What If Justinian Reunited The Roman Empire? | Alternate History
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 10. 2021
- The first 1,000 people to use this link will get a 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/monsieurz10211
The fall of the West Roman Empire had been a devastating blow to Roman Civilization, leaving only the Eastern Byzantines to carry the torch of Rome's culture, but the collapse of the West didn't stop the East Roman Empire from attempting a restoration its Western half under the reign of Emperor Justinian the Great.
In our timeline, Justinian came very close to achieving this goal, having recovered the former Roman provinces of Africa, Italia, Illyria, and a portion of Hispania, but the reemergence of war with Persia, and the terrible ravages of the Justinian Plague ultimately crippled these efforts, and in time these gains were lost. But could Rome have been successfully reunited under Justinian? And what if Rome reunited?
_____________________________________________
#AlternateHistory #MonsieurZ #Rome
New Videos Every Wednesday At 2:30 PM EST
______________________________________________
Donate on Patreon: / monsieurz
Become a Channel Donor: / @monsieurdean
______________________________________________
Website:
www.USofZ.com/feed
______________________________________________
Music Used:
We need YOU to STAY NOTIFIED, folks. Be sure to subscribe if you haven't already, and remember that we have NEW UPLOADS every Saturday at 11am EST.
Big thanks to our good pal, Bulgarian Empire Mapping for helping us make this video as great as it was: czcams.com/channels/D-0LPbxri4fSvd0UoisIfg.html
You put Gensis in Northern Bosnia but it was Eastern of the Drina near the battle of Mountain Cer in World War one in Serbia, Loznica City is near the ancient City of Gensis
The Drina river was the Border beetwen Eastern and Western Rome and now between Bosnia and Serbia this is why Medieval Bosnia was more similiar to Medieval Croatia and the Catholic Church then the Medieval Serbian society
I am not sure I fully agree with the ideas you have laid out, I think it is only fair to change decisions made by individual people so the plague happening (which hurt metropolitan and interconnected nations more so Byzantium came off worse than its neighbours, in addition to Justinian falling into a coma from the plague, and it was his wife Theodora who held the empire together) and the earthquakes are off the table. The point of difference would be the 'eternal peace', successors and Khosrau (or his dad).
Preventing the war with Persia would be the key not winning it as Germanus wouldn't just get more men they were in the west after all. So how to keep peace? Justinian arguably broke the peace as he stopped paying the Persians money stipulated in the the treaty, but he did that to finance the reconquest, no money no conquest. So option 2 destabilize Persia so its to busy with its own problems how? get rid of Khosrau or prevent him from taking the throne Khosrau was to Persia what Justinian was to the Byzantines, if he is not there Persia can be handled this would have to happen early on before Khosrau established himself to prevent a war of vengence against the Byzantines but it is possible.
So the timeline is basically one of Khosrau is not the Shah.
Moving on without the Persian war Belisarius has the men to take the Italian peninsular and Illyria to connect the provinces and he might then have the internal stability within the empire to take all of the Iberian peninsular and the Mediterranean coast of France to again connect the provinces by land.
On to succession this basically revolves around the 'Forgettable Justin' not getting into power, simply 'remove' him and let either of the two candidates become emperor in order to stabilize the gains made but a conquest of the Franks is probably off the table for the successor.
Finally the legacy the problem of all empire is that you run out of great and/or good leaders which causes internal strife and openings for great men of other nations to exploit, the empire was also too big for one man to rule there is a reason it was split in two to begin with so the empire is likely to fracture and fall anyway though how is interesting, the rise of the Caliphate would be a threat but since this a world without Khosrau Persia would have been more of a mess and so would likely still have fallen the question is would Byzantine Egypt, and with at the very least less intense conflict with Persia I am going with yes and this has subsequent effects as the Byzantines have the food of Egypt, we remove Muslim conquest of Iberia and the subsequent catalyst for many things which cause the early nation states of Europe we know to arise, but I still think the Roman empire will fracture and fall at some point, at least starting with the Mongols who probably would have been the ones to take Egypt as the Mamelukes wouldn't be there to stop them.
what if Napoléon ambition had been to retake New France and had spent everything to achieve that goal instead of fighting for dominance of continental Europe.
