What if Rome Recovered After the Fall of the West? - Part 1 | Alternate History 

Napoleon was from Corsica though. Which is in the Empire. So he would either fight for Rome or not be a general at all

Lets just forget that Romans have track record for being extremely adaptive and incorporated successful systems or technologies. If Rome survived it would thrive, the only true enemy Rome has ever known was itself.

Roma aeterna- also Carthage would be speaking African romance so it’d be interesting see how that language evolved within the empire.

I feel like once Charlamagne's kingdom fractured, the Roman's would be more than able to retake their territories in Hispania and possibly even Gaul. The world would be immensely different if the Roman Empire was successful in that. And I'm not so sure Rome would be quite as behind in industrialization as the Ottomans. By virtue of a closer connection to Western Europe as well as holding more resources. Plus, having Italy itself would keep Rome squarely in charge of church affairs for quite some time, and that would make for a very interesting relationship with Christian states outside the empire. The Renaissance as we know it wouldn't take place, since Europe would never really need to rediscover many ideas lost with Rome's fracturing. And it's interesting to think about how nationalism would affect a Roman state like this. I can picture divisions within the Balkans and the Caucuses and Levant, but Egypt and Africa and Italy would have spent so much time securely within the empire that I don’t really see them looking to form their own states.

I think that some of the events later down the line in the timeline wouldn't happen at all, such as the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of communism, etc. I also think that if Rome were to stay alive, it would kind of be like China; switching around who has political control, who was conquering who, and what ideology was in power and such, but overall still a continuous and unending civilization. Much like China, I think don't think Rome would stay under the same system of rule for very long, certain provinces might break away, barbarians might even conquer the entire empire at some points, but overall Rome would become solid enough to never have a threat of dying as a civilization, and the Roman culture and ethnicity would still be alive and well in 2021. Just a few thoughts, great video overall :-)

In the broadest of strokes, this actually isn’t too implausible, given the constancy of human nature has been known since the days of Thuycidides. You can see the similar paths taken between this timeline & the OTL, Rome utilizing appropriate use of Diplomacy & Military force to maintain peace and/or placate foreign forces, just with the added economic & military strength from maintaining the good condition & control over the Levant, Egypt, the province of Africa & Italy. Not only that, but given Roman’s characteristic trait of adaption from foreign powers to their own benefit, I’d see Rome fair much better during the Ages of Exploration & Colonization; being essentially the Christian equivalent of the Ottomans during those time periods. Overall, fantastic work as always! I’d reason that Rome wouldn’t establish direct control of Hungary, and that they would eventually retake Numidia & Mauritania given time & the necessity to compete with the Hispanic states overseas, much like how the Ottomans also pushed across N. Africa following Spain’s discovery of the New World.

4 minutes in, I already have a major nitpick Charlemagne didn't invade italy for fun he had a claim on the title due to his short-lived marriage with Desiderata of Lombardy without that, he'd be more inclined to keep pushing east and convert the poles to catholicism a few centuries early 11 minutes in, I got another complaint the reformation in the HRE ended up the way it did, because local nobles recognized that becoming protestant gave them a more solid powerbase. a Germany that is anatagonized by rome, and is trying to further centralize power, everyone but the most zealous catholic, would become protestant; there would simply be no war, the germans would be protestant

Do “ what if the carolingian empire survived? “

*Ave Justinianus!*

I just don’t see how history goes exactly the same apart from the Romans existing as a strong state

Just a slight bit of criticism: With the support of of a Protestant France as well as the lack of the ultra-catholic Habsburgs of Austria, it is far more likely that Germany would be entirely protestant in this timeline, preserving the authority of the Kaiser, thus resulting in eastern expansion into the collapsing Poland-Lithuania as well as the establishment of several overseas German colonies, likely in South Africa and India, or less likely taking over Lusitania's colonies in South America

small correction: Abu Bakr As-Sadiq was a friend and not a relative of Muhammad

This is awesome. Why would the protestant reformation happen here? The Catholic church wouldn't have abused the power here as it did in our timeline. The Roman emperor would have as much control as the pope(s), nor would the great schism have happened so the Eastern patriarchs would have divided power with the Roman patriarch.

