Forum:Age of Glory

New Version(s)
Okay, so maybe I should have a POD that allows the survival of the Western Roman Empire?

What if Orestes wasn't appointed as Magister Militum by Julius Nepos, and Nepos reigned longer? He was known as an able administrator, so could he have kept Italy Roman? However, Ravenna would than be the Roman capital.

So could Rome be saved from sacking in what, 402? Or is that inevitable?

Canuck2012 (talk) 23:52, October 4, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Perhaps you should come up with a POD first, and then make the alternate world from that, instead of going in with what you want the alternate world to look like and scrambling to find a POD that will fit it. LurkerLordB (Talk) 00:08, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no such thing as a "pro-feminist leader" at that time.

I think you need to listen more to want you find for yourself, and less on what you hear, Can.

Verbatim: The capital would not be moved.

Orestes or not, Nepos would still go down. And even if he somehow managed not to, the capital would still not be in Rome.

Lurk is right. Find a PoD. You're not getting these results like this.

Lordganon (talk) 21:46, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

All I want is a Roman Empire or Roman successor state having Rome as its capital and eventually becoming the world's superpower after the Roman Dark Ages, or Fall of Rome, whichever works.

Now, what are some PODs that could bring this as a result?

Could the non-Sacking of Rome have allowed a Roman state to exist in Italy after Western Rome's fall?

Could the Romans have offered citizenship to slaves aswel as foreigners citizenship in exchange for military service? Or is this OTL?

Canuck2012 (talk) 23:56, October 5, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

A "non-sacking" of Rome would not change anything.

Nor would giving the slaves any rights have had any effect.

Can, there is no way any remnant would have Rome as its capital, let alone become a "superpower."

Lordganon (talk) 00:34, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, is there a way that Western Rome's fall could have been prevented in the last century of its existence? And with Rome as its centre?

Canuck2012 (talk) 02:43, October 6, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

No. Heck, for that matter, in the last three centuries of its existence the capital was not even in the city of Rome. Lordganon (talk) 02:52, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so here's a scenario:

In 475, Julius Nepos goes against his initial decision to appoint Orestes as Magister Militum-instead, appointing Ovida. Although Julius Nepos had unknowingly secured his power for perhaps the remainder of his life, things weren't at all peaceful. He made enemies, particularily in the highly ceremonial Roman Senate.

Officials in the Senate grew more fed up with Nepos, and on August 23, 476, the Senate, with the aid of ironically Flavius Orestes along with foreign mercenaries, seized control of Latium and declared the restoration of the Roman Republic.

In disarray,the Roman Empire couldn't hold against the threats of invasion aswell as internal anarchy. Taking advantage of the situation, Odoacer and his foederati captured Ravenna and Mediolanum, causing Nepos to flee to Dalmatia. Southern Italy fell underneath the control of the Republic, and the Kingdom of Italy took the North.

The Senate than repealed all of Diocletian's reforms, granting the Senate complete control of judicial and legislative affairs within the Republic, while creating the posts of Chancellor of the Republic, which as well as acting as the modern term of President, controlled the military.

During the next month, the Republic eased tensions with the Kingdom of Italy, and began a restructuring of the military,as well as granting citizenship to foreigners and slaves in exchange for twenty years of military service.

However, on October 8th, 476, Chancellor Orestes used his position to reinstate the Roman Empire and place his son, Romulus Augustus, on the Imperial Throne, as well as abolishing all of the previous reforms. The land was in anarchy, and in order to quell the usurper, the Senate enlisted Odoacer's help, with drastic consequences: The Roman Republic would become a vassal of Italy, with Odoacer as its King. Also, Italy insured that Rome would cede all Italian territory excepting Latium. In no position to decline, the Senate agreed. The Senate also, in order to distinguish its lands from Odoacer's kingdom, adpoted a "flag": a red banner with SPQR surrounded by golden laurels.

