A Western Roman state Survives into the Medieval Ages

If they manage to keep the barbarians from coming into Italy, they might survive.
The point is that they won't manage to keep the barbarians from coming into Italy.
It was kind of a problem even in the best days of the Roman military glory - since Cimbres and Teutones I guess. Maybe even before - keeping the Celts from the North. IIRC August himself was scared shitless after Varrus' catastrophe - he thought that the Germans might invade Italy.
Since the time of Aurelian Italy was a picnic ground for the barbarians.

So if you want the WRE to survive into the Medieval Ages - leave Italy.
And France (Gaul) is doomed as well. It is too open to invasions from the West, North and the Eastern coast is vulnerable.

The best place for the Western Roman Empire to live longer is North Africa.
Carthage is the capital. It has to control the Eastern Mediterranean with a mighty navy and hold Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and Bolearic islands. This way the Empire will be protected against the invasion from the sea. It is necessary.

It would be perfect if the WRE included Spain (Hispania). It is easy to defend - the border in the mountaines in the North. And Spain in itself is a good asset.
But that might be a little bit overstretch.
Anyway holding the Southern Spain is crucial for the WRE - protecting North African imperial core.

Gaul (and probably the Northern Spain) would be lost to the Franks.
Italy would be the place where WRE and ERE would fight against the barbarians with varying success.
 
The point is that they won't manage to keep the barbarians from coming into Italy.

Exactly. Unlike you I don't see the problem as so severe very early, but during the Migration Period Italy is just too tantalizingly wealthy, and almost "en route" for many migration paths.
It would help to have one flank not to worry about, but that doesn't make it easy.


I like the idea of the WRE on Punic territory only. I am not sure, however, if Africa + Numidia would be viable alone given supply and command structures of the late Empire.

But that would be the best option; don't think that Spain is more defensible than Italy.Goths and Vandals had no problem in crossing the Pyrenees or the Straits of Gibraltar.


And finally, it's easy for us today to say "leave Italy". No Roman Emperor would be so pragmatic and even dare to think of such a strategy. If it just "happens" without strategic preparation chances of survival diminish a lot.
 
Um, no. Latin Europe would definely include Britain and Ireland, Skandinavia, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Croatia ...

That's not really a relevant category here.

Um, no. :)

I meant in terms of ethnicity. I know you didn't bother to read my post, in which I mention Germanic Europe.

Please do actual reading and comprehension this time. It'll do you wonders!
 
Um, no. :)

I meant in terms of ethnicity.


What exactly makes you think that the populations of Gaul and Spain speaking their respective versions of Vulgar Latin were ethnic "Latin" or Roman or Italic?

Anyway, "Latin Europe" is a standard term, and it was not really obvious in which nonstandard way you wanted to use it. That the term "Latin" is rarely used as an ethnic term may have helped to obscure it.
 
All these posts claiming that the Romans could simply have consolidated their forces into more easily defensible lines are missing the point. By the 4th century the Roman state, particularly in the West where it had less 'Roman' manpower to draw on had come to heavily rely on Germanic barbarians to fill the ranks of army. The practice of settling Germanic federates inside Roman territory both as buffers against other barbarians and as sources of manpower, shows how critical Germans were to the Roman system of defense. There were a lot of reasons for this. The quality and numbers of potential native Roman recruits had declined significantly due to demographic decline from the 3rd century and the rise of manorialism. Unfortunately, at the same time the defense needs of the Roman state had multiplied with increasing external pressures, leading to an expansion of the army and a dire need for more sources of manpower. The Germanic barbarians, numerous and excellent soldiers, were a perfect supplement and were brought in in ever-increasing numbers.

This trend was strongest in the West which had a weaker demographic base, a longer and less easily defensible frontier, and a more ready supply of barbarians to draw on. Of course the whole policy eventually backfired, as these barbarians came to dominate not just the army but also the territory and power structures of the West. However, the alternative was just as bad. Without the German manpower, the Western Roman state would have had an ineffective army and been unable to defend itself even to the extent it did OTL against incursions by other barbarians. Basically, thanks to its large size, limited resources and growing insecurity the West was stuck in a very difficult position with no real solution that I can see. Simply having a more balls-to-the-wall defensive strategy isn't going to cut it, since the army is basically half-barbarian anyway and a huge part of the problem. The crisis the Western Roman Empire finds itself in is systemic, not something that can just be averted by some unlikely military decisions
 
Last edited:
Top