Africa is not lost to the Western Roman Empire?

[steven24gordon]

Rhomani Revival: The “Carthaginian” Period

The “Carthaginian” Period (so called because from 492-544 the legitimate government of the Western Empire was located at Carthage on the Tunisian coast) was one of partial reconstruction for the Western Empire. After the restoration of the Empire in 490 there were few wars of territorial expansion (despite the fact that large swathes of Western Europe had slipped from Rome’s grasp) and the “Carthaginian” Emperors are lethargic in their ambitions (and mostly under the thumb of the domineering Empress Eutropia). Not that nothing very interesting happens: there are a few significant religious moments when one Carthaginian Emperor or other fights with the Pope in Rome; the Eastern Empire infers in Western politics occasionally and there are several noteworthy wars fought against the Moors in Mauretania Tingitana. But this is mostly a time of rebuilding and of economic recovery. Securing the trade routes of the West Mediterranean is seen as essential to this recovery, as pirate states have grown up in the Balearics and Corsica during the Interregnum and much time is spent capturing and destroying the each of the individual enemy small harbours.

Britannia, large swathes of Gaul, northern Italia and much of Hispania has been lost to barbarians. Roman power in Western Europe has been shattered by barbarian invasions and Germanic colonisation, and only a few cities and fortresses along the Mediterranean coast remain under imperial sovereignty. From these few remaining centres the gradual and partial restoration of imperial power has begun. Although there are a few political and military victories that expand Roman power (especially against the Burgundians in the Rhône Valley) the main cause of this restoration is culture. From the Mediterranean ports, Roman cultural influence radiates out into the neighbouring Germanic lands. The “No Vandal Invasion of Africa” has meant that Africa has survived as a refugee of Roman power and scholarship in the West. Relatively untouched by the wars of the 5th century, these Africans will become the economic cornerstone of this ATL Empire.

From their African base, the “Carthaginian” Emperors of the 5th and early 6th centuries are able to use the resources of Africa to prevent the disintegration of the Empire. This is help by how divided the ‘Germanic’ kingdoms are. In the ATL we have a more divided Europe. Gaul is divided between Visigoths, Burgundians, Franks and Alamanni (and the Romans work hard to keep it that way). Iberia is even more divided (as the geography there tends towards political division) with a Roman controlled south while in the Suevian kingdom is beginning to descend into fragmentation. Basque rebels in the mountains and the seditious Vandal fiefdoms on the Meseta, mean that the Suevi are constantly having problems. Any thoughts?

These divided Germanic semi-barbarian kingdoms are subjected to the Empire's cultural influence and are brought into the sphere of its political schemes. In the cultural revival of the 6th century, the Western Empire has a profound effect on the barbarians building their castles on the ruins of Roman prosperity. These Germanic warlords come to associate themselves with Roman civilisation, and some of them even adopt its religion and form ties of kinship with the imperial dynasty and Roman nobility. Honoured with Roman titles, the Germanic nobility began to accept that ‘ideal’ sovereignty resides in the Empire and its structures. The new migrants are seduced by the Roman dream of Universal Empire and attached themselves to the notion of the Western Empire through titles and Christianity. Although literacy has decreased, there are still many who have read the oration of Aristeides and have believed that: “Before the establishment of your [the Roman] empire the World was in confusion, upside down, adrift and out of control; but as soon as you Romans intervened the turmoils and factions ceased, and life and politics were illumined by the dawn of an era of universal order ...You Romans are the only rulers known to History who have reigned over freemen ...The lustre of your rule is unsullied by any breath of a generous hostility; and the reason is that you yourselves set the example of generosity by sharing all your power and privileges with your ...with the result that in your day combination has been achieved which previously appeared quite impossible –the combination of consummate power with consummate benevolence ...Rome is a citadel which has all the peoples of the Earth for villagers. And Rome has never failed those who have looked to her.”
But in the process of subjecting this barbarian world to its political and cultural influence, the Western Empire adopts its manners and styles of thought and decoration. As the Romans become more Germanised, this could create a cultural (and probably religious) wedge between the East and West, any thoughts? How does the more gradual ATL Germanisation change the social, economic and political structure of the Empire? How does the more acute ATL Romanisation of the Germans change their social, economic and political structure? All suggestions welcome.

It may interest our readers to know that the “Carthaginian” Emperors are also keen that their new home represents the glory and splendour of the restored Empire and conducted some rather showy building projects including a vast new basilica dedicated to Saint Augustine (who lives longer than OTL and writes an intriguing history of the 4th and some of the 5th century). The wealthier and more powerful imperial cousins of the “Carthaginian” Emperors in Constantinople have their own problems. Disputes over religion lead to violent mobs and even more violent rebellion, and then there are the usual wars with Persia and a few Slavic invasions.

But in truth the Carthaginian Period is rather dull, so we can skip most of it, as what happens next in our saga is far more interesting...

 

[The Professor]

A question in terms of Britannia: Given the historical currents of the ATL, what is happening in Britannia? In a big way, the Britons-Romans are still cut from what’s left of the Western Roman Empire and in my opinion would have a difficult time in holding their own in the chaos of 5th century. Thus I think that the Saxon invasions are likely and that the old Roman provinces in Britannia would still crumble into a series of petty kingdoms. But maybe I am wrong, any thoughts?

Given that little has changed from OTL in Britannia you can expect it to closely resemble OTL. Any discernible differences would be down to extent of TTL's Plague and which Germanic tribes migrate; though whether those differences would survive is debatable.

An interesting possible change would be the Jutes who resided with the Franks long enough to be influenced by them; maybe they wouldn't migrate but be assimilated among the Franks?

As an aside, while there is little mention of the Frisian tribes who migrated with the Angles and Saxons their language became the basis of the Old English dialects, simply because there were Frisians in all the Saxon Shore Kingdoms.

 

[Archangel]

The Suevi have good chances of holding territory in Iberia, for they were more prone to accept the local customs.

 

[steven24gordon]

The Romo-Gothic ‘Revolution’: A Beginning

The Romo-Gothic ‘revolution’ that transformed the Western Empire had all the familiar elements of the 6th century: clashing religious controversies, decaying political traditions, the rise of new social and economic forces, and the intertwining of domestic and foreign affairs in the conduct of the Empire. But all this is pervaded by the indefinable force of human personality. The key to understanding the course of events that led to a ‘revolution’ lay in the characters and personalities of the key political figures in the Roman World. One of the most formidable of these characters was Messianus. A member of the Italian émigré residing in Carthage and hero of the Moorish Wars (campaigns to pacify and subjugate the Moors of Numidia and Mauretania). Messianus was popular and ambitious. He was also a keen reformer, who spoke out against the corruption and mismanagement that had festered under the gluttonous current Emperor Paeonius. But more than all this he was a man with powerful friends in the army who, with the support of the Carthaginian aristocracy, seized power in a palace coup in 534. Shortly afterwards, Messianus was proclaimed Emperor by the garrison at Carthage and was joyously welcomed into the city as Augustus of the Western Empire.

