AHC: Successful Western Roman Empire?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date
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?

Huh? Diocletian and most of the Emperors of the fourth century are very much in touch with his soldiers.

The ideal Emperor during the 4th century is very much a person that is willingly to share some of the hardship with his soldiers. Brian Campbell mentioned an account from the Historia Augusta on how an Emperor is expected to conduct himself on campaigns.

Historia Augusta said:
Once, when a certain Ovinius Camillus,195 a senator of ancient family but very pleasure-loving, made plans to rebel and seize the throne, and this was reported to Alexander and forthwith proved, he summoned him to the Palace and thanked him for voluntarily offering to assume the responsibility for the state, which had been imposed on many a good man against his will.... Later, when an expedition against the barbarians was announced, he urged him either to set forth on his own responsibility, did he so desire, or to proceed in company with himself. And since he himself travelled on foot, he invited Camillus to share his labours, but when the man fell behind after five miles, he bade him ride a horse, and again, when after two days' journey he was tired out by riding, he had him put in a carriage. And when Camillus refused even this, either through fear or in sincerity, and even resigned his power and made ready to die, Alexander sent him away, commending him to the soldiers, by whom he himself was singularly beloved, and bidding him go in safety to his country-estate.


If not, we can always look at how Julian's campaign as another example of Emperor being extremely close with his army.
 
Huh? Diocletian and most of the Emperors of the fourth century are very much in touch with his soldiers.

The ideal Emperor during the 4th century is very much a person that is willingly to share some of the hardship with his soldiers. Brian Campbell mentioned an account from the Historia Augusta on how an Emperor is expected to conduct himself on campaigns.

That's why I stated I could be very wrong. Turns out I was.
 
Not really. I'll go more into it later.

Will respond to it when later rolls around then.

Romans at this point.
At the start of the 5th century the eastern army had more barbarians in its employmend than the west.
And the East is able to deal with that because it isn't recruiting the same barbarians that are settling on its territory - the West is.

If given his old position of magister militum per illyricum back (which was the intention with the taking of Illyricum), Alaric should be content.
That does not mean that the Visigoths are removed as a threat for - let's say over a century. It doesn't even mean they're removed as a threat for a decade. And that's if Alaric in that position isn't the problem below.

They have to be given the chance first. Otherwise it is more likely they'd just settle in Gaul.
Which is hardly less serious to lose.

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.
Not that you've provided.

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.
And this of course holds true no matter what. Rly. There's still the East, which is not going to appreciate him fighting it.

It just so happened that the foederati were in Italy.
So? Rome has faced enemies on Italian soil before.

Rome could have resisted. But Alaric was let in in the hopes he wouldn't sack the city.
Which suggests that they didn't feel that they could have resisted. You don't let someone take a city you feel you won't lose.

A very ambitious and talented man named Majorian.
He killed Majorian and a few other emperors trying to revive the empire, basically smothering it.
[/quote]

http://www.roman-emperors.org/major.htm

This worries me: " Majorian had demonstrated in the past a willingness to attack the root causes of some of the social and economic problems facing the empire. These "problems," however, were the very means being used by many senators to expand their own power and influence. Majorian posed a threat to the continued aggrandizement of powerful Italian senators, and in this instance their interests were the same as those of Majorian's erstwhile supporter but now rival Ricimer, who, after Majorian's execution, was able to install an emperor more to his liking, as reported by the Consularia constantinopolitana: "During this consulate Majorian was killed and Severus was made emperor" ("His conss Maiorianus occiditur et Severus efficitur imperator": s.a. 461)."

Rulers who attack the interests of the aristocracy are rarely in a secure position.

Well Aetius was replaced by Majorian, but he was killed after 4 promising years.
See above for my thoughts there.

I wouldn't say Majorian was doomed. But it suggests that this imperial weakness is more likely to lead to bad things than not, even if he survives.
 
I've not seen a thread of such silly Gibbon-ism on AH.com for years. What next- the Byzantines were doomed to fall because of being decadent Christian Greeks?
 
And the East is able to deal with that because it isn't recruiting the same barbarians that are settling on its territory - the West is.[\quote]
The east did settle goths in the Danube a lot but u see you point.
That does not mean that the Visigoths are removed as a threat for - let's say over a century. It doesn't even mean they're removed as a threat for a decade. And that's if Alaric in that position isn't the problem below.
Sorry I meant to add after Alaric will certainly be a problem.
Which is hardly less serious to lose.
Yes.
Not that you've provided.
They had done fine prior to 406 in stopping them.

