A western roman Italy

Let's say near the end of the western roman empire, the emperors decides to pull back all their frontier troops and etc, abandoning France, spain and etc, and focus their effort in defending Italy alone.

Will the western roman empire be able to defend Italy alone? A Italy where the pope has less influence than the western roman emperor.
 
Let's say near the end of the western roman empire, the emperors decides to pull back all their frontier troops and etc, abandoning France, spain and etc, and focus their effort in defending Italy alone.
Well, that's pretty much what did happen. Not necessarily by choice, mind you, but by the time that Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustus, the empire had already been completely expelled from Spain and most of Gaul. The only non-Italian territories under nominal imperial control were smallish military outposts in northwestern Gaul and on the western coast of North Africa. Neither of these were contiguous with Italy, and imperial "control" was little more than a formality in both cases.

Will the western roman empire be able to defend Italy alone? A Italy where the pope has less influence than the western roman emperor.
Probably not, no. One of the many issues was the Roman army really depended on barbarian troops. The people who'll be actually defending the peninsula, in this timeline as well as ours, are going to be barbarians in the first place. And, if nothing else, an Italy-only empire is going to have a hard time commanding the fealty of a better armed, and probably wealthier group of settlers.

You might (might!) be able to have the eastern empire hold onto Italy for a longer period of time following Justinian's reconquest the following century. That is, if the fighting doesn't completely devastate Italy, and if there's no plague and political infighting to distract Justinian, as there was in OTL. But the results of that are going to be considerably different than if the western imperial infrastructure never fell in the first place.
 
Hmm...then would the western empire last longer IF the point of diverenge is earlier? Let say shortly after Constantine split the empire into two, and the western empire successor decide to withdrew.

After withdrawing, the western empire decides to carry a offensive defense tactics. Constantly pushing the barbarian tribes Northwards, or eastwards. But they will not control the land. Just harrass the tribes from coming near Italy.

Recreate the legionary system perhaps? Reintroduce more romans into fighting instead of relying on the barbarian.

Given that the legions will only harrass the tribes, and they don't need to overstretch their supply lines or require a extremely large manpower, in the meantime, Rome could try and rebuilt and etc, errect a great wall perhaps.

When Italy has strengthened itself against the barbarian tribe, perhaps the western empire could try and retake the lost lands.
 
Well, that's pretty much what did happen. Not necessarily by choice, mind you, but by the time that Odoacer deposed Romulus Augustus, the empire had already been completely expelled from Spain and most of Gaul. The only non-Italian territories under nominal imperial control were smallish military outposts in northwestern Gaul and on the western coast of North Africa. Neither of these were contiguous with Italy, and imperial "control" was little more than a formality in both cases.

And by pulling back the troops, I mean pulling a sufficient amount of troops before the western empire was greatly weakened.

Edit: Maybe during the time of Honorius ...
 
Last edited:
the Vandals were able to invade Rome through Carthage though, so the Roman soldiers would have to defend the entire peninsula, and a state like that is pretty much moribund anyway, it would inevitably decline (from lack of trade, etc) until someone strong enough comes along and smashes the empire.
 
Top