An earlier fall of the Roman Empire

This is my first attempt at writing a thread, so my apologies if the subject has been treated before. I have read several threads about possible longer survival of the Roman and Byzantine empires, and how their demises was caused to sometimes improbable and unlikely events (battles that could have gone either way, such as Adrianople, Yarmouk, Manzikert, etc., the Justinian and other plagues, the untimely deaths of good and capable emperors etc.). It amazes me, however, how very close to extinction was the Roman empire in the third century and what an incredible work was done by emperor Aurelian by defeating break-away states such as the Gallic and Palmiryene empires, and Goths, Alamanni, and other "barbarian" tribes.

So, WI Aurelian did not become an emperor for whatever reason (he is either killed in one of the wars he conducted under emperor Claudius Gothicus, he lost the succession war with Quintillus, or other possible scenario). Under a less effective emperor, could the Roman empire have fallen in 270-280? What kind of Europe, Northern Africa and Middle East would have emerged from the ruins of this Roman empire, assuming for instance that the Gallic and Palmyrene empires survive and prosper, and other parts of the empire either secede or are conquered by "barbarians"? What are the implications for religion, at a time where Christianity was not yet well established? BTW no emperor Aurelian means no celebration of Sol Invictus on December 25th, and, according to some scholars, this would also mean no Christmas, at least not in December...

Well I don't think the Empire could collapse so quickly after Claudius Gothicus. However, it certainly still could collapse. The thing is though, the splitting up of the empire was, if anything, a godsend for them-rather than one emperor focusing on 3 fronts and inevitably having usurpations every other day of the week, you had one emperor focused on the Rhine, one on the Danube, and then Odenathus and Zenobia focusing on the Persian frontier.

So, if you want the Roman Empire to completely collapse in the third century, the best scenario is to prevent the splitting of the empire, so you have to go back to having Odenathus fail to defeat the Persian army returning fresh off their victory over Valerian, and then have anybody but Posthumous be declared emperor on the Rhine, so said person will march on Rome immediately, rather than take the more prudent step of confining himself to Gaul.

vcarruba said:

So, WI Aurelian did not become an emperor for whatever reason ... Under a less effective emperor, could the Roman empire have fallen in 270-280?

Click to expand...

0zymandias said:

The thing is though, the splitting up of the empire was, if anything, a godsend for them-rather than one emperor focusing on 3 fronts and inevitably having usurpations every other day of the week, you had one emperor focused on the Rhine, one on the Danube, and then Odenathus and Zenobia focusing on the Persian frontier.

Click to expand...

So if instead of Aurelian we have another emperor strong enough to protect the border against the Barbarians but too weak to crush other Roman Emperors - this splitting up of the Empire might stick.

I am not sure that would qualify as the 'earlier fall of Rome'.

The point is the Roman system was good enough when the territory was not too big - the emperor might fight all his enemies in person thus not provoking attempts of usurpation from his subordinate generals.
So the world "without Aurelian" might be the Roman World surviving on the territory of the 'big Roman Empire' in the form of several smaller Roman Empires being able to fight off the Germanic tribes, the Hunns, the Arabs, the Persians and many others.

vcarruba said:

Under a less effective emperor, could the Roman empire have fallen in 270-280?

Click to expand...

I don't think it would, at least not that suddenly :

What kind of Europe, Northern Africa and Middle East would have emerged from the ruins of this Roman empire, assuming for instance that the Gallic and Palmyrene empires survive and prosper,

Click to expand...

I don't see the so-called Gallic Empire survive (remember that, rather than a break-away states, we have more competors for the imperial title) : too fragile and dependent on their victories, eventually.

Claudius II was himself someone skilled enough to find replacement of Aurelianus, or skilled enough to deal directly (and successfully) with military matters and overall fitting the model of military emperors whom Aurelian was part of.

In the end of the Third Century Crisis, most of the immediate dangers were reduced : Claudius already began to deal with the "empires" westwards and eastwards, as in making sorta peace with Zenobia to take on western pretenders (with success as the latters' most wealthy provinces turned back to imperial authority).

Of course that doesn't mean that Claudius or another's successor his going to have the exact same success, but the grounds for a Roman revival are still there, ready to be used as they were by Aurelian IOTL.

The biggest geostrategical threat is, as always, Sassanians that could take on Palmyrenians before Romans do something. Barbarians raids would be harsh, as IOTL, but manageable as they won't be as much organized they were in the IVth century (of course, a bad management or a defeat against, say, Goths could make them stronger even if still outside Romania, as in post-Roman Dacia).

