AHC : A Community of Roman Empires

One of the frequent topics on the board is the division of the Empire, and how it was needed, how it wasn't, and all other arguments around the West and the East and the Empires size being unmanageable.

Ignoring all those aspects, I've always seen an interesting scenario for the Romans being an Empire in 5s. But not the original territory, but an enlarged one, in a TL where Majorian does the seemingly impossible and rebuilds and stabilises the Western Empire. (I personally love this TL idea, and always feel sad that there aren't more Majorian timelines, alas).

My thoughts are that if you can have a functioning WRE/ERE partnership, and a heavily German Western Empire (or Gothic/Gallic, choose a cultural term here), and a highly Greek Eastern Empire, then other than the common aspect of being Roman, they'll obviously be largely different Empires in character.

So I guess this is turning into a AHC : If you have a Majorian Lives TL where he reconquers the Empire in the West, how do you have the following

1) The Central Empire (ERE minus Egypt but with Pannonia and the Black Sea).
2) The Western Empire (WRE minus Britain)
3) The Northern Empire (Britain, Germania, Scandinavia)
4) The Eastern Empire (Persia)
5) The Southern Empire (Egypt, Arabia, Ethiopia)

This includes some sort of functional method of co-operation, a lingua franca, and peace. A nominal or practical 'uber-Emperor' is acceptable, but I'd be curious how it works.

I'm also curious as to the cultures that dominate these groupings, and whether or not there is any major cross-jurisdiction culture groups, and what you imagine the dominance common culture would be.
 
They only need to consider themselves Roman, and be considered Roman in turn. Something along the lines of 'British'. I.e. Roman but also Gallic/Gallic but also Roman being the same as British but also Scottish/Scottish and British.
That is what I meant. For example, a Persian empire would not usually consider itself Roman unless there'd been a period of prolonged conquest, or, at least, unprecedentedly heavy cultural influence.
 
That is what I meant. For example, a Persian empire would not usually consider itself Roman unless there'd been a period of prolonged conquest, or, at least, unprecedentedly heavy cultural influence.

Understood, hence why it is a challenge. I've never thought the idea is completely unreasonable. A restablised Roman Europe is on the cusp of transformation in my opinion, a 'Post-Majorian' WRE could be unrecognisable from the WRE we think of, including the development of the heavy plow, and a move away from some of the economic weaknesses of the past. A friendly, stable, miltary and trade partner in the west could be enough to ensure the East can turn the tide on the Persian Empire(s) - it certainly was able to stand alone for quite a long time.
 
Very very difficult.
you might however get to from
  • An initial division into 3.
  • Then a third gets super amounts of territory and is divided.
  • Borders are revised.
  • Then repeat
 
Hmmm, let me give this a swing.

So, lets butterfly away Islam. So we have the Sassanian-Byzantine war of the 7th century as in OTL, but no Islam to sweep in and conquer the realm. Now, lets postulate that, during the course of the later 7th century, the Sassanians fall into a Civil War (shocker, I know! :p). In the course of the struggle, a new dynasty comes to power that holds to the Nestorian creed. This dynasty once married the daughter of a Byzantine pretender who fled to Persia, possibly a generation before coming into power. The Byzantines, never exactly keen on Nestorianism to begin with, engage in one of their persecutions of heretics and many Byzantine Nestorians flee to Persia for safety and to offer their services.

So, you now have (heretical) Christian ruler of Persia who has some dynastic claim upon the Byzantine throne - as long as you are to assume that the pretender was the true Emperor. Furthermore, there are now a small group of Byzantine expatriots who can be used to help set up the new dynasty's bureaucracy.

Now, no one in Persia is going to see themselves as citizens of a Further Eastern Roman Empire. However, I could see the new Shahs claiming to be Emperors of Persia and Rome in this case and might well focus on their combined Persian and Roman heritage in official propaganda. I would assume this would have as much legitimate force as Queen Elizabeth I claiming to be the Queen of France, but it could still be important in how the dynasty presents itself.

And, before anyone says it, yes - this dynasty is unlikely to be popular with the Zoroastrian priesthood in Persia which was given a great deal of official patronage and status by the Sassanians (who based much of their legitimacy off of their Zoroastrian faith). However, the Arabic rulers weren't exactly orthodox Zoroastrians themselves, and they were able to secure their power. Obviously the situation is very different, but lets just say that the new dynasty doesn't persecute the Zoroastrian Church - at least for the first two or thee generations - and they are able to hold the throne for at least a century.
 
