Underrated Late Roman Empire PODs (4th century to 6th century AD)

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Snip

Frankly, I don't understand your post. It's all a bit metaphysical and philosophical, which I like most of the time, but not when discussing about hard facts.

Firstly, you're right that there wasn't ONE Pagan cult for the whole empire, but that Paganism is defined primarily by the fact that these religions aren't Christian ones. But that doesn't mean that Paganism had to stay weak, since it was Julian who decided to establish a Pagan priesthood and a real hierarchy withing the Pagan church.

Secondly, you point at events at Antioch to show how Julian's religious policies were rejected by the general population. However, you don't mention was the east was generally more christianized than the west and that Antioch was one of the strongholds of Christian faith. The population, especially the rural one, was perhaps still Pagan by a majority.

Thirdly, you mention that "suffered from a huge credibility crisis at this point, at least among urban population". You're completly right here, Christian belief and the charity of the Christian church surely helped to gain new Christians and to spread Christian religion.

But here again, I think that you underestimate Julian. He completly realized the role that charity and social assistance in the spread of Christianity and envisaged a Pagan system of philanthropy and charity.

but how quickly his policies were reverted point as well how rooted

I think that this a the moment where I can sum up my points. Julian's task wasn't easy, but it was feasible. Christians had build up an incredibly powerful position, but Julian was popular with the people, with the army and with the Pagan aristocracy, so he had to chance to overcome the Christians. What he needed was time - what the Christians build up for decades since 312 couldn't be destroyed in three years.

Imagine Charlemagne died three years after acceding to the throne and someone told you: well, he could have become emperor.

 

[LSCatilina]

What if, in addition to smuggling silkworm eggs, these Nestorian monks managed to bring a collection of Chinese agricultural or metallurgical texts into the Empire, including knowledge of the heavy plough?

Heavy plough was known within the classical Roman Empire IOTL.
Medieval Religion and Technology, as others books, point that heavy plough was known and used (if not widely) in parts of north-western Romania (as Rhineland or Britain).

Arguing that it would change the face of Barbaricum, when it not much did historically (arguably in later period) seems awfully speculative and optimist.
As for urbanisation exemple, it seems really wild tought : its absence never prevented southern Germany to be as structured as Gaul around urban/tribal entities, and its existence didn't made western Middle-Ages any more urbanized.

As for Roman use : many mediterranean soils aren't really adapted to it in first place : even with the heavy plough being widespread, it wasn't that much used there. It's basically why it didn't get more used in Europe while we know, as a quasi-certainty, that Germans knew about it.
And knowing that latifundiae agriculture was essentially based on Roman/Mediterranean features (remember that climatic context meant a greater geographical expension of the latter) didn't went well with a more "North European" take : during the High Empire, the great domains were the norm, having an extensive production that didn't required much mechanisation.

Heavy plow seems to have been reinforced more or less slowly in Britain or Northern Gaul (and of course absent of soils that weren't convenient for its use) but as long it didn't fit with an agricultural model, on an intensive use of the soil rather than extensive, it simply wouldn't get widespread.

As far as it goes, it's the prototype of the overrated idea, along with stirrups, considering the tool as sort of super-power without much regard to its applicability.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Heavy plough was known within the classical Roman Empire IOTL.
Medieval Religion and Technology, as others books, point that heavy plough was known and used (if not widely) in parts of north-western Romania (as Rhineland or Britain).

Arguing that it would change the face of Barbaricum, when it not much did historically (arguably in later period) seems awfully speculative and optimist.
As for urbanisation exemple, it seems really wild tought : its absence never prevented southern Germany to be as structured as Gaul around urban/tribal entities, and its existence didn't made western Middle-Ages any more urbanized.

As for Roman use : many mediterranean soils aren't really adapted to it in first place : even with the heavy plough being widespread, it wasn't that much used there. It's basically why it didn't get more used in Europe while we know, as a quasi-certainty, that Germans knew about it.
And knowing that latifundiae agriculture was essentially based on Roman/Mediterranean features (remember that climatic context meant a greater geographical expension of the latter) didn't went well with a more "North European" take : during the High Empire, the great domains were the norm, having an extensive production that didn't required much mechanisation.

Heavy plow seems to have been reinforced more or less slowly in Britain or Northern Gaul (and of course absent of soils that weren't convenient for its use) but as long it didn't fit with an agricultural model, on an intensive use of the soil rather than extensive, it simply wouldn't get widespread.

As far as it goes, it's the prototype of the overrated idea, along with stirrups, considering the tool as sort of super-power without much regard to its applicability.

If not the heavy plough, then what factors caused the Ostsiedlung? Three-field crop rotation alone?

