From Exile to Triumph: a Western Roman Timeline
- Thread starter Flavius Iulius Nepos
- Start date
They are just small units,so they are expendable.Besides,an internal problem like this is much more lethal than a barbarian invasion.If you don’t make the punishment severe enough,the rest of the army would be encouraged to do the same,thinking that they wouldn’t be well punished in the event that the rebellion failed.
If they were small enough that the Emperor can massacre them without any adverse effects then there would have been no rebellion. The army must have been large enough for Orestes to have some hope of success otherwise the units themselves wouldn`t have joined in, no matter how much money he threw at them.
Besides, the WRE still hasn`t solved its recruitment problems. Marcianus doesn`t have the luxury of throwing away trained fighting men, even if they are mutinous conscripts.
On the flip side, if you do massacre the units that were a part of the uprising then any units that take part in any subsequent uprising will fight to the death rather than surrender.
And after all, Orestes`s rebellion was quickly crushed because some of the soldiers that rebelled opened the gates to the Imperial army.
The whole rebellion was basically a joke. Orestes’ army was so small that it couldn’t have taken Aquileia without the element of surprise and perfidy. Given that as soon as government forces were despatched,they were boxed in,this probably suggested that with this army alone,Orestes probably never had any chance of success.The mutineers were probably hoping for Theodoric to intervene on their behalf to have any chance of success.
And besides that,they killed a member of the Imperial family and a Dux. The troops should be punished far more strongly than any usual mutiny.
Those can be spared.
Prevention is also better than a cure.
Even though Gothic involvement in the conflict is uncertain and probably Marcianus will live with the doubt, here I can reveal the truth; Theodoric was really involved. He wasn t able to intervene quickly, but the movements of the Goths reported by Sigeric should be linked with the revolt. And now, with the failure of the revolt, Theodoric is probably going to use Orestes against Marcianus in the future. Currently the Thracian Goths are not returning under the rule of Theodoric, since they obey to their own king (see Chapter XXVI), however these Goths are going to play an important role soon.
Marcianus Valens represent a last minute addition to this timeline (like Marcianus’s death) since I wanted to start developing a collateral branch of the imperial family. Surely between the two men there can’t be anything positive, but we will see how this character is going to influence history. Maybe he will get his own vengeance in the end or maybe not...
Not many soldiers survived after the fall of Aquileia and with the exception of the deserters, everyone else has been immediately executed.
Personally I don’t think that the decimation of the few survivors would be an appropriate example for the entire army. After all they killed a relative of the emperor and a member of the imperial administration.
You’re right, dismissing them all would probably be seen as a “reward”.
The empire can’t afford to rely on these kind of soldiers. In this way you are giving the wrong “example”.
Here some more info I forgot to add in the last update: these two units amounted to 2000 soldiers more or less. Not a real army but enough to hold Aquileia until Theodoric’s arrival. Sure the rebels were defeated, but that was only due to Orestes’s harsh discipline. The imperial army didn’t have a great numerical advantage, considering that they had to act quickly. Since Marcianus was residing in the city of Verona during that period of the year, he was able to promptly arrange a small army that included the Domestici with him and local Italic units. No more than 4000 men. Not really the numbers of a civil war but only thanks to the quick fall of Aquileia. Marcianus can only hope that the punishment represent a good way to keep the army loyal to him, since he showed clemency toward the deserters. Maybe in the future I should add some more informations about the Western Roman army since this part is missing in the timeline.
More than a hope it was almost a certainty. At Aemona Orestes didn’t act alone, but was in contact with Theodoric and economically supported by the king. He never had any change to take the throne with such small army, however he could have paved the way for a Gothic invasion of Italy. Unfortunately for him, the imperial response was quicker than the Gothic intervention.
Last edited:
Reading again the latest chapters, my interest would grow towards an once for now mentioned character: Sigismund, the recently appointed king of the Burgundians, and quite the interesting character OTL which would play likely an important role during Marcianus's realm.
For first, because TTL as OTL would surely bring Burgundy into Catholicism: he converted even before he was king, and even went in Rome in pilgrimage prior the death of his father, but being co-ruler. TTL would likely be the first barbarian prince in ages to come in the Imperial Capital, as pilgrim as TTL as foederate vassal of the Empire. Surely he would have met Marcianus and bowed to him, obtaining at the occasion the title of Patrician. And remaining fascinated to see the Eternal City and the Palatine, both in much better state than the entire Middle Ages. OTL, and that was quite interesting, obtained the title from Athanasius likely through papal intermission.
Here is a Burgundian coin with the image of Justin I and the initials of Sigismund. Imagine how TTL we will have Marcianus. Anyway, if OTL Burgundy was by reflex influenced by the ERE, here we can see the realm likely becoming like Pannonia under his guidance - de facto indipendent, de jure inside the Empire. Considering also how his future actions (the assassination of his son) and the French ones - wonder if Chlodomer would attack Sigismund weakened by the scandal - would be treated by the Empire...
