Discussion: the final POD to keep the WRE survive

I do have a question.How come Majorian or Ricimer did not command sufficient loyalty from the army to successfully fend off any moves from the aristocrats?The two of them commanded the army for quit a while and were successful up until the Vandal surprise attack—which only burnt the fleet,but did not really do any serious damage beyond that.
 
step1.
Nepos uncovers and foils the plot against him

step 2.
the Ostrogoths don't unite thanks to stupid death of Theoderic Strabo

step 3.
Either half of the Ostrogoths moves to Italy with support from Constantinople. In return for their support, they are to retain Nepos (and his descendants) on the western imperial throne

step 4.
When the Italian Ostrogoths weaken, the Eastern Romans move against them

step 5.
Nepos's descendant sides with the eastern Romans and keeps his throne
 
You mean the barbarian mercenaries hired by Majorian? Just no. He was talented but unlike Caesar and Octavian, he lacked a proper Roman Army to accompany him.
@LSCatilina and others know more about this than I do, IIRC, but lacking a "Roman" army isn't as big a hindrance as you think. The Roman Republic/Empire relied on non-citizens for at least half their forces since its inception. After 212, outside foederati made up an increasingly large percentage of the army (replacing the non-citizen auxiliaries that had always been a part of the Roman army), and this did not lead to any real decline in the quality of the Roman military. The problem with late-western Rome was manpower. When they fought battles, they almost always still won, they just could not really afford the losses sustained in the process.

And even after purging the aristocrats (which is borderline ASB unless you are invaders), it would take years to build up a pre-Adrianople Army. Until then, Ricimer could have easily killed him if he wanted, because he still controlled the "Roman" army.
This is a rather simplistic reading of the political situation. It's true, Majorian cannot realistically carry out a purge of the aristocrats. It is also true that he did not need to, as long as he was successful. Military success breeds its own political power. Assuming Majorian can successfully land in and take back North Africa from the Vandals (which isn't as difficult as people seem to think, the hard part was getting to North Africa, but it should fold relatively easily once an army lands), that gives him enormous prestige and political power on its own-here is the man who retook the breadbasket and economic hub of the empire. In addition to that, it gives him a vital revenue stream and tax base that can be used to replenish the empire's finances-that is something the empire will have access to regardless of Majorian himself surviving, and as Peter Heather has convincingly argued, as long as the Western Roman Empire controlled North Africa, it could survive indefinitely, if not return to its former hegemonic position.On top of all this, many of the defeated Vandals would be recruited into Majorian's army, as they were in the eastern roman army after their conquest IOTL. As for Ricimer, his move against Majorian was as much self preservation as it was opportunistic-unlike Majorian at the time, he had to deal with the fickle Italian elite that were not fond of him, and it is possible that he recognized after the disastrous defeat in Spain, the knives would be out for Majorian-and he would go down with him if he didn't turn coat. In any case, if Majorian wants to get rid of Ricimer at this time, after returning from Africa a conquering hero, Ricimer is pretty much a dead man.
I do have a question.How come Majorian or Ricimer did not command sufficient loyalty from the army to successfully fend off any moves from the aristocrats?The two of them commanded the army for quit a while and were successful up until the Vandal surprise attack—which only burnt the fleet,but did not really do any serious damage beyond that.
Not sure, but then again, support among the army didn't stop Stilicho from being overthrown. It didn't help either that Majorian had just suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Vandals in Spain.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
@LSCatilina and others know more about this than I do, IIRC, but lacking a "Roman" army isn't as big a hindrance as you think. The Roman Republic/Empire relied on non-citizens for at least half their forces since its inception. After 212, outside foederati made up an increasingly large percentage of the army (replacing the non-citizen auxiliaries that had always been a part of the Roman army), and this did not lead to any real decline in the quality of the Roman military. The problem with late-western Rome was manpower. When they fought battles, they almost always still won, they just could not really afford the losses sustained in the process.
I mean they could not recruit new soldiers from the lower class non-barbarian population (e.g. their OTL solution after Cannae disaster). My definition for barbarians in this period would be Germanic tribes and the Huns, who arrived at the Empire during the 4th century and had never been Roman subjects.

It didn't help either that Majorian had just suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Vandals in Spain.
That mostly barbarian army tended to answer to barbarian leaders/generals like Ricimer or Odoacer rather than Majorian. I mean, these barbarian generals had the actual authority over the soldiers. Thats why I said if Ricimer died, someone similar to him would emerge, as long as the Gothic/Germanic barbarians remain a majority of the "Roman" Army, unless WRE could de-Germanize its military like ERE eventually did.

Not all barbarians were dangerous, but recruiting those who were not your subjects and were actively raiding and fighting you is suicidal, and this means the more reliable sources of troops were depleted.

The problem, as you as, is manpower. But the question is, why did WRE manpower decline? The Roman Empire lost as many men in Cannae as in Frigidus and more than in Adrianople.
I once read through several arguments which if true would need a far earlier POD to solve: first, Gibbon's argument, the Empire's bread and circuses (especially circuses) policy was extremely costly and worse, it made the popular mass, which forms the basis of every modern army, become lazy and irresponsible; second, lead water tapes and vessels led to low birth rate. And third, by the time of late Empire, non-urban Roman population was essentially tenants locked up in latifundas (and the landowners were not willing to release them).
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Can we have WRE functioning as a "Kingdom of Italy"? I can see that the Italian states like Venice did perfectly well economically during the Middle Age.
 
