What kind of political system/Institutions/Culture should the Vandal Kingdom have to be as likely as possible to last, and form a legacy?
Same than in Late AntiquitySystem of passing on power between different individuals?
Not without breaking with the late imperial order, which even Vandals didn't want. On the other hand, most of existing institutions were kept, even if it wasn't really functional due to direct royal intervention (such as the Synod of Carthage)A Vandal Senate or Parliment?
Succession laws doesn't really exist as such in history, but Gunseric did pulled a planned succession. It remained fairly stable, until the end, in spite of dynastic accident.Succesion Laws?
Could Donatism be a solution for the Vandals?The problem isn't found in institutions, which are largely the same than Roman Africa, or the rest of late imperial Romania, but general weariness of the Vandalic kingdom.
The main issue, eventually, can be found on the anti-Nicean persecution, less because of its brutality (eventually relatively limited to the Vandalica Sors) than because it led to the exile of a significant part of the roman elite among Mauri, which might have been a significant factor to their abandon of the effective alliance they had with Vandals to a certain hostility. It was damaging to a degree, as Africano-Romance elites remained, as in Italy (but unlike what happened in Spain and Gaul) relatively distinct from the Vandalic power and relatively close to Romans of Constantinople.
EDIT : Note that the confiscation and requisitions of Vandals were particularly brutal in the late Vth century and larger than what happened in the rest of Romania, which definitely caused frictions with Africano-Romans.
What would be the best long term solution for the Vandals when it comes to securing their hold in the modern Tunisia/western Algeria region against the Mauri? Could a system that includes them as part of the kingdom eventually be developed?The problem isn't found in institutions, which are largely the same than Roman Africa, or the rest of late imperial Romania, but general weariness of the Vandalic kingdom.
The main issue, eventually, can be found on the anti-Nicean persecution, less because of its brutality (eventually relatively limited to the Vandalica Sors) than because it led to the exile of a significant part of the roman elite among Mauri, which might have been a significant factor to their abandon of the effective alliance they had with Vandals to a certain hostility. It was damaging to a degree, as Africano-Romance elites remained, as in Italy (but unlike what happened in Spain and Gaul) relatively distinct from the Vandalic power and relatively close to Romans of Constantinople.
EDIT : Note that the confiscation and requisitions of Vandals were particularly brutal in the late Vth century and larger than what happened in the rest of Romania, which definitely caused frictions with Africano-Romans.
What would be the best long term solution for the Vandals when it comes to securing their hold in the modern Tunisia/western Algeria region against the Mauri? Could a system that includes them as part of the kingdom eventually be developed?
Here it is.Unrelated, but do you know if some form of Romance language ever developed in coastal Mauretania?
African Romance or African Latin is an extinct Romance language that is assumed to have been spoken in the Roman province of Africa by the Roman Africans during the later Roman and early Byzantine Empires and several centuries after the annexation of the region by the Umayyad Caliphate in 696.
African Roman is poorly attested as it was mainly a spoken, vernacular language; texts and inscriptions in Roman Africa were written exclusively in Classical Latin. It was, along with other languages spoken in the region such as Berber languages, subsequently suppressed and supplanted by Arabic after the Muslim conquest of the area.
Later Romance languages to arrive in the continent (notably Ladino, French and Portuguese) are not covered by this article.
But the Mauri were not the mainstream, the African Romans were. What I'm thinking is something along the lines of a Vandalo-Berber nobility, the Roman elites will inevitably join with time, when they realize that the statu quo isn't going anywhere.The Vandals stayed seperate too long, for them to become part of the mainstream.
Berbers were the majority of the population. Most of rural Africa and Mauritannia was inhabited by Berbers.But the Mauri were not the mainstream, the African Romans were. What I'm thinking is something along the lines of a Vandalo-Berber nobility, the Roman elites will inevitably join with time, when they realize that the statu quo isn't going anywhere.
Romanisation was strongest in the east and along the coast. There may have been some Romance language speakers further west, but they would be fewer in number.The province of Africa refers to the area around Cartage, where Punic culture had been previously dominant. I was asking about Mauretania, further west.
Donatism was a relatively peripheral and particularily sectarian group, I'd think that it'd do even less to help Vandals.Could Donatism be a solution for the Vandals?
I don't think it will, because these confiscation had an ambivalent result. These confiscation (essentially limited to Pronconsularis, but not just in these territories, building up the Sortes Wandalorum) were essentially expropriations of not only the wealthy Africano-Roman elite, but a significant part of landowners of the region, which was accompanied by an expropriation of Church lands.If the Vandals had become Nicean would they be able to get away with their confiscations?
What would be the best long term solution for the Vandals when it comes to securing their hold in the modern Tunisia/western Algeria region against the Mauri?
It was what existed until the 480's as Mauri were relatively integrated with Roman Africa : they notably formed a good part of the Vandal forces during the Sack of Rome, and the general piracy.Could a system that includes them as part of the kingdom eventually be developed?
