AHQ: Roman Armada of 468 reconquers north Afric from the vandals, what now?

[Collondi]

Yeah, again, a lot of the way it's viewed now owes its origins to Justinian era ERE propaganda to justify his military adventure. Obviously the Ostrogoths are not quite the same, but it was, in effect, a civil war, and a quite minor one at that-Odoacer didn't survive, but once again the Roman state apparatus in Italy escaped pretty much unscathed.

Whether or not Ostrogothic Italy is really the “Roman Empire” doesn’t interest me. It’s all made up by historians anyway (though out of curiosity: do you consider modern France to be the continuation of the Roman Empire? After all Clovis taking over was a very similar story to Theodoric taking over. In both cases the overall aristocracy and administration of the Empire didn’t change much. At what point can the line between Rome and France be drawn?)

Unless I’m misunderstanding, the general consensus in this thread seems to be that if Rome took back Africa they could recover enough to prevent a Gothic takeover, or for that matter a Burgundian takeover, or a takeover by any number of foreign tribes. I’m skeptical of that claim. I want to know how retaking Africa would help Rome enough to change the events of the late 5th century

Also if Theodoric does take over, it’s worth exploring how the Goths controlling Africa impacts the 6th century, especially if whoever is emperor decides they want to conquer the west like Justinian did

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Whether or not Ostrogothic Italy is really the “Roman Empire” doesn’t interest me. It’s all made up by historians anyway (though out of curiosity: do you consider modern France to be the continuation of the Roman Empire? After all Clovis taking over was a very similar story to Theodoric taking over. In both cases the overall aristocracy and administration of the Empire didn’t change much. At what point can the line between Rome and France be drawn?)

Well it's less based on what historians say than what people who lived in Ostrogothic Italy said. They seemed to believe they were still living in the Roman Empire and make clear distinctions between them and the areas lost in the previous century to the Vandals, Franks, etc.

Unless I’m misunderstanding, the general consensus in this thread seems to be that if Rome took back Africa they could recover enough to prevent a Gothic takeover, or for that matter a Burgundian takeover, or a takeover by any number of foreign tribes. I’m skeptical of that claim. I want to know how retaking Africa would help Rome enough to change the events of the late 5th century

To understand why requires understanding that the imperial apparatus did not end in the 5th century in Italy. Once you realize that, it becomes more understandable why North Africa could be so valuable-it is a land that, once reconquered would once more be a Roman territory well insulated from barbarian incursions, thus, almost by default, wealthy. It was arguably the wealthiest province in the west at the time of its capture, and to my understanding the Vandal takeover did not really do much serious damage to the estates and urban centers that brought it that wealth (and they also likely co-opted the imperial apparatus to manage taxes, so that also most likely remained intact).

Additionally, a major political problem for the emperors from the 430s on (aside from being broke) was the Vandal control over the grain supply. Both via their control of North Africa, and via their periodic raiding in the Mediterranean (this, specifically, is what made defeating the Vandals of such interest to Constantinople, they were raiding trade routes in the Eastern Med). At a drop of a hat Genseric could cut off the grain supply to Italy and completely throw imperial politics into a tailspin. And on top of that, Vandal sea power made it very dangerous to direct military resources anywhere else-there was always the worry that they could launch raids while imperial forces were busy elsewhere. This lessened once Genseric was out of the picture and his successors were significantly less aggressive, but while he was around the very presence of the Vandals provided a chaos element at the very center of imperial power.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Let’s not forget Theoderic was Emperor of the West in all but name.

Sometimes even in name, as one senator (Decius Basilius) left behind an inscription calling him Augustus.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Unless I’m misunderstanding, the general consensus in this thread seems to be that if Rome took back Africa they could recover enough to prevent a Gothic takeover, or for that matter a Burgundian takeover, or a takeover by any number of foreign tribes. I’m skeptical of that claim. I want to know how retaking Africa would help Rome enough to change the events of the late 5th century

You don't even need Africa to preserve the WRE. Theodoric clearly showed that Italy could prosper without it. But the addition of Africa would be a welcome one and help the emperor keep himself at the top of in the hierarchy of this new "commonwealth of the western realms".

