AHC: Successful Western Roman Empire?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date
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.

What about a more successful Stilicho along with a Constantius as co-emperor and then emperor into the 430's?

IronOwl said:
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.

So what we need here is a more competent Commodus/Aurelius adopting an heir?
 

Deleted member 67076

IronOwl, all that is true, but can't we take a third option and have the empire fold most of the non-important land and to a much more defensible and vital area. Or if not, whats it gonna take to get a ceasefire (at least until the West can fix itself into a decent state)
 
IronOwl, all that is true, but can't we take a third option and have the empire fold most of the non-important land and to a much more defensible and vital area. Or if not, whats it gonna take to get a ceasefire (at least until the West can fix itself into a decent state)

I can't see western emperors giving up claims on Gaul. If you want to get creative and stop the invasions of 406, Iberia would be a good place for the western empire to fall back on if Italy and Gaul are lost later.

Assuming the barbarians don't reach into Spain. Spain was a peaceful and content place until the invasions of 406 and Constantine. So maybe you could have a surviving western empire there. I think there was a timeline done on this before.
 

Deleted member 67076

I can't see western emperors giving up claims on Gaul. If you want to get creative and stop the invasions of 406, Iberia would be a good place for the western empire to fall back on if Italy and Gaul are lost later.

Assuming the barbarians don't reach into Spain. Spain was a peaceful and content place until the invasions of 406 and Constantine. So maybe you could have a surviving western empire there. I think there was a timeline done on this before.
Yea thats been done , Remnants of Rome
 
Thinking about it, one way the empire could survive is for one of the Germanic conquerors to be lucky enough and powerful enough to claim and hold the imperial title. Think a German-Roman dynasty ala the Mongol Yuan dynasty in China with the Germans largely accepting and adopting roman culture and customs over time. Down the road maybe a "roman" dynasty takes back over. Seems plausible for this empire to at least hold Italy, Africa, and maybe parts of Gual.

Not sure how to get there though.
 
Speaking as a pessimist (yes), the following things are a problem for the West by the fifth century that the East seems to have dealt with:

1) Money.

2) Barbarian rulers.

Specifically, the West's forces are made up of the same people it has to keep from taking over.

That's a huge thing. Sure, Sassanid Iran is considerably more challenging than both sets of Goths, the Franks, and the Vandals put together - but the ERE isn't fighting against the Sassanids doing what wound up by happening by 476, which is a situation where the "barbarians" didn't need to conquer Rome in the conventional sense because they already controlled it and "the end" is basically just calling attention to that fact..

3) Africa. Now, it's not inevitable it be lost, but it was lost OTL. That's a big blow.
 
Speaking as a pessimist (yes), the following things are a problem for the West by the fifth century that the East seems to have dealt with:

1) Money.

2) Barbarian rulers.

Specifically, the West's forces are made up of the same people it has to keep from taking over.

That's a huge thing. Sure, Sassanid Iran is considerably more challenging than both sets of Goths, the Franks, and the Vandals put together - but the ERE isn't fighting against the Sassanids doing what wound up by happening by 476, which is a situation where the "barbarians" didn't need to conquer Rome in the conventional sense because they already controlled it and "the end" is basically just calling attention to that fact..

3) Africa. Now, it's not inevitable it be lost, but it was lost OTL. That's a big blow.

The Sassanids were not the only ones. The Byzantines, especially after the Arabs, had to grope around for manpower. Recruiting Slavs and Turkics, Hiring Mercenaries or 'Requesting' detachments from their client states from other groups that were not Rhomaioi. The Tagmata in provinces that they reconquered during the Komnenian Period or forcibly settled defeated foes are a good example.
 
The Sassanids were not the only ones. The Byzantines, especially after the Arabs, had to grope around for manpower. Recruiting Slavs and Hiring Mercenaries from other groups that were not Rhomaioi. The Tagmata in provinces that they reconquered during the Komnenian Period or forcibly settled defeated foes.

Having to grope around for manpower, and having to hire the people who are stealing your chickens to guard the henhouse are not the same.

That's a serious disadvantage for West Rome and late (mid 13th century and beyond) Byzantium - its flocks are open to the wolves and calling them sheepdogs isn't changing that they're stealing sheep.
 