It was deleted but I had it saved. It won't let me post it in replies so I put in regular comments
The fact that there were so many opportunities for Rome to have held or reunited will never cease to be depressing
Rome was not the western world quite yet. More like a prototype. Im not sure u know what ur wishing
@@historyandpoliticsexplaine4876 It was mostly based on the Hellenic Civilization. Rome's culture and language weren't exclusively Latin but a mixture of Greek and Latin, to varying degrees going from East to West.
And yes, many Greeks believe that it was a better time then, politically speaking. Not only was it Greece's hayday when it comes to technology, art, philosophy and other fields,but also, despite the countless wars of the pre-industrial world, the relative peace brought by Alexander's conquests and by the Pax Romana are seen as the masterpieces of that civilization. If it weren't for the modern Western Europe's inventions and industrial revolution in the modern era, Greece and Italy would still want to recreate the Roman/Byzantine Empire, which has been thought of as the pinacle of classical Greco-Roman civilization.
Killerlightning put it very eloquently.
Don’t be sad it’s gone be glad it was here
Equally it passed some near impossible hurdles which could have destroyed it earlier...
In a parallel universe: “What if the Roman Empire fell?”
I want to be in that universe 😞
@@Fornacis69 same
it will be gay
How do i go in said universe
@@Fornacis69 Verbatim what I scrolled down to say. Well, maybe just "visit" that universe - depending on if I was a Roman or whoever their new adversaries are in this universe...
Justinian and Belisarius liberating the West would've been the one of the greatest moments in history. Glory to Rome!
I would say it would be on par with Aurelian's reunification efforts, if taking a little longer.
In a way they already did. Let me explain. They did the best they could in their difficulties, but they made the idea of Rome being great again believable and alive for us to believe now and perhaps some day their dream their Rome shall arise again ! No doubt if it happens the Rome will glorify them with Eternal Triumph ! Along with others like them. Never give up, keep your dream alive. Rome is an Eternal Idea. She lives on.
@@ClockworkCrow7 I'd say that it'd be more impressive.
Aurelian was definitely a brilliant leader and he certainly reunited the Roman empire, but the fact that he accomplished all that in 5 years hints at the difficulty.
Of course, he was a brilliant military leader, considering those before him failed and I am not trying to discredit him at all, but what I am trying to say is that his enemies were simple usurpers. They were not de jure states with patriotic people, so the only two things keeping them separated were the usurper and his/her army. This meant that as long as Aurelian captured important cities, defeated armies and captured their rulers, he wouldn't have to go on decade-long campaigns.
Justinian's reconquest on the other hand was a little bit different. The roman armies had to capture town after town because decisive battles were not enough. The Ostrogoths, the Visigoths and the vandals had the ability to raise more armies from the populace of the territories that they controlled, unlike the usurpers of the third century, who if anything were far more limited.
The conquest didn't end with victory. The Eastern Romans had to re-integrate, stabilize, assimilate and most importantly, secure the new provinces for the empire. While Aurelian simply liberated occupied provinces rather than a de jure territory of another long-existing nation, meaning that he had far less to do in that regard.
I bet that Aurelian would be able to do just as well in Justinian's place if not better if he had more than five years, but that is just what-if. If we were to judge from these comparisons alone, I think that a full reconquest would be more impressive than Aurelian's restoration and what already happened in history is at least equal, considering that they only lost hold of the provinces after Arabian invasions.
The parts they liberated were great moments still.
Can I remind you that you are a barbarian descendent.
It was pleasure, working with you on this project !
Always is, pal! This project came out amazing!
@@MonsieurDean the happiness for eternity at the end seemed a bit too optimistic. The Mongol hordes falling upon East Europe and especially into the south will be larger. The legions werent able to handle the speed of the first Bulgarian empire. How would they take care of the fastest advancing force aka the Mongols? Its assumed they had 3 or so horses per soldier. The 20miles per day for a Roman soldier would seem like a joke. Persia and Rome cant be ever lasting friends. So rich that no1 else can make them wealthier but looting each other. Ofcourse the Chinese maybe but are at the ars or geography considering Eurasia. Indian kingdoms be good for Persia if it could win. What's left for Rome tho? Who would make them wealthy? Didnt had enough interest for the Germanic forests before would they have it then? Plus these conquests would make a nomadic power attracted to easy gainz. The legions on the frontier couldnt handle the nomads.
my boi Germanus finally getting the attention he deserves
Germanus heir to an empire, slayer or Persians and germs marrier of gothic waifus
Put that on his monument.
