Africa is not lost to the Western Roman Empire?

Part I: Africa is not lost to the Western Roman Empire?

It could be argued that the loss of Africa to the Vandals under Geiseric did more harm to the Romans and their Empire than any other event in the 5th century. Some historians (Peter Heather for example) have gone even further saying that if it had not been for the Vandals, the Western Empire would have weathered the storm of the 5th century. So let us get rid of the Vandals and their invasion of Africa. A possible point-of-divergence (PoD) is provided to us by the 5th century historian Renatus Frigeridus, who gives us the following account concerning the Rhine crossing of 406/7: "The Vandals were struggling in their war against the Franks, their King Godigisel was killed, and about twenty thousand of their troops had been slaughtered so that the entire nation of the Vandals would have been exterminated, save that the forces of the Alans came to their rescue in time". So-what-if the Alans had not arrived in time to prevent the wholesale slaughter of the Vandals?
Another PoD on the cards is to have the comes per Hispania Asterius decide not to intervene in the 419 war between the Suevi and the Vandals. In 420 Asterius launched an attack on a group of Vandals in the Roman province of Gallaecia, forcing them to break off their war against the Sueves and fight the Romans instead. Soon afterwards, the Vandals break through the Roman lines and after a battle near Bracarense invaded Baetica. With Baetica breached, the Vandals are within striking distance of Africa. Without Asterius’ intervention, the Vandals may conquer the Suevi and establish a permanent kingdom in northern Spain (and not move southward into Baetica) or might be seriously exhausted through warfare (in which case their subsequent invasion of Baetica could be defeated).
But I think perhaps the best PoD may be to have the comes domesticus Castinus successfully crush the Vandals in his 422 campaign. Castinus was sent to Spain to deal with the problem of the Vandals in Baetica, a problem created by Asterius' ill-fated action against Gunderic in 420. But Castinus’ Visigothic troops betrayed him just at the moment when he was about to achieve final victory. Now the Goths betrayal had a lot to do with the recent death of the short-lived Emperor Flavius Constantius, so the official PoD for this timeline is: Constantius lives a little longer, the Goths dont revolt and the Vandals are massacred, and forced to flee Baetica for the northern mountains where they join up with the Suevi. Constantius spends the rest of his short-reign preparing to make war on the Eastern Emperor Theodosius II (who refuses to recognise Constantius because he is not part of the Theodosian bloodline) but dies on Christmas Day 422 before any serious fighting can take place.

Now right off the bat: any thoughts on this? What are the butterflies of Constantinus spending a little longer on the imperial throne? And then there is the BIG question: what about Africa, if we have a no Vandal invasion of Africa scenario then will we get a Roman Empire (much reduced by war and devastation) surviving into the medieval age?
I think so but of course some would say that the Western Empire would decline and fall anyway regardless of this “no Vandal invasion of Africa scenario”. These people would say that the factors that caused its decline were internal rather external. In the words of Edward Gibbon: “If all the Barbarian conquers had been annihilated in the same hour, their total destruction would not have restored the Empire of the West.” This popular argument therefore concludes that by the 4th century, the Empire was socially rigid, economically stagnant, culturally dead, and politically dislocated. In other words, the “Fall of Rome” was no more than a tottering, depopulated, and corrupt empire gently pushed into retirement by immigrating Germanic tribes. However, this fashionable argument has been challenged by Late Roman historians in recent decades. There have been substantial reappraisals of different aspects of the Late Roman Empire and its internal structures, whose cumulative effect has been to overturn this 'popular argument'. Recent studies have revealed that there was no fundamental dislocation in the rural economy, that trade was flourishing in a far from demonetarised economy, and that local elites were participating in imperial structures in unprecedented numbers. Indeed, many of the contemporary Late Roman Empire historians, like Peter Heather, have rejected Gibbon assertion and argued for a vigorous and confident empire that was smashed to pieces not by internal dissent but by powerful barbarian invaders. But then again, I could be wrong, any thoughts? All suggestions welcome.
 
The Butterflies’ Wings

The story so far: The Vandals are crushed in a rather brutal campaign by the comes domesticus Castinus when he secures the Hispanic province of Baetica in 422. The surviving Vandals flee the devastation and end up camping in the northern Iberian mountains with the Suevi. Despite his victory, Castinus’ career is not really improved in the ATL as he is later killed for supporting the primicerius notariorum Johannesin his ill-fated bid to become Emperor. With the breaking of the Vandals in 422, the barbarians end their migrations in Spain and Baetica remains in Roman hands acting as bulwark against future southward barbarian raids. With the safeguard province of Baetica holding strong, Africa is more or less safe from Vandal incursion.
The affects of this on the TL will be rather limited to begin with but will soon become apparent. There is no one for Boniface to (supposedly) invite into Africa to aid him, for example, and this ‘last true Roman’ is probably defeated by the Goth Sigisvult in 428 (thus sparing the Western Empire a particularly destabilizing civil war in 432). But by far the most important long-term consequences are economic and strategic: The loss of Africa not only removed the wealthiest provinces (described by Peter Heather as the economic “jugular vein of the Western Empire”) from Roman control but also exposed the Mediterranean (especially Italy and Greece) to pirate raids. Retaining Africa will, if not avoid than at least, mitigate the severe OTL financial crisis of the 440s. The Vandal invasion also robbed the Empire of one of her last unique advantages: sea-power and with it control of the Mediterranean. A “no Vandal invasion of Africa scenario” would give the Western Empire a naval edge that it did not possess post-435 and allow it to better coordinate military and economic operations against the barbarians.

