AHC Western roman empire triumphs

So if they don't want to disarm they are not let into the Empire. Very simple. And if the Empire isn't able to prevent that they cross the Rhine armed ... well, in this case the empire is doomed.

Valens did not disarm the Goths, because he needed them not only to recultivate and settle in Moesia, but also defend the lower Danube.
If you do not get enough roman soldiers, you can't afford to disarm potential soldiers. Simple like that.

The initial question is, why the romans had such serious recruitement issues. In an empire with over 50 Mio. inhabitants. And again we are back to fully ruined structures.
 
The initial question is, why the romans had such serious recruitement issues. In an empire with over 50 Mio. inhabitants. And again we are back to fully ruined structures.
They needed economic reform. Or to continue their string of conquests that brought loot into the Roman Empire.

Or get a few monks to smuggle in silk worms and start a Roman silk industry, like happened during Justinian's reign. That could bring in more imperial income.
 
But what if the Romans had succeeded in disarming, housing and assimilating the Goths in the 4th century? And if they did this with the Franks, Burgundians and Alemanns to?

Actually, the romans are the all time world champions in integration of human history. But not in the 4th century anymore. The question is, when and why the romans lost this key success-factor/ability. Of course the Völkerwanderung required more integration than ever. But was it fully undoable?

BTW, this is one point, the OP is fully wrong about. He thinks, that germanization was wrong. Yes it was, the way it happened. But on the other side, a germano-roman army and a germano-roman emperor was perhaps the one and only chance to survive. Integration done right. Not wrong like with the Goths in Moesia. Germanization of the empire is not the major issue, it is one of the few chances left.
 
Last edited:
Valens did not disarm the Goths, because he needed them not only to recultivate and settle in Moesia, but also defend the lower Danube.

No, no, no. If I say "disarm" I mean: take away their weapons (all of them). The Roman Empire doesn't need an independent armed tribes within its territory. Or did the Romans give weapons to the Greek cities? Then, return armes to those of the Germans who want to serve as soldiers in the army. But don't form units of Germans, only mixed units of Romans and new Romanc citiziens (Germans). And thise units have to be led by Romans.

So disarming is not a total disarmament, but only a partial one.
 
No, no, no. If I say "disarm" I mean: take away their weapons (all of them). The Roman Empire don't needs an independent armed tribe within its territory. Or did the Romans gave weapons to the Greek cities? Then, return armes to those of the Germans who want to serve as soldiers in the army. But don't form units of Germans, only mixed units of Romans and new Romanc citiziens (Germans). And thise units have to be led by Romans.

So disarming is not a total disarmament, but only a partial one.
But that disarming will cause a battle in itself, and then distrust between the Romans and the Germanic tribe in question.
 
No, no, no. If I say "disarm" I mean: take away their weapons (all of them). The Roman Empire doesn't need an independent armed tribes within its territory.

This is your very personal opinion. I am sure Mr. Valens would strongly disagree with you!

He most probably had no other choice these times. Search for the real issues earlier in time.
 
Last edited:
I always supported Mr. Julian,...

Mr. Julian is always overrated by disbelievers and haters. Just another pagan, does not make a better emperor. Like vice versa, Theodosius the Little was perhaps one of the worst emperors.

However, I am convinced, that Mr. Valens knew better, what his options were, than you 1600 years later. To give him better options is hard work and research. Not that easy.
 
Mr. Julian is always overrated by disbelievers and haters. Just another pagan, does not make a better emperor.

To be fair, he had not enough time. And what he did in his years as Caesar and later as Augustus was almost a wonder. His military skills (in the west, I'm not speaking of the badly planned Persian campaign) were extraordinary: remember that not that many late Roman emperors made the effort to lead the armies personally - and that not many of these emperors led the armies successfully.

His fight against corruption was quite successful to, at least more successful than what other emperors of the time tried.
 
To be fair, he had not enough time. And what he did in his years as Caesar and later as Augustus was almost a wonder.