The voracious Paeonius, narrowly escaping execution by disguising himself as a commoner and sneaking out of the city, scurried to Constantinople to beg the Eastern Emperor for help against his usurper. The Eastern Roman Emperor Belisarius I was sympathetic to Paeonius’ plight (he was Paeonius’ own cousin after all) but at the moment his Empire was engaged in a titanic tug-of-war with the Sassanid Empire for nominally pro-Roman Armenia and Upper Mesopotamia. Given the vast resources he had committed to the Persian front, Belisarius was disinclined to waste good men and money on the West. So the bulbous Paeonius was left to languish in Constantinople with nothing to do but scandalise the court with his grotesque reputation.

Meanwhile in Carthage, the elegant panegyric of Messianus’ coronation was over, and the new Emperor was making plans to revive the Empire’s disintegrating political system. The key problem of the current age that Messianus sought to rectify was the weakening of the Emperor’s authority. For you see as the Western Roman Empire entered the latter half of the 6th century, it became clear that the old system was breaking down. The weakening of the military and administrative systems (after the barbarian invasions of the 5th century) had allowed local elites to considerable exert pressure on imperial authority. In order to maintain the loyalty of the provinces in the face of territorial and military decline, the central government created (or revived) provincial assemblies, and appointments to the provincial bureaucracy had been limited to members of the local senatorial elites. Barbarian foederati kings had been allowed unprecedented powers, and were virtual rulers of much of northern Italia and Pannonia. By the end of the 5th century, the centralised bureaucracy had largely collapsed and the Western government had increasingly come to rely on local elites (and the church hierarchy) to administer the provinces. These powerful local elites often avoided paying taxes, consolidating their local authority and using their influence to the detriment of the state, of smaller landowners, and of the general peasantry.

Messianus sought to change all this and end the flagrant and unrestrained corruption of the nobility. Of the aristocrats Messianus was known to have said “without exception they make lawless use of power and authority; menace with tax collectors; plunder the common people; violate their wives and daughters; and steal their goods and even their homes.” He wanted to return his government and the Empire to an ideal of strong centralism and the ‘divine’ imperial authority. In the name of this idealism he embarked, with pedantry and stubbornness, on a campaign to pass laws curtailing the privileges of the aristocracies, the bishops and the ‘federate’ kings. He campaigned vigorously against corruption, reforming the taxation system and freeing the tenant farmers from their rigid obligations. But for all his administrative skill and his moral piety, Messianus was too rash. He was utterly convinced of the correctness of his policies and in his quest to pursue them he alienated his allies among the landowning aristocracy. This left him vulnerable and isolated. Rebellion and sedition became inevitable.

When the crisis broke, unsurprisingly, it was over a matter of religion. In Messianus’ mind, the imperial title meant a monarch without limits or challenges to his authority, not even from the Pope in Rome. In 539, he excommunicated and later exiled Pope Seronatus for refusing to support his affirmation of the teachings of the ascetic Maximus ‘the Summoner’. In response, a number of local synods were convened in Milan, in which Messianus was condemned. Encouraged by the backing of the now exiled Pope and the Italian bishops, the Ostrogothic comes foederatorum Theodoric and his Gothic ‘federates’ revolted against imperial authority. Theodoric, a skilled tactician and politician, sought to win both the support of Eastern Empire and the Italian senatorial elite by proclaiming his allegiance for the obese Paeonius as the ‘true emperor of the West’. Belisarius was happy to support the rebellious Goth and dispatched his disreputable cousin with an expeditionary force to Italia.

This affront to imperial authority forced Messianus to move quickly, and he raised a large force to quell the rebellion before Paeonius could arrive. But the war opened badly for him, Theodoric defeated an imperial army Messianus sent against him and three days later captured Rome without a fight. Soon all of Italia was in open revolt and the Germanic king of the Visigoths had declared for the podgy Paeonius. In 540, Paeonius’ expeditionary force joined up Theodoric’s Gothic army and crushed another imperial army near Naples, securing Italia for the corpulent Paeonius. In reward for his services to the returning Emperor, Theodoric gained the title patricius et magister militum, and received the Paeonius’ enthralling daughter’s hand in marriage.

Any thoughts?

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Enjoying this as always, I'll give more thoughts when I get back from college this evening

 

[steven24gordon]

The Romo-Gothic ‘Revolution’: The Burden of Power

With Messianus’s battered army evacuated to Sicily, Fasir (a Moorish camel-borne prince of Ouarsenis and former ally of Messianus) sensed the weakness of the Western Empire. He swept down from his mountain stronghold and raises many of his fellow Moors in revolt against the Romans and besieges the fare cities of Roman Africa. Despairing of Messianus’ empty promises to protect them from the Moors, many of the African aristocracy declare for the rotund Paeonius, begging him to send his indomitable general Theodoric to protect them. Faced with rebellion at home and defeat in Italia, Messianus escapes to Sicily where his army is encamped. But upon entering Syracuse, he is murdered by his own generals in exchange for amnesty from the misshapen Paeonius. In 541, Theodoric and his army are welcomed into the city of Carthage like returning heroes. Theodoric then confronts Fasir, and despite the harrowing effect of camels on his own cavalry, defeats the Moor at the battle of Tricamarum.

With Africa secure, the malformed Paeonius moved his court to Carthage and her imperial palace, resuming his life of drunken debauchery and pretty corruption. But shortly after arriving Paeonius becomes ill and soon afterwards dies. Although at the time, many courtiers suspected poison it was probably the plague that had began to hit the Empire in successive waves after 541–542. The OTL plague brought a period of 6th century economic growth to an end (one estimate suggests that the population of the Empire in 600 was only 60 per cent of what it was in 500). ‘O, city, city, head of all cities!’ lamented the ATL historian Mandubracius an eye-witness of the plague’s effects on Carthage. ‘O, city, city, centre of all the world! ‘O, city, city, pride of the followers of Christ and ruin of the barbarians! Where is thy beauty, O paradise? Where is the blessed strength of your spirit? Where are the relics of the saints? All I see around me is death and the waste of the dying…’

Theodoric moved quickly, after his master’s death, securing the imperial purple for Paeonius’ sickly infant son Anastasius before the overly ambitious Eastern Emperor Belisarius decided to challenge the succession. He need not to have worried, wars in Persia and the defense of the Danube frontier tied up the lion’s share of the Eastern Empire’s wealth and manpower. But moreover, the heart and mind of Belisarius (and his successors) had turned eastwards and their ambitions were directed towards the Silk Route and the wealth of Ctesiphon. The Western Empire, with its barbarians and poverty, by comparison was not considered a prize worth fighting over.

Thus it was Theodoric, a barbarian and a Goth, who found himself Emperor of the Western Roman Empire in all but name. Marrying Anastasius to his own niece, Theodoric seized on the opportunity that history had afforded him to “remake” the Empire. Theodoric adopted the ‘Catholic’ or “Orthodox’ faith of Christianity with great vigour, proclaiming himself ‘Protector of the Orthodox and the Church’. With this new position, Theodoric dedicated himself to defending the ‘Orthodox’ Christians of Europe from the tyranny of the pagan and heterodox. By using religious propaganda to elevate his status, this puts Theodoric (and his successors who adopt the same title) in a power rivalry with the Pope. How will the papacy handle this challenge to their authority? Any thoughts?