Deleted member 67076

Having to grope around for manpower, and having to hire the people who are stealing your chickens to guard the henhouse are not the same.

That's a serious disadvantage for West Rome and late (mid 13th century and beyond) Byzantium - its flocks are open to the wolves and calling them sheepdogs isn't changing that they're stealing sheep.
So what can be done to reverse this trend. We know we need Stilicho, North Africa (for grain), Illycurim and money but how can that be earned? There has to be some way to get tribute or at least, can't you divert the migrations to, I don't know, invade the Sassanids( yes its asb I'm just using that as an example, please don't get mad :eek:).
Also one thing no one has mentioned which I find highly important: the linguistics. Whats needed to keep vulgar latin from changing into the Romance languages but just one language that inevitably changes, like middle English to modern English?
 
So what can be done to reverse this trend. We know we need Stilicho, North Africa (for grain), Illycurim and money but how can that be earned? There has to be some way to get tribute or at least, can't you divert the migrations to, I don't know, invade the Sassanids( yes its asb I'm just using that as an example, please don't get mad :eek:).
Also one thing no one has mentioned which I find highly important: the linguistics. Whats needed to keep vulgar latin from changing into the Romance languages but just one language that inevitably changes, like middle English to modern English?

1) I think the problem is that by Stilicho, things have already gone downhill. Not beyond all hope, but the system is already rickety.

2) And the migrations went into the WRE because it's a tempting place to go into. If the Empire was sturdier it might be somewhat different, but that needs a pre-5th century POD - any given campaign might be won, sure, but you're not going to keep them out forever.

3) Not sure, or what it being "one language that inevitably changes" would mean in any useful sense. As in, how that would have an impact on practicalities.
 
Speaking as a pessimist (yes), the following things are a problem for the West by the fifth century that the East seems to have dealt with:

1) Money.
Up until Theodosius stabalized things, it was the east that had a huge money problem. Anyway, the money problem could be at the very least pushed back a while by the annexation of Illyricum.
2) Barbarian rulers.
The East had some high profile barbarian rulers around this time too. There was Alaric for one, Fravitta, and a couple other prominent Goths that helped bring down Eutropis (I forget their names.) Plus, the leader of the Eastern army during the wars with the Persians in the 420's was an Alan.
Meanwhile, in the west, up until Aetius' death, the most prominent western generals were still Roman, even after the barbarians broke through in 406.
If you actually compare it to the west, the eastern army was made up more of barbarians than the west for most of the 5th century.

Specifically, the West's forces are made up of the same people it has to keep from taking over.
Again, the wests forces, at least in the early 5th century, was made up of a less percentage of barbarians than the eastern army was. If you annex Illyricum, then that also adds a boatload of recruits available for constription that does not require the senate. The main reason the later half of the 5th century western empire had so many barbarians in their ranks was because they broke through in 406-407.

Also, the barbarians would have no problem killing other barbarians. This is evidenced by the Franks diligently defending the border against any invaders. And the fact that to counter the invaders in 406, Stilicho sent Vandals from Pannonia, who, if they were not attacked by the locals for being mistaken for the invaders, would have fought the invading tribes.

3) Africa. Now, it's not inevitable it be lost, but it was lost OTL. That's a big blow.
Losing Africa was incredibly unlikely IOTL. Even after the barbarian invasions of 406 you can easily prevent its takeover by the Vandals.
 

Deleted member 67076

1) I think the problem is that by Stilicho, things have already gone downhill. Not beyond all hope, but the system is already rickety.

2) And the migrations went into the WRE because it's a tempting place to go into. If the Empire was sturdier it might be somewhat different, but that needs a pre-5th century POD - any given campaign might be won, sure, but you're not going to keep them out forever.

3) Not sure, or what it being "one language that inevitably changes" would mean in any useful sense. As in, how that would have an impact on practicalities.

The system doesn't have to be always good. I mean the 5th century could be bad but after things calm down, a revival occurs in the 6th or 7th like the Carolingian Renaissance

A common language makes managing much easier and often does help with national identity. What I meant by language change is that what can be done so that vulgar latin doesn't diverge into the various romance languages of today. I used the example of english that despite several hundred years of change, its still the same language, even if there are new words.
 
