Majorian avoids his assassination

Can the WRE survive with Majorian?

  • Possible

    Votes: 39 88.6%
  • Not Possible

    Votes: 5 11.4%

  • Total voters
    44
Ok lets suppose Majorian is still defeated by the Vandals, but during his return to Italy he avoid the assassination. Instead Ricimer is imprisoned ( no civil war like the one between the barbarian and Anthemius) and executed. What are Majorian's next moves? What happens to his rule outside Italy? Is a marriage between him and Placidia still possible? Is a new expedition against the Vandals feasible (maybe this time with the support of the East like in 468)?
 
Ok lets suppose Majorian is still defeated by the Vandals, but during his return to Italy he avoid the assassination. Instead Ricimer is imprisoned ( no civil war like the one between the barbarian and Anthemius) and executed. What are Majorian's next moves? What happens to his rule outside Italy? Is a marriage between him and Placidia still possible? Is a new expedition against the Vandals feasible (maybe this time with the support of the East like in 468)?
It's possible, but he needs the help of a lot of other people. I suspect Majorian was a better general than emperor. The upper class of Italy were traitorously greedy and preferred Germanic overlordship to Roman authority. IMO, they were complicity in Majorian's murder. I don't think anyone expected the disaster of the Gothic War, but their actions helped lead to it. So Majorian will need very strong allies that can help whip the upper class into shape.
 
Well Majorian had the luck of having loyal men commanding the reconquered provinces and their armies. I think this would be enough in the short term to prevent new civil wars and rebellions from the provincial (mostly Gallic) aristocracy. Certainly it would be better than Libius Severus who was recognized nowhere outside Italy and helped the separation of the empire from its provinces, something Majorian was able to revert. Regarding Italy, didn't Majorian have any support among the senators in Rome and the Curiales in the cities of the empire? Couldn't he convince Leo I to send a small army to support his rule, like he did with Procopius years later.
 
If I remember right, the aristocracy asked Ricimer to kill him.
I don't deny that some aristocrats backed Ricimer and his coup,but was the situation really so desperate that no senator supported the emperor? Lots of men both from Italy and later from Gaul gained access to prominent positions inside the administration of the empire (and most of them were of senatorial origin) thanks to him. He also seemed a good guy able to win the heart of the others, like Sidonius, and not someone prone to listen delations, something really feared by the senate under previous emperor.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
I think Majorian and Aetius seem like the best chance the WRE had to make a last hour recovery.

They were both competent, ambitious men who had success but were more often betrayed than beaten.

Politics in the late WRE were simply suicidal-conspiracies, betrayal, and cynicism were constant and it seems to me the empire needed men like Majorian-capable and effective to do what they could to reverse the situation.
 
My man Stilicho was already dead, woe is Rome, the empire is doomed

In all seriousness, any serious long-term plans would absolutely have to start with the reclamation of North Africa from the Vandals, because that would shore up their southern flank and get rid of the only other naval power in the Mediterranean, plus they'd get the breadbasket of Carthage back. From there, it's still dicey, but the WRE could've at least hung on for another few decades, maybe even making it over the finish line to the 6th century
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
If Carthage could be reclaimed and vandal power broken. I could see the empire managing to claw its way back to retaking the western mediterrean-Iberia and Gaul.

If it can hold on another century or two-then the migration era will end and the situation would stabilize.
 
I think what they really needed was a purge like the good old days. A lot of problems can be solved by eliminating the Italian senatorial elite.
 
Last edited:
If Carthage could be reclaimed and vandal power broken.

Unfortunately Geiseric was a very tough opponent as Majorian learned in the OTL. It seemed as long as Geiseric was in power, there was little hope--not even the big expedition of 468 did it--and he didn't die until the WRE was gone.

I could see the empire managing to claw its way back to retaking the western mediterrean-Iberia and Gaul.

Even if North Africa was retaken it wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problem--chronic military weakness due to loss of citizen support.
 