In the ATL Aeitus is in an even more secure position than before, and this could mean his strategies could be more effective. Throughout the 430s and early 440s, the “man behind the throne of the Western Empire, used increasing numbers of Hunnic mercenaries to maintain the northern frontiers, suppressing the Bagaudae and enforcing the loyalty of the federate territories. The main criticism of this approach was that he concentrated on Gaul to the neglect of the other parts of the Empire (especially Africa). If there is no barbarian invasion of Africa, and Baetica acts as secure defensive safeguard against such an barbarian incursion, than this is a more successful strategy than OTL. The main looser here will the Visigoths: with no troop commitments needed to fight the Vandals in Africa, this means more soldiers to throw against the Visigoths. So I think going into the latter half of the 5th century, we are going to see a much weaker and more submissive Visigoth nation which would be mostly confined to Aquitania. Any thoughts?
But our “no Vandal invasion of Africa” does not change the major historical events of the first half of the 5th century. The Huns are still going to unite under Attila and they are still going to wage bloody war against the Empire. Attila may decide that a Western Empire that still has her African provinces is too powerful to attack but I doubt it. The Empire is still suffering from a chronic insignificancy in terms of military manpower, and has declined territorially and economically. I mean Attila took on the Eastern Empire which if anything is more powerful than the West. And Attila needs to go to war with someone: the cohesiveness of his Empire is based on constant success (and subsequent plunder) on the battlefield. If he doesnt war with the Empire for gold, then his Germanic vassals will revolt and then you have the battle of Nedao. So I think when the senate elects Flavius Marcianus under the guidance of the magister utriusque militiae Aspar and he stops the payments to Attila, then Attila will picks the weaker target and invade the West. An invasion he will eventually lose, and soon afterwards his Empire will collapse. Any thoughts?

Although once someone suggested the possibility of a surviving Hunnic Empire it would look something like the Avar Empire but only a about a century and half earlier. So we would have a nomadic empire stretching from Austria in the west to the Pontic steppes in the east, ruling over a multitude of peoples. This Hunnic Empire would co-exist more or less with the Roman Empire but when the imperium is unable to pay subsidies or hire Hunnic mercenaries, our Huns raid Rome's frontier communities (and beyond if the need arises). Any thoughts about this possibility? It is interesting but I think maybe not. There are just too many ambitious Germanic tribes running wild for the Huns to maintain control indefinitely. Or maybe Im wrong. All suggestions welcome.
Now once the Hunnic Empire has collapsed, Aeitus is probably going to be murdered by the Emperor Valentinian III in his throne room like OTL. Without the Huns to act as mercenaries and allies Aetius is vulnerable and without the Hunnic Empire as a threat the great general appears unnecessarily powerful to the incompetent but ruthleless Valentinian. Although I am open to the idea that Aetius survives, any thoughts?

Now after 455, history will start divert significantly. In OTL we have the accession of the patrician Petronius Maximus, who supported the murder of Valentinian III. Petronius even marries the widow of Valentinian Licinia Eudoxia (daughter of Theodosius) in bid for greater imperial recognition. But his reign ends rather ignominiously when he is stoned to death by a mob whilst fleeing the city and his mutilated corpse is thrown into the Tiber, only 77 days later. The reason for his dishonourable end? Licinia Eudoxia had been promised in a marriage to Gaiseric’s son Huneric, and her marriage to Petronius is a bad piece of diplomacy. The Vandals break the treaty and sail their pirate fleet against Rome, there is no siege and following an agreement not to kill everyone, the Vandals are allowed to plunder the city for two weeks. Meanwhile, the Gallo-Roman nobility (supported by the Visigothic king Theoderic II) elect magister militum praesentalis Eparchius Avitus as Emperor at Toulouse. In the ATL we have no Vandal occupation and plunder of Rome, and presumably no elevation of Avitus to Emperor in Gaul. So what happens? Where is this scenario going? Any thoughts? All suggestions welcome.
 
A Power Vacuum

After Valentinian's murder in 455 there will be a large power vacuum within the Western Roman Empire and the question to answer is how this vacuum will be filled. Now periodic upheavals had always been more or less unavoidable within the Late Roman system, which incorporated a large and diffuse upper class vying for control of a powerful governmental machine, with all the opportunities for profit that this offered. In the 4th century, the machine itself survived such moments largely undamaged, and central control was quickly reasserted over peripheral areas which seized opportunities to break away. Once the Huns had forced Germanic barbarians across the imperial frontier, however, these crises offered semi- or unassimilated barbarian groups and federates exciting opportunities for expansion. In the process, the governmental machine itself now suffered harm, since there followed temporary or permanent losses of revenue from areas caught up in warfare. Soon territories were annexed outright by ambitious barbarian kings, or turned independent. In the ATL, things will be different but how different? Although the Empire still controls Africa whose lands were crucial to the Empire not least for feeding the population of Rome warfare between rival commanders will only see a further deterioration of the Empire. And no doubt Africa will add its own usurpers to the melting pot remember that Africa was a rather rebellious and troublesome imperial diocese (in the 4th century anyway), producing numerous usurpers (including Heraclius and Boniface) in the 5th century.
Now basically there are three main Roman factions in this ATL 5th century power struggle (not including the intrusive Eastern Empire) and these are the armies of the West: the African, Gallic and Italian contingents. The next few decades are going to be pretty chaotic and violent as usurpers march and counter-march across the battered Empire. What will add to the intrigue is that Empress Licinia Eudoxia and her two daughters (Placidia and Eudocia) are not shipped to Africa by the Vandals. So we can imagine a lot of rather fascinating political games, betrayals, assassinations and civil wars as different commanders try and associate themselves with the Theodosian bloodline. Indeed the ALT chronicler Placius of Syracuse would say of this period: “not a day passed without executions or massacre, not even days that were holy. Many even plotted against their children and were murdered by their children. Often the relatives of victims were too consumed in their own machinations even to mourn for them…” Any thoughts on the nature of these power plays?
Given the resources of Africa and the absence of Gaiseric (one of the Empire’s most destructive enemies) I believe that after a decade of chaotic civil wars and bloody attempts to wrestle control of Emperor from its self-righteous senatorial aristocracy and some rather rebellious Germanic federates, one man will eventually emerge victorious. By a combination of assassination, battle, and luck, that man is the ATL praefectus praetorio Ammainus Laelius who takes the name Valentinian IV to associate himself with the Theodosian bloodline and married Eudoxia’s daughter Eudocia. Valentinian IV won out over his rivals to become one of the last strong Western Roman Emperors in 465 and he spends most of his time in warfare desperate to hold his Empire together. After the famous battle where it is said that he broke the siege of Clermont with just 18 cavalry, Valentinian IV is famously rumoured to have said: “No one who has seen the aftermath of battle can prefer war, even in victory fathers must still bury their sons.”