Just a few things: Your video is excellent and it is great that you took the time to research many aspects however you glossed over something’s. 1) You glossed over the Renaissance and I am assuming that you are continuing history, just with Rome. This means that thethe Renaissance would not need to necessarily happen because again, Rome never would have fallen, so you would have to remember that the European nations would in-fact for a large part of the “Middle Ages” seek Rome as a guardian and higher authority. 2) You referred to Rome as the sick man of Europe by the time we arrived to the Crimean war era, however I have to remind you that the reason the Ottomans were called the sick-man of Europe was because of the civil strife that would have been occurring within the Empire. This is something that would not be happening in this version of Rome because there would be no religious or class division that can be necessarily seen. Not to mention, even by then the Western Nations would still see Rome as their progenitor and would retain quite a lot of respect for it as the OLD man of Europe.

I take a bit of issue with this timeline, firstly one of the driving factors for the western powers interest in exploration was not wishing/being able to trade with the Turks but wanting goods from the east really only Venice was trading with them heavily as was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth albeit more sporadically. Since Rome retained control of the Levant for the most part along with Italy Venice as a trade power let alone even existing as a nation would be called into question since most of its trade/political clout was due to the crusades and subsequent trade with the Turks after the fact, which would also imply that the western powers could still freely trade with Rome to obtain goods from the east along the silk road/Persian Gulf/Red Sea so that main driving factor for exploration would be non existent. Secondly without those empires that came about due to that exploration none of the western powers would really have all that much political clout or military power to challenge Rome on equal footing and would more than likely be in a similar state to much of eastern Europe in the 16th-20th centuries namely Britain would be basically a backwater like it was in the Roman era only exception to that would be if they had been fully conquered by the Norse whom had reached the Americas long before the age of exploration and the Norse actually retaining a permanent settlement in Newfoundland and then expanding out from there, at which point the other western nations jump on the bandwagon. Thirdly I don't buy the Arab conquests actually succeeding in any meaningful way if Rome had not been in such a weakened state as it was after the Justinian plague since that plague also effected the Sasanian empire heavily as well in our timeline, two events could have occurred instead 1. Being both Rome and the Sassanids beat the Arabs back independently of each other or 2. They could have established a temporary alliance to beat back the Arabs like they did historically during the battle of Firaz since they would both be in a better state without the plague weakening them both in the financial and manpower spheres . So if the Arabs had been contained to the Arabian Peninsula and not allowed to spread as happened historically Islam would have ended up as nothing more than a minor Arabic cult however, that is not to say it couldn't spread via other more passive means such as trade routes or contact between individual people similar to how early Christianity or Buddhism spread but it still would likely have stayed a minor cult unless a ruler of a nation decided to make it a state religion like how King Tiridates III did with Christianity in Armenia.

It's been two years since this masterpiece came out, but I still come to watch it every now and then. Very good work

Pretty cool! I see you like Roman history a lot. Can't really for the next one!

Love it dude. Amazing content

I always Love your videos on Eastern Rome!!! = still waiting on the access to all the artworks by the way if you don’t mind… both old and new ones forthcoming alike in future vids. Are you going to show + talk more on the inner workings of this new Eastern Rome timeline here in modern day times like you did with your part 2 video previously??? = Would love to see all that, pretty please… and how it differs from the previous ones. My only recommendations on this video in flaws is that I did notice in previous maps and works in history that Eastern Rome did have control over all the Mauretania provinces in north Africa + Numidia and more of the Levant to the south between Egypt + Israel and between Arabia = Jordon for a short time during Justinian’s reconquests… could you add them too please, just as an update? Got some more ideas as well if its ok with you to do after the next one… What if the 4th Crusade never happened? = Could Eastern Rome make a comeback without that tragedy of events ever happening? How would it recover from its previous problems with the religious divisions + economic decline and rivalry with later medieval Europe and Venice = no thanks to the Byzantine-Venetian treaty of 1082 + religious rivalries with catholic Europe and the papal state of Rome + political divisions back at home with dealing with corruption and the nobles + reforming military comeback after the high and late medieval ages come about + introduction of gunpowder weapons, the renaissance + age of discovery = introductions of new trade and ideas + early modern era + industrialism and still fighting on against the Anatolian Turks + other Arab Muslims and others in the middle east. Long story short: What if the Komnenos dynasty and its successor dynasties of Eastern Rome were far more stable and successful in organized leadership throughout??? = What if the Byzantine-Venetian treaty of 1082 never happened under Emperor Alexios I Komnenos?

