Barbarian Europe

I read Cadavera Vero Innumera and the idea interested me. What if both Constantinople and Rome fell? My PoD idea is that Atilla sacks Constantinople, which he nearly did IOTL. What could barbarian Europe be like? There are so many possibilities. What if?
 
Constantinople being sacked in no way means the Eastern Empire is doomed, at worst it means the southern empire may come into being for a bit (ruled out of Alexandria or Antioch). In a few years the east is likely to retake anything lost because of their major advantage over the west, their military is capable and worth a damn.
 
Constantinople being sacked in no way means the Eastern Empire is doomed, at worst it means the southern empire may come into being for a bit (ruled out of Alexandria or Antioch). In a few years the east is likely to retake anything lost because of their major advantage over the west, their military is capable and worth a damn.


While Alexandria and Antioch will probably be the major economic hubs of the ERE, I bet the Emperors will generally set up shop near the Marmara Sea (Nicomedia/Niceea/Chalcedon/whatever) whenever there isn't a Persian invasion (in which case they would be based in Antioch or in the field further east), the reason being retaking Constantinople will be pretty high on their to-do list.
 
I think your best bet for having both east and west "fall" so to speak, would be in the Third Century Crisis (though that wouldn't be falling, as much as splitting apart permanently).
 

Seraphiel

Banned
Well in 447 (when the Huns were at war with the Byzantines) and earthquake badly damaged Constantinople as Attila was approaching , if he had dropped all siege weapons and moved fast enough the Huns could have taken Constantinople without a siege. Though as others have said I dont think the Eastern Empire would have been destroyed. Unless the Sassanids gets ambitious then thinga could get real interesting.
 
Well in 447 (when the Huns were at war with the Byzantines) and earthquake badly damaged Constantinople as Attila was approaching , if he had dropped all siege weapons and moved fast enough the Huns could have taken Constantinople without a siege. Though as others have said I dont think the Eastern Empire would have been destroyed. Unless the Sassanids gets ambitious then thinga could get real interesting.

That's just what I have planned.
 
Well in 447 (when the Huns were at war with the Byzantines) and earthquake badly damaged Constantinople as Attila was approaching , if he had dropped all siege weapons and moved fast enough the Huns could have taken Constantinople without a siege. Though as others have said I dont think the Eastern Empire would have been destroyed. Unless the Sassanids gets ambitious then thinga could get real interesting.

Prior to the middle seventh century, the term "Byzantine" is probably to be avoided.

Yes, the Huns could perhaps have done it, but I have my doubts they could have held the city so far from their Pannonian heartlands: there simply isn't enough fodder in the Balkans to sustain a large cavalry army with the Huns' total absence of logistics. Best case for Attila is that he is able to quickly loot Constantinople and then get out of there as the field armies of Thrace and Illyricum vengefully descend. The Emperor Theodosius and his court will certainly have fled across the Straits, and Attila will be unable to follow them due to the Huns' total lack of naval prowess. Constantinople is retaken a few weeks later, and the East Romans hand over even more in tribute to the Huns.

The Sasanians have more than enough of their own problems with steppe nomads in the fifth century: that's why the period was so very quiet and peaceful compared with the fourth and sixth centuries: they're very, very unlikely to risk an intervention into Roman territory.

Attila seizing Constantinople is a theoretically attractive POD, but one that just seems difficult to really develop when one thinks about it in detail. Of course, you can use it as a POD, but I'd say the results of the fall of Constantinople are likely to be quite indirect, because there's no realistic way for the Huns to do anything but retreat from the city before an inevitable Roman recapture of it. More likely than anything is simply that Attila is able to extract a shitload of money from the frightened Byzantines (the term is correct for the inhabitants of the City) in exchange for merely plundering the unfortunate towns of Thrace and Macedonia without Roman intervention.

Hope this helps.
 

Seraphiel

Banned
Prior to the middle seventh century, the term "Byzantine" is probably to be avoided.

Yes, the Huns could perhaps have done it, but I have my doubts they could have held the city so far from their Pannonian heartlands: there simply isn't enough fodder in the Balkans to sustain a large cavalry army with the Huns' total absence of logistics. Best case for Attila is that he is able to quickly loot Constantinople and then get out of there as the field armies of Thrace and Illyricum vengefully descend. The Emperor Theodosius and his court will certainly have fled across the Straits, and Attila will be unable to follow them due to the Huns' total lack of naval prowess. Constantinople is retaken a few weeks later, and the East Romans hand over even more in tribute to the Huns.

The Sasanians have more than enough of their own problems with steppe nomads in the fifth century: that's why the period was so very quiet and peaceful compared with the fourth and sixth centuries: they're very, very unlikely to risk an intervention into Roman territory.

