DBWI AHC kill Rex Odoacer.

[Gukpard]

Rex Odoacer (433-509) is known as one of the most respected characters on post western roman history (being him the one who started this age by conquering Ravenna in 476 also), Odoacer pragmatic views resulted on one of the most prosperous revivals known in history, as he kept the roman senate working after taking the city (contrary to the belief at the time that a "Barbarian" like him would butcher the city), succesfully redivided the land under his followers, while defeating the ostrogothics on the brutal gothic war of 489, later being recognized as emperor of the west by the eastern roman empire and dying shortly after.

I know that he is the personal hero of many people here (me included), but let's say that he fails to take Ravenna, or that he is defeated during the gothic wars, what would happen to italy?

 

[Avrorrange]

OOC:There’s no way Zeno would have recognized him as emperor.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Well, I don't think there's any way to save northern Italia from being Germanized (not that you particularly asked about that - but it seems to be one of the popular reasons for these sort of posts). In OTL, Odoacar took those Goths into his service who agreed to loyally follow him after their defeat, and used them to help build his base of support (along with Gepids, Saxons and numerous other Germans and other peoples). In the ATL, if the Gothic king wins (Theodoric, right? Its been a while since I read up on this era of history), he's most likely just going to take the place that Odoacar did in OTL and likely will institute many of the same policies. So you're still going to see a gradual Germanization of northern Italy.

Now, what might be interesting, is if the Goths end up being less successful against the Franks. In OTL, Odoacar's heirs were pretty competent and were able to make an alliance with the Visigoths and fold the Franks at bay in Northern Gaul. If the Gothic King's heirs are less successful, or if he doesn't leave a natural heir (that would suck!), you might see the Franks be able to secure control over all of Gaul. THAT would certainly change things!

You could also mess things up by having Zeno live longer. I think he was one of the primary figures that wanted to root Odoacar out; and there would be no way he would have been raised as a Western Emperor without the civil wars that followed eno's assassination.

 

[DanMcCollum]

OOC:There’s no way Zeno would have recognized him as emperor.

OOC: I think I fixed that for us

 

[Gukpard]

Well, I don't think there's any way to save northern Italia from being Germanized (not that you particularly asked about that - but it seems to be one of the popular reasons for these sort of posts). In OTL, Odoacar took those Goths into his service who agreed to loyally follow him after their defeat, and used them to help build his base of support (along with Gepids, Saxons and numerous other Germans and other peoples). In the ATL, if the Gothic king wins (Theodoric, right? Its been a while since I read up on this era of history), he's most likely just going to take the place that Odoacar did in OTL and likely will institute many of the same policies. So you're still going to see a gradual Germanization of northern Italy.

Now, what might be interesting, is if the Goths end up being less successful against the Franks. In OTL, Odoacar's heirs were pretty competent and were able to make an alliance with the Visigoths and fold the Franks at bay in Northern Gaul. If the Gothic King's heirs are less successful, or if he doesn't leave a natural heir (that would suck!), you might see the Franks be able to secure control over all of Gaul. THAT would certainly change things!

You could also mess things up by having Zeno live longer. I think he was one of the primary figures that wanted to root Odoacar out; and there would be no way he would have been raised as a Western Emperor without the civil wars that followed eno's assassination.

Yes, he was Theodoric. I wonder if the eastern goths would be able to withstand the Eastern roman better than Odoacer dynasty did, the eastern romans were halfway through italy and the only thing that saved them from being fully annexed into the eastern empire was the rise of islam.

 

[cmakk1012]

To be fair, Germanization took centuries, and even then it was not as dramatic as is sometimes assumed—Italien is still a Romance language, just a highly divergent one with so many East Germanic loanwords (OOC: think English with its French influence). The cultural shifts, like the famous fur hats, are more obvious, but even there Roman continuity persisted.

What really doomed Roman culture was the German War. The Greek conquest of Southern Italy up to Neapolis turned the northerners against the concept of Roman identity since the Easterners based their devastating invasion on it. The southerners re-embraced their ancient Greek identity, and by the time they rebelled against Konstantinoupolis it was for a local claimant to the throne, not (originally) independence.

EDIT:

Yes, he was Theodoric. I wonder if the eastern goths would be able to withstand the Eastern roman better than Odoacer dynasty did, the eastern romans were halfway through italy and the only thing that saved them from being fully annexed into the eastern empire was the rise of islam.