Despite papal mumblings, the Theodoric has more important work to do. Some of the barbarian kings of Gaul and Spain had refused to recognise the decadent Paeonius and sided with Messianus in the recent civil war, and now didn’t acknowledge the infant Emperor Anastasius. Theodoric must demonstrate Roman military strength in Europe and re-establish their obedience. The triumphal march of the Romo-Gothic into the Rhône Valley is able to re-impose imperial authority on the Rhône, forcing the Burgundians to resume their role as loyal foederati of the Empire. While Romo-Gothic intervention in Suevia (central and northern Spain) places the pro-Anastasius ‘Catholic/Orthodox’ king Hariulfus on the throne. But aside from these military achievements, the most important thing about Theodoric is that he is soon accepted as the ruler of the Roman West. In 548 when Anastasius dies in another outbreak of plague, Theodoric is "elected" to the purple by the Senate at Rome amid widespread celebrations. The only question remains, will the Eastern Emperor accept a barbarian as Emperor of the Eternal City?

Somehow, I think so. Challenging Theodoric’s accession would mean re-conquering the West and Constantinople doesn’t have the political will for something like that. In fact, I would argue that the Justinian attempt to re-conquer the West was uniquely Justinian and without him (and under these different circumstances) a re-conquest wouldn’t have happened. So in this TL, there is no Justinian effort to ‘rebuild’ the Roman Empire of the 4th century and cooler heads prevail accepting Theodoric as Western Emperor.
Without the OTL adventure to overextend military manpower and imperial finances of the East, the later invasions of imperial territory by Lombards, Avars, and Bulgars may be averted or at least mitigated. The Balkan invasions will face far stiffer resistance than OTL and far more of the Balkan interior will remain Greek/Latin. However, it could be argued that the ATL resources of the Eastern Empire were not sufficient to stop the successive migration of Slavs into the Balkans. But what we could see is more successful Roman campaigns against the Slavs and the Avars in the late 6th century. This might prevent the formation of the Avar Empire and we could see fragmented Slavic, Hunno-Bulgar, and Germanic tribes/kingdoms in Eastern Europe. Perhaps the Gepids would survive as a political force on the Carpathian plain which may prevent the Lombards from being pushed west into Italia, any thoughts? With the Danubian border more strongly held and given the penchant of East Roman diplomacy, the Slavic migration might move west into those parts of Germania and Francia outside ATL Roman rule. Any thoughts?

 

[Jammy]

Interesting, clever to use religion like that.

Could we get another map at some point please.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Given that the Eastern Empire was quite able in OTL to repel barbarians, and even showed major resistance under Maurice at a time of massive overstretch and bankruptcy, I think ITTL there will be no Slavic settlement in the Balkans full stop. I think what's more likely is that Constantinople will play divide and rule amongst the various Turkish, Slavic and Germanic groups along the Danube frontier and in modern day Ukraine, perhaps establishing them as foederati under the nominal suzeiranty of the Eastern Emperor, much as Carthage has achieved with the barbarians of the West.
So with that, I think that there is certainly a good chance of the Slavs coming down into Germania and Francia; or maybe (and this intrigues me greatly!) setting sail for Britain to inflict further mayhem and misery on the remnants of the Romano-British?

 

[Valdemar II]

I don't think a more succesful conquest of Germanic/German lands by Slavs is likely, if we look at the south Slavs at genetic level, the Y kronosomes common among other Slavic groups is rarer among them, it seem that the conquest in Northen Europe was a result of overpopulation and resettling of new land (many Germanic groups had already moved west*), the spread of the South Slavs was more conquest and assimilation of the already existing people of the Balkans. So I think that the Vends is unlikely to settle more land than they did in OTL.

*The Saxons is original believed to have lived in Meckenburg and Holstein, with the mass emigration to Britain and Niedersachen the land was somewhat depopulated and ready to new settlers.

 

[trajen777]

Good TL --- I think as some have said you have left the west in a more reduced state then they owuld hve been in with Africa secure. I have read a source some where that talks about a unit on the Rhein which basically just faded away from a lack of pay. Also if you look at the Barbarians after Attilia you have the Alans Burgundins Vistagoths in Gaul and some moving to Spain. So think u would have had a paid and stale force which could have reconquored Spain - kept Italy safe - and overcome 1 -2 of these kingdoms ------- But anyway Good TL

 

[steven24gordon]

The Romo-Gothic ‘Revolution’: The March of the Roman Eagle

Theodoric was an Ostrogoth and the celebrated Augustus of the Western Roman Empire, and he was a man with a plan. Abandoning the de-stabilising centralism of former Western Emperors, Theodoric sub-divided into four imperial Prefectures loosely based on the old imperial prefectures created by Diocletian: the Prefecture of Italia (Italia north of the Po, Pannonia, Dalmatia and Illyricum), the Prefecture of Roma (Italia south of the Po, Sicily and Sardinia), the Prefecture of Africa and the Prefecture of Iberia. He granted the Prefects of these Prefectures far-reaching authorities and responsibilities (combining military and civilian authority under one position). It is a tradition that his successors continue, and soon the Prefects assume powers almost identical to the ‘federate’ barbarian kings who governed under a pledge of allegiance to the Empire. In fact it was in part because of these barbarian warlords that the Prefects’ powers were so extensive.

Now the reason for this political development has a lot to do with the Western aristocracy. The Late Western Empire was always marked by a far greater dichotomy between the wealthy senatorial class and the masses of poverty stricken peasants (coloni) than her Eastern counterpart. But the weakening of the Empire’s military and administrative systems after the barbarian invasions of the 5th century had allowed the local elites to considerable exert pressure on imperial authority. In order to maintain the loyalty of the provinces in the face of territorial and military decline, the Western government had create (or revive) provincial assemblies and limited appointments of the provincial bureaucracy to members of the local senatorial elites. By the end of the 5th century, the centralised bureaucracy had largely collapsed and the Western government increasingly came to rely on local elites to administer the provinces. In order to deal with these provincial assemblies, the Empire needed governors with both civilian and military titles and powers. And then there is the clergy. Since the secular bureaucracy had largely collapsed by the end of the sixth century, the central government increasingly came to rely on the hierarchy of the ‘Orthodox/Catholic’ clergy to administer the provinces.

As his power was being diluted, Theodoric sought to maintain his authority as Emperor by associating himself ever closer with the Latin Church (proclaiming himself ‘Protector of the Orthodox and the Church’). Through this title, the Western Emperor could use the spiritual weight of the church to maintain some influence on Catholic (still ‘Orthodoxy’) populous of those regions lost during the 5th century (principally those in Gaul and Spain). The influence of Latin Church grew strong in Western European politics as Theodoric (and his successors) used their ‘spiritual’ authority to curb the power of the Germanic foederati and their warlords. The resurgence of this power was felt across Western Europe as the Germanic kings were forced to come to terms with the Emperor and seek his favour, guaranteeing rights for their Orthodox subjects in exchange for formal recognition. Why did they come to terms? They needed access to the Mediterranean (where the Empire retained massive naval superiority) in order to access trade and gain the stability needed to face rivals at home. But more importantly the Germanic lords of Western Europe sought the support of the Empire to cast off their previous traditions of elected monarchy. Indeed many ‘Germanic’ kings begin to adopt Orthodox/Catholic faith, seeking to legitimise their reign through the Church. In fact the principle of 'Divine Sovereignty' (that temporal power passed from God to the King through the Church) becomes the maxim of many Germanic dynastic kings.