Also if Theodoric does take over, it’s worth exploring how the Goths controlling Africa impacts the 6th century, especially if whoever is emperor decides they want to conquer the west like Justinian did

The Goths taking over Italy does not automatically imply a takeover of Africa. The local military leader would just go rogue or switch to ERE allegiance if the Gothic invasion did not have eastern blessing

Well it's less based on what historians say than what people who lived in Ostrogothic Italy said. They seemed to believe they were still living in the Roman Empire and make clear distinctions between them and the areas lost in the previous century to the Vandals, Franks, etc.

Indeed, this is something that is also highlighted a few times in Procopius. The Italo-Roman envoys talking to Belisarius at the onset of the war were of the mindset that the Romans in Africa truly needed to be freed from their slavery, however that was not true for them, since they were already free.

Additionally, a major political problem for the emperors from the 430s on (aside from being broke) was the Vandal control over the grain supply. Both via their control of North Africa, and via their periodic raiding in the Mediterranean (this, specifically, is what made defeating the Vandals of such interest to Constantinople, they were raiding trade routes in the Eastern Med). At a drop of a hat Genseric could cut off the grain supply to Italy and completely throw imperial politics into a tailspin. And on top of that, Vandal sea power made it very dangerous to direct military resources anywhere else-there was always the worry that they could launch raids while imperial forces were busy elsewhere. This lessened once Genseric was out of the picture and his successors were significantly less aggressive, but while he was around the very presence of the Vandals provided a chaos element at the very center of imperial power.

It was very unlucky that IOTL the WRE vanished around the same time as Gaiseric died.

 

[Andristan]

It is my understanding that the conquest of Africa by Belisarius was the only one of Justinian's wars of aggression that actually paid for itself and produced a net gain for the Empire. This should mean that doing so 60 years earlier would be a bigger gain, as the Vandals after Gaiseric did a lot of infighting and damage to the economy of North Africa so preventing that should give the WRE a bigger gain than the ERE got in the 530s when they took it. Roman North Africa, after all, was rich enough to support a successful Imperial claimant on its own(Heraclius), I see no reason it would not be a major boost for Anthemius and Leo in both soft power and increased resources.

 

[Collondi]

Well it's less based on what historians say than what people who lived in Ostrogothic Italy said. They seemed to believe they were still living in the Roman Empire and make clear distinctions between them and the areas lost in the previous century to the Vandals, Franks, etc.

Just like Theodoric, Clovis also presented himself as ruling Gaul on behalf of the Romans. And the people living in Ostrogothic Italy had no concept of the idea that Rome even could fall when it had been around for centuries, the people living in Gaul and Spain thought the same thing. So again, where do you draw the line? Again, not disputing anything here, just curious

To understand why requires understanding that the imperial apparatus did not end in the 5th century in Italy. Once you realize that, it becomes more understandable why North Africa could be so valuable-it is a land that, once reconquered would once more be a Roman territory well insulated from barbarian incursions, thus, almost by default, wealthy. It was the arguably the wealthiest province in the west at the time of its capture, and to my understanding the Vandal takeover did not really do much serious damage to the estates and urban centers that brought it that wealth (and they also likely co-opted the imperial apparatus to manage taxes, so that also most likely remained intact).

Additionally, a major political problem for the emperors from the 430s on (aside from being broke) was the Vandal control over the grain supply. Both via their control of North Africa, and via their periodic raiding in the Mediterranean (this, specifically, is what made defeating the Vandals of such interest to Constantinople, they were raiding trade routes in the Eastern Med). At a drop of a hat Genseric could cut off the grain supply to Italy and completely throw imperial politics into a tailspin. And on top of that, Vandal sea power made it very dangerous to direct military resources anywhere else-there was always the worry that they could launch raids while imperial forces were busy elsewhere. This lessened once Genseric was out of the picture and his successors were significantly less aggressive, but while he was around the very presence of the Vandals provided a chaos element at the very center of imperial power.

