Political System/Institutions/Culture that could make the Vandal Kingdom last

Would male family members of these women benefit form their new "relations"?
Giving they seems to have relatively easily allied themselves with Vandals, I'd say yes.

Does an estimate exist?
Not that I know of.

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.
Relatively high in military hierarchy and social position, probably, but it doesn't imply much economically (especially if it came from subsides).

What kind of etmyological roos does the name "Stotzas" have?
It's unknown as far as I know, although a Barbarian origin is quite probable from its social/military origin.

The Vandal's that were expelled they be resettled by ERE inside ERE territory?
It's quite likely.

It's not specified. Africa became more of a political mess, and duuring the Romano-Persian wars, it was let to itself to a great degree, with few mentions in Byzantine texts.

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?
Why Vandals would have done that? Again, Barbarian legitimacy, even at their own eyes, was based on maintaining the Roman order as much as possible while putting forward their specific interests.
Now, I'd tend to think that Berbers would be more likely to form a Romano-Berber state on which Vandals would have been mixed.

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.
It doesn't really appears as such in sources, even for later epidemics : specifically, what we have for the Justinian plague stress a similar death rare in cities (which are defined insitutionally, and not by their population) and countryside alike. I tend to think that historical and archeological sources trumps abstract models.
 
What if Hilderic had not been killed at Gelimers order? How would ERE handle Africa if Hilderic was alive and in their possesion? Justinian's casus belli for invading hte Vandal kingdom was to reinstate Hilderic, a pro-Roman king who had been deposed by Hilderic. Hilderic was tolerant of the Catholic church, and relaced oppression against Catholics. Gelimer then led Arian coup of Vandal nobles which deposed Hilderic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilderic

What would the effect of Hilderic being freed by Belisarus be? How would it affect below.
  • The Vandal people
  • Properties of the Vandals
  • Christianity in Roman Africa
  • Governance of Roman Africa
  • Historical perception of Justinian
 
Frankly, I doubt it would have ended much differently : Byzantine campaign in Spain was technically made to support a claimant, and it didn't prevented Byzzies to crippled Goths there.
Arguably, you could have Hilderic being considered as a patrician and keeping more Vandals in Africa by virtue of being a stabilizing elements, but the odds of a revolt or joining a revolt as IOTL are significantly high IMO.

Now, keeping Hilderic on the throne, on the other hand...If you manage to keep Mauri at bay, it might have interesting (if relatively limited) consequences.
 
Frankly, I doubt it would have ended much differently : Byzantine campaign in Spain was technically made to support a claimant, and it didn't prevented Byzzies to crippled Goths there.
Arguably, you could have Hilderic being considered as a patrician and keeping more Vandals in Africa by virtue of being a stabilizing elements, but the odds of a revolt or joining a revolt as IOTL are significantly high IMO.

Now, keeping Hilderic on the throne, on the other hand...If you manage to keep Mauri at bay, it might have interesting (if relatively limited) consequences.
What could the ERE do to prevent a revolt among Vandals and/or Mauri?
 
What could the ERE do to prevent a revolt among Vandals and/or Mauri?
I'm not sure : Byzantines came in Africa with a relatively faint knowledge of the actual situation, safe that Vandals were in a succession crisis whom main victim was Hilderic (a relatively debonair and pro-Roman/Nicean king), and that Africano-Roman population considered Vandals responsible for the Mauri advance.
Justinian wanted to restore a Roman control more or less romanticized in all of Africa (meaning Mauri were percieved as outsiders, not unlike Isaurians were), and as such, was as heavy handed he was in Italy. With Vandals struggling to keep themselves as a distinct social/cultural group, and Berber not that thrilled to see Byzzies taking all the pot they were on the verge of gaining...
On the other hand, any Roman reconquest at this point was bound to be complex and incomplete : maybe (and that's assuming Constantinople suddenly changes its perception of Africa for no reason) if Byzantines eventually say "okay, we don't care about the land, let's our troops take as they want and Vandals keep the rest" you'd have prevented revolt, but at a really important political legitimacy cost.
 