And this of course holds true no matter what. Rly. There's still the East, which is not going to appreciate him fighting it.
No it doesn't. But the east at this tone had a tendency to deal with things diplomatically rather than militarily. And they had enough on their plate withvthe Huns.
Anyway stilicho would be 50 by 411 so in assuming he would pay live up to around 420 anyway.
So? Rome has faced enemies on Italian soil before.

Which suggests that they didn't feel that they could have resisted. You don't let someone take a city you feel you won't lose.
If I remember correctly it was a few rogue guard who let themin though I could be wrong.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/major.htm

This worries me: " Majorian had demonstrated in the past a willingness to attack the root causes of some of the social and economic problems facing the empire. These "problems," however, were the very means being used by many senators to expand their own power and influence. Majorian posed a threat to the continued aggrandizement of powerful Italian senators, and in this instance their interests were the same as those of Majorian's erstwhile supporter but now rival Ricimer, who, after Majorian's execution, was able to install an emperor more to his liking, as reported by the Consularia constantinopolitana: "During this consulate Majorian was killed and Severus was made emperor" ("His conss Maiorianus occiditur et Severus efficitur imperator": s.a. 461)."

Rulers who attack the interests of the aristocracy are rarely in a secure position.

See above for my thoughts there.

I wouldn't say Majorian was doomed. But it suggests that this imperial weakness is more likely to lead to bad things than not, even if he survives.


Yes, that sounds about right.
 
I've not seen a thread of such silly Gibbon-ism on AH.com for years. What next- the Byzantines were doomed to fall because of being decadent Christian Greeks?
Well, BG, we did have several disagreements in the past, but I have to agree with you in this one.

I'm honestly surprised that this discussion hasn't devolved into a debate that the whole Europe was doomed to disunity and balkanization because of the existence of their mountains and rivers, while China is 100% flat rolling plain.
 
I've not seen a thread of such silly Gibbon-ism on AH.com for years. What next- the Byzantines were doomed to fall because of being decadent Christian Greeks?

On who or what now?

Though you must recognize that when the Romans turned they gave up the ancient pacts with their gods.
 

Deleted member 67076

I've not seen a thread of such silly Gibbon-ism on AH.com for years. What next- the Byzantines were doomed to fall because of being decadent Christian Greeks?
Hey BG so what do you think the West needs to avoid just becoming something to study on your midterm?
 
Hey BG so what do you think the West needs to avoid just becoming something to study on your midterm?

It simply needs to avoid an implausibly large amount of bad luck that befell the state in the decades after 410. It's not particularly difficult to do that- my personal favourite view is to keep Constantius III in power for another decade or so, but there are other ways to go about it!
 
It simply needs to avoid an implausibly large amount of bad luck that befell the state in the decades after 410. It's not particularly difficult to do that- my personal favourite view is to keep Constantius III in power for another decade or so, but there are other ways to go about it!

Their bad luck was practically of ASB proportions.
 
I've not seen a thread of such silly Gibbon-ism on AH.com for years. What next- the Byzantines were doomed to fall because of being decadent Christian Greeks?

I hardly think saying that the WRE was broke and operating under disadvantages when it came to controlling the barbarians within its borders is comparable to saying the Byzantines were decadent Christian Greeks.

They had done fine prior to 406 in stopping them.

That's not the point. Up to 1071, the Byzantines had done a pretty good job of stopping people from taking Anatolia, too.

Picked as another example of military defeat compounded by political/social rot into things going to Hell faster than they can be fixed.

No it doesn't. But the east at this tone had a tendency to deal with things diplomatically rather than militarily. And they had enough on their plate withvthe Huns.
The East can bribe/pay tribute to Atillia and still deal with the West - or at least return when Atillia is gone and dealing with it.

If I remember correctly it was a few rogue guard who let themin though I could be wrong.
Anyone have a good source here? I have some books on the end of things, but my collection is more disorganized than Gibbon is biased.

Their bad luck was practically of ASB proportions.
Practically of ASB proportions?

Yes, I know that it's heartbreaking to believe that maybe, just maybe the WRE wasn't in good condition in the 5th century, but saying that it was hit by incredibly unlikely events? Seriously?

I'm not saying it didn't have a run of terrible events, but it's not as if Majorian being murdered for example is a result of pure chance going against the empire, for example. Constantinus dying too young - rulers die too young all the f--king time. From Louis VIII of France to Margaret of Scotland to Edward VI to Romanus II, just to name the interesting POD ones I can think of.

