An earlier fall of the Roman Empire

Thank you for clearing things up about the rather complex political situation in Africa. In my attempt to draft a quickshot out of my head, how Africa could become independent, I obviously messed a bit around.
Well, it's admittedly not a very much vulgarized regional history (bit helpful that I had access to Le Bohec, Modéran and Laroui to check first :D), so it's hardly blamable.

If we look to Peter Heathers theory about the Fall of Rome, the invasion of Africa by the Vandals was the point of no return. Even if a lot of historians diesagree with his so called shock-theory, almost all agree to this point of no return.
Oh I agree with you on this, but it's more of a last drop than a pivotal point itself : a Roman Empire that would still count on a not too damaged Italy and some provinces (let's say, without exclusive, part of Spain or southern Gaul) could have enough ressources to hold on on its own.

It is highly unlikely that a german tribe of the 3rd century migrates as far south as the Vandals did in the 5th century.
Well Franks and Saxons raided western regions up to Hispania, Herulii and Goths up to Greece, so I wouldn't rule out a Mediterranean Barbarian presence with a united Rome collapsing.

That said, I think that Barbarians (which may be more Germans and Sarmatians, rather than just Germans there, even if much of the latter were thoroughly sarmatized) would be that of a political force they were in the Vth IOTL without being as structured they were.
A more gradual political takeover, not unlike how Turks took precedence in Xth/XIth century, may be more likely in a first time.

You'd argue that it's what happened IOTL, but it's a bit different : with the IIIrd and IVth revival, Barbarian groups were even more importantly romanized and structured along Roman political lines, "fitting" more the late Imperial model and more quickly absorbing Roman elites and being on top of Romano-German kingdoms.

ITTL, I'd expect "dukes" or emperors wannabe to use them as Aetius used Huns IOTL : a convenient taskforce; that would likely take more power with time.

It's how you may end to see Barbarians in Africa : a barbarian military force being considered as more trustworthy than locals with more immediate and clear political agenda; and eventually taking on (partially or completely) "ducal" entities.

Would that fit your propositions for the OP?
 
Quintillus, the man that wrecked the Roman empire

I have been reading the quite interesting latest posts. It seems to me that an earlier fall of the Roman empire could have been possible, but unlikely. It would have required incompetent leadership and bad luck of monumental proportion, but this is, after all, what really happened OTL (the battle of Adrianople should have been won by the Romans on paper, the Byzantine should have been able to reclaim Africa province in 468, as discussed, etc.).

I have been given some more thought to a scenario that involves Quintillus, the brother of Cladius Gothicus. Agricola scenario involving Postumus and Gallienus is quite interesting and solves the problem of annihilating the Roman army, so creating the necessary power vacuum. However, I think that a story with Quintillus could also have some dramatic interest. Just for fun, this is the proposed timeline. Please let me know if it is not viable, especially from a military point of view, and I will not further pursuit it.

In this scenario, Quintillus seizes power with the support of the Senate as OTL. Aurelian rebels and is acclaimed by his legions in Sirmium. But here the story diverges: Aurelian dies before confronting Quintillus troops. A possibility is that he is killed by spies sent by Quintillus. Or he could die of natural causes, or be killed by a secretary or a slave, as in real life at Caenophrurium. The particular way as this happens is not tremendously important. The important point is that the military coup unfold leaving Quintillus in power and the best legions of the empire disaffected.

I will assume that Quintillus is a military non-entity (my apologies to the deceased, I do not know much about him and I am aware that I am conducting a character assassination. But it is kind of fun, so please allow me some liberties with it :)). After celebrations for the new regime are over, he will have to deal with the incursions from the Alamanni into Italy, as Aurelian did. He confronted them near Fano in 271, but this time the battle is a catastrophic defeat for the Romans (a new Aquae Sextiae). Almost the entire army is destroyed, and Quintillus itself dies in battle (an interesting turn of events is that is killed by former Aurelian soldiers after he tries to flee the battle field. It would somewhat remind of the destiny of Valentinian the third, killed by its own guard after he dispacted Aetius).