The fall of the Hunnic Empire proves disastrous for our ATL Empire (as it did for the OTL Empire): the disappearance of Hunnic power prompted the Huns Germanic vassals to seek greener pastures inside the Empire. Far worse, though, was the effect on the foederatiwithin the Empire. Previously Hunnic power had been used to contain the barbarian federates and minimize their political influence. Now these kingdoms (not failing to note the weakness of the Empire in the aftermath of the Hunnic wars) pursue expansionist policies. Spain is threatened by Visigoths and Seuvi while in Gaul Burgundians, Franks, Rugians and Alamanni (not to mention the Visigoths) as well as others are attempting to expand their own powerbases. This is the time when the barbarians are carving out their kingdoms. Any thoughts?
Now the BIG question is: can Valentinian IV re-unite the Western Empire and restore it to stability and strength? Not likely in my opinion. Although I have my doubts whether the Visigothic will manage their invasion of Spain and believe these Goths remain confined to Aquitania. We must remember that Africa, although important, is not as much of as asset as we may think. This imperial diocese also had her problems as well as her own barbarians: the Moors who, as the military strength of Rome began to wane, struck hard against Roman towns and cities in the provinces. Not to mention the fact that Africa also plays host to an anti-imperial and often violently religious sect: Donatism. Then there is the rather thorny problem of the barbarian mercenary armies that dominated the West, these armies were notoriously disloyal and on occasion uncontrollable. Any thoughts?

And what about the Eastern Empire? In this ATL there is no Vandal invasion of Africa, no expedition under the Aspar in 431, no raids from Vandal pirates and no massively expensive Basiliscus expedition in 468. In other words, despite a history of military involvement in the West during the 5th century, the Eastern Empire has committed a less significant part of its military resources to the West when compared with OTL. The East will, therefore, have greater resources than OTL and will not suffer the crippling financial crises and restraints that gripped the Eastern Empire in the last decades of the 5th century. So what is the Eastern Empire doing with all that extra money? Maybe war with Persia but then again most of the latter half of 5th century was kinda peaceful. On the other hand, after 480 Persias own Hunnic invasions had seriously weakened the Sassanid Empire. Any thoughts?
 

Raymann

Banned
This is pretty good man.

As for the East, it's probably Persia or nothing. The East had a lot of ongoing political intrige during that time. Zeno was too busy trying to keep his throne but without a North Africa campaign, Basiliscus probably wouldn't have tried to seize power either.

If war with Persia happens, it'll probably be over Georgia again. But with more money, the OTL truce might turn into an outright victory. If they take the Caucasus, that would leave Syria and Iraq pretty tempting targets as well. We could end up with a situiation where the Eastern Romans are in a much better position to confront Islam early on. With less territory to defend, so might the Persians.
 
Following the collapse of the Hunnic Empire, the WRE is attacked repeatedly by barbarians from the north, but, thanks to continuing firm-ish control over its African and Hispanic provinces, is able to assert at least a measure of control over the chaotic process. The Franks convert to Orthodox/Catholic Christianity rather earlier than OTL, perhaps bribed by promises of Roman citizenship? By around 500, a "two tier" western empire has emerged; the Mediterranean basin itself under central Roman control from Ravenna or Milan (I doubt Rome, but it's not impossible), with several peripheral areas. Central and northern Gaul is policed by the Franks who act as representatives and millitary police of the Empire, and protect the Roman landowners from too much violence and exploitation from the other groups of barbarians. The Visigoths exist in Aquitaine as a largely independent state, owing only nominal vassalage to Italy, as do the Sueves and Vandals in north eastern Spain. Most of Britannia has almost entirely slipped under the radar, but occassional Frankish patrols and anti-Saxon raids are beginning to give the beleagured Christian communities at least a glimmer of hope. Pannonia, the "womb of barbarians" is now almost entirely lost.

Meanwhile, Constantinople is far more eastern focused than OTL. With the west rapidly restructuring, but still undeniably Roman, the Eastern Empire focuses more on the east, and suppressing the barbarians to the north. The Danube frontier is held up more securely, with the only major pinch point coming around modern Serbia, in a chaotic no mans land between the empires and the barbarians. If Constantinople goes off on wild expeditions of conquest at all, I would expect these to be directed at the hypothetically lost Pannonia rather than Italy. Nonetheless, it is hard to imagine a Justinian-esque Emperor avoiding the temptation to meddle in western affairs. But if these attempts CAN be resisted then Constantinople may stop attempting to appease the bishops of the west, and instead concentrate on dealing with its own renegade Christian populations in Syria and Egypt. Ironically, a surviving Roman Empire in the west as well as the east could therefore lead to an earlier church division.