Orestes was defeated, and him an Romulus Augustus were executed in the Roman Forum, or what remains of it. (Would Oresetes have seized control instead of remaining Chancellor of the Republic?)

Canuck2012 (talk) 16:49, October 6, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

By 475 the Romans were doomed. If they had some comeback against Odoacer, they would have fought a war with his forces for a while, then get conquered by the Ostrogoths in a decade, or get conquered by the Vandals. It's unlikely they would be able to fight them all away, and even if they did, it would leave them incredibly weak, weak enough for some "reunite Rome"-minded Eastern Emperor to conquer. LurkerLordB (Talk) 01:09, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Lurk has it. Not possible in the least.

I'd also add that Orestes would have overthrown the emperor whether he had his otl position or not.

Lordganon (talk) 02:14, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

How is this not entirely possible? Rome obviously was weak. Weak to the point that the Senate rebelled and re-formed the Republic. Weak to the point that Orestes rebelled and installed a new Emperor. Weak to the point that the Republic became a part of Odoacer's kingdom.

Can you please give me ideas on how to improve upon my ideas, 'cause I really want a Roman timeline that isn't ASB. I'm losing interest in alternate history, having things that are completely perfect and no room for creativity tends to get depressing.

Canuck2012 (talk) 16:57, October 7, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

You need to find a POD and work from there. The problem with all of your ideas are that you have an image of how you want the modern world to look but you have no idea of how to change history to fit your image. You need to find a POD and then build from there, not go the other way. LurkerLordB (Talk) 17:05, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

The Senate had not had any real powers for two hundred years by the time the empire fell. Their authority ran no further than the city of Rome itself, and even there, it was insignificant. Them doing anything like that at that point is just not realistic.

As we have both said, Can, you need to take a PoD, and work with it. Not try to make a end result happen - the result of attempting to do that is going to be ASB almost every time.

Lordganon (talk) 18:54, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

All I want is a Roman timeline. Than I'd work from there. I guess I'm quite stubborn and jump ahead of myself, lol.

I could do the overdone, what-if-Julius-Caesar-wasn't-assassinated, but I doubt the Roman Empire would survive to the modern day, or at least the 1800s.

What would happen if Marc Antony defeated Octavian?

Canuck2012 (talk) 20:37, October 7, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

I would imagine that he would become the emperor then, instead of Octavian/Augustus. Or he wouldn't be able to consolidate his power and Rome would stay in civil war. If you want a stronger Rome, having Antony become emperor seems better. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:56, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

So, suppose Antony defeats Octavian at the Battle of Actium, and proceeds to gain victories across the Balkans and into Italy, and ends the civil war around 30 BCE.

Octavian was executed and condemned by the Senate. No member of the Octavii clan was ever to be named Gaius again.

What exactly would he have done differently as opposed to Octavian? And would he have been named Augustus Caesar? Or would he have selected a different name?

Canuck2012 (talk) 22:36, October 7, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

In many ways, the Battle of Actium is overrated throughout history. Even if Octavian had lost it, a loss in the war would have been highly unlikely for him. He held advantages in basically all manners during their conflict. The effect of a loss by Octavian there would have been almost nil.

By the time their wars started, Antony had more or less already declared himself an emperor in the fall of 34 BC. And while he instigated the war by attempting to give away half of Roman territory, he did not actually start it, either.

He would not be able to take over the Republic.

Nor would he ever had named himself anything remotely close to "Augustus Caesar."

A better idea, Can, but you're still trying to get a particular end, without the means.

Lordganon (talk) 05:24, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

What ways would Antony make Rome stronger?

I seriously don't know anything military strategy-is there anyway you know that Antony and Cleopatra could have defeated Octavian? Perhaps in Actium they caught him and either arrested him or more likely executed him?

If he couldn't conquer the Republic, the Empire would be centered in the OTL Eastern Roman Empire, right? With a capital most likely in Athens or more probably Byzantium itself?

What would his domestic policies be? Building projects?

