Majorian isn’t betrayed

Long time lurker first post.

Recently I was reading about the late Roman Empire and started reading about Majorian. I was very surprised by what he accomplished during his short reign. And as soon as I read about his failed attempt to reconquer Carthage it made wonder “what if he wasn’t betrayed?”, could he have retaken Carthage? And could he have turned the western Roman Empire around? My understanding of the late Empire was that it was undoubtedly doomed but from what little I’ve read of him it seemed like he knew that he couldn’t fix Rome trough conquest alone and that it needed major internal reform.

I’m also curious about his armies and the late Roman army in general. I really can’t find anything about it on the internet, most searches lead me to the Roman army of the republic and principate. Did he just use barbarians or did he have real Romans serving in the army? And how well trained were they?
 
Long time lurker first post.
Welcome on the board!

And as soon as I read about his failed attempt to reconquer Carthage it made wonder “what if he wasn’t betrayed?”, could he have retaken Carthage? And could he have turned the western Roman Empire around?
First things first, the accusation of betrayal to explain defeats is a bit too common in Late Rome to be entierely taken at face value : it's possible that it happened, but while Majorian's fleet was important compared to what existed before the construction he launched, it was still feeble in comparison to to what Constantinople disposed of, and probably on par with Vandalic fleet at best.
It's not like the campaign was a secret : Vandals made some opening for negociation (without promising anything) since 459, so the betrayal might have happened, especially as Vandals took with them Roman ships to reinforce their own powerful fleet, but there's nothing really saying it was essential to the defeat.

Anyhow : as Majorian took the shared lead of the WRE, things already went too far. he certainly managed to play Barbarians against other Barbarians (as Aetius did in his time, which probably inspired Majorian) by forcing them into obedience skillfully, but he never searched to crush them as he depended from their military resources : in short, it was a political-militaryexpedient.
Even Roman troops were importantly Barbarized, and with Ricimer already having too much control on imperium to really accept a too powerful and too monarchical emperor (especially if he was more and more dependent from Constantinople)...: in the mid to late Vth century, WRE couldn't really stand on its own and was either to search ressources among Barbarians or in the eastern Roman state, if not both.

Don't get me wrong, a reconquest of Carthage could likely lead late WRE to survive longer than IOTL, but with ressources already depleted, it would wear down eventually and make it unable to undergo important reforms (as Majorian's demise points), either turning it into a patrician Italy acknowledged by Constantinople as it happened IOTL (with or without Barbarian king leading it), either being swalloed up by eastern emperors that tought themselves being the only legit supreme authority even so during Majorian's reign.
We know Romans already managed to take back some points, especially places where Vandalic power wasn't that certain, such as Tripolitania, so let's assume they continue their advance. Eventually, Vandals would be forced to negociate at sword-point, as the coalition couldn't be maintained eternally, and give up several territories and assets.

Assuming Romans and their auxiliaries takes back Carthage and the "Vandalic sors", the lands in Proconcular Africa that Genseric directly took over (the rest of Africa being still under its direct authority but with fewer changes), you'd still have Vandals in the regions, probably pushed back in their short-lived kingdom in Numidia : again, WRE depended on the presence of Barbarians in military matters.

It was sometimes suggested on the board that Majorian could "just" have resettled Vandals elsewhere but it lead to these questions, about which armies were supposed to guard Africa at this point.
Would have he settled Gothic, Suebic or Burgundian troops that made up the large part of the army?
Would have he trusted Berbers that were in agreement with Vandals?
Would have he put there the Dalmatian troops that were more or less the last of non-Barbarian troops he could rely on? Keeping in mind that most of Marcellinus' troops were made of Huns and Ostrogoths.

And how many of the limited resources of the WRE would have been used to resettle literally ten of thousands of people elsewhere in Romania while requesting the landowning elites of the resettling region to make place for them, which would be bound to backfire?
It's not that Majorian didn't have a clear perception of what was happening, at the contrary :but he had to make do. Note that Vandals generally abided by personal treaties, hence why Genseric waited 455 and Valentinian's death to advance deeper in Africa, and renewed piracy against WRE only after Majorian's death.

IOTL such a victory would "only" gave some time to WRE to die in its corner, and an extended lifespawn for Majorian. It would ask, as pointed, a slightly different strategy that wouldn't be based on the acceptance of the loss of Africa, which predominated in the mid-Vth century tough, and more subsides from ERE.
Eventually, giving the poor state of WRE at this point, it means that these regions would growingly be de facto under control of Constantinople, making the ERE having a more western foothold in the west in the coming decades, a bit like Dalmatia was in the same period.

