Latest POD for a surviving Western Empire?

This may have been asked before, but what is the last possible POD for a surviving Western Roman Empire? By 'surviving' I mean a WRE that manages to last into at least the tenth century, albeit probably with various changes in fortune (if it's initially just limited to Italia and perhaps parts of Gaul and Hispania that is fine). In particular, I'm looking for something post 300 AD.

Any ideas?

Amitiés,
Endymion
 
Well, I think the West could have survived, but it would be very different (lands probably limited to Italia, Germania, Sicily, and maybe parts of Gaul). You'd need a strong Caesar-like emperor to unite the empire sometime after Theodosius' permanent split and before 476. Might I suggest a military coup for the discovery of a good leader? Perhaps the great Stilicho before his death?
 
Not likely, what people tended to ignore was that innovation was practically at a standstill during the Roman empire, sure they "adopted" useful methods from those they conquered, but never invented much themselves.

Take for example Classical Athens, in order to create it's middle class it had roughly one slave for every two free men (note the exclusion of women). Rome was no different except in scale, it still used wooden ploughs that broke often and had to be forced down with human force, it still used the less efficient 2 crop rotation system, it never developed the overshoot or undershoot watermill, and since the default solution was to throw more slave labor at something menial labor eventually became despised and no-citizen of status was interested in productivity improvements.

The Empire was in terminal decline, it was reliant on it's military power which was only possible with the surplus slaves offered. As soon as the supply of slaves ran dry the military could no longer be supported and became mutinous (more so than usual). There's a reason it was only around the late middle ages that professional armies became possible again, Roman technology simply didn't allow for that much agricultural surplus without slavery.
 
The Roman Empire never really invented anything. The Gladius and pila were Spanish, the armor was first Greek then (Gallic?). Even their religion is based off the Greeks.


Anyway what was true for the west as far as stagnation went was true for the easy. Everyone forgets that before theodosius the east was much worse off than the west.
 
I would argue that the Western Roman Empire DID survive post-476. Only if you consider Rome to be the line of Emperors did it really end. Most of the barbarians tribes who settled in Roman territory assimilated extremely quickly. The Visgoths are the best example of this. They became virtually indistinguishable from the average Roman citizen within a generation.

Roman law continued to be practiced, Latin continued to be spoken and many Roman institutions remained in place. The Roman Senate continued to meet until the 600s and the Roman Catholic Church still exists today. Roman culture really only falls apart with the Islamic Conquests in 632, which killed the Roman trade network and brought on total economic collapse.
 
The Roman Empire never really invented anything. The Gladius and pila were Spanish, the armor was first Greek then (Gallic?). Even their religion is based off the Greeks.


Anyway what was true for the west as far as stagnation went was true for the easy. Everyone forgets that before theodosius the east was much worse off than the west.

Lorica segmentata?
 
Not likely, what people tended to ignore was that innovation was practically at a standstill during the Roman empire, sure they "adopted" useful methods from those they conquered, but never invented much themselves.

Take for example Classical Athens, in order to create it's middle class it had roughly one slave for every two free men (note the exclusion of women). Rome was no different except in scale, it still used wooden ploughs that broke often and had to be forced down with human force, it still used the less efficient 2 crop rotation system, it never developed the overshoot or undershoot watermill, and since the default solution was to throw more slave labor at something menial labor eventually became despised and no-citizen of status was interested in productivity improvements.

The Empire was in terminal decline, it was reliant on it's military power which was only possible with the surplus slaves offered. As soon as the supply of slaves ran dry the military could no longer be supported and became mutinous (more so than usual). There's a reason it was only around the late middle ages that professional armies became possible again, Roman technology simply didn't allow for that much agricultural surplus without slavery.

This is a pretty darn daft argument. How do you factor in that most areas reached maximal productivity in the second century, long after the phase of initial conquest which brought in the real glut of slaves into the state? And, even more so, why were places like Syria and Palestine more prosperous at the start of the sixth century AD than they had been at any point in their history?

Furthermore, how do you account for the Byzantines and various Islamic states retaining paid professional armies throughout the medieval era?

Are you seriously arguing that from the late Republic right up until the Islamic conquest, the Roman state was in one long period of terminal decline? Are you a Marxist historian by any chance?

QuoProQuid said:
I would argue that the Western Roman Empire DID survive post-476. Only if you consider Rome to be the line of Emperors did it really end. Most of the barbarians tribes who settled in Roman territory assimilated extremely quickly. The Visgoths are the best example of this. They became virtually indistinguishable from the average Roman citizen within a generation.

Roman law continued to be practiced, Latin continued to be spoken and many Roman institutions remained in place. The Roman Senate continued to meet until the 600s and the Roman Catholic Church still exists today. Roman culture really only falls apart with the Islamic Conquests in 632, which killed the Roman trade network and brought on total economic collapse.

I'm not sure about this. Sure, Romans did not disappear overnight, but from 476 onward there was no Western Emperor for the new monarchies of the West to look to in their power struggles, and no Western imperial system for them to try to slot themselves into. Justinian's reconquest could not fully solve this problem.

I definitely agree that a really "Roman" state ended in the seventh century. Sure, the Byzantines were a continuation of the Roman state, but it was a Roman state that really had turned a corner and started moving in a very different direction, rather than one that had seen no major upheavals certainly since Diocletian, arguably since Augustus.
_________________________

To answer, the OP, you can probably get a viable WRE as late as the great expedition of 468. Anthemius was a proven decent general, and he had the full backing of the Eastern Empire behind his plan of reconquest.
 