But there were murmuring of dissent in far away Carthage where the Africans (a rather religious and occasionally philosophical lot) and their bishops are beginning to demand some autonomy from Rome. I believe that a Patriarch of Carthage is possible, although he may not rank as highly as Alexandria and Constantinople (and certainly not Rome). Now one suspect that an ATL in which there is still a strong (relatively speaking) Emperor on the throne of the West would see a weaker Papacy. Indeed, I predict a rather strained relationship between the Popes and the Western Emperors. Any thoughts? But will our ATL Emperors be able to dominate and monopolize control over the church like their counterparts in the East? As the 6th century grew old, the rise of Caesarpapism causes growing tensions between the Emperor in Ravenna and the Pope in Rome. Any thoughts on the shape of these tensions? Where will be the flashpoints of conflicts in ecumenical matters? All suggestions welcome.

Religion is pertinent question in our ATL. In ATL the Western Empire is wealthier and more urbanised than OTL which leads (according to the odd logic of the time) to more religious division (one reason why Western Europe in the Dark Ages had few heterodox religious doctrines was that there was no thought worthy of the name heresy). First there is the religious conflict between the Orthodox Church and the Arian ‘federates’. Then there are the dangerous Donatists in Africa, who stage a remarkable comeback after years of tireless persecution when the Bishop Iohannes converts several notable Moorish princes to the heretical ‘Donatist’ faith. The handling of these Western divisions is made worse by the Emperors in Ravenna whose efforts to resolve these situations are often clumsily, ill-planned, high-handed and bungled. Then there are Irish preachers, freshly arrived from across the Channel, who create controversies in Gaul, spawning new and dangerous movements and monasteries.

Now another significant aspect of this TL is that because the Mareinternum has always remained under imperial control, commerce and communication between the ‘Greek’ and ‘Latin’ remains strong. Perhaps not as strong as in the 4th century but much stronger than OTL, and therefore we will see a less significant polarisation between Latin and Greek. What are the effects of this? Since trading will be lead by the Greeks we will probably see greater Greek influence and maybe a sizeable community of Greek-speakers in every major port. This is not to say that there will be no polarisation, no conflict between ‘Latins’ and ‘Greeks’. As the twin Empires drift apart both politically and religiously, division and divergence is inevitable. Any thoughts?

 

[steven24gordon]

By the way guys, thanks for all the feedback. I had not thought seriously about a large Slavic migration into Germannia but now the wheels are turning. But before I hammer my own thoughts onto a page what are your guys' thoughts on this Slavic migration? What is it going to look like?

 

[Valdemar II]

By the way guys, thanks for all the feedback. I had not thought seriously about a large Slavic migration into Germannia but now the wheels are turning. But before I hammer my own thoughts onto a page what are your guys' thoughts on this Slavic migration? What is it going to look like?

Like OTL just without the South Slavs and Slovaks. Through they could also be less succeful in Bohemia, thanks to the lack of new emigration territorium for the Bavarians (the Langobards are caught in modern Bavaria and North Austria thank to the Ostrogoth in Pannovia)

 

[DuQuense]

what are your guys' thoughts on this Slavic migration?

I think having them settle in the northeast around the Baltic would be cool. North Slavia v Yugo [South] Slavia. They then block the Rus from expanding south east.

Britannia, large swathes of Gaul, northern Italia and much of Hispania has been lost to barbarians.

Given that little has changed from OTL in Britannia you can expect it to closely resemble OTL. Any discernible differences would be down to extent of TTL's Plague and which Germanic tribes migrate; though whether those differences would survive is debatable.

I still think between the Franks in Gaul/Frisia as a blocking force, and the increased trade with a surviving WRE, The Romo/Celtic Kingdoms would be strong enuff to survive, without inviting the Saxons in.
A Surviving Celtic Christian Britian, that gives lip service to still being part of the WRE, would be interesting when the Newly Reborn WRE arrives at the channel.

 

[steven24gordon]

The ‘Three Edicts’ Controversy

As in OTL, the 6th century sees a lot of sound and fury on the theological stage, especially regarding the nature of Christ and the whole issue of Monophysitism (not to mention Nestorianism) in the East. In the ATL Western Empire, there is a bit more religious conflict due to a wealthier Africa (and Donatist revival) as well as the inclusion of Arian Christians as ‘federates’ in northern Italia, much of Hispania and throughout Gaul. Not helping the religious discord and tragic disunity is the little problem of plague (probably bubonic) which hit the Empire in the mid 6th century. Given the more extensive trading networks of ATL, the plague may have a more disastrous effect on the port cities around the Mediterranean. Although with greater resources, the Empire may better be able to endure. Any thoughts?

Then there is the environmental chaos of the 6th century, when failed crops and huge famines were reported throughout Eastern and Western Europe (apparently caused by a volcanic eruption in 535 whose ash blotted out the sun for months and caused freezing summers). These calamities give many in the general public the idea that the world is ending or simply that ‘God is punishing us’ (or sometimes both). As is common at times like this, people inside the Orthodox Church start to call for renewed piety and have rather heated debates on how that can be accomplished. A certain St. Bellomer, for example, begins a monastic movement among the Italians that arises some rather bitter divisions within the Western Orthodox Church. Now as in you would expect the Western Roman Emperors make some rather self-destructive attempts at quelling this theological dissention. One of the most disparaging of these attempts started the ‘Three Edicts’ controversy. In 559 the twin Emperors Dieter the Fair (of the West) and Belisarius II (of the East) jointly issue three edicts (without calling a synodical council) calling for a return to an ‘earlier’ Orthodox temperance and self-discipline.

The ‘Three Edicts’ arouse hostility especially amongst the Italians and Africans who opposed the several aspects of the ‘Edicts’ which attempt to reconcile Monophysitism with ‘Orthodoxy’. Ham-fisted tactics on the part of Dieter to resolve the growing crisis fail, and the Pope of Rome Germanus condemns and finally excommunicates Dieter for issuing the ‘Three Edicts’. Upon hearing the news, Dieter is reported have said: ‘May those who divide Christ be divided with the sword, may they be hewn in pieces, may they be burned alive!’ (recounting the words of one Christian synod at Ephesus). Germanus was subsequently arrested and executed for his opposition to imperial power.

Despite being one of intolerance to religious opposition, the reign of Dieter is noteworthy for one other reason and that reason is Roman law. Dieter enjoys a good relationship with Constantinople and imports Greek legal scholars to develop a new code of imperial law and legal opinion. The final product is the Corpus Romanissimum which is applied throughout the West territories of the Empire and is even adopted by the Romo-Germanic Kingdoms of the West. This common law code eventually comes to replace the segregated legal system of the early 6th century. The new code has a powerful effect on the development of European jurisprudence and the development of universalising legal and political traditions in Europe. Any thoughts?

Despite his attempts to bring unity within the ‘Orthodox’ Church, at his death Dieter leaves only discord. In 564, Flavius Hesychius, the bishop of Arles (and one of the Germanus’ greatest supporters) rejects the authority of the ‘Orthodox Church’ and embarks on his own reform programme in the West. More concerned with the justice than the rigors of the church hierarchy and pageantry, Hesychius rejects the doctrine of original sin and begins to preach the message that every man, like Adam, is free to earn heaven or hell. ‘Everything good and everything evil ...is done by us, not born with us’. This ascetic sect (in many ways a Pelagianian revival) spreads rapidly from its inception in southern Gaul, and despite being banned in the Third Council of Pavia in 578 (a synod which declared: ‘Truth, which is simple and one, does not admit of variety’) enjoyed considerable popularity among the growing monastic movement that was sweeping Western Europe in the 6th century.