It would have interesting consequences having central Romania being swalloed up by its eastern counterpart, tough : when Africa was reconquered by Byzzies in 535, and altough the Vandalic defeat was swift, Byzantines had a really bad view of Roman Africa's history at this point, mostly ignoring the relationship between Mauri and Africans that existed at least since the IInd century, causing a costly and not that stellar (for Romans) guerilla.
They, mostly wrongly, saw these kingdoms and tribal entities as invaders (mostly helped by the threat they represented as for what mattered the coastal population) rather than parts of the old system and actively searched to crush them ; the whole campaigns of Solomon is to be understood as a tentative to gain African to Byzantium and to get rid of what was seen as a foreign presence.

ERE having a better approximation of the local geopolitics would really help preventing the mistakes made in Africa, which led to decade of semi-guerilla warfare (and decades of neglects from the late VIth onwards) after having defeated Vandals, with (for exemple) allowing policies similar to Toglita's being adopted early on (and with more success).
Basically, Romania including Eastern and Central provinces, with the Western provinces being more dominated Barbarian foedi with Roman elites more prone to keep a certain autonomy rather than readily band with Barbarians entierely (basically, having a political situation in Spain and Gaul closer to what happened in Gothic Italy).

I really can’t find anything about it on the internet, most searches lead me to the Roman army of the republic and principate.
War in the Middle-Ages by Philippe Contamine have a really interesting description of logistics and organisation of Roman army in the Vth.

Did he just use barbarians or did he have real Romans serving in the army?
The distinction between "real" Romans and Barbarians became to turn moot by the Vth century. Really roughly, what separated a Barbarian from a Roman was increasingly who they served ultimately : a petty-king or the Roman state. Militarily, Barbarians were basically equipped and fighting as Romans, with some cultural-tactics difference, but that's it.
Anyhow, foedi, laeti and mercenaries were more and more important in WRE military : you still had Roman troops (especially in Illyricum and less so in Italy, altough in all provinces), but Barbarians really dominated the game in WRE.
Now, it was rare to have them entierely separated : even in the late Vth, Roman duces and leaders integrated or led Barbarian armies.

As for their training : Barbarians weren't elite unites, but they formed trained groups that you could fairly rely on. Romans...it's more of a mixed blessing : garrison and provincial troops weren't as much untrained than unwilling to leave their regions and not specifically good at campaigning, while Roman cavalry was clearly an elite.
If it helps
 
Last edited:
Recently I was reading about the late Roman Empire

If you're still looking for reading on the late empire, Peter Heather's, "The Fall of Rome, a New History" is excellent as is "The Vandal Who Saved Rome" by Ian Hughes.

and started reading about Majorian. I was very surprised by what he accomplished during his short reign. And as soon as I read about his failed attempt to reconquer Carthage it made wonder “what if he wasn’t betrayed?”, could he have retaken Carthage? And could he have turned the western Roman Empire around? My understanding of the late Empire was that it was undoubtedly doomed but from what little I’ve read of him it seemed like he knew that he couldn’t fix Rome trough conquest alone and that it needed major internal reform.

There's a ton of remarkable leaders that took the helm during the last century of the Empire. Stilicho, Flavius Constantius, Aetius, Constantine III, and Alaric were all phenomenal men who each fought for and against Rome at various points in their reigns, and each of them have great potential for ATLs (I've got a TL about Stilicho in the works atm). But according to Peter Heather, good leadership became more or less irrelevant after the Vandals took Africa. During the period from 408-435, the Vandals and Alans formed a super-confederacy similar to what they Visigoths had done under Alaric, and if the Romans had been able to stifle this coalition while it was forming in Spain, they might have staved off the collapse of the empire. At a period in history where the agrarian economy was stagnating and the wealth gap in the empire was growing, Africa was a cosmopolitan, wealthy, socially mobile economic hub for the WRE, and was more or less the economic lifeline of the WRE by the time the 5th century rolled around.