That mostly barbarian army tended to answer to barbarian leaders/generals like Ricimer or Odoacer rather than Majorian. I mean, these barbarian generals had the actual authority over the soldiers. Thats why I said if Ricimer died, someone similar to him would emerge, as long as the Gothic/Germanic barbarians remain a majority of the "Roman" Army, unless WRE could de-Germanize its military like ERE eventually did.

Not all barbarians were dangerous, but recruiting those who were not your subjects and were actively raiding and fighting you is suicidal, and this means the more reliable sources of troops were depleted.
Why can't they actually put Roman officers in higher ups and leave barbarian officers in the middle-upper levels of the army like they used to do?My impression in the late Roman army was that there's two types of barbarian soldiers--people who get paid to fight and then leave when the fighting's over and then there are the more regular barbarian forces,much similar to the earlier Batavian Guard and the later Varangian guard who are barbarian but fight on a permanent basis for Rome.You most certainly can't control who is the officer in the former force,but shouldn't you be able to do that for the latter one?
The problem, as you as, is manpower. But the question is, why did WRE manpower decline? The Roman Empire lost as many men in Cannae as in Frigidus and more than in Adrianople.
I once read through several arguments which if true would need a far earlier POD to solve: first, Gibbon's argument, the Empire's bread and circuses (especially circuses) policy was extremely costly and worse, it made the popular mass, which forms the basis of every modern army, become lazy and irresponsible; second, lead water tapes and vessels led to low birth rate. And third, by the time of late Empire, non-urban Roman population was essentially tenants locked up in latifundas (and the landowners were not willing to release them).
Agree.I think the reason why the empire couldn't recover as easily after Frigidus is because it took way longer to train the late Roman army than it did an earlier force.From what I have read from Maurice's Strategikon,it's implied that the Roman army emphasized more on personal combat skills than triumphing through superior fighting doctrine.In it,Maurice mentioned having the troops spar each other with spears and that troops should be skilled in the use of the spear.The age old method of fighting with a shield and a gladius(which did not really require as much training as using a spear or a spatha) was rendered obsolete by advances in cavalry tactics.This means that it would be harder to train Roman civilians to become soldiers,especially in a quick time.
 
Last edited:
Why can't they actually put Roman officers in higher ups and leave barbarian officers in the middle-upper levels of the army like they used to do? My impression in the late Roman army was that there's two types of barbarian soldiers--people who get paid to fight and then leave when the fighting's over and then there are the more regular barbarian forces,much similar to the earlier Batavian Guard and the later Varangian guard who are barbarian but fight on a permanent basis for Rome.

Arther Ferrill in The Fall of the Roman Empire: The Military Explanation http://www.deremilitari.org/REVIEWS/Ferrill_FallRomEmpire.htm talks about something similar: Barbarians who joined the Roman Army became Roman, Roman in culture, Roman in attitudes - Roman. While Barbarians who fought in Barbarian Tribal groupings in combination with Roman armies, stayed Barbarian.



 
The latest POD I can think of is that Nepos doesn't get killed, either because he uncovers the plot against him or that he's given more protection by the Eastern Emperor. When Zeno sends Theoderic into Italy, Theoderic brings Nepos with him to Ravenna after being mandated to do so by Zeno. However Nepos, like most of the late Western Emperors is merely a puppet with little real power and Theoderic merely uses him to establish more legitimacy for his regime among the Italian Romans.

How this affects Justinian's policy regarding Italy is difficult to say.
 
Yeah going to second Nepos here, but it really depends on what 'WRE' is meant to mean. Post-Majorian it seems pretty unlikely that the Empire could realistically reconquer Gaul, Hispania, etc, within the near-mid term future. Its best bet would be to remain effectively Italy and North Africa*. What exactly is the WRE even for then, though? It is not terribly challenging to rule Italy from Constantinople, and given that 'WRE' and 'ERE' are modern constructions of a sort i.e. the Romans only ever considered there to be one Empire with sometimes more than one Emperor, it would seem quite likely to me that the WRE would end up being rolled back into the RE proper if it is saved at any point post-Majorian. That does not mean that in the long term a 'WRE' might be re-established for one reason or another, but there is little reason to keep up two potentially competing Roman courts if the Empire is reduced to the Central/Eastern med. Perhaps an early version of the Exarch system might be developed though.

*I find it extremely unlikely that the Vandal kingdom would not be destroyed earlier than OTL if Italy remains in Imperial hands.
 
Yeah going to second Nepos here, but it really depends on what 'WRE' is meant to mean. Post-Majorian it seems pretty unlikely that the Empire could realistically reconquer Gaul, Hispania, etc, within the near-mid term future. Its best bet would be to remain effectively Italy and North Africa*. What exactly is the WRE even for then, though? It is not terribly challenging to rule Italy from Constantinople, and given that 'WRE' and 'ERE' are modern constructions of a sort i.e. the Romans only ever considered there to be one Empire with sometimes more than one Emperor, it would seem quite likely to me that the WRE would end up being rolled back into the RE proper if it is saved at any point post-Majorian. That does not mean that in the long term a 'WRE' might be re-established for one reason or another, but there is little reason to keep up two potentially competing Roman courts if the Empire is reduced to the Central/Eastern med. Perhaps an early version of the Exarch system might be developed though.

*I find it extremely unlikely that the Vandal kingdom would not be destroyed earlier than OTL if Italy remains in Imperial hands.



You exactly the points I was going to make!!!!!!!!!!! :)


Post-Majorian Western Imperial remnants are stuffed. . .
 
Top