AH Challenge: A Roman reversal

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.
 
Well, If the Huns invaded a bit differently, the Goths would have moved to the south-east instead of the south-west. I'd doubt that that would be sufficient, though, as the Western Roman Empire was already somewhat on the decline at that time.
 
You could always do the cliched turn western Rome into a early Italy.

Then...just have people from the east have more success. Mongols maybe,
 
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.
 
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. .

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
 
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.

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.
 
How about an Ostrogothic Western Roman Emperor, coming to power in a similar way to Romulus Augustulus?

Stilicho, was executed by the Roman Court for because they believed he would put his own son on the throne. This is as close as an Goth comes to power in Rome. The Ostrogoths come after the Vandal sack of Rome in 453, where all the wealth of Rome was taken.
 
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
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.

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
 
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

You can not underestimate the psychological effect of having Rome sacked in 410. Also while Aetius was a brilliant general, I have actually read an account of that battle that questioned wither the victory was because of the Romans or the Goths. The Romans are depended at the will of the Germanic tribes, and because of it, they are not in a position there emigration into different areas, and thus do loses profit. They would of had to had different tribes work with them to take down the Vandals, but they would of just lost the lands to another Germanic tribe.

I would argue, that the better course would be if Stilicho would of finished off Alaric like he really should have, and thus prevented the sack of Rome in 410, or if Stilicho wasn't killed, his men wouldn't of joined with Alaric's forces. Though, I think it is impossible to avoid the system from killing him, just like it killed Aetius.
 

Hendryk

Banned
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.
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.
 
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. While this may sound like an elitist view, it should be remembered that without the elite political class, the Western imperial infrastructure could not survive. When the government at Ravenna stopped being able to perform functions like paying the army and maintaining the roads you'd see various regions splinter off as different local leaders promised a better way forward.

This would lead, at first, to civil wars, but I believe that even the ability to effectively wage large-scale warfare would quickly vanish. The end result would be that in less than 100 years from the destruction of the Eastern Empire you'd have a Europe populated by a myriad of minor states and fiefdoms ruled by the remains of the provincial aristocracy who have managed to maintain some sort of wealth and influence due to their agricultural estates.

In my opinion, if the economy of the eastern mediterranean collapses then the collapse of the West is almost assured (or at least the collapse of late antique society as we know it).

A potential loop-hole could be found, however, if the Eastern Roman world was overrun by some culture (probably Persia) which managed to incorporate the territory into a cohesive state. In this scenario we still have commerce with the West, allowing for at least a slower decline of that half of the Empire.
 
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.

I disagree that the West was dependent on the East for maintaining it's ability to govern. There's no doubt the East was the richer of the two empires (though also had the greater military costs) I have not come across any details of the East subsidizing the West's government. They were self-contained in that sense. It was the rich (and relatively easy to defend) North Africa and East Hispania that generated much of the West's income, and it was only when these teritories were compromised (by Vandlas, Visigoths and Suevi) that the Ravenna's resources were overstretched to the point that the outlying areas couldn't be provided with imperial protection and local tribal protection was sought by land-owners (to their eventual regret).

Remember that while the East provided military support to the West on occaision, the reverse was true as well during the 375-450 period. Again, it was when N. Africa was lost to the Vandals that the West's troubles became irreversible.
 
Top