Middle Ages w/ intact Roman Empire

Why is it always assumed that Roman Italy was unsustainable?

I do agree Majorian was the last chance of the West to survive in a respectable manner; maintaining control of its land, military and maybe even a chance at a rebound. But Italy could have been worked.

Let me put it this way: The Roman Empire of the 5th century was constantly facing warrior societies stronger than itself, attacking on all ends. In order to defend themselves, Rome needed to control their Mare Nostrum, which means North Africa is under their control. That added to the fact that North Africa was a bunch of rich provinces that allowed Rome to continue paying mercenaries and an army.
 
This deterministic line of thinking goes nowhere. Had things gone a little differently, we might be saying it was inevitable that the Empire would fall apart in the 3rd century, or perhaps that the East would fall as well (which, assuming they don't get rulers like Anastasius and the Danube frontier had blown up a bit more, may have happened).

Here's the thing: The East is always going to be stronger than the West in their current states of power. There is more money and population in the East, with some of their worst provinces like Macedonia still more prosperous than provinces like Hispania. This does not mean, however, that the West doesn't have any wealth or power. In fact, their borders aren't nearly as impossible to defend as some people claim: The Rhine frontier is sustainable, and even if they lose Britain it could do more good than harm.

Avoid someone like Attila rising and there is a bit less migrations west (climate change will still play a role, meaning there will be some). Even with less wealth than the East, Rome can hold the Rhine and the Alps, preventing the collapse of the state there was OTL. Even if Gaul and even Hispania fall, it's not irreversible: Italy and North Africa can provide a defensible cradle to fall back on.
 

RousseauX

Donor
No it was not. It became too expensive! In the first century there was no major problem with centralization, economic growth and taxation. Thats a problem we could solve, if we find the structural reasons for this process.

That's because in the 1st century Rome was still capable of running a looting economy where it appropriated the surpluses of societies it had just conquered.

The same was not true of, say, the 3rd century because it ran out of wealthy societies to plunder.
 
That's because in the 1st century Rome was still capable of running a looting economy where it appropriated the surpluses of societies it had just conquered.

The same was not true of, say, the 3rd century because it ran out of wealthy societies to plunder.

I see your point, but I am afraid you overestimate income from loot.

The empire was more or less bankrupt after the civil war, IF Augustus would not have looted Cleopatras treasury. That is correct. But all further captures of Augustus look not very loot heavy. Same with Tiberius time. Tiberius inherited 2 Mio HS, which historians guess was about a 2-year budget. The integration of the Cappadocian client state was propably not th reason for this treasury, but the very restrictive budget control of Tiberius, which even led to a deflation in Rome. Caligula needed just 4 years to waste that money. Claudius conquest of Britannia may have led to some income, but Nero was again bankrupted. Vespasian got the jewish temple treasury, but Domitian was again bankrupted. Trajan looted a lot in Dacia, but also wasted immedeately a lot with his failed parthian campaign. And Aurelius was again bankrupt, even before the Marcomanns and the plague came.

We also have evidence, that trade was prospering in the 1st and 2nd century while it was not in the 3rd and it never reached it again in th 4th.

The decline of some cities in in Spain already started in the 2nd century, while the cities in Africa and Britannia were still growing in the 3rd century.

I do not see, how all this could be explained by centralization harming the roman economy. Or loot stabilizing it up to the 2nd century.

The romans even increased centralization by impementing a curator civitatis for some cities, because these decentral local authorities were unable to run their cities properly and misappropriated funds a lot.

The buerocrats of the roman empire were less than 1% of the population during the principate. Even during the late empire, it never reached 3-4%, which was state of the art in the 17th century (Prussia, England, France, ...). So it is hard to believe, that the roman empire was in any way over-bureocratized.

Well corruption was an issue, but rather in late empire, than during the principate. And if you look to the late republic, with its rather decentral model of administration, corruption went thru the roof and was close to ruin the entire economy of the empire.

I am convinced, that the reasons for bankruptcy of the roman emperors is more complex than just centralization and missing loot from expansion. And again, I do not understand, how centralization harmed the economy at all.
 
Is there any credible scenario where Rome simply does not try to go into Germanic territory? Say they stay south of the Swiss Alps and never try to cross the Rhine (or stop father west). Can Rome improve if it simply does not antagonize the Germanic people?
 
Is there any credible scenario where Rome simply does not try to go into Germanic territory? Say they stay south of the Swiss Alps and never try to cross the Rhine (or stop father west). Can Rome improve if it simply does not antagonize the Germanic people?

