Yes, but wouldn't there still be attempted population movements into Italy like the historical Ostrogoths? At the very least there will still be attempted sacks of Rome
Of course. Such things are bound to happen eventually. But whether these attempted invasions prove successful depends on the current stability of the Empire.
Theses Arabs were orthodox right? If so then there less likely to tear the empire apart then the Arian Germanic tribesMavia's Tanukhid Arabs, as Dragos had mentioned, wouldn't have lost their prestige and would likely have filled in a role similar to that of the Germanic tribes had on the Western Roman Empire - likely Romanized Arab families would climb up the social ladder and may eventually become Emperors themselves. Maybe soft Byzantine influence would encourage the creation of a Greek-derived alphabet for the Arabic language, maybe spread by Roman-educated Orthodox clergymen?
why would North Africa not feudalize like the rest of the western empire? Why is there a chance for complete independence for only North Africa?I really want to read this TL, with a Western Roman Shogunate, a bit stronger Eastern Roman Empire, Romanizing Arabs....
I think you could still see peripheral parts of the WRE break off. Britannia's gone and probably goes a similar route to OTL and North Africa might break free or else realign to the ERE (is this plausible?). Hispania, Gallia, and Italia all feudalize; I'm imagining an alt-HRE level of decentralization.
What happens to Germania?
wouldnt a western empire with only Italy be already dead? Africa provide the grain while Spain provided the silver and gold and Gaul the troops.Any chance of a province like Africa or Hispania breaking away and forming an independent realm during a period of mild instability? A scenario with a much smaller WRE confined to Italia would be interesting.
why would North Africa not feudalize like the rest of the western empire? Why is there a chance for complete independence for only North Africa?
North Africa isn't the only region that could break free, but the geographical limitations mean that if it were left to its own devices for a while it could more easily break free and defend itself with a navy than, say, Hispania.
Theses Arabs were orthodox right? If so then there less likely to tear the empire apart then the Arian Germanic tribes
Down the line, this is going to cause religious issues between the ERE and the WRE. Valens was an Arian and death and failure essentially killed it in the ERE. If he wins, and Arianism persists in the East there will be trouble between the Nicene WRE and the Arian ERE,
But Africa was one of the most romanized part of the empire. Why an independence when you can play for the entire west? Also isn't Spain farther from Rome then Carthage? And why would the west focus on Spain but not North Africa?North Africa isn't the only region that could break free, but the geographical limitations mean that if it were left to its own devices for a while it could more easily break free and defend itself with a navy than, say, Hispania.
But Africa was one of the most romanized part of the empire. Why an independence when you can play for the entire west? Also isn't Spain farther from Rome then Carthage? And why would the west focus on Spain but not North Africa?
But Africa was one of the most romanized part of the empire. Why an independence when you can play for the entire west? Also isn't Spain farther from Rome then Carthage? And why would the west focus on Spain but not North Africa?
Excellant point. As much as I like the idea of an Independent Semi-Romanized state of Hispania, I don't know how much of a possibility it would be. I should look into making a timeline exploring this concept.
There's no reason why this would be the case. Rome did not have a tradition of weak figurehead emperors before Valentinian II. There is no reason to assume that would be the case ITTL. With Valens still alive, this means there will be no Theodosian dynasty. If Magnus Maximus still revolts against Gratian, which isn't necessarily guaranteed to happen, Valens would be in a better position than Theodosius was to respond and help his nephew. You would avoid the debilitating civil wars that wrecked the Western Roman Empire during Theodosius's reign, and would have more far more political stability in both empires. More importantly, during the first decade of the 5th century, the east and western empires (if you could even necessarily call them that, the divisions weren't really formal yet since there's no Theodosius ITTL) would be working much more closely together, rather than the antagonism that prevailed during Stilicho's time.I'd see the Western Roman Empire becoming something akin to the Shogunate: if the Emperor becomes a relatively powerless figurehead, the Magister Militum would become the person with the actual reigns of power.
It would be interesting to see what happens when the WRE finally does fall. I doubt that the Goths, Vandals, Burgundians or even the Huns would be much of a problem (assuming that they don't form some sort of unlikely pact with one another). The very best case scenario for the alternate decline of the WRE would be a gradual balkanization, would it not?
Yes you would need a navy for North Africa but it too interconted to the Roman world for a non outside force to declare independence.It's not so much that there's a specific desire for Africa to break free, it's that it's the region that would have the easiest time doing so because it's overseas. If Hispania tried to leave the Empire it's relatively easy to march an army over; if Africa left there would be a naval component to deal with.
Yes, do make a TL with this PoD please; there's a lot of fascinating butterflies cuz it's such a dynamic time in history!