AHC: Switch Eastern and Western Roman Empire

Switch the histories of East and West Rome. Have the Western Empire rule onward for centuries while the East descends into chaos and war before stabilizing far down the line.
 
I'd suggest an early incredible victory for the Sassanids that collapses during an intermediate period. Perhaps replace Bahram IV with an effective and aggressive ruler.

Forgive me for the diner-napkin approach to this.

Early Shananshah takes Egypt and Anatolia from the East, killing Arcadius after capturing him in a battle. This shock victory shocks the Empire, leading to huge numbers of Romans fleeing or actively relocating to Greece, Italia and Africa from Anatolia and the newly Persia territories.

This leads to the establishment of new settlements and cities to prevent overcrowding and riots in the Empire. The Roman Empire reverts to the Dominate System under Honorius - who suddenly has the remaining forces of the East (based in Greece) directly reporting to him, rather than Stilcho. Constantinople is the Bulwark of the East rather than "City of the Worlds Desire" ITTL.

Greece, Africa and the various refugees from the East help build up an arm of the military that is loyal to the Empire, which operates in the East out of Constantinople, Illyricum, and Treverorum in Gaul, purely imperial forces to help wrestle the West into line.

These forces allow the beginning of a slow process of de-Germanification of the Army, and a Romanisation of the Foederati peoples.

Meanwhile, Constantinople, backed by Roman and Foederati troops is the bulwark that protects Europa from Asia. In the early years the various Anatolian territories do break away from Persia (as does Egypt and the Levant), with the overstretched Sassanids losing control over their empire piece by piece until they only rule Mesopotamia, forced to build alliances to protect their rich territory from invasion by the Persians of the Iranian Plateau, and later tribes that invade via that route. (i.e. White Huns, etc). Repeated invasions as per OTL cause chaos in the region, alongside smaller invasions by Arabs - who don't NEED to unite to expand because of the fragmented nature of the East. Why doesn't the West re-invade? Because the reforms needed in the Roman Empire take forever, and their resources are tied up in the navy, defence, and trying to free up resources in Gaul, Germania and Pannonia.

An optimistic scenario is that a combination of Anatolian-Greek,Egyptian,Arab and Iranian alliances/kingdoms reign over parts of the Middle east, with the occasional inclusion of invaders from central asia mixing things up. The Roman Empire pushes north as they develop the required farming equipment. Egypt is a prominent power that dominates trade and sells huge quantities of food to the Empire (Essentially taking huge amounts of coin from the Empire like India did IOTL).
 

Skallagrim

Banned

That's pretty awesome for something you call a "diner-napkin approach". The only question that nags at me in this context is what you write about Egypt. If huge amounts of coin continue to flow out of the Empire, that will still cause major economic troubles down the line. I know insights on this vary, but I find the idea that this strutural outflow of gold was one of the causes of Rome's economic troubles to be very plausible.

Of course, you mention Rome expanding northwards as they develop the required farming equipment. Presumably you mean the heavy plough. If that's the case, eventually northern European regions within imperial control can replace foreign Egypt as the major source for food production. I'm just not sure it can do that before the Romans run into major trouble that might cause a western collape after all. (Not merely because of the outflow of gold, but because historically, Roman responses to the problems made things worse. If you tend to react to the deficit by decreasing the gold amount per coin and also raising taxes... things will only get worse. That's what the Romans did, and barring a sudden development of ATL economic theory, I don't see that going otherwise here.)

Of course... if in addition to your scenario, one also indtroduces some kind of "Greek revolt" whereby Greece goes independent as well, that actually helps. The east (including Greece) was far more densely populated than the west. If you presume that many imperial loyalists from the east migrate west to take on the strengthening role you describe, but Greece itself (later) goes independent, then Rome will ultimately have far fewer mouths to feed. Therefore, less need for food imports from Egypt, and less drain of gold. That way, Rome might just avoid the major economic problems until it can get its own heavy plough-facilitated agriculture going in Gaul etc. -- which would then forestall the orginial cause of the economic problems altogether.

Also, dropping Greece brings the scenario closer to the OP's idea of "the west" staying Imperial, while "the east" falls apart. If you add some major wars between various eastern states (not inconceivable), I'd say we're there.
 