So, let's look long term at this scenario. By 750, Islam has been butterflied off, and the Arabian city states have been partitioned between the ERE, Persia, and Axum. The Eastern empire considers itself the "true" Roman Empire in contrast to the west, which is in the eyes of Constantinople something of a barbarian embarassment. Ravenna controls a loose confederation of nation states all owing allegiance to the Emperor, who technically controls Italy, North Africa, and the Mediterranean coasts of Gaul and Spain. The Franks, staunch Imperial allies, and major contributors to the bloodline of the western throne control a realm that stretches deep into Germania, and has vassals of its own in Britannia and Scandinavia. The power of the church is greatly reduced, as none of the five Patriarchs has been able to develop a powerbase independent from the Emperor of either the east or the west. The churches remain technically united, but have been in schism for the past four years, an on-off state have affairs that has prevailed since the beginning of the century. The Sassanids continue to persecute Christianity vigorously, but their own Zoroastrianism is beginning to crumble from within, undermind by effective missionaries from the vigorous newly converted Christians of Arabia. Persia seems on the brink of revolution.

Good ideas? It was fun to come up with this mini scenario anyway...
 
This part follows on with a previous discussion regarding the possibility of a longer surviving Western Roman Empire as a result of a “no Vandal invasion of Africa scenario”.

Given the problems facing the Empire in the 5th century, I believe there is no hope for a restoration that will place the Western Empire back in the position that it enjoyed in the 4th century. Britannia will remain abandoned, and there is little hope of the Empire holding Gaul outside of the Mediterranean lowlands and maybe the Rhône-Saône Valley or Spain outside of Baetica and maybe isolated eastern pockets on the Mediterranean coast. But the Roman Empire could survive as a Mediterranean-based power centred on Africa and Italia (with some associated territory in southern Spain and southern France). This much reduced and weaker Empire would still control Western Mediterranean commerce and the important grain surpluses of Africa, advantages that would give it a strong strategic niche in ATL Medieval Western Europe. But what would such an Empire look like? How would its ATL Emperors deal with the problems of the Late Roman Empire: a Germanized army, a powerful and hostile senatorial aristocracy and new (and aggressive) barbarian neighbours?

Without the Vandal invasion, the Western Empire has greater resources and a safe refuge for its artists, its wealthy and, as time will reveal, its emperors. However, Africa will not be enough to preserve the Roman Empire as it was in its happier days during the 4th century (and to call the 4th century happy is to really highlight the devastation and depravity of the 5th). Instead we will see the emergence of a different kind of Empire, an imperial realm that is smaller and more inclusive of the barbaric migrants that have colonised its provinces. In the course of the 5th century we will see the Germanisation of the Empire as well as the re-orientation of the Empire towards the Mediterranean and Africa. But before we begin, does anyone have any thoughts, ideas or questions? All suggestions welcome.
 
The Imperium Romanum Recedes

Given the greater resources of the ATL Roman state, as well as the absence of one of the Roman Empires most powerful OTL opponents (Gaiseric), we could see a far slower deterioration of Roman power. But the ‘Western’ Empire will deteriorate. The ‘Western’ Roman Emperors in the latter half of the 5th century could only maintain imperial order in Western Europe through coalitions of barbarian allies. These coalitions inevitably broke down into civil war as each barbarian group attempted to undermine their partners (especially the Roman state) to advance their own powerbases. As these coalitions collapsed into conflict, the Empire receded. Indeed the Western Roman Empire will not completely collapse but rather retreat to more secure territory. This recession and retreat will occur alongside substantive efforts to restore the Western Empire to its former days of glory (I mean just think of the exploits of the OTL emperors Majorian and Anthemius). These endeavours could produce short-lived moments of victory and stability but in the end Roman can't hold the line.

One event that was to show the truth of this was the death of the Western Emperor Romanus (an ATL emperor of my own creation). Romanus, with a coalition of Burgundians, Ostrogoths, a British army under Riothamus as well as others, defeated and slew the Visigothic warlord and king Singeric in a fierce and notorious battle before the gates of Arles in 470. With Singeric’s death, Visigothic ambitions of an Empire covering Gaul and Hispania were ended, and Gothic rule would the rest of the 5th century be limited to Aquitania. But Romanus did not live long to enjoy the peace that his stunning victory had rewarded him. In 472, he was assassinated by the bucellarii of his Gothic patricius et magister militum Thuruar on the Campus Martius (Field of Mars).
One of the main enemies of any Emperor in this century was the disloyalty of her own armies, particularly her barbarian contingents (which made up the vast majority of her legions) who sought to undermine the Empire to expand their own influence. In OTL Ricimer was the main embodiment of this trend leaving a legacy of servile puppet emperors and shadowy assassinations, in the ATL Thuruar is Ricimer’s counterpart.

With Romanus’s death the fragile cords that held the Western Empire together start to unravelled. “From that moment”, according to the ATL chronicler Placius of Syracuse, “everything changed. Danger took the place of security, poverty of wealth. Peace gave way to distress, disasters and violence.” Thuruar appoints his own puppet Emperor in Ravenna, but the Eastern Emperor Leo as well as the magister militum per Africae Herius Corpalentius refuses to acknowledge Thuruar’s shadow-Emperor. However, Thuruar is unconcerned with these dissenters and spends most of his time in fierce competition and war with the Visigoths in Gallia Narbonensis. In Africa, Herius Corpalentius is forced (despite his legendary anti-Greek prejudices) to accept and welcome Leo's magister militum Procopius Appius into Carthage as Emperor of the West. The Western Empire is split and war has began.
The war between Appius (and later his successor Anthemiolus) and Thuruar lasts almost two decades with neither faction achieving victory (this period of separation and confusion is known to later historians as the Late Roman Interregnum). This effectively splinters the Western Empire into two separate states: one in Africa under a legitimate Emperor and one in Italia under a dubious pretender for much of the rest of the 5th century.

