AHC: Keep The Western Empire Wealthly Economicly

The West didn't seem to have much of a choice. In addition to the trouble with would-be and successful Roman usurpers, various Germanic nations were threatening the Empire's security from within and without. The ERE had its fair share of conflicts with barbarians and the Sassanids, but they had the wealth - and then some - to buy off their enemies for a time, whereas the West resorted to steps like giving away some of its own territories, which the barbarians used to essentially create states within a state; kingdoms within an empire. That could be a workable arrangement, but one of the downsides is that the more territory the West loses the less tax revenue it takes in.
First of I am a history amateur, so this is more of a question rather than a statement. Half of my knowledge about how the frontier was handled comes from a single book "Empires and Barbarians" by Peter Heather, so not claiming much expertise.

Didn't both the western and eastern empire pay off the Germanic states for a long time? From my understanding the primary way both the west and east dealt with both their Rhine and Danubian frontiers was with money, making it very lucrative for the Germanic and later on Hunnic, Iranic and Slavic tribes to fight for the territory bordering the Roman Empire(s), thus weakening themselves. Divide and conquer, with only the occasional need to use expensive military force.

If so around what time did the western empire become unable to do so? Is it the damage done by Attila and civil war combined with the development of advanced more stable Germanic states, the eventual acceleration of the conglomeration of smaller Germanic groups into larger ones which would be harder to handle?

What I am asking is if, in your opinion, there was a specific turning point in history where the western Empire stopping being able to manipulate their frontier due to some event. Or if it was a combination of growing/advancing Germanic states and the west weakening internally over time? Was it primarily caused by the decline of the western empire or was it the growth and development of Central/Eastern Europe? Or were they both equally important in your opinion?

Go and colonize West Africa. Idk if there are golds there... but just take natives as slaves and sell them to the East. Done
Why sail all the way to West Africa, which was dangerous for the Romans whom had limited ocean traveling capabilities, just to get slaves? They already got slaves and soldiers from Central and Eastern Europe, and it was much closer and easier to access. I can admit to gold in the Sahel being valuable, but not many really knew about the gold deposits in the area at the time, the first prominent state in the Sahel was the Kingdom of Ghana in 750AD~.

Also Western Rome "colonizing" Western Africa is not going to happen, too far away, hostile natives, tropical diseases and unfitting crops. Plus there was not a population surplus in the western empire. Also there was still plenty of land the settle and develop in Germania, Brittania, Northern Gallia, Western Hispania and to a lesser extent Eastern Hispania and Northern Gallia.

Keep in mind that the far more advanced European empires did not even attempt to make much progress into tropical Africa beyond coastal/river forts until vaccination and the Maxim Gun. It's simply "bad for the health" (understatement) for Europeans to settle in the tropics before vaccination is well developed.
 
It was not mainly a problem of health but most of all a problem of capacities.

Europe just was not strong enough to hold more than a few coastal points in Africa. If you put deserts aside (nobody colonizes deserts), Africa was more populated than pre-colombian America.

The only way to establish in Africa for european powers was to have agreements with local kings or chieftains.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I'm a novice WRE-wise, but is there no space to create hybrid cities rather than just give away land.

I know it'd be more involved, but if the West has resources to exploit (I imagine so, France does pretty well with modern Gaul after all) - then after the disruption of forcibly resettling barbarians and Romans into new cities, would that not lead to

a) Less barbarian independence, but homes for their people - not the same as a homeland of an independent people, but sanctuary - at least for now.

b) More manpower, and an increase in resource exploitation and then wealth - helping to (if in a vastly different way than the East), rapidly urbanise areas of the WRE.

Now admittedly, there could be a significant number of pissed off Romans, but if there was say - no taxes for the new city for X years - that could balance out the anger - and then set it up so you have move some Visigoths to Gaul, some to Hispania, and some swap with Italians and Africans. As long as they aren't together the barbarians can't rebel en masse easily, but an still communicate if they wish to move on (that being an open discussion), and the new cities being mostly Roman.

I'd hate to be the Emperor trying to pull this off, but at least he'd have left a larger tax base for his successor. Hell, with the right about of talk, could even ask the ERE if they want to do a swap (Most unlikely)
 
I don't think sailing to West Africa is a good idea in that it wasn't until the 15th century that navigation technology enabled it to be a viable idea. It's too dangerous to sail there and it was only after Henry the Navigator's expeditions that a viable route was established.
 
What I am asking is if, in your opinion, there was a specific turning point in history where the western Empire stopping being able to manipulate their frontier due to some event. Or if it was a combination of growing/advancing Germanic states and the west weakening internally over time? Was it primarily caused by the decline of the western empire or was it the growth and development of Central/Eastern Europe? Or were they both equally important in your opinion?