Attila seizing Constantinople is a theoretically attractive POD, but one that just seems difficult to really develop when one thinks about it in detail. Of course, you can use it as a POD, but I'd say the results of the fall of Constantinople are likely to be quite indirect, because there's no realistic way for the Huns to do anything but retreat from the city before an inevitable Roman recapture of it. More likely than anything is simply that Attila is able to extract a shitload of money from the frightened Byzantines (the term is correct for the inhabitants of the City) in exchange for merely plundering the unfortunate towns of Thrace and Macedonia without Roman intervention.

Hope this helps.

(I said Byzantines because I was kind of to lazy to say Eastern Romans)
Well I guess your correct in those accounts, Attila can take Constantinople but not really keep it. Though would you consider Attila staying in Constantinople for a year or two outright implausible or highly improbable? And what would the implications be if the Eastern Emperor had been killed in the hypothetical Sacking of Constantinople?
 
Well I guess your correct in those accounts, Attila can take Constantinople but not really keep it. Though would you consider Attila staying in Constantinople for a year or two outright implausible or highly improbable? And what would the implications be if the Eastern Emperor had been killed in the hypothetical Sacking of Constantinople?

Yes, I would. Attila needs to feed all those horses, and he doesn't have the kind of supply lines that will allow him to stay in any one places (besides Pannonia) for long. Should he stay in Thrace, the overwhelming likelihood is that the weakened and demoralised Huns are cornered and shredded by the field armies of the Balkans. So, there's a more interesting POD already: what if the Huns, after major initial successes, are destroyed as a force several years early?

If Theodosius is unable to escape, it's even less likely that the court and Senate will be able to, so his sisters and the future Emperor Marcian will be killed, together with the Magister Militum Aspar. The outcome will probably be a short civil war, perhaps lasting three or four years, which may or may not give the Huns breathing space to recover. It's more likely than not that a general from the Balkan provinces will become Eastern Emperor, and a marital alliance may be sought with Valentinian III's court in the West to tie a new Eastern Emperor to the Theodosian line. The need for a new Eastern Emperor to seek Western approval may mean the West gets more Eastern subsidies.

All in all, this could be an interesting TL. Attila takes Constantinople leads to the survival of the WRE!
 

katchen

Banned
We've been talking about an independent Coptic Egypt on other threads. The sacking ofConstantinople might just give the Copts of Egypt their chance, either as an independent kingdom, an Empire with Ethiopia and Western Arabia or as the new Eastern Roman Empire with the Coptic Monphysite doctrine instead of Greek Orthodoxy as the state religious dogma.
I think that the Sassanids WOULD take full advantage of the Sack of Constantinople to extend their power to the Mediteranean and possibly take Asia Minor itself and end a thorn in it's side---unless the Sack occurs when Persia is preoccupied with the Mazdak Rebellion.
And there's a good chance that the Axumite Ethiopians might take advantage of the disorganization and disruption of the Eastern Roman Empire to move down the Nile or up the Red Sea to conquer thier fellow Copts in Egypt, perhaps sharing a frontier with Sassanid Persia from somewhere in the Levant to somewhere in the Syrian Desert, Nafud and Najd.If an East Roman Empire survives, be it in Chalcedon or capitaled somewhere in Anatolia, it would in this case be a shadow of itself, especially if Constantinople-Chalcedon is cut off from Egyptian grain imports with which to feed it.
 
They couldn't really take advantage of it: It would just end with Atilla looting the city and getting the hell out, the Romans retaking it, and then paying Atilla off. I mean, it's not like they are going to withdraw their entire eastern armies to stop Atilla...
 
We've been talking about an independent Coptic Egypt on other threads. The sacking ofConstantinople might just give the Copts of Egypt their chance, either as an independent kingdom, an Empire with Ethiopia and Western Arabia or as the new Eastern Roman Empire with the Coptic Monphysite doctrine instead of Greek Orthodoxy as the state religious dogma.
I think that the Sassanids WOULD take full advantage of the Sack of Constantinople to extend their power to the Mediteranean and possibly take Asia Minor itself and end a thorn in it's side---unless the Sack occurs when Persia is preoccupied with the Mazdak Rebellion.
And there's a good chance that the Axumite Ethiopians might take advantage of the disorganization and disruption of the Eastern Roman Empire to move down the Nile or up the Red Sea to conquer thier fellow Copts in Egypt, perhaps sharing a frontier with Sassanid Persia from somewhere in the Levant to somewhere in the Syrian Desert, Nafud and Najd.If an East Roman Empire survives, be it in Chalcedon or capitaled somewhere in Anatolia, it would in this case be a shadow of itself, especially if Constantinople-Chalcedon is cut off from Egyptian grain imports with which to feed it.

:rolleyes:

Please actually read something on the late antique Near East before you contribute to these threads.
 
Top