DBWI: Rome splits?

What if Theodosius had followed the dynastic tradition of Constantine and split the Roman empire between his two sons Arcadius and Honorius, instead of appointing his elder son Arcadius as emperor to rule from Constantinopolis? Who would have gotten each half? Would Arcadius still have managed to secure primacy for the Bishop of Constantinopolis? What do you think?
 
Personally, I think the North-South theory has always been much more compelling than the "little East-West" theory, or the "pan-oceanic East-West" theory.
 
Ah, the old Alexandria/Rome one. Personally, I doubt that would be viable... by the time Arcadius III comes into power the African conquests are too vulnerable... just southern Rome would have a hard time holding them, forcing the collapse of Souther Rome. I would expect successor states in Egypt, Carthage, and Ethiopia, as well as the loss of the conquests. The Mongols would pick up the peices.
 
Last edited:
One can only hope that in this case one of the brothers (or their advisors) would have enough common sense to kill one of them. Splitting the empire in the direst times, when lots and lots of Germanics and later Huns cross the borders? What's next, sending a mad but shrewed revolutionary into another country so he makes enough trouble to force said country to make peace?
 
The Eastern Empire would fall to the Persians in short order, at the very latest in the 600s when the Arab dynasty took the Persian Throne and caused a resurgence (often called the Zoroastrian Reformation due to religious actions made by Mahomet I). Maybe a city-state would survive in Constantinopolis, but it wouldn't be much.

The West could keep going, though. It had the richest part of the Empire, after all, and the barbarians would fall off. It certainly wouldn't be as strong as a united empire, though.
 
What about Stilicho? If the empire was split he could usurp power rather than be executed by Arcadius after fleeing to a church. He'd have to put a puppet on the throne because as a Vandal he wouldn't be able to become Emperor. Maybe just keep Honorius? Maybe the attempted barbarian invasion of the Danube would be successful? What if?
 
Personally, I think the North-South theory has always been much more compelling than the "little East-West" theory, or the "pan-oceanic East-West" theory.

Well, unless I am wrong, the empire did split on an east/west basis at least once or twice. And I would imagine that it would be a bit easier to rule Spain and Africa from, say, Ravenna than to try to rule Africa and Syria from Constantinople.

All in all, if the empire is split, I would say that at least one of those pieces is going to fall apart unless it is reconquered. I could even see both pieces being chewed up and the entire empire being reduced to a number of small, weak petty kingdoms
 
What about Stilicho? If the empire was split he could usurp power rather than be executed by Arcadius after fleeing to a church. He'd have to put a puppet on the throne because as a Vandal he wouldn't be able to become Emperor. Maybe just keep Honorius? Maybe the attempted barbarian invasion of the Danube would be successful? What if?

Remember, he wasn't executed by Arcadius right away. It was only after Arcadius grew up and shook off his domineering control that Arcadius killed him. Stilicho could easily play the two brothers against each other to his own advantage.
 
Remember, he wasn't executed by Arcadius right away. It was only after Arcadius grew up and shook off his domineering control that Arcadius killed him. Stilicho could easily play the two brothers against each other to his own advantage.

I
tHinkally Stilicho might gain control and one of The brothers could rule the entire empire.PErhaps we could avoid the Gothic sack of Constantinople in 410 and the emergence of The Graeco-Visigothic Kingdom in Greece.
 
Top