But even if things could go wrong, I wouldn't call it a Roman collapse at this point : you'd need an earlier PoD for that.

I'm less sure with Ozymandias' argumentation, even if there's good point : a bigger fragmentation could be a possibity for defeats (it would arguably less a collapse than a deep geopolitical change)

With a more important Barbarian pressure, an harsher IIIrd crisis, you could see some weird form of Tetrarchy appearing, with every dux/caesar having more autonomy than its counterparts, the emperor being more or less ceremonial in these matters.

Even without a de facto division as IOTL, I think we may see appear regional power with diverse degree of independence, especially military, but not challenging the imperial power whom importance may arguably decline from endless struggles.

For exemple, in the west, maybe Bagaudae could evolve, with a weakened imperial power (or defeated one, that wouldn't as IOTL adapt to little war issues), from provincial rebellions, into autonomous group of provinces acknowledging the imperial power but having its own.

What are the implications for religion, at a time where Christianity was not yet well established?

Click to expand...

Well, for your PoD, not that much. Maybe a lesser importance of imperial patronage when it comes to cults, but it was going to get develloped trough the "dominisation" of the roman imperialiship.

BTW no emperor Aurelian means no celebration of Sol Invictus on December 25th, and, according to some scholars, this would also mean no Christmas, at least not in December...

Click to expand...

Thay's actually particularly debated : long story short, there's no mention at all of such link except later and only something along "it happened in December" which is, you'd agree vague.

And even if it doesn't mean that you didn't have a relation, it could be easily the reverse : Christians practices being the inspiration for the choice of Natalist Invictis (arguably, it's from the Historia Augusta, something written later, and somehow not entierly reliable for some questions)

Russian said:

So if instead of Aurelian we have another emperor strong enough to protect the border against the Barbarians but too weak to crush other Roman Emperors - this splitting up of the Empire might stick.

Click to expand...

The problem with that though is after Posthumous, the Gallic Empire was horribly unstable. You have to also have Posthumous survive longer to have a chance of cementing some kind of stable succession.

Mostly though, I agree with LSCatilina. Also, on the point of Christmas, it's likely it would be sometime around the winter solstice anyway, with or without Sol Invictus. Although it's I guess the best Christianity could achieve in this scenario is how far they got OTL in the 3rd century, up until Constantine favoring them which allowed them to expand exponentially in the empire.

First I would like to thank the people that posted on this thread so far: excellent comments, in my opinion. I agree with LSCatilina that the empire was on its way to recovery with Claudius II, and that a skilled emperor other than Aurelian may have finished the job. So WI Claudius II dies, and his brother Quintillus takes the throne, as OTL. Aurelian is acclaimed as emperor, but then he either losts his battle with Quintillus, or dies before it. Emperor Quintillus starts fighting one of of the many "barbarians" tribes then in northern Italy (according to Wikipedia there were Vandals, Iuthungi, Sarmatians, and Alamanni, so plenty of enemies to pick up!), but he is defeated and/or killed (not quite outlandish, considering his poor performance against Aurelian). A new emperor is elected, but in the meanwhile "Barbarians" have invaded the Balkan provinces of the empire, and the current governor of the Africa province decided that "Emperor of the African empire" sounds better than governor of a province .
We now have a situation in which the Roman empire is divided in five parts, none poweful enough to conquer the others: the Gallic empire, the "real" Roman empire in Italy, Retia and Noricum, the African empire, a "Gothia" in the Balkan provinces, and the Palmyrene empire. Could such a situation stick, as suggested by Russian? And for how long? OTL the tetrarchy system of Diocletian collapsed in a few years, once Constantine started defeating the other emperors one by one. China also passed though several phases in which the empire splitted into different countries, only to be reunited later on. So, perhaps at some point one of the roman empires could get strong enough to gobble the other ones. But maybe this does not necessarily have to happen, and after some struggle a balance of power situation start to arise (the key point being the Palmyrene empire being strong enough to resist the Sassanids, as discussed by LSCatilina). Finally, concerning religious implications, quite possibly Christmas can remain at a date near the winter solstice, as discussed in other posts. But would Christianity be the dominant religion in a world where there are four or five Roman empires? OTL, Christianity became the dominant religion also thank to the victories of Constantine. In a world where the Roman empire is stably divided in four or more parts, can we have for example a situation in which one of the empires converts to Christianity, another to Mithraism, another to the cult of Isis, and so on? Thank you again for your comments, and please keep up with the good work!

