Gothic War Avoided

One of the more infamous mistakes the Roman government ever made was at the hands of the governors in charge of overseeing the Gothic settlement into Roman territory that lead to the Gothic War and the battle of Adrianople. The Romans so brutally treated the starving desperate Goths that historians report the well-known story that the Goths were able to buy dogs for food, at the price of one child sold into slavery per dog.

Now, I've always had some doubts about this story, but I've never heard any conflicting versions, so it would seem that we have to go with it. Whatever the case, the fact remains that the Goths were considered to be so desperate for food that they would sell their own children into slavery for dog meat. Its almost comical.

However, there is one key detail that is left out of most tellings of this tale: It was Roman practice to disarm tribes that wanted to settle in the Empire. That only made sense. However, in this case, due to logistical problems, the Goths were not disarmed, and were one giant encamped conglomeration, just waiting for a spark to ignite.

What if the Romans on the scene were more intelligent and less cartoonishly greedy, or replaced by some that fit that criteria? Rather than angering a bunch of barbarians by extorting them for slaves, what if the Romans didn't say 'one dog to eat for your kid?' What if they said 'one dog to eat, for your weapons?' Or whatever conversion rate makes the most sense on the ground. The important part is that these people who were desperate enough to sell their kids surely would have been desperate enough to sell their weapons, instead, correct?

So, the Romans are able to gradually disarm the camp, the Goths are fed, and less unhappy. The Romans are also likely able to manage the remaining Goths still across the border, rather than being totally impotent to stop them from crossing at will. And, there is less likely to be such high tension that the Romans kill some Gothic notables during negotiations.

TLDR: What if the Romans don't do literally everything wrong regarding the settlement of the Goths?
 
The reason the Goths didn't sell their weapons was because they were on the edge of the Roman frontier and used as soldiers against the Huns. Plus, maybe have the Romans more tolerant towards Arianism might would've helped. But, it's still going to be hard, considering the Romans arrogance and bigotry towards any tribe from Northern Europe and beyond. It went well beyond having to sell their children into slavery for the Goths to go into war against the Romans.
 
- The Romans intended to disarm the Goths, as they had done with every other tribe. Gothic troops could becessily re-armed.

- Valens was an Arian, or at least supportive of Arianism.
 
My understanding, based on the History of Rome podcast, is that the initial plan was to settle the Goths like any other group into the empire. The problem was that the Roman Empire was already facing threats on multiple fronts and had still not regained full political stability following the death of Valentian. As a consequence, there weren't enough troops to meet the Goths with overwhelming force and control their entry into the empire. And well, it all snowballed from there.

teg
 
Now, I've always had some doubts about this story, but I've never heard any conflicting versions, so it would seem that we have to go with it.
It is not that doubtful, when you remembers about the Barbarian settlements within Romania before the late IVth century : laeti (among other statutes) weren't considered as free, and more like serves, directly under the imperial patronage.

It gives room for regional bullying, especially when political differences (as much as Valens was homean as Gothic peoples could be; Homeism wasn't that present among Christian Roman elites) and a far Emperor can help it (Valens was too busy with Parthians at this point to really manage the situation).

So, while the narrative can be checked (it's somewhat reminiscent of the provincial treatment in the late Republic, at least how it is told), there's nothing particularily problematic as far as I know.

The important part is that these people who were desperate enough to sell their kids surely would have been desperate enough to sell their weapons, instead, correct?
Maybe not. Laeti and federated statut was seen as humiliating among Barbarians, especially when it came about loosing important identitarian features (hairs, beliefs, weapons) to be treated as at best freed slaves.

The only comparison I could think of, and it would be a bad one, would be about Syrian refugees being allowed in Europe but only supplied with food as pork or wine. Sure, it technically beats starvation and war, but on an identitarian matter...

Not that it wasn't possible : as you said, it was done before. But not on this scale, not that quickly, and not while you had that many crises ongoing.

At the very least, it would ask for Valens to be present there. Part of the laeti statut acceptence was the Roman military prestige (see Salians), and the presence of the emperor could help (and even more so, of course, when it comes to check out on local management).
It wouldn't be a miracle solution : the previous Gothic War, on the other side of the Danube, clearly didn't made all Goths romanophiles (and that precedent might have helped tensions to arise really quickly really high).

But it would help having the Armenian question being quickly resolved in the early 370's.

TLDR: What if the Romans don't do literally everything wrong regarding the settlement of the Goths?

I've two seemingly conflicted point of view about this.

First, you'd certainly not end with one Gothic peoples, but a set of peoples sharing a Gothic denomination (denomination most likely systematized by Romans) : Trevingi, Greuthingi, etc.
IOTL, it existed as well, but experiences of raiding and campaigning since more than one century did helped alliances and confederation.

There Rome have an opportunity to break this, partially and possibly temporarily but it could end as with Ostrogothic peoples in ERE : divided and more or less dominated by Rome between Thracians, Pannonian, Macedonians Ostrogothi.

Maybe Valens could pull something like this with the various Gothic elements there (meaning as well Trevingi, Greuthingi, Alans, whatever remained of Dacians)?

That said, it would be hard. Scale and timing are quite new, and even with a non-horrible management of the crisis, tensions and possible conflicts wouldn't go anyway.

Battle of Adrianople, in spite of its historiographical importance, did had that much worrying consequences, and even some positive ones.

Goths were still unable to take the important regional cities, and Romans were able to force a status quo (an ATL as presented above would probably go further than that, as for late IVth situation, of course).
The main issue is that a large (even if patchwork-esque) Roman army was defeated, giving Goths confidence they could anew impose themselves.

But Theodosian reforms would probably be butterflied away ITTL, meaning a maintain of some issues that would be resolved one way or another, without as much impetus for Romans to do so themselves ITTL.
Meaning a very possible Adrianople-equivalent in a later time, in a different situation, but as long these problems aren't adressed except maybe with "Well, if the Emperor is there, it's okay" it can create a vicious circle quite quickly.

Now, even if tensions and campaigns are still going to happen, you may end (with enough changes and continuously positive outcomes) see Danube border being more similar to Rhine border, with relatively stable entities and Barbarian federates : see Late Imperial Gaul for having an idea (with the caveat that Moesia was impoverished and had more room for brutal conflicts than Gaul at this point).
 
Top