There are a lot of wonders in roman history.
1. the first major wonder was, that the roman republic made the transition to a monarchy and not ruined itself and the entire mediterrenean world in a very short timeframe
2. the 2nd major wonder was, that this empire based on some very fundamental structural flaws managed to surivive the 3rd century crisis
3. and finally that the roman empire managed to survive the Völkerwanderung and just lost a few (not that important) western provinces.

Well, finally the roman empire went down fighting in 636 AD and became just another medieval kingdom of usual size. Not worth to be called an empire anymore. So finally Fortuna stopped smiling on the romans. Not the fault of the romans. Godesses are sometimes bitches. Simple like that.

A lot of people on this forum are asking always, why the roman empire could ever fall. And they try to rescue the roman empire with reasonable and plausible alternate histories. The right question is, why the hell this political misconstruction led by guys with a very questionable mindset could survive that long!

So no dude. Julian is just one of the many minor wonders of roman history!
 
Last edited:
So finally Fortuna stopped smiling on the romans. Not the fault of the romans. Godesses are sometimes bitches. Simple like that.

But that's what I'm saying!!! The easiest way to save the Roman Empire is to give them a bit of luck then they needed it, e. g. in Adrianople or during the expeditions agaisnt the Vandals.

(not that important) western provinces.

AFAIK, Gaul was one of the most important Roman provinces: fertile soil for agriculture, much more romanized than the Greek east (except of course Masalia), protected by the ocean and by the two Germaniae, quite urbanized...
 
You posted that already in this other thread. I never heard about this. Your statement is based on what sources?
I believe I got it from Ian Hughes's biography of Stilicho. A quick wikipedia search reveals that it was mentioned by Gregory of Tours, who based it off of a lost account by Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus. I'm too lazy to search for it in my Stilicho book, so here's the relevant wikipedia quote:

On the east bank, the mixed band of Vandals and Alans fought a raiding party of Franks.[5] The Vandal king Godigisel was killed, but the Alans came to the rescue of the Vandals, and once on the Roman side, they met with no organized resistance. Stilicho had depleted the garrisons in 402 to face Alaric in Italy.


But I agree. Without the usurpator Constantine responsible for Gaul, Stilicho would intercept the german invaders in Gaul. And he would rescue the WRE this way. For how long? 1 year? 10 years? The WRE is in a terrible shape these times: politically, economically, socially. With or without Spain and Africa.
I disagree that they're in terrible shape. They certainly aren't in the best shape manpower wise. After the devastating effects the civil wars with Theodosius had on their military, Stilicho was scrapping together units by peeling off garrisons from non-active frontiers. That was why the Rhine crossing was possible in the first place. But I would disagree they were suffering economically (I believe Peter Heather refutes this). Also, without the Rhine crossings having that much of an effect, Stilicho is able to focus more attention on seizing the prefecture of Illyricum from the east with the assistance of Alaric, something he had been working towards for awhile and was about to put into motion until everything unraveled in Gaul. This would provide him with a manpower and economic base outside the influence of the senatorial aristocracy that was always a thorn in Stilicho's side.

Of course, if you believe in Peter Heather's theory, everything is fine, if just these germans never reach Spain. I like to disagree. This state is already almost desintegrated. Rome is doomed to Fall, since decades, if not since centuries.
I vehemently disagree.
 
Valens did not disarm the Goths, because he needed them not only to recultivate and settle in Moesia, but also defend the lower Danube.
If you do not get enough roman soldiers, you can't afford to disarm potential soldiers. Simple like that.

The initial question is, why the romans had such serious recruitement issues. In an empire with over 50 Mio. inhabitants. And again we are back to fully ruined structures.
Valens didn't disarm the Goths because at that particular moment his forces were needed elsewhere dealing with pressing issues along the eastern frontier. This was no accident. The Goths, many of whom had served in Roman armies as mercenaries, were very aware of Roman geopolitics. It's no surprise they chose at a time when they would have maximum leverage to petition to be allowed in.
 

Deleted member 67076

The initial question is, why the romans had such serious recruitement issues. In an empire with over 50 Mio. inhabitants. And again we are back to fully ruined structures.
Huh, what makes you say that the empire had difficulty in recruitment? The on paper army was much larger in 400 than it was during say, Trajan's reign.

Was it a lack of pay?
 
Top