What would Egypt's status be? Would Antony have Cleopatra as his Empress, and the titles of Egypt simly of tradition? Or would Egypt be autonomous, or even seperate of Rome?

How long would it take for the Empire to conquer the Republic? Before Antony's death in 23 BC? Or during the reign of his heir Antyllus (ATL styles himself Antonian) 23 BC-14 AD?

Or possibly under Drusus's (who is known as Agrippa, or in full Marcus Vipsanius Antonius Caesar Agrippa) reign between 14-23 AD?

Or even later in the reigns of Sejanus (23-25 AD), Auriola (25-56 AD), and Tiberius (Gemellus, that is, 56-69 AD)?

Canuck2012 (talk) 13:26, October 8, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

The only way they would be able to "win" over him would be to have killed him. Not that they ever had a chance at that, of course.

Even had they killed him, the "republic" would still have been too much to take. The western Med would belong to the Republic, and parts of the east the Antony regime.

At Actium, Antony and Cleo actually had none of the advantage. There's a reason why much of their fleet was destroyed and they lost the battle. In fact, that they got out of it at all was, quite frankly, a fluke. They spent most of it blocked in a small estuary by the fleet of Octavian, who led far from the back.

And if they by some miracle captured him, Arippa would have kept fighting and still likely beat them in the war. The people of Rome absolutely hated Antony by this time.

Antony had married Cleo, crowned himself king to her queen, and given Roman territory to her vassals. his capital, without question, would be in Alexandria and centered in Egypt. Nothing at all to do with the ERE.

Egypt would not be able to take the Republic. Think of it more like the other way around.

Lordganon (talk) 21:02, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Victory at Teutoburg Forest?

Well, maybe another 100 years. 200?

Or perhaps, you could have Caesar (Julius) surviving the Ides of March, maybe Brutus never joins, so the assasins decide the backlash would be too great? Pity though, that in that universe some sort of pun/quote-loving parallel would never be able to say, ''et tu, Brute? ''(AND that rhymed, too. say, Brute? Anyone?)

Though frankly, I don't see any permanent empire of Rome lasting till the modern day hapening.

You could go the Superpowers way. That's an awesome TL, but I don't really see it being plausible.

The Royal Guns (talk) 22:46, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so in an ironic turn of events, the Roman Republic is reinstated? I'm not sure if this is true or not, but could that have prevented Rome's fall somewhat? I've heard that the Roman Republic wouldn't have expanded as quickly, thus saving the overextension and inflation of the Empire. Though if the Republic encouraged foreign settlement into Roman territory (for a price), couldn't the "barbarian invasions" be less severe?

I really don't see a Roman state surviving from 753 BCE to now. Yes, Egypt survived relatively intact for about three thousand years, but Rome is different. I'd like see Roman civilization survive a fall of the Empire, although Roman culture will disintegrate over time.

No offense, but the way Superpowers describes Rome's survival is quite sketchy and in my opinion, ASB. Though, I may simply have not read enough.

Canuck2012 (talk) 01:25, October 9, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Not even a reinstatement of the Republic - which would be basically impossible - would help. The problems would all remain. And the invasions that came after Rome fell otl were actually worse than the ones before.

The Republic actually expanded faster than the empire.

Can, Roman civilization isn't going to survive in Italy like that. One of the surviving remnants elsewhere, possibly. But not in Italy.

Superpowers doesn't go into all that much detail about how it happened, for good reason. As it stands, it's barely possible. If they went into depth more about the "how," I'd bet it would not longer be plausible.

Lordganon (talk) 05:25, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

But how would things look after Octavian and Antony are removed from the picture? A very bloody dissolution of the Roman Republic?

I was reading about either the Roman Republic, Senate, or constitution-apparently one of the reasons the Roman Republic fell was because of the social divisions between the landowners, workers, and slaves. While reading about this, I came across the Gracchis. What if their propositions for redistributing land were taken seriously and adopted, instead of the assassination of the brothers. Highly unlikely, considering the Senate's conservatism, though if their reforms were adopted, I think much of the crisis that plagued the Late Republic could have been alleviated.