Up until Theodosius stabalized things, it was the east that had a huge money problem. Anyway, the money problem could be at the very least pushed back a while by the annexation of Illyricum.

The problem is that the East has more to tax. That gives Constantinople a substantial advantage over the West.

And fighting the East is not helping its problems.

The East had some high profile barbarian rulers around this time too. There was Alaric for one, Fravitta, and a couple other prominent Goths that helped bring down Eutropis (I forget their names.) Plus, the leader of the Eastern army during the wars with the Persians in the 420's was an Alan.
Meanwhile, in the west, up until Aetius' death, the most prominent western generals were still Roman, even after the barbarians broke through in 406.
If you actually compare it to the west, the eastern army was made up more of barbarians than the west for most of the 5th century.

Where are these nonbarbarian troops coming from, then? Because I am at a loss when it comes to finding examples.

Again, the wests forces, at least in the early 5th century, was made up of a less percentage of barbarians than the eastern army was. If you annex Illyricum, then that also adds a boatload of recruits available for constription that does not require the senate. The main reason the later half of the 5th century western empire had so many barbarians in their ranks was because they broke through in 406-407.

Broke through forces that are no longer Roman.

Also, the barbarians would have no problem killing other barbarians. This is evidenced by the Franks diligently defending the border against any invaders. And the fact that to counter the invaders in 406, Stilicho sent Vandals from Pannonia, who, if they were not attacked by the locals for being mistaken for the invaders, would have fought the invading tribes.

And again, you're turning the country over to the barbarians to do this. That the Franks will happily fight anyone else doesn't change the fact that the Franks in power in Gaul is not the same as the Romans in power in Gaul.

Losing Africa was incredibly unlikely IOTL. Even after the barbarian invasions of 406 you can easily prevent its takeover by the Vandals.

I wouldn't go that far. Prevent it, yes, "easily", I'm not convinced.


The problem - to my eyes - is that the basic situation isn't terribly healthy. I'm not saying it's doomed, but a basically sturdy, vigorous state should have been able to deal with losing in 406 instead of there being no Roman Empire in the West before the century's over. The fact it failed suggests a weaker military and financial situation than the optimists are trying to convey, whereas the East's recovery suggests that it does have access to the men and money.

The system doesn't have to be always good. I mean the 5th century could be bad but after things calm down, a revival occurs in the 6th or 7th like the Carolingian Renaissance

A weak system is not going to be able to survive, and even if it somehow manages that, it won't have enough to manage a revival.

A common language makes managing much easier and often does help with national identity. What I meant by language change is that what can be done so that vulgar latin doesn't diverge into the various romance languages of today. I used the example of english that despite several hundred years of change, its still the same language, even if there are new words.

National identity isn't terribly useful for Rome in this era, and Rome prior to this managed to handle being a polyglot state - heck, the East was pretty solidly Greek speaking and not Latin and that didn't tear it apart.
 
The problem is that the East has more to tax. That gives Constantinople a substantial advantage over the West.
Yes
And fighting the East is not helping its problems.
Both Maximus and Arbogast/Eugenius tried to cut a deal with Theodosius. Anyway, if you allow Arbogast to win at the Frigidus (which its a miracle Theodosius won in the first place) then the western army's situation is in a much better state.



Where are these nonbarbarian troops coming from, then? Because I am at a loss when it comes to finding examples.
The manpower existed. The problem was getting the senate to let people be conscripted from their villas, or getting them to pay up for conscription elsewhere. The Senate didn't stop this all the time



Broke through forces that are no longer Roman.
The Franks were practically Romanized barbarians. Anyway, if you can somehow get Stilicho to not pull the Limitanei off the borders and upgrading them to Pseudo-Comitatenses instead, then there are still Romans on all other parts of the border.



And again, you're turning the country over to the barbarians to do this. That the Franks will happily fight anyone else doesn't change the fact that the Franks in power in Gaul is not the same as the Romans in power in Gaul.
The Franks controlled the stretch of border that was essentiall as northern gaul you could go and into Belgium. They didn't control any other part of the border.