 

[LSCatilina]

Firstly, you're right that there wasn't ONE Pagan cult for the whole empire, but that Paganism is defined primarily by the fact that these religions aren't Christian ones. But that doesn't mean that Paganism had to stay weak, since it was Julian who decided to establish a Pagan priesthood and a real hierarchy withing the Pagan church.

I doubt that Julian did wanted to establish a Pagan church : what he proposed, along the lines of a more structurated pagan ensemble was already diverging way too much from traditional institutions.
Paganism, as a diverse network of various and mostly regional beliefs simply didn't had the strength of a structurated (critically along the lines of imperial militia) religion. The problem of Julian trying to make it a bit more organized is that he looked it with the eyes of a neo-Platonician, and a highly philosophical mindset. Which was fine for what remained of the stunchly traditionalist senatorial and imperial aristocracy, but impracticable when it came to management of the widespread and informal ensemble of beliefs.
Julian was poised, eventually, to create a counter-Christianism that would have little appeal.

Secondly, you point at events at Antioch to show how Julian's religious policies were rejected by the general population. However, you don't mention was the east was generally more christianized than the west and that Antioch was one of the strongholds of Christian faith. The population, especially the rural one, was perhaps still Pagan by a majority.

I'm expecting people to check when I say "look at this", but I'm not sure most do, so I'll quote extensively Le sacré et le salut à Antioche au IVe siècle apr. J.-C

Basically, Julian blamed the partial destruction (vandalism) of the sanctuary of Apollo, not just on Christians but on the whole of the population (and giving that hellenic sanctuaries blossomed in the city, which is probably why Julian settled there, I doubt we can call it overwelmingly Christian : we know most of the great temples were intact and would remain until the very late IVth) and eventually blaming the civic solidarity between Antiocheans which didn't reacted enough against their Christian neighbours (so much for tolerence).

It's more or less interesting to witness this quite epidermic reaction from Julian, as it highlight that he wasn't as much a traditionalist, and more akin to late romans emperor in the way he wanted to unify and centralize the network of religious beliefs around the sacralized figure of the emperor. It doesn't help that Antioch didn't took well Julian's interventionism (seen as more or less arbitrary).

The reaction of the inhabitants wasn't extremely favourable : Christians believed it was just a way to crack down on them, the others that the emperor clearly went too far (including how he decided to vent directly at the inhabitants, rather than remaining fairly distant).

But here again, I think that you underestimate Julian. He completly realized the role that charity and social assistance in the spread of Christianity and envisaged a Pagan system of philanthropy and charity.

I think you misunderstood the post. I'm not disputing that Julian realized that, at the contrary : it's just that this realization took more the figure of a counter-church that wasn't that appliable to the hellenic model, and requested a deep change from it, hence Julian's interventionism. But the difference between everyday rites and beliefs and Julian mix of institutionalism and neo-platonicism was REALLY important structurally.

Imagine Charlemagne died three years after acceding to the throne and someone told you: well, he could have become emperor.

That's a false equivalence : we don't have much sources from the very early reign of Charles, while we have a lot of these for Julian's reign.
But either history unfolds more or less as IOTL, as after all the davidic-inspired coronation used by Peppin comes from Roman and Gothic models, and the working relationship with Rome became a main feature of peppinid legitimacy, and we'd see Frankish kingship evolving to a claim of universality and imperium over Christiendom anyway.
Basically, we'd be witnessing a tendence at work there.

For what matter Julian, we're also witnessing a tendency, but it's not playing in its favour.

 

[LSCatilina]

If not the heavy plough, then what factors caused the Ostsiedlung? Three-field crop rotation alone?

More or less, IMO a result of the Renaissance of the XIItrh century and growth of towns (thanks to general demographical growth as well) and decline of eastern european states.

The decline of medieval Poland more or less allowed a German overlordship in the long-debated and fought over marches and regions around the Oder, which attract a lot of migrants from Germany (with a great support from German lords, such as a lesser taxation as it happened with later french bastides) in order to stabilize and make these relatively underinhabited areas worthwile. Technical development is more a consequence than a cause, altough it certainly did helped the initial progression.

With time, and more you go east, it becames less a matter of direct colonization (even if eastern european kings and princes often call for some colonizing from Germany in order to replace disappeared population or to secure territories a bit like Germano-Balts for Teutonic Order) than a matter of acculturation the demographical growth was a thing as well in Poland, and it provoked an urban growth in towns where German legal and cultural dominance provoked an urban and peri-urban germanization. (Altough you have as well a process of slavicization in several urban centers, especially further from HRE. Urban germanisation is more a thing in coastal cities or places close to HRE), with Germanized Wendes themselves participating to the settlement pattern.

