AHC: Spain as Second Rome

With any POD following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, make a Christian Spain the claimant to the title of Rome, and have it own the territories of Sicily, Carthage, Morocco (Mauritania), Sardinia and Corsica and Tripoli in Libya.

Bonus points if Spain also obtains Jerusalem, Rome, Egypt and the Peloponnese.

Extra bonus points if Islam still exists.

Spain as just a 'base' for a new Rome? Does this mean it's run by 'real' Romans, Spainish Romans or even German Romans?

tallthinkev said:

Spain as just a 'base' for a new Rome? Does this mean it's run by 'real' Romans, Spainish Romans or even German Romans?

Click to expand...

Any. I just mean it has to claim to be Rome (As the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantines, and later the Russians and Ottomans did), and has to try and live up to its title.

It can be Visigoth, Latin, Spanish, whatever you like, as long as it is based in Iberia.

SvoHljott said:

With any POD following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, make a Christian Spain the claimant to the title of Rome, and have it own the territories of Sicily, Carthage, Morocco (Mauritania), Sardinia and Corsica and Tripoli in Libya.

Bonus points if Spain also obtains Jerusalem, Rome, Egypt and the Peloponnese.

Extra bonus points if Islam still exists.

Click to expand...

Looks pretty much a description of OTL.

Spanish christian states claimed to be the heirs of Rome (not of the empire tough), with castillan kings using (rarely admittedly) the title of basileus or emperor and claiming the former diocese of Hispania as their own.

The Crown of Aragon, and after , of Spain additioned territories in Corsica and Sardinia, on the Maghrebi coast, had the kingdom of Sicily (including Naples after a while) and have inherited/bought the title of King of Jerusalem.

LSCatilina said:

Looks pretty much a description of OTL.

Spanish christian states claimed to be the heirs of Rome (not of the empire tough), with castillan kings using (rarely admittedly) the title of basileus or emperor and claiming the former diocese of Hispania as their own.

The Crown of Aragon, and after , of Spain additioned territories in Corsica and Sardinia, on the Maghrebi coast, had the kingdom of Sicily (including Naples after a while) and have inherited/bought the title of King of Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

I was hoping for a united Iberia that takes its role as Second Rome much more seriously.

SvoHljott said:

I was hoping for a united Iberia that takes its role as Second Rome much more seriously.

Click to expand...

It's hard to take seriously the random and stereotypical "second Rome" AHC that pop here sometimes.
Byzantium managed to do that thanks to precise features that Hispania lacked : imperial legitimity (meaning senate and patriarchate), unity, ressources (Hispania being more or less both of a highway and a dead end for migrations). After the final collapse of WRE, the region was in no way able to pull a "second Rome" and the closest you end with was the kind of "silly OTL" stuff : titles, territorial claims, "imperialism".

You'd have to strengthen the Visigothic Kingdom more, so that they're able to fight off the Muslims, and perhaps even launch a counter-invasion of their own into North Africa to help secure their lands against possible future invasions. Keeping hold of their territories in southern France might be good as well. Then when the Lombards are threatening Rome, it's the Visigoths, not the Franks, who intervene, and their King, not Charlemagne, gets crowned Emperor of the Romans by the Pope.

Fabius Maximus said:

You'd have to strengthen the Visigothic Kingdom more, so that they're able to fight off the Muslims, and perhaps even launch a counter-invasion of their own into North Africa to help secure their lands against possible future invasions. Keeping hold of their territories in southern France might be good as well. Then when the Lombards are threatening Rome, it's the Visigoths, not the Franks, who intervene, and their King, not Charlemagne, gets crowned Emperor of the Romans by the Pope.

Click to expand...

A united gothic monarchy (visigoths + ostrogoths) could do it. If the Italian peninsula was threatened enough, moving the capital to the Iberian peninsula would make sense.

But this "second Rome" would not be, as LSCatilina said, anything like Bizantium. Western Europe didn't have the level of urbanization or bureaucracy or wealth for that. Maybe over time it could become, but it would take long... iirc, Western Europe cities only began to become monumental (a symbol of wealth) near the end of the first Millenium.

Where to put the new Rome? Seville might be a good candidate in the most urbanized area of Hispania (although i dunno how severe was the de-urbanization in there), but it was threatened by the Normans, for example. Strategically, Toletum, the chosen capital by the Visigoths OTL.

jotabe1789 said:

But this "second Rome" would not be, as LSCatilina said, anything like Bizantium. Western Europe didn't have the level of urbanization or bureaucracy or wealth for that. Maybe over time it could become, but it would take long... iirc, Western Europe cities only began to become monumental (a symbol of wealth) near the end of the first Millenium.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... maybe if you butterflied away the barbarian invasions and left Spain in the hands of the native Hispano-Roman aristocracy, you might see more Roman institutions survive. Then again, that would require going back to before the POD laid out in the OP.

