Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-4923787-20130202175501/@comment-32656-20130504084452

...Can, what you're referring to is the names of those countries in their own languages. That doesn't apply here.

Almost every Chinese dynasty changed its capital. That was a dynastic thing, nothing more. Basically, each one had its own center of power, and that's where they based themselves.

Rome did not do any such thing until the end. These three states wouldn't have any reason to do it.

Most states do not, in fact, ever move their capitals.

No disasters have ever really befallen Alexandria. And it's a large enough city so that razing it would be difficult, at best.

Not impossible for an assassination to have that effect.

Given the situation in the west, there's really no way a successor state could survive the fall in Italy.

Several reverses the Byzantines had could, had they went differently, have made them last longer.

In Superpowers, clear changes are laid out starting in 180AD or so - it works, in some ways.

Rome's situation in that period is always overstated. The word "supposedly" is also normally used to describe it. The one section held clear advantages, and outnumbered the other two combined. Adding the Persians and barbarians going after the two rebel "states" into the mix, and the net result is obvious.

Reform was necessary when Diocletian came to power - anyone would have done at least some. The effects, however, are mildly overstated - the constant civil wars of the next century can be directly attributed to these reforms.

If just the military and economy get reformed, the empire would be more stable, but I don't really see it lasting longer.