Started the Goth gf meme
Fuckin madman
Monsieur Z some Democrats would probably tear it down
@@MonsieurDean little bonus info Germanus and Theodora absolutely hated each other, and Theodora basically prevented Germanus children from marrying and continuing the dynasty.
@@byzantineboi8345 woman moment
We all have different biases about history, but for me this scenario is the ultimate good ending. Roman Empire restored, Zoroastrian Persia preserved and at peace with the Romans.
We are just the weirdest timeline some Roman alt history writer made a book about, with the far-fetched scenario of barbarian states not only destroying Rome but even inventing industry and science.
There is no damn way a stable Rome is not at constant war with the Persians. The only reason the empire stopped expanding was it was stretched to thin and turned from an expanding slaving force to one forced to defend it's porous borders. It is no surprise even after the western provinces fell, the Eastern half never stopped warring with the Persians until they fell to the Arabs.
goes hard
Girls: he didn't even cry at the titanic, do men even have feelings?
Meanwhile boys : 0:10
*Meanwhile men
@@crusader2112 I'm a gonna steal rome.
@@MrExtraordinaire16 Cool. 👍
@@crusader2112 you take the ouest and I take the east and after some time I'l betray you😏😏😂
@@MrExtraordinaire16 Not if I beat you to it.
Next video: *Rome Reunification Is Inevitable*
_Happy Italian noises_
_Angry Barbarian noises_
Deus vult noises intensify
Me as German sacking Rome:
*Oh Boy here we go again*
@@akramgimmini8165 How about what if Germans were the reason for Rome returning to greatness? (Que the sacking of Rome in the orders of German capital here)
Happy Greek noises
Oh my God, I almost cried. I'm glad that you are one the few who acknowledge that the further deterioration wasn't because Justinian somehow bankrupted the treasury, since he didn't, as there was more annual revenues at the end than at the beginning of his reign. And I absolutely agree that the huge reason of the determination after Justinian's death was due to the unfortunate rule of Justin II. Although to be honest the Empire was still very stable and in fact strong, as could be seen by the Emperor Maurice's very successful wars against Persians (he conquered Armenia) and Avars (sacked their capital).
Anyway a great video! Cheers!
Why hello my favorite Roman emperor
Justin II was a diplomatic disaster. Justinian left the empire the best he could have. No empire can declare war on every front and survive
I love the violin in the end of the video, setting an emotionally heartbreaking tone of what the world could have been had the two great powers allied and created a robust trade network with each other and fighting off the other chaotic forces. Creating a beautiful stable world.
music sauce is: Amazing grace (cant find the right version but do send me the link if you find it)
"Monsieur Z post What if Rome was reunited"
Mussoliini: *heavy breathing*
Mussolini becomes a news reporter. The horror!
Interesting idea, not sure if covered. What if the east Roman empire fell (Byzantine) but the western half survived into the pre-renesaince?
Let's say the Goths and Vandals decide to sack Constantinople and Alexandria. There would be a wave of migrations by Greek refugees to Italy. Barbarian kingdoms would be established in Greece, Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt.
The surviving WRE would have to relocate the capital away from Italy as it is too close to the frontier now, and either to Spain or North Africa. The Anglo-Saxons would still settle in Britain. Assuming that Gaul remains Roman territory, Italy would have to be remilitarized which might cause discontent among the Italians. One advantage the WRE has though in terms of geography was that it has its back against the wall, so to speak; the Germanic kingdoms were right next to Persia in the east and exposed to raids by the Slavs and Bulgars on the Danube. This would compensate for otherwise losing the financial base of Constantinople and the East. The WRE armies would just have to secure the Rhine border and Illyria, and ensure enough naval protection around Carthage and Sicily.
On religious matters, the Ecumenical Councils would now have to be held in the West (although with a surviving WRE the Papacy's power would be curbed a lot). The Arian Goths/Vandals would have a lot of trouble with the monophysite populations of Egypt and Syria, meanwhile Greece and Anatolia would remain Orthodox Catholic. Either the WRE or the Sassanids would try to exploit the religious tensions to their advantage.
