AHQ/AHD: Developments in a surviving Western Roman Empire

[John7755 يوحنا]

As someone who generally focuses upon Islamic history and primarily, the Abbasid period, I do not normally study Rome and particularly the western. However, I have had a sudden interest to ask some questions and start a discussion that could improve my knowledge on what could transpire in a continued or surving Western Roman Empire.

Groundwork assumption, to make the question and discussion easier, the responder should answer or discuss in accordance to how they believe the Empire could survive in a generally whole sense. It does not matter thus, the major question is to contemplate what would occur once such survival achieves, in relation to the questions I give at least. Do give any opinion or prediction that you find interesting, even if it is not included within the questions or specifications given.

Also, let us place the POD at 364. However, if your scenario to rescue the Empire requires an earlier date, do so and specify.


Questions 1: If the Western Roman Empire continues, what is the development of Latin? For instance, how will the Vulgar Latin break from Latin regionally? Is this possible still, or will Latin continue to dominate general speech of peasantry and urban citizens alike?

Question 2: With this continuation, what sort foreign policy with nearby external states be? Such as Ireland and the Picts, will these areas eventually be conquered or be left to their own devices perpetually?

Question 3: If this Empire is still ascendent in Africa, what sort of relation can we see develop and at what point will trade develop and relations be created across the Sahel and into West Africa? The trade between such, what goods might Roman merchants find most appealing to have these relations develop? Could slaves be an option, or would Rome not need a slave trade to the same extent that the Abbasid benefitted from?

Question 4: Assuming Islam arises roughly otl, what might Western Rome be in terms of reaction? I cannot personally imagine the West understanding the gravity of the situation and may have to deal with a surging Islamic power into Libya. How might Rome go about defending these lands considering the inability of Byzantium, Visigoths and Berber tribes from defeating the Muslim armies?

Question 5: With The collapse of the Gökturk Khaganate in the east and the changing geopolitical situations in the steppes near Europe; how might Rome proceed in combatting first the Slavic migration waves, that will flee from the nomadic armies and how will Rome respond to major nomadic hordes invading their tribal vassals eastward? Could we even see a positive relation between Rome abd these tribal comfedersrions in the form that various Chinese empires embraced their nomadic neighbors through a system of mutual protection and trade?



Question 6: With the beginnings of ploughing innovations in Gaul and Germania, what effects on Rome does a boom in agricultural productivity do for Rome? Could we see a surge in population similar to the Ming dynastic period?

Question 7: With 6 answered, what sort of farming structure could we see? More movement towards manorialism and landlord ownership, or something else? I also want the topic of slavery to be discussed, what happens in terms of slavery?

Sorry for so many questions.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

People a lot smarter than me have argued over this but to survive I think that the WRE will need to withdraw from Britain and consolidate. They will also need to significantly incorporate the Goths into Roman society rather than creating Goth states within Roman land.

1. Vulgar Latin had already diverged pretty far from "proper" Latin by the third century although it was mutually intelligible across regions for centuries after. Proper Latin was replaced by vulgar as the common tongue long before Rome fell. A surviving empire would slow regions drifting apart linguistically but a divergence from Latin itself is almost inevitable. The more internal movement of population the Empire has the less regional drift there will be.

2. Whatever else the Romans were, they were masterful diplomats. I think they'll continue to push where their neighbors are weak and secure alliances and security where they are not without setting a general policy. As a whole though I think that they'll be somewhat more accepting of migrant waves from the rest of Europe since I'm already envisioning them taking in the Goths. Trade will remain vital with their neighbors and I'd expect a continuing of the Latinization that had been occurring for centuries.

3. Gold and slaves. I remember reading once that African slaves remained a profitable trade in Europe well into the Medieval period. I think though that Rome's control over north Africa and Spain may allow them bypass the Sahel and Sahara and trade directly with West Africa via coastal trade which may strangle some of the African trade empires in the cradle.