I thought the Easterners only barely reached Rome? Their destruction of the aquifers I suppose also aided Germanization, since from then on Rome itself declined and Mediolan became the center of the Italian State.

Also, I would chalk up the East Roman decline more to the Persians than the Arabs. It was a great propagandic defeat when they lost Hierosolyma, of course, but it was Shapur the Terrible who besieged Konstantinoupolis in that war.

 

[Gukpard]

I thought the Easterners only barely reached Rome? Their destruction of the aquifers I suppose also aided Germanization, since from then on Rome itself declined and Mediolan became the center of the Italian State.

Also, I would chalk up the East Roman decline more to the Persians than the Arabs. It was a great propagandic defeat when they lost Hierosolyma, of course, but it was Shapur the Terrible who besieged Konstantinoupolis in that war.

It was a fun scenario to be honest, the eastern romans sieged roma, but at the same time the sassanids sieged Konstantinoupolis and so made the eastern army lift the siege of Roma to return the thrace to break up the siege. A siege saved the italians from another siege.

 

[cmakk1012]

It was a fun scenario to be honest, the eastern romans sieged roma, but at the same time the sassanids sieged Konstantinoupolis and so made the eastern army lift the siege of Roma to return the thrace to break up the siege. A siege saved the italians from another siege.

Right, this was before the Germans and Persians had formalized their alliance but it was the instigator for it.

I wonder what would have happened if the Arabs hadn’t temporarily agreed to ally with the Shahdom in that war? Their whole modus operandi was creating a global Caliphate, but they were forced to ally with the Persians after their first invasion of East Rome was beaten back IIRC

 

[DanMcCollum]

Right, this was before the Germans and Persians had formalized their alliance but it was the instigator for it.

I wonder what would have happened if the Arabs hadn’t temporarily agreed to ally with the Shahdom in that war? Their whole modus operandi was creating a global Caliphate, but they were forced to ally with the Persians after their first invasion of East Rome was beaten back IIRC

Its getting a bit off topic, so I don't want to take this too far - but I have a real had time believing that the Arabs would be able to have major successes against both the Persians and the Byzantines! It was a one or another thing. Besides, if the Arabs had gone after Persia instead, the Byzantines probably would have just allied with them to take down their ancient enemy. Besides, the Arab leadership at the time wasn't quite up to the level (yet!) of the Persians and Byzantines when it came to diplomacy and real politic. Even in OTL, look how the Persian betrayal and alliance to Byzantine caught them by surprise. Any reasonable player should had understood that the Persians wanted to hurt the Byzantines, but weren't going to let another power gobble up the entirety of the Eastern Empire. They were pretty lucky to get away with Syria and Egypt as it was.

Anyway, we're digressing.

 

[cmakk1012]

Even in OTL, look how the Persian betrayal and alliance to Byzantine caught them by surprise. Any reasonable player should had understood that the Persians wanted to hurt the Byzantines, but weren't going to let another power gobble up the entirety of the Eastern Empire. They were pretty lucky to get away with Syria and Egypt as it was.

Anyway, we're digressing.

Better the enemy you know, yeah? That was definitely Khosrau’s strategy when the Arabs started making noises about Mesopotamia. In the end it was an incredibly fortuitous series of events for the Shahdom: the Arabs rose, Persia coopted them against the East Romans, then stopped them before they could get too powerful. As it was, Arab dominion only prevailed in Egypt due to geographical distance, and of course Persia snapped up Syria and Palestine in the second Perso-Arabian War.

But you’re right, the PoD’s more about Western Europe. Hmm, that’s an interesting point about Gaul— you think they wouldn’t have claimed to be the continuation of the Western Empire under the Franks?

 

[ArchimedesCircle]

But you’re right, the PoD’s more about Western Europe. Hmm, that’s an interesting point about Gaul— you think they wouldn’t have claimed to be the continuation of the Western Empire under the Franks?

I don't know, but I would guess not. The whole Soissons-Francia connection they based the Frankish Roman Empire on IOTL was already pretty damn tenuous, so I'm not sure how they'd pull it off without holding Italy.

Another interesting idea though- without the western Roman patronage of Arianism, what would have happened to them? Would they still have ended up as the fourth largest Christian sect after the Niceans, Insulars and Nestorians?

