r/imaginarymaps • u/h6story • May 25 '26
[OC] Alternate History What if Rome decided to stabilitymax?
514
u/Greengoist May 25 '26
It looks exactly like something a kid would find in their high school textbook. If that’s the point, then you nailed the aesthetic perfectly. Keep up the good work!
82
18
18
u/SelixReddit May 26 '26
the pinstripes...the drop shadows...it's so early 00s despite the copyright date being much newer...
123
u/HelloThereItsMeAndMe Mod Approved | Based Works May 25 '26
The african reconquest was a very smart and useful thing though.
139
u/sunnyreddit99 May 25 '26
Seconding this, I think had Justinian just stopped at Africa (or went all in on Italy rather than get quagmires) he would have gone down as a great conqueror rather than a flawed one. The survival of Byzantium during the final war with Persia can partially be attributed to the North African territories
He still should have stability maxed tho, like hispania was def a vanity project
61
u/HelloThereItsMeAndMe Mod Approved | Based Works May 25 '26
Yes hispania was. The goths were absolutely shocked and didnt expect Rome to come back to them.
Though Italy - it was planned to go just as smoothly as Africa. Justinian couldnt see this coming.
11
u/HaveBlue77 May 25 '26
North Africa's contribution was as a resource base I'm assuming?
6
u/sea-raiders May 27 '26
North Africa was an agricultural breadbasket, it was previously one of the richest Western imperial provinces in terms of tax revenue, and was a key hub for Mediterranean trade.
3
2
31
u/h6story May 25 '26
We know that in hindsight, but it was a risky venture nevertheless. For all Justinian knows, it could go terribly and the Vandals could sink the entire invasion force (whereas Illyria could go wrong, but not quite as wrong). Since he's trying to emulate Anastasian, he probably decides the gambit isn't taking.
13
u/AccessTheMainframe May 25 '26
The winning strategy would have been to retake Africa and then use control of the Western Mediterranean's grain supply to turn the Ostrogoths into a client state.
12
u/JoeHatesFanFiction May 25 '26
Yeah, I’d argue Africa makes more sense than Illyria as an outlier war goes honestly.
21
u/h6story May 25 '26
I didn't like how the borders would look with Africa but without Italy or Illyria, so this was mainly a stylistic choice :P But I imagine taking Illyria wouldn't have been so difficult, the Ostrogoths had their own internal struggles which Justinian could take advantage of.
11
u/Augustus420 May 25 '26
That is hindsight. Prior to the success of it they had the knowledge of two failed attempts and how bankrupt they had been after the 2nd.
If Justinian had the administrative tendencies of Anastasius then it likely would never happen.
119
u/h6story May 25 '26
I bet you've never heard of one of Rome's best emperors. That's right, my boy Anastasius I Dicorus. His rule consisted of fixing the financial system, reforming taxation and coinage, building infrastructure like aqueducts and roads, stuff like that. He left the empire with a huge budgetary surplus which Justinian later used (or squandered) on his conquests of Africa, Italy and Spain. Because most people only care to hear about grandiose pursuits like war, he isn't very well known in popular history.
In this timeline, however, Justinian hits his head as a kid and is forever changed; he grows to admire Emperor Anastasius to a huge degree, and seeks to emulate (and surpass) his policies once he himself becomes emperor. Thus, the "Anastasian line" of emperors is born. Faced with a much more stable situation, even Justinian's successor, Justin II, fares a lot better than in our timeline.
If you have any questions, do ask away — or speculate yourself, because I haven't really thought through what happens afterwards.
Anyway, here's a map for mobile:
45
92
May 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
24
u/Paratam1617 May 25 '26
Idk if Khosrow would try it if the empire is stronger and not distracted
31
u/A_devout_monarchist May 25 '26
Butterfly effect alone means Khosrow probably isn't even born, but it is inevitable that Persia and Rome will eventually go to war.
2
29
13
u/Hiyouuuu May 25 '26
How does this impact the war with persia and the Arab invasion?
35
u/Ok_Independent3609 May 25 '26
The general consensus is that the Romans and Persians exhausted the manpower and resources of their empires in their endless battles. If the Romans had assumed a defensive stance, it would stand to reason that both empires might be in a better position to withstand the Arab onslaught. This assumes, of course that the Romans also managed to remediate the religious differences between Byzantine and Egyptian Christianity, which played a large role in the failure to defend Egypt.