It probably was tied to Africano-Romance in general, so if you ask about a specific Romance language in Mauretania, I'd say cautiously no, regardless Vandals survive or Berber pull a Merovingia and create a Berbero-Romance ensemble (which, without Byzantine intervention, would have been likely).Unrelated, but do you know if some form of Romance language ever developed in coastal Mauretania?
That's debatable : "Inner" Mauri formed a large part of African population even in the Late Roman period up to the Islamic conquest, African-Roman population in the strictest sense being tied to the coast.But the Mauri were not the mainstream, the African Romans were.
Regardless of the possibility of a Vandalo-Berber nobility (which is extremely unlikely in a the middle term), Africano-Romance elites were quite close to their Italian counterparts, meaning that they were tied closely with the Roman Empire in Constantinople and never really demonstrated a willingness to do otherwise even (and critically) as Berbers took over most of Vandal kingdom before the Byzantine reconquest.What I'm thinking is something along the lines of a Vandalo-Berber nobility, the Roman elites will inevitably join with time, when they realize that the statu quo isn't going anywhere.
OK, but where there any options for a Relgion/Sect that the Vandal's could turn toward inorder to consolidate their kingdom?Donatism was a relatively peripheral and particularily sectarian group, I'd think that it'd do even less to help Vandals.
How did the non-land owning classes react to the Vandal confiscations?I don't think it will, because these confiscation had an ambivalent result. These confiscation (essentially limited to Pronconsularis, but not just in these territories, building up the Sortes Wandalorum) were essentially expropriations of not only the wealthy Africano-Roman elite, but a significant part of landowners of the region, which was accompanied by an expropriation of Church lands.
This was something relatively exceptional for Barbarians (where settlement was more diffuse and with an attribution often focused on fiscal redistribution), and while it might have benefited to the clientelized pesantry of the region, it had a character considered almost bolshevik in its expression according Schmidt (in the 30's, arguably, the comparison was easier to make).
What does "Homean" mean?Now, if you make Genseric less of a "revolutionary" in this part, and maybe more conservative in its management of the land...
Anyway, a conversion to Nicean Christianity might help, although it would have consequences among Vandals and Alans, probably in the form of a Homean reaction that would be politically supported (as Homeism was really an identitarian marker). Maybe a deeper rapprochement between Constantinople and Carthage against Theoderic, and earlier than IOTL? At last, it might help keeping Berber and Vandalic relations relatively quieter.
Why did the exile of Necean bishops lead to evangelisation of Mauri? Did the exiled Nicean go to Maghrebi territory outside Vandal controll?It was what existed until the 480's as Mauri were relatively integrated with Roman Africa : they notably formed a good part of the Vandal forces during the Sack of Rome, and the general piracy.
The reasons why it broke off aren't really clear but according Yves Modéran, the exile of Nicean bishops lead to a general evangelisation of Mauri (that were either pagan or repaganised in the Vth century).
https://books.openedition.org/efr/1424
Could the Vandal nobillity have a "Norman-like" integration into the local identity?Regardless of the possibility of a Vandalo-Berber nobility (which is extremely unlikely in a the middle term), Africano-Romance elites were quite close to their Italian counterparts, meaning that they were tied closely with the Roman Empire in Constantinople and never really demonstrated a willingness to do otherwise even (and critically) as Berbers took over most of Vandal kingdom before the Byzantine reconquest.
Nicean Christianity?OK, but where there any options for a Relgion/Sect that the Vandal's could turn toward inorder to consolidate their kingdom?
We don't know. We just know that there was a lot of spoilated landowners, too much to be compensated after the Byzantine reconquest, especially as dust settled down after some decades; and that it seems that sharecroopers might have enjoyed some relief.How did the non-land owning classes react to the Vandal confiscations?
It doesn't seems so.Did the confiscations disrupt the economy?
No, the grain still managed to find its way to Italy.Was their a famine similar to the Soviet famine?
Africa and Italia, even after the collapse of WRE, were regions of sustained late imperial romanity, contrary to most of the western Romania were a different romanity took form socially (roughly, municipal vs. episcopal authority, clerical vs. scholarly education, regionalisation vs. mediterran, etc.).Could the Vandal's somehow integrate some the Africano-Roman elite into their state? Would this be a strenght or a weakness?
Byzantines tried to make justice of the spoliations, asking people able to prove their family lost land to claim them back in a delay of 5 years. It was inapplicable, and because Byzzies weren't interested on putting oil on the fire and didn't want "Africans to bicker about old matters almost forgotten", only accepted claims on lands that belonged to their fathers and grand-fathers, meaning that very few lands confiscated in 439-444 were reclaimable. Even the Church had trouble taking back her land.Could the Vandal's keep their confiscated properties and wealth following a absorption of the Vandal Kingdom into ERE?
Homeism/Homoeism is the name of the soft-Arian Christianity Barbarians practiced : essentially a non-dogmatic (in the sense of please don't discuss theology) branch of Christianity both compatible with Arianism and Niceism on a theological level, and distinct essentially politically.What does "Homean" mean?
Because persecuted religious men tends to have them trying to assert their religious beliefs.Why did the exile of Necean bishops lead to evangelisation of Mauri? Did the exiled Nicean go to Maghrebi territory outside Vandal controll?