I'm not sure if I would pick any single event. It was building up to the point where the Western Empire would no longer be able to manage the multitude of barbarian nations in its own territory. I think some people would trace it back to the Battle of Adrianople, which was technically an Eastern Empire defeat, but had far reaching consequences for the West. Another particular event would be the Crossing of the Rhine around AD 405 or 406 when a multitude of Germanic and Alan barbarians migrated into the Western Empire, the combined number of which was virtually unmanageable. It also didn't help that the Western Empire was struggling through another civil war between would-be usurpers and the supporters of Honorius. But arguably the biggest setback for the West would be the loss of the Diocese of Africa. To make a long story short, it was a catastrophe for the Western Empire's economy, which had to turn increasingly to more taxation against a 'taxed-to-death' peasantry. The Western Empire managed to hold on for several more decades, but ultimately endured more and more losses in Gaul and Spain until only Italy and a few other territories remained. As I said, there were a lot of factors and several key events that played into the West's demise, but if I had to pick just one, I think I would go with the loss of the African diocese. I know this seems like I'm throwing all the fault on the barbarians, and they did play a crucial role in accelerating the decline of the Western Empire, but in some ways they also contributed to its security. The foederati were vital assets in the Late Roman army, and barbarians were crucial to certain Roman victories such as the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. Without the barbarian element that made up part of Flavius Aetius' Roman coalition (a mixed army of Romans and barbarians) it is doubtful that the Western Empire would have stopped Attila's first invasion in its tracks.
 
a) Less barbarian independence, but homes for their people - not the same as a homeland of an independent people, but sanctuary - at least for now.

They did tried so, with laeti (more or less part of vaniquished peoples, or refugees, settled along borders on deeper in provinces) since the Ist century. It kinda worked, but wasn't enough to resolve all issues.
Eventually, you couldn't treat the same way defeated groups and more cohesive peoples (ironically, part of this cohesion is directly due to Rome whom presence and exchanges structurated them).

People entering Romania are simply not going to "forget" conveniently their tribal links and solidarities for the convenience of Romans. Trevingi exemple is quite telling about this, while their establishment was supposed to be this sanctuary at first.

Moreso when Romans needed, and quickly, forces to repeal other threats. Destroying these solidarities and structures would have meant getting rid of Barbarians as a military force, and eventually being weaker in face of others.

Having a more strong imperial authority could help, giving that part of the reason Goths went into a rampage was the bad treatment they recieved after crossing the Danube.

b) More manpower, and an increase in resource exploitation and then wealth - helping to (if in a vastly different way than the East), rapidly urbanise areas of the WRE.
The constant situation in Late Empire was the lack of manpower, hence why Barbarians were accepted as an additional taskforce. Epidemics (but not only) took their tool on the population and in spite of (more or less half-assed, granted) imperial tentatives to compensate it.

Eventually more manpower means more Barbarians, something that may be contrary to what you search.

As for the tentatives of re-rationalisation of the provinces, Diocleatians and later reforms are quite that, but more on adapting to the situation than trying to "rapidely urbanize". I stress again, that WRE even in remote areas was urbanized. The huge difference was the difference in relationship between rural areas and cities, tendence reinforced by civic elites going out of cities to establish themselves on private lands (often villae) at the exception of bishops and sometimes counts.

I'm not too sure about how you could prevent that, as emperors were concious of the issue, tried to resolve it but never really managed to deal with.

What could be done, if the WRE have a better political and military backround, would be incitative to "retake" part of the sub-urbium left over with the decline of population and to give them to whatever would be fitting (provincial elite, Barbarians) a bit like it was done in the VI/VIIth centuries, but under a better political control. With some skills (and other changes) it could form some small contados forming an economical transition zone between cities and countrysides instead of a full scale ruralisation.

Now admittedly, there could be a significant number of pissed off Romans, but if there was say - no taxes for the new city for X years - that could balance out the anger -
Hardly, even if the empire could not only spare the cost of such tentatives (which they couldn't) and harm their fiscal revenues for no other reason than "let's build a city in a remote place without real interest doing so".
We're talking of deporting Romans, not only Barbarians (when that alone prooved hard), giving so many reasons to topple the said emperor (would it be only because the senatorial elites would be pissed to see their clientele going away, or because it would increase the lack of mapower in Italy or Africa, meaning more Barbarian needed).

As long as they aren't together the barbarians can't rebel en masse easily, but an still communicate if they wish to move on (that being an open discussion), and the new cities being mostly Roman.
Bagaudae points that Romans were fully able, even without military or Barbarian support, to rebel themselves and to be a general pain in the ass. And that would probably, as IOTL, increase the presence of Barbarians to deal with.
 
Top