No Vandal Sack of Rome

[Magnum]

OK, here's the scenario:

The Vandal Fleet heading for Rome gets caught in a huge storm just short of their target. The majority of the ships are sunk or blown way off course, so that they take absolutely no part in the ensuing events.

With the survivors landing near Rome numbering only a fraction of their OTL numbers, Pope Leo throws his weight behind Emperor Petronius Maximus and urges the population to resist, or, at the very least, he keeps quiet and doesn't actively betray the Empire.

The Vandals try to take the city in one fell swoop, only to find the gates locked and the defenders fighting back.

While this is going on, the few ships Petronius has in Ostia launch a daring attack on the moored Vandal fleet and succesfully manage to burn it (in many ways simmilar to what the Vandals themselves did to the Romans OTL some years later).

Genseric dies from wounds incurred during the assault the next day. Leaderless and disorganized, the Vandals are counterattacked and defeated by a rag-tag Roman force of proffesional soldiers, mercenaries and a hastily created force of local militia and other able-bodied men from the urban mob.

What butterflies can we expect from this ?

 

[Magnum]

anybody ??

 

[eliphas8]

I think the problem here is that in the part of the world most AH.commers come from its about 3 in the morning. As to the long term effects I'm not sure, Rome the city will be less devastated for the time being.

 

[carlton_bach]

It probably won't make that much of a difference to Rome in the long run, but the impact is going to be enormous down the road. The king dead, the fleet destroyed - the Vandal kingdom may not survive this. It it does, it will be weakened politically and economically, which could mean an earlier successful reconquest. Which has all kinds of implications for Roman history in the 500s. Plus, Italy retains a better fortified and more populous city at its centre. Probably not enough to establish an imperial dynasty, but enough to matter come future wars.

 

[Zireael]

I'd expect butterflies to be huge, maybe even a chance for Roman Empire to be gradually restored.

 

[The Professor]

OK, here's the scenario:

The Vandal Fleet heading for Rome gets caught in a huge storm just short of their target. The majority of the ships are sunk or blown way off course, so that they take absolutely no part in the ensuing events.

With the survivors landing near Rome numbering only a fraction of their OTL numbers, Pope Leo throws his weight behind Emperor Petronius Maximus and urges the population to resist, or, at the very least, he keeps quiet and doesn't actively betray the Empire.

The Vandals try to take the city in one fell swoop, only to find the gates locked and the defenders fighting back.

While this is going on, the few ships Petronius has in Ostia launch a daring attack on the moored Vandal fleet and succesfully manage to burn it (in many ways simmilar to what the Vandals themselves did to the Romans OTL some years later).

Genseric dies from wounds incurred during the assault the next day. Leaderless and disorganized, the Vandals are counterattacked and defeated by a rag-tag Roman force of proffesional soldiers, mercenaries and a hastily created force of local militia and other able-bodied men from the urban mob.

What butterflies can we expect from this ?

It's a slight misconception that the Vandals sacked all of Rome - they only really sacked the churches of Rome

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Decapitating the Vandals in 455 could be a great help to the Western Empire, I think. I'm not sure, though, if the Western Empire can properly grasp this opportunity without Eastern support, and I think that the government of Marcian was pretty busy in the mid 450s with mopping up the remnants of the exploding Hunnic Empire.

 

[Magnum]

It's a slight misconception that the Vandals sacked all of Rome - they only really sacked the churches of Rome

Do you have any proof of this ?

From what I read (granted, not that much), the Vandals seemed to have stayed for 14 days in the city (compared to the 3 days the Visigoths spent) and took many shiploads of captives to carthage to be sold into slavery (according to Victor Vitensis, arguably not the most reliable of sources, but not to be entirely dismissed either).

 

[Pururauka]

If Petronius has an inch of the courage that Avitus showed afterwards, he might organize an expedition of his own to retake Carthage. With the east tied up, maybe the only assistance he could have received would have been financial, which in itself, if channeled properly, might sow some dissent among the contestants for the Vandalic crown, furthering his goal. But still, he'd have to deal with that dick, Ricimer.