In a divided Europe, there was no paramount power to exclude all Hesychisites. When things went badly for these neo-Pelagianians they could always move to another Germanic kingdom, and often left a good number of converts in the places from which they expelled. Many Hesychisites, however, despaired of this constant nomadic lifestyle and moved north to found permanent monasteries in the deep forests of Magnus Germania and to convert the pagan kings there. Will our Hesychisites survive the rigors of discrimination and unwanted martyrdom to emerge stronger and more popular than before? How far will they go and what form will their religious order take? Any thoughts any other possible heresies and other problems the Roman state will face? All suggestions welcome.

In the East religious intolerance is even more prevalent than in the West, Belisarius II is not the kind of guy to broke opposition and his reign grows increasing fanatical after the ‘Three Edicts’ are issued. An especially harrowing part of this intolerance is the persecution of Jews and Samaritians (Belisarius II is reported to have said of these ‘infidels‘: Sint in Turpitudine Fortunae, in qua et animam volunt esse - let them be in the same turpitude as regards their fortune as that which they have chosen for their souls). Palestine is engulfed repeatedly in rebellion and dissention, and the great Samaritian centre at Neapolis (Biblical Shechem) is destroyed in 580.
‘The faith of the Orthodox,’ wrote the ATL contemporary philosopher/bishop Placus of Burdigala, ‘trembles on the edge of a precipice where it is impossible to recede, dangerous to stand, dreadful to fall; and the manifold inconveniences of our creed are aggravated by the sublime character of our theology.’ Any thoughts?

 

[steven24gordon]

The Massacre of Milan

When Dieter died in 569, he left his wife Mataswintha and a frail brood of heirs, the eldest of whom was 15. One after another three Emperors came to the throne, and one after another they died. Mataswintha ruled all of them. She was a shrewd woman who had no scruples about playing on the vanities of her subjects for political ends. Her aim was peace and the preservation of the Empire that had father-in-law Theodoric had built, but her hand was unsteady in a world governed by patriarchy and the monarchy therefore weakened.

This weakness forced the Empress to make concessions to the Prefectures. Although retaining the right to appointment the Prefect of the Roma Prefecture, the African and Iberian Prefecture receive the right to appoint their own Prefect (leaving the Emperor only with the power of veto). Mataswintha also has to reward her own supporters among the Ostrogothic nobility and does so by giving them Italian land and senatorial status at Rome. These appointments (in a certain respect) revitalise the role of the Senate, as now senators are allowed (once more) to hold military titles. Any thoughts on this change in the Senate’s fortunes?

The weakness of the monarchy also allows the rise of several dissent political factions in Ostrogothic Italia and, as is always the case in the 6th century, political antagonism asserted itself in religious terms. The first of these factions were the ardent ‘Catholics/Orthodox’, who stood for the renewed glory of ‘Rome’, and, generally but not always, for support of the Emperor (the ‘Protector of the Orthodox and the Church’). The other group comprised the Arians: a group that felt that Mataswintha and her children were diluting the ‘Gothic vigour’ of the Ostrogoths through their encouragement and ostensible respect for Romanitas ('Romanness'). This religious controversy, however, masks a deeper political conflict as Mataswintha attempts to reduce the power of the Gothic nobility in favour of the royal house.

The Arian and ‘Catholic/Orthodox’ factions struggled intermittently against each other, and for and against the sovereignty of the Emperor. Mataswintha, who had no particular religious convictions of her own, knew that the overwhelming majority of her people were ‘Orthodox’. But she also knew that the Arians, a significant proportion of the army, could keep the State in constant turmoil if they were not given consideration. To keep the peace she convened a series of councils at Pavia between Arian and Orthodox bishops to reconcile the twin faiths. Any ideas about what these Councils would look like? I was thinking that they would be similar to the OTL Councils of Toledo, any thoughts?

In a further move to win the good will of the Arians, Mataswintha arranged the marriage of her daughter Amalasuntha to Theohadad, who was the titular leader of the Arian “party”. But the marriage that was to have brought peace brought instead one of the bloodiest disasters of a bloody age: the Massacre of Milan, in which uncounted thousands of Arians died. The origins of this terrible event are uncertain, but they appear to rest in Mataswintha’s resentment of a powerful Arian noble, who had a strong influence on her second son (reportedly converting him to Arianism in secret).
Indeed, it seemed that Mataswintha planned to assassinate many of Arian nobility that had gathered in Milan for the royal wedding (who represent the main leaders of the Arian “party”). However, word of the plot spread among the populace (which was predominantly anti-Arian) and in a spirit of holy adulation the Milanese mob rose in a fury and massacred Arians all over the city. Despite the bloodshed, Theohadad got his political marriage but the massacred had marred the prospect of peace between the two “parties” and had roused them to war.

A war of religion was in full sway in 589, when the last of Mataswintha’s sons died after an ineffectual reign. The Arian Theohadad was heir to the throne, but the people of the Empire were not ready to accept him. They recognized the legitimacy of his claim, but they did not want an Arian. The Prefectures of Africa and Iberia refused to support him and the Roman Senate declared him hostis publicus (an enemy of the State).

But the fate of Theohadad was not decided in Italia but in Gaul: the Arian “party” in Italia had great hope of support from the Arian kings of the Visigoths (Alaric IV) and the Burgundians (Sigismund) but geopolitics interfered with religious loyalties. At first Alaric sides with the Arian “party” but later when his enemy Sigismund likewise proclaimed for the Arians, Alaric switches sides and invades Burgundy killing Sigismund at the battle of Veseruntia. The following year Sigismund's younger brother Godomar launches a counteroffensive, massacring the Visigoths at Lyons with the help of Theohadad and his Arian Ostrogothic troops. This victory gives Theohadad military supremacy against his enemies in Italia but the people are still loathed to accept him.

Then Theohadad does something surprising, reconciling his own religious convictions, he renounces his Arianism. Having relinquished his faith, he is able to win the support of the Pope in Rome as well as the loyalty of the wayward Prefectures. But Theohadad’s conversation was nothing new, everywhere in Western Europe the Arians were losing ground as ambitious statesmen sought advantage in the acceptance of ‘Orthodoxy’. In 594, for example, Alaric IV (every inch the pragmatist) made peace with Theohadad to secure his kingdom against the Frankish threat and converted to ‘Orthodoxy’ after the Fifth Council of Toulouse (followed by much of the Visigothic nobility).

Indeed, the poet Valamir of Fiesole bespoke of the tragic retreat of his faith in the heartrending poem “Shatterings” (which was itself a mixture of Gothic and Roman elements that borrowed just as much from Virgil just as from the old German Skaldic poets). What is the future of the Arian religion? Will they ever regain their lost power or will these guys fade away like OTL? Any thoughts?

 

[steven24gordon]

“Oh! How the Persian have fallen!”