One can argue that the Roman Empire probably should have fell in the Third Century and caught some pretty luck breaks that extended its life

Could you please, next times, make your posts a bit less "compact"? It would be easier to read. Thanks.

vcarruba said:

A new emperor is elected, but in the meanwhile "Barbarians" have invaded the Balkan provinces of the empire, and the current governor of the Africa province decided that "Emperor of the African empire" sounds better than governor of a province .

Click to expand...

Actually, "Emperor of the whole Empire" would sounds better than just "emperor of a relatively remote region" (even "Gallic" Emperors never ceased to call themselves romans Emperors) that would turn quickly into meat for the next candidate in need of legitimacy.

Now, having poor emperors succeeding on the throne? That's possible, but remember that it was the armies that eventually had a say on who was chosen : hardly "elected" but imposed either by the army, either by the senate (they often failed to do so).
You best chance may be another military civil war between some candidates, but eventually one with more skills and more brains would emerge : you'd be "restricted" with doing as far damages you can deal before that happens.

Frankly, you could just pick among early Aurelian's reign usurpers. You don't even need that the "official" emperor fails in battle : Gallienus was skilled, and it didn't prevented several rebellions or secessions.

Eventually, you'd end with a more or less stable situation, with more or less autonomous if not independent regions (altough less ruled by usurpers, that having leaders de facto aknowledging Roman rule, but acting on their own. That said, you could have some usurpers, as Gaul's, formally acknowledging some sort of "suzerainty").
Something we could call a "ducal" system (reference to the Dux Oriens title that Palmyrenians had, more or less vice-emperor or co-emperor) with Dux Hispaniae, Dux Occidens, etc. on a military-based command.

So, perhaps at some point one of the roman empires could get strong enough to gobble the other ones. But maybe this does not necessarily have to happen, and after some struggle a balance of power situation start to arise.

Click to expand...

I'd agree : while this new balance may live on, such an important decentralisation and distinct policies have great chances (trough sheer disunity) to backfire against external dangers and pressures.

But would Christianity be the dominant religion in a world where there are four or five Roman empires?

Click to expand...

Good question : I could see Christianism having fair chances with eastern "duchies", as it was relatively well present there (and fairly absent elsewhere, except important towns). It could make things easier for Christianism at first, with one duchy with pro-Christian (or Christian) policies serving as harbour and base; but could make a religious/political reaction more likely in west.

You'd still have a sense of unity, although the economical/cultural continuum may be likely weakened, so I'd still see eastern cults scoring in the West, but more easily rivaled by western provincial practices. If cults as Mithra's still dominate among soldiers, it would be as IOTL : a "classist" cult without much hope to expand socially. For what matters West, we may end with a more or less syncretic society (altough with some gods having a more important weight, rather than lost into a big pantheon : Apollo, Mithra, Sol, Triple-headed God, maybe a regional practice supported by a duke*)

*As an, unlikely, exemple : a Pyrenean-originated duke putting in front a Romano-Pyrenean God, as Abelio.

If either Postumus or Gallienus loose their nerves and march against each other with all their legions a disastrous bloodbath could happen like in the Battle of the Frigidus (394).

Usually roman armies did not fight each other until last man standing. They often retreated early and commited defeat. The high commanders were executed or commited suicide. And for the legionaries it was very clear, that they should not fear any consequences. They simply were integrated into the army of the winner under new commanders. So Frigidus was rather an exception. The army of the West was almost anihilated. While in the eastern army the allied Goths suffered the most casualities. With Postumus against Gallienus it might happen, that both roman armies suffer tremendous casualities. Unlikely, but possible.

After Frigidus the roman core of the western army was heavily decimiated. The western emperors relied now heavily on recruiting barbarians and even more on their independent barbarian allies. Just one of many reasons why the Fall of the West now accelerated dramatically in the last 80 years of the western empire. And vice versa it was one of many reasons, why the East did not Fall, that the eastern roman army was in a better shape and barbarization did not happen on this broad scale.