Unfortunately Geiseric was a very tough opponent as Majorian learned in the OTL. It seemed as long as Geiseric was in power, there was little hope--not even the big expedition of 468 did it--and he didn't die until the WRE was gone.



Even if North Africa was retaken it wouldn't have addressed the fundamental problem--chronic military weakness due to loss of citizen support.
I don't think Genseric was insurmountable. He defeated the Roman invasion force via subterfuge, burning the fleet in harbor rather than trying to fight them. While that could have just been pragmatic, battle was costly and risky, but it certainly indicates that Genseric considered Majorian a serious threat.

As for the other point about citizen loyalty, or lack thereof would certainly be the biggest challenge, but retaking North Africa brings glory and more importantly money, population and resources to work with to effect any other reforms and make it financially possible to raise native Roman armies.
 
I know the reconquest of Carthage is a key point in the restoration of the west, but his recent failure prevent him from attempting again right now. If there is a second chance i doubt Majorian would be so unlucky as the first time and in a frontal battle he would have good chance of success. Genseric was one of the worst enemies for Rome, but was not invincible, even himself recognized this when he was forced to face generals like Majorian and Marcellinus. The question here is can Majorian reform and keep together the empire until the next african expedition? What happens in the meantime with the Visigothics and Burgundians foederati recently brought back to order?
 
I know the reconquest of Carthage is a key point in the restoration of the west, but his recent failure prevent him from attempting again right now. If there is a second chance i doubt Majorian would be so unlucky as the first time and in a frontal battle he would have good chance of success.

I dunnoo...if even the massive and well planned expedition of 468 was thwarted....


The question here is can Majorian reform and keep together the empire until the next african expedition?

In the OTL the next African expedition wasn't until 468, when the ERE, after raiding by Genseric, made a major attempt to help. Majorian would've had a pretty long and perilous wait.
 
As for the other point about citizen loyalty, or lack thereof would certainly be the biggest challenge, but retaking North Africa brings glory and more importantly money, population and resources to work with to effect any other reforms and make it financially possible to raise native Roman armies.

Lol, it's noteworthy that Bonafacius had pitifully little strength to deal with the Vandal invasion. The African force mentioned by the Notitia Dignitatum apparently existed only on paper. The rest of the WRE was little better off, so they had to get the ERE to help, with Aspar, not that he was able to do much....The point is, it would appear that even before the loss of North Africa, with its resources, the WRE just couldn't raise adequate forces from its citizens (nor, after 408, would most barbarians serve in its regular forces). Recovering Africa would've helped but it would still be treating the symptom not the disease.
 
Lol, it's noteworthy that Bonafacius had pitifully little strength to deal with the Vandal invasion. The African force mentioned by the Notitia Dignitatum apparently existed only on paper. The rest of the WRE was little better off, so they had to get the ERE to help, with Aspar, not that he was able to do much....The point is, it would appear that even before the loss of North Africa, with its resources, the WRE just couldn't raise adequate forces from its citizens (nor, after 408, would most barbarians serve in its regular forces). Recovering Africa would've helped but it would still be treating the symptom not the disease.
That is due to many factors. For one, Aetius left North Africa out to dry.

Second, North Africa was, before that point not under any serious threat, or at least, apparent threat like say, the ever troublesome Gaul and so on the list of priorities for military assets, it was fairly close to the bottom.

Third, one of the reasons the West was so chronically short of cash and manpower was to a certain extent a demographic problem, as Latifundia run by major landowners were not willing to let their tenants join the army rather than earn them money but those same Latifundia were increasingly reluctant to pay any taxes at all, and what taxes they did pay were often being appropriated by corrupt officials before they ever reached the treasury. Add to that the resulting ridiculous tax burden placed on the middle class and suddenly they are cutting the feet out from underneath the economy. It wasn't that the funds did not exist at all, it was that all the money in the empire was rapidly being collected and then sat upon by an increasingly small group of people. Money doesn't do the economy any good if it isn't moving around.

