Constantius III lives longer

I was just reading the Attila heads East thread, and an important What if came up: What if Constantius III lived about 10-20 years longer? He was the perfect archetype of a Roman Warrior Emperor that the WRE desperately needed, and he died after seven months suddenly OTL. How would this affect the survival of the WRE?
 

FDW

Banned
I was just reading the Attila heads East thread, and an important What if came up: What if Constantius III lived about 10-20 years longer? He was the perfect archetype of a Roman Warrior Emperor that the WRE desperately needed, and he died after seven months suddenly OTL. How would this affect the survival of the WRE?

The WRE might be able to get the "dynastic shift" (in the Chinese sense of the word, literally) period and reconsolidate with the ERE in more than just name.
 
I was just reading the Attila heads East thread, and an important What if came up: What if Constantius III lived about 10-20 years longer? He was the perfect archetype of a Roman Warrior Emperor that the WRE desperately needed, and he died after seven months suddenly OTL. How would this affect the survival of the WRE?

Yes I saw it,and it sounds very interesting,however although Constantius might be a good start,Rome needs a complete overhaul;why? because Romans,and whoever imitated them were as people counterproductive;
For hundreds of years Rome had remained a static agrarian society,all well
and good until you become an empire;nobody told Romans that you can't run an empire if you are based on agriculture.You need money!the only thing that the Dominate did was to create a vast bureaucracy that needed more and more money to maintain and as the government branch grew the money for the army became less and less available.The deficiences were covered by milking the rich East but that would finish by a revolution or by separation as it actually happened.
The Roman army remained an army that couldn't modernise;you can't carry on surviving with an infantry army in the age of cavalry,especially missile cavalry.That kind of cavalry cannot be trained to ride in the army.
The Mongol children would learn the ways of the horse before they could
walk and the other nomads or Asians followed with varying degrees of success.The Roman army after Carrae had seen the writing on the wall.
The gap between east and west was not only economical,also a matter of education and mentality.

Even Diocletian's reforms couldn't save Rome which was governed by emperors who followed decedent mode of living,senatorial class that demanded and got more and more...
Can you fix that? It willbe a very interesting timeline...
 
Yes I saw it,and it sounds very interesting,however although Constantius might be a good start,Rome needs a complete overhaul;why? because Romans,and whoever imitated them were as people counterproductive;
For hundreds of years Rome had remained a static agrarian society,all well
and good until you become an empire;nobody told Romans that you can't run an empire if you are based on agriculture.You need money!the only thing that the Dominate did was to create a vast bureaucracy that needed more and more money to maintain and as the government branch grew the money for the army became less and less available.The deficiences were covered by milking the rich East but that would finish by a revolution or by separation as it actually happened.
The Roman army remained an army that couldn't modernise;you can't carry on surviving with an infantry army in the age of cavalry,especially missile cavalry.That kind of cavalry cannot be trained to ride in the army.
The Mongol children would learn the ways of the horse before they could
walk and the other nomads or Asians followed with varying degrees of success.The Roman army after Carrae had seen the writing on the wall.
The gap between east and west was not only economical,also a matter of education and mentality.

Even Diocletian's reforms couldn't save Rome which was governed by emperors who followed decedent mode of living,senatorial class that demanded and got more and more...
Can you fix that? It willbe a very interesting timeline...

- All pre-modern states operated primarily on agriculture, so that's not true.
- The Late Roman state spent between 60 and 80 percent of its budget on the army.
- By the later sixth century, that army had adapted to become a primarily cavalry based force.
- Constantine the Great, Constantius II, Valentinian and Theodosius I were all decadent civilian Emperors?
 
- All pre-modern states operated primarily on agriculture, so that's not true.
- The Late Roman state spent between 60 and 80 percent of its budget on the army.
- By the later sixth century, that army had adapted to become a primarily cavalry based force.
- Constantine the Great, Constantius II, Valentinian and Theodosius I were all decadent civilian Emperors?