I wouldn't go that far. Prevent it, yes, "easily", I'm not convinced.
The Vandals only went into Africa because Boniface offered them to come in when Aetius attacked him. Then the Romans said you can go back now, we don't need you, and the Vandals ousted the Romans. This only happened in the first place because the Vandals were allowed to cross into Gaul. If they were invited into Spain by the usurper in Spain rebelling from Constantine, they would have never settled there in the first place.


The problem - to my eyes - is that the basic situation isn't terribly healthy. I'm not saying it's doomed, but a basically sturdy, vigorous state should have been able to deal with losing in 406 instead of there being no Roman Empire in the West before the century's over. The fact it failed suggests a weaker military and financial situation than the optimists are trying to convey, whereas the East's recovery suggests that it does have access to the men and money.
The invasions of 406-407 was an unfortunate series of events. The Franks were defeated and Stilicho didn't think it was much, so didn't react as he should have. It's not that he couldn't have stopped it-he very well could have but he underestimated them, and the Vandals that he sent joined them because they were turned on by the population in Gaul.

When he found out of this, Constantine had already crossed and essentially cut him off from being able to even try to defeat them. Constantine could have defeated them but instead chose to use them for his own devices in his army.

So really by all accounts, what happened was probably the least likeliest scenario.


A weak system is not going to be able to survive, and even if it somehow manages that, it won't have enough to manage a revival.

It can at least survive for couple more centuries. It's collapse was much much faster than it should have been.

This isn't even taking into account whether or not another ruler or two would come along and unite both halves of the empire for a period like Theodosius did.
 
Yes

Both Maximus and Arbogast/Eugenius tried to cut a deal with Theodosius. Anyway, if you allow Arbogast to win at the Frigidus (which its a miracle Theodosius won in the first place) then the western army's situation is in a much better state.

Why is it a miracle?

The manpower existed. The problem was getting the senate to let people be conscripted from their villas, or getting them to pay up for conscription elsewhere. The Senate didn't stop this all the time

The manpower doesn't exist if it's not available.

The Franks were practically Romanized barbarians. Anyway, if you can somehow get Stilicho to not pull the Limitanei off the borders and upgrading them to Pseudo-Comitatenses instead, then there are still Romans on all other parts of the border.

The Franks were practically independent from Rome. And upgrading them to pseudo-Comitatenses doesn't magically make them into Romans.

The Franks controlled the stretch of border that was essentiall as northern gaul you could go and into Belgium. They didn't control any other part of the border.

And how much beyond the border, which is more important?

The Vandals only went into Africa because Boniface offered them to come in when Aetius attacked him. Then the Romans said you can go back now, we don't need you, and the Vandals ousted the Romans. This only happened in the first place because the Vandals were allowed to cross into Gaul. If they were invited into Spain by the usurper in Spain rebelling from Constantine, they would have never settled there in the first place.

And what's to stop them or another group being invited later, stealing the shipping to attack for their own reasons, or something else?

The invasions of 406-407 was an unfortunate series of events. The Franks were defeated and Stilicho didn't think it was much, so didn't react as he should have. It's not that he couldn't have stopped it-he very well could have but he underestimated them, and the Vandals that he sent joined them because they were turned on by the population in Gaul.

When he found out of this, Constantine had already crossed and essentially cut him off from being able to even try to defeat them. Constantine could have defeated them but instead chose to use them for his own devices in his army.

So really by all accounts, what happened was probably the least likeliest scenario.

So really, by all accounts, this is entirely plausible. Constantine or someone else using German barbarians "for his own devices" is far more likely than that not happening.


It can at least survive for couple more centuries. It's collapse was much much faster than it should have been.

This isn't even taking into account whether or not another ruler or two would come along and unite both halves of the empire for a period like Theodosius did.

"(S)hould have been" based on what? The idea that Rome is immune to the usual weaknesses that see empires fall?

Healthy states don't fall to perverse bad luck with no relationship to any actual strengths or problems.
 