So after the Vandals took Africa, the tax revenues of the WRE cratered and the empire was unable to recover from the same losses they could recuperate before. An important thing to realize about Rome is that their strength came from their ability to recover from defeats rather than any great military genius on the Romans' part. In fact the vast majority of Roman generals throughout their history were pretty average or incompetent, and the empire's strength came from a logistical and disciplinary superiority. That's how the empire recovered from the Teutoburg Forest, Naissus, Adrianople, Edessa, and a dozen other military catastrophes. The empire's extreme wealth, population, and martial culture allowed it to recoup losses like that, but since the WRE was divorced from the wealthy regions of Greece and Asia, Africa was their only real income stream. So after they lost Africa, it was an uphill battle, and even if Majorian managed to regain it, the East would probably leverage some concessions for their contribution, and a big part of the Western army would have to be kept in Africa, which would draw in a lot of resources. This may even reduce Africa to a net drain on the economy, since even if the Vandals lost, they would be too numerous to assimilate or fully destroy, and they would be a constant threat for the rest of the empire's life (however long that may be).

Even if Africa is reconquered, and the Vandals made into foederati, significant concessions would have to be given to both them (as were given to the Visigoths) and to the East (which by this time was a potential rival power at times). Therefore, the resources devoted to balancing the threats posed by the Vandals, the ERE, and Ricimer's allies within Italy, would have to be drawn in from elsewhere. This shift in attention would give the Visigoths a free hand in Gaul, from which they might be able to annex Massilia, or Vienna, or maybe even the whole province. So, by solving one problem, you basically create two more. I agree with Peter Heather, after the Vandal conquest of Africa, the WRE was a basket case doomed to be the junior partner in the empire at best.

I’m also curious about his armies and the late Roman army in general. I really can’t find anything about it on the internet, most searches lead me to the Roman army of the republic and principate. Did he just use barbarians or did he have real Romans serving in the army? And how well trained were they?

Hadrian's Citadel - Late Roman Army Command.png


Hadrian's Citadel - WRE Command.png


Here's a couple diagrams that may clarify the structure of the Roman army of the late empire. Basically, the reforms of Septimius Severus, Aurelian, and Diocletian shifted the focus of the legions to a more depth-based defensive stance. In the time of Augustus, all of the legions stood on the borders and often launched preemptive campaigns outside the empire. But this was very costly, created longer-term problems, and helped give usurpers a loyal base of support for marching on Rome. So the latter emperors of the 3rd century divided the empire into two parts: the limitanei (or border guards) and the comitatenses (or comrades, the more traditional mobile legions). Basically, the limitanei stayed in the traditional limes and border forts and acted as stalling forces in the event of an invasion. They were less numerous, lightly armed, and were basically ordered to try and hold the invaders at bay (rather than overwhelm them) while the comitatenses (who were more numerous, heavily armed, and mobile) marched to the border from bases further inside the empire (Milan, Trier, Constantinople, and Thessalonika to name a few examples).

The army of the 5th century was slightly less well-trained than the army of the 1st-4th centuries (although this was mostly a cost-saving measure), but they were on a tactical level equal to the earlier empire, and the idea that the Roman army became "barbarized" or "degraded" during the fall of the empire is a little reductionist. The Germanic foederati were merely a supplemental military force primarily used in combat against any usurpers to tip the numerical balance of the war. These mercenary forces were only used when it was judged absolutely necessary, and the empire didn't rely on them so much as took advantage of them, and it's a good example of the empire's leadership adapting to the changing circumstances
 
I
The army of the 5th century was slightly less well-trained than the army of the 1st-4th centuries (although this was mostly a cost-saving measure), but they were on a tactical level equal to the earlier empire, and the idea that the Roman army became "barbarized" or "degraded" during the fall of the empire is a little reductionist.
Nevertheless, several battles were fought without any Roman forces : Catalunic Plains while led by Aetius, didn't involved Romans troops that were busy in Illyricum.
By the Vth century, not one campaign could be fought without Barbarians, while provincial forces began to be unnoticable. Of course, and I wildely agree with you on this, it meant that Barbarians growingly incorporated Roman armies (especially cavalry) with them : while you had a fair Barbarian influence on armies, you certainly had much more of a romanisation on this field as for each case involving Barbarians.

and the empire didn't rely on them so much as took advantage of them, and it's a good example of the empire's leadership adapting to the changing circumstances
It's true up to the 430's, but at this point, the balance was rather favourable to foedi which were independent political players, whom the Empire was forced to acknowledge rather than just use them.
 
Welcome on the board!