I'd suggest an early incredible victory for the Sassanids that collapses during an intermediate period. Perhaps replace Bahram IV with an effective and aggressive ruler.

Forgive me for the diner-napkin approach to this.

Early Shananshah takes Egypt and Anatolia from the East, killing Arcadius after capturing him in a battle. This shock victory shocks the Empire, leading to huge numbers of Romans fleeing or actively relocating to Greece, Italia and Africa from Anatolia and the newly Persia territories.

What about the Huns? Wouldn't they still have attacked the area around the end of the fourth century, and been a problem for the Persians?
 
That's pretty awesome for something you call a "diner-napkin approach".

Feel bad for my friends when I pontificate at the pub ;)

The only question that nags at me in this context is what you write about Egypt. If huge amounts of coin continue to flow out of the Empire, that will still cause major economic troubles down the line. I know insights on this vary, but I find the idea that this strutural outflow of gold was one of the causes of Rome's economic troubles to be very plausible.

Of course, you mention Rome expanding northwards as they develop the required farming equipment. Presumably you mean the heavy plough. If that's the case, eventually northern European regions within imperial control can replace foreign Egypt as the major source for food production. I'm just not sure it can do that before the Romans run into major trouble that might cause a western collape after all. (Not merely because of the outflow of gold, but because historically, Roman responses to the problems made things worse. If you tend to react to the deficit by decreasing the gold amount per coin and also raising taxes... things will only get worse. That's what the Romans did, and barring a sudden development of ATL economic theory, I don't see that going otherwise here.)

I was going to touch on that, but decided that my napkin was full :) Yeah, I'd agree that its a problem, and that N.Europe will become the unexpected second breadbasket for the Empire (alongside Africa). Conveniently Egypt being the trade partner rather than India reduces the problem for the outflow of gold. I forget who said it, but there is quote that roughly paraphrases as "They don't want to buy anything we have, they already have it at home". There are many goods that Egypt can happily buy from the Empire - which reduces the net loss of gold, slowing down the pace of the problem. That combined with the overall lower population and lower number of citizens with the money for Indian spices continues to reduce the loss of bullion problem.

Of course... if in addition to your scenario, one also indtroduces some kind of "Greek revolt" whereby Greece goes independent as well, that actually helps. The east (including Greece) was far more densely populated than the west. If you presume that many imperial loyalists from the east migrate west to take on the strengthening role you describe, but Greece itself (later) goes independent, then Rome will ultimately have far fewer mouths to feed. Therefore, less need for food imports from Egypt, and less drain of gold. That way, Rome might just avoid the major economic problems until it can get its own heavy plough-facilitated agriculture going in Gaul etc. -- which would then forestall the orginial cause of the economic problems altogether.

Also, dropping Greece brings the scenario closer to the OP's idea of "the west" staying Imperial, while "the east" falls apart. If you add some major wars between various eastern states (not inconceivable), I'd say we're there.

That sounds good to me. It might be that in the West the Germano-Romanic side of the Empire becomes more prominent, accepted and respected by Greeks in the West, but Greeks back home resent and despise them, which then leads to a rift.

Although I can see this Roman Empire wanting to retake Constantinople and Greece - it is a fantastic shield from eastern invasions, controls access to the Black Sea, and is much more defensible than the Illyrian border with Greece. It might be lost in a crisis, and then once the crisis is over recaptured.
 
You could have the Goths being settled in Anatolia and Balkan as a bulwark against the Persians. The Balkan Goths could stay Germanic, while the Anatolian Goths end up Greek speaking (more or less following the model of the Franks).
 
I'd suggest an early incredible victory for the Sassanids that collapses during an intermediate period. Perhaps replace Bahram IV with an effective and aggressive ruler.

Forgive me for the diner-napkin approach to this.

Early Shananshah takes Egypt and Anatolia from the East, killing Arcadius after capturing him in a battle. This shock victory shocks the Empire, leading to huge numbers of Romans fleeing or actively relocating to Greece, Italia and Africa from Anatolia and the newly Persia territories.