Let's say that the Republic survives into the ADs. During the Crisis of the Third Century up into the collapse of Rome. would the Roman Empire rise in the turmoil? And would granting citizenship (for a price) alleviate some of the invasions?

And I was just thinking-since Chinese civilization has survived for millenia and she's had a very tumultous history, couldn't Rome survive, too?

Canuck2012 (talk) 19:37, October 9, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Well, Superpowers isn't plausible, but it's still an awesome TL. Somewhat like Sundered Veil. It is an option, all I'm saying.

The problem is, Rome was sacked, looted, destroyed- and unlike China, Rome is very, very small. Chinese civilization survived because it's impossible tio destroy all of it (including nuclear armageddon). Rome is one city. Most of it's land did not share it's culture. Gaul, Carthge... Even the rest of Italy! So, basically, to destroy the empire... or republic... you need to destroy the city. And in order to destory the city, you must destory the people, the culture.

lol. Foundation. Any of you guys read it? Perfect analogy for the fall of rome.

The Royal Guns (talk) 20:26, October 9, 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard of Foundation. Sounds interesting, though.

That makes sense, but doesn't. Russia, China, and the US all have multiple regional cultures spread out across their territories, yet if you sacked Moscow, Beijing, or Washington, all these nations would survive. Though, considering the fact that Rome basically was Romeocentric, that works for the Roman Empire.

But is the republic-reforms-later-empire idea more plausible, along with a possiblity of a more united culture? And maybe if they focused on other cities besides Rome?

Canuck2012 (talk) 22:20, October 9, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Can, as I've already stated, with both of them out of the picture the Republic comes out on top.

There is no way that the Gracchi brothers could have gotten their "reforms" instituted. And to say that they were "reforms" is an exaggeration, too. There would have been little effect had they been implemented.

Nor is that one of the reasons why the Republic "fell." Add to that, it turned into the Empire. It did not fall.

Realistically, some sort of dictatorial government, empire or otherwise, was just a matter of time for Rome. There's basically no way the Republic lasts past the first century AD.

They actually did do that with citizenship. Didn't do much good.

Rome was nothing like China. Many different peoples, in perpetual wars with another empire, little geographic barriers. China has none of these problems, and has a much larger population, with a fairly unified culture.

And, Guns is right - Rome was very dependent on the capital. China, less so.

No, Can, it's not more plausible.

Foundation is more than a perfect analogy - the base/inspiration of that series was the book "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire."

Lordganon (talk) 07:06, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Arg! Why did the Roman Empire's fall have to be so complicated? I guess I could theoretically go the Superpowers way, and say the Republic goes on until the Fall period, and emerges as an Empire. I mean, AltHistory doesn't always have to be completely plausible, right?

Canuck2012 (talk) 19:45, October 10, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Yep, that's your best bet. No real other way rome will survive.

Didn't know that about the Foundation, actually, though I did somewhat suspect it.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:47, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Let's say Gaius Marius was more succesful with his reforms, and adopted many aspects of the Gracchi brother's attempts, however while appeasing the conservatives of Rome.

However, the Republic and its constitution were still weak, and Julius Caesar still exploited these factors and nearly put an end to Rome's Republic. This era is known as the Crisis of the Roman Republic.

After Caesar's assassination, Octavian, Lepidus, and Antony formed another Triumvirate, which eventually dissolved into civil war.

Octavian is killed while attempting to kill Lepidus (who is also killed), leaving Antony as sole contestant as the next Caesar.

However, the Romans didn't like Antony, and joined together to throw him out of the Western reaches of the Empire.

As Antony retreated to Egypt, Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus became Roman consul. During his term(s), Corvinus strengthened the constitution and restored Gaius Marius's reforms, effectively stabilizing the Republic, and transforming it into a semi-dictatorial Republic with the Populares as the only recognized faction.

Although Optimates were outraged, they wanted Pompey out of the way more than remaining in control of the Senate, and were united for a breif time.

