Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-4923787-20130202175501/@comment-4923787-20130425220235

And depends on what happens after the Sun unite China.

But could those sources remain dominant over coal or oil?

I know that, I'm just thinking of names popularily used to distiguish between the Empires. I've gottern used to Hellas/Hellenic, but I think Italy/Italian would be a better distuinguisher than Latium/Latin.

So the Hellenes are doomed over time? Would it just get gobbled up between whoever remains a Roman successor and the Turks? That is a good point about what would happen if they did ally though.

As to Neronis, people popularily referred to him as such, so couldn't it stick, even though it's not really his name? Kinda like a name of a popular celebrity; even though they change their names or get married, their names remain what they were when they became famous. Like Drew Barrymore.

I mean a direct land connection.

Out of curiousity, can the Mediterranean Roman successors remain centralized until there's no real turning back?

On another note, you said that the Pala were the closest to uniting India early on, but what about the Gupta? They were said to have caused the "Golden Age of India", and owned a fair chunk of the subcontinent themselves, so could they have formed India? Would Samudragupta have been able to conquer more or all of the South during his campaining, or his successors?