And as far as I know I coincide with your view: the Vandal sack was worse than the Visigothic one; i.e. the menorah taken by Titus was carried away during the sack, and it had been kept at the Capitol, not a church.

 

[The Professor]

Do you have any proof of this ?

From what I read (granted, not that much), the Vandals seemed to have stayed for 14 days in the city (compared to the 3 days the Visigoths spent) and took many shiploads of captives to carthage to be sold into slavery (according to Victor Vitensis, arguably not the most reliable of sources, but not to be entirely dismissed either).

Looking again it appears I've misread my sources that only churches were looted.
However all sources do agree that little to no murder or burning took place.
This kinda contradicts a "sack" per se (they spent 4-5 times as many days as the Visigoths and did not do worse damage)

 

[Unconsensual]

Not much use, localism was rampant by 450:The long-distance trade and open cities of imperial Rome were no more, towns were instead being militarized, fortified, abandoned, and trade became generalized for local markets as opposed to mass manufacture for long-distance trade.

The western Roman empire was both fighting invaders and it's own citizens which did not believe in the benefits of empire. Civil institutions were destitute with tax collection essentially being protection rackets and the senate was really no more. More importantly every emperor had the idea of reconquering the Old Roman borders which resulted in over extension every time.

The main reason for the depopulation wasn't war, it was just that with the breakdown of trade and order there was only so much the surrounding countryside can feed. If Rome survives, it just meant more migrants to the country side later/ starvation.

Picture you self in the eyes of a Roman emperor of the day. The tax base in always declining and most taxes have to be collected with the threat of force, corruption is rampant and eats up most of the income. Both the food supply and population are declining, caught in a vicious cycle where more chaos leads to less food production leading to more chaos. Most of your subjects want nothing to do with an empire and instead preferred the protection of local lords. You are always paranoid that a general will decide to take the throne from you, you simply can't trust your subordinates.

And oh yeah on top of that there's the regular affairs of state.

The idea of empire died in the 3rd century, it's too late by the 5th.

 

[Magnum]

Not much use, localism was rampant by 450:The long-distance trade and open cities of imperial Rome were no more, towns were instead being militarized, fortified, abandoned,


Rome was still a huge city and there were still lots of urban centres in the east. Carthage was also large-ish (if they manage to retake it without destroying it). But overall, you're right.

and trade became generalized for local markets as opposed to mass manufacture for long-distance trade.

A big part of the problem though was Vandal piracy.



The western Roman empire was both fighting invaders and it's own citizens which did not believe in the benefits of empire. Civil institutions were destitute with tax collection essentially being protection rackets

Frequent civil wars tend to do that to states.

and the senate was really no more.

I wouldn't necessarily say so. It still represented the senatorial aristocracy, who still had a lot of influence and which every emperor had to take into account. A whole bunch of senators would become emperors.

More importantly every emperor had the idea of reconquering the Old Roman borders which resulted in over extension every time.

Although, to be fair, some of them had the right idea. Most of the late empire's problems can be blamed on: 1) civil wars, 2)barbarian pressure and 3)plague. While you can't do anything about the latter, winning a great victory (like, say, retaking Africa and its grain supply) will help a lot with the first two


The main reason for the depopulation wasn't war, it was just that with the breakdown of trade and order there was only so much the surrounding countryside can feed. If Rome survives, it just meant more migrants to the country side later/ starvation.

Rome still had a large population when Belisarius came in and eventually wrecked it while trying to save it. Moreover, retaking North Africa and also securing the sea lanes to Sicilly and trade routes to the east (assuming they manage it) should do wonders to Rome's supply of grain and its economy.

Mind you, I'm not saying it would flourish or anything, merely that its decline would be (at least partially) averted.