4. In a world with both a surviving East and West Empire I don't think Islam will get as far as Libya and possibly not even take Egypt. In this scenario the Byzantines will never have a reason to look west and invade Italy, squandering so much wealth and manpower and will be much stronger for it. The Byzantines and Persia will continue their standoff without weakening Egypt and a rising Islam will face two empires at their height. Islam may still spread into Roman lands but I personally don't think it will be by force. I agree that the West wouldn't understand or care about the rise of Islam but a stronger Byzantium means they won't necessarily have to. A Western Empire (even a much reduced one) makes the Eastern stronger militarily and economically.

5. I don't have an answer for this one but I can't imagine it would be much different than how they were treated by the ERE in our history.

6. An agricultural boom would be a huge plus for Rome, helping to stabilize the food situation in western Europe and reduce the barbarian plundering that lead to so much of the destruction of the West.

7. That's something I don't have a good answer for. Large estates farmed by slaves or peasants weren't uncommon after the fall of Rome in some regions but were rarer in others. I think it's likely to vary wildly but the boom in agriculture you discussed would make the large slave driven agricultural industry less profitable and possibly reduce the reliance on slaves in that area.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@Escape Zeppelin Do you believe that the later part of the Byzantine-Sassanid wars began as a result of the wars in the West after the collapse in 476? I do not know if I can agree with that. It seems that the escalation of the conflict was due to internal strife within the Sassanid realms that saw the Byzantines support certain factions in the Sassanid state and thus gain an ally. I do not see these events as caused by the collapse of Rome in the West. Presumably, similar events could happen, but they also may not.

 

[Faeelin]

Questions 1: If the Western Roman Empire continues, what is the development of Latin? For instance, how will the Vulgar Latin break from Latin regionally? Is this possible still, or will Latin continue to dominate general speech of peasantry and urban citizens alike?

I think you see a continued divergence at the local level, but it will be markedly less than OTL. After all, Gaul will have far fewer Germanic migrants, and they'll have less of an influence on the language. So the various dialects will remain closer to Latin, and if there is an overarching empire, you'll see that remain in use.

Question 2: With this continuation, what sort foreign policy with nearby external states be? Such as Ireland and the Picts, will these areas eventually be conquered or be left to their own devices perpetually?

So, this is a very good question! I think you can go either way on this sort of thing, but the western empire was not largely focused on conquest in OTL, and these areas were just considered too poor and backwards to go after. I expect that to remain true.

Have you heard the theory that the Islamic view of the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War reflects Roman influence, and how the Romans saw the world? One big difference between OTL and the ATL is that medieval Christianity will develop with a strong empire overshadowing the church and interactions with it. My guess is Christianization still happens, but it will be seen, more than OTL, as a tool of a foreign power. (But also there's more appeal to it!)

The Byzantines, by the 10th century, understood that one could be Christian and not Roman. I'm not sure if this will happen in the ATL.

Question 3: If this Empire is still ascendent in Africa, what sort of relation can we see develop and at what point will trade develop and relations be created across the Sahel and into West Africa? The trade between such, what goods might Roman merchants find most appealing to have these relations develop? Could slaves be an option, or would Rome not need a slave trade to the same extent that the Abbasid benefitted from?

I would assume the Romans would source slaves from the same places as the medieval world, the slavs of Eastern Europe. It's a lot easier to ship them from there than across the Sahel and Sahara, no?

Question 4: Assuming Islam arises roughly otl, what might Western Rome be in terms of reaction? I cannot personally imagine the West understanding the gravity of the situation and may have to deal with a surging Islamic power into Libya. How might Rome go about defending these lands considering the inability of Byzantium, Visigoths and Berber tribes from defeating the Muslim armies?

. . . . Well, let's hold on now. I think if we assume Islam arises, then there's a lot to think about before you get there. For instance, Egypt and Syria fell pretty quickly, but North Africa held on for a long tiem even in OTL. And to the Western Empire, North Africa is the beating heart of the empire, richer by far than Britain. So I think they'd be do better than the Byzantines!

Question 5: With The collapse of the Gökturk Khaganate in the east and the changing geopolitical situations in the steppes near Europe; how might Rome proceed in combatting first the Slavic migration waves, that will flee from the nomadic armies and how will Rome respond to major nomadic hordes invading their tribal vassals eastward? Could we even see a positive relation between Rome abd these tribal comfedersrions in the form that various Chinese empires embraced their nomadic neighbors through a system of mutual protection and trade?

