Deleted member 93645
What was the absolute latest time that the Western Roman Empire, or at least a significant part (2+ provinces), could have remained under Roman rule?
During Majorian's reign?
During Majorian's reign?
What is the absolute latest time to save (at least part of) the Western Roman Empire?
Absolute latest? Chararic joins Syagrius at the Battle of Soissons, handily beats Clovis' forces. Then something something morale.
Realistic latest? The sheer atrocity against honest warfare that is the Battle of Cape Bon does not happen for some reason, and Geiseric surrenders properly.
(Source: several minutes of frantic Wikipedia checking)
That said, remain for how long? It's unclear from your question. I doubt that any POD would be enough to have the Western Roman Empire remain in recognizable form up to the 20th century.
Realistic latest? The sheer atrocity against honest warfare that is the Battle of Cape Bon does not happen for some reason, and Geiseric surrenders properly.
(Source: several minutes of frantic Wikipedia checking)
That said, remain for how long? It's unclear from your question. I doubt that any POD would be enough to have the Western Roman Empire remain in recognizable form up to the 20th century.
By Majorian, things already went too far : the emperor managed to play Barbarians against other Barbarians (as foederati, particularly), but it was an expedient. Ricimer already had too much control on imperium, and wouldn't accept a too powerful emperor.
Don't get me wrong, a more or less powerful patrician Italy could make the WRE living longer, but would wear it eventually and make it unable to undergo important reforms (as Majorian's demise points). At best the ERE would intervene to make it works again, meaning eventually a fusion of whatever remains of WRE with its eastern counterpart.
It might be what you search, tough : a general weariness of the WRE being swallowed up by the ERE, instead of being reconquered.
Even if he took back part of Africa, I'd tend to think it would be short-lived, and that it would have overstretched its political and resources possibilities at this point.
Africa, the only WRE province untouched by war, and therefore having important enough fiscal revenues, was already lost; and Barbarians were established as foederati a bit everywhere. That made a survival of WRE as an independent entity a bit perilous, as doable as with Majorian (as in not really plausible on long-term).
That said his survival, with a surviving Theodosian dynasty in the West may help things, would it be only because you'd get rid of the political instability its disappearance provoked. Would this be enough for WRE to survive? It's going to be hard, but it's IMO the latest possible PoD.
I won't dwell too much onto the relation between different Frankish peoples at this point, but roughly, there were much interdependent relations at work among them (the easiness of Clovis' hegemonic establishment would highlight this, meaning a "change of sides" in favor of what have may been for both Franks and a good part of Gallo-Romans as an usurper.
Syagrius probably didn't ruled all of Northern Gaul, as it's stil depicted in several maps. The whole demesne is mostly an historiographical attempt to "fill" the void in the region, that was comparable to what existed in Ebre's basin in Spain.
As some local Gallo/Hispano-Roman rulers, more or less independent with maybe some domination but essentially local : in clear, Syagrius may have ruled only around Soissons, or at best up to Seine. That's not exactly a territory "of note" when it's that limited in size and power.
If we accept Syagrius as a likely choice, and really I don't think it is, then we should name Riothamus/Aurelianus, Sidonius Apollinaris or Vincentus (to name only most famous)
It's interesting to note that Franks ruled over Roman field armies as well : composition of Syagrius and Clovis' armies must not have been that distinct, and the latter had the legitimacy for him (being acknowledged by imperial and provincial elites on Belgica, when Syagrius' power was a more moot question) : eventually separating wholly Gallo-Romans from Franks even at this point makes not that much sense.
Making him (or any other Gallo-Roman or Hispano-Roman) a legit successor for imperium (and I'm not even talking about the plausibility of enforcing such a claim), is mostly wishful thinking and historically wrong to me.
Doesn't mean Chararic couldn't have betrayed Clovis, even if I don't think that's that likely but there's just not enough sources to say that's not possible. That said, he would probably have pulled a Clovis over western Frankish entities (being probably either a sub-king or one of the kings of a proto-Francia), and represented himself a Romano-Barbarian power over Belgica.
Even with a success at Soissons*, I don't think the so-called demesne could last long : it was too divided, too threatened to survive on its own, save a collapse of most of its neighbors.
Not only Franks would still dominate Belgica and Germanica, but you already had several Franks in this region (descendants of laeti or from barbarians general of roman armies as Abrogast).