It's rather a complex development, but eventually, it's not a spontaneous colonisation of superiorily equipped Germans on Wendes, but an economically and politically incited patter of colonization and urbanisation that favoured settlements from northern Germany and germanisation of the local population.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

More or less, IMO a result of the Renaissance of the XIItrh century and growth of towns (thanks to general demographical growth as well) and decline of eastern european states.

The decline of medieval Poland more or less allowed a German overlordship in the long-debated and fought over marches and regions around the Oder, which attract a lot of migrants from Germany (with a great support from German lords, such as a lesser taxation as it happened with later french bastides) in order to stabilize and make these relatively underinhabited areas worthwile. Technical development is more a consequence than a cause, altough it certainly did helped the initial progression.

With time, and more you go east, it becames less a matter of direct colonization (even if eastern european kings and princes often call for some colonizing from Germany in order to replace disappeared population or to secure territories a bit like Germano-Balts for Teutonic Order) than a matter of acculturation the demographical growth was a thing as well in Poland, and it provoked an urban growth in towns where German legal and cultural dominance provoked an urban and peri-urban germanization. (Altough you have as well a process of slavicization in several urban centers, especially further from HRE. Urban germanisation is more a thing in coastal cities or places close to HRE), with Germanized Wendes themselves participating to the settlement pattern.

It's rather a complex development, but eventually, it's not a spontaneous colonisation of superiorily equipped Germans on Wendes, but an economically and politically incited patter of colonization and urbanisation that favoured settlements from northern Germany and germanisation of the local population.

I suppose this is getting far from the thread topic. But in 400 there were no Slavic kingdoms despite the Slavic tribes being present. In 1000 there were three Slavic kingdoms: Poland, Bulgaria, and Kievan Rus. In 1400 there was a whole plethora of powerful Slavic kingdoms across Eastern Europe, and that was after they were devastated by the Mongols. What changed? Could it really just be politics and economics, with no agricultural change whatsoever?

I feel like the significance of the mouldboard plow is one of those things where the historiographical pendulum is currently swinging hard away from the 1980's point of view, perhaps like the historical role of the stirrup, and is going to settle somewhere in the middle acknowledging multiple factors.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Julian was poised, eventually, to create a counter-Christianism that would have little appeal.

But Hellenism (wasn't that the word Julian used to designate "Paganism"?) had no other choice than to organize in a hierarchic church with philanthropic institutions if it wanted to stay a chance against Christianity!
And who does say that such a church would have little appeal? The Manichaeist "Church", which was literally modelled after Jesus' twelwe apostles and the Christian bishops.

Nevertheless, Manichaeism gained quite a few worshipers in ancient time. Sure the analogy is a bit flawed, since Manichaeism was a new religion Mani could build up from scratch (whereas Hellenism was an old one that already had structures). But I hope you get the point: As a decentralized, traditional religion Hellenism was bound to fail against the organized, missionary effort of the Christian Catholic church. The only way Hellenism could hope to survive was to adopt the "weapons" of its enemy, Christianity.

I'm expecting people to check when I say "look at this", but I'm not sure most do, so I'll quote extensively Le sacré et le salut à Antioche au IVe siècle apr. J.-C

Well, I was well aware of the fact that the Antiochians didn't receive Julian's sacrificial orgy well, but is this really representative for what Julian planned to introduce in the whole empire? And is Antioch representative for the whole empire, especially for the rural areas, where Hellenic traditions were deeply rooted.

it's just that this realization took more the figure of a counter-church that wasn't that appliable to the hellenic model, and requested a deep change from it, hence Julian's interventionism. But the difference between everyday rites and beliefs and Julian mix of institutionalism and neo-platonicism was REALLY important structurally.

For what matter Julian, we're also witnessing a tendency, but it's not playing in its favour.

Yes, this could become a problem. Julian can't subdue each traditional Hellenic cult from Britanny to Egypt under his Henotheistic, Neoplatonist, Sol Invictus religion. But what he could do is starting a process of centralization and standardizing of Hellenic religion, finally leading to a unified Hellenic Church. This process wouldn't be easy, but it isn't impossible to achieve either if Julian can draw religious legitimacy from successes in improving the administration and defending the empire.

 

[LSCatilina]

But in 400 there were no Slavic kingdoms despite the Slavic tribes being present. In 1000 there were three Slavic kingdoms: Poland, Bulgaria, and Kievan Rus. In 1400 there was a whole plethora of powerful Slavic kingdoms across Eastern Europe, and that was after they were devastated by the Mongols. What changed? Could it really just be politics and economics, with no agricultural change whatsoever?

Ageicultural changes played a role, but I don't think it played a causal one into the structuration of Slavic entities : miost of early Slavic chiefdom fit the redistributive model, which is appearing following the existence of big economical centers with which early chiefdoms tend to have a relationship (subsides, trade and of course culture*) evolving and getting more complex as the "prime state" thrive, getting reduced and weakened when not from one part, and also tending to obey inner dynamics of mobilisation and institutionalisation towards a chain between simple and complex/cyclical chiefdoms (and in some case, paramount or super-complex chiefdoms) where the rule seems that even if you fall, you pave the way for another regional hegemony to blossom.