So if the armies of Postumus and Gallienus are heavily decimated and the germans take the chance to invade now, these last 80 years of the western roman empire might already start in the 260s. Afterwards I don't see, which army should attack Zenobia succesfully. Except for the Sassanids. But the Palmyrenenans were not that bad in defeating persian armies. This might end with a bunch off german and roman succesor states and a rather powerful Kingdom of Palmyra in the East. The greek cities of Asia Minor would perhaps ask Zenobia for protection. I doubt there is a reason for the Palmyreneans to cross the Bosoporus or invade Africa. Egypt, Asia and Syria is enough. After the chaos in the West is perfect, the son of Zenobia calls himself Caesar Augustus and becomes the emperor of a roman-greek-oriental eastern Roman Empire, which is not interested at all in the West.

LSCatilina said:

Could you please, next times, make your posts a bit less "compact"? It would be easier to read. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Sorry, this is literally my first attempt at writing a thread, I am still learning my AH skills.

LSCatilina said:

Actually, "Emperor of the whole Empire" would sounds better than just "emperor of a relatively remote region" (even "Gallic" Emperors never ceased to call themselves Romans Emperors) that would turn quickly into meat for the next candidate in need of legitimacy.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I believe that any possible "African" pretender would style himself as the "real" emperor of the whole empire, more or less like Byzantine emperors called themselves Roman emperors and were deeply offended when addressed as emperors of the Greeks. However, should a situation with four or five "real" emperors stabilize, eventually most of the common people will get tired of the pretense, and terms like the "Gallic", "African", or "Palmyrene" emperors would become more viable. Just for the sake of simplicity, I would suggest to use this terminology.

LSCatilina said:

Now, having poor emperors succeeding on the throne? That's possible, but remember that it was the armies that eventually had a say on who was chosen : hardly "elected" but imposed either by the army, either by the senate (they often failed to do so).
You best chance may be another military civil war between some candidates, but eventually one with more skills and more brains would emerge : you'd be "restricted" with doing as far damages you can deal before that happens.

Frankly, you could just pick among early Aurelian's reign usurpers. You don't even need that the "official" emperor fails in battle : Gallienus was skilled, and it didn't prevented several rebellions or secessions.

Click to expand...

True. Elected emperors in the third century (in the sense of being imposed or chosen by the Senate) were very rare. Most were military leader acclaimed by one or more of the empire legions. The emperor that I picked in my scenario (Quintillus) was one of the very few ones chosen by the Senate (it was the brother of Claudius Gothicus, from what I understand the claim that Aurelian was chosen on Claudius II death bed and that Quintillus was an usurper is now mostly considered as propaganda by the new Aurelian regime). It seemed perfect to me as an example of a military non-entity chosen for political reasons in very troubling times. I agree that this could not necessarily be the only scenario that leads to an early fall of the empire. Aurelian usupers, as you suggested, or the very interesting scenario suggested by Agricola could also do.

LSCatilina said:

Eventually, you'd end with a more or less stable situation, with more or less autonomous if not independent regions (altough less ruled by usurpers, that having leaders de facto aknowledging Roman rule, but acting on their own. That said, you could have some usurpers, as Gaul's, formally acknowledging some sort of "suzerainty").
Something we could call a "ducal" system (reference to the Dux Oriens title that Palmyrenians had, more or less vice-emperor or co-emperor) with Dux Hispaniae, Dux Occidens, etc. on a military-based command.


I'd agree : while this new balance may live on, such an important decentralisation and distinct policies have great chances (trough sheer disunity) to backfire against external dangers and pressures.

Click to expand...

True. While I believe that the East under the Palmyrene empire could have a better chance to survive and prosper (if they survive Sassanids attacks), for reasons discussed in Agricola post. The west (with the possible exception of the Africa province) in this scenario is heading toward a very chaotic time, with possible subsequent "Barbarian" invasions. After a while, we could end up with a Byzantine situation ante litteram, with a Palmyrene empire stretching from Egypt to Asia minor, and various infighting smaller states in Europe. I could not see the Palmyrene empire too much interested in expanding in Europe, but perhaps I am wrong.

LSCatilina said:

Good question : I could see Christianism having fair chances with eastern "duchies", as it was relatively well present there (and fairly absent elsewhere, except important towns). It could make things easier for Christianism at first, with one duchy with pro-Christian (or Christian) policies serving as harbour and base; but could make a religious/political reaction more likely in west.

You'd still have a sense of unity, although the economical/cultural continuum may be likely weakened, so I'd still see eastern cults scoring in the West, but more easily rivaled by western provincial practices. If cults as Mithra's still dominate among soldiers, it would be as IOTL : a "classist" cult without much hope to expand socially. For what matters West, we may end with a more or less syncretic society (altough with some gods having a more important weight, rather than lost into a big pantheon : Apollo, Mithra, Sol, Triple-headed God, maybe a regional practice supported by a duke*)

*As an, unlikely, exemple : a Pyrenean-originated duke putting in front a Romano-Pyrenean God, as Abelio.