The militias and armies were composed of various peoples as such, and the division of the demesne among different counts greatly helped Clovis OTL ( Arbogast, Syagrius, Paulus, etc.)
Adding to likely incursions from Franks, Thuringii, Alemani an Bretons are also to be considered.
Eventually, the growing influence of Visigoth in Northern Gaul would be the last drop : already important OTL, and unchallenged ITTL, it could lead to its absorption (as Auvergne was) or at best, a visigothic overlordship.
Syagrii family was, after all, widespread in their kingdom, and part of their court.
Deleted member 93645
The Battle of Cap Bon was pretty ridiculous considering how many Romans were there. I wonder what would have happened if Basiliscus decided not to trust Gaiseric and instead pressed the attack.
If Ricimer died/was killed, and Majorian was succeeded by a strong leader, why couldn't the Romans play off the foederati against each other to consolidate their power?
What do you think the WRE would be like if it was slowly absorbed by Constantinople? Would the ERE be able to hold onto those territories more sustainably than in Justinian's wars? Would they become Greek eventually?
Was the Vandal hold on Africa that strong? It seems like the Romans would at least have a small chance for reconquest, considering they were able to raise 100,000 troops to attack the Vandals. If an alternate Battle of Cap Bon occurred with surviving Majorian fighting alongside Basiliscus, not trusting Gaiseric (perhaps because Majorian heard of Ricimer's plot to kill him and imprisoned him before it happened, and was more paranoid since that incident) and being able to actually deploy their forces, couldn't they pretty easily retake the province?
The problem isn't about leaders, it's about resources and particularly military resources : Majorian's army was largely made of foederati, even if he tried to deepen the use of local militia, and it's why his campaigns (against Visigoths, for instance) had as objective not to crush their power but to integrate them into his own armies.
Integrating them doesn't mean, at the latest, destroy politicization and power influence in the armies : Ricimer's influnce over Italian issued armies can point that.
Assuming Ricimer dies, his political network isn't going anywhere : he's likely to be succeed either by a nepos as Gondovald, or another important Romano-Barbarian figure.
Basically, late WRE Emperors had to face military resources issues (under which you always found fiscal issues) and political factionalisation : Ricimer isn't just a random Barbarian who happened to be the grey eminence of his time, but someone benefiting from real influence and support among foederati and Romano-Barbarian armies as well than in the senatorial aristocracy.
One could even say that if he died and not replaced, WRE would probably have crumbled even more quickly into political anarchy, as it happen after his death.
Mostly because WRE would have been either more and more reliant on foederati and Romano-Barbarian armies to the point being absorbated by these as IOTL, or either it becomes reliant on Eastern Romania's resources and at best becomes a mega-exarchate.
I think so : Justinian wars, especially in Italy, had a relatively flawed political vision of the post-Imperial west. Gothic Wars lasted for decades, and in Africa even with Vandals quickly defeated Byzantines had to fight (and loose territorialy) against Mauri.
ITTL, not only the Romano-Barbarian structures doesn't absorb WRE (meaning a lesser structural resistance), but Constantinople would likely have a more accurate political, and therefore strategical, vision of the problem.
Doesn't mean they will hold because of this, but IMO, it does give them a serious advantage : shorter wars, no restructuring effort, etc.
ERE wasn't much as Greek than mostly (and both) Hellenic and Latin : let's not forget that Romanisation, in the East, was made along Hellenic features since the Ist century.
This romanisation included, by the Late Empire, what one would call "structural romanisation", channeled trough roman religious, cultural and social features and a more "creolized romanisation" that touched more deeply the overall population but formed distinct identities, cultures, etc.
On several grounds, it's fair to point that western Romana could be less romanised than its eastern equivalent. Of course, regions as Italy or Africa, even with the fall of WRE, were following a same pattern than ERE*, but long story short, an imperial unification (let's remember that WRE and ERE are historiographical concepts, and that people then only saw a bicephal but same Roman state) from Constantinople would likely not turn into an Hellenisation of Italy.
*Roughly speaking, one can distinguish a post-imperial Romanity which is distinguished by episcopalian cities, roman law, and Latin as common language; and late imperial Romanity with municipal cities, maintain of classical spectacles and classical schools (even if all of these can be found elsewhere, but not distinctively).
It was. Again, we're talking military and fiscal resources there and Vandals had both.