First things first, the accusation of betrayal to explain defeats is a bit too common in Late Rome to be entierely taken at face value : it's possible that it happened, but while Majorian's fleet was important compared to what existed before the construction he launched, it was still feeble in comparison to to what Constantinople disposed of, and probably on par with Vandalic fleet at best.
It's not like the campaign was a secret : Vandals made some opening for negociation (without promising anything) since 459, so the betrayal might have happened, especially as Vandals took with them Roman ships to reinforce their own powerful fleet, but there's nothing really saying it was essential to the defeat.

Anyhow : as Majorian took the shared lead of the WRE, things already went too far. he certainly managed to play Barbarians against other Barbarians (as Aetius did in his time, which probably inspired Majorian) by forcing them into obedience skillfully, but he never searched to crush them as he depended from their military resources : in short, it was a political-militaryexpedient.
Even Roman troops were importantly Barbarized, and with Ricimer already having too much control on imperium to really accept a too powerful and too monarchical emperor (especially if he was more and more dependent from Constantinople)...: in the mid to late Vth century, WRE couldn't really stand on its own and was either to search ressources among Barbarians or in the eastern Roman state, if not both.

Don't get me wrong, a reconquest of Carthage could likely lead late WRE to survive longer than IOTL, but with ressources already depleted, it would wear down eventually and make it unable to undergo important reforms (as Majorian's demise points), either turning it into a patrician Italy acknowledged by Constantinople as it happened IOTL (with or without Barbarian king leading it), either being swalloed up by eastern emperors that tought themselves being the only legit supreme authority even so during Majorian's reign.
We know Romans already managed to take back some points, especially places where Vandalic power wasn't that certain, such as Tripolitania, so let's assume they continue their advance. Eventually, Vandals would be forced to negociate at sword-point, as the coalition couldn't be maintained eternally, and give up several territories and assets.

Assuming Romans and their auxiliaries takes back Carthage and the "Vandalic sors", the lands in Proconcular Africa that Genseric directly took over (the rest of Africa being still under its direct authority but with fewer changes), you'd still have Vandals in the regions, probably pushed back in their short-lived kingdom in Numidia : again, WRE depended on the presence of Barbarians in military matters.

It was sometimes suggested on the board that Majorian could "just" have resettled Vandals elsewhere but it lead to these questions, about which armies were supposed to guard Africa at this point.
Would have he settled Gothic, Suebic or Burgundian troops that made up the large part of the army?
Would have he trusted Berbers that were in agreement with Vandals?
Would have he put there the Dalmatian troops that were more or less the last of non-Barbarian troops he could rely on? Keeping in mind that most of Marcellinus' troops were made of Huns and Ostrogoths.

And how many of the limited resources of the WRE would have been used to resettle literally ten of thousands of people elsewhere in Romania while requesting the landowning elites of the resettling region to make place for them, which would be bound to backfire?
It's not that Majorian didn't have a clear perception of what was happening, at the contrary :but he had to make do. Note that Vandals generally abided by personal treaties, hence why Genseric waited 455 and Valentinian's death to advance deeper in Africa, and renewed piracy against WRE only after Majorian's death.

IOTL such a victory would "only" gave some time to WRE to die in its corner, and an extended lifespawn for Majorian. It would ask, as pointed, a slightly different strategy that wouldn't be based on the acceptance of the loss of Africa, which predominated in the mid-Vth century tough, and more subsides from ERE.
Eventually, giving the poor state of WRE at this point, it means that these regions would growingly be de facto under control of Constantinople, making the ERE having a more western foothold in the west in the coming decades, a bit like Dalmatia was in the same period.

It would have interesting consequences having central Romania being swalloed up by its eastern counterpart, tough : when Africa was reconquered by Byzzies in 535, and altough the Vandalic defeat was swift, Byzantines had a really bad view of Roman Africa's history at this point, mostly ignoring the relationship between Mauri and Africans that existed at least since the IInd century, causing a costly and not that stellar (for Romans) guerilla.
They, mostly wrongly, saw these kingdoms and tribal entities as invaders (mostly helped by the threat they represented as for what mattered the coastal population) rather than parts of the old system and actively searched to crush them ; the whole campaigns of Solomon is to be understood as a tentative to gain African to Byzantium and to get rid of what was seen as a foreign presence.