Once North Africa was lost, whatever remained of the regular Roman army ceased to exist. They were forced to turn now entirely to feodorati and other mercenaries that already had equipment and training and just had to be paid. They still had some bite, as Flavius Aetius proved when he beat the Mongols, albeit with a lot of allied aid. However the age of the Professional Roman Army in the West was over, as Africa, which was second only to Egypt in wealth as a province, was no longer available to provide food and taxes to support the army. (This, in a unrelated note, made the Senators and their vast estates ridiculously powerful, as suddenly it was only at those landowners' will that taxes and recruits could be found, along with food for the cities, such as Rome.)

The point is, you are right in that it wouldn't solve every problem, nor allow Majorian to suddenly raise new legions and go forth to throw back the barbarian hordes, but if he managed the conquest well and made sure to keep the powerful landowners from Italy out, he would have a vital economic engine back. This source of taxes (and more importantly grain) would not only supply food for the cities of Italy, but reduce the power of the landed senators, get some cash flowing into the treasury so that Majorian can start recruiting and training native troops again to at least reduce, if not immediately eliminate, the reliance on feodorati and if he is smart, he can use that strength and those more reliable troops to begin the process of breaking up the power and estates of the Senators. I don't know if he would be successful and like so many emperors, all the good he might do could be undone by his successor, but hell if he survives an attempted assassination he has all the justification he needs to seize the plotters' estates and begin parceling them out to smaller freeholders. Maybe go back to the old mainstay of rewarding veteran soldiers with land to help secure their loyalty and help rebuild the Empire's manpower pool.

Taking North Africa makes it a lot more possible to start doing all of those things.
 
The point is, you are right in that it wouldn't solve every problem, nor allow Majorian to suddenly raise new legions and go forth to throw back the barbarian hordes, but if he managed the conquest well and made sure to keep the powerful landowners from Italy out, he would have a vital economic engine back. This source of taxes (and more importantly grain) would not only supply food for the cities of Italy, but reduce the power of the landed senators, get some cash flowing into the treasury so that Majorian can start recruiting and training native troops again to at least reduce, if not immediately eliminate, the reliance on feodorati and if he is smart, he can use that strength and those more reliable troops to begin the process of breaking up the power and estates of the Senators. I don't know if he would be successful and like so many emperors, all the good he might do could be undone by his successor, but hell if he survives an attempted assassination he has all the justification he needs to seize the plotters' estates and begin parceling them out to smaller freeholders. Maybe go back to the old mainstay of rewarding veteran soldiers with land to help secure their loyalty and help rebuild the Empire's manpower pool.

Taking North Africa makes it a lot more possible to start doing all of those things.

Usually I see almost everyone talking negatively about the barbarian troops but was their use really so negative for the empire? Even after the gothic purge and the death of Gainas, the ERE continued to use barbarian mercenaries during their campaigns, most notably in the Balkans, Africa and Italy, at least until the VI century (and maybe even further) without any problem. I don't really know any notable example of barbarian troops deserting the roman army in order to join the opposite side, due to the fact that they didn't have a "feeling of national solidarity" with other barbarian tribes belonging to the same cultural sphere ( the Germanic one). And a roman soldier, in my opinion, would be willing to desert the army or acclaim a new emperor as any soldier of any nationality if he is not properly paid, so a roman reconquest of Africa could be used to fund either a Roman army or a barbaric one, without any relevant difference as long as Rome provide for the payments of the soldiers, and ensure the promotion of loyal elements among them. Another important point would be his succession. Would Majorian be able to marry someone politically relevant at the time? Would he be able to produce an heir in time or would he have to resort to adoption?
 