I'm not sure about this. Sure, Romans did not disappear overnight, but from 476 onward there was no Western Emperor for the new monarchies of the West to look to in their power struggles, and no Western imperial system for them to try to slot themselves into. Justinian's reconquest could not fully solve this problem.

I definitely agree that a really "Roman" state ended in the seventh century. Sure, the Byzantines were a continuation of the Roman state, but it was a Roman state that really had turned a corner and started moving in a very different direction, rather than one that had seen no major upheavals certainly since Diocletian, arguably since Augustus.

If we are defining the Western Roman Empire by its authority, then it ended in 395 with the death of Theodosius I. The new monarchies of Europe did not look to the Emperor to solve disputes. He was more often a puppet of these new kings than any sort of sovereign. Individuals like Romulus Augustus were not even recognized in most of the remaining Empire. They were pretenders.

My argument is that Rome is no more the Emperor than France is the King.
 
If we are defining the Western Roman Empire by its authority, then it ended in 395 with the death of Theodosius I. The new monarchies of Europe did not look to the Emperor to solve disputes. He was more often a puppet of these new kings than any sort of sovereign. Individuals like Romulus Augustus were not even recognized in most of the remaining Empire. They were pretenders.

My argument is that Rome is no more the Emperor than France is the King.

If that's the case, why did Gothic warlords like Alaric and Athaulf seek to insert themselves into the imperial system in the 410s? Why did Geiseric do so in the 440s? Why did a warlord like Ricimer want to control the Emperor himself rather than just removing the Emperor? Why were rulers like Constantius III and Anthemius so sought after for approval? Why were the imperial vestments sent to Constantinople by Odoacer and not just destroyed? Why did the Franks covet their granting of Roman titles by Anastasius?

Roman culture and the idea of Rome is not dependent on there being an Emperor, but the Western Roman Empire as an institution quite clearly depends on there being a Western Roman Emperor.
 
Also, Majorian was everything but a "puppet emperor". That is why Ricimer had him killed. Have Ricimer get killed first, and things will be very different...
 
Also, Majorian was everything but a "puppet emperor". That is why Ricimer had him killed. Have Ricimer get killed first, and things will be very different...

Assuming no one else tries what Ricimer did.

That's the problem with "What if Strong Ruler lasted longer?" PODs. Strong rulers aren't a substitute for strong structure, and the fact men like Ricimer have established interests threatened by the Majorians indicates that structure has rotten.

Not as a matter of slavery or stagnation, but the reliable access to men and money that the state needed has faded - and whereas the East still has considerable amounts of wealth if the Emperors can tap it, the West is poorer.

If "surviving" means "holding on", I agree with BG's choice of date. If "surviving" means "Rome once more is the dominant polity", those days have ended by the fifth century - the events that broke it in that period and their likelyhood etc. has been covered elsewhere, but there's a lot of work that has to be done to make it so that Bad Things Not Happening is enough to prevent later versions of those Bad Things.

I mean, take Atillia. There are a variety of ways to get rid of him. But that doesn't mean that no leader will ever rise among the Huns or a similar people and do what he did at a later date - or that the Roman state will be prepared to face that at said later date.

Rome retaking/never losing Africa would matter. But necessary to not lose is not the same as sufficient to win.
 
I mean, take Atillia. There are a variety of ways to get rid of him. But that doesn't mean that no leader will ever rise among the Huns or a similar people and do what he did at a later date - or that the Roman state will be prepared to face that at said later date.

.

Why should we assume that after Attila's death, the same thing that happened to the Huns would not happen? Nobody did replace Attila as a dominant king of the Huns.
 
Why should we assume that after Attila's death, the same thing that happened to the Huns would not happen? Nobody did replace Attila as a dominant king of the Huns.

OTL. Doesn't mean no one in an ATL where Attila dies earlier couldn't take his place or that if someone who was killed OTL didn't die that they couldn't take his place.

What if Western Rome Survives needs to deal with that. Beating off one invasion isn't enough to ensure that it's never a threat again.
 
Last edited:
This is a pretty darn daft argument. How do you factor in that most areas reached maximal productivity in the second century, long after the phase of initial conquest which brought in the real glut of slaves into the state?

Simple economics of scale: the great latifundias grew to massive extents by the 2nd century in the Western empire along with all the social disenfranchisement they created.

And, even more so, why were places like Syria and Palestine more prosperous at the start of the sixth century AD than they had been at any point in their history? Furthermore, how do you account for the Byzantines and various Islamic states retaining paid professional armies throughout the medieval era?

The Eastern empire was a different beast, it still had enough landed peasants to maintain a self-financed semi-regular force. Furthermore since it's wealth wasn't as concentrated in the hands of a senate it meant that more wealth was spent on everyday goods as opposed to luxuriants and armies and the markets responded accordingly. Also I would argue that the Islamic world was quite innovative and prosperous in even into the late middle ages.

Are you seriously arguing that from the late Republic right up until the Islamic conquest, the Roman state was in one long period of terminal decline? Are you a Marxist historian by any chance?

Hey, hey, no need for insults there. I was highlighting the general trend of slavery based states. Yes I should've used western empire, but I thought from the OP and the mentions of slavery that it would be evident of what I meant.
 
Last edited:
Top