ERE having a better approximation of the local geopolitics would really help preventing the mistakes made in Africa, which led to decade of semi-guerilla warfare (and decades of neglects from the late VIth onwards) after having defeated Vandals, with (for exemple) allowing policies similar to Toglita's being adopted early on (and with more success).
Basically, Romania including Eastern and Central provinces, with the Western provinces being more dominated Barbarian foedi with Roman elites more prone to keep a certain autonomy rather than readily band with Barbarians entierely (basically, having a political situation in Spain and Gaul closer to what happened in Gothic Italy).


War in the Middle-Ages by Philippe Contamine have a really interesting description of logistics and organisation of Roman army in the Vth.


The distinction between "real" Romans and Barbarians became to turn moot by the Vth century. Really roughly, what separated a Barbarian from a Roman was increasingly who they served ultimately : a petty-king or the Roman state. Militarily, Barbarians were basically equipped and fighting as Romans, with some cultural-tactics difference, but that's it.
Anyhow, foedi, laeti and mercenaries were more and more important in WRE military : you still had Roman troops (especially in Illyricum and less so in Italy, altough in all provinces), but Barbarians really dominated the game in WRE.
Now, it was rare to have them entierely separated : even in the late Vth, Roman duces and leaders integrated or led Barbarian armies.

As for their training : Barbarians weren't elite unites, but they formed trained groups that you could fairly rely on. Romans...it's more of a mixed blessing : garrison and provincial troops weren't as much untrained than unwilling to leave their regions and not specifically good at campaigning, while Roman cavalry was clearly an elite.
If it helps
Thanks for really explaining everything to me!

I didn’t know the Western Empire has so few actual Romans serving in its military. I’ve often seen in other posts where the late Roman army was highly debated, some saying it was very barbarized and others saying it wasn’t.

From what little I’ve read of Majorian it seemed like he tried to integrate the Romans of reconquered territories back into the government as he wasn’t too popular with the Italian aristocracts. If he retook Carthage he would’ve basically retaken the most important province in the west he would’ve been very well liked and had a much larger are to collect soldiers and taxes from. I also finally found some other threads where Majorian was discussed and many people were under the impression that he wouldn’t have made vandals foederatti but would’ve done what Justinian did and either killed or recruited them thus removing them as a major threat.

If Majorian ruled another decade or two without having to go on major campaigns or had to deal with numerous civil wars could he have reformed the empire?
 
I didn’t know the Western Empire has so few actual Romans serving in its military. I’ve often seen in other posts where the late Roman army was highly debated, some saying it was very barbarized and others saying it wasn’t.
Don't get me wrong : you had a lot of provincial forces, imperial, regional or militias. But they weren't really used in campaigning or as mobile forces. But, even without considering laeti and foedi, you had a lot of Barbaro-Romans in the Romans units too.
Now, Barbarization of the army is best, IMO, understood as a political-strategical matter than tactical or technical : in battle, it's not sure that safe banners or other signs, one could have distinguished easily Romans from Barbarians. Still, limitanei and ripenses were still importantly recruited locally (even if they were of a lesser training and quality overall), and comitatenses and scholae palatini were still well qualified elites that formed an important part of the "active" army (aka campaigning) and both were pretty much integrated into armies of Barbarian Kingdoms eventually (which does point their usefulness, even if it's true comitateneses and cavalry were the more noticable at this point)

From what little I’ve read of Majorian it seemed like he tried to integrate the Romans of reconquered territories back into the government as he wasn’t too popular with the Italian aristocracts.
It's essentially true : while he didn't tried to get rid of Barbarians politically-wise (even if he'd wanted to, he'd still need them), it's crystal clear he wanted to re-stablish Roman authority over federates. The rejection of Italian senatorial and Barbarian elites is rather complex : it ammounts to a defiance toward Constantinople suspected to meddle with WRE's business (which is not untrue) and the loss of prestige of Majorian after his defeat.

If he retook Carthage he would’ve basically retaken the most important province in the west he would’ve been very well liked and had a much larger are to collect soldiers and taxes from.
The problem being that without Constantinople, Ravenne can't really hold Africa : its naval capacities are at best on par with Barbarians when Constantinople can pull without too much sweat three times more. Eventually, in order to keep Africa, WRE would be as IOTL dependent from ERE. And as it happened with Illyricum and Dalmatia, he who calls the shots, own the region eventually.