"Islam remains confined to arabia" A perfect world
Gotta say, this video looks fantastic!
I really think so too!
That title was a magnet to me
I think a great video idea would be "what if King Henry V of England didn't die would be an interesting. He was set to inherit the kingdom of France, dying two months before the current kung died, which caused his son of 9 months to have his claim challenged. Since King Henry V died of dysentery he contacted during a siege, I believe this could be a good difference point, and an alternate history that could be really different where France and England became one Kingdom.
One of your best videos so far...a dream alternate universe
Thanks, pally!
A logical follow up video to this scenario would be can Persia by itself, Rome by itself, or Rome and Persia working together like they did against other mutual external threats, be able to defeat the Mongols.
don't think it would be the case. This video is too optimistic with the scenario. Persia and Rome wouldn't just stop the war because of a common enemy. Even when the arabs were at war with both of them, they still have suspicions of each other. And with the mongols being who they are, it wouldn't take too long for persia to be annexed by them. And then Rome will be next.
@@zebimicio5204 I think persia would fall, but not europe, anatolia, or egypt, as these lands are unfit for the style of fighting the mongols usee
Glory to the empire! The dream has finally been achieved!
...gentlemen, the nightmare is over.
Tell me rome is your favourite ancient empire without telling me rome is your favourite ancient empire
*Make a video on what if the Khawrazem empire won against Genghis khans army and became a major world power of the era.*
For them the only way to win against the mongols is to not attack their emmissaries.
@@doomdrake123 belive it or not they actually had a pretty good chance of winning. It was their king who was arrogant and made stupid decisions that led to the defeat. But if the overall command was given to the prince Jalal Ad Din, who was very very VERY competent. They would have won. The Prince despite losing the empire led a guerrilla camping against the mongol empire. Imagine if he had the full resources of the empire. Yeah, and fun fact they also had horse archers as well.
Very well thought-out video! Really interesting! Now I am aware of who Germanus was and the Ostrogothic queen! Lovely!
I have a suggestion: What if the Serbs won at the battle of Maritsa in 1371? Imagine the possibilities of king Vukashin!
"...allowed fragments of Roman civilization to endure, albeit heavily influenced by the regions' Greek population" as if the empire wasn't heavily influenced by Greeks before then lol
What if eastern Rome collapsed instead of western Rome
Western Rome was vastly economically and institutionally weaker. Western Rome would very similar to the late HRE, with very limited central authority. Western Rome would last at best a century with no Theodosian walls, no strong Central authority and waves of Germanic/gothic barbarians.
the fall of Rome was one of the greatest calamities in history.
If rome still survived they would be stagnant like China was during the Qing empire.
really makes you think huh, this video is at the same time humbling, sad and hopeful
one of the best videos you have done
Blessed timeline. Lots of cool questions to ask too. Would Persia have remained Zoroastrian? No Mughal Empire so how would India be different? Would Christianity have united the world? Without Islam, every continent except Asia (and Antarctica) would probably be Christianized.
The Persian faith would endure, and potentially dominate parts of Northern India.
@@MonsieurDean well there is the possibility of Islam still spreading out of Arabia in that timeline, albeit slower through trade. An example being the kingdom and other states in both south east Asia and in sub saharan Africa whose leaders, scholars and public converting not by conquest but to make trade easier. How would this timeline be different?
@@donaldpaccerelli198 Islam in this timeline would most likely be only in arabia and SEA aswell, maybe egypt too
There were also a LOT of faiths mingling and competing in Asia at the time of Rome, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Hinduism to name a few.
It's unlikely any one faith could dominate the entire world any more than any one state could, humans are far to different and interesting for that.
We're gonna need a part 2 of this. Like... The effects on the coming years
This was the timeline we needed...
If only Rome existed today 😔
Life would suck
@@scavulous6336 How so?
@@Valtk8910 no progression
@@scavulous6336 The Roman civilization was the most advanced at that time
@@Valtk8910 I'm talking idealogical, we would not have the same idealogies
God be Praised! 🙏🏻
ROMA VICTA! ✊🏻✊🏻✊🏻
Bruh. Roma Victa means Rome defeated.