This is more or less the scenario, we discussed above. If the romans manage to hold Africa and maybe reconquer Spain and perhaps the Narbonensis (Mare Nostrum!), the WRE ends up with a pre-Caesar-state. Gallia, Britannia and the 2 german provinces were lost anyways.

The Alps sound like a good border. But the Alemanns and others invaded northern Italy. And so did the Langobards against the ERE centuries later. So you need legions to defend this line. And now we are back to politics and economy.
 
This is more or less the scenario, we discussed above. If the romans manage to hold Africa and maybe reconquer Spain and perhaps the Narbonensis (Mare Nostrum!), the WRE ends up with a pre-Caesar-state. Gallia, Britannia and the 2 german provinces were lost anyways.

The Alps sound like a good border. But the Alemanns and others invaded northern Italy. And so did the Langobards against the ERE centuries later. So you need legions to defend this line. And now we are back to politics and economy.

With North Africa, Rome can defend these borders. A border at the Rhine would be better, but this is defensible enough.
 
With North Africa, Rome can defend these borders. A border at the Rhine would be better, but this is defensible enough.

I just wonder what happens next. Would the Franks still expand from Belgica to Gallia? Whats the roman position about this conquest and the romans in Gallia?
The Franks were always loyal partners since the 4th century (not that much in the 3rd). Perhaps the romans need them against the Visigoths in Spain and allow them to settle in Gallia afterwards?

How would the frankish empire develop with a strong WRE as its neighbour. What does that mean to the frankish culture in the next centuries. The Franks were already heavily influenced by the local romans in Gallia. Now this influence might become even stronger.

Would we see 3 more or less "roman" empires in 1000 AD: the "Gallic Empire" of the Franks, the WRE and the ERE? Would Charlemagne or any other Frank become Caesar, crowned by the Augustus in Constantinople? Or would we see even 3 Augusti? Would this new multi-emperor system including the germans stay stable?

How would this WRE deal with the ERE? Could the roman emperors of the WRE get their power back and implement roman magistri with roman legions instead of foederati, like the ERE managed to do? What would happen during the rise of the Islam and the appearance of the Avars in Europe? What happens to the Ostrogoths and the Langobards? Without the Arabs in Spain, would the Franks invade Britannia?
 
Last edited:
I just wonder what happens next. Would the Franks still expand from Belgica to Gallia? Whats the roman position about this conquest and the romans in Gallia?
The Franks were always loyal partners since the 4th century (not that much in the 3rd). Perhaps the romans need them against the Visigoths in Spain and allow them to settle in Gallia afterwards?

How would the frankish empire develop with a strong WRE as its neighbour. What does that mean to the frankish culture in the next centuries. The Franks were already heavily influenced by the local romans in Gallia. Now this influence might become even stronger.

Would we see 3 more or less "roman" empires in 1000 AD: the Franks, the WRE and the ERE? Would Charlemagne or anybody else become Caesar, crowned by the Augustus in Constantinople?

How would this WRE deal with the ERE? Could the roman emperors of the WRE get their power back and implement roman magistri with roman legions instead of foederati. like the ERE managed to do? What would happen during the rise of the Islam and the appearance of the Avars in Europe? What happens to the Ostrogoths and the Langobards? Without the Arabs in Spain, would the Franks invade Britannia?

Has anyone here checked out this TL concerning a surviving WRE? I think it contains a great template where a great Emperor could turn around the situation, even at such a late stage.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=278876&highlight=Romulus+Augustus
 
I just wonder what happens next. Would the Franks still expand from Belgica to Gallia? Whats the roman position about this conquest and the romans in Gallia?
The Franks were always loyal partners since the 4th century (not that much in the 3rd). Perhaps the romans need them against the Visigoths in Spain and allow them to settle in Gallia afterwards?

How would the frankish empire develop with a strong WRE as its neighbour. What does that mean to the frankish culture in the next centuries. The Franks were already heavily influenced by the local romans in Gallia. Now this influence might become even stronger.

Would we see 3 more or less "roman" empires in 1000 AD: the "Gallic Empire" of the Franks, the WRE and the ERE? Would Charlemagne or any other Frank become Caesar, crowned by the Augustus in Constantinople? Or would we see even 3 Augusti? Would this new multi-emperor system including the germans stay stable?