Maybe? This is how the Romans handled the Germanic tribes in OTL, and the Byzantines tried to control their barbarians in the same way.

Question 6: With the beginnings of ploughing innovations in Gaul and Germania, what effects on Rome does a boom in agricultural productivity do for Rome? Could we see a surge in population similar to the Ming dynastic period?

So this is one of my favorite reasons to explore the Western Empire as a concept. In 400 AD, the Western empire's heart is the Mediterranean. But by 800 and 1200, the center of gravity will shift northwards. But again, the heavy plow seems to have been used in OTL. Maybe. I don't think it's a "could," so much as "will!"

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

@Escape Zeppelin Do you believe that the later part of the Byzantine-Sassanid wars began as a result of the wars in the West after the collapse in 476? I do not know if I can agree with that. It seems that the escalation of the conflict was due to internal strife within the Sassanid realms that saw the Byzantines support certain factions in the Sassanid state and thus gain an ally. I do not see these events as caused by the collapse of Rome in the West. Presumably, similar events could happen, but they also may not.

No I do not believe that the Byzantine-Sassanid war was a result. They had a long history of conflict that was only going to continue well into the future. What I would argue is that Justinian's disastrous wars to retake Italy dramatically weakened the Byzantines and that weakness is what allowed the Sassanids and later Islam to take Egypt. Had Justinian never invaded Italy the Byzantines would have been stronger for the next century which would have left them in a far stronger position to defend themselves.

 

[Jürgen]

I think that even if a Western Roman Empire survives, it will lose periphery regions. The question is how much would it lose.

I think Gaul, Britain, the Alps and the Balkans are given.

I think keeping Africa are necessary for the Empire's survival in the short term. So no Vandal invasions.

I also think someone depopulating Rome, would be necessary. If the capital could be moved it would be great and as such leaving Rome to the Pope.

I think a good POD would be a Ostrogoth victory over the Huns, this would keep the Huns from creating the domino migration effect. Yes we would still see a Germanic expansion, but it will likely be less limited and more like the Alemanni/Suebi expansion.

 

[Faeelin]

I think that even if a Western Roman Empire survives, it will lose periphery regions. The question is how much would it lose.

I think Gaul, Britain, the Alps and the Balkans are given.

Why is Gaul a given?

 

[Faeelin]

No I do not believe that the Byzantine-Sassanid war was a result. They had a long history of conflict that was only going to continue well into the future. What I would argue is that Justinian's disastrous wars to retake Italy dramatically weakened the Byzantines and that weakness is what allowed the Sassanids and later Islam to take Egypt. Had Justinian never invaded Italy the Byzantines would have been stronger for the next century which would have left them in a far stronger position to defend themselves.

People blame Justinian a lot for this, but the worst Byzantine-Sassanid war began in 602, and Justinian died in the 560s.

 

[Jürgen]

Why is Gaul a given?

Because it lies so close to the main population centre of Germania (the Rhine). It's too easy for the Germanic tribes to migrate into the Seine and Rhone basin, and Aquitaine are hard to keep if those two are lost. I don't think it's a done deal. But I have a hard time seeing them being worth the resources to keep the Germanic tribes out, while the Po Valley are also somewhat threaten. I think the iumportant factor would be to keep control over the western Mediterranean to keep the economy alive.

 

[JoshuaTheRoman]

I think that surviving Western Roman Empire will eventually evolve to what we now know as Charlemagne's Empire (which is basically OTL's continuation of the WRE). Italy is just too out-of-position to be ruling Britannia, Gaul, and the Rhine.

 

[123456789blaaa]

@LSCatilina has given good answers on the WRE before. Perhaps he'd like to comment?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@LSCatilina has given good answers on the WRE before. Perhaps he'd like to comment?

It would be interesting to receive his opinion on this, however, I have not seen him (on the site) or spoken with him in several months.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I think that surviving Western Roman Empire will eventually evolve to what we now know as Charlemagne's Empire (which is basically OTL's continuation of the WRE). Italy is just too out-of-position to be ruling Britannia, Gaul, and the Rhine.