So, lets butterfly away Islam. So we have the Sassanian-Byzantine war of the 7th century as in OTL, but no Islam to sweep in and conquer the realm. Now, lets postulate that, during the course of the later 7th century, the Sassanians fall into a Civil War (shocker, I know! :p). In the course of the struggle, a new dynasty comes to power that holds to the Nestorian creed. This dynasty once married the daughter of a Byzantine pretender who fled to Persia, possibly a generation before coming into power. The Byzantines, never exactly keen on Nestorianism to begin with, engage in one of their persecutions of heretics and many Byzantine Nestorians flee to Persia for safety and to offer their services.

So, you now have (heretical) Christian ruler of Persia who has some dynastic claim upon the Byzantine throne - as long as you are to assume that the pretender was the true Emperor. Furthermore, there are now a small group of Byzantine expatriots who can be used to help set up the new dynasty's bureaucracy.

The thing is, a Nestorian state in the region wouldn't really be a Persian empire so much as a Mesopotamian empire that happened to rule Persia. Nestorianism was, for all intents, the religion of Mesopotamian Semitic people, not of Persian Aryan people.

And, before anyone says it, yes - this dynasty is unlikely to be popular with the Zoroastrian priesthood in Persia which was given a great deal of official patronage and status by the Sassanians (who based much of their legitimacy off of their Zoroastrian faith). However, the Arabic rulers weren't exactly orthodox Zoroastrians themselves, and they were able to secure their power.

They were able to secure their power after a lot of warring with Zoroastrian rebels that took up two centuries. And even after the "Two Centuries of Shame", you still had Mardavij, who probably could have created a substantial Zoroastrian Persian state.

So, it would be very difficult for the Nestorians to hold on to Persia, just as it was for the Arabs to do so. And the Nestorians would not have the sheer resources of the Arabs, so such resistance would eventually give way to an ethnically Persian state.
 
They'll eventually start fighting each other.

Periodic fighting isn't a problem - even if it means unity. IOTL the Empire was re-united a couple of times by Constantine and Theodosius - after which the Empire was divided again. I see no reason why that couldn't repeat itself.

Hmmm, let me give this a swing.

So, lets butterfly away Islam. So we have the Sassanian-Byzantine war of the 7th century as in OTL, but no Islam to sweep in and conquer the realm. Now, lets postulate that, during the course of the later 7th century, the Sassanians fall into a Civil War (shocker, I know! :p). In the course of the struggle, a new dynasty comes to power that holds to the Nestorian creed. This dynasty once married the daughter of a Byzantine pretender who fled to Persia, possibly a generation before coming into power. The Byzantines, never exactly keen on Nestorianism to begin with, engage in one of their persecutions of heretics and many Byzantine Nestorians flee to Persia for safety and to offer their services.

So, you now have (heretical) Christian ruler of Persia who has some dynastic claim upon the Byzantine throne - as long as you are to assume that the pretender was the true Emperor. Furthermore, there are now a small group of Byzantine expatriots who can be used to help set up the new dynasty's bureaucracy.

Now, no one in Persia is going to see themselves as citizens of a Further Eastern Roman Empire. However, I could see the new Shahs claiming to be Emperors of Persia and Rome in this case and might well focus on their combined Persian and Roman heritage in official propaganda. I would assume this would have as much legitimate force as Queen Elizabeth I claiming to be the Queen of France, but it could still be important in how the dynasty presents itself.

And, before anyone says it, yes - this dynasty is unlikely to be popular with the Zoroastrian priesthood in Persia which was given a great deal of official patronage and status by the Sassanians (who based much of their legitimacy off of their Zoroastrian faith). However, the Arabic rulers weren't exactly orthodox Zoroastrians themselves, and they were able to secure their power. Obviously the situation is very different, but lets just say that the new dynasty doesn't persecute the Zoroastrian Church - at least for the first two or thee generations - and they are able to hold the throne for at least a century.

I love this as an ATL idea!

The thing is, a Nestorian state in the region wouldn't really be a Persian empire so much as a Mesopotamian empire that happened to rule Persia. Nestorianism was, for all intents, the religion of Mesopotamian Semitic people, not of Persian Aryan people.