You're finally back! Yay!

Love this guy very under rated the wait is so worth it

for a small channel you make really great content, keep up the good work man

Amazing video! I enjoyed it very much. Have a good day

Let’s go. Thank you. Keep this up

really like the video, hope you can get more recognition for your work earned a sub :]

Very enjoying. Good work!

Hey, I really liked this video, definitely subbed and am waiting for the next one :)

Love your map style bro 👍

your 4.5k subs should be 4.5 million im falling in love with this channel

Wow, this vid is fucking awesome. There must be so much hard work going into making this, I just can't even imagine.

Would Poland and Lithuania even unite without the threat of the Teutonic order? And napoleon while Corsica had no ties to France?

Nice concept

Very nice video!

This is exactly what i’ve been looking for.

Protestant France? What a cool concept, and one that is a very reasonable outgrowth of this Roman survival scenario.

1. Without Henry VIII's annulment crisis, England would remain Catholic/Orthodox. 2. Neither Poland nor Lithuania would have enbraced Protestantism or Communism.

Underrated channel

Love this video

@Neatling I want that world map you use in the videos. The map looks so neat and nice.❤️🙏👍😀 Btw great work.

Wow, just found your channel. Dont know if you have a discord yet but id be down to join. Looking forward to alternate histories, history and mapping. Theres plenty of scenarios other youtubers havent covered id be interested for you to cover :)

Yep, this is an instant subscribe for me

Much luck bro!

Since there were far less brutal wars in Germany and Italy, they may have similar populations to Russia

Rome exists, still history plays out almost exactly as it did.

You do realize that with Rome, not only not worn out by the sassanids war but also with more power than in our timeline would crush arabia very easily

I was beginning to worry about you man... nevertheless great video, I see improvements, very nice indeed!

Interesting take . I always wondered the outcome of the Ostrogoths kingdom surviving and becoming a Romano-gothic empire of the west .

I really enjoyed the video mate, it was really precise and felt realistic but may I mention a few points that might've been overlooked? First off I think the Roman's would've gotten into colonizing america as latecomers taking some minor territories, and they'd probably have colonized Indonesia, southern tip of arabia, indichina and maybe even india...just a thought

Hey man video idea!: What if every country had its borders drawn based upon their cultures. Like you would have to break something like Belgium into Flemish and French.

This was a very good amd well thought out. Do you think you can do a scenario where Sweden wins the great northern war?

This is basically what if eastern Rome replaced the Ottomans and survived until today and I think it’s really interesting

Really interesting video, thank you for that it is well-built. I would just point the fact that you could have take into account to propension of Roman politics to go on civil wars.

Okay at first I was really confused when you called the alliance NATO, but then you mentioned America and that helped clear it up!

If Rome was in Charge it would be Above all others, on industry, science, philosophy, religion and anything else.

Another great mapper I found.

Can you make a video on a surviving alexander empire?

I couldn't understand why it didn't lost any lands ??? For example what is the reason behind the muslims couldn't conquered Egypt and north Africa?? And why would they retake Levant after the muslims successfully invaded Persia?? And why would the Romans stand against the mongols ?? What happen with the magyar and slavic migration into the Balkans??

