Concerning the Crisis of the Fifth Century

[how]

Is it fair to say that the crisis with hindsight could have been handled better if the division of the Empire into the constituent Eastern and Western portions did not occur in 395. Often in discussions online it is reasoned that Rome was never split but to me the seperate operation of militaries, treasuries and foreign policies along with the lack of coordination and ability to draw on each others resources routinely suggest to me that the Roman Empire had split into two states. The loss of the entire western half of Romania including Rome and Italia was disasterous for the Romans and along with the later Gothic wars made a trans-mediterranean state infesible. The conflict between Stilicho and the East could not have occured if the Roman Empire was still a unified entity imo.

Could a joint stratergy of bribery and settlement as employed by East and West IOTL work if this decision is made across the entire empire, meaning the equivalent territory of the W.R.E is effectively settled by various barbarians but keeping the wealthy regions of the Empire under a single entity. Bribes IOTL to me seemed to simply pushed barbarians to the West and the West allowed barbarians to settle in either productive regions or regions that threatened the terriorial security of the Empire and Italia rather than protect it.

I know it is not as simple as this but the Western Roman Empire covered 4.41 million square kilometres, a decent portion of this was unproductive and exposed lands but regions such as Italia, Septomania and Southern Hispania along with Africa (though its value was already declining) were valuable areas worth hanging onto, especially Italia as even in the early 5th Century it was more valuable than any region in the East. The population of the city of Rome in the early 5th Century was still higher than Constantinople. What will occur here is essentially an enlarged Byzantine/Rhomanion Empire as perhaps Honorius is pecked to death by a chicken prior to the death of Theodosius or maybe Theodosius reads on the Tetrarchy and realises it is not such a good idea (I know that Pax Romana could not last forever and eventually the Rhine - Danube border would become redundant to a trans-mediterranean polity therefore a contraction of Rome is near unavoidable). So the entire state is inherited by the East following the death of Theodosius.

The gravity of the Roman state will continue to shift eastward especially as Britannia, Northern Gaul, Raetia, Pannonia and Mauritania are all likely shedded from the Empire sometime in the 5th Century as regions not worth defending seeing as they are of little value when the limes and saxon shore are unable to defend against concentrated attack by barbarians so a collective policy of contraction during the crisis and protecting Italia at all cost are adopted. Naturally to make up the sum of the Western Roman Empire to be lost Tripoli, Palmyra, Pontus, Moesia, Northern Thracia and Illyria sans Dalmatia will be given up alonside the earlier mentioned regions. I know it is not as simple as adding the territory of the West and simply subtracting it from a unified empire as the unified empire could have more civil strife and could thus lose even more territory or perhaps lose less than otl.

Are there other ways to prevent the division of the Empire that do not involve altering the outcomes of battles or military campaigns, is it possible to ensure the survival of the West without having to rely on this stratergy, and long term would this stratergy lead to a united empire being weaker than the Eastern Roman / Byzantine Empire of otl.

Here is what I propose the unified Roman Empire could look like in 500 A.D.

 

[how]

I have just realised this will give the West access to much needed talent in the late 5th Century as capable Emperors reigned in the east during this time whilst simultaneously saving people like Aetius, Majorian, Stilicho and others as there would be no Western Emperor thus changing the political climate dramatically. Granted this is assuming these figures have similar levels of talent or even exist in the ATL / scenario

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Is it fair to say that the crisis with hindsight could have been handled better

Definitely!

if the division of the Empire into the constituent Eastern and Western portions did not occur in 395.

This is a common misconception, the division (which was neither meant to be permanent nor an actual division into two different empires) did not weaken the Western empire.

Often in discussions online it is reasoned that Rome was never split but to me the seperate operation of militaries, treasuries and foreign policies along with the lack of coordination and ability to draw on each others resources routinely suggest to me that the Roman Empire had split into two states.

This conveniently ignores how the East sent an army West to help against usurpers/foreign threats. Not to mention how the empire usually fared better when there were multiple emperors ruling the state (compare the IV century to the more chaotic III century).

The conflict between Stilicho and the East could not have occured if the Roman Empire was still a unified entity imo.

Is it so? The fall of Stilicho was caused by his own (western) emperor and his advisor (Olympius). If people in Ravenna felt safe enough to challenge him, imagine those residing in far away Constantinople (they would not disappear just because an emperor is no longer residing in Constantinople), away from the watchful eye of the general and the emperor.

Could a joint stratergy of bribery and settlement as employed by East and West IOTL work if this decision is made across the entire empire, meaning the equivalent territory of the W.R.E is effectively settled by various barbarians but keeping the wealthy regions of the Empire under a single entity. Bribes IOTL to me seemed to simply pushed barbarians to the West and the West allowed barbarians to settle in either productive regions or regions that threatened the terriorial security of the Empire and Italia rather than protect it.