Usually I see almost everyone talking negatively about the barbarian troops but was their use really so negative for the empire? Even after the gothic purge and the death of Gainas, the ERE continued to use barbarian mercenaries during their campaigns, most notably in the Balkans, Africa and Italy, at least until the VI century (and maybe even further) without any problem. I don't really know any notable example of barbarian troops deserting the roman army in order to join the opposite side, due to the fact that they didn't have a "feeling of national solidarity" with other barbarian tribes belonging to the same cultural sphere ( the Germanic one). And a roman soldier, in my opinion, would be willing to desert the army or acclaim a new emperor as any soldier of any nationality if he is not properly paid, so a roman reconquest of Africa could be used to fund either a Roman army or a barbaric one, without any relevant difference as long as Rome provide for the payments of the soldiers, and ensure the promotion of loyal elements among them. Another important point would be his succession. Would Majorian be able to marry someone politically relevant at the time? Would he be able to produce an heir in time or would he have to resort to adoption?
Well the fact that they used foreign troops wasn't necessarily a problem in and of itself. Even during the height of the Empire there was always a sizable foreign contingent. The problem came when they were allowed to all stay together as a single tribe or kingdom with their king becoming in effect a Roman General. These kings would then later often decide to carve up parts of the Empire to "Rule in the Emperor's name" and often there wasn't much the Emperor could really do about it but settle for the polite political fiction. That particular practice had a very serious eroding effect on the Western administration and later economy.

What you want to do instead is break up those foreign troops into smaller units, or even spread them out into existing native units to get them properly integrated into Roman society, prevent foreign Kings from becoming more powerful within the Empire than the Emperor himself and using these troops to strengthen Imperial rule, not weaken it as the late Feodorati system had a tendency to do. You need a solid core of native troops to give the Emperor the power to dictate those terms.

Plus, in general while some Feodorati were just as capable troops as any Roman unit, the quality varied wildly and they were simply not capable of many of the things that the old legions were capable of doing. (I could write another thousand words on all the incredible things a golden age legion was able to do, but I doubt anyone wants to read that right now.) Professional troops, while expensive, were one of the keys that allowed the Empire to grow as large as it did. Those troops were often capable of winning in spite of mediocre leadership, as opposed to the later Roman armies that do just fine under a capable and charismatic commander such as a Majorian, Stilicho, or Aetius, but are far too dependent on exceptional leadership for their success.

Now succession is the really important thing here. I have no doubt that if Majorian retakes Spain, Gaul, and North Africa that he would have absolutely no problems finding a suitable wife if he hadn't already. The question is whether he wants hereditary succession or he goes for the system that arguably served the Empire best in the past and adopting whomever he thought would be the best successor. There are merits to both. Hereditary succession is often seen as inherently more stable, but in the case of the Romans that is absolutely no guarantee and it has often lead to God awful rulers, such as Commodus. Meanwhile a more meritocratic system had, long ago, worked brilliantly to bring a succession of several very capable Emperors to the throne, but has a slightly higher risk of civil war if Majorian goes the way of all capable West Roman leaders of the time and gets assassinated for being good at his job, which is unfortunately likely.

A lot will depend on what the East was willing to support. But if Majorian was able to by some miracle bring some stability to Imperial succession he would be arguably the best Roman emperor of all time, on par with Constantine, Aurelian and Diocletian if only for the benefits that would come from the Empire simply not tearing itself to shreds at least once a generation, let alone the sheer feet of reconquering so much lost land.
 
Now succession is the really important thing here. I have no doubt that if Majorian retakes Spain, Gaul, and North Africa that he would have absolutely no problems finding a suitable wife if he hadn't already. The question is whether he wants hereditary succession or he goes for the system that arguably served the Empire best in the past and adopting whomever he thought would be the best successor. There are merits to both. Hereditary succession is often seen as inherently more stable, but in the case of the Romans that is absolutely no guarantee and it has often lead to God awful rulers, such as Commodus. Meanwhile a more meritocratic system had, long ago, worked brilliantly to bring a succession of several very capable Emperors to the throne, but has a slightly higher risk of civil war if Majorian goes the way of all capable West Roman leaders of the time and gets assassinated for being good at his job, which is unfortunately likely.

Who would Majorian have chosen if he had no sons? Aegidius? IOTL, after Majorian was assassinated on Ricimer's orders, Aeigidius broke away and formed the Domain of Soissons before being murdered himself. Of course, that could mean any number of things.
 
Top