That's for the general observance, but I think it fits the early medieval model for Slavic peoples as it did for Gauls or Anglo-Saxons. While the model as proposed by Collins or Wright is far from perfect, I think it's a good base.

For what matter Poland, while heavy plough may have played a role (but not a dominant role, as for the crushing majority of medieval Europe), I suspect it might have been an accompagnment undistinguishable but not overwelming of the general political/economical dominance. It's worth noting, tough, that its use was known relatively early in Bohemia and Moravia.

*State institutions are like STD : when you have one, somehow everybody around you tends to enjoy it.

the historiographical pendulum is currently swinging hard away from the 1980's point of view, perhaps like the historical role of the stirrup, and is going to settle somewhere in the middle acknowledging multiple factors.

It doesn't help that the Unholy trinity of stirrup, heavy plough and horse collar was made along bad reconstitutions and a technologist take on social history. So far, the pendulum is swinging so hard that I might only partially joke pointing that it might be in orbit by now. More seriously, without lessening the importance of heavy plough, it doesn't explain as much eastern German presence than providing one reason for the whole affair.

 

[Bmao]

This was actually my favorite late antiquity timeline, where someone actually managed to take a 475 AD POD and have the WRE not only survive but thrive, but do it plausibly as well.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-reign-of-romulus-augustus.278876/

 

[calvin1417]

Basically all pods from 395 and 480 are underused by this site

 

[Deleted member 97083]

In the case of Attila sacking Constantinople after the earthquake in 447, what does everyone think would happen? Would it destroy the Eastern Empire in short order? Merely weaken it?

If the Byzantine army is weakened enough, could the Goths cross the Marmara (perhaps with a promise to protect against Persia) and form a sort of new Galatia in central Anatolia?

Would the now extremely rich Hunnic khaganate last several years longer, retaining the confederation of many barbarian tribes, or would Attila's loot be squandered instantly by his allies and successors?

@Skallagrim
@LSCatilina
@RogueTraderEnthusiast
@DanMcCollum

 

[LSCatilina]

In the case of Attila sacking Constantinople after the earthquake in 447, what does everyone think would happen?

It could pretty much look like the sack of rome in 410, as a relatively ordonned plunder looking more like a forced and harsh tribute, than "blood, death, vengence".
That said, even weakened by the earthquake, the walls remained a really big obstacle for anyone if they were correctly manned. Which allowed the walls to be not only repaired but as well completed by outer fortifications in merely 2 months. I don't think it would give nearly as much leverage for Huns to breakout the fortifications (and let's not even speak about Hunnic siege capacities) which is why Atilla eventually never really went for Constantinople IOTL, and why Theodose elected to move a large part of balkanic army within the city after the Roman defeat at the River Utus.

You'd need a PoD with a catastrophic failure of Imperial authority early on in Constantinople, IMO, to allow the city to fail before Attila.

That said, while not overly obvious, we could see a TL where Attila manages to make a bet by arriving before Constantinople's authorities manage to fill the planned reconstructions (so, you'd need two PoDs) and threatening enough the city (more trough fear rather than real power to do so) to recieve a big tribute and concessions (probably the same than he obtained in 449). But giving Theodosius was more or less murdered for being far too conciliating with Barbarians...I doubt it would recieve much support, so while it's less implausible than Atilla taking over the city, it's still asking for inner troubles as a second PoD to really work.

Would it destroy the Eastern Empire in short order? Merely weaken it?

I doubt it would destroy the Empire that had reallt a better favoured position than its counterpart (especially at this point) : Hun strategy was less, like the other Barbarians, to carve out a foedi and monopolize the imperium on these regions at their benefit, than your usual steppe empire policy of plundering and clientelize everything in sight worth it. The concession of a border south of Danube representing a week-day move was less a tentative to swallow up the ERE than making such plundering and tributary the easier.

Not that it wouldn't have consequences, especially a really important crisis about imperial legitimacy and authority, but while it was really a problem with Honorius and Valentinian's death because it was only one factor (if leading one, IMO) of the political crisis, ERE would survive this as most of its non-European provinces would be fine, and ERE still have a strong fleet to prevent anyone to really cross the sea even in the Bosphorus.

If Huns were managable by an WRE being flushed down, it was so for ERE, simply said.

Would the now extremely rich Hunnic khaganate last several years longer, retaining the confederation of many barbarian tribes, or would Attila's loot be squandered instantly by his allies and successors?

