AHC: Successful Western Roman Empire?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

You don't want the bureaucracy to be made up of people only from one part of the empire.

The other parts will not be happy about being second class citizens, and Italy isn't strong enough to do much about it.
So can someone else do something to reform it, maybe similar to the Theme system in the east?
 
Why would having a large bureaucracy in Italy be bad? Was the Senate really that out of touch and taxes really that bad? I

Consider for a second that this is an empire that had 90% of it's population on subsistence agriculture where people lived on the edge. Any significant tax at this level is really bad, it gets worse when you consider that the army lived off the land and that the tax system was an arcane labyrinth of conflicts of interests, exceptions, inconsistencies, and corruption. Generally speaking these poor rabble will enlist for anyone with wealth really.

So can someone else do something to reform it, maybe similar to the Theme system in the east?

Difficult, it's self perpetuating; wealth begets wealth. Government positions were often brought by rich Italians. The thing is the real power in the empire:the military ,draws it's manpower from the landless poor, and therefore has very little incentive to reform it's abundant source of manpower.

In the long run it is the case with highly unequal economies in general, the rich spend on luxuriants and the poor on subsidence. The manufactures meanwhile are focused on supplying the luxury needs of the rich minority instead of the utilitarian needs of a non-existent middle class which naturally skews the focus away from labor saving devices and mechanization.
 

Deleted member 67076

Consider for a second that this is an empire that had 90% of it's population on subsistence agriculture where people lived on the edge. Any significant tax at this level is really bad, it gets worse when you consider that the army lived off the land and that the tax system was an arcane labyrinth of conflicts of interests, exceptions, inconsistencies, and corruption. Generally speaking these poor rabble will enlist for anyone with wealth really.
Damn, that sucks. I can see now why people were glad their Roman overlords were disposed of
 
So can someone else do something to reform it, maybe similar to the Theme system in the east?

The exarchates managed to hold their ground for a while quite successfully, receiving only meager help and assistance from the capital.
Should some centralized capital, closer than Constantinople, had organized their efforts a little better, the results might have been interesting...
 
Exactly what it says on the title, what would it take for a successful Western Roman empire. Before anyone asks, successful in this case means a long lasting (at least as long as the Byzantines), wealthy, prosperous empire that doesn't live under fear of being conquered by invaders (for most of its lifetime). The Empire does not have to be always stable, as the situation in the east shows. The empire's borders don't have to include France, Spain, England, etc. Just a successful Roman state based in Italy. Anyway, what does it take to achieve this and what are its effects?

Have Stilicho have a more successful reign? This can at the very least guarantee the safety of the western empire in the near term.

Not losing Africa is also a plus in keeping the western empire alive.
 
Have Stilicho have a more successful reign? This can at the very least guarantee the safety of the western empire in the near term.

Not losing Africa is also a plus in keeping the western empire alive.

Yeah after stilicho is when shit really hit the fan. Having him be more successful and best case scenario stop the invasions of 406, then the western empire is in a much better spot.
 
Yeah after stilicho is when shit really hit the fan. Having him be more successful and best case scenario stop the invasions of 406, then the western empire is in a much better spot.

But even by that point, it's not doing very well, and it's not as if the invasions of 406 being stopped means the Germanic peoples never come back.
 
But even by that point, it's not doing very well, and it's not as if the invasions of 406 being stopped means the Germanic peoples never come back.

Yes, but the invasions of 406, large by Germanic invasion/raid standard, still shoułd have been easily defeated. There was nothing suggesting the Romans couldn't stop these or future invasions. Plus, the franks had proven to be incredibly true to their word in defending their part of the border, which certainly would have taken the pressure off the army.

If you have an Aetius like figure succeed Stilicho as master general (or emperor) then they should be just as successful at stopping these invasions/migrations.
 
Yes, but the invasions of 406, large by Germanic invasion/raid standard, still shoułd have been easily defeated. There was nothing suggesting the Romans couldn't stop these or future invasions. Plus, the franks had proven to be incredibly true to their word in defending their part of the border, which certainly would have taken the pressure off the army.

If you have an Aetius like figure succeed Stilicho as master general (or emperor) then they should be just as successful at stopping these invasions/migrations.

I'm not sure. They might last longer than OTL, but inviting barbarians to defend parts of the empire against other barbarians - pretty much the only option without the money for tribute or a native army - is going to mean "So, um, what is the Roman Empire actually controlling?" Sooner or latter the barbarians are going to recognize that they control the situation, and that "being part of the Roman Empire" doesn't mean much.

Plus, anything dependent on high quality leadership is going to suffer from it not being always available.
 