Battle of Cape Bon asked for a really strong ERE support (even if the whole 100 000 men and more than a thousand of ships can be debatable), and even that failed before Vandal navy.
Justinian had to wait for Vandals having their asses kicked by a general Mauri advance in Africa to crush them.
I stress the naval projection part : WRE simply didn't have one that could match with ERE or Vandals. When Majorian fleet is destroyed, he simply can't pull another one out of his sleeves (and this failure may explain, partially, his murder).
Now could it have worked? It could have, not without an harsh fight, but it's well into the realm of possibility : it wouldn't have pointed anything, however than the great dependence of Ravenna from ERE's resources. The whole cost of the expedition largely exceeded WRE fiscal revenues, representing more than one year of what ERE could gather itself.
And, eventually, it's not about Majorian or Ricimer themselves, but about the structures they used and represented. Even with Ricimer alive, the network of political factionalism and alliance would still be there, both in Ravenna and Constantinople.
Now, a reconquest of Africa before 468 could likely have been attempted more successfully, my point isn't that it was bound to fail militarily.
We could as well assume that Marcellinus succeed Majorian, Ricimer failing for some reason to evict the general out of Italy or having more interests dealing against Vandals, and conquers Africa.
Or that, somehow, Majorian's fleet isn't destroyed and manages to reach African coast victoriously.
We'd have then a Roman (meaning militiae, regulars, Barbarians, foederati) army in Africa, and have to deal with Vandals, after what was probably an harsh naval fight, and probably going for an harsh battle. But again, Romans could take the best of it and win.
What happens? Well, more the emperor is out if Italy, more Ricimer's power (or his successor, or any magister militium wannabe) is increasing and more chance seeing allies and foederati going their own way.
When Majorian/Marcellinus/etc. would have leaved Africa :
- Either the region is militarily supported trough ERE's resources (and at this point, Constantinople is more than wary about western figures) meaning a ERE absorbs WRE provinces
- Or you'd have Vandals, still in Africa, probably reduced to their original foedus in Mauretania (remember, Majorian/Marcellinus would have needed men and can't afford, or even can, crush Romano-Barbarian entities) taking back most of it , as Visigoths did with Gaul and Spain IOTL.
Except, this time, they would probably struggle more with Berbers or other players.
And I don't go into the problems of usurpers : late WRE had plenty of it, and any ambitious general willing could have seen in Africa a fair base, as it existed IOTL in Dalmatia, Gaul, etc.
To me, the problem isn't how Romans could have won in Africa, but how could have the WRE managed to win and hold it at this point.
Last edited:
Deleted member 93645
Thanks for the info. This would a pretty interesting timeline/scenario. Majorian conquering Africa and the WRE just barely hanging on for a few more decades, as the Eastern Roman Emperors absorb the West.
How dangerous were the remnants of the Huns at this point?
How dangerous were the remnants of the Huns at this point?
Last edited by a moderator:
Not much : their confederation was broken after the battle of Nedao in 454, and even if Dengizich tried to partially restore a part of his father hegemony along the shores of Black Sea (not totally unsuccessful as he gathered a good part of Huns as well than some Iranian and Germanic elements) the war he waged against ERE ended pitifully in 469.
Whatever remained of the Hunnic confederacy was settled as foederati in Dobruja under Ernak's rule, and eventually disappeared into oblivion : we don't know anything more of Huns after 470*
You could technically maintain an Hunnic (understanding largely Sarmatized mix of Hunnic, Germanic and Iranian peoples) north of Danube tough, along the Black Sea. Sort of an eastern equivalent to Gepids. It might have interesting consequences on the ethnical and political development of the region (less because of immediate changes, but what it could imply on Kurtigurs or Avar presence).
*Ethnically, Hunnic confederacy was composed of a lot of people on which Huns proper weren't that dominant, it's possible they mixed up with Goths and went in Italy with Theodoric. But that's just a personal hypothesis.
I'm going to say that the odds of survival were lower after Theodosius's reign than before?
Late Roman and Byzantine historians had a huge tendency to call Huns more or less anything, the name becoming somewhat genereric for any north Danubian peoples and confederacy coming from northern-eastern steppe.
Procopios, particularly, use it in place of Utigurs and Kutrigurs (in the context of a legendary genealogy, tirying Huns with Cimmerians, Scythians, etc).