Man, you scared me with that music at the end. I see you're a man of culture, however

I enjoyed this a lot. Is it simplified? Certainly, but when talking about keeping Rome together, and existing over such an extensive time period, there is no way to handle this without either going super simplified, or falling down a million rabbit holes of possibility. I also enjoy the look and feel that these maps give.

I really don't see history being the same with the exception of a largely stagnant Roman empire replacing the Ottomans. First off, the Byzantine-Sassanid war of 602 would not necessarily have ended with massive Roman territorial gains. In fact, the Roman-Sassanid war was triggered by a specific incident, and began more as a civil war against Phocus (at least in the eyes of defecting Byzantine troops) than a proper invasion. Without the murder of Maurice, Khosrow II would have invaded. And without the shortage of funds in the late 6th century, the Byzantine army would not have revolted against Maurice. Rather, the two empires would have continued to cooperate, at least through the life of Maurice. I don't know if some other event might have triggered a similar war, such as Maurice dying of natural causes and a civil war against his teenaged son. But, it is more likely that both empires would focus on other fronts. The resurgent Byzantine empire has more than enough to worry about it Italy and Spain, in addition to the historical Balkan issues, while the Sassanids were focused on Arabia at the time. If both empires were at peace, the Muslims would probably not expand out of Arabia, and might have even lost to the Sassanids in Arabia, provoking more Sassanid and Byzantine intervention in the region. (For example, the Muslims attack Sassanid Yemen, the Sassanids respond by expanding up into Hejaz, while the Ghassanids (clients of Rome) expand down south from trans-Jordan.) That would mean Islam does not exist for most practical purposes, probably surviving as a minority religion in Arabia. That means of Zoroastrian Persia surviving, a Christian North Africa (and probably West and East Africa in the later middle ages), no crusades, and so on. But conversely, we shouldn't assume perpetual smooth sailing if one disaster is averted. Maybe, after Maurice died of natural causes at 70 (in 609), there was a civil war between his sons. During the war, the Avars attack the Balkans and take Constantinople, and the Empire permanently splits into Western empire centered in Rome and North Africa, and a Monophysite Eastern empire centered in Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt. The Eastern Empire falls during the Muslim expansion, while the Sassanid empire keeps all its territory east of the Euphrates. The Muslims expand up into southern Balkans in the 7th and 8th centuries, being welcomed as by the Christian Greek population as liberators from the barbarous and pagan Avars. The Western Empire loses North Africa, but is able to maintain control of Italy and most of the Mediterranean islands. In this timeline, the Roman Empire re-Latinizes, but Italy is conquered by the Magyars in the early 10th century. Eventually, the Kingdom of West Francia liberates Rome, and France is titled the "Holy Roman Empire" is this timeline.

Nice

Anyone know the name of the song used in the intro?

Best scenario

Please post again soon

I think the greeks should have gotten southern Crimea back after WW1 as it would likely have quite a few greeks. Hard to know for sure though

what is the program you use for maps?

Is America the same size or bigger? Nice video

I don't really see this scenario has plausible, to me it just feels like Rome became the Ottomans

It almost feels like romes recovery had no actual effect on history. Most major events played out the same

I like your take on the altenate Thirty Years War that involves the changes in religion, language and culture that parallel the geopolitical changes of a much stronger Roman Empire (which I assume would still be based in Constantinople). With the Empire holding unto Italy for much longer, the Papacy won't grow influential and the Great Schism didn't happen ITTL. However, France, Germany, England, Scandinavia and the PLC would set up their own national churches with their own Patriarchs claiming to be on the same level as the Pope, but still in communion with the "Roman Orthodox" Church of the Empire. So the alternate Reformation would occur via these national churches formally breaking ties with the Roman Orthodox and forming their own "league" of churches, much like how the OTL Oriental Churches exist today. As for language: Portuguese, Castillian and French would go into a more Greek-influenced direction. North Africa would develop its own Romance language which might be more or less a widespread version of Sicilian. With no Norman conquest of England, English would retain its mostly Germanic roots and have more Nordic influence, especially if through the centuries England would maintain close ties with Scandinavian kingdoms to oppose the Empire.

