By the Roman Empire I mean the unified Roman Empire. How could it be saved? How late was too late?
At least until 1453 when the Eastern Empire fell IOTL"Save" for how long? Nothing lasts forever.
I don't think it would have been impossible for the empire to last 500 more years, till the modern age. Maybe not as a superpower, but definitely possible. After all surviving till the present day doesn't equal forever anyway."Save" for how long? Nothing lasts forever.
Oh, so you mean just the Western half surviving longer. Definitely possible (I mean the kingdom of Odoacer and Theodoric was essentially the WRE with just a new guy at the top, more successful at ensuring internal stability), but I think in the long run it would just be reabsorbed back into the ERE. Almost happened during the reign of Leo I.At least until 1453 when the Eastern Empire fell IOTL
Personally I would say the civil war between Palaiologos and Kantakouzenos, but close enough.For the Eastern Roman Empire, I would say that Andronikos doesn't revolt in 1321, allowing the much reduced Byzantines to narrowly survive.
Ricimer played no role in the failure. When the fleet was destroyed he was still in Italy. Honestly people are placing too much blame on Ricimer when the truth is that he was just proof of how the Western emperors were no longer in touch with reality and the needs of the Italian aristocracy. Thus a lot of them siding with the him rather than the emperor.For the Western Roman Empire, I would say that Majorian purges Ricimer when he starts to gain real power, and this leads to the invasion of Vandal Africa going well,
No Syagrius, Egidius is still alive and already loyal to Majorian. He is not an independent warlord yet and geographically he is still connected to the rest of the empire.landing and conquering, restoring Rome's grain shipments to expel the Visigoths and Suebi from Hispania (likely in exchange for some land grants) and is able to connect with Syagrius in Northern Gaul,
Why though?although after that I would expect the Western Romans to lose Northern Gaul and Galicia to the Suebi, becoming a loose confederation of Italy, Hispania and North Africa as they enter the middle ages.
Definitely a possibility, Africaa would be a huge boon, but Majorian still has to do his best to keep the army and the ruling social class happy.I'm a big fan of Majorian's expedition to North Africa to beat the Vandals in 461 succeeds. OTL it failed because the Vandals paid off men to burn his fleet before it could ever launch from Spain.
Reconquering North Africa from the Vandals has two big positives for Rome: 1 - Africa was a productive province, providing lots of grain and tax revenue, two things that the WRE badly needed and 2 - Odds are Majorian isn't deposed and killed if he conquers Africa. Majorian was one of the rare late-era Emperors who wasn't completely useless.
The only thing I disagree with is that with Majorian I don’t see why he wouldn’t have hispania or Gaul as well?It all depends a bit on definitions
- If you mean "save a unified Roman Empire", then you need to butterfly the Tetrarchy, which means having Diocletian or someone deciding to re-centralise the Empire in the aftermath of the 3rd-century crisis. After Diocletian, partition became standard practice - although exceptional Emperors (Constantine, Julian, Theodosius) temporarily re-unified the Empire, their successors immediately re-partitioned it.
- If you mean "maintain a West Roman Empire that Constantine or Diocletian would recognise", then I think you have to prevent the revolt of Magnus Maximus in 383. He was the first to strip the frontier garrisons to reinforce his field army, and following the losses at the Save the garrisons were never restored. Plus after the Save Arbogast became the first Germanic generalissimo to start playing Imperial politics.
- If you mean "maintain a West Roman Empire that controls the Italian heartland with some semblance of the old Imperial administration", then a successful reconquest of Africa province by Majorian, or even by Anthemius and Leo a few years later might do it. The Western Empire will be dependent on the East, and consist of no more than Italy, Illyria and Africa plus federates, but it has a shot at holding the line of the Alps until the Migration Period dies down.
- If you mean "maintain a Western Roman Emperor somewhere in Italy, who is generally recognised as legitimate even if he's effectively the puppet ruler of a Germanic successor-state", you can go all the way to Julius Nepos. Odoacer didn't have to decide to settle his spat with Zeno by mailing the Imperial regalia back to Constantinople, and if he hadn't, Theodoric and his successors might well have gone along with the fiction of Empire.