How would this WRE deal with the ERE? Could the roman emperors of the WRE get their power back and implement roman magistri with roman legions instead of foederati, like the ERE managed to do? What would happen during the rise of the Islam and the appearance of the Avars in Europe? What happens to the Ostrogoths and the Langobards? Without the Arabs in Spain, would the Franks invade Britannia?

From here on out, it's really all speculation, and could go a number of ways. For example, if the WRE is strong, the Lombards may very well migrate into the Balkans or to the east, or even not at all. As bmao mentioned, we already have an outstanding TL about WRE survival with a PoD in 475, which gives one possible scenario. The only problem is it ends too quickly.;)

In the same vein as I don't view a WRE collapse as inevitable, I don't think them surviving the 5th century will end all their problems either. North Africa will just give them a chance.
 

Deleted member 67076

Let's be real here. If the Western Roman Empire somehow managed to survive after 5th Century CE it would probably just be relegated to the Italian Peninsula (if that) and Central Italy.
Can you explain why?

The Pope (i.e. the "Pontifex Maximus" of the Roman State) would constantly struggle with the Emperor for temporal authority and probably win out in the end, possibly reducing the hereditary Emperor to a figurehead position similar to that of pre-1867 Japan. Or they (the Papacy) must just abolish the Empire altogether in favor of a theocratic state roughly analogous to OTL Papal States. Just some thoughts, guys.
What is this I don't even... Why would people support a giant Papal state?
 
That would beg the question why wasn't the patriach in Constantinople doing the same thing? If the pope (it must be stressed, the papacy getting any leverage politically didn't come until at least the 7th-8th centuries) would struggle with the Western Roman Emperor's, then one would assume the patriarch of Constantinople would have been locked in an eternal power struggle with the eastern emperors. Yet they seemed to be deposed and installed at will, often hostage to the emperor's ends. Why would this be different in Rome? The Pope, at least at this time, is merely an overglorified patriarch.
 
That would beg the question why wasn't the patriach in Constantinople doing the same thing? If the pope (it must be stressed, the papacy getting any leverage politically didn't come until at least the 7th-8th centuries) would struggle with the Western Roman Emperor's, then one would assume the patriarch of Constantinople would have been locked in an eternal power struggle with the eastern emperors. Yet they seemed to be deposed and installed at will, often hostage to the emperor's ends. Why would this be different in Rome? The Pope, at least at this time, is merely an overglorified patriarch.

It's because people seem to be assuming that for some reason the 13th century Papacy shows up a thousand years early. In a strong WRE or even Kingdom of Italy situation the Pope probably ends up as just another Patriarch since there is a strong secular lord nearby to keep him from getting too ambitious.
 
Two options seem fairly apparent right away for a POD about 467.

Ricimer, having married Alypia (daughter of emperor Anthemius), wishes to rule as an actual viceroy of the Roman Empire but out of Constantinople instead of Rome. From here:

A) Ricimer takes command of the forces at Cape Bon and leads the largest pre-Normandy amphibious invasion in history. After striking a deal with Euric, King of the Visigoths, the Vandals are crushed in a giant pinscher movement with the Romans taking northern Africa and the Vandals taking Iberia. Ricimer then plans the attack on the Visigoths in southern and central Gaul followed by landings in the major Mediterranean islands, slowly beginning the work of retaking Iberia over the next decade as the Visigoths have worn themselves down. Peace ensues and Ricimer's children become the next line of Western Emperors under their father's tutelage, the oldest being Emperor and loyal siblings becoming governors in other provinces. Their leadership provides a core for a hybrid Roman-Barbarian aristocracy that is more the former than latter a century later, and although Britain is not recovered the Isle of Man becomes a Roman colony as new and rebuilt outposts appear first in Cornwall then southern Ireland. While there is no scientific study and the economy remains less developed, the population is higher and learning thrives under the new Empire. Upon its challenge by Muslim forces there is little territory lost though the faith begins to permeate North Africa slowly just as Coptic Christianity survives in Egypt and elsewhere.

B) Ricimer takes over central and southern Italy directly in the name of Constantinople about 469-471 and proceeds to become de facto Emperor of the West after beginning a series of conquests in the name of the Empire. By various wheelings, dealings, stealings, and outright conquest, he retakes Iberia, southern Gaul, and northern Africa over the next 35 years. His house becomes the leading one in the West and leads to a fusion of various cultures which work together more as a federation of nations along semi-modern geographic lines than as a singular unit. Gradually Germania is Romanized more by trade than by conquest and Roman traders eventually become explorers looking for more distant ports leading to additional colonies in later years.
 
Top