Dude the amount of history that would be preserved if Rome stook around like this is astronomical! If 1204 never happened, God!

"Mhm yes."

What was the music at 17:30

Great video. I suggest also considering the religious tensions between coptic Alexandria/Egypt and Constantinople. I think it was one of the main reasons why Egypt fell to the Arabs in the first place, as the last were seen "more religiously tolerant" than the romans. I believe North Africa could easily "fall" to the caliphate, but I wouldn't exclude resistance pockets around Carthage and a possible "reconquista" campaign started from Italy.

Did scramble of Africa by the Great Powers happened in this timeline ? P.S. Love your videos, keep up the good work

Two notes out of the gate; 1 - The way you word your opening statement on the status of the world perpetuates the false notion that the West just ‘fell’, when it didn’t. People didn’t stop being Roman, the institutions of the Empire continued on under Germanic rule. It was in fact the brutality committed against Italy during Justinian’s reconquest that destroyed what was left of the Roman culture in Italy; also leaving the peninsula desolate and in ruin for decades; a contributing factor to why it wasn’t profitable to hold, and was eventually mostly lost again in less than 50 years. 2 - Your words on Constantine ‘reuniting’ the Empire make it seem like the Tetrarchy was another crisis, when it wasn’t. It was still the same united Empire, only split into four administrative regions each ruled by a member of the Imperial College; with an effective Senior Augustus above them all. The ‘reunion’ we see only occurred after the game of politics, which Constantine won, saw the Empire reunited under one Emperor. Added to this, it was Constantine splitting the Empire up into chunks between his children upon his death, in an attempt to mimic the Tetrarchy Diocletian had painfully out together, that began to the trend of the Split Empire. 3 - A sudden shifting of fortunes, just because they hold more territories, isn’t going to see them beat the Sassanids down hard enough to take away Mesopotamia, that’s utter wank. Added to this, you’re acting as if simply having those territories gives them more soldiers and resources out of the gate; it doesn’t. Eastern Rome was the most prosperous half, and even at full tilt Justinian had to dangerously depopulate the Eastern Armies to affirm his conquests. They won’t be suddenly shifting troops, especially with threats to the north. At best the Empire would simply have enough troops to stonewall the Sassanids to the East. I’ll not even mention how retaking Hispania isn’t viable, let alone worth it. 4 - The layout of the timeline, at least to me, seems a little wonky, but I could be wrong on that. It makes it seem like 20 years after Justinian died the Muslims showed up and kicked in the door; a century early. If I misinterpreted that feel free to correct me. 5 - Calling the Patriarch of Rome/ Pope a ‘puppet of Rome’ functionally makes no sense. If he is dubbed as Patriarch it would imply that he is a member of the Ecumenical College/Pentarchy, alongside the Patriarch’s of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. He’s not a rival ruler, or even minor independent ruler; he’s an official of the Empire in functionality. 6 - So the Caliphate effectively poofs out of existence as a threat after being stopped from annexing the Levant? Why would a force as militarised and fanatical as the first Islamic Caliphate stop trying to take away Roman lands just because they got slapped out once? Having them suddenly and rather boringly replaced with the Seljuks, and then the Mongols, basically carves out centuries of Roman-Arab relations. 7 - Rome deciding to start conquering lands they’ve never held, such as those held by Hungary, makes no sense with how the Empire’s identity developed. Throughout the Eastern Roman period, as well as their continued existence, we see the constant trend of Emperors pushing to reclaim Roman lands of old, or acquiring functional conquests in Armenia. There is no spirit of great ‘conquest’ in the Empire anymore, as due to several factors, such as the loss of the West (not to be confused with the ‘fall’ of it, mind you) for over 60 years prior to Justinian’s reconquest, the Empire’s mindset was effectively on conservation. To put it bluntly; the Empire would never shake the notion of not wanting to waste resources and manpower; always fighting with the notion that at any moment their army could be destroyed and they’d be left weak. There isn’t going to be any major conquests of, let’s say, Hungary. Only consolidation. 7 - Why in God’s name would Protestantism even form? There is no independent Catholic Church to fall to corruption if the Seat of Rome is held within the Empire; as Orthodoxy is historically as being able to keep itself in check due to the various competing major Churchmen. There wouldn’t be a donation scandal to cause a reform, nor anything akin to it-as the Orthodox Church, in contrast to the Catholic Church, does not see itself as infallible, and thus never truly degraded in moral fibre as the Catholic Church did. 8 - A foe Germany could not defeat for the first time? They lost to the Alliance of Rome, France and Britain well-before Soviet Russia. Added to this; how do the Soviets industrialise so quickly without being a detriment to themselves? It just don’t pan out. 9 - How did Rome avoid losing its major conquests into Hungary to nationalism? It feels rather odd to see it simply retain control over such large swathes of territory that aren’t culturally or linguistically Roman at all. - I will say, at least you learnt from your mistake of forcibly democratising the Empire and kept the Emperor as an institution.