I also finally found some other threads where Majorian was discussed and many people were under the impression that he wouldn’t have made vandals foederatti but would’ve done what Justinian did and either killed or recruited them thus removing them as a major threat.
And the result was that Africa was knee deep in a low intensity war with Berbers, that only stopped with a more limited coastal presence in Africa than Vandals did, and desintegration of Berber ensemble. Note that Constantinople, at least, could pull troops and logistics thanks to its navalprotection.
Something that Ravenna can't really afford at this point : some can dream about "cleansing" Africa out of Vandals, but even if it's possible (which is not, even Justinian didn't get rid of all Vandals, but recruited only a part of them the rest being merged with local population), remain the aformentioned problem of "who will keep the region" : at the very best it means other Barbarians, and at the first avaible crisis, it's back to zero.*
Again, Majorian never searched to get rid of foedi, even rebelling ones : he essentially curbed them down and pushed them back to their original foedi when possible : something that heavily implies would be the same with Vandals, unless expecting some huge departure from his usual policy because reasons.

If Majorian ruled another decade or two without having to go on major campaigns or had to deal with numerous civil wars could he have reformed the empire?
I think Ricimer would still have problem with a too powerful emperor, which giving the average lifespawn of an emperor in Ravenna...
Note that Majorian wasn't acknowledged as emperor by Constantinople (mostly out of political and dynastical concerns) which puts him in a not that favourable situation : as soon as he pisses one side too much, the other wouldn't that care : I could see him at the head of WRE for more years, but decades?
 
First off excuse me if my replies aren’t the best, I’m still trying to master these quotes and shit.

Would Ricimer have had the backing required to overthrow Majorian? Besides being defeated Majorian had disbanded his Barbarian allies leaving him vunerable. If he had succeeded in taking back Africa I imagine that the prestige and wealth gained from his conquests would’ve given him legitimacy, and iirc he had eastern recognition. Would this have allowed him to keep Ricimer in line and become the dominate member of the partnership or just kille him?

Also I just found out that some western territories remained free of barbarian rule for few years after the rise of odacear. One of which was in Africa and was a neighbor and enemy of the vandals. If Majorian retook Carthage would they have been allies or enemies of his? If allies would that have solved the issue of holding Carthage?

How secure would Majorian’s rule be after retaking Africa? If he could rule in peace for a few years or decades would he have been able to get the foederatti to fall under Roman rule and romanize?
 
Would Ricimer have had the backing required to overthrow Majorian? Besides being defeated Majorian had disbanded his Barbarian allies leaving him vunerable.
Majorian didn't disband anyone : he pushed back federates to acceptable limits, and never got rid of Barbarians in Roman army either as federates or integrated into regular units. Not without crippling its campaigning abilities and ending with a nice knife between his ribs.
Ricimer was a political animal to the fullest sense of the term : he had acquaintances with federates, senatorial elites, the Roman army overall, etc. It doesn't mean he was invulnerable, but he wasn't easy to get rid of. Ricimer is too often depicted as a stereotypical Barbarian puppetmaster, interested only in enforcing Barbarian rule over Romania. He was ruthless and skilled, true : but his actions in the Vth century generally stresses ambitions as a Romano-Barbarian ruler, not as a Goth or Suevi mastermind; and he generally was on a same page than Italian elites (such as his rejection of Avitus). The only thing that prevented him IMO to not be considered a regular emperor was his Barbarian origins that while not literally illegal, made it impossible in fact to claim the title.

Not that the execution of Majorian was a good move,and it certainly pissed military elites in WRE, but not that much in Italy and it's still where it mattered (and the opponents of Ricimer weren't really anti-Barbarians : it never prevented Aegidius to try ally himself with Vandals).
ITTL, I would even expect Ricimer's position to be possibly more stable than IOTL during the 460's, even if as a co-emperor de facto : he might appear less as a Constantinople-backed ruler than Majorian, have stronger ties with some military elements, and might be less pressed by time in his bid for power (I suspect, but don't quote me on this, that Majorian's execution was butchered and made too soon but was necessary from Ricimer's point of view after the defeat in Spain). It doesn't mean he would be successful, but giving what we know of him, he's certainly resourceful enough.

If he had succeeded in taking back Africa I imagine that the prestige and wealth gained from his conquests would’ve given him legitimacy, and iirc he had eastern recognition.
A limited recognition : he was not acknowledged as emperor by Constantinople, but rather as a regent of WRE (which was a good way to possibly get directly hands on Ravenna if needed). His prestige would certainly be reinforced, although I'm not sure how much wealth he would be supposed to carry giving the cost of the campaign alone.
I suspect this prestige would be more noticeable in provinces (whom he actively searched support from) rather than in Italy where he brushed off the wrong way the senatorial elite.

