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 don’t 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.
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 don’t 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.