Can you make a video on if Ussr survived longer

Aw,I thought Bavaria would stay it's own nation, you briefly gave me hope

Can you do a video if Ireland in the 11th century under Brian Boru and his heir survive long to keep Ireland united. I know you're busy but would you ever consider it.

An often forgotten factor was multiple megavolcanic eruptions that caused major crop shortages around the entire planet.

You did it, you fucking madlad, you stood the test of time

where can I find your map?

List of Roman Wars (During and After the Justinian Era): 1. Gothic War 2. First Hispanian War 3. Seventh Roman-Sassanid War 4. Roman-Rashidun War 5. Illyran War 6. First Roman-Bulgar War 7. Roman-Frankish War 8. Second Hispanian War 9. Second Roman-Bulgar War 10. Roman-Seljuk War 11. Mongol Invasion of Romania 12. Pannonian War 13. Roman-Crimean War 14. Roman-Polish War 15. Roman-Safavid War 16. Mesopotamian Revolt 17. Reformation War* 18. Russo-Roman War 19. Napoleonic Wars 20. Pannonian Rebellion 21. Great War *While not explicit, France also took over Corsica during the war.

I like this video

Why does Lucitania exist instead of Portugal, what's the historic precedence? other than that brilliant video :)

the good ending that we needed

Can you do Bangal

How do you make your map?

Pretty good

Me an Lombardian seeing this video: "damn! If the Longobards never invaded Italy, half of my ancestors are gone! Even my hometown was founded by the Longobards!"

This would be an AMAZING Hoi4/Vic3 mod

I like how basically nothing changed

Map: the Aquitaine controlled by the Visigoths was the northern one (A. Prima & A Secunda), which for some reason you place (too early?) under Frankish control. Their control of A. Tertia (alias Novempopulania, later better known as Northern Vasconia and later as Gascony) was filmsy at best. Only the Franks would eventually conquer it but took them lot of effort and several major defeats.

Awesome video! The only topic that was sort of left unexplained and skimmed over was why the reformation happened in this timeline? None of the original motivations for the reformation in our timeline would presumably be there whatsoever, so I don't really understand why it would happen under the circumstances presented in this video? You could in our timeline draw parallels to the responses to the reformation in e.g. Russia and other Orthodox countries... nothing remotely comparable happened under the Orthodox church hierarchy, which was traditionally very decentralised compared to the Catholic.

BTW, I have this music on my playlist.

It would be Interesting to see a scenario where Justinian gave up on reconquering the West and instead went to re-create Alexander the Greats empire instead.

