Please check out and subscribe to my new channel "Ultra Future": kzfaq.info/love/yMpW_xDwvRD4zEHP_F1t1Q The revenue from this channel will be used to create better videos on Maiorianus.

Maybe with a Roman Europe we would get a situation like China, with periods of a united Empire alternating with periods of separate small kingdoms.

This video should be titled "what if everyone stops being a power hungry backstabber and starts playing for the team"

The empire should have been divided anyway. Otherwise it was overstretched. Emperors attempted to reunite the empire again and again, but their success was short-lived, while the land took damage every time, this was done.

I would like to thank Sebastian for the extraordinary work he has been doing for years with 'Maiorianus'. It is not easy to build such a popular and followed channel by never deviating from its main topic, the Late Roman Empire. Sebastian has succeeded, and this means only one thing: that he is competent, prepared and capable. I am proud of the attention he has paid to my reconstruction, physical through historical re-enactment and academic through the publication of scientific papers, of the lost memory of Emperor Maxentius. I thank him for his sensitivity in understanding that even the defeated must have a voice and dignity if we are a modern and civilised people. The damnation of memory may have been justifiable in Roman times, but today it is terribly anti-historical. On the contrary, I believe that knowing Constantine's adversaries better and ennobling them will also make him who won greater greatness. Then, of course, it is left to everyone to prefer one or the other protagonist of history. Thank you Sebastian for the excellent video, one of many hundreds, thousands of possible uchronies, but undoubtedly very fascinating. A hug my friend, see you soon.

Thanks for your high quality historical videos.

I was wondering the same thing. Definitely a more welcoming situation for the Arian Christian Germans. And yes, Rome would retreat if it didn't fall, at some time. The next question might be "What if Justinian fled Constantinople?" roughly leaving it in a state of civil war - but likely preserving both the Visigothic and Vandal kingdoms, perhaps even with a break away Egypt. The joker in the deck would be the evolution of Bellisarious' career.

Today, we’d be able to visit the Tomb of Achilles and Alexander, the Serapeum… and the untarnished Acropolis of Athens , the Acropolis of Pergamon, and the Platonic Academy. It just goes on forever how different the world would be.

KZfaq creators are in the same boat with musicians these days. Digital serfdom. Big respect for your dedication.

How realistic would it be for the worship of the Classical Greco-Roman Gods to the present day

One issue that plagued the Roman Empire and is neither discussed nor considered here is that they heavily relied on slave work, driving the economy. Long term, this might have prevented the development of power machinery, even though the skills and fabrication methods were ripe for it. Short term, where to source further slaves in an already overstretched empire?

I have been waiting for this. Bravo!

I push for a debate with Schwerpunkt on such topics. It would be confrontational but amazing. I love Late antiquity being discussed more in depth

If only, man. If only!

🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus

I think the key to the industrial revolution is the fact that slaves are expensive to maintain, and once someone would have imagined the idea of steam power [in any century] it would have opened up the possibilities of cheaper ways of getting tasks done with machines and without having to feed slaves. We are seeing the same thing happening now as computerized machines are replacing people which couldn't be replaced before.

I like you’re content in general for showing an often forgotten period of history and showing the fall of the west as not just a permanent decay but you’re heavy bias towards the classical idea of imperial Rome is really showing in videos like those. It’s practically just fanfiction. The idea that policy changes were the most decisive reason for the increasing border problems in Rome instead of economic stagnation and political instability and an increasing disability to integrate foreign people (and the advancement of those people btw) is more than adventurous. I fail to see how a Rome that strengthens and actually fights its border regions and leads expeditions to Dacia would be more equipped to fight a gigantic war with Parthia and somehow win against a competitor state on the same level as Rome in economy and warfare. The idea that there would emerge a more „tolerant“ (I guess you mean pluralistic and only because I hope you don’t mean just good or better) Christianity would emerge ignores the incredible revolution in thought that Christianity established. To simplify it very much instead of religion being a part of culture which needs to enacted in a very legalistic and routine way Christianity established a personal relation to the divine. The entire of faith and therefore religion being a separate thing from culture comes from this distinction. This created a personal requisite for salvation which includes (from there Point of the State) the possibility to includes this fervent believe to the Defense of the Christian realm. Instead of Christianity weakening the imperial Ideologie it strengthened it but only when it was ingrained into the culture meaning that when only looking at the late Roman western empire it looks like a destruction but an ideological foundation that could be destructed by that didn’t deserve to exist further. Rome splitting was inevitable when looking at the cultural divide between the Greek and Latin sides. The unstable borders would create constant trouble for a centralised government while the splitting of the empire creates the possibility for usurpers like the Gallic and pymerian realms. Like it or not but Rome like all empires would not only change but in the end fall . Constantine was one of the best emperors because he’s changes made the Roman Empire survive for century’s longer while keeping the empire stagnant trough fundamentally old and obsolete ideas in new colours like in the video it would be finished way sooner. Plus the Christianity bashing is like always cringe and feels like pagan LARP

