Is this story about a surviving western Roman empire plausible - https://www.fictionpress.com/s/2343536/1/Narius?
How much did you read?The sack of Rome in 410 was not very practically significant, the manpower was low. It wasn't even the capital (Mediolanum?). The central government lost a lot of legitimacy, which made it harder to enforce the law and taxes... while barbarians were still pouring in. What's missing from that story isn't about the practicality of survival, but the restoration of legitimacy so that people don't think following your orders is staying on a sinking ship.
The first 3 chapters.
WRE at this point was not a rump state anymore, not even this : since the 450's, the only only military forces it could count on were either foederati or eastern Roman; both having little to no interest supporting it. The question was how it was going to be eaten, not if it could avoid it.The WRE surviving as a rump state with the defeat of immediate threats does help in its survival.
Considering the foederati as "rebellious tribes" having no relations with Rome (as the territories were "lost anyway") is a big mistake (The author made a line about how Barbarians apparently wanted to replace Romans in the administration because something about tribes). Foedi were, for all that matter, post-imperial Roman states, with a strong dynamic with Roman institutions they were integrated within (more or less strongly, arguably : Franks or Goths from one hand and Alamans or Gepidae from another represent two ends of the line) : while it asked for the collapse of the Roman state to see the transmission of political and civic power, what happened in Rome wasn't moot (hence why the Gothic takeover of Italy, and more importantly Theodoric recieving imperial regalia in 497 reinforced his position of "primus inter pares" in western Romania).In the timeline, most of the empire had been lost anyway so there would be few rebellious barbarians with Odoacer and his people being part of the few tribes within remaining within Roman territory so the defeat of the Heruli would go a way to securing the WRE.
By the 470's it is : Ravenna lost all real financial capacities, and while Italy remained fairly prosperous by the Vth century, its strategical capacities almost entierly depended from complex alliances with either foederati or Constantinople. What remains of the WRE is under the dependency of whoever can give it troops and subsides : even Aetius or Majorian couldn't do better than playing Barbarians against each others, and they beneficied from way more resources at disposal.While the decay of Roman systems within the WRE would be the main issue for any emperor a reform of the system wouldn't be impossible
Plebeian/Patrician social distinction was irrelevant even since the late Republic. It's worth noting that humilores were still participating to political life, but it tended to be mostly civic (in the strictest sense) especially with the deligitimization conga of the western emperors.Narius' appeal though seems to be carrying him as the saviour of Rome and restorer of pride in the eyes of the plebians
WRE at this point was not a rump state anymore, not even this : since the 450's, the only only military forces it could count on were either foederati or eastern Roman; both having little to no interest supporting it. The question was how it was going to be eaten, not if it could avoid it.
It would certainly solve problems for Roman Italy, but not for WRE : Roman campaigns in Africa in the mid and late Vth century were essentially bound to Eastern Roman interests and capacities, and any Roman "reconquest", besides being incomplete (you'd likely have a reduced Vandal foedus either in Mauretania or in Africa, depending on the situation), would have been dependent to happen and to maintain from ressources outside WRE (either Barbarians or Eastern Romans).While I agree that WRE was living on a borrowed time at least since Aetius wouldn't reconquest of Africa solve a lot of its problems?
I don't think these expeditions were doomed to fail, (altough 468's expedition certainly had more chance to succeed, I entierly agree, than 460's) : but what were their strategical objectives?Obviously reconquest of Africa is not an easy task but IOTL there were two attempts at doing so.
Adrianople tends to be slightly overrated for its macrohistorical importance : what Valens wanted to do was a demonstration of strength before Goths, his scouts badly informed it of the situation, and the emperor temporized before Goths still unwilling to fight.You need to go back to Adrianople. Either have Valens waiting for Gratian before engaging in battle, or have the fighting being a siege of Adrianople (an easy win for Valens) if it was a walled city.
I'm really unsure about it : neither Solicinium or Argentovaria provoked a strategical change, in spite of being more or less pre-renditions of Adrianople.We should have a sufficiently early POD that change Roman war doctrine towards avoiding field battles and prioritizing fortifications.