Would this have allowed him to keep Ricimer in line and become the dominate member of the partnership or just kille him?
It would certainly have let Ricimer in a co-rulership position and without any way to quickly deal with Majorian (even, as I said above, I think Ricimer would have preferred to deal with Majorian later than IOTL. At the very least, he didn't really planned the takover in advance giving what followed). Killing him would be a bad sign, either for Barbarians or for a part of Italian elites, even if Majorian would have pulled this.

One of which was in Africa and was a neighbor and enemy of the vandals. If Majorian retook Carthage would they have been allies or enemies of his? If allies would that have solved the issue of holding Carthage?
IOTL, Mauri were rather in agreements with Vandals at this point : it's really in the late Vth and especially in the VIth, notably due to Vandalic religious policy (and it's not clear how much it played) and predation, that things turned sour. It's worth noting that these "Barbarian" free territories (very relatively so, Mauri being Barbarian themelves, and northern Gallo-Roman basically indistinguishable from Barbarians). So, while not actively opposing Majorian...I tend to think it would have been best for Romans to not take a quiet Africa for granted would they make the mistake getting rid of an african foedus.

get the foederatti to fall under Roman rule and romanize?
Federates were essentially romanized, both politically-militarily and culturaly at this point, in no small part because they included a lot of provincial Romans and Roman military and even peoples with a more clear Barbarian origin neighbored Romania since centuries. Materially wise, the difference is far from obvious, and while Barbarians had a real influence over western provinces, they recieved much more from Romans.
Even at this point, with a strong enough Roman Empire, it wouldn't have been impossible to consider foederati as strongly autonomous and particular regions of the Empire, rather than full-blown independent kingdoms : even in the VIth century the idea from which Barbarian kings were subservient to the emperor in Constantinople wasn't entirely fictitious and it played a role in regional politics. It's not hard to imagine it would be more of a reality in a TL where Italy, Illyricum, Africa at least would be integrated within ERE remembering that, giving the resources and logistical dependence, it's either this (to a degree admittedly, with possible autonomy of western regions) or Barbarians by the mid-Vth.
 
I saw in some other threads that after his fleet was destroyed he disbanded his barbarian mercenaries which left him vunerable. Not that he changed the military system but that he didn’t need them anymore since he accepted a peace offer with the vandals.

Can you explain to me the foederatti, I’ve never really gotten a good explanation on how they operated and their relationship with Rome. How much influence did the Romans have over them and what happened to Romans in these territories. I’ve heard that when odaecer and later the Ostrogoths took over the Roman senate continued to operate and Roman administration continued to be staffed by Romans, did the same happen in other lands? And if Majorian succeeded would he have more power over the foederatti? It seems that he greatly reduced their lands and put them back in order.

And I never knew he was never recognized by the Eastern Empire. I wonder why they didn’t recognize him. Would this have gotten their recognition?

Also why do so many people have so many different opinions on Ricimer? Some paint him as Satan incarnate and the reason why nothing got done in the western empire while others just see him as your average Roman leader who did what he had to do to survive and that Majorian had become a liability and had to go.
 
I saw in some other threads that after his fleet was destroyed he disbanded his barbarian mercenaries which left him vunerable.
He disbanded his army, which was importantly made up of Barbarians (either federates, laeti, mercenaries, included into Romans units, etc.). They weren't as much is allies (the lack of reaction at his death on this regard is telling) than troops on which he had no great direct connection.
That said, I must said I was confused : by "his allies", I tought you meant Ricimer's, my bad.

Can you explain to me the foederatti, I’ve never really gotten a good explanation on how they operated and their relationship with Rome. How much influence did the Romans have over them and what happened to Romans in these territories
It's a complicated, and debated, topic because foedi tended to function differently between the IVth and Vth century, and eventually one foedus differed from another.
But roughly, a foedus is the autonomisation of a given people within Romania, keeping in mind that even if Barbarians were settled in a region and had their own set of laws (usually a specific set of Roman laws) the foedus was less territorial (even if the fiscus of the territory was trusted to Barbarians) than political : Roman citizens there were still directly tied to the Roman state and administration, and Barbarians (which could be definied by everyone obeying the Barbarian king) were indirectly so trough their dux/regulus.
They were not to pay taxes, but still owed payed military service to the Empire.