I'm not sure : Byzantines came in Africa with a relatively faint knowledge of the actual situation, safe that Vandals were in a succession crisis whom main victim was Hilderic (a relatively debonair and pro-Roman/Nicean king), and that Africano-Roman population considered Vandals responsible for the Mauri advance.
Justinian wanted to restore a Roman control more or less romanticized in all of Africa (meaning Mauri were percieved as outsiders, not unlike Isaurians were), and as such, was as heavy handed he was in Italy. With Vandals struggling to keep themselves as a distinct social/cultural group, and Berber not that thrilled to see Byzzies taking all the pot they were on the verge of gaining...
On the other hand, any Roman reconquest at this point was bound to be complex and incomplete : maybe (and that's assuming Constantinople suddenly changes its perception of Africa for no reason) if Byzantines eventually say "okay, we don't care about the land, let's our troops take as they want and Vandals keep the rest" you'd have prevented revolt, but at a really important political legitimacy cost.
What if Byzantines had annexed part of the Vandal kingdom, while letting the rest continue to exist as a vassal? ERE could annex Sicily and Sardinia, while the Vandal's kept the core in Africa. Vandal naval power could be devestated leaving it unable to project naval power as it had previously. There would still be economic naval activity, but Vandal military naval power would be restricted.

How would a Byzantine vassal Vandal state be run? What would it's relationship be with the ERE?
 
What if Byzantines had annexed part of the Vandal kingdom, while letting the rest continue to exist as a vassal?
Justinian policy was really focusing on direct control, and that's pointed out not only in Africa, but Italy and Spain.It asked 20 years of small wars and revolts to really enforce this (and not entirely) in Africa, and I'd rather think you'd need to get rid of Justinian to have some changes there, meaning it would have a significant influence on conquests themselves, if they happen roughly as IOTL which is not a given.

How would a Byzantine vassal Vandal state be run? What would it's relationship be with the ERE?
It's hard to tell, because it would really ask for different policies both in Constantinople and in Carthage, vastly different.
Now, assuming that Vandals aren't taken over by Berbers too quickly (which is probably what would happen without Byzantine reconquest eventually), we wouldn't see a vassality in the sense we understand it generally, than a dominance of Constantinople over what is sometimes called a "Christian Commonwealth", where Constantinople provides honores, subsides and prestige goods (importantly redistributed by the king to his truste) to Barbarian kingdoms, especially ones that abide by its interests and conceptions and/or have a significant distinct Roman elite, so basically most of western Romania.

Maurice's policy with Barbarians was essentially based on power projection, with autonomisation of western provinces and support of Nicean, relatively pro-Roman leaders (Gondovald, Childebert and Brunhild in Gaul, Hermenengild in Spain) but the loss of part of Italy, Balkans and neglect of Africa were already ongoing and probably did their job curbing down imperial ambitions. Having a comparable policy in Constantinople earlier is possible, but it wouldn't be obvious, while both Vandals and especially Goths (that had some predominance on western Romania, diversely interpreted as a quasi vice-royalty for Theodoric for the whole region) were weakened.
At the least, you need to get rid of Justinian, and maybe Justin, just for good measure, to weaken the empire; while creating enough tensions between Goths and Vandals to see these converting relatively early on to Nicean credo while keeping a relatively good relation with Constantinople.
 
Frankly, I doubt it would have ended much differently : Byzantine campaign in Spain was technically made to support a claimant, and it didn't prevented Byzzies to crippled Goths there.
But Visigothic Kingdom of Spain survived. Unlike Vandals - and unlike Ostrogoths.

What are the possible outcomes for Roman/Vandal relations?
  1. Romans attack and Vandals collapse as a house of cards. As per OTL
  2. Romans attack, but after initial Roman victories Vandals drag out a war of attrition, and eventually Romans win a pyrrhic victory. As happened to Ostrogoths
  3. Romans attack, the Vandals drag out the war of attrition and eventually win the pyrrhic victory
  4. Romans attack, but Vandals win a quick victory. As in 468 and before
  5. Romans do not attempt, Vandals are left unmolested
Better institutions (as in, keeping up the alliance with Mauri after 480s and converting them to Arianism rather than Niceanism) could have enabled the Vandals to hold out a war of attrition if defeated in battle - thus ensuring 2) or 3) rather than 1). But these institutional differences would not have ensured 4) or 5). Which might have happened by chance - regardless of whether the underlying institutional differences existed.
 
But Visigothic Kingdom of Spain survived. Unlike Vandals - and unlike Ostrogoths.
It survived because, for once, Byzantines had a pretty much defined objective in the region, namely preventing Goths to be able to threaten conquered Africa; while Africa and Italy were considered to be taken over entierely and imperial order (or, rather, a certain idea of imperial order) restored.