Someone, and not by the grace of Doug alone, France, Scotland, England, and the Byzantine half of the empire managed to deal with that - and it's not as if Scotland wasn't hit hard by the consequences of Margaret's death or Louis IX had no problems from his lords after succeeding as a minor.

Could the WRE have lasted longer than 476? Almost certainly. Could it meet the wishes of the original poster? I very much doubt it.
 
Practically of ASB proportions?

Yes, I know that it's heartbreaking to believe that maybe, just maybe the WRE wasn't in good condition in the 5th century, but saying that it was hit by incredibly unlikely events? Seriously?

I'm not saying it didn't have a run of terrible events, but it's not as if Majorian being murdered for example is a result of pure chance going against the empire, for example. Constantinus dying too young - rulers die too young all the f--king time. From Louis VIII of France to Margaret of Scotland to Edward VI to Romanus II, just to name the interesting POD ones I can think of.

Someone, and not by the grace of Doug alone, France, Scotland, England, and the Byzantine half of the empire managed to deal with that - and it's not as if Scotland wasn't hit hard by the consequences of Margaret's death or Louis IX had no problems from his lords after succeeding as a minor.

Could the WRE have lasted longer than 476? Almost certainly. Could it meet the wishes of the original poster? I very much doubt it.

By ASB proportions I mean the sheer amount of bad luck, not necessarily the individual events. Each individual event and maybe even a few of them together is fine. But the fact that all these happened at around the same time , and a time when the empire was at its most need for even the slightest bit of good luck is what is almost ASB proportions.
 
By ASB proportions I mean the sheer amount of bad luck, not necessarily the individual events. Each individual event and maybe even a few of them together is fine. But the fact that all these happened at around the same time , and a time when the empire was at its most need for even the slightest bit of good luck is what is almost ASB proportions.

No, it's not.

Empires don't get what they need, they get what happens to them.

Speaking in terms of how the empire needed good luck as if that has any bearing on what was likely is like blaming the wrath of God (or the Gods) rather than human actors.

Let's say Constantinus lives.

Because he has a cool name and BG thinks well of him.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/westemp5.htm#Note 8

If he's planning a campaign against the east, how is this going to help the situation in the West?
 
Speaking in terms of how the empire needed good luck as if that has any bearing on what was likely is like blaming the wrath of God (or the Gods) rather than human actors.

What unfolded in the 5th century was hardly the likeliest scenario. I'm not saying Rome could have lasted forever at this point. But it should have at least been able to last well into the 6th century.
 
What unfolded in the 5th century was hardly the likeliest scenario. I'm not saying Rome could have lasted forever at this point. But it should have at least been able to last well into the 6th century.

I'll put it this way.

A man of middle years dies. It is determined that the cause of his death is multiple stab wounds leading to death by blood loss.

Are you going to tell me that this fate for a man surrounded by knife armed thugs is an unlikely scenario?
 
I've put up a mini-TL on a more successful WRE, which is still plagued by barbarian raids, revolts, and child Emperors, but which avoids these going terribly wrong as happened IOTL here. Have a look, folks! :)
 
I've put up a mini-TL on a more successful WRE, which is still plagued by barbarian raids, revolts, and child Emperors, but which avoids these going terribly wrong as happened IOTL here. Have a look, folks! :)

Seriously recommend anyone who cares doing so.

:D

I'm going to argue the pessimistic perspective, I'm sure, even if things like that are valid (see my post in that thread) - but it ought to be acknowledged that while bad things are inevitable to some level, specifics can be dealt with differently. How much that's enough . . . well, we'll see as that mini-TL is analyzed more.
 

Deleted member 67076

Seriously recommend anyone who cares doing so.

:D

I'm going to argue the pessimistic perspective, I'm sure, even if things like that are valid (see my post in that thread) - but it ought to be acknowledged that while bad things are inevitable to some level, specifics can be dealt with differently. How much that's enough . . . well, we'll see as that mini-TL is analyzed more.
So BG is the McCoy, your the Spock and Slydessertfox is the Kirk, cool. Also, what do you think will happen linguistically if the empire survives for at least another few centuries, no one has ever given me a good answer.
 
I'll put it this way.

A man of middle years dies. It is determined that the cause of his death is multiple stab wounds leading to death by blood loss.

Are you going to tell me that this fate for a man surrounded by knife armed thugs is an unlikely scenario?

No, but coupled with everything else and all at the same time....yes.
 
Top