Well, assuming Huns not only manage to recieve a juicy tribute before Constantinople (basically pulling the same tactic than Alaric, only more immediatly successfully) and managing to plunder Balkans (or to recieve another tribute corresponding to the same result), it would make the Hunnic confederation* a bit stronger thanks to the redistribution of wealth and gain over its IOTL subordinated peoples, and probably gaining over peoples more or less "neutral" IOTL as well.
It could make its campaigns more dangerous for the WRE (as, being raided over, European parts of ERE quickly provided less of an interest) in order to keep the spice the gold from Romania flowing, but I'm not certain it would be nearly enough to provide Atilla with a that strong edge (especially when Aetius tried his best to a non-decisive peace in Gaul)

How would it turn out for his successors? Heh, I think you're right that such significant (altough not overwelmingly bigger) more gains in ERE would probably be already used for the build-up against WRE, and what would remain might be fairly used up in the succession crisis and the various subordinated peoples getting away.

The problem of the Hunnic hegemony was it was built AND on redistributive capacities AND on charismatic values of its leadership (as most super-complex chiefdoms), and when both depends from a same dynamic, it causes a quick downfall for the relatively thin political super-structure.

That said, you might have a chance with Attila's assassination of 449 (or any equivalent) being successful. His hegemony would probably quickly fall apart but whoever succeed would have still more cash at disposal, and being less ambitious than Atilla, could carve a (heavily germanized/sarmatized and eventually romanized) foedi-like entity either outside Romania (as Gepids or Lombards north of Danube, or even relocating along Black Sea) if you end with a successful Dengizich or Dengizich-equivalent, or within Romania (especially if weakened enough trough the succession and hegemonic fall wars) as Ernak did IOTL but with more independent policies, and possibly forming a romanized but ambitious ensemble (as Ostrogothi did) ready to be used by ERE.

*rather than khaganate. It might be a detail, but I'd be cautious of any title that would make Huns looking as Proto-Mongols. At best, they could be compared as more or less a Sarmatized equivalent to Avars (which admittedly used the title of khagan, but it might be more of a Turkic legacy than anything else.

 

[spkaca]

Peter Heather makes much of the (failed) Roman attempts to reconquer Africa (i.e. Tunisia, in effect) in the fifth century (i.e. post-Vandal conquest). Africa was of immense importance to the Western Empire, and there were two major attempts at reconquest (in 460 and 468), both of which failed. Belisarius finally succeeded in the sixth century, but of course by then it was too late for the Western Empire. But as PoDs to keep the Western Empire going (at least for a bit longer) these have potential.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Many historians say that the Roman Empire was still predominantly Pagan in 361, so basically, Julian did have a chance to turn the tide back and at least preserve a tolerant and pluralistic Empire.

Given that part of Julian's programme included legally banning Christians from certain professions, I don't think that "tolerant and pluralistic" is an accurate description of what he was trying to do.

it was Julian who decided to establish a Pagan priesthood and a real hierarchy withing the Pagan church.

He completly realized the role that charity and social assistance in the spread of Christianity and envisaged a Pagan system of philanthropy and charity.

Most pagans had no desire to see their religions turned into an ersatz Church, though, and Julian's reforms generally failed to attract much enthusiasm.

 

[LSCatilina]

But Hellenism (wasn't that the word Julian used to designate "Paganism"?) had no other choice than to organize in a hierarchic church with philanthropic institutions if it wanted to stay a chance against Christianity!

As @Calaritanus said, tough : such a counter-Church may not have been, not only structurally, but ideologically "unthinkable" : less because it would be blasphemous or anything, but because it would be a huge departure from what hellenism was as a non-organized religion.

It's the same departure from reality, if you allow me the comparison, that allows some people (that seems to have played a bit too much CKII) to think it was only a matter for Scandinavians, Balts, Slavs or Finns to "realize" they needed an organized religion and, poof, Reformed Norse/Romuva/etc.
I think it fails to take in account that it's built over a cultural (and institutional for what matter the local management) base that at the very least, need to be convinced as well if the idea even appears out of blue (I'm the first to agree that ideas are mutually porous, but it doesn't seem it did on this one).

Eventually, Julian's project, that might be more accuratly described as a counter-church, than a hierarchical pagan church (altough I still expect Calaritanus, who's more strong on this matter than I am, to point issues), already conflicted with traditional, popular, or even civic beliefs.
I wonder how much his attempt couldn't be compared with Akbar's Din-il-Ilahi (all proportion kept, of course), as a personal and courtly conception, rather than something that appealing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Din-i_Ilahi

And who does say that such a church would have little appeal? The Manichaeist "Church", which was literally modelled after Jesus' twelwe apostles and the Christian bishops.