Octavian after the Crisis would be buried in the Mausoleum Caesar Augustum, and he was awarded the tile Augustus, which many generals would be granted for honourable services to the Republic.

The Republic would slowly conquest Britain, Mesopotamia and Judaea, and colonize much of North Africa and Europe up to the Rhine and Danube.

However, conditions in the Republic caused much dissent dispite Popularist rule. Christ was executed and the Christians were purged, causing massive division in the Populares. When the Jews rebelled in the 40s and 60s, more humane actions were taken, and in 70 AD, all the Romans did was loot the Temple of Solomon, which quelled a lot of problems.

A Fourth Servile War, common with the people (particularily women and Egyptians), occured between 80-96 AD, which caused another crisis, one faction supporting continued enslavement and gladiatorial combat, and one faction supporting liberty, arguing that is what the Republic is founded on.

In the end, slavery was outlawed, but mainly on paper only.

During the 200s, Christianity continued to grow, and foreigners began to invade Roman Territory. The city of Byzantium was also growing as a major political and cultural centre, rivalling Rome.

The Second Crisis of the Roman Republic began around 280, when women began rioting enforce, from Judaea to Britannia. The Crisis ended in 300, when the Chancellor Constantine, a general, rose to the position of Consul.

However, he instead of giving more reign to the people, utilized the turbulence to declare himself Imperator Caesar Augustus. All was fine, until he declared Christianity state religion. The outrage caused popular revolts in the East, and the Republic refounded itself in Byzantium.

The Eastern Roman Republic and Western Roman Empire fought for control of Libya and Illyria for many years. The two Romes lost territory in Africa, Britannia, and Asia Minor, before both governments finally agreed to aid eachother for self-preservation, which indeed worked.

During the mid 500s, a Strategoi of Byzantium known as Justinian was elected Consul, and he eventually used his position within government and popular sentiment to declared himsel Hellenic Emperor, or Basileus, of the Byzantine Emperor, and abolished the Roman Senate, effectively ending Roman rule in the East.

Rome would resurface from its isntability in the 600s, and would regain control of southern France, and portions of Spain. It would enjoy relative peace, often interrupted when Rome declared support for a Persian regime during times of Byzantine-Persian warfare.

During this time, the Catholic Church began to grow in power, and began to undermine many reforms that were in place for centuries, with limited success, for the time being.

In the 800s, Roman power waned again, though to the point where Rome nearly fell. Viking raids ensured Spain and France remained out of Roman rule, and Charlemagne posed a great threat to Rome's declared hegemony over Europe.

During the 860s, the church became the backbone of the Empire, and Rome became a strongly theocratic power, and greatly opposed to Islam, despite good relations that had beem established during Harun al-Rashid's reign.

The 900s saw greater consolidation of Roman power, and Rome invaded France, conquering much of the South, and extending rule acroos the Pyrenees.

During the 1060s, the Norman and Roman empires divivded French lands between them, and Rome conquered much of Spain. However, life in Spain remained much the same, as the various duchies retained relative independence,

The 1200s saw relative unpopularity with the Empire, and the Byzantines were weakened by Mongol Invasions, and Turks were infiltrating their lands.

1265 saw unpopularity soar, as the English Magna Carta influenced the educated in Rome. People began to support the seperation of chruch and state, and the reintroduction of the Roman Constitution.

In 1330, the relatively independent duchies of Champagne (Campania), Normandy, and Burgundy merge to form the Kingdom of France, triggering the Hundred Year's War. The War was devastating, and in the end saw Roman rule confined mainly to Italy and the Illyrian coast, and recognition of French independence by Rome and the Angevins.

The unpopular war also saw the rise of revolts in the Roman Empire, and in the 1450s, the Roman Revolution forced the Empire to reinforce the Constitution and reduce the power of the clergy, thus forming the modern Roman Empire.