They were able to secure their power after a lot of warring with Zoroastrian rebels that took up two centuries. And even after the "Two Centuries of Shame", you still had Mardavij, who probably could have created a substantial Zoroastrian Persian state.

So, it would be very difficult for the Nestorians to hold on to Persia, just as it was for the Arabs to do so. And the Nestorians would not have the sheer resources of the Arabs, so such resistance would eventually give way to an ethnically Persian state.

I think that @fjihr is right though. However, this could work to purpose - those Nestorian Romans may leave the Empire to assist the Nestorian Empire in Mesopotamia, but if Mesopotamia has the choice of being overthrown by rebels, or asking for Roman assistance, I think the latter is more likely. Having a friendly Nestorian Empire is better than a hostile Zoroastrian power on the border. If the price of assistance is whatever invitation into the 'Roman Sphere' I'm not sure that it would be the end of the world. The bureaucracy/minor nobility already has Roman influences. Guaranteed peace on the Syrian/Mesopotamian border in exchange for military assistance in Persia is a good deal. This could be the best way to make the Persians 'Roman' by virtue of being conquered by a Mesopotamia that is 'Roman'. It might be a Nestorian Semetic Roman Persia but it works in my book.

Sidenote: A bit dark, but a long-term solution to make that Eastern Empire stay Roman would either have to be Romanisation of the Persians (I see rebellion by them as more likely), or the darker path of ethnic cleansing, which would work if the Romans are backing them and want to buy slaves. Fighting rebels, and enslaving those who do rebel, and then settling loyal citizens in their place, would significantly shift the balance between the Persians and Mesopotamians over time, and net them a tidy sum of money as well - and potentially boost the Roman economy through a huge increase in manpower. - My biggest fear would be of a Persian Revolt IN the Roman Empire, because I'm not sure what damage it would do. (Although, settling large numbers of Persians throughout the Empire, particularly Gaul and Britannia, could have some interesting cultural changes. Breton-Aryan communities in Cornwall for instance).
 
  1. Western Empire: Spain, Gaul, Britain
  2. Middle Empire:Italy, Africa,Pannonia
  3. "ERE": Balkans, Anatolia
  4. Southern empire: Egypt, Syria, Cilica, possibly Armenia
 

Deleted member 97083

Periodic fighting isn't a problem - even if it means unity. IOTL the Empire was re-united a couple of times by Constantine and Theodosius - after which the Empire was divided again. I see no reason why that couldn't repeat itself.
Well, yeah, but then how would that be a new community of Roman empires, rather than a partitioned Roman Empire with inner factions fighting each other, as usual?
 
Well, yeah, but then how would that be a new community of Roman empires, rather than a partitioned Roman Empire with inner factions fighting each other, as usual?

Communities fall out and then sort stuff out again. The League of Nations fell apart, then the United Nations became a thing. Either perspective, as a Community or as a Partitioning is fine - admittedly the Community would have the difference of the active recognition that they are independent states, but I'm not entirely sure what the difference between Two Empires and the Partition would feasibly be besides a perception of being 1 Empire. For all intents and purposes as I can see they were two completely different states.
 
  1. Western Empire: Spain, Gaul, Britain
  2. Middle Empire:Italy, Africa,Pannonia
  3. "ERE": Balkans, Anatolia
  4. Southern empire: Egypt, Syria, Cilica, possibly Armenia

Sure, Roman Africa was under the Bishop of Rome religiously. But lots of Africans didn't quite think that was an ideal arrangement (hence Donatism). The way Rome ruled Africa pretty much means the place is going to be separate from Italy, they'll just clash over Sicily and Malta.
 

Deleted member 97083

Communities fall out and then sort stuff out again. The League of Nations fell apart, then the United Nations became a thing. Either perspective, as a Community or as a Partitioning is fine - admittedly the Community would have the difference of the active recognition that they are independent states, but I'm not entirely sure what the difference between Two Empires and the Partition would feasibly be besides a perception of being 1 Empire. For all intents and purposes as I can see they were two completely different states.
Well the whole point of the Roman Empire was that there was only one. It took until 500 AD for the Eastern Romans to admit that the Western Empire had fallen, because Odoacer's kingdom was a perfectly acceptable puppet state from Greek eyes. The Byzantines never really considered the Holy Roman Empire a valid nation, either.

Why would Romans lose the idea of one empire, when that idea survived decades of partitions, civil wars, a change to an entirely different religion, and a change in language?
 
Top