Max Sinister
Banned
Thermopylae said:
Yes, but WI HE starts the war first? Why being Western Emperor alone if you can have all the empire?
Alternate Fall of the Roman Empire...
- Thread starter Thermopylae
- Start date
Yes, but WI HE starts the war first? Why being Western Emperor alone if you can have all the empire?
Thermopylae said:
What Western Army? The Western Armies of the later 5th century were either the Huns (whom Aetius favored) or the Germanic tribes with a very loose Roman officer core depending on who the Romans were fighting. The legions were long dead by the end of the 5th century.
DominusNovus said:
Nope, can't say I believe you on that one. Honoria offered to Attila the WHOLE empire as her dowry, and when Valentinian turned him down, he struck at the Empire. Attila didn't want to strike at Northern Italy because he knew it would be easier to take Gaul first, then work his way in. He was stopped at Chalons.
Nope. The problems of the Empire he inheirts will keep him too busy. For one thing, he would have to deal with unenthuastic Romans (at this point in Roman history, young men would cut off their right thumbs rather than go into the army. Hence the development of the foederatii system). The only thing keeping the army from revolting at the moment of his coronation is the army's loyalty to Aetius, who is Attila's friend. Second, his legitimacy would probably be compromised if he invaded. Attila at least needed to keep up the facade that he was a true Roman Emperor. Lastly, he already led the Huns into the ERE years earlier, and they didn't have the strength to take Constantinople, much less the whole ERE...
Not quite my good man. The foederatii were supplements to the Roman army, which was still a force to be reckoned with, but was under incompetent leadership. Problem is is that the Roman army during this period was doing garrison duty in the lands of the foederatii, which they absolutely HAD to do.
Had the Romans left, revolt was certain. So when you hear about major battles during this time, you hear of a mostly foederate army, which creates the illusion that this was the WHOLE Roman army. Which you have just learned is not the case, since the Roman army was performing their garrison duties.
HueyLong said:
None, by this point in time. You just had to have the backing of the Senate, or, failing that, a powerful military general. Or, failing that, an influential Barbarian warlord...
Edit: No, I shouldn't say that. TECHNICALLY you had to be the heir to the previous emperor. But this was frequently ignored...
Last edited:
HueyLong said:
It may have been in law, but even if it was it REALLY didn't matter. The poor leadership abilities of the late Roman Emperors meant that their heirs really weren't their heirs if catch my meaning...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HonoriaThermopylae said:
It was half the empire. Even if it was the entire empire, it was the office of emperor. It also was entirely his interpretation of it all.
DominusNovus said:
Well then I suppose the real PoD is if Honoria offers the whole Empire, is it?
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Rome survives the crises between the Gracchi and Julius Caesar as a republic. The Republic continues expansion (which it did much more than the Empire ever did), absorbing territory beyond the Rhine and Danube until overexpansion triggers a governmental crisis around 500 AD causes the of breakup of Europe. Probably the Republic becomes a bunch of squabbling little militaristic republics by at best, but whatever happens, Roman Europe at this point is much better placed to weather the crises of the Migration Period than the Empire was, even possibly handling Attila.
Of course, this larger, more prosperous Roman Europe is considered worthy of conquest by the Mongols, unlike Christian Europe of the 1200's. From their stronghold on the Hungarian Plain, the Mongol Khanate of Rum conquer much of Europe, and are forced to almost entirely depopulate it because of the deep-running roots of Roman institutions.
Probably pockets of Romans will survive in Spain, Anatolia, South Italy, the Balkans, and North Africa. But with Hulagu's gruesome sack of Rome, any chance of Roman unity is gone, and the name "Rome" is remembered better by history as the name of a Mongol Khanate rather than a great Republic.
Europe never rises to dominance over the rest of the world, even after its recovery and the expulsion of the Mongols.
Of course any attempt to save the Roman Republic is just delaying its inevitable collapse, unless radical political reforms are made. Like in my timeline, which I have hijacked this dead thread to advertise.
Of course, this larger, more prosperous Roman Europe is considered worthy of conquest by the Mongols, unlike Christian Europe of the 1200's. From their stronghold on the Hungarian Plain, the Mongol Khanate of Rum conquer much of Europe, and are forced to almost entirely depopulate it because of the deep-running roots of Roman institutions.
Probably pockets of Romans will survive in Spain, Anatolia, South Italy, the Balkans, and North Africa. But with Hulagu's gruesome sack of Rome, any chance of Roman unity is gone, and the name "Rome" is remembered better by history as the name of a Mongol Khanate rather than a great Republic.
Europe never rises to dominance over the rest of the world, even after its recovery and the expulsion of the Mongols.
Of course any attempt to save the Roman Republic is just delaying its inevitable collapse, unless radical political reforms are made. Like in my timeline, which I have hijacked this dead thread to advertise.