Great stuff as always. Just started making alternate history ourself ^^

I feel the urge to play total war Attila

Ahah, so smooth. Way too smooth sailing here.

Seems like a highly optimistic alternative timeline

I don't think a Maxentius victory would have been all that great for the empire. First, it's by no means certain that there would not have been a civil war between Maxentius and Licinius. Second, it would be impossible for the empire to conquer Germania. By this time, the Germanic tribes were competent fighters, having learned from their interactions with the Romans. Additionally, there is the problem of the natural border-there's a reason why Rome never expanded past the Rhine and Danube, namely, the topography enabled them to defend their frontier. Finally, you still have all the problems of inflation, disease, natural disaster, climate change, Huns, and, of course, human frailty-how can we be sure that Maxentius' successor would not be another Commodus or Valentinian III?

Thanks!

14:00 thats just a fever dream, like in a world when nothing really goes wrong and you achieve everything just because, no way they would conquer germania or the entire iranic lands

I've been looking forward to this

I love your loyalty to an integrated empire, Sebastian! Even if things had gone differently, though, and the army, security and prosperity of Rome was rejuvenated and restored, there are always unexpected forces waiting in the wings. Like the Huns or Mongols or Slaves, ready to throb or be pushed, destructively, across the limes. Or the discovery and clash with other civilizations, like perhaps the kingdoms of the Gangetic Plain, or the Khmer and China. And eventually whole new worlds meet each-other, like Jesuits and Japan, Conquistadors and the Inca or Aztecs. Rome might have met its match in the formidable Maya. So many empires begin as defensive maneuvers, and then a string of victories fills the wrong heads and hearts with ambition for more. And under the perennial excuse of security (identity) honor (patriotism) and virtue (religion), a new ideology becomes the tip of the spear of offensive conflicts, appropriation of land and loot, and the careful dehumanization of the enemy--which is always everyone but us. So the vanquished become our slaves, and we take the fruits of their labor; consequences that have nothing to do with simple defense against uncivilized invaders. In their rise against such barbarians, how many small societies have forgotten why they first sent sons over the horizon, where barbaric impulses were indulged, terrible violations of women and children grew common, and as atrocities accumulate on both sides, distinctions between the virtuous defenders and the invading barbarians dissolve, and the confluence of their savagery becomes a dark-red pond, seeping into the earth that both sides' forbears once trod, plowed and shared. Longterm, universal moral reasons eventually undermine the reason for empires' very being, I think. Even if particularities and technicalities, like bureaucracy, treachery and mediocre leadership, also share blame.

This looks like an absolute best-case scenario. More likely, 3 years into Maxentius' reign something stupid would have happened, Maxentius would have died because of it, and a civil war between six emperors would have started tearing the empire apart again.

We would be living in an utopia today if so

Ave, Frater! This was VERY GOOD! On the thought of a Speculative Future on Rome, may I recommend the book "Roma Eterna" by Robert Silverberg? And, based on your premise that Maxentius defeated Constantine, what would the effects be around the rest of the world? From what I've seen, you mostly focused on Europe, which is understandable since you are a European but what of the Americas? And, from the viewpoint of Maxentius' Rome, what of trans-Asia, that is, east & south-east Asia? Looking forward to your kind response.

