the bureaucrats gave much stability to china but really hampered their progress in certain periods

 

[NAF]

Would having the Byzantines retain Constantinople count?

Sure, Byzantines are fair game.

 

[Dr Dee]

In terms of fully integrated states, I can imagine modern day Europe having four or five large entities: a Western Empire successor taking in OTL Italy, France and Iberia, an Eastern Empire successor that would take in Greece, the southern Balkans and Anatolia, a Germanic state in northern Europe and then some kind of Western Slavic/Intermarium set up for the rest. Not sure about North Africa, the rest of the Levant or the British Isles. I just can’t see a mega Rome developing that would retain or build upon the territories it held at its imperial zenith.

 

[Denliner]

If we're dealing with a Roman Empire wank, then we might see them move past Germania, Caledonia, and Hibernia, which would lead to them to being more Romanized and less Celtic/Germanic. However, I really can't see a mega Roman Empire surviving for very long before AD 1000, given the immense pressures that the Empire had to face even before the Germanic invasions and the Huns, unless we kept rolling mega Trajans that could keep the Empire running like a machine for literal centuries. As a result, we might see a significantly more homogeneous Latinized Europe through these Roman successor states across Europe, with more Romance or Celtic languages instead of Germanic/Slavic/Arabic languages that happened as a result of foreign invasion.

 

[Socrates]

The interstate competion argument is more of a meme than a good and solid explanation.

It's a very solid explanation. Of the ingredients needed for the rapid economic growth seen in the 19th Century (agricultural consolidation, mercantile domination of government, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, stock exchanges, effective fiscal apparatus etc) only 1-2 states of the European state system had developed them at the beginning of the period, with everyone else needing to play catch up. With only one state dominating, it is highly unlikely that magic recipe would have been found. Especially if it were a large empire.

 

[VermontFlannel]

Honestly It's a wank enough to keep a Byzantine rump state alive in Greece and eastern Anatolia alive until the modern day

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

Honestly It's a wank enough to keep a Byzantine rump state alive in Greece and eastern Anatolia alive until the modern day

Is it though? The fall of Byzantium can be credited much more to their own stupidity and self-destructive behavior than anything else. Anatolia is a natural border and Greece is hard to conquer and occupy if there is an Anatolian power seeking to defend it. They could easily have made it to the modern day with Greece + Turkey borders, though granted Bulgaria isn’t guaranteed.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

It's a very solid explanation. Of the ingredients needed for the rapid economic growth seen in the 19th Century (agricultural consolidation, mercantile domination of government, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, stock exchanges, effective fiscal apparatus etc) only 1-2 states of the European state system had developed them at the beginning of the period, with everyone else needing to play catch up. With only one state dominating, it is highly unlikely that magic recipe would have been found. Especially if it were a large empire.

I mean, are you arguing that other places and lands were not having interstate commerce to levels the same or exceeding Europe? I feel like you are also arguing indirectly that the 30 Years War, was an improving factor for Europe. Instead of a demographic depressor, dooming Europe further to having less demographic centrality, that it possessed in the High Middle Ages. The High Middle Ages was a period that laid any groundwork for any massive 'improvement' later, despite European states and officials attempting mightily to stop said improvement with needless internal wars and gambles abroad.

 

[VermontFlannel]

Is it though? The fall of Byzantium can be credited much more to their own stupidity and self-destructive behavior than anything else. Anatolia is a natural border and Greece is hard to conquer and occupy if there is an Anatolian power seeking to defend it. They could easily have made it to the modern day with Greece + Turkey borders, though granted Bulgaria isn’t guaranteed.

Well Byzantium was on the fall for almost a millennium if you count Justinian as Byzantine. And the huge debt the Byzantines had along with the constant civil wars means that it's hard to see it surviving into these later periods.

Even if you let them stick it out into the renaissance, eventually Hungary, Austria, or some other stronger power could control Greece if there isn't some massive reforms within the empire. Maybe if they clawed through unto the 1600s maybe an absolutist or enlightenment revolution can keep them relevant until a more modern date. Still though I don't see that as likely after things like the battle of Manzikert or the fourth crusade, i think Byzantium was pretty far gone at that point

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Well Byzantium was on the fall for almost a millennium if you count Justinian as Byzantine. And the huge debt the Byzantines had along with the constant civil wars means that it's hard to see it surviving into these later periods.

Even if you let them stick it out into the renaissance, eventually Hungary, Austria, or some other stronger power could control Greece if there isn't some massive reforms within the empire. Maybe if they clawed through unto the 1600s maybe an absolutist or enlightenment revolution can keep them relevant until a more modern date. Still though I don't see that as likely after things like the battle of Manzikert or the fourth crusade, i think Byzantium was pretty far gone at that point

It is true that they could have performed better in the Middle Ages though. They did not have to disarm the Armenians, dissociate the Paulicians, squander the collapse of the Abbasid state, etc...

Also just surviving should be enough. I do not see why every state or political order must remain constantly some sort of great power. States should and always do, ebb and wane. Any enlightenment styled thinker who feels this is an end to history and that those strong now, will remain so forever, surely have learned little. Indeed, Byzantium just surviving as a political order should be enough to justify a wank of sorts.