Of course Appius and Thuruar arent the only players in the bitter game of power politics. During the Interregnum we are going to see rather a lot of the nasty (but interesting) politicking and underhanded powerplays that are so common to the Late Roman Empire. For example, the military commander of Dalmatia Valerius Majorianus at first sides with Appius but soon abandons him when Appius fails to capture Rome at the Battle of Ostia and establishes himself as a rival Emperor. The magister militum per Gallias Maximianus in northern Gaul refuses to recognise both regimes and sets up his own kingdom in northern Gaul, without using the title of Augustus. Any thoughts?

So what does Appius’s legitimate Western Empire look like? This ATL African state would have complete control over the Western Mediterranean (and her traffic) and retain a significant and expanding navy (the bulk of the OTL Roman navy was destroyed in 439). By concentrating on naval tactics, Appius’s Africans can attempt to secure the important Mediterranean coastal zones and ports while outsourcing the actually fighting in Europe to barbarian federates. It must be remembered that there is not (of course) a state of constant warfare between the two splinter Empires but rather a cold war punctured by moments of intense heat. And like any good cold war, most of the interesting fighting takes place through proxies. Notably Appius promises Visigothic and later Burgundian foederati large swathes of Gaul in order to urge them against Thuruar and later Maximianus. In a similar way Appius needs to maintain southern Spain as buffer between the barbarians there and rich lands of Africa: thus Appius backs Spanish barbarians (particularly Maroboduus the King of the Vandals, Suevi and Alans) against invading Visigoths (backed by Thuruar) resulting in a more balkanized Iberia than OTL. Particularly violent was the sack of Saragossa, as described by the ATL chronicler Placius of Syracuse: “Wild flames filled the heavens, and a tempestuous wind swept up the clouds of smoke. The fleeing nobles, women, children and even the priests were shot down or slashed to death…” Any thoughts?

Now it is unlikely that either Appius or Thuruar will be able to decisively defeat the other on their own. Thuruar lacks the resources to invade Africa while Appius is reliant on Constantinople and the possibility of an Eastern invasion force to decide the issue in his favour. But promises of Eastern aid are repeatedly scrapped due to civil wars and instability that continually haemorrhage the East in the final decades of the 5th century. Isaurian and Ostrogothic armies marched and countermarched across the fertile heart of the Eastern Empire, sowing destruction and chaos in their wake. Mad queens and ineffectual senators make a royal mess of things in a climate where pure ambition and a dogmatic attachment to religion are the only popular virtues.
Any thoughts on this assessment of the East? Am I being unfair? How has the butterflies of the ATL changed the disordered events of political intrigue in Constantinople during the late 5th century? All suggestions welcome.

At the same time as all this intrigue is going on, there are barbarian invasions and occupations. The Alamanni invade Germania and the Franks occupy Belgica while the Thuringians plunder Batavisand threaten the cities of Noricum. In Africa, the Moors fight for greater independence in Mauretania Tingitana and there is a lot of Donatist unrest. An earthquake destroys parts of Rome and Constantinople. All these events erode the sovereignty of Rome which is receding to a smaller and smaller imperial zone. Any thoughts?
 
Interesting, but I think you're overestimating the "inbuilt" problems of the Roman state here. Economically, much of the area the Romans have lost by now (where are we, 480ADish?) are near worthless when compared with the wealth of Italy, the Mediterranean Isles, and Africa. If an Emperor is able to come to power in Ravenna who is able to do a Constantine, and enact some kind of revolution over the remaining Western Empire, then the state stands a good chance of consolidation.

Also, the condition of the East is also better than it looks on the face of it. The civil wars of the 470s were mostly concentrated around the Balkans; the poorest area of the Eastern Empire, which earlier Emperors were quite willing to let barbarians ravage- their primary concern was that the real honeypot of Egypt should be kept secure. This is where I think a surviving western Roman state in some form could help Constantinople out; since the Eastern Emperor no longer has to pay any real attention to the bishops of the west, and can instead concentrate on the deteriorating religious situation of Syria, Palestine and Egypt.

I digressed there; going back to my main point; once Zeno had obtained full control by 476 of his Empire, there was no longer any real threat; the Eastern Empire was nowhere near so reliant on Germanic mercenaries as the west, as its legions were mostly supplied from Thrace and Isauria. So, "chaos and destruction" are quite unlikely in my opinion; this only really happened following the repeated disasters of the 6th and 7th centuries; the two great plagues of 542 and 591, the misrule of Phocas, and the Persian invasions. The Eastern Empire TTL will, I think, be far more secure than in OTL.

Anyway, do continue. :)
 
If Rome retains Africa, Then the Atlas Mountain Aqueduct system continues to be maintained [Roman Engineers, Architects & Skilled Labor]
Roman Mauritania [OTL Morocco] continues with Roman Institutions and Customs, as these were not smashed by the Vandal Invasion as per OTL.
Slowly being populated by the Moors [Berbers] moving West from Algeria, The Moors would adopt Roman Institutions, and Not become OTL's Semi Independent Kingdoms

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/East-Hem_476ad.jpg

IF Rome is Holding the South Gaul Coast, The Visigoths Aquitaine, then I see the Franks in North Gaul, and along the English Channel. [Soissons]
?So What affect does this have on the Saxons? ?Can the Frisians hold back the Saxons? ?Do Whe see the Franks in Brittan? ?Anglo-Franks, instead of Anglo-Saxons?
 
Interesting, but I think you're overestimating the "inbuilt" problems of the Roman state here. Economically, much of the area the Romans have lost by now (where are we, 480ADish?) are near worthless when compared with the wealth of Italy, the Mediterranean Isles, and Africa. If an Emperor is able to come to power in Ravenna who is able to do a Constantine, and enact some kind of revolution over the remaining Western Empire, then the state stands a good chance of consolidation.