This may be possible. If we accept that population growth is likely to explode in the rich soils of Germania and northern Gaul, it may be the case that slowly the centers of Power move northward. However, I can imagine most of the ceremony and pomp to remain in Italy. Such as, coronation and senates, etc...

 

[Faeelin]

Because it lies so close to the main population centre of Germania (the Rhine). It's too easy for the Germanic tribes to migrate into the Seine and Rhone basin, and Aquitaine are hard to keep if those two are lost. I don't think it's a done deal. But I have a hard time seeing them being worth the resources to keep the Germanic tribes out, while the Po Valley are also somewhat threaten. I think the iumportant factor would be to keep control over the western Mediterranean to keep the economy alive.

The problem I have is: 1) The Roman Empire kept Gaul for some 400+ years in OTL, so clearly it's not impossible to keep the barbarians out; 2) Gaul had plenty of resources of its own; after all, the Franks were based in the region between the Seine and the Rhine and pushed into Germany from there; and 3) the fall of the rest of the Empire happened pretty quickly after Gaul fell. So it doesn't seem like Gaul is more indefensible than, say, Iberia. And in OTL Rome arguably held on in Gaul longer than Iberia!

 

[Faeelin]

I think that surviving Western Roman Empire will eventually evolve to what we now know as Charlemagne's Empire (which is basically OTL's continuation of the WRE). Italy is just too out-of-position to be ruling Britannia, Gaul, and the Rhine.

But it's fine for Spain, North Africa, and southern France...

 

[JoshuaTheRoman]

But it's fine for Spain, North Africa, and southern France...

I doubt that they can even hold those territories either, at some point or another, an analogue of the Almoravids or Almohads will emerge; and an empire ruled from Rome isn't in a position to defend Iberia from North Africa.

 

[ar-pharazon]

Didn't in the 450s or 460s some Roman leader have a plan to replicate the conquest of Gaul, Spain and North Africa(as the Roman's did centuries prior)?

Maybe it was Majorian but I recall reading somewhere that some Roman leader around that timeframe had some sort of plan to reconquer lost territories by following the empire's forebears in terms of strategy and campaigning?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I doubt that they can even hold those territories either, at some point or another, an analogue of the Almoravids or Almohads will emerge; and an empire ruled from Rome isn't in a position to defend Iberia from North Africa.

I do not see why not? The Almohads and such were powered not simply by Berber tribal ties but by Islamic identity and perceived losses in Iberia. Their mentality that gave them victories would not exist and the Berber people as a whole would serve as allies of Rome below the frontiers of Tangiers.

What would be the point of the Berbers in the Atlas Mountains invading Rome?

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

1) Honestly, I think it could start or continue (my understanding of Vulgar Latin distinctions are not great) to resemble how Mandarin was used in China. Written exactly the same, but said increasingly differently in the lower and middle classes. With standard Latin becoming a political language, and Greek remaining a prestige language.

This will be increasingly pronounced in a Majorian scenario (my personal choice), because Germanic will be such a strong influence. (But I'll go into that further at the end).

2) Peripheral states really depends on circumstance. Territories near the Rhine make sense to conquer as they've developed and so they are more profitable, and that was the Roman pattern by and large. Hibernia and Catalonia really weren't that interesting economically - but just as ways to reduce the risk to Britannia. So if Britannia isn't conquered, there is little purpose to bothering, and if Britannia is retaken, unless it is profitable enough to make the increased security worthwhile in the short term, then those regions may be ignored in favour of moving the economic lifeblood away from the frontiers.

3) There was trade between Africa and the Sahel since 400BC. So those may simply become stronger. As for slaves, it depends on the way the economy runs. I'd assume a similar demand, because the Romans did have a large slave economy, perhaps more demand - but the route will always be dominated by Salt for Gold. I've always been curious as to whether there was a Sea-Salt economy in Tunisia, but the real salt economy AFAIK is in Morocco - so you could see an alt-Marrakesh be very important if the Romans unite, or at least clientelise the Maghreb. I would also expect (in time), the Romans, via the Berbers, to try and fortify Hassi, like Hassi Messaoud, to make even more money from the trade routes - but that is a way off.

