Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-4923787-20130202175501/@comment-32656-20130406100938

No, what you laid out there was not a plausible scenario.

What I'm saying is that it might not even decentralize at all, but go the opposite way. Heck, I think that the Latin state would be the most likely to end up splitting, given its territories.

Were Gallia to do that it would take more than a couple. More resilient than Rome, remember.

The Veneti would not go to Italy - they were a Gaullish tribe in western Gaul. The Lombards going to Italy otl was actually quite unlikely - they originated on the Elbe, so it makes more sense for them to go west. Really, there's no reason for the Germanic tribes to go to Italy - too difficult. They would go west before that - though they would not manage to takeover, there (at worst for Gaul, they enter the same arrangement as the Gallic client tribes)

I think that the Latin empire would probably fall apart in time om its own - the Italy part would still call itself an empire, and maybe still hold part of northern Africa, but it would lose that status in reality.

The Huns were a very leader-dependent group. When their leader - like Attila - dies, they are more or less off the table.

No more problems than otl in China. Maybe slightly less territory in a couple spots on the northwest frontier, but not much.

No new technologies - the medieval things would just come into being sooner, though conversely the inventions of the Renaissance would likely take longer than otl.

Would not be impossible for one, or even two/three, of these "Romes" to survive to the present. Competition - which Rome only had some of otl - breeds longevity.