It's equally possible that these people absorbed the remaining of Hunnic peoples north of Danube or that they pushed them back, but they were not originally part of the Hunnic hegemony and weren't related to the last recorded properly Hunnic entity which is the foedus led by Ermak in Dobruja.
So, maybe that among Belisarius' army were remnants or descendants of the old Hunnic entities, either from north or even south of Danube. But not Huns in the sense that this name had one century earlier : at best elements among a different tribal group (including Turks, Uralian, Proto-Slavs, etc.) they didn't dominated or were really organized politically within.
I'll end on a detail : I'm not sure that "a lot of Huns" is really spot on. While the troops labelled as Huns were present, we're more talking of auxiliaries than the main body, coming by groups of some hundreds and almost never more than two thousands.
The confusion may partially comes from the fact Late Roman army, as it did earlier with Sarmatians and later with Avars, adopted a lot of steppe features borrowed from "Huns".
Vortigern is able to keep out the barbarians .This might not be a proper empire but Roman society will continue until either the Irish or Picts get ambitious .
At least some Saxons were already there (and had been for some time), and the reason for importing Saxons was because the Romano-Britons were already losing to the various invaders already in Britain.
I believe a reconquest of Africa is key. Either Majorian's attempt, or the Eastern Roman attempt(find a way to have someone competent in charge instead of Basiliscus). I disagree that Majorian would have been unable to do so. The biggest issue is in fact Ricimer.
If Majorian is successful, you have a competent military leader fresh from great success, with a reformer's mind. If he takes back Africa, he becomes very popular and has a powerbase outside Italy. I don't see how the Ricimer or the Italian Aristocracy can hope to oppose him openly at that point.
If Majorian is successful, you have a competent military leader fresh from great success, with a reformer's mind. If he takes back Africa, he becomes very popular and has a powerbase outside Italy. I don't see how the Ricimer or the Italian Aristocracy can hope to oppose him openly at that point.
If we have a rump WRE surviving that relies on eastern support, perhaps something along the "mega-exarch" concept, what influence may that have on later pretentions of imperial authoirity, such as Charlemagne and the HRE (or whatever would pass for analogoues in this scenario?
In a related concept, would such an empire be doing well enough that it could whether analogues to the Persian and Arab invasions? It seems that, on paper, it should: more territory and less resources expended to take it.
In a related concept, would such an empire be doing well enough that it could whether analogues to the Persian and Arab invasions? It seems that, on paper, it should: more territory and less resources expended to take it.
I think you have to have a POD. . .
As far back as the Reign of Honorius to really change the fate of the Western Roman Empire. Any time after 405, you have Germanic tribes in full force running roughshod over most of the empire. Stilicho had stripped the Rhine garrisons to deal with Alaric's Goths, and the Rhine froze solid during the winter, permitting the various German tribes to cross over, first into Roman Germania, then into Gaul. Within a year, Constantine III declared himself Emperor, stripping the province of soldiers for his attempt at the purple. Rome had been bad off before, but to lose a whole province?
That, I think, was the beginning of the end for Rome.
As far back as the Reign of Honorius to really change the fate of the Western Roman Empire. Any time after 405, you have Germanic tribes in full force running roughshod over most of the empire. Stilicho had stripped the Rhine garrisons to deal with Alaric's Goths, and the Rhine froze solid during the winter, permitting the various German tribes to cross over, first into Roman Germania, then into Gaul. Within a year, Constantine III declared himself Emperor, stripping the province of soldiers for his attempt at the purple. Rome had been bad off before, but to lose a whole province?
That, I think, was the beginning of the end for Rome.
scholar
Banned
Define Roman Rule, because in some ways Rome wasn't under Roman rule even when the Western Empire is still recorded in the history books. When you look at it, 475 and 476 were not special years. Nothing really happened during it to make the fall of Rome a necessity. Had it not been for Romulus Augustulus being put forward, the Empire could have conceivably lasted for years, if not decades longer. Having the Emperor around was a useful tool. Orestes complicated the issue, so that when Nepos died later on it was more trouble than it was worth and Rome itself nominally was reunited under Eastern Roman suzerainty and a cultural-political blending of Roman and Barbarian institutions and identities that would only truly break a century or two later, and would never completely die out depending on how one looks at it.
