AHC: Total Roman Collapse

I do not remember exactly when, but once a gothic magister militum tried to usurp and most probably to implement a similar governement (puppet emperor) like in the west. Luckily the plebs of Constantinople has beaten the Goths in bloody street fights. The WRE was less lucky. Due to the move of the capital to Mediolanum and later Ravenna there was no plebs and no senate to support the emperor anymore and the foreign magistri had an easy job. One of many major differences why the East did not fall. The role of the plebs of Rome is widely underestimated.

I think you are thinking of the enemy of Stilicho in the east, who happened to be Theodosius' right hand man in Constantinople no? Either him or Aspar?

The guy you two are thinking of was Gainas the Goth. He tried to take advantage of magister militum Leo's lack of success. So he was appointed and didn't do any better, but blamed it on the Empress Eudoxia and essentially tried to mount a coup. Until the residents of Constantinople tore his troops apart limb from limb.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The guy you two are thinking of was Gainas the Goth. He tried to take advantage of magister militum Leo's lack of success. So he was appointed and didn't do any better, but blamed it on the Empress Eudoxia and essentially tried to mount a coup. Until the residents of Constantinople tore his troops apart limb from limb.

What would it realistically take for Gothic/Germannic foederati to undermine the east from within, like the west, and not get torn to shreds before they succeed in doing so?
 
What would it realistically take for Gothic/Germannic foederati to undermine the east from within, like the west, and not get torn to shreds before they succeed in doing so?
They really can't. They didn't really do that with the west either. For the most part, the barbarians who fought in the Roman army were loyal.

If you mean groups settling in the east and undermining them from within...it's doubtful it would be enough in any numbers to undermine the empire. The problem is the Eastern Empire could afford to lose control of the Balkans for extremely long periods of time. The Avars, Slavs, Goths, Huns, Bulgars, etc. etc. could raid and settle in the Balkans all they liked, but unless they can cross the straits, they can't do life-threatening damage to the empire, because the empire's valuable provinces are all in the east-Antolia, Egypt, Syria, they are where the east gets most of its money, manpower, and food from.
 
What would it realistically take for Gothic/Germannic foederati to undermine the east from within, like the west, and not get torn to shreds before they succeed in doing so?

Well, one issue is that the East just had more resources to draw on than the West. Many of the provinces in the domain of the West were dominated by tribes which had been settled as a whole and owed allegiance to their tribal king as much as or more than to the Roman Emperor. Combined with the outright hostility these tribes came to treat the central government with (up to and including conquest of other provinces, fr. ex. in Africa, and the raiding and pillaging of Italy), the Western government had only a tenuous control over most of the provinces which it was ostensibly supposed to be able to draw resources from.

Because of this, there was really no alternative to look to when it came to opposing the Germanic domination of the army and government: Any attempted palace coup to re-take the reins of government would be opposed by the Germans in the army and there was nothing native Romans could do to really face the Germans in the army down.

On the other hand, the natives in the Eastern government had the broad resources of the provinces in Asia and Egypt to draw upon. The Isaurian tribals in eastern Anatolia, especially, turned out to be vital in practice when it came to ejecting Germanic control of the Eastern military and government. This turned out to have some repurcussions of its own (a couple times the Isaurians themselves made trouble for the government in Constantinople as they simply replaced the Germans in the Eastern army at first), but they did not end up being long term because they were ultimately native Romans who adhered to the native Roman Church and thus could aspire to the Imperial dignity, unlike Germanic tribal kings who needed to rely on manipulating weak Emperors to control policy.

So, pretty much, you have to settle some Germanic tribes somewhere in the East where they can start taking over the local administration and effectively removing the resources of these areas from the grasp of the central government. An Eastern domain where Asia and Egypt are little better than a series of allied states is a lot easier to take down than one where the full resources of the eastern provinces can be drawn upon.

Or, alternatively, you could have the kind of disaster that happened in the late 6th century with the Persians invading and occupying all the provinces to the east of the Straits happen in a time when the central government and Imperial army are still in the grasp of Germans. This accomplishes the same end of removing the majority of the resources available to native Romans who might try to wrest control of the government away from any Germanic military strongman and his puppet Emperor. After a suitable amount of time getting used to ruling in all but name, such a strongman or one of his descendents/successors may simply decide to make it formal, depose his puppet, and set up a kingdom like existed in the West.
 
They really can't. They didn't really do that with the west either. For the most part, the barbarians who fought in the Roman army were loyal.

This needs to be qualified: They were loyal, but they were loyal because their leaders were brought into the Roman power structure of the period. They would happily and frequently revolt if they felt like they were being shut out of influence. They became, in effect, actors in the late Roman political drama that played out, eventually coming to dominate that drama to the point where the last Western Augustus could be deposed and essentially replaced with a German king with little real fanfare.
 
What would it realistically take for Gothic/Germannic foederati to undermine the east from within, like the west, and not get torn to shreds before they succeed in doing so?

To answer this question I recommend to read:

Gerard Friell, Stephen Williams, Friell Gerard
The Rome That Did Not Fall: The Survival of the East in the Fifth Century: The Phoenix in the East
Verlag: Routledge Chapman & Hall; Auflage: Ill (12. November 1998)
ISBN-10: 0415154030
ISBN-13: 978-0415154031

There are lots of differences between east and west. Actually these are 2 different empires. Just a few examples:
Aside from the economical structure, the military structure of the east was different with more roman units and 2 central magistri.

But more importantly the political and social structure was different, e.g. the crown council was more balanced and had more influence than in the west. This also backed by a differently structured senate in the capital, with less landlords and more committed buerocrats and militarians. So a coup was less likely to happen. While the West went downhill, the East managed the turnaround due to its more solid structure in almost all departments.

The guy you two are thinking of was Gainas the Goth.

IIRC, you are right, and this is the guy I was talking about.

The coup of this guy failed, because in the East attacking the emperor meant attacking Romanitas. While in the west romanitas was already weak and on its way down, in the east it was still rock-solid and fought back. Not just the plebs, also the senate and all his followers. And in the east the Romanitas had a heart and centre: Constantinople. In the west Ravenna was no heart of the empire. The glorious old City of Rome was far away, half forgotten politically and ruled by landlords, which were not that much interested in this state and its emperor.

It is easy to fight individuals and armies. It is much more difficult to fight an idea made from structures, processes and a strong mindset.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's really possible to argue that the Germanic tribesmen were loyal or not. It differs. There were several high-profile Germanics (Stilicho etc.) that did appear to be strongly committed to the empire. There were some (Arbogast) that seemed primarily concerned with improving their own powerbase and attempting to subvert the empire to do so. Others were outright hostile not just to the empire but to the concept of Romanitas.

One thing that does seem a trend is that Nicene Christian Germanics (like Stilicho), who were in a minority, seemed to have been much more loyal. Don't really know why this is though, since there were Arian Roman Emperors and everything :confused:
 
Probably coincidence more than anything. Stilicho was only half German (Vandal IIRC). As for Argobast, IMO, he was actually a loyal servant of the empire-I find it doubtful he actually had a hand in Valentinian's murder, primarily because he knew his power rested on Valentinian being alive.
 
Top