In this ATL, we could see a more eastward looking Eastern Empire, which would probably mean more extensive and intense Roman-Persian Wars in the 6th century. Remember in OTL, the Persian War costs Justinian about 3 million solidi (while an addition 3 million was spent on buying truces off Chosroes and the rebuilding of Antioch). In an ATL with no Justinian-style Wars in the West, we are looking much more money and resources going East against the Sassanid. In ATL we see an almost perpetual war of attrition against an enemy who has to fight for longer than OTL, with fewer resources than OTL (the Persians have to do without more than a million solidi in Byzantine subsidies) and who is put against a foe with several times the resources it committed in OTL.

Now a more eastward looking Constantinople could take greater advantage of the internal and external troubles of the Persians. In OTL, the Mazdakite movement and the power of the nobility (magnates) had weakened the central government, and the incursions of the Hephtalite (White) Huns had damaged the Persian economy and military. But more severe ATL Persian-Roman wars would exasperate these fault lines and weaken or even prevent the reform programme of the OTL Persian Shah Khusro. Also with the western front monopolising Persian military manpower and resources, the eastern frontiers might be weakened and suffer more extensive barbarian raids. Any thoughts?

Could these ATL Roman-Persian Wars result in a total victory for the Romans? Now given devastation from plague, barbarian invasions from the east, bloody and prolonged civil war/wars (which was quiet a problem OTL), as well as a long and disastrous war with Rhomani, the Sassanid dynasty is in trouble. But total victory? Maybe not: Persia and the Eastern Empire were not all that different in terms of military capability and neither was strong enough to successfully achieve total victory against the other. Wars between the two were always limited in scope. One could argue that it was only the military weakness, created by Justinian and his successors through their exhaustive overspending, which gave the Persians the opportunity to make the head away they did against the Romans in the 7th century. But I do believe that the Sassanid dynasty would make the same mistake as their Parthian forefathers: concentrated on holding the Byzantines/Romans in Mesopotamia and neglecting other more dangerous frontiers. I think one of the most profound divergences here (for the Persians anyway) will be that the Hepthalite Huns and the Turks remain united and launch a series of joint campaign against the drained Sassanid Empire. If the eastern border is destabilised extensively enough, then could we see barbarian invasion and settlement in Persia lands?

So let us say that during the late 570s, Persian military defences along Persia's northern and eastern frontiers are depleted (due to war with Constantinople in the West). With these borders poorly guarded, a Hunnic-Turk alliance from beyond the River Oxus sweep into Persia and plundered Tauris and the lands of northwest Persia. As the centre fails to protect the outlaying provinces, the satraps of the east rebel (notably the satrap of Bactria who was forced to deal a particularly harsh Turkish invasion). The Sassanid Empire facing rebellion and civil strife (and probably regicide) is therefore an easy target for the Roman armies. In 585, the Eastern Emperor Aetherios breaks through the Persian defences and occupies all of Mesopotamia and holds a new eastern frontier extending to the Persian Gulf. After the fall of Ctesiphon to the legions of Rome, Aetherios is rumoured to have boasted: ‘Never except under our reign has God granted the Romans to achieve such triumphs. That of which Antiquity did not seem worthy, in God’s judgement, has been realised in our time’. In the aftermath of his victory, Aetherios organises several new provinces in Mesopotamia: Assyria, Arzanean, Atropatena and Babylonia. What would Roman rule in Mesopotamia look like? Last time the Romans came close to controlling Mesopotamia was Trajan, and a few things have changed since then (imperial Christendom for one thing). All suggestions welcome.

In the aftermath of this resounding victory, Charax Spasini becomes the established port for India/China trade. From Charax, our ATL merchants can navigate two rivers, a system of canals and finally a desert caravan route for easy access to Antioch and the warm ports of the Mediterranean. Now as this route will competes favourably with the overland route, as a consequence Arabia is poorer than OTL.
Speaking of Arabia: we going to see more Ethiopian intervention in the peninsula thanks to the more intensive ALT Persian-Roman Wars. In 525 Dhu Nuwas of Yemen allied himself to Persia, in response Byzantium persuades (or brides if you prefer) Aksum to invade Yemen. Roman ships in the Red Sea even help move the Ethiopian army across the straits. Shortly after conquering Yemen, the Aksumites march on the cities of southern Arabia, threatening Mecca. In OTL the Ethiopians were prevented from their conquest and influence in southern Arabia because of plague and interfering Persians but things are different ATL. With no Persian intervention (as they are too busy fighting the Romans) Aksumite influence on the Arabian coast grows and grows. Soon we have a Christian (well Monophysite Christian) kingdom encompassing most of Ethiopia, the entrance to the Red Sea, and a good slice of the Western Arabia Coast. So what does our ATL Aksum, now a third power in the Near East, look like? Any thoughts? What are her influences on Arabia?

Now with Ctesiphon lost and the Mesopotamian provinces overrun, I think that the Sassanid Empire would be splinter with the Turks/Huns taking their share of territory in Khorasan, any thoughts? And And what about what let of Persia? The Persia centre on the Iranian plateau may be able to hold on and rebuild the Empire or it could fracture into a dozen fractions which will end up fighting each other. Any thoughts?

 

[steven24gordon]

A World Tour in the 7th Century

Italia
Italia, the birth place of the Great Roman Empire, can be subdivided into two “prefectures” –loosely based on the old imperial prefectures created by Diocletian: the Prefecture of Italia and the Prefecture of Roma. Let us discuss them in turn:
The Prefecture of Italia: this prefecture includes all Italia north of the Po, Gallia Cisaplina as well as Pannonia and Dalmatia. With its capital at Ravenna, this prefecture is under the personal commander of the Emperor. One of the reasons for this is that this prefecture is the prime source of the Empire’s military recruitment. This area of the Empire has seen sustained colonisation by Ostrogothic foederati. The Ostrogoths have more “Romanized” than any other Germanic people, so much so that many Ostrogoths have become virtually indistinguishable from their Italo-Roman subjects. Indeed, there has even been an outpouring of new Gotho-Roman art and architecture that is imbued with a rather grand if somber Christian symbolism. The Arianism of the Ostrogoths has faded and the Goths are strong adherents to the ‘Catholic/Orthodox’ faith.
The Prefecture of Roma: This prefecture includes: Italia south of the Po as well as Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica. Despite the devastation this prefecture suffered during the 5th century, this is still the heartland Empire. Here the cities have resurrected some of their former prosperity (despite the plague), lavish public expenditures have been revived and roads, canals, and harbours have been repaired. The hallowed Roman Senate even directs the affairs of this prefecture (with the consent of the imperial Emperor of course), holding debates in the marble forum. However, the character of the Senate has changed, and many Gothic notables have been appointed to senatorial rank. Due to its proximity to the Emperor this is perhaps the least independent of the imperial Prefectures, a fact that deeply aggravates the Pope of Rome.

North Africa
North Africa is divided between the ‘Roman’ coast and the Berber/Moor (the barbarians of the desert) interior. Unlike the “prefectures” of Italia, Africa is under the command of a Prefect, a position that combines both military and civilian authority. Possessing a great deal of autonomy from the Emperor in Ravenna, the Prefect of Africa is even more powerful than his OTL Byzantium counterpart. However, the Prefect remains loyal to the Empire, in part due to the growing power of the Berber princes who have grown increasing powerful since the 5th century. The ancient cities have not suffered their OTL decline and as a result the Berbers are more “Romanized” than OTL. However this has not made them less aggressive or expansionistic.
The Prefecture of Africa is perhaps the most Latin of the imperial Prefectures and has its capital at Carthage. During the chaos of the 5th century, the Prefecture of Africa became a refuge for the Roman nobility fleeing the poverty, war and starvation of Europe and many of these émigrés have remained. For this reason, the African Prefecture is the heart of Latin culture, literature, art and architecture. The African Prefecture, however, does have her problems: many Africans have embraced Donatism, which has made a comeback among the rank-in-file peasantry in the past few decades. The result has been sporadic violence and a backlash of religious intolerance.