@@georgios_5342 What? But Victa, wouldn't that mean victory?
@@crusader2112 Victory is "Victoria". Vinco is the verb I beat/defeat someone, ie I win. Now, victus is the passive participle, and it means the one who is won, beaten, defeated. Victa is the feminine form. If you want to say undefeated/victorious, you need to say Roma Invicta. Invicta is the opposite of victa, it means undefeated, and in fact it's where the English word "invincible" comes from.
So beautiful it brings a tear to my eye
This is a great video on what-if video about Rome reunited by Justaain's heir, Germanus to reunite the lost provinces and prevent Persia from conquering Constantinople and being an ally to Perisa to face off future rivals such as the Islamic Caliphate, Turks, and the Mongols. I really want to see part two on how this new Roman Empire can adapt through the modern era? For this would be an amazing sequel to see Rome as Europe as a united country similar to the European Union but Roman.
Would this Roman Empire try to colonize unknown land in the east known as Russia and other foreign as Sweden similar to the Manifest Destiny in the Americas or will it not happen? If so then which countries in Eastern and Western parts of Europe will be colonized by the Roman Empire? If this gets a sequel, how can this Roman Empire face a big threat such as the Mongols? what would be the tactics and advantages the Romans have and the Mongols don't have?
This is a great what-if video, Mr. Z, keep up the amazing work and I hope your channel gets more likes to this!!
How would this effect Christianity? Would the schism heal somehow?
The schism probably wouldn't happen as the Roman patriarch wouldn't have gained rival political power in the west. The pope couldn't have named a new Roman emperor like Charlemagne because it wouldn't really matter who he picked because the Romans would have had de facto control regardless. Overall, east and west would remain far more integrated than in the real world.
The schism would have happened. The schism had more to do with a political struggle where the Roman patriarchate wanted complete control over the Constantinople patriarchate in hopes of controlling Byzantium politically to an extent. But given the fact that in Byzantium, the emperors controlled the church and not the other way around as in the Medieval West, this never happened. Also the schism happened more than 500 years after Justinian, a complete different age
Excellent question, and I had some of this written out, but felt it detracted too much from the narrative.
Justinian not needing combat Persia, better dealing with the plague, and finding himself reconquering Rome ahead of time would allow him to continue tackling the already existing religious divide. What's not often known is that toward the end of his life Justinian came to tolerate the Monophysites more and more (lets not forget his wife was extremely sympathetic to them as well). It's believed he eventually became a Monophysite himself in our timeline, as he began promoting the Aphthartodocetae doctrine as a definitive truth of the faith. He went as far as to exile Patriarchs who opposed this attempted reform of the church, and even wrote up an edict to solidify the change, but died just before he could. If we assume he had more time, that change could have gone through during his reign, or been passed through by Justin Germanus in this alternate timeline, who was also believed to by sympathetic to the Monophysites, if not one himself. This would of course expedite the schism at a social level, however, Justinian did not shy away from using government and military force to impose doctrine across the empire, nor would his successors once this precedence was set. Divides are certain to emerge, and a religious war may even break out. This could either end in a singular faith dominating the empire, or a schism much like that of our world.
@@MonsieurDean I personally do not believe that Justinian converted to Monophysitism or adopted Aphthartodocetist theory. Why? Because our only source for Justinian issuing famous Aphthartodocetist decree is Evagrius Scholasticus and no one else. Did he briefly lapsed into Aphthartodocetism? Possibly, but I believe that if he did, he most likely repented before his death, possibly even on the deathbed. As far as my view on this matter goes, I stand by the opinion of Asterios Gerostergios that, if there was a decree or conversion, how is it that it wasn't mentioned anywhere else, but in Evagrius' work? Such thing is to important to not be not only mentioned, but also thoroughly explained by the other important sources of the time like John of Ephesus or John Malalas. Except for that, if Justinian converted to Aphthartodocetism and didn't repented it, I doubt that Eastern Orthodox Church would venerated him as a saint, while the Monophysite Church still to this very day does not.