This leads to the establishment of new settlements and cities to prevent overcrowding and riots in the Empire. The Roman Empire reverts to the Dominate System under Honorius - who suddenly has the remaining forces of the East (based in Greece) directly reporting to him, rather than Stilcho. Constantinople is the Bulwark of the East rather than "City of the Worlds Desire" ITTL.

Greece, Africa and the various refugees from the East help build up an arm of the military that is loyal to the Empire, which operates in the East out of Constantinople, Illyricum, and Treverorum in Gaul, purely imperial forces to help wrestle the West into line.

These forces allow the beginning of a slow process of de-Germanification of the Army, and a Romanisation of the Foederati peoples.

Meanwhile, Constantinople, backed by Roman and Foederati troops is the bulwark that protects Europa from Asia. In the early years the various Anatolian territories do break away from Persia (as does Egypt and the Levant), with the overstretched Sassanids losing control over their empire piece by piece until they only rule Mesopotamia, forced to build alliances to protect their rich territory from invasion by the Persians of the Iranian Plateau, and later tribes that invade via that route. (i.e. White Huns, etc). Repeated invasions as per OTL cause chaos in the region, alongside smaller invasions by Arabs - who don't NEED to unite to expand because of the fragmented nature of the East. Why doesn't the West re-invade? Because the reforms needed in the Roman Empire take forever, and their resources are tied up in the navy, defence, and trying to free up resources in Gaul, Germania and Pannonia.

An optimistic scenario is that a combination of Anatolian-Greek,Egyptian,Arab and Iranian alliances/kingdoms reign over parts of the Middle east, with the occasional inclusion of invaders from central asia mixing things up. The Roman Empire pushes north as they develop the required farming equipment. Egypt is a prominent power that dominates trade and sells huge quantities of food to the Empire (Essentially taking huge amounts of coin from the Empire like India did IOTL).
This is really interesting, I would love to see a more fleshed out version of this timeline.
 
I had since a long time tried to imagine a PoD to allow this exact scenario: the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire and the survival of the Western Roman Empire. Check this out to see if its plausible. In the long-run, it will follow the same consequences pointed out by @RogueTraderEnthusiast above:

I imagined it would need a "macrohistorical" PoD, that is, a different pattern of migration for the Germanic Tribes coming from the Baltic area (from roughly 200 A.D. afterwards). I'm not sure how plausible this is but, I figured some movements could have happened thus:

1) The entire Vandal tribe moves directly to Pannonia and stay there with the Alans instead of going west to the Rhine afterwards (as they did OTL), and there they remain or either push the Goths even further south and east (so that the Vandals remain in OTL Hungary and the Goths in OTL Romania). This effectively creates a much stronger barbarian presence in the Danube limes, but in compensation takes off the burden upon the Rhine frontier. Later, the Gepids, Lombards and Huns will arrive on schedule, and this will create a greater problem for the eastern part of the empire than for the western part.

2) The Western Romans, until 406, had proven to be really capable of turning off invasions of the Alamanni and the Franks, so, with some luck, perhaps the Burgundians (for some reason, let's say competition with the Rhenish tribes) remain closer to Rhaetia and Noricum after their migration from the Poland. This also gets some steam away from the already complicated Rhine frontier, even if creating another focus of disturbance closer to Italy.

3) Avoid the construction of Constantinople by any means. The easiest way is simply to kill off Constantine (this is the first divergence of the TL I have been sketching for some months), in a way that Nicomedia remains as the basic "capital" of the eastern empire, like it was for Diocletian and Galerius. Why is this necessary? Simple, the moving of the capital to Constantinople, even if designed to allow a greater approximation of the Emperor with the Asian frontier, created a "center of power" in southeastern Europe, a particularly heavy fortified one (that resisted until 1453 A.D., after all), that any sensible Emperor would desire to defend. Nicomedia is on the other side of Marmara, of course but let's suppose the "barbarians" break beyond the Danubian limes, this will create a wedge between the western and eastern halves of the empire, and without Constantinople, it might facilitate an eventual migration of these groups - likely the Goths, the Vandals, Alans, Sarmatians, and later the Huns - directly to Asia, especially if, like the poster above mentiones, the Sassanids shatter the Syrian frontier.