Click to expand...

A syncretic, possibly religiously more tolerant, society in the west does not seem too bad to me . Would that be the case? Would "westerners" be open to religions from the East, or could we still see persecutions of Christians in the West (and of other religions in the possible Christian East) as OTL? A Frigidus-like battle between an Eastern Christian emperor and a "Pagan" (I use the world with some liberty, I am aware there was no such thing as a pagan religion, see also other posts in AH) Western one could be very interesting in this scenario...

vcarruba said:

However, should a situation with four or five "real" emperors stabilize, ...

Click to expand...

I guess this is the key-success-factor for an early fall of the empire in the 3rd century. Due to multiple usurpations which all failed to march on Rome, and a emperor in Italy rather unlucky in reconquering anything, plus barbarians winning more than one war about the border provinces, the power of the remaining local usurpers/emperors is diminished and splitted to a point, were they have no realistic chance to re-unite the empire ever again. Like Syagrius, the roman ruler in parts of Gallia after 476 never had a chance to re-unite. Well, I doubt he ever had this intention at all. Even not in a wet dream.

Another important condition is, that Africa usurps and separates from Italy and Rome. But also fails to invade Italy and vice versa. Because Italy plus Africa is still too, strong and this emperor would go for reconquest like every roman emperor or usurper feels obliged. Remember that the roman mindset is very strong and separatism is not part of it! Well, if Italy is overrun by barbarians, you got just a Romano-Berber Kingdom in Africa, which might be happy to hold its position, or enlarge a bit to Sicilia and Baetica afterwards, if possible or called for help. Both provinces make a lot of sense economically and strategically from the point of view of an african ruler. The biggest city of Africa Carthago is the obvious capital and all fits very well to the roots of the population of Africa, which are berber, roman and still very punic in the 3rd century. Later legends would tell, that Hannibal was looking from the Elysion into the direction of Carthago and jubilated: "Finally!"

The difference is also, that the rich East is controlled by Palmyra. I know no historian, who claimed, that Zenobia (for her son) had ever the intention to become roman emperor and march on Rome. So we got a Fall of the West, without an eastern roman empire still asserting a claim on the west and the full orbis romanum.

So all you have to do, is to multiply the stalemate situation, which already existed between Gallienus and Postumus. And add some succesful german invaders to support/accelerate this process. Of course, as others already argued, the separation into 3 vital parts of the empire, even strengthened the defensive capabilities of the empire. I am sure, that Diocletian remembered these times, when he developed the Tetrarchy. Like he picked up a lot of other experiences and inventions of his precedessors during the 3rd century. Thats why I reccommend to start this process of further fragmentation with a desastrous battle between Gallienus and Postumus. Not Gallienus and Zenobia, because afterwards Postumus would have the chance to re-unite the empire. I am convinced there is a chance for a plausible story. Unikely, but plausibly possible.

PS: I guess we had already a thread about a Southern Roman Empire. Nevertheless, such an African Empire, blocked in the north by germano-roman successor states and in the East by Palmyra, might focus on the South for more ressources and opportunities. And now the story starts to become weird but interesting.

I'm not entirely convinced an african breakaway state could survive. Africa is, quite literally, the linchpin to which the survival of the western empire rests. If someone in Africa revolts and declares himself emperor, the Roman Emperor would almost certainly drop everything as soon as he could and move to knock him out. And with a single legion in North Africa, it appears to be a losing battle for the African pretender.

0zymandias said:

I'm not entirely convinced an african breakaway state could survive. Africa is, quite literally, the linchpin to which the survival of the western empire rests. If someone in Africa revolts and declares himself emperor, the Roman Emperor would almost certainly drop everything as soon as he could and move to knock him out. And with a single legion in North Africa, it appears to be a losing battle for the African pretender.

Click to expand...

Well, one of my preconditions for the process of further fragmentation was a desastrous battle between Gallienus and Postumus. Followed by a serious invasion of german tribes. Gallia, Italia and Illyricum comes to mind.

You are fully right. Whoever rules in Italy, he will drop everything and sell his childs to slavery, just to get the money for an army marching towards Carthago.