Comments above.

 

[Unconsensual]

Comments above.

Can you not do that? It makes it more diffcult to quote you to respond. Also, I'll reply after class.

A big part of the problem though was Vandal piracy.

No, the biggest problem was general banditry from a lack of policing and the armies' "repossession", even at its height Rome was never able to pay its armies and had to rely on constant conquests. Also the navy was non-existent by then, pirates operated at will and the Vandals just contributed.

Frequent civil wars tend to do that to states.

And they tend to stay broken due to sheer logistics and the differences that come with time. Also there was no longer the massive disparity in resources, military quality, or luck that allowed the former empire.

Although, to be fair, some of them had the right idea. Most of the late empire's problems can be blamed on: 1) civil wars, 2)barbarian pressure and 3)plague. While you can't do anything about the latter, winning a great victory (like, say, retaking Africa and its grain supply) will help a lot with the first two

North Africa was abandoned since the Romans thought it wasn't worth it and that things were so dire in Rome that there simply wasn't the means. Also as mentioned earlier, Rome no longer had a navy.

Look I'm not saying that it's impossible but given the sheer task the emperors had you would need multiple visionary ,lucky, and capable emperors to reform/re-establish the administration, beat back invaders, suppress any pretender , police the provinces, reconstruct infrastructure, re-establish trade systems, reform the legal system & land distribution to reduce the lack of social mobility that created the mobs that was the cause of the social instability and legions of well... Legionaries that were so expensive to maintain in the first place, find a way to fund all the military expenditures to do this that was the cause of the instability in the first place, reform the military system that produces the pretenders on a regular basis, maintain this long enough (a century) to reform the ethos of "Romanness".

Case and point, the Roman empire simply didn't have the productivity to maintain standing armies, open cities, and empire. Wait a several centuries then try again.

Rome still had a large population when Belisarius came in and eventually wrecked it while trying to save it. Moreover, retaking North Africa and also securing the sea lanes to Sicilly and trade routes to the east (assuming they manage it) should do wonders to Rome's supply of grain and its economy.

Maybe, or a more destructive war would come along with another invader/pretender.

 

[Pururauka]

No, the biggest problem was general banditry from a lack of policing and the armies' "repossession", even at its height Rome was never able to pay its armies and had to rely on constant conquests. Also the navy was non-existent by then, pirates operated at will and the Vandals just contributed.

“A lack of policing” would be a most lacking term. Rome kept the border on the Rhine intact more or less until 406. If you are referring to the bagaudae then that was the aftermath of the Germanic influx following that date, not a result of imperial policy. Piracy was also at this point a Vandal monopoly, not of Roman citizens.

North Africa was abandoned due because the Romans thought it wasn't worth it and that things were so dire in Rome that there simply wasn't the means. Also as mentioned earlier, Rome no longer had a navy.

North Africa was not abandoned; Avitus retook Sicily, which had been seized by Vandals operating from NA, and Majorian had them trembling in fear of an invasion, and in 468 Anthemius, in conjunction with Leo I launched a large expedition to retake the province. The non-fruition of those plans doesn’t indicate an “abandonment” by Rome.
With the issue of a navy never fear, just look up Majorian again.

Look I'm not saying that it's impossible but given the sheer task the emperors had you would need multiple visionary ,lucky, and capable emperors to reform/re-establish the administration, beat back invaders, suppress any pretender , police the provinces, reconstruct infrastructure, re-establish trade systems, reform the legal system & land distribution to reduce the lack of social mobility that created the mobs that was the cause of the social instability and legions of well... Legionaries that were so expensive to maintain in the first place, find a way to fund all the military expenditures to do this that was the cause of the instability in the first place, reform the military system that produces the pretenders on a regular basis, maintain this long enough (a century) to reform the ethos of "Romanness".