You make a good point, and I’m somewhat convinced. Still, the emperor needs more than just money to fix the biggest issue, which is the nearly defunct Roman military. I can't find any estimates for the army's size in this period. Majorian at least proved that the military wasn't entirely gone, but they can't be that strong since they weren't able to stop the Vandals from sacking Rome, and as others have pointed out they mostly relied on the ERE to help conquer Africa. To fix the manpower issue, Anthemius needs to be able to reassert control over the aristocracy, but they could just call for help from foreigners like they did OTL, which Anthemius can't fight off because he doesn't have a functioning military. If he has to rely on the ERE for military support, then the 470's aren't a period of recovery, they're a period of civil war and fierce resistance by the aristocracy of the WRE where Anthemius depends heavily on the ERE for support

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Just like Theodoric, Clovis also presented himself as ruling Gaul on behalf of the Romans. And the people living in Ostrogothic Italy had no concept of the idea that Rome even could fall when it had been around for centuries, the people living in Gaul and Spain thought the same thing. So again, where do you draw the line? Again, not disputing anything here, just curious

Frankish Gaul clearly operated as something new and distinct, and more importantly, the Romano-Gauls themselves understood it as such. There was no imperial legitimacy granted to Clovis, he was operating as a barbarian king one that ruled over and on behalf of Romans but as separate from them, operating a state based on Frankish law and Frankish inheritance practices.

Theodoric was a paid agent of Constantinople, acting as the leader of a force of imperial foederati. He was actively involved in imperial politics and desired an official position within the imperial apparatus that would legitimize him. By sending him and his forces on an expedition to oust Odoacer Zeno was killing two birds with one stone-turning a potential internal political rival into an ally and deposing someone who was, in effect, a usurper. Theodoric may have had a lot of de facto independence but he was still officially subordinate to Constantinople. This is an important distinction from Clovis, who was in all aspects a foreign conquerer-he could paint himself as a restorer of Roman order only because Roman order had already collapsed in northern Gaul before he went a conquering.

To fix the manpower issue, Anthemius needs to be able to reassert control over the aristocracy, but they could just call for help from foreigners like they did OTL, which Anthemius can't fight off because he doesn't have a functioning military.

Fwiw despite his outsider status Anthemius seemed to be relatively popular among the Italian aristocracy, as evidenced in part by him residing almost entirely in Rome, where the Italian aristocracy congregated. The problem for WRE emperors at this stage was actually winning the support of the Gallic aristocracy. Roman authority in Gaul really only collapsed when Avitus was deposed, and not because of military failure but because Avitus was the Gallic elite's man. The Gallic elite had been frustrated ever since the start of the 5th century with Italian aristocratic dominance over the imperial court (it's why Constantine III for instance found it so easy to sweep into Gaul, Stilicho does not seem to have been popular there) and the center of imperial power shifted further south from Trevororum to Arles (southern gaul being more in tune with the Italian aristocracy and thus a more secure base of power). Anyway, a lot of Majorian's time spent in Gaul was spent trying to win back the support of the Gallic aristocracy after Avitus was deposed (which now included the Goths, in Aquitaine, who were also big Avitus backers).

So this is all to say, reasserting at least nominal Roman authority in the region is less a military problem than a political one. As it happens, Anthemius did try a military campaign against the Visigoths in 470, where he recruited the support of the newly established Britons in Brittany, but he seemed to have suffered another military defeat. I guess a big question becomes-how much of the massive force assembled for North Africa gets transferred over to Anthemius's control? He is after all Leo's man, and Leo has already invested considerable political and military capital into solidifying his rule in the west. We can already presume the forces of Marcellinus are at Anthemius's disposal, and he has already proven himself capable in dispatching the Vandals in Sicily. Assuming even a small fraction get transferred into Anthemius's command for his planned Visigothic campaign, that won't be enough to extinguish the Visigoths but it might be enough to bring them back into line and link up Anthemius's territory with that of Ecdicius, bringing him back into the imperial fold.