But I am not sure, that this is enough after that desastrous battle between Postumus and Gallienus to be victorius. Africa had just one legion of about 5000 men. But it had also one of the biggest contingents of auxilia with about 20.000 soldiers. Thats due to the special nature of the african limes. And don't forget the tribes of the Berbers, which showed more than once, that they alone are very capable to withstand roman armies for a long time. Not forgetting that Africa was one of the few provinces which were not suffering economically but growing during the 3rd century. So the african cities should have been very able to recruit and finance even more legions.

Perhaps a roman usurper in Africa is that busy in cutting deals with the Berbers and recruiting new legions, that he even does not plan to march on Rome. He just waits, until they are coming. Which is unavoidable. They will come. No doubt about that.

PS: So Gallienus, survived the desastrous battle against Postumus, which finally was a kind of very bloody tie. He marches against Carthago and is defeated again. Actually, he was defeated by a bunch of auxilia flanked by berber cavalry, while the Legio III Augusta and 2 more rookie legions were drinking posca in the back. Like Agricolas legions did 83 AD in Caledonia. Meanwhile the Alemanns invaded Northern Italy. This time they do not go home as usual but march on Rome. Gallienus coming back with a few thousand soldiers is not able to prevent, that Rome is sacked by the Alemans. Gallienus is killed by one of his officers. This officer manages to negotiate peace with the Alemans, get the fully plundered Rome back and implements a kind of Kingdom in Southern Italy.

Postumus coming back home with a very decimated army, was not that lucky either. His commander in Hispania usurped, as he did IRL. This usurpers army meets Postumus on his way back from Italy. Postumus is executed after a rather short battle. In the meantime, the Franks were raiding in Gallia. The spanish ursurper fights them, but it is just another tie, so he has to retreat to Hispania, trying to secure at least the rich Narbonensis. But this did not work well for long. But at least Hispania managed to withstand further barbarian invasions.

In the east the self-declared emperor and Dux Illyricum has a hard time at the Danube border. He cannot prevent, that multiple tribes are plundering Moesia, Thracia and Greece. But finally he manages to secure Greece and Dalmatia for the time beeing. Another self-declared Dux managed to secure Thracia for now.

And all this shit just because Postumus or Gallienus lost their nerves and battled each other.

Agricola said:

Perhaps a roman usurper in Africa is that busy in cutting deals with the Berbers and recruiting new legions, that he even does not plan to march on Rome. He just waits, until they are coming. Which is unavoidable. They will come. No doubt about that.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. OTL the Vandal kingdom managed to repeal the first expedition that the Byzantine empire send against it in 468. Given enough time and preparation, an African usurper could perhaps withstand the attack from the emperor in Italy.

Also, what about the other "empires"? A Gallic emperor or one controlling Dalmatia (or whatever German-Roman kingdom rules there in that scenario) would be fully aware that they would be next in the to do list after the Africa province fell. An Italian emperor mounting an expedition to Africa may discover once he finish that his home territories have been snatched away from his neighbors...

vcarruba said:

Interesting point. OTL the Vandal kingdom managed to repeal the first expedition that the Byzantine empire send against it in 468. Given enough time and preparation, an African usurper could perhaps withstand the attack from the emperor in Italy.

Also, what about the other "empires"? A Gallic emperor or one controlling Dalmatia (or whatever German-Roman kingdom rules there in that scenario) would be fully aware that they would be next in the to do list after the Africa province fell. An Italian emperor mounting an expedition to Africa may discover once he finish that his home territories have been snatched away from his neighbors...

Click to expand...

By 468 the Vandals had been established in Africa for around 30+ years and had an extremely powerful navy that had around 40 years of experience. Had the Romans invaded North Africa in the 430s under the command of Aspar as they had intended before Attila took advantage of the diversion of troops to get the east to recall him, then the Vandals would have crumbled.

Actually, any scenario that lets the Romans land and the Vandals crumble. A usurper in North Africa would not have the benefit of a strong and experienced navy that the Vandals did. In any case, I agree with Agricola's scenario for the most part.

vcarruba said:

Interesting point. OTL the Vandal kingdom managed to repeal the first expedition that the Byzantine empire send against it in 468. Given enough time and preparation, an African usurper could perhaps withstand the attack from the emperor in Italy.

Click to expand...

Actually the Vandals had no chance on paper against this roman force. It also seems, that the Vandals could not ally with the Berbers. Later the romans in Mauretania did so and Justinians general who defeated the Vandals later had to deal with this non-vandal kingdom in Africa.