Is nice to put a face on that voice. Good luck with your new project! Also, is that Borsec in glass bottle? Good for şpriț, and no microplastics. 👍

I can see the Coptic Revolution happened in this timeline eventually in the alternate version of the Crisis of the Third Century. And if it succeeded, Egypt will become an independent nation once again with Pharaoh as the Head of State. And to secure the safety of the route between Rome and Carthage, Sicily will become an important strategic location. And sometimes, Sicilian cities such as Syracuse or Palermo might even occasionally become the capitals because of such a reason as well. But aside from that, I do not know how will Europe and North Africa will looked like at all. The only other things I that I am certain is that Rome will do everything it can to keep Carthage and Sicily, and that Islam might looked southward for the expansion instead. Who knows, maybe the Caliphate based in Mogadishu twill come to dominate the Swahili coasts down all the way to Zanzibar Island in the south while also launching raids against Ethiopia when it was under both the Zagwe and the Solomonic dynasties in the manner similar to how Caliph Harun al-Rashid conducted raids against the Roman Empire based in Constantinople in our world.

What sources did you read and use for this video?

Thanks

Ah what a great, perfect vision. For SOL INVICTUS!

You would have had the Praetorians continue to exist, for one. For another, you'd never see the Empire shift power eastward, meaning when Rome fell (and it would) the east would not survive. You also would have seen renewed persecution of the Christians, which would further divide and weaken the empire as well as set back all the progress brought forward by Christianity. All in all, a much worse timeline than what we got.

Without an industrial revolution I cant personally see how the Romans could maintain control over such a large swathe of territory. They would have needed enhanced logistics and military technology as the barbarians at the borders caught up with their superior armies. Theres also no indication that the crippling civil wars would have stopped had the battle gone the other way. Although I love the idea that Rome could have reached the stars had it survived...sadly nothing lasts forever...except Roman concrete 😂

Now, as a result of this very interesting video I just purchased an old time classic book as an e-book: The Last Pagans of Rome by Alan Cameron. Should be interesting to read! 😎

If Maxentius was victorious, the Burning Times might never have happened...

What happened in Egypt after the fall of the Empire, and how, and in what way, did that differ from how the province was treated under the Empire? I was just watching your video: When did the Middle Ages Start? And you went over how it happened west to east and said what that looked like, but in Egypt, you simply said was conquered and converted.

Well without Justinian there would be no Constantinople. It means that: -The empire would fall much earlier not only in the west,but in the east too. -Atila would make havok in Greece,destroying what was left of the greek culture. -The germans would still not care about the preservation of classical works: most of it would be lost without the church or the byzantine basileus. -Even if Rome and part of western territories hold the germans,the eastern part of the empire would fall to either Sassanid Persia or the Arab expansion.

Imagine a world where Constantine lost at the Milvian Bridge. This video explores the ripple effects, from a fortified Rome to a blended Christian-Pagan faith. It's a fascinating alternate history, prompting questions about our own timeline's

It is said that the II century was the pinnacle of Roman Empire. What if a proto industrial economy had evolved? Would the germanic invasion have occured differently? Imagine a fourth century Roman army equipped with fire weapons

Even with the victory of Maxentius i still believe Christianity would triumph due to its prolific and missionary nature, and now with a tolerant ruler it could spread far more than before, especially in the east. I really dislike the idea of destruction of statues and pagan temples and pagan persecution on one hand, as i believe tolerance would be a better way of taking the word of Jesus Christ to the pagans, but the idea of this religious mixing is as dislikeable to me as the persecutions, and to be honest they already happened in some forms with the many heresies that sprang up ever since the founding of Christianity, with many a pagan philosophy incorporated in their ideals, just as in Latin Catholicism as well. Note: i'm brazilian orthodox christian, in here we actually have this religious mixing in some religions called Umbanda and Quimbanda.

Not a problem My friend I will subscribe to the other channel.

Maxentius was not the bloodtristy tyrant the later propaganda portrayed. But he sided with the city of Rome and the senators simply for lack of other allies. Had he won he would had just switched to the army and moved his capital elswhere where he could had absolute power without competitors. And dont forget with him the praetorians would had remained a cause of trouble and early "retirement" of emperors

I like the counterfactual but it seems a bit like a 'good ending' where every decision is the correct one. If Maxentius won then there might be a major Christian uprising, possibly with Persian intervention.

Was A Great Vídeo

Can't watch it without feeling weird, it's just too good to have happened.