Avitus, Majorian, and Anthemius. They all worked between the death of Petronius (456) to around the year 472. They had all of the “vision” you could have asked for. The rest was not anything the empire hadn’t encountered before, such as in the crisis of the third century. It was the bums that did not lift a finger while things fell apart (Honorius, Valentinian III) who did more harm.

Maybe, or a more destructive war would come along with another invader/pretender.

Who for example? The Lombard wouldn’t come around for another 110 years.

 

[Unconsensual]

“A lack of policing” would be a most lacking term. Rome kept the border on the Rhine intact more or less until 406. If you are referring to the bagaudae then that was the aftermath of the Germanic influx following that date, not a result of imperial policy. Piracy was also at this point a Vandal monopoly, not of Roman citizens.

That's just Renaissance revisionism, "barbarians" were a mild migraine on the Roman empire; it's own dysfunction a tumor. What does the border have to do with the general order in the rest of the empire? The border drew in manpower and resources but the devastation was local, persistent long-term banditry and piracy was the sport of Roman citizens and the biggest danger to merchants.

North Africa was not abandoned; Avitus retook Sicily, which had been seized by Vandals operating from NA, and Majorian had them trembling in fear of an invasion, and in 468 Anthemius, in conjunction with Leo I launched a large expedition to retake the province. The non-fruition of those plans doesn’t indicate an “abandonment” by Rome.
With the issue of a navy never fear, just look up Majorian again.

I'm aware that it was retaken, but my point was that it was eventually lost since the Romans didn't see it as valuable enough to keep. It was abandoned in the sense that when the sh*t hit the fan, they didn't bother to send enough manpower to keep it.

Avitus, Majorian, and Anthemius. They all worked between the death of Petronius (456) to around the year 472. They had all of the “vision” you could have asked for. The rest was not anything the empire hadn’t encountered before, such as in the crisis of the third century. It was the bums that did not lift a finger while things fell apart (Honorius, Valentinian III) who did more harm.

Who for example? The Lombard wouldn’t come around for another 110 years.

The empire itself wasn't sustainable, it had too many people with different goals without the technology to coordinate it. None of these "visionary" emperors had the skill and luck to go hand in hand to overhual the institutions. More importantly as I mentioned before Rome no longer had the military advantage that allowed it to become empire in the first place. Whether Rome can maintain it's borders or not is just a symptom of Rome's health, the neighboring Barbarians never numbered more than the hundreds of thousands whereas the empire had a population of roughly 40 million. Rome fell to constant infighting, inefficiencies, and corruption. And I wasn't refering to invaders really, more like the constant coups and succession crisis that happens every 5 years or so.

Avitus, Majorian, and Anthemius.

Pretender, death by coup after a year. Inheritance, death by coup after 4 years. Court politics, death by coup after 5 years.

None of these lived long enough, were skilled/lucky enough, nor for that matter smart enough to consolidate the empire and instead sought to militarily reconquer "provinces" which already developed strong local loyalties. You need several Augustus level emperors to pull this off, not average general-emperors (minus Majorian) overextending the empire.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The idea of empire died in the 3rd century, it's too late by the 5th.

This is a completely ridiculous assertion. It wasn't until the first decade of the 5th century that Northern Gaul started to feel neglected by the empire and giving up on the empire. Britain felt neglected as well, but the fact that they declared usurpers like Constantine, shows that they still thought of themselves as a part of the empire.

 

[Unconsensual]

This is a completely ridiculous assertion. It wasn't until the first decade of the 5th century that Northern Gaul started to feel neglected by the empire and giving up on the empire. Britain felt neglected as well, but the fact that they declared usurpers like Constantine, shows that they still thought of themselves as a part of the empire.

Yeah the local military and the aristocratic backers proclaimed the man emperor just like every other pretender, but for the average pleb the empire was no longer viewed as a positive good and thus the idea for empire died.

It's the equivalent of people in Texas thinking of themselves as Texans or <insert province here> first, Americans second.