 

[DanMcCollum]

I don't know, but I would guess not. The whole Soissons-Francia connection they based the Frankish Roman Empire on IOTL was already pretty damn tenuous, so I'm not sure how they'd pull it off without holding Italy.

Another interesting idea though- without the western Roman patronage of Arianism, what would have happened to them? Would they still have ended up as the fourth largest Christian sect after the Niceans, Insulars and Nestorians?

Probably not. At the fall of the original Western Empire, Arianism was quickly dying out except among the Germanic peoples. If you don't have Odoacer and his successors favoring Arianism, its highly unlikely that would have remained in the face of Orthodoxy. Remember, under Roderick I and Odoacer II, one more or less had to be Arian in order to have any position in the Empire; and even then conversion efforts were slow and not as successful as you would think. I'm guessing that in the absence of that, Arianism would have eventually faded away in the face of Orthodoxy. Its kinda a similar, but less successful, situation to the Persians under their near two-centuries of rule by a Nestorian dynasty - in both cases the popular religion (Orthodoxy for the Romans and Zoroastrianism for the Persians) was so entrenched that the new rulers couldn't actively persecute it. They had to encourage conversion by giving economic and political benefits to the new converts. And, even in the case of Nestorianism, no more than 25 percent of the population ever converted away from the popular faith. Also, just like the Persian experience, some of the biggest gains for the ruling religion was in conversion work outside of the Empire's borders - Central Asia and Western Bharata for Nestorianism and the Germanic and Slavic tribes for Nestorianism.

 

[cmakk1012]

Also, just like the Persian experience, some of the biggest gains for the ruling religion was in conversion work outside of the Empire's borders - Central Asia and Western Bharata for Nestorianism and the Germanic and Slavic tribes for Nestorianism.

It’s funny how Nestorianism was almost just a blip on the radar in Persia—their syncretism with Zoroastrianism made religion for the masses in the heartland scarcely any different—but it was so massively important in Bharata and Central Asia. The Buddhist influences on Transoxianan Nestorianism transformed it in fascinating ways, while of course the opposite happened in Bharata—to be a fly on the wall when Sindhi Nestorians first made contact with the Kerala St. Thomas Christians!

 

[DanMcCollum]

It’s funny how Nestorianism was almost just a blip on the radar in Persia—their syncretism with Zoroastrianism made religion for the masses in the heartland scarcely any different—but it was so massively important in Bharata and Central Asia. The Buddhist influences on Transoxianan Nestorianism transformed it in fascinating ways, while of course the opposite happened in Bharata—to be a fly on the wall when Sindhi Nestorians first made contact with the Kerala St. Thomas Christians!

Well, I wouldn't say it was a 'blip' as there are considerable, and ancient, Nestorian populations in Persia to this day - especially in Mesopotamia (and the Catholicos, their patriarch, still resides in Babylon) . I think the most recent data says they make up 15% of the population. But, yes, considering the impact of Nestorian Christianity and the Church of the East outside of the Persian heartland, it's impact on Persia-proper was surprisingly minor in comparison.

Anyway, we're getting off topic again. I apologize; I just took classes in Medieval Bharata and Persian history in Grad School last semester (and my main focus is on the history of 20th Century Vinland of all things, but I can't pass up a good Medieval course!) and am probably nerding out a bit.

 

[Avrorrange]

To be fair, Germanization took centuries, and even then it was not as dramatic as is sometimes assumed—Italien is still a Romance language, just a highly divergent one with so many East Germanic loanwords (OOC: think English with its French influence). The cultural shifts, like the famous fur hats, are more obvious, but even there Roman continuity persisted.

What really doomed Roman culture was the German War. The Greek conquest of Southern Italy up to Neapolis turned the northerners against the concept of Roman identity since the Easterners based their devastating invasion on it. The southerners re-embraced their ancient Greek identity, and by the time they rebelled against Konstantinoupolis it was for a local claimant to the throne, not (originally) independence.

EDIT:



I thought the Easterners only barely reached Rome? Their destruction of the aquifers I suppose also aided Germanization, since from then on Rome itself declined and Mediolan became the center of the Italian State.

Also, I would chalk up the East Roman decline more to the Persians than the Arabs. It was a great propagandic defeat when they lost Hierosolyma, of course, but it was Shapur the Terrible who besieged Konstantinoupolis in that war.