4) If the Romans are strong in the West, chances are the East will be stronger, if they aren't butting heads. Remember, Heraclius came from Africa, the West - unless you have a Western Emperor overthrow the East, and as such throw as many resources at it as possible (which IMO would immediately reduce Islam to an Arabian + Trade religion), otherwise the East will be in a stronger state as it can focus more resources in the East, and has a larger, more economically robust trade partner in the WRE than in the various states of OTL.

As for their approach - I'd expect it to be an endeavour that focuses on Mesopotamia (if taken by Arabs), and the Red Sea. The likelyhood is simply more armies, and manpower. Compared to Arabia, the WRE and ERE combined have manpower to spare, and if they control Africa, they have their own desert cavalry in the Berbers. Whereas the ERE had become used to using the Arabs for that purpose, and then didn't have that tool in their armies any more.

5) Differently to the Germanic ones from the Huns, I fully expect. At least in a Majorian TL - because of the existential state that the WRE was in at the time. I think the Romans may well 'forward-settle' - i.e. go on the offensive to prevent them organising, and then forcibly settling them in those regions, and paying to keep them there as foedi - if it means importing food and slowly Romanising, then so be it. It is more cost effective to do that, as they've learnt in the past.

6) Probably a larger northern population - obviously some food would be exported to the rest of the Empire, so there will be a general population boom, but it'll be significantly higher in the North - potentially causing the Western Empire to rethink how it is organised. It also means that Germanic campaigns are more cost-effective than before.

7) Can't help you there, but if it is invasion-based, I always expect soldiers to be paid in land where possible, but I don't know enough about the Late Roman/Early Frank economy to say in truth.

For me, a surviving West is inevitably going to need to break in two, potentially leading to a Triple-Emperor system of East, West and North - because of the difficulties of Britannia, the settlement of Foedi, and the heavy plow.

I assume a Majorian victory, and as a result, I expect that Foedi will eventually be reorganised into Northern Gaul, or fully integrated, so as to secure the Mediterranean Coast. So northern Gaul may be very Frankish (or whosoever dominates Northern Gaul), to the point the administration may rename the area, to reflect the nature of the countryside. The cities may be more typically Roman than the rest of the region. But with the population rise, and the administrative problems of Britannia - OTL Belgium, and the areas on the Rhine become a really REALLY good place for a Third Capital. Well placed to handle Germania, Britannia, and Northern Gaul - leaving Mediterranean Gaul to the Western Empire. I think it may also become the most culturally divergent - and be the one that both handles any expansion into Germania, and take the brunt of any Slavic migrations, besides the Eastern Empire.

Unlike the WRE and ERE, this Empire is focused on the North Sea rather the Med, and will likely develop a completely different navy - focusing less on larger galleys, as they aren't practical in the North Sea. Probably expanding very little on the Continent, except between the Rhine and the Weser - instead focusing on Britannia, Hibernia, Caledonia, and OTL Denmark. regions that might be useful (pacify an enemy, secure possessions, etc) - but with short and defensible borders. Until the Slavs come, with the Slavs in Eastern Germania Magna, and Germania a bit more compact - it becomes worthwhile expanding into.

I also expect that the WRE and NRE may co-ordinate quite a lot. They'd share that common border, that also has common threats. Plus, the NRE acts as a buffer state more or less, so it benefits the WRE to support the NRE, so there shouldn't be much resistance to lending forces.

 

[Faeelin]

I do not see why not? The Almohads and such were powered not simply by Berber tribal ties but by Islamic identity and perceived losses in Iberia. Their mentality that gave them victories would not exist and the Berber people as a whole would serve as allies of Rome below the frontiers of Tangiers.

What would be the point of the Berbers in the Atlas Mountains invading Rome?

So, one thing to keep in mind is that the Berbers seemed to be going through the centralization that you saw in Germania (and elsewhere in the world) that you get when you border a large empire. They were a major threat to the Vandals, and caused a lot of problems for the Byzantines. This is in contrast to the 1st and 2nd centuries, when the Berbers were pretty quiet and the Romans didn't need to garrison North Africa. So it's possible that you'd see the Berbers causing problems in the ATL.