If Rome Hadn't Fallen: What Might Have Happened If the Western Empire Had Survived

by Timothy Venning

Explores how the survival of Rome might have altered world history from dealing with Viking raids to the discovery of America.

This is a fascinating exploration of how the history of Europe, and indeed the world, might have been different if the Western Roman Empire had survived the crises that pulled it apart in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Dr Timothy Venning starts by showing how that survival and recovery might plausibly have happened if several relatively minor things had been different. He then moves on to discuss a series of scenarios which might have altered the course of subsequent history dramatically. Would the survival of a strong Western Empire have assisted the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire in halting the expansion of Islam in the Middle East and North Africa? How would the Western Roman Empire have handled the Viking threat? Could they even have exploited the Viking discovery of America and established successful colonies there?

While necessarily speculative, all the scenarios are discussed within the framework of a deep understanding of the major driving forces, tensions and trends that shaped European history and help to shed light upon them. In so doing they help the reader to understand why things panned out as they did, as well as what might have been.

Genres: History, Alternate History, Nonfiction

224 pages, Hardcover

First published April 19, 2011

About the author

Dr Timothy Venning is a freelance researcher and author. He studied history at Kings College, London to PhD level, winning the London University History Prize in 1979. He has written articles for the Dictionary of National Biography, as well as a book on Oliver Cromwell and reference works on British office-holders and the chronology of the Byzantine Empire. He also contributes to major biographical publications and his research forms the basis for many other publications.

Reviews

[Michael]

As others have said, it is poorly organized. Information is repeated with no reference to the previous content. Sometimes it sounds like two comic book guys arguing over whether superman or the hulk would win in a fight with references to specific issues of comics and digressions into whether movies or TV shows count. By that I mean there is a lot of detailed and accurate information but the telling jumps back and forth, repeats, as I have said before, and assumes knowledge that the reader may or may not know. Possible branch points are mentioned and then not explored. They come one after another. There are dozens and dozens of possible branches mentioned and I have no suggestions on what would have been a good way to handle them, but there must have been a better way.

If you are already familiar with the history of the Roman Empire, both eastern and western, as well as the Dark Ages and the Arab invasions, then this book would be interesting for you. It is just not an easy read.

[Andrew · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is bad. Not so bad it should never be read, but bad because it is an inchoate mess that does something that no alternative history book should ever do, and that is bore the living shit out of you. Throw in the chaotic narrative that jums around like a kangaroo shitting a pogo stick and damn this is a disappointing read. What could've been an informative and enjoyable text is instead no better than a stream of research notes tied up in a messy bundle with some semi-academic hyptheses added to make it all sound like what Venning has written sounds reasonable. If Rome Hadn't Fallen: How the Survival of Rome Might Have Changed World History is so bad I couldn't finish reading it; after 120 pages I just scanned the remainder because I was so disenchanted with what Venning had written.

My shit radar was already alerted when he said in one of the early passages in all seriousness that Germanicus had been poisoned; aside from the questionable statement in itself that he was not able to be discriminating in his use of sources made me wonder if Venning actually had any credentials as an ancient historian. It turns out he is more at home with Cromwellian England, and might one suggest he should stuck with what he knows instead of trying to write about something he doesn't really understand.

Furthermore, the narrative structure of If Rome Hadn't Fallen: How the Survival of Rome Might Have Changed World History is atrociously organised. Venning throws in factoids and theories as if they are scattered pieces for a jigsaw puzzle that has no complete picture as its goal. He bounces around ancient Roman history like a pirated copy of Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego, sometimes skipping from the 1st Century BCE to the 5th Century CE on the one page, with almost no cohesive linking between his historical interpretations. Oh, and by the way; it is common practice to use BCE/CE (or BC/AD) when wruting dates in texts on ancient Rome; surely Venning and his editors could've managed this.

Another thing; alternative histories are meant to be interesting and exciting because they revolve around the imaginative supposition of what might be. To suck the life out of such possibilities takes a unique talent, and Venning surely has this. His attempts at being erudite and learned lead to the reader being led down a path of dull theories that end up being laughable instead of intriguing. For example, the whole Romans against the Vikings/Romans in North America chapter is just boring and stupid.

Venning could've written a far better book if he had chosen perhaps one or two seminal moments in the history of the western Roman empire and then worked from that point onwards. The imperial crises of 193 CE or 238 CE would've been good starting points. Perhaps an alternative history built around the survival of Julian the Apostate in 363 CE might've been also worthy as an initial event for the narrative for his alternative history. Instead of such a narrow focus, Venning tries to both account for the end of the Western Roman empire in less than 100 pages (something that Edward Gibbon needed six volumes to do) and also hypothesize alternative histories springing from dozens of possible events or actions in ancient Roman history. It's almost incomprehsible and deadly dull.