Germanization was really Persianisation considering that the Germans looked towards the Persians as a model for empire rather than the Romans.Nestorian-Zoroastrianism almost overtook Arianism as the state religion after it was introduced by Odoacer VI’s Persian wife.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Germanization was really Persianisation considering that the Germans looked towards the Persians as a model for empire rather than the Romans.Nestorian-Zoroastrianism almost overtook Arianism as the state religion after it was introduced by Odoacer VI’s Persian wife.

Eh, looks like someone's been watching too much 'History' Channel, or reading the books of Tom Shipman. Odoacer's wife did try try to institute the Church of the East in Ravenna, and imported a number of Persian court officials along with her, but it certainly didn't go smoothly. Don't forget that anti-Nestorian religious riots nearly toppled Odoacer IV's government and forced him to temporarily flee north to Bavaria for help (who were, mind you, Arians as well. I can't believe they would do so, if Odoacer was trying to root out the Arian Church in his own realm), and there is a reason that Queen Diba was the first and only Persian wife for a Western Emperor for a couple of centuries!

There is a Nestorian community in Romeland today that is very ancient, but it seems to have been started by travelers and merchants in the 8th century and then reinforced by Mesopotamian Nestorians fleeing the Zoroastrian Renaissance in Persia during the early 9th century. But at no point did they ever come close to truly supplanting Arianism in the region - that idea comes from the reign of Queen Diba, and some of the more radical Arian writers of the 9th century who feared the refugees and the prominent place in court that a few were given.

 

[Faeelin]

Now, what might be interesting, is if the Goths end up being less successful against the Franks. In OTL, Odoacar's heirs were pretty competent and were able to make an alliance with the Visigoths and fold the Franks at bay in Northern Gaul. If the Gothic King's heirs are less successful, or if he doesn't leave a natural heir (that would suck!), you might see the Franks be able to secure control over all of Gaul. THAT would certainly change things!

I don't know. The Frankish state seems so natural, at least to me, because it's centered on the Rhine Valley. Some weird state stretching from Aachen to the Pyrenees? Seems unwieldy.

 

[DanMcCollum]

I don't know. The Frankish state seems so natural, at least to me, because it's centered on the Rhine Valley. Some weird state stretching from Aachen to the Pyrenees? Seems unwieldy.

Well yeah, it would be, and maybe a bit of a stretch; but Gaul was seen as a cohesive unit throughout the Roman Era and I've always found it a bit of a shame that it was subdivided between the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Franks in OTL and has never been united again. Just call it the Romantic in me, I suppose, but I want to see a unified Gaul is SOME timeline!

 

[ArchimedesCircle]

Well yeah, it would be, and maybe a bit of a stretch; but Gaul was seen as a cohesive unit throughout the Roman Era and I've always found it a bit of a shame that it was subdivided between the Visigoths, Burgundians, and Franks in OTL and has never been united again. Just call it the Romantic in me, I suppose, but I want to see a unified Gaul is SOME timeline!

Great Avaria came pretty damn close in 785. Maybe they could have united Gaul if they hadn't been pushed back by the Western Roman-Visigothic-Breton-Frankish coalition at the battle of Armorica.

 

[cmakk1012]

There is a Nestorian community in Romeland today that is very ancient, but it seems to have been started by travelers and merchants in the 8th century and then reinforced by Mesopotamian Nestorians fleeing the Zoroastrian Renaissance in Persia during the early 9th century. But at no point did they ever come close to truly supplanting Arianism in the region - that idea comes from the reign of Queen Diba, and some of the more radical Arian writers of the 9th century who feared the refugees and the prominent place in court that a few were given.

Most of the Mesopotamian Nestorians went to the First Tamil Empire, I thought? I just remember that “men of the Parsi” were mentioned as a significant part of Mar Thoma’s great army in the Nasrani Chronicle who he gave some land to as part of his reforms following the conquest.

As for the Arian paranoia, as once it was, so always it shall be

Seriously, go into any Temple today. Half of the sermons are about those scary forrin Bharati, or nasty dirty Greeks—it’s embarassing, really.

Great Avaria came pretty damn close in 785. Maybe they could have united Gaul if they hadn't been pushed back by the Western Roman-Visigothic-Breton-Frankish coalition at the battle of Armorica.

They were a real shooting star, weren’t they? The Avars went from being a random Germanic tribe to dominating Gaul and Hispania, only to completely fall apart after Armorica.