The franks seemed to be a special case. In 406, even the Burgundians joined the invaders. The franks were the only ones to stand up to them. They very nearly beat them at Mainz.

Anyway, to a frank, a vandal, a goth, a suevi, a quadi, a marcommani, were all different. And vice versa. They didn't see themselves all in the general term of "Germanic". They saw themselves as either franks, goths, vandals, etc. and as sub tribes of those confederations. Plus, it should be noted that few if any if the barbarian "invaders" wanted to destroy the empire. They wanted to be a part if the empire and share in its riches and glory.
 
The franks seemed to be a special case. In 406, even the Burgundians joined the invaders. The franks were the only ones to stand up to them. They very nearly beat them at Mainz.

Anyway, to a frank, a vandal, a goth, a suevi, a quadi, a marcommani, were all different. And vice versa. They didn't see themselves all in the general term of "Germanic". They saw themselves as either franks, goths, vandals, etc. and as sub tribes of those confederations. Plus, it should be noted that few if any if the barbarian "invaders" wanted to destroy the empire. They wanted to be a part if the empire and share in its riches and glory.

It's not even about consciously destroying the Empire. It's about how if the Franks control Gaul in everything but name, sooner or later a Frankish king is going to tell the so-called Emperor that he's putting his own face on the coins.

That sort of thing is just as bad as "We will destroy their cities, rape their women, and eat their babies."
 

Deleted member 67076

It's not even about consciously destroying the Empire. It's about how if the Franks control Gaul in everything but name, sooner or later a Frankish king is going to tell the so-called Emperor that he's putting his own face on the coins.

That sort of thing is just as bad as "We will destroy their cities, rape their women, and eat their babies."
So its agreed the main problem is the invasions, that said what would it take to stop this, the Germanic peoples carving up their own kingdoms?
 
So its agreed the main problem is the invasions, that said what would it take to stop this, the Germanic peoples carving up their own kingdoms?

Rome being strong enough to prevent the invasions.

And by the 4th century, that's like a mid 13th century revival for the Byzantine half.

Rome is no longer the power which can and defeat all comers (eventually).
 
Lots of plague works too.

Perhaps, the Romans need to better assimilate the Franks or other groups.
 
So its agreed the main problem is the invasions, that said what would it take to stop this, the Germanic peoples carving up their own kingdoms?

Defeat Alaric and the Germanic migration in 406. As long as the barbarians who enter the Roman empire did not manage to remain as a cohesive political entity, they could still be incorporated into the Empire.
 
It's not even about consciously destroying the Empire. It's about how if the Franks control Gaul in everything but name, sooner or later a Frankish king is going to tell the so-called Emperor that he's putting his own face on the coins.

That sort of thing is just as bad as "We will destroy their cities, rape their women, and eat their babies."

The Franks don't control Gaul in everything but name. In 406, there is still a sizeable Gallic army, 13-15 thousand strong. That's how Constantine bolstered his army to an effective force. He only crossed with around 6,000 (just about the entire field army in Britain)

Defeat Alaric and the Germanic migration in 406. As long as the barbarians who enter the Roman empire did not manage to remain as a cohesive political entity, they could still be incorporated into the Empire.
I believe Stilicho wanted to give Alaric his old post of magister militum per Illyricum, after annexing the province from the east. The idea was Alaric would be content enough to not cause trouble. When Alaric had the post under the eastern court, he didn't move out to attack Italy until it became clear the Eastern Court was going to go after him.
 
The Franks don't control Gaul in everything but name. In 406, there is still a sizeable Gallic army, 13-15 thousand strong. That's how Constantine bolstered his army to an effective force. He only crossed with around 6,000 (just about the entire field army in Britain)

13-15,000 as a sizable army is a sign of how far Rome has fallen.

How many of those soldiers are Franks?

I believe Stilicho wanted to give Alaric his old post of magister militum per Illyricum, after annexing the province from the east. The idea was Alaric would be content enough to not cause trouble. When Alaric had the post under the eastern court, he didn't move out to attack Italy until it became clear the Eastern Court was going to go after him.

To paraphrase from something used to describe the late Byzantine situation:

Mr. Wolf, if we open our veins to you, will you avoid attacking us?

It might well work to keep Alaric from attacking Rome, but that sort of policy can only go on so long before "Rome" exists on paper and de jure and de facto control belongs to barbarian kings.
 
13-15,000 as a sizable army is a sign of how far Rome has fallen.

How many of those soldiers are Franks?
Few to none as far as I know. This was the field army, not the border army.