Julian counter-church would have little appeal to the non-Christian population. Manicheans, Christians, Gnostics, Judeo-Nazoreans more or less shared the same basic "demographical target" : namely lower urban classes, and some scholarly persons that were attracted by the growing philosophical sophistication of these religions. St. Augustine case points that one could jump from one to another, sometimes more than once.
This counter-church, by its opposition to core beliefs of such religions, wouldn't even benefit from this, while still puzzling most of the late Roman practicers of various hellenic beliefs (to say nothing of the crushing masse of non-urban pagan population that didn't that cared about hellenism in first place, especially in the West). Maybe some followers of Porphyrios of Tyre? (Whom I wonder how deep was the influence over Julian. Maybe not as big as I think)

Well, I was well aware of the fact that the Antiochians didn't receive Julian's sacrificial orgy well, but is this really representative for what Julian planned to introduce in the whole empire?

Giving that's the only real exemple we have, anything safe "well, we have only that, so we have to assume it might be" have to be based on speculation.

And is Antioch representative for the whole empire, especially for the rural areas, where Hellenic traditions were deeply rooted.

Actually, no.
Hellenic practices are heavily based on hellenic culture, namely an urban one. More you go in countryside, more the departue from hellenistic practices and mixing up with various local beliefs.
It's worth noting, tough, that if the Alexandrine exemple is any use there, where most of more fanatical Christians came from the countryside, that the religious situation in rural areas might have been much more complex.

Eventually, it's a bit irrelevant : Julian wasn't really bothered with rural areas, where hellenistic influence was often relatively superficial, and focused mostly into having the hellenistic "clergy" (sorry for the anachronism) abiding by his philosophical tenents. It didn't worked that well because, well, his tenents were more on a neo-platonician Olympus that he tought as a pure hellenism, rather than the more mundane, less intellectual but actually existing practices.

Antioch is, IMO, also representative on how Julian under-estimated, or simply didn't care, about the civic solidarities of the late Roman world, which were more consistent in the East, thanks to the maintained tradition of municipal power, than in the west where it began switched to a non-municipal institution (and such more interventionist).

Eventually, Julian didn't had a modicum of the adaptability of late Roman christiandom for what matter absorbating popular beliefs which really didn't helped his cause there : pointing out "that's not the REAL hellenistic practice, and you'll have to admit it", even when proposing a fairly recent and intellectual take on it is, unsurprisingly, less efficient than turning around the problem. Of course, in this case, it would have meant that the counter-church of Julian would have been even less of a structured and hierarchical entity (which it wasn't as such to begin with).

 

[LSCatilina]

Peter Heather makes much of the (failed) Roman attempts to reconquer Africa (i.e. Tunisia, in effect) in the fifth century (i.e. post-Vandal conquest). Africa was of immense importance to the Western Empire, and there were two major attempts at reconquest (in 460 and 468), both of which failed. Belisarius finally succeeded in the sixth century, but of course by then it was too late for the Western Empire. But as PoDs to keep the Western Empire going (at least for a bit longer) these have potential.

As counter-intuitive it might seem, the expedition of 468 have more chances to be successful and maintained than the 460.

460
Even if Majorian took back part of Africa, I'd tend to think it would be short-lived, and that it would have overstretched its political and ressources possibilities.
He managed to play Barbarians against other Barbarians (as foederati, particularly), but it was an expedient, giving he needed foedi to be maintained as pool of military resources, hence why a successful campaign in 460 would probably see Vandals not being utterly crushed but as for Goths, seeing their realm being reduced (probably pushed back to its original emplacement in western Africa) and as Ricimer or Visigothic exemples point out, integrating Barbarians at this point doesn't mean at the leatest crushing them.

It doesn't help, that even before Africa was lost to WRE, it was already badly controlled (which is why Vandals were able to made a bid for it). So I think that quickly after the death of Majorian, you'd go back to the usual situation in WRE : Africa turning back as a playground between powerful foedi and a more or less neglected Roman aristocracy (which is likely to turn at the advantage of the first).

That said, it wouldn't be unconsequential : it might lead to a softier and stronger association of Vandals and Romans, on the same model than it happened with Goths and Burgundians, or even Franks.

468
I think it's more seriously hold possibility for imperial reconquest. Let's assume that Vandals are defeated at Cap Bon while it wouldn't be small feat giving the power of Vandals at this point.
We know Romans already, at this point, managed to take back some points, especially places where Vandalic power wasn't that certain, such as Tripolitania, so let's assume they continue their advance. Eventually, Vandals would be forced to negociate at sword-point, as the coalition couldn't be maintained eternally, and give up several territories and assets.

