what if rome had never fallen?

[Meneldil]

No that again is China. First Chinese Emperor crowned 221 BC, last Emperor deposed 1912 AD. Life of Chinese empire 2133 years. First Roman Emperor installed 27 BC, last one killed 1453 AD. Life of the Roman empire 1480 years.

that's a bit cheap. There was a whole lot of Chinese Empires, while there was only 1 Roman Empire (and eventually, 2 when it splits up). There was different dynasties, but they all claimed to be heir of Caesar. Most of the Chinese Empires did not last more than a few centuries, and covered some different places.

The Capital of the Roman empire were Roma and Constantinople later on, while there was a dozen of capitals for the various Chinese kingdoms/empires.

[Gurkhal]

you shouldn't say that it was exactly inevitable at the moment it happened. because hundreds thought that the empire was collapsing because of the senates failings just before ceaser took charge, really the empire was forged and maintained by the wars and there generals. had hadrian never decided on the defensive stance then rome would have kept its lagre inflow of cash from conquered lands which would keep the army in shape. the huns did so well partly because they were not fighting prime imperialist legions. had Aetius desided after chalons to go back to rome and say establish a senate so he would be free on the frontier then the chances would be vastly greatened of there success. the emperors were the downfall of rome (pious fools) there extravagance, corruption, scheming, fear and conspiricy doomed them. what rome needed at the time was a reform of the government but it never happened and they were destroyed.

I am not really sure about this, one of the resons to why Rome stopped to expand was because it couldn't nor did it want to, keep what it had was an issue that was enough for it. Northern Europe inhabited by the Germanic tribes wasn't very tempting to the Romans, as far as I know all invasions up north was to create a good border for defence, not to conquer valuble lands. In the east the Sassanids (I know about the spelling ) halted the Romans with military strenght, not enough to destroy the Roman Empire but well enough to keep the Romans back. I doubt that with the need for garrison troops in the empire itself an army great enough to actually take over the Sassinids/Parthians would be a very big gamble, as a failure could also be taken as a sign of Roman weakness and start of revolts and incursions from the outside. Remember that when the Romans took a new area, sure they got more slaves. But this new area would also need more slaves so the need for slaves would be constantly growing at the same time as the Romans captured more lands to gain slaves and the need for more soliders would also increase, go up north the population wasn't big enough to support the empire with all the slaves it would need. And it could also leave it with a bad border for defence. A good defendible border was also the resons for pushing the border to the Rhine and later attempting to push it to the Elbe.

Personally I don't think that the Huns would have done worse against imperialstic legions, their actions against a such foe would be very different from the actions against the foe they faced. Nor do I belive that a senate would necissery make the Empire more lasting, they could well decide that Aetius was a threat to their own power and thus have him killed aswell.

[AntiochusIII]

The Capital of the Roman empire were Roma and Constantinople later on, while there was a dozen of capitals for the various Chinese kingdoms/empires.

However, most of the early ones are concentrated on two sites: the "Chang'an" site and the "Luoyang" (I don't know the modern names) site. The Chinese empires are not one, though, in the manner of the Sassanids claiming as heirs to the Achaemenids, most dynasties consider themselves "successors" of the previous major one.

It's the Chinese civilization that is longest-lasting, though, not its empires.

Also, one could argue that Mediolanium (Milan) and Ravenna were used as capitals, as well, and Diocletian's Nicomedia (Nicaea).

[Alexanderofmacedon]

First of all Rome still does exist

Second of all, it was too hard to stop it. The world at that time was absolutely sick of Roman rule. Everyone hated them for the murderous things they did.

[Avicenna]

The Chinese were succeeded by dynasties, just like Rome was. There were periods of civil war when it split up, but the actual empire was still there (if much smaller) and eventually taken over by another family and a new dynasty established with the same empire.

The Chinese are hardly stagnant, unless you mean not expanding, something which no countries are doing right now. There isn't a lack of technological advance, they're just a few decades behind the US. China has just recently put a man into space, only something the US and USSR (Russia now) have done before.