On the other subject, general public and historians alike usually forget that Justinian actually DID mend the first great schism between the pope in Rome and the Eastern Churches, the so called Acacian schism, which erupted in 484 when the pope excommunicated the Patriarch Acacius because of the Henotikon, an document imagined by the Emperor Zeno which gave major concessions to the Monophysites. But in 518, after Justinian's uncle and, to be honest, Justinian himself came to power they called the Pope to come to Constantinople, which he did, and they worked out compromise by which the Constantinople officially denounced Henotikon and thus fully returned to the Orthodoxy. The importance of this event is so much overlooked that it's unbelievable! I mean just imagine what would happen if Justinian and Justin didn't do anything about this matter. We could've had The Great Schism almost 600 years before it happend in our timeline! The historical, political, religious, societal and social consequences would be unimaginable! In fact maybe you could do a video about that titled like "What if The Great Schism happened 600 before?" I'm joking of course, but still we need to recognize the importance of this event.
This has to be my favorite Rome video
Great video man
Thanks, pally.
Imagine how Justinian felt when he was almost done reconquering Italy and then hearing news of the Persian declaration of war
Brings a tear to my eye
Could you do another rome video over what if the eastern Roman Empire fell to barbaric invasions instead of the west, haven’t seen any videos over this what if
The West was doomed to fall from the start, for various reasons. They East almost fell as well, and it could have several times in its history. The Hunnish Invasions, Bulgarians, Persians, Arabs, Slavs and Normans all had very real chances of taking over Constantinople and throwing the empire into quasi-anarchy. In the end, the Crusaders did it, which made Byzantium a mess (called the division of Romania,1204).
@@georgios_5342 Here's how you keep the West from falling, don't have a ruler take a huge chunk of the treasury and soldiers to the east then split the empire.
It's doable, but immediately it would require various changes to the timeline that are just unrealistic. If I discover a realistic way by which the two halves of the empire could have essentially swapped places, I'll certainly consider it.
@@MonsieurDean the collapse of the gaul frontier played a major in the collapse of Rome. During the 4th century Gaul was extremely populated and prousporous.If the western Romans hadn't shifted their administrative center from Tiers to Ravenna, Gaul would have likely remained intact. Also you can make the huns focus their Raids on Eastern Rome rather than the west.
Damm the animation is great
This was too beautiful
This is beautiful
Great background music.
The good ending.
Do you think Rome would've eventually tried to reconquer Britain? Or would they have decided that it wasn't worth the trouble?
Most likely leave it alone, possibly ally it or trade with them. By the time Justinian was going thru his reconquest Britain was already being invaded by the Angles, Jutes and Saxons (English people).
The main obstacle that the restored Roman Empire would face is the integration of the Germanic nobles that by this time were now used to being the acknowledged overlords of former western provinces. The bureaucracy in Constantinople would be resistant in accepting them as more than barbarians; at best the Eastern court would regard them as having foederati status. The other angle here would be the Arian heresy professed by the Goths, which would be an additional threat alongside the Monophysites of Egypt and the Levant.
Assuming these differences were dealt with by Justinian's immediate successors, the Goths and Franks in addition to the reconquered Western provinces at large would have provided much needed manpower to the East especially in another major war against the Sassanids in the 7th Century and the rise of Islam.
I hate how Rome and Persia both destroyed themselves in our timeline.
This is amazing. I love this. What about Narses? He had something to give. I also see the Roman Empire going north and expanding. Also agriculture is the big missing link. Will someone bring back farming so the population can grow and legions can be restored? Would Belisarius live longer in the West? Would he rise to be Co Emperor ? Or would Justinian travel to Rome to make it great again himself?
Good thing you didn’t upload this 9 days in the future
The best timeline😳
One of the better timelines.
I like the graphics
long live Justinian
Near the end of the video, is that Amazing Grace you have as the background music?
The best ending
It really is, isn't it...
What if Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth reunited?
Wrong channel buddy also is that a FGO Character?
@@vinz873 It is DxD character. the first villain from episode 1.
@@KamikazeMedias oh neat what's the character?
@@vinz873 Reynare.
The baddie that killed the MC in first episode.
Cring
I love your videos, and i own your book!
I like this
what if Napoléon ambition had been to retake New France and had spent everything to achieve that goal instead of fighting for dominance of continental Europe.