The difference is that Rollo and Normans already had tight relationship with bishops and Neustrian aristocracy before 911, leading to a relatively smooth integration.Could the Vandal nobillity have a "Norman-like" integration into the local identity?
I was wondering about a alternative that would be different from the ERE. Perhaps that could give the Vandal Kingdom more independance from ERE influence.Nicean Christianity?
Were not the Vandal Men sent to Syria to be soldiers of the ERE, where they would fight against the Sassanids? The Women were married to ERE soldiers, who would assume the responsibility for their Vandal kins properties? I am not sure what happened to young children of either gender, most likely they stayed in the Maghreb.Byzantines tried to make justice of the spoliations, asking people able to prove their family lost land to claim them back in a delay of 5 years. It was inapplicable, and because Byzzies weren't interested on putting oil on the fire and didn't want "Africans to bicker about old matters almost forgotten", only accepted claims on lands that belonged to their fathers and grand-fathers, meaning that very few lands confiscated in 439-444 were reclaimable. Even the Church had trouble taking back her land.
Even if Byzantines confiscated the land not claimed back, it's possible the land organization during Vandal era didn't really changed. My personal interpretation of the fate of Vandals, such as integration in Byzantine army and intermarriage with the army would be that they were settled on these lands taken for military use (against Berbers).
What about Norman England.The difference is that Rollo and Normans already had tight relationship with bishops and Neustrian aristocracy before 911, leading to a relatively smooth integration.
Vandals came and kicked Africa in her metaphorical butt.
Could the Vandals and the Mauri develop a relationship that would be mutually benefical?The course of Vandal wars suggests that Vandals with their women and children were concentrated in a few city garrisons with their women and children - available to be mobilized at short notice, but when they lost a few battles, they were not in position to hold out in the countryside.
The mentioned bad relationships with Mauri likely contributed.
I wouldn't see this happening : most Barbarian kingdoms tought themselves as part of a geopolitical ensemble that Constantinople dominated politically, economically and institutionally. Especially Africa and Italy, which had a social/cultural Roman elite particularly tied to the Roman state were going to be under more or less important Roman influence.I was wondering about a alternative that would be different from the ERE. Perhaps that could give the Vandal Kingdom more independance from ERE influence.
It's rather more complex.Were not the Vandal Men sent to Syria to be soldiers of the ERE, where they would fight against the Sassanids?
Normans got rid of local nobility and most of local elites, while no neighbor was powerful enough nor cared enough to interact.What about Norman England.
Ir was the case, until the 480's, as mentioned above.Could the Vandals and the Mauri develop a relationship that would be mutually benefical?
I'm not sure I see the correlation between both : Justinian plague really did a number on mediterranean rural population as well, as far as I understood?If the Vandal's were disproportionally urban would they not be disproportionally affected by the plague of Justinian?
Would male family members of these women benefit form their new "relations"?What do we get from Procopius?
- Vandal women were married to Roman soldiers (a good part of them being Barbarians), which allowed them (and probably their family) to keep familial lands re-confiscated by the Roman state but not given to spoliated families of the Vth century, eventually causing not big changes in landowning division.
Does an estimate exist?- A mix between Vandals and Barbarians in service of Constantinople took place
Were would those Vandals in the cavalry squadrons be placed in the socio-economic hiearchy? Perhaps they would be upper class due to the expenses related to horses, arms, etc.- Five cavalry squadrons were dispatched on the eastern borders : that's a significant number but that's clearly not all of the Vandalic people. A number of them rebelled and went back to Africa.
What kind of etmyological roos does the name "Stotzas" have?The revolt failed as well Stotzas rebellion (which included Mauri and Vandalic troops), not without having plundered the region of Carthage (maybe Carthage itself), and you had another deportation in 540.
And Solomon sailed to Carthage, and having rid himself of the sedition of Stotzas, he ruled with moderation and guarded Libya securely, setting the army in order, and sending to Byzantium and to Belisarius whatever suspicious elements he found in it, and enrolling new soldiers to equal their number, and removing those of the Vandals who were left and especially all their women from the whole of Libya.
Note that Solomon's Africa only covered part of Vandalic Africa, the rest being taken over by Berbers, even in a precarious positions : so the expulsion of Vandalic military or possible allies (see the relation with Vandalic women as pointed above) probably didn't concerned the entiere population that either merged with Romans (which part of it arguably began to do before the conquest) or Berbers. Their numbers weren't this much high to begin with and once robbed out of their political/military dominance, they disappeared relatively quickly as a distinct people (such as Goths in Italy).
Let's say that the Vandals had gotten rid of the Romano-Africans would they then be able to form a new Vandal-Berber state?Normans got rid of local nobility and most of local elites, while no neighbor was powerful enough nor cared enough to interact.
Note that Barbarians didn't want to get rid of Romanity : it was how they legitimized themselves, being part of the wider Roman world.
Diseases spread more easily to urban areas due to them being more well connected, less isolated than rural areas. That would presumably lead to a higher proportion dieing than in a rural area. The difference may high or low.I'm not sure I see the correlation between both : Justinian plague really did a number on mediterranean rural population as well, as far as I understood?