• Long range trade no longer occurred anywhere near the level of the 2nd century.
• Military actions no longer meant loot and slaves like the early empire, just more levees and taxes for the next pretender.
• Due to constant civil wars and invasions, military forces are often deployed away from their home provinces at its expense. Locals who did not benefit saw this as an unjustified tax.
• Net income transfer to Rome, hundreds of years after conquest : locals didn't like that, taxes with no benefit.

The perceptions of empire simply followed the military and economic realities for non-frontier provinces.

 

[Pururauka]

That's just Renaissance revisionism, "barbarians" were a mild migraine on the Roman empire; it's own dysfunction a tumor. What does the border have to do with the general order in the rest of the empire? The border drew in manpower and resources but the devastation was local, persistent long-term banditry and piracy was the sport of Roman citizens and the biggest danger to merchants.

I guess the depredations of the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, Franks, Burgundians, Saxons, Alamanni, Sueves, Heruli, etc. must be all part of “Renaissance revisionism.”
Let me restate the point you’ve tried to reply to: The limes were guarded until the beginning of the 5th century, prior to their breach, there are no accounts of “banditry” (which does not mean that it did not exist, but only that it was not considered a major issue.) After the invaders passed through you see the bands of bagaudae (brigands, robbers) who began to cause major disruptions in the provinces. This only happened once before, during the third century, when incidentally everything was going to hell in a hand basket and Rome fell…right? The only difference being that the bagaudae were stamped out then.
With regards to the piracy, please enlighten me; which province or area were these pirates operating from?

I'm aware that it was retaken, but my point was that it was eventually lost since the Romans didn't see it as valuable enough to keep. It was abandoned in the sense that when the sh*t hit the fan, they didn't bother to send enough manpower to keep it.

Africa would not be retaken until the 540’s. Now “abandonment” as I understand it means “to give up completely.” In this sense, you could argue that Britain was abandoned. North Africa was not, I’ve already listed three military expeditions, that in the space of 15 years, were organized to retake it. “Shit” hit the fan in 406 when the hordes poured over the Rhine, and then again when the Vandals took Carthage in 439. These operations, I’ll repeat it once again took place between 456-472. I guess that puts them chronologically in “after shit hit the fan.”

The empire itself wasn't sustainable, it had too many people with different goals without the technology to coordinate it. None of these "visionary" emperors had the skill and luck to go hand in hand to overhual the institutions. More importantly as I mentioned before Rome no longer had the military advantage that allowed it to become empire in the first place. Whether Rome can maintain it's borders or not is just a symptom of Rome's health, the neighboring Barbarians never numbered more than the hundreds of thousands whereas the empire had a population of roughly 40 million. Rome fell to constant infighting, inefficiencies, and corruption. And I wasn't refering to invaders really, more like the constant coups and succession crisis that happens every 5 years or so.

The multiethnic empire had lasted by this point 650 years, people with different goals did not affect its fabric. Unless of course you consider the unassimilated flocks of Foederati.
When it comes to the skill of overhauling institutions how does “the remission of debts,” “the preservation of public buildings,” the return of the right to bear arms,” and the “installation of defenders of the municipalities” sound? All items were included in Majorian’s novellae.

Pretender, death by coup after a year. Inheritance, death by coup after 4 years. Court politics, death by coup after 5 years.

None of these lived long enough, were skilled/lucky enough, nor for that matter smart enough to consolidate the empire and instead sought to militarily reconquer "provinces" which already developed strong local loyalties. You need several Augustus level emperors to pull this off, not average general-emperors (minus Majorian) overextending the empire.

I cited them all to show their “abandonment “of Africa. True none of them lived long enough; but no Emperor under Ricimer did. And that is my point exactly. Imagine if Augustus had had to deal with Ricimer instead of Agrippa. He would cut down anyone that would challenge his power. In the east this did not come to fruition, Leo disposed of Aspar and rid the Empire of his Germanic foederati. The west could not do so, Ricimer was already well entrenched and the Visigoths in Spain, and the Vandals in Africa. Had a strong emperor reasserted authority in Italy, and as this WI proposes had a dead Geiseric, then the Vandals could have had it really tough.