Roman Succesor States and their importance: 1. Italic or Roman Empire (dominates the Mediterranean, afterall, they own every single island in it and if they would have the strongest Mediterranean fleet, it would be a Mediterranean hegemon), 2. Byzantine Empire (has the city which connects the road to Asia and Europe called Byzantium in this timeline), 3. Gaulic Empire (giant france with Rhineland and Britannia most prominent continental power), 4. Hispanic Empire (dominates Iberia and therefore controls the entrance to the Mediterranean), 5. Carthiginian Kingdom (controls all the grain that used to go to rome), 6. Egypt (could build the Suezus (latin for Suez or something idk) in the future, but until then it's just a rich ex province), 7. Anatolian Empire (controls Middle East and probably dominates it (not counting Egypt) and in the future has a lot of oil which would be important), 8. Germanian Empire (has the Dutch coast and knowing how ludicrous it was in OTL, Germania could a strong colonial power alongside Gaul and Hispania (beacuse of Atlantic and North Sea coast) if the age of exploration even happens in this timeline). What's your opinion on this?

Soo many if's but i guess that's why it's fun.

Christianity shortening the empire’s life ? I’m not aware of any big rebellions due to anti christian sentiment. If anything it made the empire live longer after death. After all, we often forget the reason everyone looked up to rome so long after its fall is in big part its religious significance

I don't think there's any reason to suppose that the shift in The Empire's centre of gravity would have been reversed by the defeat of Constantine. What is more likely is that with its capital remaining at Nicomedia The Eastern Empire collapses completely during The Great Sassanian War, with huge consequences for subsequent West Eurasian history.

That is .. for the most part .. fairly easy to suggest: 1) had he died or been captured, Licinus would have battered his way through to Maxentius (in time) with vengeance in mind. 2) had he lived and escaped, Constantine, that most Roman of all late Roman claimants to the empire, would have returned the capital city (no, not 'Rome' .. but Milan). 3) if he had returned to Milan, Maxentius - as Roman as the next man in the empireat the time - would have started counting beans .. or least the grains of sand, pip-pip-pipping until history's inevitable rematch was set; for Constantine savoured revenge, served cold (ask Licinius). I would not have liked to remain in Rome with Constantine out for blood .. not just victory - Justinian's efforts would have crushed down upon it two hundred and some-what years earlier. 'Oh! but Constantine was supposed to be a Christian ..' comes the lame reply; yes, and a Roman, and a imperial contestant to boot; Christianity, like its Jewish inheritance, was not all weak tea and crust-less cucumber sandwiches with the Vicar - it was: The Maccabees (with an excuse and not just a chip on the shoulder). ;o)

They Would Still Haver Constantine's Brothers,Son Of Constantius With Theodora Sister Of Fausta,Yes,Wife Of Constantine Daughter Of Maximian And Sister Of Maxentius.

What if the mauryan empire had survived and continued till modern time?

BRB, going back to the past to merk constantine.

Sebastian, please tell you viewers to type in ultra future as one word if they type in as two words all they will get is iPhone and puma shoes and jazz sites

It was like, what if the other guy had won AND the rest went according to the best case scenario, which is of course unrealistic. I’d be happy if Roman culture survived longer BUT its heritage would have had too many opportunities to be broken later anyway just because of the huge time span (2k years) that it needed to survive.

He would also have tried to make Rome great again

In the Maxentian timeline. Indian numerals did not make it to Bagdad,s House of wisdom and so modern mathematics would not have Made it to the west. It's a good bet to Say the industrial revolution could not have happened.

To be realistic, the empire would have collapsed regardless of the victor at Milvian Bridge, it was over stretched , flanked on every side by enemies and had tremendous internal issues.

But I’m sure he would have, had he been able to. I often wonder what would have happened if Maxentius had defeated Constantine, regardless of what he would have done.

The Industrial Revolution required two things than happened: The elimination of slavery, which would therefore require alternatives methods of labour, and laws that prevented the seizure of personal property, so kings and others in high power wouldn't be able to confiscate your inventions, allowing you to profit from your industry. Roman times were far from both these, so an Industrial Revolution couldn't have taken place back then. But perhaps your blending of Pagan and Christian would have made slavery disrespected much sooner than the late 18th century, enough that perhaps the spark of innovation could have started way sooner.