 

[Andristan]

I would argue that Anthemius's problem in Gaul is a legitimacy issue, he was seen as the "Greek" emperor, as per Sidonias Apollinaris, an outsider and interloper who could be de-recognized as ruler and replaced via the "law of nations" with the Visigoth king Euric.
In this TL, with a successful re-conquest of Africa, Marcellinus not murdered, and Ricimer put back in his place in an "eastern" style of several equal magister milites, Anthemius has shown that he is a good bet on sticking around. Arvandus might not even start his conspiracy dividing Gaul between the Burgundians and the Visigoths against him with Euric, and even if he does, Anthemius still has his OTL army, a better general(Marcellinus), possibly a more motivated Ricimer who is linked to Gunderic and at the very least his OTL allies- Aegidius and Rigothamus so ATL Deols could end up very differently, though Aegidius is probably likely to still perish in the plague.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

You don't even need Africa to preserve the WRE. Theodoric clearly showed that Italy could prosper without it. But the addition of Africa would be a welcome one and help the emperor keep himself at the top of in the hierarchy of this new "commonwealth of the western realms".

Africa was the breadbasket of the west, so without it there was this looming sword of Damocles hanging over the Imperial Court's head where its trade and food supply could easily be held hostage by an angry Vandal King.

It's position reminds me of the late stage eastern Roman Empire. It could have survived in the Balkans as a regional power with its core based in Greece, but without Anatolia it was cut off from its tradtional manpower pools and grains supply.

 

[Count Romanus]

Fwiw despite his outsider status Anthemius seemed to be relatively popular among the Italian aristocracy, as evidenced in part by him residing almost entirely in Rome, where the Italian aristocracy congregated. The problem for WRE emperors at this stage was actually winning the support of the Gallic aristocracy. Roman authority in Gaul really only collapsed when Avitus was deposed, and not because of military failure but because Avitus was the Gallic elite's man. The Gallic elite had been frustrated ever since the start of the 5th century with Italian aristocratic dominance over the imperial court (it's why Constantine III for instance found it so easy to sweep into Gaul, Stilicho does not seem to have been popular there) and the center of imperial power shifted further south from Trevororum to Arles (southern gaul being more in tune with the Italian aristocracy and thus a more secure base of power). Anyway, a lot of Majorian's time spent in Gaul was spent trying to win back the support of the Gallic aristocracy after Avitus was deposed (which now included the Goths, in Aquitaine, who were also big Avitus backers).

true. Anthemius despite being an easterner enjoyed good relations with the western aristocracy. the debate on when Roman authority in Gaul collapsed is a lengthy one. but the gap between the Gallic elite and the imperial government in Italy was caused by Honorius when he took most of the troops in Gaul to defend Italy leaving Gaul open to invasion and devastation, and what made the problem worse was that the Italian aristocracy didn't want to share their power in the Senate and government with the Gallic aristocracy whom they viewed as inferior to them. Avitus was the first emperor to address the problem but his methods along with his ties with the Visigoths cost him the throne. Majorian also attempted to fix the problem by promoting non Italians to senatorial posts but he was also killed and his achievements scrapped. Anthemius was also aware of this problem and resorted to Majorian's methods which proved successful in the short term, however when Anthemius was murdered the problem came back, Julius Nepos was the last emperor to try and fix the problem which he did by promoting Ecdicius the son of Avitus as magister militum but this ended when Nepos lost Arvernia to the Visigoths, and this time the Gallic aristocracy were permanently cut adrift from the dying WRE.

So this is all to say, reasserting at least nominal Roman authority in the region is less a military problem than a political one. As it happens, Anthemius did try a military campaign against the Visigoths in 470, where he recruited the support of the newly established Britons in Brittany, but he seemed to have suffered another military defeat. I guess a big question becomes-how much of the massive force assembled for North Africa gets transferred over to Anthemius's control? He is after all Leo's man, and Leo has already invested considerable political and military capital into solidifying his rule in the west. We can already presume the forces of Marcellinus are at Anthemius's disposal, and he has already proven himself capable in dispatching the Vandals in Sicily. Assuming even a small fraction get transferred into Anthemius's command for his planned Visigothic campaign, that won't be enough to extinguish the Visigoths but it might be enough to bring them back into line and link up Anthemius's territory with that of Ecdicius, bringing him back into the imperial fold.

imperial control of Gaul had been shaky pretty much since the time of Honorius. but i think it was when Majorian was killed that it became even more shaky. mainly because when Aegidius revolted he had most of the troops in Gaul under his command, which left the parts of Gaul that remained under imperial control without enough troops to defend it, it's likely Ricimer gave some of the imperial territory to the Visigoths for this reason as well as keeping Aegidius away from Italy. and as for military forces Marcellinus would make a huge contribution as his army was considered the strongest and most organized fighting force in the late WRE, and if he survives maybe he could lead the campaign. Anthemius doesn't need to worry about Ecdicius but i do wonder if he could bring Aegidius and Syagrius and their troops back under imperial control. that would be beneficial as well.