The thing is not about hispano-roman institutions to survive (they did, surviving more or less up to Islamic conquest), but for Hispania having *before* the invasion an imperial structure, and at the very least a clear regional capital (meaning a patriarchate and a senate) that can be identified as a new Rome.

It's not about urbanization (Visigoths were the only ones with Ostrogoths to actually build cities out of nowhere in the period. Actually, first time I hear about a de-urbanization movement directly due to invasions : the process already began in the IV century with raids, plague, etc. to achieve later in some provinces) or even wealth itself : it's about having structures that even roman Hispania lacked : being seen as an imperial center (an emperor with a clear legitimacy), being protected from migrations, raids or invasions (good luck with that, the province was targeted since the IV) and a self-identification of the socio-political ensemble as Roman.

EDIT : I would add that the "monumental" is a hazardous measure to judge advancement or wealth of a society : evergetism in Late Antiquity and Early MA is taking other styles than Antiquity : building churches or walls etc. These tended, especially in Muslim Spain, to be destroyed and/or replaced by newer edifices and doesn't really help giving an idea about monumentality.

What really changed was the decline and retractation of a political-economical continuum, that forced localism in Romania.

Could a city in Iberia have been chosen instead of Ravenna? If so, that might be a start, and then in some way avoid any incursions of the tribes, so that peninsula is kept securely Roman, perhaps by only employing individual mercenaries in those lands.

Jurgen Wullenwever said:

Could a city in Iberia have been chosen instead of Ravenna? If so, that might be a start, and then in some way avoid any incursions of the tribes, so that peninsula is kept securely Roman, perhaps by only employing individual mercenaries in those lands.

Click to expand...

Yeah, why not Hispalis [Seville]? It was already a thriving seaport, yet inland enough to be able to be able to have a better defense from invading seafaring marauders. Also, I would think that if one could somehow get the Byzantine colonie around Cordoba to survive and use THAT as a starting point [using them to keep the Visigoths from gaining a foothold]. That might help,too.

Wasn't there a timeline a while ago that had the Western Roman Empire surviving in Spain?

Jurgen Wullenwever said:

Could a city in Iberia have been chosen instead of Ravenna? If so, that might be a start, and then in some way avoid any incursions of the tribes, so that peninsula is kept securely Roman, perhaps by only employing individual mercenaries in those lands.

Click to expand...

It's unlikely for several reasons.

1) Moving capitals or having imperial residences wasn't made to protect the court (even if it was a factor) from incursions but for having administration and army being able to react quicker to them. Milan, Ravenna (that didn't host the court on a regular basis before Honorius, at the moment where Barbarians began to settle Hispania), Treves, etc. were less capitals than residences for an itinerent imperial court that needed to be able to react to threats.

2) Having an imperial residence in Spain would mean that emperors would have considered Gaul as lost, as if they couldn't move their court there to react against Rhine incursions.
If they would have chosen to abandon the province, it's far more likely that they would have tried to keep Italy as a "national redoubt" : still wealthy, core of imperial power and close enough from ERE to be possibly helped.

3) Look at a map of [URL="http://pages.uoregon.edu/mapplace/EU/EU19%20-%20Italy/Maps/EU19_65.jpg] Great Invasions[/URL]. Spain is the (wealthy) dead-end of european migrations and invasion of barbarian peoples (and I spare you the III and IV raids). Lack of a fleet, except for Vandals, means that whole peoples were stucks in the peninsula : Vandals, Alains, Goths, Suebi, etc.
It would be really hard to deal with all of these, and if they aren't stopped at the Rhine, they surely gonna end there (rather than Italy, even if it was a good target itself).

4) Mercenaries in the late Empire are almost always (and almost here is for convering me) barbarians : Huns, Goths, etc. not always that much distinguished from laeti or foederati and engaged directly by generals.
Using them as a main protection of a province would have been hugely dangerous and would have : at best a Barbarian (as Sitilicho or Odoacer) ends by being a ruler de-facto if not de jur, at worst you set the cats among the pigeons and only helped barbarian incursions or settlements, both meaning an at least partial loss of the province virtually without opposition.

OK, then, but if we have Julius Nepos moving to Spain instead of Dalmatia, and get some kind of imperial government around him that gathers whatever power structures there are in Spain at the moment, be they barbarian or Roman, into his realm, and continue the line of western emperors from there.

It is not that much to ask of a local ruler in a part of Spain to pay some small remote subservience to the emperor, and if this bond is gradually made stronger over the years, we could have a viable remnant of the empire in Spain.

Jurgen Wullenwever said:

OK, then, but if we have Julius Nepos moving to Spain instead of Dalmatia, and get some kind of imperial government around him that gathers whatever power structures there are in Spain at the moment, be they barbarian or Roman, into his realm, and continue the line of western emperors from there.

It is not that much to ask of a local ruler in a part of Spain to pay some small remote subservience to the emperor, and if this bond is gradually made stronger over the years, we could have a viable remnant of the empire in Spain.

Click to expand...

