So instead of independent countries, we would have democratically lead provinces under Roman rule? To be honest, I'm not enthusiastic about this idea. It just sounds like the countries will still be there as semi-autonomious entities rather than Roman provinces. Then again... having Roman officials leading these countries and hopefully suppressing the rise of fanatical Christianity would lead to a whole different course of history. To me, Rome could keep its secular policy in its conquered lands, unlike the Orthodox East, to add more flavor in the mix. They're going to be the Western Republic and the Byzantine Empire, so naturally there should be national tensions between the two, especially if differing politics are at play. I'm ready to accept it if it is to be represented more or less in that light. However, what I want to know is there going to be a background similiar to Next War? If so, I propose that the line of Roman emperors ended in the fall of the emperor before a heir could be secured (or a revolt) after which democracy was the only plausible option. Soviet Russia could maintain its lands after killing off their own Tzar, perhaps Rome could do the same 1500 years in advance. One thing I want Kairob to keep in mind, for the sake of background. Strictly selected, inept political marriages were usual even in ancient Rome, so ending this trend in the assassination or premature depart of the King should have a major effect on history and how societies work. Perhaps the internal progress of the West and the conservative attitude of the East should have an attitude clash similiar to the British and American relations post American Revolution.