Finally, with Sigismund being patrician and magister militum by Marcianus's decision, is possible that the Romans under his reign would be more supportive of him TTL. Burgundy, and the cities of Vienne and Lyon could prosper much in this phase.
So I would look with interest the exploit of this ruler.
For first, because TTL as OTL would surely bring Burgundy into Catholicism: he converted even before he was king, and even went in Rome in pilgrimage prior the death of his father, but being co-ruler. TTL would likely be the first barbarian prince in ages to come in the Imperial Capital, as pilgrim as TTL as foederate vassal of the Empire. Surely he would have met Marcianus and bowed to him, obtaining at the occasion the title of Patrician. And remaining fascinated to see the Eternal City and the Palatine, both in much better state than the entire Middle Ages. OTL, and that was quite interesting, obtained the title from Athanasius likely through papal intermission.
Finally, with Sigismund being patrician and magister militum by Marcianus's decision, is possible that the Romans under his reign would be more supportive of him TTL. Burgundy, and the cities of Vienne and Lyon could prosper much in this phase.
So I would look with interest the exploit of this ruler.
the western Roman empire soon is going to have to recognize some of these barbaians kingdom as new states and recognise them as sovereign states and maybe give up there claim if they want to survive the coming storm and could we have teh Romans try to kill the vandals and take the arsenal of Carthage?
Considering that in this timeline Theodoric remained in Pannonia, Sigeric never had the possibility to sire the son he would later kill. This assassination probably costed him the support of the Ostrogothic kingdom. Here there are no reasons for the deterioration of relationship between Roman Italy and Sigismund and Rome has already shown its interest in the region. Probably I will give some more info about Burgundy in the next update but I’m not sure yet because I also want to cover events taking place in Pannonia, Constantinople, Italy ecc. What I can say is that the incoming period is going to be pretty “dense”.
Rome is never going to officially give up former Roman provinces. Reality however can be different. About the Vandals I can say ( as you probably already expect ) that Rome will obviously attempt a new military expedition against them in the future. However I won’t tell you if this expedition ( or similar ) is going to be completely successful or smooth.
Not happening. The present arrangement is beneficial to both the Romans and the barbarians. The barbarians needs a sense of legality to rule over their Roman subjects.This is why they request titles such as patrician,consul or Magister Militum.
And for the Empire to reassure itself of its superior rank towards them. De jure aside Britannia and Armorica, the West is "united". Why break it? The process of full separation and indipendence will happen much more later.
So this will be a long gradual process because there is no way they will be able to reclaim especially with the Islamic invasion coming and what your plan with that if they take Carthage will they a just hold Carthage and the surrounding area or b will they be big enough that they will have to invade or will Rome just stop theme anyway
We have to see first how the realm of Justinian will develop TTL. This one would be quite the ulterior chasm from OTL so what would happen there would affect the WRE as well.
k I just hope Justinian does just smart stuff instead of what he did otl.
We're still in the early 500s keep that in mind the birth of Muhammad could be butterflied away. On another note, since we were speaking of Justinian I'm thinking that since he's still the same ambitious man that he might try liberating the Christians in Mesopotamia by conquering it from the sassanids and with that probably make the lakhmids a byzantine vassal again. This would lead to the lakhmids and ghassanids both competing for Arabian dominance and well probably see a Christian Arabian kingdom form in Arabia that's a client state to the Byzantines. Now while the latter part could go either way I do believe Justinian conquering Mesopotamia is very likely since the area is rich and majority Christian and he also doesn't have a western Roman empire to be obsessed with reconquering
Justinian would need to be more tolerant than he was OTL. Don't underestimate the divide that the Byzantines helped to foster when it came to some of their particularly hardline stances on religion. Of course if he does tolerate the other sects of Christianity, it could be a massive boon for the Empire's long term prospects thanks to not alienating a huge portion of the Christian world.
I could also see them taking Mesopotamia but it would be very hard to hold due to logistical issues. Though if they hold it long enough to get it to pay for its own defense a lot of that could be alleviated. Though I do think that the Empires should focus on getting back Spain first. It was a fairly wealthy province, highly romanized and is held by what appears to be a Visigothic monarchy built on a teetering house of cards. That and North Africa.
Dang youre right about the byzantines lack of tolerance that does throw a wrench in things. And about the logistics problems of Mesopotamia, I think for the United Roman empire like in the 100s holding Mesopotamia would be too much as the empire is overstretched but for the eastern empire I don't think it's as big a problem since the eastern empire is focused and mainly in the middle east so Mesopotamia could be easier to hold since they have less fronts to watch and also there's two navigable rivers which could be used for quick communication and transport.
But yes I agree that the empires should focus on reclaiming some of the lost provinces first and hey maybe that's what Justinian will do since he can't reconquer the west he'll just support the Wests efforts to reconquer