The difference is, Dalmatia had remained under Roman control, and Hispania didn't. So he didn't have to conquer Dalmatia as much as he had to set up shop in exile there.

Now of course, you could get a rump Roman state I presume to survive in Hispania. You could have a western roman empire that is able to keep a stronger hold on Hispania, and an emperor who is maybe forced into exile there. He sets up his court there, and starts pushing back against the Germanic confederations that entered earlier (here of course being less powerful and not controlling the whole peninsula).

For whatever reason, someone similar to Odavacer comes along, deposes the western emperor in Italy, and runs his own Italian state. Now you have a legitimate and the sole western roman emperor ruling from Hispania. Though I'm not sure how long the Italian state is going to last though, sandwiched between the eastern and western Roman empires.

Jurgen Wullenwever said:

OK, then, but if we have Julius Nepos moving to Spain instead of Dalmatia

Click to expand...

No. Julius Nepos managed to get to the imperial throne thanks to ERE support, something asking for if not partial land control (as Dalmatia), at least the possibility of help.

Spain, at this time, was in chaos : Suebi managed to grab almost all the peninsula and Rome had clearly no power there. Hispano-Romans were forced to ask Visigoths for intervening against bagaudae in Tarraconensis.
WRE tentative of retaking the peninsula didn't ended well due to Vandal invasion and subsequent destruction of Majorianus fleet.

Putting it simply : Hispania was lost for the HRE since the 450's. There's no way Julius Nepos would have used it as his power base.

It is not that much to ask of a local ruler in a part of Spain to pay some small remote subservience to the emperor

Click to expand...

Yes, yes it is. OTL rulers admtitedly considered the emperor as a more or less symbolical overlord but it never went futher because the WRE *never* had the power to enforce it.

slydessertfox said:

Now of course, you could get a rump Roman state I presume to survive in Hispania.

Click to expand...

It did, more or less in Tarraconensis, if we admit Vincentius was an Hispano-Roman ruler that joined up with Euric.
It didn't evolved (as Sygarii Gaul) as a roman *state* because it lacked the administrative structures of it, being more or less a landlord state controlled with militias and/or being client of Visigoths.

You could have a western roman empire that is able to keep a stronger hold on Hispania, and an emperor who is maybe forced into exile there.

Click to expand...

Hispania was rich, and the natural end of almost all big migrations in Europe (at the exceptions of Vandals whom a main part, but not all, crossed in Africa). Moving there, where the imperial power base was at best fragile in the V century, would have made little to no sense.

I know I repeat myself but an imperial residence goal was less to refugee or exile the imperial power than making it more reactive to threats and to beneficy from ravitail and help.

LSCatilina said:

Hispania was rich, and the natural end of almost all big migrations in Europe (at the exceptions of Vandals whom a main part, but not all, crossed in Africa). Moving there, where the imperial power base was at best fragile in the V century, would have made little to no sense.

I know I repeat myself but an imperial residence goal was less to refugee or exile the imperial power than making it more reactive to threats and to beneficy from ravitail and help.

Click to expand...

The whole premise for them moving there of course revolves around Roman hispania not falling into such a sorry state in the Vth century. Obviously if it does, it will not be a viable residence. There are many POD's even after 406, where you can allow that to happen--Constantius finishing off the barbarians in Spain instead of dying at the worst possible time would be the best post-406 one. With that, you have a fully controlled Roman spain.

Of course, you have to then find a different way for the west to fall--maybe have Alaric successfully move the Goths to North Africa from Italy?

slydessertfox said:

The whole premise for them moving there of course revolves around Roman hispania not falling into such a sorry state in the Vth century.

Click to expand...

Then the premise doesn't match the OP that explicitly states "With any POD following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire".

There are many POD's even after 406, where you can allow that to happen--Constantius finishing off the barbarians in Spain instead of dying at the worst possible time would be the best post-406 one. With that, you have a fully controlled Roman spain.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't be enough to have an imperial residence in Spain : as I said above, it would have meant that emperors considered Gaul as lost, and that they needed to withdraw and establish a new line of defense.
Considering that the imperial power base was in Italy and not in Spain, and that communication between both peninsula was erratic at best with a lost Gaul (and with Spain being further than Italy to recieve ERE and African ravitail and help) that makes little sense.

For "fully" controlled, I think there's would be a bit of wishful thinking from imperial court : after the IV century, the local power is more and more on local elites hands, sometimes supported by roman generals (which could be actually romans or romanized) and more than half barbarian troops.
Even before the 450's, regions that escaped barbarian political takeover in WRE (as Tarraconensis, Lugdunensis, Provence) while recognizing the imperial overlordship, weren't controlled by the court that had enough on their hands with Italy.

Of course, you have to then find a different way for the west to fall--maybe have Alaric successfully move the Goths to North Africa from Italy?

Click to expand...

With which fleet? At this point, while clearly debilitated on land, Romans still have maritime dominance in central Mediterranea.