However, this idiot, commanding the roman force, did not land his forces for a rather long time, while negotiating with the Vandals. Now the Vandals hit the roman invasion fleet heavily with fireships and the invasion was over.

Also, what about the other "empires"? A Gallic emperor or one controlling Dalmatia (or whatever German-Roman kingdom rules there in that scenario) would be fully aware that they would be next in the to do list after the Africa province fell. An Italian emperor mounting an expedition to Africa may discover once he finish that his home territories have been snatched away from his neighbors...

Click to expand...

Thats my scenario. After the desastrous battle between Gallienus and Postumus both armies are not strong enough to battle the incoming german tribes and further usurpators not believing anymore in these 2 guys. The desaster that happened from 406 to 476 happens right now mid of the 3rd century.

But even these usurpers are not strong enough to hold more than a 2-3 provinces. At the end Europe is heavily fragmented and ruled by several local roman emperors and german kings. Palmyra controls and defends the East, and Africa is secure due to its geographical location and the union of romans, punics and berbers. Which happened similarily IRL later anyways.

Palmyra is not interested in the West and Africa has neither the strength to battle the germans in Italy nor the romans in Hispania. Actually some parties of this complex mix in Africa are not interested in more than raiding outside of Africa anyways. Everything is gone. Chaos everywhere and no reason for any local ruler to dream the dream to become a roman emperor. It is just beyond realistic opportunities. From now on it is just better for every ruler with a brain, to secure his homeland and his own ass.

PS: Again, it is unlikely, that Postumus or Gallienus do such a stupid move. But if, the roman world could end here and now or transform into something fully different. And please don't ask me, what happens with christianity without a single point of attack, which was the top of the rock-solid hierarchy of the roman empire. Or if Mohammed could be successful in the 7th century. That depends on how the Palmyreneans deal with the Sassanids and vice versa. The crazy thing is, that with such a Fall of Rome in the 3rd century you might avoid the Fall of the Ancient Culture, and so avoid the Dark Ages. But thats another story

The OP asked for a scenario where the roman empire falls in the 3rd century. Here we go.

Agricola said:

Africa had just one legion of about 5000 men. But it had also one of the biggest contingents of auxilia with about 20.000 soldiers. Thats due to the special nature of the african limes.

Click to expand...

I truly hate to be a killjoy, but where did you get this number - twenty thousand(!) auxiliary soldiers in the North Africa (excluding Egypt?) III century AD?

Russian said:

I truly hate to be a killjoy, but where did you get this number - twenty thousand(!) auxiliary soldiers in the North Africa (excluding Egypt?) III century AD?

Click to expand...

Yes, the numbers are without Egypt and Cyrenaica, which were never part of the "Exercitus Africanus".

Actually the numbers are out of memory. I have read a lot of analysis of military historians about roman armies in several provinces. For the 2nd century AD, I remember calculations about 20-25000 auxilia soldiers based on the number of auxilia which are reported to have been at this limes in these time.

It is correct that the roman army consisted in average of 50% legions and 50% auxilia. Actually modern historians trend to 60% auxilia. But it was never distributed 50:50 in the armies of the provinces. Also in Britannia we had probably 2 times the numbers of auxilia soldiers than legionaries. But Africa was always the most asynchronous exercitus. Except Raetia, which had no legion at all for about a century.

Actually, I cant' confirm, that they were still there in 260. But looking to the nature of the african limes, and the trouble, the african provinces had during the 2nd century, plus an "african emperor" Septimus Severus in the early 3rd century, who pampered Africa very much in many regards, I see no reason to believe in much less soldiers.

PS: I just did a quick search on Google, because you irritiated me a bit. And I found this Wkipedia Entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxilia#cite_ref-1

I know Wikipedia is no valid source. Well, this entry does look better than others, honestly. However, it fits with the numbers I remember from military historians.

vcarruba said:

Sorry, this is literally my first attempt at writing a thread, I am still learning my AH skills.

Click to expand...

No problem, but it's just about about having an easier time answering you (critically when english isn't one's prime language)

Just for the sake of simplicity, I would suggest to use this terminology.

Click to expand...

Would it be that simple, tough? The dukes could likely hold their legitimacy (and that would be important for a partial stability) from the emperor that would be sort of half-shogun half-vassalic king. Using "emperor" could imply a struggle for the imperial title (that would, IMO, likely happen ITTL).