Visigothic Spain (Roger Collins)
Once established in Spain, the Visigothic kingdom was far more secure than it had been under Alaric II, not least in terms of its much smaller and more mountainous borders, but the opportunities for conquest and expansion became almost nonexistent, especially after the Gothic forces were expelled from Ceuta and the North African coast in the time of Theudis, and then when parts of the peninsula itself were lost to the empire from 551 onward. The kings had less with which to reward faithful service, and their value to the regional aristocracies, competing for local status and authority, was consequently much reduced. [...]

The extinction of the "Balt" dynasty of Alaric I in 531 transformed the transmission of royal authority within the kingdom. Election of the king became a reality and dynastic sentiment was thereafter never a strong force in securing the easy transmission of power from father to son. Only a degree of inertia, whereby those already benefiting from the current ruling house would be disinclined for change for fear of losing their gains from a redistribution of royal patronage, favored dynastic continuity

It have really little to do with institutions, that can be considered being actually weaker in Gothic Spain than they were in Vandalic Africa or Gothic Italy, with a predominance of local authority. Gothic Spain was more strategically secure (by virtue of being more remote), but the kingdom wasn't stronger.

Romans attack, but after initial Roman victories Vandals drag out a war of attrition, and eventually Romans win a pyrrhic victory. As happened to Ostrogoths
The difference is that Vandals didn't benefit from a relatively long hinterland to withdraw and come back from, since Berbers ousted them from a lot of places at this point. You did had Vandals, Berbers and mutinees from the Roman army banding up soon after the conquest, but that's quite different from what was possible in Italy.

Romans attack, the Vandals drag out the war of attrition and eventually win the pyrrhic victory
Not only they can't really put a war of attrition if raided from the hinterland, but Constantinople is definitely able to sustain a war of attrition by itself as it prooved IOTL in Italy and Africa (essentially against Berbers). That it could be long and destructive was a secondary concern for them.

Better institutions (as in, keeping up the alliance with Mauri after 480s and converting them to Arianism rather than Niceanism)
Berber hostility after 480 is not a matter of "better institutiions" (Vandal approach being roughly the same than Romans before them), but a consequence of Vandalic policies and struggle against Nicean church.
As for conversion of Berbers to Homoeanism (rather than Arianism strictly speaking), there's a series of obstacles : forced conversions or even sponsored conversion were a relative rarity in Barbarian kingdoms, even in Africa. The whole point of battling Nicean clergy was less to impose Homoeanism to the whole population, than to deal with a particularily powerful church in Africa, something that was gradually toned down.
As for converting Berbers, there was no much reason to do that, as until the 480's and their gradual conversion to Nicean Christianity, it was quite fine : the lack of proselytism among pagan Barbarians by Homoeans is a general feature., which is arguably quite different in Africa with an existing (but not really applied, especially after Huneric) policy of converting local population to a same religious branch.
Missionary policies, either at sword point or just very proselyte, didn't became a feature before the middle VIIth century, and really present only in the VIIIth onward. The prime idea before, and in all Romania western as eastern, was to focus on the religious unity (which, at the partial exception of Vandals, didn't meant the disappearance of various branches in itself, but their fusion) within the states.

Trying to convert Berbers would be a radical departure, possibly requesting their earlier integration into Vandalic kingdom by sword point, which wouldn't be obviously successful, to say the least; and might require an earlier PoD in late Roman era to have this departure from IOTL policies being considered.

EDIT : the reason of the strong mutual hostility of African clergy and Vandals are rather complex, but could be summarized on some points.
- Genseric seems to have been a ruler with a strong political perspective, in a "cease or desist" ruthless attitude. Land confiscations in sors wandalorum being made at the benefit of vandal subjects, the local clergy had to be purged at the benefit of vandalic clergy too.
- African clergy might have been strongly influenced by Donatism's puritanism and intransigence, not giving much to deal with, in spite of regular detentes in royal policy, especially knowing that they would be supported by Constantinople.

That led to a "holier than thou" attitude that was backed with full political power, leading to events considered aberrants in the light of Barbarian religious policy elsewhere.
.
It could be butterflied with a Genseric with a less ruthless and visional out; or with Huneric keeping a fairly tolerant policy as he did initially, but note that Gothic tolerant religious policy in Italy didn't saved them from Justinian's expansionist policies; so maybe these kings weren't totally in the wrong thinking that, if you had to pull your weight, you could do so all the way for what it mattered.
 
Last edited:
Top