Hispania
The lands that will be OTL Spain and Portugal are divided between three main rivals: the Prefecture of Iberia, Gothia and Suevia. With its capital at the fortress city of Tagus Baduariusia, the Prefecture of Iberia acts as a bulwark against the aggressive Suevi to the north. Like the African Prefecture, Iberia is under the command of a Prefect (a position comparable to the OTL Exarches of Byzantium). Throughout the countryside, there is a network of castra manned by imperial and locally-recruited troops and the strong walls protected the cities. However, in the last few decades this defensive network has not been tested in war. The Suevi are in the retreat, their lands along the Ebro River seized by the Visigoths and their ports at Cartagena and Saguntum have been re-conquered by the Romans. One reason for this success and the Iberian Prefectures growing independence from Ravenna are the influx of Moorish foederati Mauretania. Hungry for glory, these desert mercenaries wage war for the Iberian Prefect in exchange land grants, and have become in recent years a significant force in Hispanic geopolitics. The Suevi, however, have managed to remain a main player on the Iberian peninsula despite their recent reverses and still control: Castile, Leon and northern Portugal. But their hold over these territories is growing weak as their royal house is suffering from chronic division (which is complicated by pro-Roman vs. anti-Roman and pro-Catholic/Orthodox vs. Pro-Arian divisions).

Gothia
From his capital at Tolosa (Toulouse), the Visigothic king rules over one of the most prosperous of the Germanic kingdoms which encompasses Aquitania and northwest Tarraconensis (including the important port city of Barcelona). The cities of southern Gaul are recovering from the economic troubles of the 5th century (although their recovery is slowed by recurrent breakouts of plague) and the trade routes are busy again (which is in part how the plague is travelling). Gothia is one of the most prominent members of the Gallic League, a coalition of southern Gallic states for the common purpose of defending southern Gaul from outside invasion.
The Visigoths have been sovereigns of Aquitania since the dawn of the 5th century, and by the beginning of the 7th have become deeply “Romanized”. The adoption of the Corpus Romanissimum has removed the separate law statutes for Goths and Romans and the religion division that characterized Goth/Roman relations since the 5th century has been heavily blurred. Many Goths have embraced Catholicism/Orthodoxy and numerous Arian bishops have been admitted into the Catholic/Orthodox fold. The reasons for this are often political, converting to Catholicism/Orthodoxy gains a Gothic lord support not only from the local Gallo-Roman aristocracy and clergy but also from the Western Roman Emperor. Indeed, his support is important as the Roman fleet controls the valuable Mediterranean trade routes. However, in order for the Pope and the Western Emperor to reconcile with their Arian “federates”, they have been forced to make certain doctrinal concessions which have strained relations with the Patriarch in Constantinople.

Francia
In northern Gaul, a new threatening power has been growing for almost a century. Once Roman foederati, the Franks have become independent, bellicose and ambitious. Indeed, during the anarchy of the 5th century, the Franks took over Belgica, the lion’s share of Gallia Lugdunensis, German Inferior, and made some serious attempts to subdue Armorica. Blocked by the Gallic League in the south, the Franks have pushed eastward into Magna Germania, subjugating Frisians, Saxons, Thuringii and some of the outlying trans-Rhenish tribes.
But despite their success on the battlefield, the Franks and Francia is an isolated, fractured Germanic “nation”. It suffered severely from the economic collapse of the 5th century, and unlike southern Gaul has not really recovered. Most of the former Gallo-Roman nobility have fled and Germanic colonization has been more intensive than in other parts of the former Roman Empire. The result is a disintegration of the institutions of the Empire, paralleling the shrinking of the cities and the decline in the roads. The Franks practice partible inheritance, and at the start of the 7th century there are four Frankish “kingdoms” centred around Colonia (Cologne), Remensis (Reims), Augusta Treverorum (Trier) and Parisiensis (Paris). Theologically, Francia has rejected the Catholic/Orthodoxy and Arianism of her southern neighbours and remains devotedly pagan. However, at the same time Francia has become a haven for pioneering Irish missionaries and ascetic Hesychites (members of a quasi-Pelagianist sect of Christianity). Monasteries are common, and Christian priests have a common feature at Frankish courts, working as advisors and administrators.

Eastern Gallia
The lands east of the Rhône, are a patchwork of small kingdoms, dominated by the Burgundi who have managed to carve out the most successful of the “barbarian” kingdoms in Germania. With their capital at Lugdunum (Lyon), the Burgundi have followed a path similar to the Visigoths, Romanizing and accepting Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. This puts them at odds with their more aggressive anti-Roman neighbours the Alamanni and the Baiovari who have taken over parts of Germania Superior, Raetia and Noricum. For this reason perhaps, the Burgundi are the most loyal of the “federate” nations of Gaul, going further than their Visigoth neighbours in adopting Roman custom and military organisation.
Contrasting with the urbane character of the Rhône Valley and her cities, the lands of Germania are pretty chaotic: international trade is non-existent; political structures are loose; the king is first among rather a lot of powerful equals, and there is no real state or even cities to speak of. Religiously, this is truly the Wild Frontier and has become a haven for all sorts of heterodox Christian sects. However, paganism remains strong despite the rather nascent missionary activity by a motley crew of Irish monks, Arian exiles, Catholic/Orthodox priest-diplomats and Hesychite heretics.

The Eastern Empire
In the East, the Roman Empire was enjoying a period of success unparalleled since the 4th century. She had annexed the wealthiest provinces of her most powerful rival, the Sassanid Empire, taking over Mesopotamia. It is truly a vast Empire, although not as bigger as it was in the 4th century, it is larger than its OTL cousin under Justinian. In our ATL, the Eastern Empire includes the ancient lands of the East: Anatolia, Syria, Palestina and Aegyptus. Then there are the new lands in Mesopotamia: Assyria, Arzanean, Atropatena and Babylonia.
However, the unity of the Empire is disturbed by divisions within Orthodoxy, ancient conflicts between Monophysites and Chalcedoneans, heresies in the West (Hesychisism and Donatism) and the growing rift between the Latin and Greek ‘Churches’. The growing conflict between the Western and Eastern Emperors overt “the See of Rome” was foreshadowed at the sunrise of the 7th century. In 601 Emperor Maximus refused a plea from Western Emperor Hormisdas to have "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle” proclaimed head of all the Churches which would have ensured that the title of "Universal Bishop" belonged exclusively to the Bishop of Rome (and the Emperor who controlled him). Maximus’ refusal was in part a move against the independence of the Latin Church and in part to increase the authority of Patriarch of Constantinople. Upon hearing of the rejection, Hormisdas made a dire prediction: “This is a path to calamities; old men and women, rich and poor, will travel on it, while they hunger and thirst, and suffer with heavy chains to the point that they will bless the dead. For soon coming is the chastisement of which the Apostle spoke… Men will be persecuted; wild animals and cattle will die; the trees of the forest will be cut; the most beautiful plants of the mountains will be destroyed and opulent cities will be laid waste. The land will be defiled with blood, and its produce will be taken away from it.”