76.11.101.57 21:36, October 10, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

If Caesar and Octavian somehow were defeated, Pompey would probably have stayed in power, I don't see how he would be exclued from the Triumvirate.

It is unlikely that slavery would be outlawed.

If Julius Caesar failed, then Constantine would not call himself Caesar, and if Octavian never became emperor as Augustus, he would never call himself Augustus. Same for the "Caesar Augustum" Mausoleum and the Augustus title, they are named after a person. Christianity was stronger in the east, considering that is where it began.

Julius Nepos wouldn't even be called Nepos if the Eastern Roman Emperor was nonexistant. Any dark age that lasted 344 years would mean the fall of Rome. Julius Nepos was dead by 820. Even if you mean 520, he would still probably be dead by then, as he would be about 90 years old. LurkerLordB (Talk) 21:50, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Also, Can, that's a little bit heavy on the women's rights again. They didn't have those kinds of rights back then. They couldn't revolt, and there are good reasons they didn't- they'd be massacred by the soldiers!

Also, there is no reason I can see that Octavius would die, him being the most popular and having the best claim, not to mention the largest army.

Slavery, not happening.

For a good idea of what the Gladiator games were to the roman public, go to www.pitofwar.com and read the description of the game. That is actually pretty much a good idea of Rome in it's later years. Minus the non-human intelligent beings.

The Royal Guns (talk) 23:33, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, minus the Byzantine bits and the revolts at the 1200/1300s date, will it be acceptable?

Canuck2012 (talk) 23:36, October 10, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Can here's the problem. As the empires later years dawned, any conquest became impossible.

Here's why;

If you have a srong emperor but a weak general, the general will be defeated. Prognosis: Defeat, inability to conquer or defend. Catastrophic loss.

If you have a weak emperor and and a strong general, the emperor will be deposed by the general. Prognosis: Border provinces breaking away, other empires take advantage of civil war. Catastrophic loss.

If both are weak, then the empire will have significant losses, perhaps enough to destabilize the whole thing. Prognosis: Possible fall of the empire. Catastrophic loss.

If both are strong, then either a) The general will try his hand at the throne, launching a massive civil war that will collapse the empire. Prognosis: Certain fall of the empire. Catastrophic loss. Or b) The general will have been executed beforehand. Prognosis: No expansion, however, no loss. Stalemate, leading to eventual stagnation... and Catastrophic loss.

Basically, nothing's happening after roughly the year 400.

The Royal Guns (talk) 23:49, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Oops,I just realized I put Pompey instead of Antony. Pompey by this point would have been killed, no?

For one thing, there would be capable peopler, and Rome transitions into Italy and Greece culturally. Two, I think we've established the whole Rome-surviving-till-present-day is pretty implausible. This is my way of making an interesting storyline like Superpowers. Of course, this is a rough overgeneraliztion and I'll flesh it out.

Canuck2012 (talk) 00:27, October 11, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

Can, that last idea in general is just not possible. You're still trying to make up a story to get a particular end. Doesn't work. Lordganon (talk) 06:21, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Can, ever notice how few famous leaders we know of? There have been hundreds of thousands, but we only know of a select few. The problem is, for every Caesar, every Churchill, every Martin Luther, every Gilgamesh, every Solomon, you have 100 nobodies, people no one cares about, and 5 Neros, who are famous because they supremely screwed up, or were just terrible people (or, in some cases, both).

You cannot assume that an enitre peoples would be more capable than OTL.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:22, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. This is pretty much an example-it'll change a lot in the actual timeline, which I'm working on.

Canuck2012 (talk) 21:28, October 11, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

I have an idea, which I don't know if it is plausible, I'll wait for Lordganon, but here it is:

Rome falls a century or so earlier, before the Germanic invasions, due to an internal civil war permanently breaking the empire into many small pieces. As the Germans slowly begin to migrate into Europe, the Roman states in Italy regroup under a new leader, and thus, re-energized, manage to defend at least Italy from Germanic invasion. Is this plausible? LurkerLordB (Talk) 22:45, October 11, 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe I didn't think of that. But yesss. Let's wait for LG's opinions.