Napoleonic France was incapable to cross the English channel, so it would have been totally impossible to reconquer Canada against Britain and the USA
@@TeutonicEmperor1198 so false, they did cross the channel many times, in fact the french completely blocaded the english from entering the mediterean sea. Though no invasion of england happened because Napoléon was to busy fighting literally everyone in continental europe. So my suggestion is what if napoléon didnt fight everyone in europe and instead focussed on preserving and expanding the french colony in america called Louisiana. It wasnt lost yet in that era, in fact it was Napoléon himself that sold it to USA in our timeline.
@@tusk3260 Napoleon's aspirations for a full scale invasion against Britain were destroyed after the battle of Trafalgar! You are talking about raids not invasion, there is a huge difference between those two!
The Mediterranean blockade was enforced mostly by the Spanish navy and not the French one and both of those were sunk at the aforementioned battle!
He couldn't fight to preserve Louisiana because France didn't have strong enough navy to defeat the British and even if he wanted it to he couldn't just ignore the invading of forces of Austria, Russia, Britain, Prussia and some Italian states! Don't forget that the antifrench coallitions were first to procclaim war against France and not the other way around!
@@TeutonicEmperor1198 no, i think you are just some salty brit that hates seeing france getting any positive attention.
It was france that declared war to most of continental europe to begin with and why the heck would britain want to stop france from invading its enemy the USA?Yes at the time the USA was still seen as an enemy by Britain and the USA was actually allied with France thats why Napoléon was able to sell Louisiana to then in the first place. Also in the Napoléon era, all the USA had was some 15,000 farmers with guns... They didn't even have an army. And you are telling me that there's no way the French army that numbered 1,100,000 PROFESSIONAL soldiers could possibly conquer america even if they didnt do war with countries that had no intention to go to war with France to begin with??? Are you dumb? It was France that initiated all those wars because France felt it was strong enough to do it and yes indeed for the first dozen of years France was winning. The other countries would gladly choose peace and allow Napoléon to go to the useless americas instead of losing important lands to Napoléon in continental Europe.
You clearly do not understand how desperately the english and everyone else wanted a lasting peace with Napoléon before his disastrous Russian campaign.
@@tusk3260 First of all I'm not a British even by a long shot! I'm Greek(nowadays allies of the French) and a huge fan of Napoleon while I have mixed feelings about the British!(that doesn't mean that I wanted Napoleon to conquer the whole Europe).
Louisiana was a huge empty land with no actual value other that it's huge potential! But back then it was a deserted land! To transfer even 50,000 troops to the other side of the Atlantic was an almost impossible task to realise! The North American continent didn't have infrastructure strong to sustain that many soldiers and the French didn't have navy big enough to transfer so many soldiers to defeat the pitiful garrisons of Britain in Canada!
Revolutionary France and especially Napoleon were anathema for the European Monarchies! It's true that the French did declare war against them but it was only a matter of time before the Europeans would have mobilised their armies against France! Also you must remember how crucial Paris was for Napoleon's regime and how much other European armies were terrified by him! If Napoleon was at Louisiana, all of his enemies would have attacked France simultaneously and would have defeated her with their vast armies!
If it wasn't for Ricimer killing Majorian and Anthemius, the Western Roman Empire could have survived for a couple more hundred years
What if Russia and America joined the Central Powers ?
What if France became fascist before WW2 ?
What if Zeus unborn son was born ?
What if Hera married Hades ?
What if Archduke Karl lugwig became emperor instead of Franz Josef ?
What if the Greek Gods was the dominate Religion of America ?
What if Frederick III lived longer ?
What if Frederick III married Maria Theresa ?
What if Napoleon fought for Russia ?
What if Mary Tudor gave birth A son ?
What if Richard III Won the war of the Roses ?
What if the two princes didn't go missing ?
What if Henry VIII was elected As Emperor of the holy roman empire?
"Rome, endures"
I cried 😢
Blessed timeline
Uh, you forgot to cite the music. As well, could you also do download links for the music as well? Afterall, I have been looking for that particular arrangement of 'Amazing Grace' so I could listen to it and maybe use it if I ever do a future youtube project.
I wonder how the Viking age would have been if Rome endures.