Why is it a miracle?
Theodosius should and certainly would have been defeated. Arbogast's strategy was sound. Wait in the Julian Alps and entrap Theodosius' army in there. Theodosius walked right into the trap and had no choice but to continue playing to Arbogast's advantages. The Goths under Alaric were nearly completely destroyed as they were thrown at the strongly guarded passes, making no headway. By the end of the day, everything seemed hopeless for Theodosius. Then Arbogast went to complete the encirclement (he had men in the other passes ready for just the job). However, some of them were discovered and Theodosius managed to somehow convince them he had a much larger force than he had. For some reason, Arbogast's forces began to defect to Theodosius, and eventually the situation became hopeless for Arbogast. By all accounts, Arbogast should have won.

That's really a bad and rough description. I don't have my book(s) on me right now but I'll explain it better tomorrow when I get my hands on them again.


The manpower doesn't exist if it's not available.



The Franks were practically independent from Rome. And upgrading them to pseudo-Comitatenses doesn't magically make them into Romans.
He upgraded the limitanei to psedo-comitatenses. Not the Franks.


And how much beyond the border, which is more important?
I can't say but I am pretty sure they were settled within the border which was all they effectively controlled.



And what's to stop them or another group being invited later, stealing the shipping to attack for their own reasons, or something else?
The fact that there isn't another group to be invited (assuming the invasions of 406-407 are stopped)? Even if another invasion succeeds, it is unlikely they would settle in Spain.



So really, by all accounts, this is entirely plausible. Constantine or someone else using German barbarians "for his own devices" is far more likely than that not happening.
If you nip the 406-407 invasions in the bud (defeat by the Franks) you make it less likely for Gratian to be deposed in favor of Constantine. Gratian was only deposed of because the leaders of the rebellion wanted to get over there as quick as possible due to the invasions of 406-407. Prior to that, they were content to wait and consolidate before moving into Gaul. Gratian was cautious and didn't move in time, so they deposed of him. Stop the 406-407 invasions, and Gratian remains in position. Being much less aggressive and diplomatic than Constantine, and a Gallic field army not so demoralized as it was thanks to the invasions, then the rebellion is crushed once it lands in Gaul.



"(S)hould have been" based on what? The idea that Rome is immune to the usual weaknesses that see empires fall?

Healthy states don't fall to perverse bad luck with no relationship to any actual strengths or problems.
The Western Empire in the 5th century seemed to have a never ending string of bad luck. First with how badly the 406-407 invasions were botched, and how successful Constantine was, leading to Stilicho's immediate fall. You have the slaughter of the Germans in Italy due to Stilicho's fall and Honorius' refusal to negotiate with Alaric prompting him to sack Rome. Then you have a very promising co-emperor Constantius dying of illness leading to a succession crisis leading to the disaster that was Valentinian III getting the throne. You have the Vandals being let into Africa (which wouldn't have been much of a problem in its own right) and then being told to leave causing them to take it over for themselves. Then you have Aetius being killed. And then you have Ricimer killing a very promising emperor Majorian.


I mean there are so many POD's in the 5th century that could have preserved Rome much longer, it isn't even funny.
 
Theodosius should and certainly would have been defeated. Arbogast's strategy was sound. Wait in the Julian Alps and entrap Theodosius' army in there. Theodosius walked right into the trap and had no choice but to continue playing to Arbogast's advantages. The Goths under Alaric were nearly completely destroyed as they were thrown at the strongly guarded passes, making no headway. By the end of the day, everything seemed hopeless for Theodosius. Then Arbogast went to complete the encirclement (he had men in the other passes ready for just the job). However, some of them were discovered and Theodosius managed to somehow convince them he had a much larger force than he had. For some reason, Arbogast's forces began to defect to Theodosius, and eventually the situation became hopeless for Arbogast. By all accounts, Arbogast should have won.

That's really a bad and rough description. I don't have my book(s) on me right now but I'll explain it better tomorrow when I get my hands on them again.

Well, just to comment on the rough description: So he should have lost because he shouldn't have been able to bluff?


He upgraded the limitanei to psedo-comitatenses. Not the Franks.
But are the limitanei made up of Romans, or barbarians?

I could have worded what I was trying to say better - that upgrading something doesn't mean that the Roman army isn't mostly barbarians by this point.