I think that the first to go would be territories losts or cut off from Vandals : Tripolitania, Corsica, Sardinia, Balearic Islands and Sicily. You certainly noticed that didn't mentioned Africa : well the goal of the expedition was to curb down Vandalic thalassocracy that allowed them to raid everything in sight, rather than reconquer Africa.
Eventually, giving the poor state of WRE at this point (if Majorian couldn't hope to hold Africa, Athemius* sure couldn't), it means that these regions would be de facto under control of Constantinople, makihttp://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/underrated-late-roman-empire-pods-4th-century-to-6th-century-ad.407823/page-2#post-14015843ng the ERE having a more western foothold in the west in the coming decades, a bit like Dalmatia ended up.

Which would probably help having either a more sound western policy : when you said Africa was successfully reconquered by Byzzies in 535, it have to be really contextualized. Byzantine reconquest mostly comes from the incapacity of Vandals to prevent Mauri raids and takeover in the second and third decades of the VIth century, and with the support of Africano-Roman population, took over what remained of the Vandalic Kingdom.
But Byzantines had a really bad view of Roman Africa's history at this point, mostly ignoring the relationship between Mauri and Africans that existed at least since the IInd century.
They, mostly wrongly, saw these kingdoms and tribal entities as invaders (mostly helped by the threat they represented as for what mattered the coastal population) rather than parts of the old system and actively searched to crush them ; the whole campaigns of Solomon is to be understood as a tentative to gain African to Byzantium and to get rid of what was seen as a foreign presence.

ERE having a better approximation of the local geopolitics would really help preventing the mistakes made in Africa, which led to decade of semi-guerilla warfare (and decades of neglects from the late VIth onwards) after having defeated Vandals, with (for exemple) allowing policies similar to Toglita's being adopted early on (and with more success).

So, when I said 468 could be indeed a good and underrated PoD that you proposed, it was more along the line of a western advance of the ERE in the late Vth, decade before the IOTL Justinian reconquests.

*Not shown on this map : Ricimer being a pain in the ass.

---
to be added to this

Battle of Mogontiacum (406), which opposed Frankish federates and Frankish laeti, and a Vandal-Alan-Suevi coalition. According Gregorius of Tours, the battle wasn't going well for the said coalition, before Alans under Respendial managed to defeat Franks even as the king of Vandals was slained.
In the case of Franks managing to hold most of the coalised forces (altough, by no means, managing to hold off the entiere raiding and campaigning armies in Gaul), it could destructurate enough these and alleviate as much issues for Ravenna which could have a better time managing these groups in the late 400's/early 410's. It could have pretty much interesting (if not radically different for what matter most of the early Vth) consequences.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

In the case of Attila sacking Constantinople after the earthquake in 447, what does everyone think would happen? Would it destroy the Eastern Empire in short order? Merely weaken it?

If the Byzantine army is weakened enough, could the Goths cross the Marmara (perhaps with a promise to protect against Persia) and form a sort of new Galatia in central Anatolia?

Would the now extremely rich Hunnic khaganate last several years longer, retaining the confederation of many barbarian tribes, or would Attila's loot be squandered instantly by his allies and successors?

I don't hold out much hope for Attilas successors - a richer Attila doesn't do more than allow more bribes to be made, or mean larger ones earlier on.

A Gothic Anatolia on the other hand is an interesting idea. I'd personally want to put them near the Pontic Mountains or Cilicia rather than Anatolia proper, but with a successful siege of Constantinople, I can see any of the three as possible. I think the Pontic Mountains might even be seen as preferable, as when things calm down, the Pontic Goths would be able to sail over to the Crimean Goths - and make the Black Sea the heart of a new Gothic homeland.

A sacking of Constantinople at this point I think isn't 1204 levels of catastrophic, but it certainly throws the Eastern Empire into chaos. If Attila sacks the city and leaves, then you have the aforementioned Goths that could make their way east - but could also simply just take over Modern Bulgaria. If Attila chooses to continue his campaigns, into Greece, and across into Anatolia, I honestly think the Empire might have to consider relocating their command structure to Egypt and the Levant, with the aim of recapturing Constantinople and Greece in the future. It could even be Odaenathus-level bad, where Egyptian and Levantine forces take charge, and if the Emperor in Constantinople is dead/captured, appoint their own.

Maybe I'm being pessimistic here, but if Goths and others step into the vacuum of Constantinople then the ERE could become the Egyptian Roman Empire - which I think could be a fun idea.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Antioch is, IMO, also representative on how Julian under-estimated, or simply didn't care, about the civic solidarities of the late Roman world, which were more consistent in the East, thanks to the maintained tradition of municipal power, than in the west where it began switched to a non-municipal institution (and such more interventionist).

Speaking of civic values: Julian tried to rule as a Princeps instead of meeting the image of a monarch of his time. Sure he never abondoned absolute power, but it seems that Julian was much more of a citizen than the other Roman Emperors of the 4th and 5th century CE. I don't know what you mean when speaking of civic solidarity, but Julian was one of the last representatives of ancient civism. IIRC, his subjects even had problems to understand his anachronistic behaviour.