Considering how Justinian's reign is around what's often accepted as the time of the historic King Arthur (as per the dates stated in the Welsh Annales), one wonders if the Emperor's re-conquest attempt could be the original source of the story of Arthur and the other Britonian kings marching on Rome? The story called the Emperor "Lucius" (probably because the Byzantines never got as far as in this alternate history), but it could've easily been Justinian or his successor (ESPECIALLY if the alternate history in this video happened)--Arthur and Co essentially telling him to back off and stay out of Britain, Or Else.
Looks like 3 turks watched the video so far
9 now. :P
One of those turks is whatifalthist
@@MonsieurDean Lmao
Can you activate the automatic subtitles? Because I am not native English speaker and it is hard to understand everything, thanks for your videos :).
Nice job!
Your thumbnail should have included western north Africa and all of Gaul with the western Roman Empire.
Nevertheless this is a better time line than the current one.
It’s enough to make a grown man cry
East rome was like one of thoose exhuasted runners who almost make it to the finish line but suddenly collapse
do "What if Babylonia survived"
Great video as always, but one mistake was made. Rome would have set the northern borders at the Danube river, not in the middle of grasslands and hills.
Neat
Make a video where Basil II has a competent heir and the Macedonian reconquest continues, perhaps even into the Levantine and Egypt.
Idk how I missed this vid, great job. Do you think Rome ITTL might restore the office of Western Emperor for the sake of making management of those lands easier?
There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish, it was so fragile.
the world's whispers became shouts and she shattered like a fine vase falling off the mantle. Many tried to take the pieces and glue it back together, to bring back its luster and beauty, but it was too fractured and its imperfections were for all to see. maybe someday Rome will be born again in a distant land or a distant world, till that time we can only dream a dream that was Rome.
music? what muusic did you use? especially the last song
I believe that the best case scenario (if plague didn't happen) would have been full Balkans + Italy for a generation or 2 after Justinian's death. Over time infighting would destroy it the same way as it did in our timeline.
Western or Eastern fall makes me so sad 😞
Belisarius and Germanus reconquest of the West ? *Ode to Joy remix starts playing
Make a book out of this. Keep this scenario going until modern times and have to book take place then. Also, what if the Western Empire survived?
Please stop with the Byzantine nonsense, there never was a Byzantine empire. Its a name given in the 17th century to the late eastern roman empire.
Desperately want a Justinian DLC for CK3
Link to the song used in the latter part of the video? I know it's amazing Grace but I can't find the exact cover.
The blessed timeline
You see, I like this.... besides the Settlements beyond the Danube
I like how the european union has basically gotten hold of Almost the whole territories of rome that aren't in the middle east
Have you ever thought you were born in the wrong univers
In another universe there is a youtube video about an alternate timeline where Rome falls. The video would be in Greek or Latin and youtube's logo would be blue.
what about another ancient empire survivng?
as an Arab, I suggest the Abbasids.
the Umayyades were military people, the Rshidun are more surrounded by myth than history since most of it's leaders are integral parts of the Islamic faith, the Ayyubides, Mamelukes, and Fatimids were mixed and not exactly Arabs.... but the Abbasids, they are the ones who had the Golden age of Science in the middle east, they had many client states who revered their king as the highest authroiety in Islamic faith, they had knowledge from Persians, Indians, Greeks, Romans, and from pre-Islamic Arabs as well, tho they did have some corruption, slavery, and other bad things that were common in that era, they were the most secular, and most scientifically advanced empire of that era, so having them around for longer will only push for further discoveries in science, maybe they can re-discoer the Roman Cement and Byzantium Greek Fire, maybe they can trigger an earlier enlightenment (reinassance) age etc...
my left ear enjoyed this video
Actually, the Roman Empire was reunited. It happened in 480 after the death of the last legal Western Emperor Julius Nepos.
Very interesting: The best best still for the empire to live on would had been if emperor Augustus strengthened it from the beginning and made some other changes to ensure peaceful transition to the next emperor, the capital of the empire to remain in Rome, and Hellenism to remain the dominate religion that Roman society is based on just as our western society is based on Christianity!
We can only wish
Interesting
What if Byzantines conquered Persia?
Yeah that wouldn't be possible
If i was emperor of the byzantine empire during the end of the empire what advice would you give me to keep my empire in power?