 

[Pururauka]

Yeah the local military and the aristocratic backers proclaimed the man emperor just like every other pretender, but for the average pleb the empire was no longer viewed as a positive good and thus the idea for empire died.

And how do we know exactly what the noble rural pleb thought?

It's the equivalent of people in Texas thinking of themselves as Texans or <insert province here> first, Americans second.

Frivolous analogy.

• Long range trade no longer occurred anywhere near the level of the 2nd century.

I wonder how then the Gauls were still importing African wheat and amphorae stuffed with products from NA. Trade did decrease but not to some sudden red light going off; only Vandal piracy.

• Military actions no longer meant loot and slaves like the early empire, just more levees and taxes for the next pretender.

I wonder then if the campaigns of Constantius III, Aetius, Majorian, and Anthemius were all for some pretender.

• Due to constant civil wars and invasions, military forces are often deployed away from their home provinces at its expense. Locals who did not benefit saw this as an unjustified tax.

I thought invasions played no major part in this. Also the legions were deployed all over during the early empire, and were integrated into the province they were stationed in, with legionaries intermarrying the locals much of the time. During the late empire, this practice was cemented with the limitanei; the reserves armies played no part, since they were not permanently deployed.

• Net income transfer to Rome, hundreds of years after conquest : locals didn't like that, taxes with no benefit.

But what would make them then resent Romans dominance at this precise moment? Why keep quiet for so long?

On the other hand why the Gauls, Spaniards, heck even the Britons if you want to believe it, call on the Roman Emperor, whomever he happened to be, to "relieve them from the barbarians" when the Germans were all over the provinces?

The perceptions of empire simply followed the military and economic realities for non-frontier provinces.

As I stated earlier, the inactivity of Honorius and Valentinian III, yielding about 60 years of absolutely doing nothing, coupled with Ricimer killing all the other Emperors that tried to salvage some of the situation,during a small window of 15 years, did it for the WRE.

 

[Unconsensual]

snip

I never said they weren't damaging, I said that they were minor problems relative to the empire's dysfunction which allowed the barbarians to do damage. It's the same old problem; poorly paid soldiers and ambitious generals in the frontier and provinces decided to seize the throne leaving their areas undefended. Not only was the army responsible for guarding the frontier but improving/maintaining local infrastructure and policing.

With regards to the piracy, please enlighten me; which province or area were these pirates operating from?

Hmmm... seems like you were right, still doesn't change the fact that sea-borne commence never recovered from the 3rd century onwards, even in times of peace

...Now “abandonment” as I understand it means “to give up completely.”...”

Ugh huh, so understrength forces for the task at hand counts as a serious attempt? Abandonment is not about intention but actual commitment. Under your definition no Roman emperor abandoned the empire's boundaries but reality clearly didn't reflect that.

The multiethnic empire had lasted by this point 650 years...When it comes to the skill of overhauling institutions ...

And look what happened, the system that he tried to change was more powerful than he is. In fact it's the same system that grew more entrenched over time and was never changed that encouraged pretenders to gather forces while the emperor was out . He has the ideas but certainly not the ability or luck. Also you are ignoring the underlying conditions that changed: Rome was no longer vastly militarily superior , there is no rich neighbor left to pillage, localized identities and administrations from the 3rd century never went away,and it's social stability has been severely weakened by a massive wealth divide.

I cited them all to...snip

The east still had enough farmer soldiers of medium wealth to maintain their military system, the west depleted it's rural poor long ago and the system it was built upon reflected that in it's instability. Augustus did not have to deal with a situation as severe as the 5th century, tax collection and trade were in much better health in the 1st century...etc all the points I said before about different conditions of the 5th century.