with a successful re-conquest of Africa, Marcellinus not murdered, and Ricimer put back in his place in an "eastern" style of several equal magister milites, Anthemius has shown that he is a good bet on sticking around. Arvandus might not even start his conspiracy dividing Gaul between the Burgundians and the Visigoths against him with Euric, and even if he does, Anthemius still has his OTL army, a better general(Marcellinus), possibly a more motivated Ricimer who is linked to Gunderic and at the very least his OTL allies- Aegidius and Rigothamus so ATL Deols could end up very differently, though Aegidius is probably likely to still perish in the plague.

indeed. Marcellinus could be of huge benefit to the WRE as he was a friend of Aetius and expert in military affairs. Ricimer however is a nasty piece of work, with Marcellinus alive Anthemius could succeed in keeping him in check, but Ricimer is not one to accept defeat, he'll try something eventually. but with a steady position Anthemius could do to Ricimer what Leo did to Aspar. as for Arvandus i don't think any of this would have an effect on his conspiracy. he seems to have been motivated by ambition and thought he could do what Avitus did. but he wasn't much of a threat in OTL so i don't think it really matters what he does in TTL.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Africa was the breadbasket of the west, so without it there was this looming sword of Damocles hanging over the Imperial Court's head where its trade and food supply could easily be held hostage by an angry Vandal King.

It's position reminds me of the late stage eastern Roman Empire. It could have survived in the Balkans as a regional power with its core based in Greece, but without Anatolia it was cut off from its tradtional manpower pools and grains supply.

I believe people over exaggerate this statement (I think it was Heather who came up with this notion first) that without Africa, Roman Italy was doomed.T he bigger problem was an aggressive barbarian warlord who had no qualms exploiting his position of power to pick on a defenseless WRE (kinda like Euric). You can see how the moment Gaiseric died, the problem pretty much disappeared. And when it comes to food supply, Italian agriculture experienced somewhat of a boom in the late V/early VI century, possibly as a result of African imports no longer being there to compete with Italian production, thus lowering prices and profits.

 

[Andristan]

To deal with the northern Romans in Gaul, just wait for Aegidius to die and Syagrius to take over just about a year from our POD while continuing OTL policy of sending aid, and there is a good chance of them voluntarily acceding to Imperial control, especially if ATl Deols is a victory for the Roman alliance, though that does change things for the dealing with the Allemanni invading Italy in 470(ish).

Of course, I subscribe to the notion that Aegidius and Syagrius after him were linked to Imperial pretenders in Britain and Armorica, rulers and successors of Constantine III, of the family of Ambrosius Aurelianus, so in that circumstance Syagrius probably would not join Anthemius, seeing as he is the magister milites for this British Emperor.

 

[Count Romanus]

I believe people over exaggerate this statement (I think it was Heather who came up with this notion first) that without Africa, Roman Italy was doomed.T he bigger problem was an aggressive barbarian warlord who had no qualms exploiting his position of power to pick on a defenseless WRE (kinda like Euric). You can see how the moment Gaiseric died, the problem pretty much disappeared. And when it comes to food supply, Italian agriculture experienced somewhat of a boom in the late V/early VI century, possibly as a result of African imports no longer being there to compete with Italian production, thus lowering prices and profits.

I agree. the whole notion that the WRE was doomed to fail without Africa is a bit unrealistic, but it isn't completely inaccurate. the reason the loss of africa was such a blow to the WRE and it's economy was because (possibly as a result of the Gothic devastation in 410) Italy relied heavily on Africa for grain and financial resources. when the Vandals took Africa, then everything was lost. there were food shortages and the economy was bloated, and this wasn't helped when Attila invaded northern Italy and devastated several cities. and Gaiseric's raids did pretty much the same amount of damage in southern Italy. the reforms that Majorian made were not just for purging corruption. i think they were also mean't to make Italy self sufficient enough to not need Africa. but the Senatorial aristocracy as we know didn't like his reforms and after his death they were repealed. if the WRE was still around when Gaiseric died, it might have been able to recover. but would probably remain limited to Italy.