Hey, I think there may have been some historical events that you did not consider, even though they may have played a huge role in deciding the hegemon of europe. In your alt history, Napoleon Bonaparte is born french, however wasn't Napoleon born in Corsica which in this reality belongs to rome? So, it is possible that Napolean, after having been a successful general of the Roman Army for a little while, also attempted a coup d'état in Rome like he did in France in our timeline? Considering this could actually change a lot that would have gone through in Europe, since Rome already had control over egypt, this could mean that India(my country), in this timeline, would have probably become a Roman Colony, as Napoloan had also tried to do this when he had control of France in our timeline but couldn't as he wasn't able to get control over egypt. This also means that, with the resources from India and transporting manpower for soldiers from India(which would be easy, as Indian Sepoys could be transported from Mumbai to the Roman Empire through the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden), the Roman Empire would be able to conquer the Iberian Peninsula and even most of France, if not all, and establish puppet states throughout Europe and also conquer Morroco and Mesopotamia. This due to the fact that in this reality, Napoleon has less enemies, as the likes of Austria would be a part of Bavaria, as per your Alt history, and Bavaria would be a Roman ally, due to the commonality of religion and also the eventual marriage of Napoleon and Marie Louise. Also, due to the large manpower of the Indian Sepoys, Napoleon may have also been able to have defeated the russian empire, through many bloody battles using the Indian Sepoys' sheer numbers. This may have caused a lot of discontent amongst the Indians back in India, and the Indians would have revolted causing the first Sepoy Mutiny(which also happened in our timeline in 1857 against the british) which would have probably occured in 1815 in this timeline. Napoleon would have probably relinquished control of India, and would have allowed India to become an Independent country, which would be a monarchy led by Akbar II. Napolean would do this to shift is resources towards maintaining control over Crimea(and other Ukrainian territories) which would be annexed from Russia, and also maintain control over France which would have many rebellions, considering that it would be protestant in this reality. Napoleon will also not die in 1821 like he does in our reality, as he is the emperor of the Roman Empire and is not poisoned(which he may have been in our timeline). With Napolean growing to an old age, he manages to crush revolts in France and keep it, and also manages to cripple Britain's economy through the Continental Blockade, and hence Britain will also become a puppet of the Romans. With his death in the 1850's/1860's, he is also able to teach his son(Napoleon II) how to be a good, future emperor of Rome. Finally, with Napoleon II on the throne after his father's demise, there starts to be growing tensions between Rome and the the Rising German empire, which leads to all out war between them in 1871. Spent a lot of time working on this, hopefully you see this and share your thoughts on it as well. :)

The war between the Communists and Germany in this timeline would definitely result in a world war that would outright destroy the USSR or all the Western empires in this timeline, there won’t be a Cold War since this conflict will have developed the same mindset both sides of WWII developed in our timeline: not settling with anything less than total victory. Most communists unlike Stalin in our timeline wanted to ignite a “world revolution” and would probably not be as calculating as Stalin was with his deals he brokered with the West (which many communists at the time hated him for) since they hoped their ideology will take over the world. Communism in this timeline would be seen as the fascism of our timeline if this were to happen. Also, the odds of the USSR industrializing were very unlikely since many communists unlike Stalin thought the country was better off functioning as an agrarian one and if there is no industrialist like Stalin to develop the country in this timeline, the already low chances of winning such a world war in this timeline would drop to 0. Even then, the communism as described in this video is very unlikely to exist at all let alone a version that is nearly identical to the one of our timeline. Why would an ideology like syndicalism, distributism, some variant of anarchism, or ethnonationalism (since the empires of this timeline would incorporate even more peoples) not become prominent but communism, as we know it, would? Would Liberalism even exist since a strong imperium like the Roman one would oppose such changes ever taking control anywhere? Since every Western power would look up to the now very alive and existing Rome of this timeline, no one would have liberalism take over their country since Rome would exist to crush it and would rally all the other Western nations to crush it as it would have a strong martial and very traditionally imperial culture that would oppose such reforms.

After this Can you do this 2 scenario about WW2 What if Western Allies joined Axis aganist the soviet? What if Hitler never suicide and decided to surrender?

Rome is hard to predict since it had constant civil wars and those cicil wars led to its greatest defeats