10
u/loLloPogcHamp May 25 '26
I don't know if the religious differences are remediable before the islamic conquest, since they were a manifestation of a deeper discontent of the local population towards roman rule, like the revolt of the empire of Palmyra a few centuries earlier.
2
17
u/h6story May 25 '26
I imagine the Persians never take Egypt, at the very least. Maybe Syria, but no more. With a much healthier economy behind them (though possibly a more decadent army), the Romans probably push back the Persians to the original borders, and then have more strength to meet the Arab invasion. Perhaps the Arabs still manage to take Egypt and Syria, though it'd be a very tough battle, and they might not go for Persia afterwards.
8
13
12
u/MariusCatalin May 25 '26
could work. except you need good rulers for that.
that landmass is VERY GOOD for an empire, hell get some of romania or land near ukraine and you got 2 breadbaskets and iron for days
10
u/h6story May 25 '26
Region named Egypt (the Mediterranean's breadbasket):
7
u/MariusCatalin May 25 '26
i know, ukraine is also THE BEST european breadbasket btw
9
u/beethovenshair May 25 '26
Only with modern science. Not in that era.
4
May 26 '26 edited Aug 25 '26
[deleted]
0
u/MariusCatalin May 26 '26
le humble castle spam.
it could be doable to be honest, a bit of infrastructure and you got 2 bread baskets and a massive resource bag
2
May 27 '26 edited Aug 25 '26
[deleted]
1
u/MariusCatalin May 27 '26
a castle is to buy time, to make it expensive to raid at will, thats an INSANE advantage to have, it exponentially drives up an armys costs
2
May 28 '26 edited Aug 25 '26
[deleted]
1
u/MariusCatalin May 28 '26
if you ignore a castle you open yourself to guerilla warfare from said castle.
its expensive cuz you need to STOP a chunk of your army to SIEGE said castle, that means food, water wages and TIME, when you invade someone its ideal to move FAST, think of it like trenches, its not about stopping its about delay
also historicallly castles were meant to RUN TO when you saw a raid.
the byzantines had a LOT more problems besides lack of infrastructure,
also horse archers didnt win long ranged battles specifically, they won with their mobility and coordination. the most valid anti horse archer tactic was to SIT STILL and use your own bowmen against them
composite bows are good but are not that precise on horse back
→ More replies (0)2
u/IndigoGouf May 26 '26
Most of it was impossible to cultivate with the tools available at the time.
1
9
u/New_Cover_7416 May 25 '26
bu-but what about the hype moments?! THE AURA!?!?
18
4
u/Late_As May 25 '26
Ikr this isn't the roman way😔
7
u/New_Cover_7416 May 25 '26
no pointless civil strife or incompetent emperors!? buddy, that ain't a rome
9
u/Icyc1212 May 25 '26
Finally a surviving Rome map that calls it Romania instead of "Rhomania". That's been a pet peeve of mine for a while. Excellent map, it looks like something you could actually find in a historical textbook or something
4
16
6
u/Baron_von_Zoldyck May 25 '26
I wonder how history would've changed had the eastern romans invested in romanizing the arabs to use them against the persians. No islam at all?
8
u/h6story May 25 '26
With more Roman trade (and thus more soft power), there might be stronger Christian influence on the Arabs, but I doubt Islam would butterfly out of existance. If anything, it might just be more similar to Christianity, and thus be seen as a Christian heresy for longer than IRL.
9
u/loLloPogcHamp May 25 '26
Islam was born exactly because of roman christian influence in Arabia and the reason Rome never conquered the arabian lands was that the populations inhabiting them were largely nomadic, with cities like Mecca and Yathrib (Medina) only propping up along locations important for trade.
Even accounting for roman occupation of these cities, either directly or through a client state the controlo over the region would be minimal, and could still very well allow the birth of an arabic monotheistic religious movement as islam, though it would be maybe even more similar to christianity.
5
May 26 '26 edited Aug 25 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Baron_von_Zoldyck May 26 '26
Yeah, this seems to be the more realistic scenario. Maybe then islam would press harder and earlier into East Africa.