 

[Count Romanus]

To deal with the northern Romans in Gaul, just wait for Aegidius to die and Syagrius to take over just about a year from our POD while continuing OTL policy of sending aid, and there is a good chance of them voluntarily acceding to Imperial control, especially if ATl Deols is a victory for the Roman alliance, though that does change things for the dealing with the Allemanni invading Italy in 470(ish).

Of course, I subscribe to the notion that Aegidius and Syagrius after him were linked to Imperial pretenders in Britain and Armorica, rulers and successors of Constantine III, of the family of Ambrosius Aurelianus, so in that circumstance Syagrius probably would not join Anthemius, seeing as he is the magister milites for this British Emperor.

Aegidius dying would not make the domain of Soissons willing to return to imperial control. What would have to be done to at least make them consider returning to the WRE is to kill Ricimer. Though it's a bit of a surprise to me that they never sought reconciliation with the WRE after Ricimer's death. But this was probably because they preferred having a government that was physically present rather than one in distant Italy (not to mention they would have been sick of the Italians dominated the imperial government and treating the Gallo Romans as inferior provincials). And I am not aware of an invasion of Italy by the Alemanni in AD 470, do you mean the invasion that Majorian defeated? That was in 457. Whether Aegidius or Syagrius had links with the Britons and Armoricans I do not know. But Ambrosius Aurelianus was not anything like Constantine III.

 

[Andristan]

Gregory of Tours tells us that Childeric and Odoacer defeat an invasion of allemanni into Italy the following year after the victory over the visigoths with Comes Paul and Childeric's franks so around 470-471.
On the submitting to WRE after Ricimer, probably cause Orestes was no better and his 2nd in command was the guy who had been pillaging them 5-6 years prior.

 

[Count Romanus]

On the submitting to WRE after Ricimer, probably cause Orestes was no better and his 2nd in command was the guy who had been pillaging them 5-6 years prior.

Well they could have tried reconciliation when Nepos was Emperor and before Orestes was Magister Militum.

 

[Andristan]

Honestly, with the swift turnover of emperors going on, I dont see any reason they would try to reconcile with the WRE. Nepos was in power for a year before Orestes tossed him out, and Nepos had kicked out Glybrius after he had maybe a year, who himself had replaced Olybrius, again, ruler for maybe a year. No Emperor after Anthemius was strong enough to make any of the disparate Roman successor states want to rejoin. Why join forces with WRE, if all it means is increasing your enemies with no or not much of a corresponding increase in strength?
If this POD goes through, then Anthemius and Marcellinus, possbily Ricimer can and most likely will intervene in Gaul to aid Sidonius Apollinaris and Aegidius/Syagrius. I think that the ATL Deols is probable to go the same as in OTL, just due to the fact that I dont believe Anthemius could manage to get his house in order in time to come to the aid of the Britons and Syagrius with Ricimer being untrusted. But with a bigger, better army and Ricimer subdued, Anthemiolus and his expedition should occur sooner and perform better, pushing the Visigoths back into Aquitaine or possible Hispania.
The next question is, since Anthemius is doing better, can he survive the death of his patron in the East, Leo when he passes? Especially knowing it was very turbulent in OTL, TTL it is going to be worse as Basilicus has a better reputation, with his success over the Vandals in Africa to his name.

 

[Count Romanus]

The next question is, since Anthemius is doing better, can he survive the death of his patron in the East, Leo when he passes? Especially knowing it was very turbulent in OTL, TTL it is going to be worse as Basilicus has a better reputation, with his success over the Vandals in Africa to his name.

Anthemius only lost stability of his position due to his failures against the Vandals and the Visigoths. if he succeeds against both of them, he'll probably get credit for outdoing Majorian!. as for the east, there is even more of a possibility of civil war, there will of course be Leo ii and Zeno, then there will be Basiliscus and also Anthemius' son Marcianus. Basiliscus may have more support in his coup against Zeno and Anthemius will most likely want his son on the eastern throne (Anthemius will probably be succeded in the west by his other son Anthemiolus)