Interesting alternate history scenario, so it seems like the West would've fared better in this timeline and Christianity would still have an influential cultural role to play in Roman society but just taking on a different flavor than the one we're familiar with.

I think Christianity was destined to become the predominant religion of the Roman Empire regardless of the victor. By the third century, it had already firmly established itself across the population and had a strong missionary component. You'd have to change events much earlier in the timeline. I'd argue you'd need to go back and disrupt the activities of the 1st-century missionary apostles. Even if this was successful, I think some sort of expansionist monotheism was likely to emerge from Judaism. In our timeline, we see this happen in the form of Islam.

Think Christianity would remain due to the high level of literacy among Christians and the need for literate civil servants. It would slowly grow but not overtake paganism. This would prevent the Great Schism in 1054 AD from dividing the religious allegiance of Europe. Without a Great Schism Constantinople would not of fallen in our timeline in 1204 due to the Fourth Crusaders attacking fellow Christian Constantinople. In this timeline there is no Constantinople just an old Greek city of 50,000 people Byzantium. This is very strong outcome for Rome. The Roman Empire began in 27 BC under Augustus Caesar. In 1453 when Sultan Mehmed II killed Constantine XXI conquered the remaining Roman Empire until now represents only 27 percent of the time from 27 BC until now. I t is possible that the stronger Roman Empire survives until the present largely intact. The Black Death (1347-1352 AD), and especially the Mongols would still be issues. The Mongols would not be faced with powerful Islamic Sultanates acting as effective buffers in their advance westward and they might not of run out of steam in Eastern Europe. However, access to North African grain would greatly strengthen the Romans and the Mongols would still be vastly overextended if they attempted to conquer all of Eurasia. It all depends of how good successive emperors are in this timeline. If reforms reducing corruption and more important even than corruption, solve the succession issues insuring competent emperors and preventing civil wars, then the empire would probably survive, and still exist today. Industrial Revolution is trickier, could go either way. Yes the precise mechanisms that led to revolution in our time line would not happen guaranteed, but there are other conceivable ways that it could including a more gradual approach that avoids the upheavals and solve environmental issues along the way. This still is tricky as greed vs global warming and pollution would still exist but emperors wanting to make an enduring name for themselves might pass laws dealing with these issues for posterity. The rate and level of advancement century by century is unpredictable totally as it involves to many variables. It could lead to a world more advanced than ours in some ways, less in others and the same in others. Then there is the issue of possible imperial colonization of the Western Hemisphere. Many possibilities.

The correct 3rd conditional form in English in the clause is 'What if Maxentius had defeated Constantine'. Just saying...

Good video. But the title is wrong. It should be "What if Maxentius HAD defeated Constantine at the ....". Can you see the difference ?

i like your video , but can you do something for the "bip" sound it give me headhache when i watch your videos.

Julian Could Still Emerge After All,He Was The Son Of One Constantine's Brothers And Could Claim The Sucession.

Rome should of moved to Carthage

End of the Empire

“What if Maxentius had defeated Constantine…” is the correct form. The “would have” does not go in the “if” clause. This is not difficult.

They should have relocated to Sicily it was more central to the empire, geographically! Just a thought. 👍

I like that world better

You can also argue that Constantinople doomed itself by existing. By doing all the things you said about power base economy etc... this led to the fall of Rome. Letting in the barbarians. Who Christianized and 'converted' the Pope from an Imperial office to a barbarian power. Barbarians who sacked the city and formed the Latin empire 1000 years later....