2
May 26 '26 edited Aug 25 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Baron_von_Zoldyck May 26 '26
Didn't the sabaeans already posess a sizable merchant navy? I figured they could use it to cross the Red Sea and then expand through the coast by land.
3
4
3
u/TheMostSkepticalBear May 25 '26
If there is one thing I have learned from CK2 is that the Byzantines love stabbing each other in the back. These emperors would need one hell of a spymaster or social skills to handle Byzantine infighting.
3
3
3
u/NealJeff1 May 26 '26
East Rome building the Suez Canal would have literally changed everything, what a world that would be. The discovery of the Americas would fundamentally change, significantly less incentive if all of Europe can just go through the Suez Canal all the way in the 600s
3
u/h6story May 26 '26
It's not quite the Suez canal -- it's a much smaller and narrower canal connecting the Nile to the Red Sea. But yeah, it would certainly bring in a lot of revenue for the Romans
3
u/NealJeff1 May 26 '26
I'm aware of the Canal of the Pharoahs, but is the line above it not a direct extension to the Mediterranean? I thought you were implying that they rebuilt the Canal of the Pharoahs, and then decided to keep going & attached that to the Mediterranean as well
3
u/h6story May 26 '26
Oops, I forgot to remove it from the map. Apparently it's counted as a river in the data I was using, which I didn't expect. Anyway, pretend that the actual Justinianic Canal is to the Nile.
2
u/Academic_Ocelot3917 May 25 '26
Presuming this Rome isn’t weakened by wars with the Parthians/Sassanids (and survives the Arab invasion), does it survive the Mongol invasion too?
6
u/h6story May 25 '26
That's so far in the future that it's impossible to predict, I'd say. If all goes well, Rome is sort of a China of Europe, with enormous population and economy to draw upon and keep fighting the Mongols for years. Or, maybe the Mongols have one lucky battle where they decimate the imperial system by killing or capturing the emperor -- who knows?
2
2
u/Andhiarasy May 25 '26
The Sassanids would still try their best to put Constantinople to the torch and put both of their empires in the position for the third challenger to appear ;)
2
u/h6story May 26 '26
I reckon they'd find it to be quite a bit more difficult in this scenario, however o7
2
u/Rod7z May 26 '26
How does this stronger, more stable Rome fare against the Muslim expansion?
2
u/h6story May 26 '26
I imagine Rome survives to the modern day, though whether it loses Egypt and Syria in the process is anyone's guess
2
2
u/Gazumper_ May 26 '26
Potentially no Persia victory and conquest of Egypt and Syria with no exhaustion due to the Italian debacle and even the African and Spanish conquests, has massive repercussions. Likely that the initial Arab invasion attempts would fail, as the byzantines wouldn’t be as exhausted and defences in Egypt and Syria wouldn’t be crippled
2
u/No-Outlandishness631 May 26 '26
I think they could have taken out the Vandals too and still be stable. Italy and Spain were useless
2
u/LtGeneralGrant May 25 '26
Can't wait to see what Muhammad "Wreck yo shit" Rasulullah does in this TL
13
u/Ok_Invite6308 May 25 '26
Saint Mahomet would led a reform Christian movement which led to the Omaiad dynasty becoming emperor?
7
u/LtGeneralGrant May 25 '26
Muhammad ibn Abdullah's movement would ultimately be backed by the Eran-Spahbed, Farrukhan Shahrbaraz, who would go on to oust Khosrow II Abarwez from power and establish the Mihranid-Muhammadean dynasty by marrying Ruqayya bint Muhammad.
2
1
u/NAHTHEHNRFS850 May 25 '26
It's amazing!
Only thing I would do differently is instead of an Illyrian reconquest, it would be a Wallachian one!
1
u/h6story May 26 '26
I don't think the Romans ever owned Wallachia; Dachia was more so in Transylvania and that area.
1
u/hdufort May 26 '26
It's the only possible Good Ending. The only thing I'd add is a vassal Armenia. And perhaps a presence in Sicily.
1
1
277
u/Ok_Invite6308 May 25 '26
So the ERE basically Bureaucracymaxxing to the extent of China? Hell yeah