Also, the condition of the East is also better than it looks on the face of it. The civil wars of the 470s were mostly concentrated around the Balkans; the poorest area of the Eastern Empire, which earlier Emperors were quite willing to let barbarians ravage- their primary concern was that the real honeypot of Egypt should be kept secure. This is where I think a surviving western Roman state in some form could help Constantinople out; since the Eastern Emperor no longer has to pay any real attention to the bishops of the west, and can instead concentrate on the deteriorating religious situation of Syria, Palestine and Egypt.

I digressed there; going back to my main point; once Zeno had obtained full control by 476 of his Empire, there was no longer any real threat; the Eastern Empire was nowhere near so reliant on Germanic mercenaries as the west, as its legions were mostly supplied from Thrace and Isauria. So, "chaos and destruction" are quite unlikely in my opinion; this only really happened following the repeated disasters of the 6th and 7th centuries; the two great plagues of 542 and 591, the misrule of Phocas, and the Persian invasions. The Eastern Empire TTL will, I think, be far more secure than in OTL.

Anyway, do continue. :)

Yes I largely agree.

I dont think we need a Constantine like figure however. An able administrator or a competent military figure or probably a combination of both aspects may be enough. Not a revolution as such but someone like a Vespasian or even a Tiberius should be able to establish enough stability and confidence to secure the west. This would be especially so if the western emperor could retain Illyricum as a recruiting ground and have a version of the eastern rejection of the barbarization of the military.
 
First let me thank you guys for the feedback. But let me just say that while my ATL sounds pretty dire at the moment, trust me things will improve and the Interregnum will end. The "rebel" regime in Ravenna cannot maintain itself against the combine might of Africa and Constantinople. Thuruar and his shadow Emperors will fall in time. But the reason I have insert a bastard like Thuruar is that we cannot ignore how the barbarianisation of the Roman army has contributed to the chronic instability of the Western Empire in this period. Maybe you guys disagree that a guy like Thuruar won’t appear in this kind of ATL, should I rewrite the above section to remove him and think of something else? Whatever suggestions you guys have I will try and take on board and work into the overall ATL.
Also I think perhaps my previous post gave the impression that things were worst than in fact I had prophesized in my ATL. There are general invasions and atrocities in the Interregnum but nothing that can’t be repaired. The Visigoths try to break into Spain (and manage to establish a foothold in northeastern Spain) but are turned back by Maroboduus (the King of the Vandals, Suevi and Alans). The Franks use the Interregnum to take territory in northern Gaul from the Western Romans but in alliance with the “legitimate” Roman Empire in Africa (and besides in my opinion northern Gaul isn’t very important to the survival of the Western Empire in the 5th century). These two barbarian kingdoms (and the others) may have high aspirations but will eventually be brought to heel and their ambitions clipped. But more on that later.
 
The Battle of Nola


While I work on integrating the suggestions I have received into the ATL, please find below an account of the tragic Battle of Nola:

After months of careful negotiation and planning with his counterpart in the East, the Western Emperor Procopius Appius believed he had assembled a strong enough army to re-conquer Italia and liberate Rome from puppet of the patricius et magister militum Thuruar. Appius’ army is mostly made up of barbarian bucellarii and foederati from different tribes and nations and this multi-ethnic coalition proves difficult to control during the coming battle, with fatal consequences. Placius of Syracuse (the ATL chronicler) rhetorically catalogued, in verse, the barbarian peoples who served in Appius's army, whose names need no translation:
hoc totum tua signa pavet; Bastarna, Suebus,/Pannonius, Neurus, Chunus, Geta, Dacus, Halanus,/Bellonotus, Burgundio, Vesus, Alites,/Bisalta, Procrustes, Sarmata, Moschus...
The Western army gathered at Palermo and joined with contingents from the Eastern Empire. Then in combined naval operation, Appius and his army crossed into Italia at Basilicata. But then the Eastern contingents of the army and their fleet, which had helped him breach the Italia coast, was recalled because of the dissentions of the Isaurians in Thrace. Many of his allies thought Appius should retreat, but it seems that the mans confidence did not waver and he prepared his army to march north into central Italia.

What happened next can perhaps best be described by the infamous ATL Roman chronicler Placius of Syracuse in his Historia Romana:

“This Appius, who surpassed in every virtue all who have ever been emperors of the Romans, did not bear lightly the loss of beloved Roma, but collected a very considerable army against the Pretender and came to Basilicata, intending himself to lead the army against the enemy. For Appius never showed the least hesitation before any task and least of all before the dangers of war, such was his folly...
...it was easy for his men then to feel sure of victory and the army was in good cheer with such a man for their commander... Appius, a man who as a subject never shrank from the glorious omens of sovereignty... Lo! this prince of riper years promised to bring back youth to an empire whom child-princes have made infirm...
Thinking it not inexpedient for him to investigate first the strength of the enemy and their master, Appius decided to trust no eyes other than his own in such a matter. Accordingly, he set out as if he was an envoy from the emperor to Thuruar, assuming some false name... And when he came before the skin-clad Goth, the barbarian attempted in many ways to terrify him, and... he brought him into the place where all the weapons were stored... Thereupon they say that the weapons shook of their own accord and gave forth a sound of no ordinary or casual sort, and then it seemed to Thuruar that there had been an earthquake... He was not able to comprehend the meaning of what had happened... So Appius, having accomplished the very things he wished, returned to Basilicata and leading his army on foot, [Appius] came to the town of Nola...
And when Thuruar became aware of this, and perceived that he had been tricked by Appius in the matter of the embassy, he became alarmed and made his preparations for war. And the army, basing their confidence on the valour of Appius, already began to have good hopes of recovering the Eternal City for the Empire...
Before reaching Nola word was brought to Appius that a bishop from Venetia had arrived on an embassy, a man whom no one, howsoever eloquent, could adequately describe. But the emperor responded, 'Cleverly does Thuruar contend with me by means of his embassies; he sends such men to subdue by prayers those whom he provokes by injuries... If I can possibly comply with his request, I shall... But I doubt that Thuruar will obtain what he asks of me. For I know all too well how immoderate are his desires and how far beyond the limits of reason are the conditions he proposes...”
[After the bishop had made his plea on behalf of Thuruar, Appius responded]
"O, holy bishop, against Thuruar we have cause for complaint too great for words. The many marked favors that good men have bestowed upon him have been to no avail. We -- not, I must say, with shame to our realm and to our blood would have admitted him to our family, yielding in our love for the state to what would be a source of odium to others… But how many wars has he not prepared against the state? To the rage of how many foreign peoples has he not added tinder?”
[After this exchange a few more empty attempts at negotiation were made but no settlement was reached. It is now thought that these were done as stalling tactic so that Thuruar could position his own forces.]
...As the battle lines were drawn, the archers and skirmishers of the Emperor Appius, under the command of the Moorish prince Garmul, rushed forward too eagerly in hot attack and engaged their adversaries; and as their charge had been untimely, so their retreat was cowardly; and thus they gave an unfavourable omen to the beginning of battle...
On every side armour and weapons clashed... the lines dashed together like beaked ships, pushing each other back and forth in turn...
[Placius then tells us that the main left cavalry wing of Appius’ army –made up of Suevian mercenaries –deserted. He continues:]
...and their comrades on the left were hard pressed by the enemy's numbers, crushed, and overwhelmed, the infantry now unsupported...
...The heavens echoed with frightful cries as the traitors fled and the arrows whirling death from every side found their mark on our hosts with fatal effect... Then the enemy poured forth in huge hordes, trampling down horse and man... and there was no room for manoeuvre and only retreat...
...The fighting became hand-to-hand, fierce, savage, confused and without the slightest respite.... Blood from the bodies of the slain gave birth to rivers which irrigated the field of battle...
...By midday, Appius’s forces had been forced to give much ground. The reserves attempted to cut through and relive the sagging centre, but Alas! they were thrown back by brute savagery . After the failure of this great effort, the enemy thrust against the emperor scattering what remained of his ranks...
[By the end of the day, Placius tells us, the emperor Appius was forced to retreat, wounded by arrows. As his army fell along the road, it became trapped and Placius continues:]
...attacking him by stealth, there was a great slaughter on the road from Nola... Thuruar compelled [Appius] to flee to a holy precinct, where he besieged the sovereign demanding he renounce his office and remove his royal raiment. But the emperor gallantly refused and Thuruar and his company did not withdraw until Appius died of starvation. It is not known how he died, but some later said he was strangled. This was the end of Appius' life and reign.”

Any thoughts?


 
Constantinople didn't spend that much on this invasion (well compared with the OTL 468 campaign), especially since they pulled out at the last moment. But this adventure has humbled the Romans in Africa, which means they will agree to a joint-invasion of Italia by the Ostrogoths. The Battle of Nola takes place in 480.
 
The Western Empire Restored


In our ATL scenario, Africa has acted as a last safe haven for the Roman aristocracy and government, fleeing the war and poverty of continental Europe during the 5th century. As the Roman military machine on the continent breaks down, this exiled émigré increasingly turns to the Western navy and sea power to influence politics in Europe. This means a retreat from mainland Europe, and in many ways the ATL is similar to OTL: the Gaul, Britannia and Iberia are overrun by barbarian hordes and even Italia is severed from the legitimate Empire by the usurpation of the Gothic patricius et magister militum Thuruar and his puppet emperors. As the barbarians (sometimes acting as Roman federates) take over many of the old Roman provinces, Roman civilisation became increasingly centred on the Mediterranean. An important aspect of this is that commerce and communication (via the Mediterranean) between the East and West is stronger than OTL. Could this maintain the cohesion of a Greco-Roman culture and would this mitigate the cultural polarisation of OTL?

But how is the situation in Italia and the problem of Thuruar resolved? Maybe the situation there would not be so different from OTL; Anthemiolus (who succeeded Appius in 480) supports a joint Roman-Ostrogothic invasion of the peninsula. This decision is backed for three important reasons: 1) despite seizing Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica and raiding Campania Anthemiolus doesn’t have the manpower for a full scale invasion of Italia; 2) the Eastern Emperor encourages the union as he naturally wants to get rid of the Ostrogoths who have a nasty habit of rebelling and ravaging the Balkans whenever they are unhappy; and 3) the rex Gothorum Roderic is promised land in Italia and an amicably split of the spoils of war.

Using Ostrogothic manpower, Anthemiolus is able to succeed where his father had failed. Roderic and his Ostrogoths defeat the ‘Italian’ army (composed almost entirely of barbarian mercenaries) at the river at the Isonzo and again at Milan, forcing Thuruar to seek refuge in Ravenna. Anthemiolus’ army lands and defeats the last remnants of Thuruar’s army near Otricoli. In the peace conference near Ostia that follows the liberation of Rome, the fate of Italia and the Western Empire is decided. The ATL late 6th century satirist Quintus paints a rather a unflattering picture of the Ostian Conference: ‘The Emperor was a confirmed drunkard who could do no business except early in the morning; the Barbarian King was a lunatic who approached sense only late in the afternoon, after he had eaten and drunk; and the Pope was at any time of day the least reasonable, so far as his own interests were concerned.’ However we must take his description as rather tongue-in-cheek (as far as we know the Pope wasn’t even there) and instead look at the results of the Conference.