I can't say but I am pretty sure they were settled within the border which was all they effectively controlled.
According to these maps I'm looking at the moment (the New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History), the Franks seem to have stayed pretty much there - but they sure took advantage of the situation once things broke (by the map, more by the Visigoths in what became Aquitaine than piercing things from the East).

So I suppose the Franks might be okay. But that leaves the Visigoths or another group doing what they did - and there are enough Germans to say "Well, they're stopped. Prevented right out. Somehow." is hard to swallow.

The fact that there isn't another group to be invited (assuming the invasions of 406-407 are stopped)? Even if another invasion succeeds, it is unlikely they would settle in Spain.
There's not a shortage of barbarian warriors out there, and stopping the 406-407 invasions doesn't mean there won't be invasions later. And why wouldn't they settle in Spain given the chance?

If you nip the 406-407 invasions in the bud (defeat by the Franks) you make it less likely for Gratian to be deposed in favor of Constantine. Gratian was only deposed of because the leaders of the rebellion wanted to get over there as quick as possible due to the invasions of 406-407. Prior to that, they were content to wait and consolidate before moving into Gaul. Gratian was cautious and didn't move in time, so they deposed of him. Stop the 406-407 invasions, and Gratian remains in position. Being much less aggressive and diplomatic than Constantine, and a Gallic field army not so demoralized as it was thanks to the invasions, then the rebellion is crushed once it lands in Gaul.
This doesn't really address the problem of rebels using Germanic barbarians for their own purposes, even if that weakens the empire.

The Western Empire in the 5th century seemed to have a never ending string of bad luck. First with how badly the 406-407 invasions were botched, and how successful Constantine was, leading to Stilicho's immediate fall. You have the slaughter of the Germans in Italy due to Stilicho's fall and Honorius' refusal to negotiate with Alaric prompting him to sack Rome. Then you have a very promising co-emperor Constantius dying of illness leading to a succession crisis leading to the disaster that was Valentinian III getting the throne. You have the Vandals being let into Africa (which wouldn't have been much of a problem in its own right) and then being told to leave causing them to take it over for themselves. Then you have Aetius being killed. And then you have Ricimer killing a very promising emperor Majorian.


I mean there are so many POD's in the 5th century that could have preserved Rome much longer, it isn't even funny.
Okay, looking at these in order. Note that I'm not saying that they couldn't possibly have any effect, just that I don't agree that this is a run of "terrible luck" in the sense that misfortune crippled a perfectly sturdy state.

The 406-407 invasions being prevented doesn't mean that no further invasions will occur.

Constantine being unsuccessful doesn't mean Stilicho's position is unshakeable.

That the slaughter of the Germans mattered says a lot about how vulnerable Rome is to the consequences.

Or take Honorius refusing to negiotiate with Alaric. If Rome the polity was still basically strong, Alaric could try to take Rome until his army starved or died of disease.

Constantius might well not die of illness. Fine. But that doesn't mean that no one in an important position will die "prematurely" and that spot be filled with someone incompetent, ambitious, or simply unhealthy.

The Vandals being able to take over Africa does not suggest that the Roman state is able to defend Africa from something like the Vandals - 80,000 people all totalled if my memory of my reading is correct. Not even 80,000 fighting men. Men, women, children, drooling elders.

Aetius was 64 (according to http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/amen/g/Aetius.htm ) when he died - so he's not going to last too much longer.

Yes, killing him was a blunder. But even if he lives another ten years, who replaces him? Are they up to the challenge?

I don't know much about Richimer so I don't know how likely it was.


But the point is, strong states can endure disasters. Rome was pummeled heavily in the Second Punic War, with Hannibal smashing the best Rome could throw at him in open battle almost every time so long as he was in Italy. Byzantium withstood the strains and stresses of a war that lasted twenty-six years against the Sassanids and their allies.

Just to name the first two examples that come to mind off the top of my head.

That Rome was dependent on the Franks holding the frontier in 406-407, could not replace a general like Aetius in 454, could not hold Rome the city itself against something far from the greatest threat the city had ever seen. . .

This is not a state whose future is at all assured.
 