 

[Socrates]

I mean, are you arguing that other places and lands were not having interstate commerce to levels the same or exceeding Europe? I feel like you are also arguing indirectly that the 30 Years War, was an improving factor for Europe. Instead of a demographic depressor, dooming Europe further to having less demographic centrality, that it possessed in the High Middle Ages. The High Middle Ages was a period that laid any groundwork for any massive 'improvement' later, despite European states and officials attempting mightily to stop said improvement with needless internal wars and gambles abroad.

I don't understand the question. Could you rephrase?

I'm not sure about the 30 years war, but I do think the Plague was an improving factor for Europe, aiding considerably in breaking up feudalism and increasing urbanization. It has been pretty convincingly argued that the Chinese did not invest in labor saving devices in agriculture because the constraint in productivity was land, not labor. The reverse was true in Europe.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I don't understand the question. Could you rephrase?

I'm not sure about the 30 years war, but I do think the Plague was an improving factor for Europe, aiding considerably in breaking up feudalism and increasing urbanization. It has been pretty convincingly argued that the Chinese did not invest in labor saving devices in agriculture because the constraint in productivity was land, not labor. The reverse was true in Europe.

I disagree with those assessments regarding the Plague, despite their popularity in certain 'scientific' circles. I also would disagree with the assessments regarding China this or that, often most explanations regarding the weakness of China in the recent two centuries is extremely faulty. There are others on the site who have made these points and always contested correctly the inadequacy of Chinese weakness models.

Feudalism was not hampered by the plague. It was hampered by the Hundred Years war and the loss of European universalism which resulted in the development of proto-royalist absolutism. Manorialism and European demographic centrality were the casualties of the Plague. While Europe was decreasing its demographic centrality in relation to the rest of the planet, China was doubling and tripling it. We will see in the future which was the better outcome, the recent era of European domination was short indeed, unfortunately the long march of history will be unknown to you and I and the true outcome of industrialism to be discussed by our descendants in the future.

The question I meant to ask: your argument hinges upon the idea that Europe had a greater level of competition as the explanation for its success. Do you believe that Europe is the only place wherein this factor was true? Surely, in order for it to be the case, one needs to argue that Europe experienced this to a greater degree or was exceptional in its journey towards the recent centuries in competition.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Personally, I'm going to with one of my fav options, a Justinian/Belisarius TL. Small changes would be cooperation from Masses and that wave of reinforcements to bring the Gothic War to a rapid conclusion before Khosrau can wreck shop.

Following that, Narses is kept in the West to solidify control with Belisarius brought back because of court disapproval. This means that the relationship between Belisarius and Justinian can likely improve, giving Justinian a potential tool post-plague since he's skilled at fighting on a small budget.

This I think leaves the Romans in a solid place to reasonably expand to at least five scenarios.

First would be the Pruth Vistula line, restoring the old Empire with Germania.

Second would include Hibernia and Britannia.

Third adds Denmark, or at least the mainland.

Fourth relies on whether the Rus is Romanised. That would easily add the Rus and the Baltics up to the Urals and a vague border near the Caspian.

Fifth would include doing a Russia and expanding over that direction.

There is potential for the New World but that's three main scenarios - colonisation, independence, or trade. That really comes down to TL but I don't think that the Romans would have much interest in the New World besides as a trade partner.

The last would be the Romans in the India Ocean, which I think focuses on their trade partners. Indonesia seems plausible to me, since it's very much a modern reality that their population exploded to India/China levels, allowing some potential for a Roman state there. But I expect it'd be a separate Roman polity long term.

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

Well Byzantium was on the fall for almost a millennium if you count Justinian as Byzantine. And the huge debt the Byzantines had along with the constant civil wars means that it's hard to see it surviving into these later periods.

Even if you let them stick it out into the renaissance, eventually Hungary, Austria, or some other stronger power could control Greece if there isn't some massive reforms within the empire. Maybe if they clawed through unto the 1600s maybe an absolutist or enlightenment revolution can keep them relevant until a more modern date. Still though I don't see that as likely after things like the battle of Manzikert or the fourth crusade, i think Byzantium was pretty far gone at that point

Byzantium did not experience a millennium-long decline though. There was a sharp decline between Heraclius and the start of the Macedonian dynasty, commonly known as the Byzantine Dark Ages, but the state prospered very much from the late 9th century until Manzikert. Even then, post-Manzikert wasn’t a perpetual decline, nor was post-4th Crusade a perpetual decline either (politically, the Nicaean Empire under the Laskarids made one of the best comeback in history, while culturally 13th and 14th Byzantine society produced significant intellectual, artistic and theological achievements despite the dearth of material resources).

Anyway, Manzikert and the Fourth Crusade happened because of the aforementioned Byzantine stupidity and self-destructive behavior. The former because the Doukids decided to play court politics mid-battle, the latter because the Crusaders were literally invited to Constantinople and the city had incompetent military leadership during the assault. If the Byzantines could have overcome their self-destructive behavior, they would have easily made it to the modern day. Their decline is theirs alone, from the times of Phokas to Manzikert to 1204 and to Michael VIII Palaiologos reversing Nicaean success. If you can get a political class which is less self-interested and self-centered, and most of all does not take the continued existence of the Roman Empire for granted, there is little reason to believe that Byzantium would have disappeared from history.