The road to Rome is now open, and the Alamanni can reach the city walls. But this is a pre-Aurelian world, so no Aurelian walls and the only walls that I am aware of at the time are the Servian, pretty much beautiful ruins and of no great military use. I presume that Rome falls and it is sacked relatively easily. There is no legal ruler of the empire, so it is a Manzikert-like situation. The surviving members of the Senate and the fleet flee to Carthage because, well, there is nowhere else to go with the Gallic empire holding Hispania and Gallia, the Palmyrene holding the Middle East, and the Balkans open to "Barbarian" invasions or possibly in the hand of a local military usurper (in this scenario, the legions in Sirmium would probably be furious with the incompetent idiots running the show in Rome, and rightly so). A key point here would be having enough troops and navy reaching the Africa province to make it a viable state and avoiding the problems of the insufficient and unreliable local troops, discussed in previous posts, but not enough to try a reconquest of Italy, at least not right away.

What happens next is anybody guess, but perhaps after the dust settles in we could end up with the situation for which there seems to be a consensus for a third century early Middle Age: a fractured West with local Duxes paying lip-service to the emperor in Carthage (and possibly, some German-Roman or Sarmatian-Roman state, but that is debatable, as discussed by LSCatalina), a Palmyrene empire in the Middle East, and an African state that could somewhat claim to be the legitimate heir of the Roman empire (later on that could evolve into a Southern Roman empire, as suggested in some posts).

Could that work? One advantage here is that you need just one incompetent fool (Quintillus) rather than two (Gallienus and Postumus). You can also have a more stable African state, and no need of a local usurper. However, could the Alamanni pull out an Aquae Sextiae in Fano? In real life, they managed to defeat Aurelian once near Placentia. Is it feasible for them to
soundly defeat Quintillus at Fano?

Either way, I must guiltily confess that wrecking the Roman empire is kind of fun :).
 
I highly, highly, highly doubt the Juthungi will stick around Italy and if they do, they are quickly going to get defeated. They simply were not large enough to simply comtemplate conquering Italy. Their goal was to sack Rome and return home.
 
I doubt that, even with Quintillus failing big time, you'd even end with a Juthungi sack of Rome.

Having the Roman army being entierly destroyed would be really, really implausible (even more than Quintillus not being rivaled by nobody once Aurelian dies, not even one of Aurelian's lieutnants).
Juthungi were on a raid expedition, at the contrary of say, Goths at Adrianople or even Aurasion (that dealt with whole peoples moving); which implies a certain type of troops and numbers.

Just look at Placentia : Aurelian was defeated by the same people, but his army wasn't destroyed and he still attacked.

At worst, someone more competent replaces Quintilius and can harass long enough Barbarians for forcing a peace settlement (clearly not favourable to Romans, as Aurealian "Me see, Me kill" politics, that said).
 
I doubt that, even with Quintillus failing big time, you'd even end with a Juthungi sack of Rome.

Having the Roman army being entierly destroyed would be really, really implausible (even more than Quintillus not being rivaled by nobody once Aurelian dies, not even one of Aurelian's lieutnants).
Juthungi were on a raid expedition, at the contrary of say, Goths at Adrianople or even Aurasion (that dealt with whole peoples moving); which implies a certain type of troops and numbers.

Just look at Placentia : Aurelian was defeated by the same people, but his army wasn't destroyed and he still attacked.

At worst, someone more competent replaces Quintilius and can harass long enough Barbarians for forcing a peace settlement (clearly not favourable to Romans, as Aurealian "Me see, Me kill" politics, that said).

Ok, my bad. I should have gave it more thought. But Quintillus failing big time made for an entertaining story... Just one final remark and I will drop Quintillus for good. After a hypothetical Quintillus defeat at Fano (not an Aquae Sextiae, but enough to cause some serious damage), that shows that the empire is vulnerable, could other "Barbarian" tribes be tempted into invading Italy? There are still Goths in Mesia and other Balkan provinces at the time. Could they pose a major threat to Italy? How bad could a peace settlement imposed in this conditions to the Romans, assuming that a more competent emperor (who?) takes charge in Rome?