Balkans
If we were to compare our ATL Eastern Roman Empire with the OTL Byzantine Empire we see several advantages our ATL has and that the OTL one lacked. One of the most important is that the Balkan frontier is more secure than OTL. Unlike OTL, the Eastern Emperors do not attempt to cut costs by refusing to pay subsidies to the barbarians in the Balkans. While this OTL policy had no immediate consequences, in the long run it proved disastrous. Cut off from Byzantine funds, the Avars in search of new sources of wealth made an alliance with the Lombards, who themselves had been traditional allies of the Byzantines. The two peoples then proceeded to attack the Gepids - a people whose lands bordered Byzantine territory - and seize control of their lands. Having enriched themselves at the expense of the Gepids, the Avars became a powerful force on the Danube. However, in the ATL, there is no Avar Empire and Lombards never make their push their way into northern Italia (now ruled by the Western Roman Empire). The ATL Emperors of our TL are in certain respects wealthier than their OTL counterparts (no Justinian wars for one thing and less 5th century destruction) and continue to pay subsidies to the Avars, even defeating the Avars when they raid across the Danube. Indeed, along the Danube, the Gepids and the Lombards (as well as other Slavic kingdoms) still hold sway although a number of Slavic peoples have migrated west into Germania, upsetting the local geopolitics there.

Iraq and Iran
The Eastern Empire is richer than OTL because of her annexation of Mesopotamia, however, decades of war against the Persians had exhausted the financial and military resources of the Eastern imperium, leaving her vulnerable. Although the Empire had won Mesopotamia (which the Romans may call Babylonia or Far Mesopotamia or even Nearer Persia but let’s call Iraq) a land at least as populous as Egypt (if not more), the majority of its people are anything but Christian and what Christians there are, are mostly heretical Nestorians. As such local loyalty is weak and anti-Roman sentiment is strong, and rebellions weakening Roman control and cutting into Roman profits are common. But there were more problems than simply seditious Mesopotamians: There were the Arabs along the eastern frontier (both external Arabic raids as well as internal conflicts with Arabic ‘federates’). Even more harrowing were the Balkan migrations, as more and more war-like people from the steppe crossed into the imperial territory.
After the devastating effect of the last round of ATL Persian-Roman Wars and the loss of Mesopotamia, what’s left of the Sassanid Empire is on the verge of collapse: the trade cities of Transoxania and the Eastern Marches of Kushanistan have asserted their independence or fallen to Turkish/Hunnic warlords while the mountainous heartland of Persia has descended into regicide and civil war. The economic situation is rather tragic after the annexation of the fertile lands of Mesopotamia and savage raids of steppe barbarians. In 610 the poet Atamaita laments the fall of the Great Sassanid Empire: “Where are the great kings? / Where is Shapur, the best of kings? / Death has not respected him; his power is/ shattered, the crowds no longer press at his gate. /Where are these kings, which the winds of/ the east and the winds of the west/ Have swept away like dry leaves?”

 

[steven24gordon]

Epilogue: The ‘Indian Summer’ of the Late Empire

At the start of the 7th century the twin Roman Empires, despite the brutal wars of the previous century and recovering from plague, are enjoying an economic and cultural revival. Many eminent scholars and politicians of the age express no doubts that they are living in a golden age of peace and prosperity (well compared to the 5th century that is). The situation of the Western Empire and his ‘federate’ satellites is predominately favourable: In the Europe, despite the spectre of barbarian aggression, the Germanic foederati have remained loyal advocates of the Empire and the imperium still includes large tracts of Hispania and Gaul. In fact the Germanic allies of the Empire (Gothia, Visigoth Aquitania, Suevia, Burgundy etc.) sought to tie their own dynastic lines to those of the great Roman families and the Emperor. Scholars were pressed into service to give the Germanic kings an unbroken line of descent from Augustus. The historical methods of these scholars were summarized by Bertgarda, the ATL Bishop of Arles, who wrote the biographies of the kings of Visigoth Aquitania: “Where I have not found any history of any of these kings, and have not been able by conversation with aged men, or inspection of the monuments, or from any other authentic source, to obtain information concerning them, in such a case, in order that there might not be a break in the series, I have composed the life myself, with the help of God and the prayers of the brethren’.
The frontiers of the Western Empire are secure. The settling and establishment of large numbers of ‘federate’ Ostrogoths in Italia north of the Po Valley served the Western Empire as an effective barrier against barbarian invasion and Italia doesn’t undergo the Lombard invasions of OTL. Not that there haven’t been problems in the West: Like OTL the Moors proved difficult to control and there was a spate of Moorish uprisings and rebellions in Africa during the latter half of the 6th century. Roman Gaul is threatened by the growing power of the Franks and relations with the Romo-Germanic kings are not always tranquil.

During this time the arts and literature enjoy a flowering as the ATL Roman Empire has preserved more of the wealth, learning and stability of Western Europe. In Milan, for example, a bishop named Olybrius founds a Christian University on the orders of the Emperor Totila the Lame. Although originally designed as a breakaway from ‘pagan learning’ which was undergoing persecution in the East, Olybrius used the resources of the university to continue the philosophical tradition of the Athenian school with only a thin Christian veneer. ‘Every sin arises from a kind of ignorance,’ wrote Olybrius, ‘A man’s will is secured from sinning only when his understanding is secured from ignorance and error.’ In Milan, protected by his Romo-Gothic patrons from the censorship ravaging the East, Olybrius wrote his most important work: “Solace of Philosophy” and translated numerous works of ancient Hellenic literature into Latin. A product of Olybrius’s school Constantine of Apamaea went to Tarragona where he formed a new school of study which recognised the authority of the Bible but held that reason was its source and did not need its support: ‘true religion is true philosophy’.

Now although the Empire seems supreme in its power and prestige, there are numerous doomsayers and anxiety lurks only a little below the surface. Division between East and West have begun to grow, and as the ‘Greek’ and ‘Latin’ Romans begin to take separate paths in the great game of history, storm clouds gather. Falling the revival and hope of the 6th century will be the much darker 7th century. This catastrophic century is destined to shatter the calm fabric of the Roman World in a century of war, destruction and change and it will be known as the “Century of Falling Empires”....

The “Crisis” in the West has divided modern historian. Some point to the external factors, focusing on the Arabic and Bulgar migrations of the period which combined to disrupt and dissolve the existing geo-political order. But focus also needs to be place on the ambitions of the Franks and the Visigoths for Europe-wide domination. Although traditionally seen as a product of the “Crisis” caused by the Western Emperor Maximus’s death, modern historians have recast these ambitions as the product of more confident Germanic kingdoms seeking more power and influence on the European stage. But it was not in the West, but in the East which was full of fearful portents and omens of the coming disaster as Theodora of Edessa reports: “There was an earthquake in Palestine. And a sign called an apparition appeared in the heavens to the south, predicting the coming of the Arabs. It remained thirty days stretching south to north, and it was sword-shaped.”

 

[steven24gordon]

This is going to be my last post for this TL. I hope that you guys have enjoyed it and I must say that I have really benefited from all your feedback. This is rather a grand forum and look forward to working with you guys on perhaps some future timeline.