The Goths are given federate land in northern Italian and Illyrium and charged with the defence of the eastern and northern borders (there will be no Ostrogothic rex Italia like OTL). Northern Italia, Noricum, Pannonia and Dalmatia will be settled and placed under the control of Gothic foederati but legally subject to control by the imperial government. Although the Goths effectively control the government of these ‘federate’ territories, much of the civil administration is given over to Romans. Southern and more or less central Italy remains under Anthemiolus’ direct imperial control. Roderic accepts the deal for two reasons: 1) the power of the Western navy (as well as the grain shipments that the navy controls) and 2) the legitimacy granted by imperial association (from the East as well as the West). Anthemiolus accepts the deal because he doesn’t have the military capacity to evict the Goths that are currently squatting in northern Italia. With most of Italian peninsula garrisoned by a Gothic soldiery, Rome (and certainly not Ravenna) is not considered a secure seat of Roman power and Anthemiolus retains the imperial residence at Carthage. Despite the cordial nature of the Ostian Conference, the peace deal worked out is an uneasy one. As both Italy and Africa recover from the devastation of the previous century, the strain on this relationship will begin to show and a break is inevitable.

But following the Ostian Conference, the Western Empire enjoys a resurgence of her imperial authority. In 493, Anthemiolus leads a Romo-Gothic army to victory over the Vsigoths near Narbo, restoring Roman control over Gallia Narbonensis (now ruled from the twin ports of Massiliensis and Arles). The power of the Visigoths, which had swelled during the period of known as the Interregnum, is sent into decline latter that year at the Battle of Aurelia. Here the Gothic king Aoric is slain and his army routed by the Romans with the aid of the Franks under Adalmun of Tournai. It was brutal and infamous battle, according to the ATL chronicle of Placius of Syracuse, who wrote “there was no numbering the slain; the amount is to this day conjectured from the space of ground overflowed with blood”. After the battle, the Visigoths are forced to resume their loyalty and federate status to the Empire. For their part in the victory, the Franks are awarded ‘federate’ land in Gallia Lugdunensis and Belgica. This was in keeping with the philosophy of late the 5th century Western Empire: the Empire in Europe has not been lost but the duty of controlling and maintaining many provinces has been "outsourced" to 'federates' or allies of Rome. Although the Western Emperors claim to have restored the Empire in the West, their own authority extends little beyond: the provinces of Africa, southern and central Italia, the Mediterranean coast of Gaul (principally the province Gallia Narbonensis and parts of Auvergne), the Western Mediterranean islands and southern Spain (the province of Baetica and southern Carthaginiensis).

Any thoughts on the new order? Will this new order last? Who will be the major players? All suggestions?
 
Any thoughts on the new order? Will this new order last? Who will be the major players? All suggestions?

Interesting as ever, Steven. I'd expect further "Romanisation" of at least the Franks and the Ostrogoths, as these both seem to be allies of the court at Carthage. Nonetheless, I think it would be in the interests of Anthemolius et al to keep the Visigoths and other minor barbarians like the Burgundians and Alamanni happy, to make sure none of the others groups become over powerful. The next few decades or even century will require a series of steady and intelligent Emperors, to maintain the balance of power, but all that is really needed is standard "divide and rule" tactics- supporting the Franks and Visigoths alternately in Gaul, the Sueves and Vandals alternately in Spain, and switching between the Alamanni, Ostrogoths and Lombards in the Alps and Pannonia. Marriages to the court at Constantinople could be one way to "glue" Western Imperial authority.

Now onto the East, since this is where my real interest and expertise is. Without a Justinianic reconquest, the ERE is going to be FAR stronger than OTL, and, assuming Justinian, Belisarius and Narses have not been butterflied, stands a real chance of decisively overturning the balance of power on the Persian front. In OTL, Justinian was able to more or less maintain control of the situation in Syria and Armenia while simultaneously spending vast sums on paying for wars in Africa, Spain, Italy and the Balkans. TTL, only the Balkan front will be a problem for the Eastern Empire, so far more resources can be poured into war with Persia. One thing seems certain, we will not be seeing a Slavic Balkans; they will remain thoroughly Graeco-Roman; that is unless an Emperor in Constantinople majorly messes things up. But if he does, I am in no doubt that there will be no shortage of western pretenders to attempt to topple him, especially if the aformentioned Imperial marriages go ahead.

Looking forward to see how this develops...
 
Looks good, im impressed :)

Hows the Eastern side coping? With Africa in "friendly" hands it can concentrate more on the easter lands - right?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I agree with Basileus that there will be no South Slavs, beside the stronger position of ERE, the Ostrogoths and Gepids will serve as a "wall" against invasion through the Hungarians Plains.

Beside with the Greater Roman control of South East Gaul, the Burgundians will stay in their settlemts around Lake Geneva and Lake Neuchâtelm, which could result in survival of their language.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback. I was thinking that the Burgundians while not taking over Southern Gaul would cross into the Rhone Valley region and establish control there. It would allow them easier trade with the Mediterranean commercial network. However, of all of the ATL barbarian nations that spring up in the aftermath of the 5th century barbarian invasions, I think the Burgundians might be the most Romanized.

In terms of the Eastern Empire, I am thinking that with more resources and a more eastern looking foreign policy, I think the Byzantines will crush the Sassanids but only after about a century of warfare. I am assuming that the Persian territories in Mesopotamia will be annexed by the Eastern Romans in the 590s, the northern parts of Persia will be raided/invaded/settled by Hunnic/Turkish hordes, while the eastern parts rebel and become independent. This would leave the Persian heartland which might or might not make a comeback.

What you suggest about the Europe is more or less what I was thinking. However, I think that the Franks (who I see being confined to northern Gaul in this ATL) may be the BIG threat that keeps many of the other barbarian kingdoms loyal to Rome. In such a scenario, I think your biggest ally of the Roman regime is the Visigoths in Aquitania. The Visigoths need Roman support as they are surrounded on all sides by enemies (in Spain by the Suevi and in Gaul by the Franks). But that is just thinking out loud. Any thoughts?
 
Top