Maxentius was a better Roman than Constantine

AT > IRL

Maioranus, respectfully I disagree with the idea that Christianity is a part of the reason for the breakup and downfall of the western Roman empire. This is a huge topic and this thread will only touch the surface... I don't think the rise of Christianity was a top down event, Christianity was already rapidly spreading decades after the death of "The Christos". Had pagan emperors insisted on persecuting Christians it would have led instead to more shaky control of power. Remember many of the invading Germanic barbarians coming from outside of the empire were ALREADY CHRISTIANIZED. The empire's soft/cultural power extended beyond the empire's borders, and the barbarians absorbed elements of Roman culture, most notably the dominant Roman religion = Christianity. Just imagine the amount of momentum/popularity the Christian religion had inside the empire by the time of the late western empire (not to mention the east where it originated). If anything, the new Christian religion once established in the ruling institutions (after Constantine), would lead to a more unified single religion across the empire. When the empire was pagan prior to the death of "The Christos" there were multiple different pagan religions, cults and beliefs. New cults would spring up in the east like new fads and would spread all over (Mithras, Isis). But as long as the cult of the emperor was respected (the Roman pledge of allegiance) all other religions were tolerated. We know Christianity famously resisted this. Christianity is more dogmatic. I don't see Christianity as a net positive or negative change that affected the empire's demise. It seems it was inevitable. Not all the Germanic barbarians were Christian but once they invaded they all quickly assimilated the Christian religion in order to incorporate themselves as the new legitimate overlords of their Roman/Latin subjects in the west. If an alternate history had occurred with a pagan religion winning out as the dominant religion, the same outcome would have occurred. The main reason for the downfall of the western (and eastern) empire was the never ending cycles of civil wars. The reorganizing of the empire into a tetrarchy and later into east and west halves were meant as solutions to stop the problem of incessant civil wars. Also, these planned partitionings of the empire did not mean that the different parts would not cooperate with each other. On the contrary the separated parts of the empire were meant to maintain ties and cooperate with each other. Diocletian makes this clear. Christianity simply beat out the pagan religions (including other monotheistic religions) in popularity among the masses. I also think it's a bias of modern historians to look at classical pagan Rome as the ideal, it's a contagion from our modern secularist western culture that sees paganism as preferable to the recognizably Christian Roman empire at the end. The fact that the eastern Roman empire was coined as Byzantium in history books and not called the surviving or Eastern Roman Empire is at the heart of this topic. But that is a whole other rabbit hole 🐰

"What if Maxentius had defeated..." I can tell you're German by such mistakes ;)

I don't think Rome would be fully restored to be the center of power in the west as it wasn't even that at the time and hadn't been the capital for many years. If I'm not mistaken first Milano and then Ravenna was capital not Rome during this time. I can be mistaken was some time since I looked into this. I also don't see how the problem of barbarian invasions over the Danube and Rhine would be halted and immigration question be solved so easily. What was the different policies. That would have made this so differed? Along with Christianity being more tolerant in this timeline? Why? I don't see that happen at all. As Christianity as a new religion full of fervor would at the first opportunity hope to erase the old order of things to assert themselves. Sure that may happen later but I don't think that Christianity could ever tolerate Paganism. Over all I don't hate this video at all. It's always good to have someone paint a picture of how things would be different. It makes it easer for me to do the same and I've hardly though about this scenario at all.

That would be more interesting if Maxentius was replaced by my man GALLIENVS. He could easily CRUSH Constantine with his strategical skills and was always pragmatic (he was somehow similar to Chen Baxian in China), no matter how great the latter was in reality.

I note the christian cho-rho symbol on the shields. Some how I doubt it. Remember the victors write the history books, and the Christian monks wrote what they wanted a few hundred years later, of a battle of good (Christian) vs evil (pagan).

Lütfen türkçe çeviri eklermisiniz

Europe would've been conquered completely by Islam instead of partially.

I always asaid CHRISTIANITY was the death of The Empire?! ( Remember , YOU lookbforward to YOUR Better after life? ( ALot of Help to Those of Us who worry about THE HERE& NOW?!)🤔

Would Islam even have arisen without a fully formed Christianity?

I think if Matt sent us had one against Constantine at the Milian Bridge, Christianity would’ve stayed in the eastern part of the empire and the west would have stayed pagan

Welcome to another episode of Constantine bad

It was not Constantine who defeated Maxentius. It was God, and Constantine was his agent. The will of God cannot be denied.

Maxentius was a loser. ‘Nuff said.

Interesting thesis, but heavily reductionist. A different outcome at the Milvian Bridge, one battle, would have changed the pace of change, but not its reality. The forces bearing down on Rome in the West were ultimately irresistible. The frontiers were too long and the sheer numbers of barbarian invaders too great and constant, while the overall Western economy was stagnating. Constantinople offered a far stronger defense and economic foundation, but even then, only survived by paying off the invaders, e.g. the Huns.

Great video of "what if" ! It s pretty mind f**k to think of so many scenarios..🥸

Thanks!

Thanks!

Thanks!