4) With a stronger Sassanid Empire, Mesopotamia, Syria, the Levant and even Egypt are likely to fall in a domino effect, much like it happened historically during the Byzantine-Persian Wars and during the Arab Invasions. The Eastern Roman Empire, centered on Nicomedia, will be gravely reduced to a rump state in Anatolia, Greece+Macedonia and a part of Illyricum. This, in turn, means that the barbarians coming from the Danube - like the damn HUNS - will have an incentive to simply conquer and partition the remnant of the eastern empire than simply exacting tribute from and moving west like they did IOTL. Their eventual success will later attract like a magnet the arrival of the Lombards, of the Avars, and so forth. This means that the Balkans and Greece will turn into the hot mess they became by the 8th Century much earlier than OTL.

5) With the collapse of the eastern empire, the western half will NOT be stronger, but simply less harmed by the destructive migrations of the Germanic and Asiatic peoples. With the resources it has at its disposal, it might contain the Alamanni, Frankish and Burgundian threat, but I seriously doubt these groups will be able to stage an invasion all the way to Spain like the Vandals, Alans and Suebi did IOTL. I'm not sure about Britannia, however. I imagine that some emperor soon enough will see more necessary to abandon Britannia to its own devices and bring its legions to fight in Gaul or even in Italy, and it might be prey to the Angles, Jutes and Saxons like it happened IOTL. In fact, I suppose that as soon as the Roman legions abandon Britannia, the less successful Rhenish tribes, like the Alamanni, might try their own luck with conquering Britannia. This creates a greater pressure to the Romano-British, but at least the Gallo-Romans and the Italians will remain safe for the time being.

6) The western empire still has Africa and, with sheer luck, being able to prevent the entrance from the Germanic tribes from the Rhine, it will have to focus its efforts in Noricum and Istria, now that the Danubian border collapsed and Illyricum has been overrun. If the initial moving tribes (let's say, the Goths, the Vandals and the Alans) move directly through the Bosporus to colonize Anatolia, partitioning it like they did with Spain and Africa IOTL, this seriously reduces the pressure in the Balkans and improves the chances of western survival, and even of the creation of some rump eastern empire in Greece or Epirus.

7) After the initial chaos of the "barbarian" invasions settles down in the Balkans, and this region sees some stability like 6th Century western Europe (especially if the Huns collapse as quickly as they did IOTL), the western empire will have some breathing space, and might attempt its own reconquest of the eastern regions, in a parallel of Justinian's reconquests. They will certainly focus on Lybia and Egypt, as well as a defensable region in Illyricum (likely the whole of Dalmatia, linking to Greece and Macedonia), but I doubt they will have the resources to completely retake the whole of Anatolia, the Balkans and much less Syria and the Levant.

8) Now, the most interesting divergence: as soon as the Sassanid power wears off (in a dynastic crisis or something similar), the stronger barbarian kingdoms in the former eastern empire will be well poised to attempt their own expansionist movements, likely to Syria, Cyprus, and perhaps even an amphibious invasion of Egypt (sounds something like the Vandals would have done under the reign of Geiseric). I'm sure I'm not the only poster here that will fancy a Lombard Moesia, a Gothic Cappadocia and a Vandalic Syria, for example.

tl; dr: the western empire will only survive if we transfer the blunt of the barbarian invasions (especially in late 5th Century) to the East, and allow a greater Sassanid Persia.

Also, I don't belive the western empire will survive forever. As soon as it loses either Gaul or Illyricum, Italy will be easy prey for any foreign nation, as the Ostrogoths and the Lombards proved historically. This gives a lease to the Roman Empire, however, it might survive as a rump state in Italy and Africa (with luck, Hispania remains Roman), and it will be able to survive some more centuries. By then, however, History has diverged to much for us to be able to think about its future.

In the TL I've been sketching, this would be the PoD and the divergences. What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
I concur that you'd need to transfer Barbarian tribes. Have the Iazyges, Vandals, and pretty much anyone you can to decide to try to take a chunk of ERE real estate. Cripple Visigoth and Suebi power while still in Germany to ensure that at least Spain generally stays in the hands of the WRE.

Sassanid pressure + determined Barbarian pressure will not bode well for the ERE. It also COMPLETELY screws up the development of Christianity but that is another story.
 
Top