So, would I recommend If Rome Hadn't Fallen: How the Survival of Rome Might Have Changed World History? Fuck no, unless you want to see how not to write an alternative history book.

[Andrea · Rating 3 out of 5]

me gustó mucho la primera parte del libro que hablaba de la caída de Roma y los días finales del ejercito, a pesar de que como el autor argumenta cuando hablamos de la caída de Roma realmente hablamos de el fin del mandato imperial más no de Roma como tal porque como sabemos muchas de sus instituciones (sistema legal, religión, estructura militar, idioma y cultura) continuaron. la segunda parte del libro es pura especulación, entonces en la mayoría de ocasiones me terminaba pensando en cuál era el punto de hacer conjeturas hasta puntos tan específicos. de todas formas me pareció interesante ver el punto de vista y las cosas desde la perspectiva que el libro las presenta.

[Bonnie_blu · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will make the reader ponder how history is made, how susceptible it is to odd and diverse influences, and how major changes in the course of human history were often decided by mentally ill or incompetent persons or by the forces of nature. The content is fascinating and well researched; however, it is poorly organized and a bit hard to follow (even for someone familiar with ancient Roman history); thus, I didn't give it five stars. As a result of his research, the author has solid arguments as to what the world would look like if the Roman Empire had survived. Germany would have been Romanized as were the Gauls (France, Belgium, etc.), and WWI and WWII would not have happened since there would be no cultural differences between France and Germany. In addition, it would have been the Roman Empire that colonized the Americas and set off the industrial revolution. All of this could have happened if Rome had had a viable system to transfer power from one emperor to another. That lack was the great weakness of the Roman Empire. Rome had plenty of great leaders; however, all too often they were not able to rule. The author also draws attention to the fact that historians before the 20th century believed that history was determined by the decisions and actions of strong individuals at particular points in time. In the 20th century, however, most historians discarded this view and held that the course of human events was determined by broad social and cultural trends, and that individuals had little or no impact on history. However, most modern historians now believe that both individuals and social/cultural trends determine the course of human history. If the Roman Empire had had a seamless system to transfer power, it may well have been able to survive the social pressures of the ages and rule the western world into the present time. Of course we can never know what might have been, but "If Rome Hadn't Fallen" is a fascinating glimpse into a possible future.

[Italo Italophiles · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book's subtitle is: How the Survival of Rome Might Have Changed World History. When the author writes "Rome" he is referring to Rome's Western Empire, which collapsed circa the year 500, not Rome's Eastern Empire which survived until 1453.

This is a "what if" book. Speculation upon speculation for connoisseurs of Roman history to read, ponder, and play with. Rome didn't actually fall, to be precise. It splintered and adapted and evolved.

But what if Ancient Rome didn't splinter?

What if the Germans were conquered?

What if the immigrants were embraced rather than repulsed?

What if the Germans became Rome's trusted allies?

This is a popular subject for writers of speculative historical fiction. There are various historical fiction series that work from a premise that Rome never fell, or that a sliver of Ancient Rome survives into the present day.

The author poses that there were 9 key turning points in Ancient Roman history, and 19 speculated consequences of those turning points. He goes into each in great detail. You really need to know your Roman history to appreciate this book. The author clearly knows his, and he is especially knowledgeable about Roman warfare.

The main premise of speculative history is expressed by the author thus:
"One person's actions can alter the course of history, and a political or military mischance can touch off a catastrophic reaction that has repercussions over centuries."

If your Roman history is up to it, then this is a rollicking ride through what-if land. Hold on and go for it!

Please read my full and illustrated review at Italophile Book Reviews.
http://italophilebookreviews.blogspot...

[Katia M. Davis · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unfortunately I abandoned this book a third of the way through. It reminded me of why I dropped ancient history at university and focused on archaeology. It is extremely dry and boring, page after page of names and dates, events and relationships. The book does not captivate the reader and truly make them wonder what might have been, it sedates them and makes them wonder if the Western Empire collapsed because somehow Venning transported his book back in time and everyone read it!

[Fred Irvine · Rating 2 out of 5]

A little dry and not what I expected, but as a reference work very informative.it was interesting to note some caricatures from fictional books I have read did appear in this work. Although saying that the last chapter was the best.

[Paul Cockshott · Rating 3 out of 5]

Repetitive and poorly organised. There is a lot of detail but he keeps saying the same things both within a chapter and in the following chapter

[George Snare · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book would be very good for absorbing spills because it is so dry.