After a while, we could end up with a Byzantine situation ante litteram, with a Palmyrene empire stretching from Egypt to Asia minor, and various infighting smaller states in Europe.

Click to expand...

I'm less convinced as that : while organised, the Barbarian peoples weren't as strong they became IOTL trough a process of structuration (with Roman support, concious or not). I'd rather think about a more gradual Barbarian presence, as auxiliaries/laeti/foederati, than a general takeover at least in a first time. (Having Barbarians eventually turning into patricians, à la Odoacer, ruling de facto over a given region in the name of the duke and/or emperor).

(With, likely, a whole set of small regions escaping romano-provincial control, of course; but maybe slowly integrated as the West would "barbarize" : which may mean as much a Romano-German influence than Romano-Sarmatian ITTL)

A syncretic, possibly religiously more tolerant, society in the west does not seem too bad to me .

Click to expand...

It would be less syncretism than a situation as in Japan, where religious practices depends a lot on what you celebrate or on familial preferences.

Overall it doesn't say anything about tolerence (Romans, as hinted by their treatment of druidism, could be pretty much intolerent when they wanted so : it's possible to see Christianism in West being persecuted).

Agricola said:

Like Syagrius, the roman ruler in parts of Gallia after 476 never had a chance to re-unite. Well, I doubt he ever had this intention at all. Even not in a wet dream.

Click to expand...

It's even far from settled that he ruled anything else than Soissons' region. For all we know his demesne is mainly an historiographical construction.

Well, if Italy is overrun by barbarians, you got just a Romano-Berber Kingdom in Africa,

Click to expand...

If Late Antiquity Africa's history is any help, it wouldn't go that easily. Granted Berbers were integrated into African political sets, but you had an important distinction, if not opposition between them and Africano-Romans. Something that an Italian emperor could use fairly easily as Byzantines did in the VIth century, critically with the deep will of such Italian emperor to get Africa back as 0zymandias pointed out.

Agricola said:

But I am not sure, that this is enough after that desastrous battle between Postumus and Gallienus to be victorius. Africa had just one legion of about 5000 men. But it had also one of the biggest contingents of auxilia with about 20.000 soldiers.

Click to expand...

Which are very likely to turn to raiding and general local uprisings if Rome is collapsing : they were locally issued for a main part (contrary to the Principate's situation) and would be more tied to tribal interests and policies, if not simple military takeover.

As for numbers, I'd point it was classical Roman Empire numbers : it's fairly possible that Third Century Crisis numbers were different, but arguably I couldn't find a good estimation besides that it could change easily, even during Trajan's rule, they were more auxilia externae, meaning non-permantantly raised auxiliaries; more important when needed. With a sceeding Africa, I'm not sure you'd have room for raising much.

Agricola said:

It also seems, that the Vandals could not ally with the Berbers. Later the romans in Mauretania did so and Justinians general who defeated the Vandals later had to deal with this non-vandal kingdom in Africa.

Click to expand...

That's actually the contrary that happened : Vandals first managed to broke a deal with Berbers, which went moot (probably because Vandals inner policies that went against Inner Mauri own situation and relations between opposers and Outer Mauri); while Byzantines came in Africa mostly thanks to Africano-Roman call for help in face of a generalized Romano-Berber takeover. Eventually Byzzies had a hell of a time, as during Solomon's mandate, to repell them (as they wanted to restore full Roman governancy over Africa, not knowing about the rather complex political situation that existed in classical Roman times) and eventually ended up with less territories than Vandals had.

LSCatilina said:

If Late Antiquity Africa's history is any help, it wouldn't go that easily. ...

Click to expand...

Thank you for clearing things up about the rather complex political situation in Africa. In my attempt to draft a quickshot out of my head, how Africa could become independent, I obviously messed a bit around.

Nevertheless, I am convinced we need a further fragmentation of the empire to let the empire fall in the 3rd century. And an independent Africa is very important.

If we look to Peter Heathers theory about the Fall of Rome, the invasion of Africa by the Vandals was the point of no return. Even if a lot of historians disagree with his so called shock-theory, almost all agree to this point of no return. That means, that as long as one emperor or usurpator is able to hold Italy plus Africa a reconquista is always possible and looking to the roman mindset, every emperor would try it.

It is highly unlikely that a german tribe of the 3rd century migrates as far south as the Vandals did in the 5th century. So my attempt was, to find a 'roman solution' to separate Africa from Italy. Other scenarios are possible, too. For example the Berbers overrun Africa.