Majorian expelled the Visigoths from Septimania and the Burgundians from the Rhone Valley and returned them both to federate status. The Visigoths were also made to officially relinquish their control of Hispania, but there's little evidence that Majorian was able to restore Imperial administration in anything more than a few coastal cities. Likewise Aegidius's domains in Gaul (which became the Kingdom of Soissons) were effectively independent. By this point, maintaining control of the federates was about the best the Empire could hope for.The only thing I disagree with is that with Majorian I don’t see why he wouldn’t have hispania or Gaul as well?
I mean most the territory that he had retaken in Gaul and Hispania was only recently conquered by the Visigoths and Burgundian’s. It he didn’t have full authority re established by that point iotl then I don’t think that it would be out of the realm of reality to do so in a TL where he wins in Africa and establishes himself rather securely then him regaining imperial authority over alot of places is not unrealistic.Majorian expelled the Visigoths from Septimania and the Burgundians from the Rhone Valley and returned them both to federate status. The Visigoths were also made to officially relinquish their control of Hispania, but there's little evidence that Majorian was able to restore Imperial administration in anything more than a few coastal cities. Likewise Aegidius's domains in Gaul (which became the Kingdom of Soissons) were effectively independent. By this point, maintaining control of the federates was about the best the Empire could hope for.
Majorian expelled the Visigoths from Septimania and the Burgundians from the Rhone Valley and returned them both to federate status. The Visigoths were also made to officially relinquish their control of Hispania, but there's little evidence that Majorian was able to restore Imperial administration in anything more than a few coastal cities. Likewise Aegidius's domains in Gaul (which became the Kingdom of Soissons) were effectively independent. By this point, maintaining control of the federates was about the best the Empire could hope for.
I mean most the territory that he had retaken in Gaul and Hispania was only recently conquered by the Visigoths and Burgundian’s. It he didn’t have full authority re established by that point iotl then I don’t think that it would be out of the realm of reality to do so in a TL where he wins in Africa and establishes himself rather securely then him regaining imperial authority over alot of places is not unrealistic.
I always hate this line of argument regarding the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire entity could exist to the present, there isn't really anything stopping that-tons of modern day countries are iterations of their past selves, from most countries Europe, to China, Iran, etc. It's obviously not going to look exactly the same, but then the Roman Empire of 320 looked nothing like the Roman Empire of 20 CE or the Roman Empire of 1071."Save" for how long? Nothing lasts forever.
So would I, but neither was the Imperial administration - by this point repeated invasions/migrations, civil wars and general disorder have completely disrupted the larger-scale economy and administration and the local elites - who are sliding rapidly into manorialism - are just paying their taxes/tribute/protection money to the local military boss. And they won't be keen on seeing their taxes and young men shipped off god-knows-where in the name of the Empire.I would be surprised if the Visigothic/Burgundian local administration was anything other than the existing Roman elites in the area.
He can establish authority - if you mean turning up with an army and slapping the local federates back into line. Re-establishing the Imperial administration in devastated or disrupted provinces - to the point where they become an asset to the Empire rather than a drain on it - is harder. When Justinian re-conquered Italy in the 6th century, he sent in the Imperial tax-collectors - who swiftly reduced Italy to poverty and revolt. And Justinian had far more resources available than Majorian would have - Attila and Gaiseric did a number on the Italian economy in the 440s and 450s and the Eastern Empire isn't going to be subsidising rebuilding the infrastructure in Gaul or Hispania.I mean most the territory that he had retaken in Gaul and Hispania was only recently conquered by the Visigoths and Burgundian’s. It he didn’t have full authority re established by that point iotl then I don’t think that it would be out of the realm of reality to do so in a TL where he wins in Africa and establishes himself rather securely then him regaining imperial authority over alot of places is not unrealistic.