BG!you are out of context! of course it is true 100% and you didn't pay attention(or you didn't read) what I wrote:sixth century had nothing to do with WRE and that was the one that collapsed;ERE had a sound economy always and its capital did not come mainly from agriculture,but from trade conducted mainly by Greeks,carriage of goods carried by Greek ships and Greek practices.From the separation of the empire in East and West these facts became more apparent since the taxes of the east went to Constantinople and the fewer taxes of the west went into a corrupt system in Rome or Ravenna,its system of administration was cumbersome and could not be maintained; in the fifth century the movement of tribes that crossed the Rhine unopposed,caused great destruction before they were reduced in consequence by any legions were left,England was abandoned...the rest you know;Julian the Great was the last emperor to hold intact the Rhine and to defeat the barbarian cavalries in 357,but it was the last victory of a conventional Roman army with legions;what happened in the east was done to stem the Persian threat hence the prepoderance cavalry,kataphract lancers and archers etc.Salon-syr Marne or as you know it katalonian fields there were assorted Roman and barbaric groups,but not Roman army as we knew it... ^th century belongs to the east,and a different history.
It is not nessecary to have only decedent emperors;Constantine and Thedosius were competent emperors but what followed after Theodosius?
"The late Roman State"? you speak about WRE I trust?
 
Last edited:
BG!you are out of context! of course it is true 100% and you didn't pay attention(or you didn't read) what I wrote:sixth century had nothing to do with WRE and that was the one that collapsed;ERE had a sound economy always and its capital did not come mainly from agriculture,but from trade conducted mainly by Greeks,carriage of goods carried by Greek ships and Greek practices.From the separation of the empire in East and West these facts became more apparent since the taxes of the east went to Constantinople and the fewer taxes of the west went into a corrupt system in Rome or Ravenna,its system of administration was cumbersome and could not be maintained; in the fifth century the movement of tribes that crossed the Rhine unopposed,caused great destruction before they were reduced in consequence by any legions were left,England was abandoned...the rest you know;Julian the Great was the last emperor to hold intact the Rhine and to defeat the barbarian cavalries in 357,but it was the last victory of a conventional Roman army with legions;what happened in the east was done to stem the Persian threat hence the prepoderance cavalry,kataphract lancers and archers etc.Salon-syr Marne or as you know it katalonian fields there were assorted Roman and barbaric groups,but not Roman army as we knew it... ^th century belongs to the east,and a different history.
It is not nessecary to have only decedent emperors;Constantine and Thedosius were competent emperors but what followed after Theodosius?
"The late Roman State"? you speak about WRE I trust?

With respect... bollocks.

Agriculture was always by far the primary source of revenue for the Roman Empire, both in the East and the West. Commerce was never more than a small sector of the economy when compared to agriculture.

"Greeks" were a minority in the Eastern Empire, which was in any case, until the seventh century, still largely a Latin state. Maurice, hailing from Cappadocia, was probably the only sixth century Emperor to speak Greek as a first language, and even he was probably descended from an Italian Senatorial family, according to Byzantine writers. So, the East was not saved by "Greek techniques". Rather, what saved the East was favourable geography and good luck- nothing more, nothing less.

Administrative systems were essentially identical in both East and West- how else do you think the single document that is the Notitia Dignitatum could apply to both halves of the Empire?

You're seriously calling the arrogant weirdo Julian "the Great"? The guy who pissed off pagans and Christians alike, before dying inglouriously after a completely failed invasion of Iran? Really? In any case, the idea that the Rhine collapsed after he marched East is absurd- if the Rhine frontier was gone, why did Valentinian I rule primarily from Trier? Why did Symmachus and his friends not mention the collapse of the Rhine, and instead comment on its productivity and peace in the 370s?

What did follow after Theodosius? Well, Constantius III was a good Emperor of the West despite his short reign, and Anthemius was very able, but fatally holed below the waterline by the failure of the Vandal expedition. In the East you see the harmless nonentities that were Arcadius and Theodosius II replaced by tough military men like Marcian and Leo I, who successfully faced down the Hunnic threat and made strenuous efforts to put the West back together.

In short, I find all of your arguments unconvincing- especially the part about "Greek superiority", which is demonstrably untrue.
 
Top