Here is the challenge, have the eastern section of the Roman Empire fall by 500 AD, but have the western part of the Empire last as a major force until at least 1453.
Instead, have the Huns be close to the Imperial City when the earthquake hits. They seize the chance and sack the city, destroying the governing power there. The East Romans, combining the quake and sack as divine retribution for their failures as Christians, despair and central control collapses throughout the East Empire is lost. Persia invades while they are down and out.
Attila and the Huns, weighed down by the riches of the Eastern Empire, establish themselves as the lords of the East. .
Pretty easy... IOTL while Attila was beginning his attacks into Roman territory, he was situated directly between the Eastern and Western Empires in Pannonia. Durign this time an earthquake struck Constantinople, breaching her land-ward defensive walls. A heroic effort allowed the walls to be restored before the Huns could take advantage of the disadvantage.
Instead, have the Huns be close to the Imperial City when the earthquake hits. They seize the chance and sack the city, destroying the governing power there. The East Romans, combining the quake and sack as divine retribution for their failures as Christians, despair and central control collapses throughout the East Empire is lost. Persia invades while they are down and out.
Even better, have the invasion of North Africa by the combined West/East Empire legions go ahead (this was planned and in place in Sicily just before the Huns attacked OTL, but called off because the Eastern forces were needed at home). This would restore the fortunes of the Western Empire, and could even further weaken the Eastern forces prior to Attila's invasion.
Attila and the Huns, weighed down by the riches of the Eastern Empire, establish themselves as the lords of the East. A compromise is struck with the Western Empire dividing Europe between them. In time the Romans learn and incorporate Hunnic Calvary/Archery techniques, allowing them to maintain status quo, while at the same time the Huns settle into a new urban life.
With westward pressure on the Germanic tribes removed, they cause less problems for the West in northern Gaul. As well, the reinvigorated West, free of Goths, Visigoths, Suevi, etc is able to refocus on the northern tribes and keep the East of the Rhine.
How about an Ostrogothic Western Roman Emperor, coming to power in a similar way to Romulus Augustulus?
By "of the East" I was strickly thinking of Constantinople (governing heart of East Rome). The Huns weren't too much of a threat to the Persians because they weren't an amphibious force (although Atilla did make claims planning to attack Persia by going around the Black Sea, but that is a very long trek). Persia would very likely take the east Med territories, the Huns the lands between the Adriatic and the Aegean/Black and northwards, while the West kept her territories in Gual, Hispania, North Africa and Italy proper.Actually, it's the _Persians_ which are going to be the "lords of the East": with the central government in collapse, they're going to take Egypt and the Levant easy, and will dispute Anatolia with the Huns. Mostly Greek and Armenian, and the main manpower source of the Byzantines OTL from the Muslim invasions to the 11th century, western and central Anatolia may survive as a rump Byzantine empire for a while, as a buffer between the Huns and the Persians. I suspect the Hunnic empire is going to be Balkans-centered even if it's capital is in Constantinople.
Bruce
I disagree - the 'sack' of Rome was not a burn to the ground pillage but rather looting and very little personal attacks on the citizens. The West recovered quite well, especially under Aetius into the 440's. It was Aetius' forces that defeated Atilla (his first) in 449 (IIRC) in Gaul. It was the loss of North African income to the Vandals, followed by the resurgent Suevi in Hispania (more income lost) that really did them in. The loss of government revenue made the armies needed to keep the empire intact untenable, leading local groups-Baudages- to make deals with incoming tribes as a way to preserve peace.Interesting thought, but after Adrianople the Roman Empire was far to depended on the Goths far to much, mostly because of the loses they couldn't field their own armies. This would of happened either way. The Goths didn't attack when the Romans wanted them to, but only when they wanted to. They also just as willing to cause problems for Rome. Then you still have the 410 sacking of Rome, which hurt Rome a lot. This sack turned the balance of power far in favor of the East. Overall, I just figure that Rome can't be saved by your POD.
I disagree - the 'sack' of Rome was not a burn to the ground pillage but rather looting and very little personal attacks on the citizens. The West recovered quite well, especially under Aetius into the 440's. It was Aetius' forces that defeated Atilla (his first) in 449 (IIRC) in Gaul. It was the loss of North African income to the Vandals, followed by the resurgent Suevi in Hispania (more income lost) that really did them in. The loss of government revenue made the armies needed to keep the empire intact untenable, leading local groups-Baudages- to make deals with incoming tribes as a way to preserve peace.
If the Vandlas in Carthage could be dealt with before the Huns acted, and an accomodation reached that allowed Aetius to deal with the Suevi and Baudages in Gaul, then Rome's coffers would fill again
This may in turn make the Sassanids strong enough to repel the Arab invasion of the 7th century, containing Islam's expansion to the East.Instead, have the Huns be close to the Imperial City when the earthquake hits. They seize the chance and sack the city, destroying the governing power there. The East Romans, combining the quake and sack as divine retribution for their failures as Christians, despair and central control collapses throughout the East Empire is lost. Persia invades while they are down and out.
While its certainly no challange to come up with a scenario where the Eastern Empire collapses before 500 (eg. any one of the different invasion scenarios listed above), I suspect it will be much more difficult to come up with a way to keep the Western Empire alive and politically cohesive without a POD well before late antiquity.
The problem is that most of the Roman Empire's population centers and economic foci were in the east. Thus, the East could survive without the West, but the West was dependent on the wealth of the East to support the sort of culture enjoyed by the upper classes of late antiquity.