It might well work to keep Alaric from attacking Rome, but that sort of policy can only go on so long before "Rome" exists on paper and de jure and de facto control belongs to barbarian kings.

Well it depends on what is done after that. If things go Rome's way for a little while, it could work out with only having to be done with Alaric. Alaric was very much a special case up until the invasions of 406.

edit: Also, another good thing to do would be to keep the Visigoths disunited. Alaric was only able to march on Italy when the Visigoths were united and behind him. After Pollentia and Verona, Alaric lost a lot of prestige, and a lot of support from the other noble Goths. Thus he was not able to do much for some time after. His demands of gold from Rome was a sign of his weakness; he needed something to keep the Goths loyal to him. One of the reasons Theodosius was so successful in dealing with the Goths was because he played them against each other. Which is what the Romans had always been doing with Germanic tribes.

Also, there is no reason to suggest the Franks would not remain loyal. They had been loyal since Julian gave them federate status, and the only reason they sided with Constantine in 407 was because they had just suffered a defeat among the invaders of late 406. If they didn't side with Constantine, he would have crushed them with his newly reinforced army.
 
Last edited:
I think people here are being much, much too pessimistic on the Roman West. The state collapsed essentially because of a serious run of bad luck after 406, there's not a lot of inbuilt structural problems that don't equally apply just as much to the Eastern Empire which, it shouldn't be forgotten, had to confront in Sasanian Iran a power many times greater than any Germanic confederacy.

I don't think a succesful Stilicho is the best way forward really, given the man was always quite unpopular at court, and was quite happy to strip the Rhine of troops to start a Roman civil war in the Balkans. A better bet is to have Constantius III survive for a reasonable amount of time as Honorius' co-Emperor, and he can then provide some much needed stability for his son Valentinian III in the 420s and 430s.
 

IronOwl

Banned
The problem with the Roman Empire was the fact that it lacked a decent, solid hierarchy. This dates right back to the early history of Rome, with its phobia of kingship. This meant that the Empire required strong leadership in order to hold together. The Empires most successful period, between the reigns of Nerva and Marcus Aurelius, was largely down to there being an established succession mechanism of adoption, which was generally respected, as well as the strength of the emperors. During this period, the Roman's didn't succumb to their usual tendency of bickering and infighting, which was a help, since civil wars didn't distract from defending against the two major external threats; the Marcomanni and the Persians. However, Marcus Aurelius made a fatal error in upsetting this balance by making his son Commodus the first Emperor to be born in the purple. This would have been fine if he had proved competent. Unfortunately he didn't, and unlike incompetent monarchs in later civilizations, he didn't have divine right or a loyal body of support to lean on. Following his death, whatever line of succession there had been simply disintegrated. The civil war that followed the murder of Commodus shook the power of the Roman State. Although Septimius Severus somewhat restored it, it again fell apart due to attempts to create a dynasty. The major problem here was that successful Emperors needed the support of the Army to hang onto power and stay in power. Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan and Septimius Severus had this backing. Commodus, Caracalla and Alexander Severus didn't. Without strong leadership from the top, the Army increasingly became a rogue organization, and one which didn't have a clear objective at that. Various elements of it installed and deposed dozens of Emperors throughout the Third Century. These perennial rebellions and civil wars drastically weakened imperial power, leaving the frontiers undermanned and sending the economy into freefall. By the end of the crisis, or at least, the interval, men like Diocletian had become convinced that the Empire was ungovernable, which he was right about. However, his construction of a tetrarchy didn't actually help the situation, in fact it may have made it worse. The Western Roman Empire that was eventually to rise out of the ashes of the tetrarchy was, in essence a doomed state. It lacked the manpower, finance and stability of the Eastern Empire. It also inherited the worst characteristics of the original Empire, such as the disloyalty of the military. One poster has mentioned how it was not facing an organized state with an army, and that this might have given it a chance. In fact, facing down one state is much easier than trying to do the same with myriad nomadic tribes. It was relatively easy to defend the Eastern Imperial border from the Sassanids, but almost impossible to do the same in the West against the Saxons, Franks, Goths, Vandals, Alemmanni, Huns, Alans and Suebi. Also, you can make a proper peace treaty with an organized state, which you can't with only semi-organized groups like these. The lack of manpower in the West was fatal, as it led to the employment of barbarians as mercenaries. These proved to be even less politically reliable than the old Legions. Ultimately, the settling of barbarians in Roman territory was also disastrous as they usurped what was left of Imperial authority wherever they settled. The problem with trying to find a good POD for a successful Western Empire is that the whole project was largely doomed from the start.
 
Top