So having the Roman Empire linger about in the West is not actually that hard, even when it almost was completely impotent. Avoid Orestes, or have Orestes be successful, and Western Rome could last for a while longer. Hell, having power back in the hands of Romans might actually be a turning point for Western Rome. In either case, for your idea of a Western Rome with at least two provinces being around, you only need a barbarian, a roman, or a romano-barbarian force to take advantage of a situation and conquer some former roman province. Or, you could have one of the barbarian tribes in control of another province conquer Italy, perhaps using some latent Roman opposition, and a new arrangement is drawn up that continues the institution of Emperor.
The longer the institution of emperor is maintained, the weaker the differences between barbarian and roman would become, and the more likely that the empire could default into a situation where the there is a transition that keeps Rome alive politically, as well as culturally.
But that's just me and my distaste for historical destiny. Yet it is important to note that Western Rome in the 5th century was in a very different situation from Eastern Rome in the 15th, so much so that it is perhaps not helpful to treat the two as remotely similar. The final fall of Rome was that of an ember being extinguished by an outside polity through conquest of what was essentially a city state. The fall of Western Rome was that of an internal cannibalism that arguably was not actually felt by many as important at the time, and only grew in significance later as people began to "remember" the fall of Rome in Byzantium while the West was struggling to reconcile its burgeoning identities in a Roman World that was rapidly diverging into different polities.
Deleted member 93645
It's ironic that you bumped this thread because I was just looking at it right now. For the most part I agree, the emperor could be kept around as a tool for quite a while.
I'd like to discuss the Majorian scenario further. So let's say Majorian's fleet is not destroyed. He invades Africa with his intact fleet and army, also recruiting a small amount of troops from the Mauretania, which Geiseric intentionally devastated to hurt Majorian's advance (foraging would be more difficult, but Majorian would also gain the loyalty of the local population who now hate the Vandals). Meanwhile, Marcellinus and his Hunnic foederati sail to Cap Bon and attack the Vandals from the east.
Marcellinus gets bogged down in the center of Vandal power but survives. Majorian pushes east and they surround Geiseric's forces, killing him and destroying the Vandal Kingdom. Some of the Vandals and Africo-Romans are recruited by Majorian, and he heads back to Italy to take care of the Senate, who is bound to be troublesome. (Marcellinus sails to Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearic Isles to erode the last control of the Vandals).
It turns out Ricimer has turned the Senate against Majorian, but with his victorious army Majorian has quite a bit of support of his own. Majorian kills Ricimer, but this enrages the Visigoths, Suevi, and possibly the Burgundians.
Would a civil war break out? How can Majorian rein in the foederati and the Senate (if he can at all)?
I'd like to discuss the Majorian scenario further. So let's say Majorian's fleet is not destroyed. He invades Africa with his intact fleet and army, also recruiting a small amount of troops from the Mauretania, which Geiseric intentionally devastated to hurt Majorian's advance (foraging would be more difficult, but Majorian would also gain the loyalty of the local population who now hate the Vandals). Meanwhile, Marcellinus and his Hunnic foederati sail to Cap Bon and attack the Vandals from the east.
Marcellinus gets bogged down in the center of Vandal power but survives. Majorian pushes east and they surround Geiseric's forces, killing him and destroying the Vandal Kingdom. Some of the Vandals and Africo-Romans are recruited by Majorian, and he heads back to Italy to take care of the Senate, who is bound to be troublesome. (Marcellinus sails to Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearic Isles to erode the last control of the Vandals).
It turns out Ricimer has turned the Senate against Majorian, but with his victorious army Majorian has quite a bit of support of his own. Majorian kills Ricimer, but this enrages the Visigoths, Suevi, and possibly the Burgundians.
Would a civil war break out? How can Majorian rein in the foederati and the Senate (if he can at all)?
Majorian's position with the elites in Italy is roughly similar to that of Stilicho. There wasn't much good will between them, but as long as Majorian was successful, they wouldn't move against him. IOTL of course the moment he slipped up, they took their chance. Everyone plays Ricimer out as the villain in this, and no doubt there's some truth to it, but more likely is Ricimer didn't have much of a choice if he wanted to keep power himself-He was the one who had to deal with the elites in Italy daily, and he probably calculated after Majorian's failure that either he was going to join in taking Majorian out or go down with him.
I've never thought about Ricimer that way, but at the same time you can't say the man wasn't at least a tad bit callous. Majorian nothwithstanding, Ricimer's treatment of his political partners doesn't get better after 461. Interesting character that man, and I have no doubts he was more complicated than that but look at anything he does and you'll find villainy.