There was a great difference of appreciation for Barbarians, because they tended to see the service and the treaty not as much passed with the Empire than the Emperor : meaning that at his death, they considered themselves free of the previous agreement which was open to renegociation or disappearance. So the influence really depended from the imperial power and a great problem, IMO, of Late Empire was the rupture of dynastical continuity with Valentinian III's death, as it meant that while a treaty passed with an emperor could be maintained with his heirs, each emperor being unrelated then (if there was an emperor) meant that they could do as they wanted.
Note that Romans in province weren't opposed to foedi's expension : Majorian had to take back Arles because local nobility preferred to ally themselves with Burgundians when Majorian toppled Avitus, which they supported.

. I’ve heard that when odaecer and later the Ostrogoths took over the Roman senate continued to operate and Roman administration continued to be staffed by Romans, did the same happen in other lands?
Almost systematically so : see, with the disapperance of the WRE, you still had Roman states structures and elites surviving in western Romania. Even before its fall, it was relatively common to see Roman elites and leaders banding with Barbarians, because it was the best way to preserve their power and social standing, which the dying or remote Roman state couldn't do. Not that a good part of them didn't try to preserve the direct tie with Rome in the Vth century but giving the weakness of WRE and the divided provincial loyalties each time an emperor was toppled and replaced, they all ended up banding with Barbarians or be defeat. Most of them took the first choice, such as Vicentius in Taracconensis; Apollinaris Sidonius and Ecdicius in Auvergne; Victorius, Desiderius and Namatius in Aquitaine; Syagrius (same family, different guy) and Avitus in Provence, Arbogast in Germania, etc.
The Barbarian state is effectively a Late Roman state, on various grounds (Italy and Africa preserved more of late imperial features, while Gaul and Spain were more on a post-imperial ground)

And if Majorian succeeded would he have more power over the foederatti? It seems that he greatly reduced their lands and put them back in order.
He already had gained major successes against federates in Europe, as you say : but, so to speak, their potential was still there and the relative setback would last until Majorian's death : then, it's back to expansion of foedi although I agree that it might be different (Euric's aggressive expansionism isn't set in stone). But overall, I tend to see most of Spain, Pannonia and Gaul as really likely to be entirely taken by foedi, or at best quasi-independent provincial Romans (which is more or less the same thing eventually), while Majorian's victory may have kept Italy and Africa as part of the empire.

And I never knew he was never recognized by the Eastern Empire. I wonder why they didn’t recognize him.
It's not clear : maybe that Majorian's unlawful coronation and claims of Leo supporting it did kinda pissed Constantinople which believed at this point that it was theirs to choose who ruled in Ravenna, and not whoever managed to kill the previous emperor (even if this one was unreckognized too).
Note that Majorian didn't acknowledged Leo as Augustus before 458 either.
Even if Leo didn't opposed Majorian the way he did with other usurpers in Ravenna, there was a certain estrangement between Ravenna and Constantinople that I'm not sure how it would be resolved : I can still see Leo eventually taking over Africa at the first real crisis between them, with Majorian not able to do anything about it.

Would this have gotten their recognition?
That's possible but...Eventually Leo beneficied much of this situation : for him Majorian was a deputy in western Romania and not an emperor, which maintained the possibility of direct intervention; and Majorian fancying himself as an emperor could bring enough stability and hegemony over the lot of Roman autonomies in Gaul, Spain, Illyricum, etc.

Also why do so many people have so many different opinions on Ricimer?
He's arguably a divisive figure : the right combination of ambitious and supple, competent and ruthless. Of course, for a long time, we were tributary of description of Ricimer as a stereotypical Barbarian unable to grasp what the empire was and mostly about sucking it dry because it's what Barbarians do : destroy civilization out of greed and ignorance.
Now that we have a better grasp of Late Roman Empire, its society and civilization, we can arguably see Ricimer as a relatively good representative of it as a mix of Romanized Barbarians and western Romans; only much more skilled.
Eventually, tough, that he directly caused imperial instability AND that he had a sound (if ruthless) policy aren't incompatible at the latest. He certainly didn't search the empire's fall or weakening but he focused on political survival at the expense of peripheries which he might have felt not worth fighting over, and playing balance between Barbarians, Romans and Constantinople wasn't easy and maybe not that of a viable perspective (but people then really wanted WRE to survive in one form or another).
There's a lot of interesting interpretations of Ricimer, that neither demonize or sanctify him.
 
Top