Last edited:
Well, just to comment on the rough description: So he should have lost because he shouldn't have been able to bluff?
Not really. I'll go more into it later.

But are the limitanei made up of Romans, or barbarians?
Romans at this point.
I could have worded what I was trying to say better - that upgrading something doesn't mean that the Roman army isn't mostly barbarians by this point.
At the start of the 5th century the eastern army had more barbarians in its employmend than the west.
According to these maps I'm looking at the moment (the New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History), the Franks seem to have stayed pretty much there - but they sure took advantage of the situation once things broke (by the map, more by the Visigoths in what became Aquitaine than piercing things from the East).

So I suppose the Franks might be okay. But that leaves the Visigoths or another group doing what they did - and there are enough Germans to say "Well, they're stopped. Prevented right out. Somehow." is hard to swallow.
If given his old position of magister militum per illyricum back (which was the intention with the taking of Illyricum), Alaric should be content.
There's not a shortage of barbarian warriors out there, and stopping the 406-407 invasions doesn't mean there won't be invasions later. And why wouldn't they settle in Spain given the chance?
They have to be given the chance first. Otherwise it is more likely they'd just settle in Gaul.

This doesn't really address the problem of rebels using Germanic barbarians for their own purposes, even if that weakens the empire.
I agree.


The 406-407 invasions being prevented doesn't mean that no further invasions will occur.
Yes, but there is reason to assume future invasions would be able to be stopped just as easily as this one could have and previous ones were.

Constantine being unsuccessful doesn't mean Stilicho's position is unshakeable.
No but couple it with the 406-407 invasions failing and Stilicho is virtually unassailable. He was at the height of his power when the invasions occurred. Defeating the rebels and not having the invasion keeps the opposition in the senate minimal with no central figure like Olympiodorus to rally upon.

That the slaughter of the Germans mattered says a lot about how vulnerable Rome is to the consequences.
It just so happened that the foederati were in Italy.
Or take Honorius refusing to negiotiate with Alaric. If Rome the polity was still basically strong, Alaric could try to take Rome until his army starved or died of disease.
Rome could have resisted. But Alaric was let in in the hopes he wouldn't sack the city.

Constantius might well not die of illness. Fine. But that doesn't mean that no one in an important position will die "prematurely" and that spot be filled with someone incompetent, ambitious, or simply unhealthy.
I agree.

The Vandals being able to take over Africa does not suggest that the Roman state is able to defend Africa from something like the Vandals - 80,000 people all totalled if my memory of my reading is correct. Not even 80,000 fighting men. Men, women, children, drooling elders.

Aetius was 64 (according to http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/amen/g/Aetius.htm ) when he died - so he's not going to last too much longer.

Yes, killing him was a blunder. But even if he lives another ten years, who replaces him? Are they up to the challenge?
A very ambitious and talented man named Majorian.
I don't know much about Richimer so I don't know how likely it was.
He killed Majorian and a few other emperors trying to revive the empire, basically smothering it.



That Rome was dependent on the Franks holding the frontier in 406-407, could not replace a general like Aetius in 454, could not hold Rome the city itself against something far from the greatest threat the city had ever seen. . .
Well Aetius was replaced by Majorian, but he was killed after 4 promising years.

This is not a state whose future is at all assured.
I agree.
 
So what we need here is a more competent Commodus/Aurelius adopting an heir?

That can't be guaranteed.

Personally, I believe a large reason why the Western Empire fell was the failure of Emperors to build up close personal relationship with the Roman army.

Look at how barbarians in Roman ranks eagerly desert to Alaric after the death of Stilicho. Such a thing never really happened before in the empire.
 
That can't be guaranteed.

Personally, I believe a large reason why the Western Empire fell was the failure of Emperors to build up close personal relationship with the Roman army.

Look at how barbarians in Roman ranks eagerly desert to Alaric after the death of Stilicho. Such a thing never really happened before in the empire.

So....what if the Diocletian (I think he started this but I could be very wrong) idea of being above the soldiers and separate from the soldiers (I am probably describing this horrendously) was not adopted and the emperors continued to interact with the soldiers and show the soldiers they are one of them?
 
Top