It's the same departure from reality, if you allow me the comparison, that allows some people (that seems to have played a bit too much CKII) to think it was only a matter for Scandinavians, Balts, Slavs or Finns to "realize" they needed an organized religion and, poof, Reformed Norse/Romuva/etc.
I think it fails to take in account that it's built over a cultural (and institutional for what matter the local management) base that at the very least, need to be convinced as well if the idea even appears out of blue (I'm the first to agree that ideas are mutually porous, but it doesn't seem it did on this one)

I never played Pagan countries in CKII, so I'm completly innocent.

But who, in fact, is the local base of Paganism?* The rural population having practiced local Pagan rites for centuries? The urban population faced with strengthening Christianism and with Christian charity? The upper classes, holding the local religious offices of their polis, but also often involved in the imperial cult? The members of the upper classes influenced by Neoplatonism and in contact with Christian, Manichaeist and other beliefs?

And the reaction to Julian's plans will heavly depend on the social category affected. The upper classes will demand to take part in Julian's new "clergy", especially if they're already integrated in the imperial cult. The rural population will most like don't care, except if it's asked to abondon it's traditional beliefs in favor of Julian's metaphysics.

Sure that's only a general tendency, since no social class is monolithic, but I hope you get my point.

Eventually, Julian didn't had a modicum of the adaptability of late Roman christiandom for what matter absorbating popular beliefs which really didn't helped his cause there : pointing out "that's not the REAL hellenistic practice, and you'll have to admit it", even when proposing a fairly recent and intellectual take on it is, unsurprisingly, less efficient than turning around the problem. Of course, in this case, it would have meant that the counter-church of Julian would have been even less of a structured and hierarchical entity (which it wasn't as such to begin with).

So you say that Julian hadn't a chance to establish its "pagan counter-church"? I admit that it would be very hard.

But besides this idea - did Paganism had a chance to survive at this point? What should Julian have done to stop the Christian tide? He couldn't revert to violence, since Christianity was already to strong at this point - maybe he also was too philosophical to take such an intolerant action.

Eventually, giving the poor state of WRE at this point (if Majorian couldn't hope to hold Africa, Athemius* sure couldn't)

At least I recognize this map now. The brown areas are foederati territories, aren't they?

Another question: There are territories pleding allegiance to the Roman Emperor on the map. Was this only a legal fiction or did the Emperor exert some real control over these areas?

*Paganism is the conglomeration of all non-Christian, polytheistic forms of religion within the Roman Empire, often influenced by the interpretatio romana and interpretatio graeca.

 

[Faeelin]

I don't want to get into this too much, but isn't Hinduism what we're proposing here for paganism? A reformed faith that pastes together disparate religious traditions into a comprehensive faith? And if you believe that Hinduism developed in response to Buddhism...

The parallels aren't exact, but it does suggest the idea of paganism "reforming" isn't as far fetched as you might think.

 

[LSCatilina]

And if you believe that Hinduism developed in response to Buddhism...

I think you coined the exact word for this : reponse, rather than against.
Late Vedic/early Hindu proponents tended to mix some Buddhic elements at a period where Buddhism wasn't yet strictly distinct from the whole of Sarmanic beliefs : the comparison could be closer to how early Christiendom tried to define itself in reponse of various heterodox and para-doxial beliefs it wasn't that clearly cut off from; rather than the frontal opposition of two defined ensembles.

The parallels aren't exact, but it does suggest the idea of paganism "reforming" isn't as far fetched as you might think.

One of the main difference, as far as I can tell about Hinduism, is that state interventionism and patronage into, not just a given veneration, but on the general religious outlook was accepted and somehow expected from Indian rulers, when it wasn't for the classical and traditional Graeco-Roman world (while expected to by Late Roman structures)

The lack of a basis on which to base "reformed" Hellenism (which is not Julian tried to do as much as curbing down Christianism as an institution), as Vedic texts where for late Brahmanic/early Hindu scholars, is a big issue there : hellenistic rites and beliefs (I won't go into the vast array of diverse beliefs within the Empire) didn't have as much common texts than they had similar practices (even the pan-hellenistic practices such as Olympics and Delphic events tended to not fulfill the role they had on this matter in classical hellenic history).
The only real scholarly base on which Julian tried to base his actions was the relatively recent neo-platonicians intellectual argumentations, which was a bit far from everyday practices or beliefs, rather than supporting them entierly. (Of course, both were complementary, it's just that Julian really tried to make his own take as the regular interventionist take on hellenistic practices we went on)

So, I'm not sure that's a good exemple for what matter Julian's policies (or, for that matter, mostly oral and porous rites and beliefs in Northern and Central Europe, giving the lack of scholarly and institutional structures).