Canuck2012 (talk) 00:07, October 12, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

The main problem with that, Lurk, is that if the empire does that, the German tribes would cross the Rhine within a few weeks. They took advantage of Rome to do that every time something happened to destabilize the empire. Would be nothing "slow" about it.

Italy would also have gone to one party, not several.

Lordganon (talk) 02:29, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, how about this?

The Octavius vs. Antony war is a lot more evensided, with Antony making several surprise victories over Octavius. However, Octavius holds the advantage of public opinin.

The war is going nowhere fast, and for that matter bloodily. The newly found empire shrinks in size, till it barely controls Italy, North Africa, and South Germany. However, at this point, a truce is agreed by both sides, and the war comes to an end. The Germanic tribes, which were now plunging into South Germany, are taken unawares and smashed back, all the way north, by the combined Roman armies. In order to completely eliminate any threat from the barbarians, Antony decides to perform a 'Harrying of the North' (basically, what William I did to the North of England). Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of Germans are slain, wiped out, and ground to dust. There will be no threat from here, ever again.

Fast forward 200 years. Rome, though it seemed to be on the decline, is seized by a new dynasty, forestalling that particular doom. The first act is to make Christianity the religion. By now, the romans have seized practically all the land on the med, and much more. Gaul, Asia MInor, North Africa, Much of Germany, South Britain, Iberia... so on, so forth.

Flash forward 800 years. The Roman empire has fallen, but like OTL, it split before it's collapse. Rome itself has gone dark, but the city of Londinium has not. It inherits spain, France, and part f North Africa, and from this fledgling empire, grows on further, capturing back the ruins of Rome, long since sacked by Muslims from the Seljuks, then going further, smashing deeply into Asia Minor. With the fall of Rome, Christianity was troubled, but within a hundred years, the Londoners have grown truly great.

Still, all things must end. Flash forward to the year 1700. The Londonium empire has fallen, though Britain itself is still held. Roman culture lives on, though through the states that dominate North Africa, Europe, and Asia Minor. It even survives in the New World, specifically in the state of Caesarium, named after the founder of the Roman empire. Caesarium is no doubt today's superpower.

But it owes it all to rome.

The Royal Guns (talk) 19:41, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think your previus idea is more plausible.

Say the Roman Civil War of 350 becomes bloodier and Rome falls. Britain and Spain are tribal federations, with a High King presiding over the other Kings, like in Ireland. Gaul is dominated by Constantine II. Constantius gains OTL the Byzantine Empire. Constans is thrown out of Italy by Magnentius, and fled to the Illyrian provinces. Egypt, controlling Cyrenaica and Judaea, and Carthage, Numidia, and Mauretania are independent Romanized states.

The Barbarian Invasions saw the collapse of several of the successor states, with Italy shattering into pieces, and Constantine's realm spanning across the OTL Kingdom of Soissons. Meanwhile, the Eastern Empire holds out and wars with Armenia and Persia, and Carthage conquers Mauretania and Numidia became dynastlically a part of Carthage. Carthaginian Emperors than earned the title of King of Kings of Qart-Hadasht and Numidia.

Canuck2012 (talk) 22:34, October 12, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

They did not control South Germany until later than that. And it would be among the first areas to fall.

They would not lose control over areas like that. Guns, you're missing just how much land they actually controlled at that point.

Nor would they do a truce. Areas under the control of Antony wouldn't even be remotely threatened there - not that you've included those areas of the state in you list, mind.

If Antony had tried such a thing in Germany, his force would have been wiped out. Not like the German tribes could really have gotten over the Alps, anyways.

Guns, that scenario just really isn't possible.

The Roman Civil War of 350-351 was really a rather one-sided affair, for good reason. Constantine and Costans were also both dead before it started. Magnentius lost for very good reasons overall, which wouldn't change here.

Lordganon (talk) 23:20, October 12, 2012 (UTC)