As for a lieutenant of Aurelian rivaling Quintillus, that is certainly a possibility. However, things are moving very fast. Claudius Gothicus dies in 270, and the Juthungi raid is in January 271. Assuming that there is some confusion in Sirmium after Aurelian dies, would this lieutenant have enough time to make himself much of a nuisance?
 
... but perhaps after the dust settles in we could end up with the situation for which there seems to be a consensus for a third century early Middle Age: ....

You may call it Mid-Age politcally, but I would like to disagree, if you call it the beginning of the Dark Ages culturally.

As mentioned above, with a Fall of Rome in the 3rd century, the history about christianity as well as about the caliphates might develop fully differently. And without the mediterrenean sea as the indispensable hub of ancient culture not splitted into two halfs hostile to each other, the Dark Ages might perhaps never happen.
 
You may call it Mid-Age politcally, but I would like to disagree, if you call it the beginning of the Dark Ages culturally.

As mentioned above, with a Fall of Rome in the 3rd century, the history about christianity as well as about the caliphates might develop fully differently. And without the mediterrenean sea as the indispensable hub of ancient culture not splitted into two halfs hostile to each other, the Dark Ages might perhaps never happen.

True. At least in the beginning we would still have trade and cultural exchanges among different part of the Mediterrenean sea, and a sense of the different states having common cultural roots. As the timeline develops, the different states that emerged from the third century break-up of the Roman empire may diverge culturally and religiously. LSCatilina suggested for instance that the East may later on convert to Christianity, while the west adopt or mantain a polytheistic religion. I could see potential for religious wars there... That perhaps could cut trade and contacts between East and West in the way proposed by Pirenne in his famous work "Mohammed and Charlemagne".

Also, how "Roman" would they consider themselves the heir of the Palmyrene empire, if they survive and prosper? The Byzantine emperors considered themselves the rightful heir of Rome. But the Palmyrene empire was established after an army of Palmyrene soldiers and surviving Roman soldiers defeated the Sassanid emperor Shapur. In the long term, after Rome falls, would they consider themselves as Roman or as Syrian? In the latter case, cultural divergence between the East and the West may happen faster than OTL, in my opinion.

Either way, the world that emerged from this crisis would be vastly different from the current one. Anything that happens after two or three centuries from the break-up would be really hard to guess, in my opinion.
 
the Dark Ages might perhaps never happen.

dun dun DUN!!!!

I could see potential for religious wars there...
Not before quite a time, I'd think : post-Imperial states would have

That perhaps could cut trade and contacts between East and West in the way proposed by Pirenne in his famous work "Mohammed and Charlemagne".
While a classic, Pirenne's thesis have to be nuanced : we know that the Mediterranean trade wasn't wholly cut by Arabs and that the decline of Mediterranean trade could be traced back to Romano-Persians wars and Romano-Arab wars.

With the northern trade roads (Richard Hodges is really interesting on this) booming since the VIIth century and the overall decline of Provencal system, eventually some differenciation was bound to happen.

That said, ITTL, you won't have the Northern trade roads opportunity, so it would mean an earlier West/East differenciation, admittedly, but not as important as what happened in the VII/VIII/IXth centuries to me. Africa and Sicily still playing a regional hub role would probably still cement some form of unity ITTL.

So maybe something closer to post-Imperial romanity of the Vth/VIth centuries?

In the long term, after Rome falls, would they consider themselves as Roman or as Syrian?
Both, likely. Even in Byzantium (and successor states as Bulgaria), Romanity was a political identity, that wasn't contradictory to being a Greek or a Syrian, or a Slav.

Anything that happens after two or three centuries from the break-up would be really hard to guess, in my opinion.
Indeed, but you'd have to deal with similar issues : lack of manpower due to epidemics, climatic change still ongoing (and that means new waves of Barbarian migrations), etc.

And probably an earlier destructuralisation of Barbarian political entities as it happened in Vth Scandinavia, so overall, an important Barbarian pressure still happeneing, earlier and on a divided Roman world.
 
Top