Settling barbarians into the empire was nothing new, just have a look at Constantine. Same as having the army filled up with barbarians. The problem was when said barbarians and their soldiers retained a structure of power parallel to the imperial one, occasionally challenging it. The problem was not Bauto, Arbogasts, Stilicho or Ricimer and their barbarized armies but Euric/Gaiseric and their kingdoms.

I know it is not as simple as this but the Western Roman Empire covered 4.41 million square kilometres, a decent portion of this was unproductive and exposed lands but regions such as Italia, Septomania and Southern Hispania along with Africa (though its value was already declining) were valuable areas worth hanging onto, especially Italia as even in the early 5th Century it was more valuable than any region in the East. The population of the city of Rome in the early 5th Century was still higher than Constantinople. What will occur here is essentially an enlarged Byzantine/Rhomanion Empire as perhaps Honorius is pecked to death by a chicken prior to the death of Theodosius or maybe Theodosius reads on the Tetrarchy and realises it is not such a good idea (I know that Pax Romana could not last forever and eventually the Rhine - Danube border would become redundant to a trans-mediterranean polity therefore a contraction of Rome is near unavoidable). So the entire state is inherited by the East following the death of Theodosius.

The moment you willingly leave Gaul to its fate, it's the moment you get a new Magnus Maximus or Constantine III. Also, no way the army of Gaul is going to willing leave behind the families of its soldiers. Julian's army rebelled for much less. Most likely, the emperor in charge gets replaced before he can carry out his plan.

Are there other ways to prevent the division of the Empire that do not involve altering the outcomes of battles or military campaigns, is it possible to ensure the survival of the West without having to rely on this stratergy, and long term would this stratergy lead to a united empire being weaker than the Eastern Roman / Byzantine Empire of otl.

You can save the West, but not like this. You don't need to change the outcome of any specific battle, there are many alternatives way (including ensuring the survival of certain historical figures)

Here is what I propose the unified Roman Empire could look like in 500 A.D.

View attachment 743056

That is just terrible, why would you give up a good source of manpower in exchange for a border that is as long as the Danube (and likely harder to defend, given its fragmentary nature)? You also decided to give up like half of Spain when you could simply guard the passes on the Pyrenees (if you are so eager to leave Gaul in the first place). Not to mention Armenia/Theodosiopolis and almost the entirety of Africa. What is there to be gained by doing so?

I have just realised this will give the West access to much needed talent in the late 5th Century as capable Emperors reigned in the east during this time whilst simultaneously saving people like Aetius, Majorian, Stilicho and others as there would be no Western Emperor thus changing the political climate dramatically. Granted this is assuming these figures have similar levels of talent or even exist in the ATL / scenario

V century emperors and generals are likely butterflied away, to be replaced by other figures.

 

[how]

Thanks for the reply, sorry just for clarification I meant the stratergy was essentially defense in depth so that border along with the abandonment of Gaul is not chosen willingly and is the maximum loss of territory after a series of conflicts as in our timeline before the turn around that occured in the 6th Century, however you have outlined why this would not work and is infesible. So territories that are lost are all due to a concentration on the wealthy regions foremost and a defensive posture in Italia itself rather than trying to hold static borders.

What was the point of Roman stubborness to try to hold every region when all it caused was 4.41 Million square Kilometres to fall within a Century, that is catastrophic mismanagement and sure that plan above is ugly but it keeps Italia's 7 million people alive and prevents Rome from being sacked numerous times.

On another point, I think after the inevitable subsiding of barbarian incursions in the west as there are only so many Germanics crossing the Rhine, even if it is deterministic to say, I think that the Romans would inevitably bounce back in the 6th Century, they were simply sitting on too many resources not to give it a shot.

 

[Mikestone8]

What was the point of Roman stubborness to try to hold every region when all it caused was 4.41 Million square Kilometres to fall within a Century, that is catastrophic mismanagement and sure that plan above is ugly but it keeps Italia's 7 million people alive and prevents Rome from being sacked numerous times.

Might it have been better (however ignominious) to sacrifice Italy rather than Gaul?

If the main Western Army is in Gaul, it is well-placed to see off a Barbarian attempt to take advantage of the frozen Rhine, and to scotch any move to set up an Emperor in Britain. For the moment, this leaves Alaric and perhaps other barbs roaming around Italy as they please, but they will be sandwiched between the "Gallic" WRE on one side and the ERE on the other, so are likely to be crushed sooner or later.