Roman reconquista of the west 430 to 480

ar-pharazon

Banned
So in the last century or so of the Roman Empire much of the territory was lost to Germanic invaders.

Is is possible however that with a strong emperor, no massive disasters or mistakes, and some degree of luck that the western territories could be reconquered.

Perhaps even in the same way and process as the Roman Empire conquered Gaul, Carthage, and Spain respectively

Is this possible? Could the rump Roman Empire in the west make a comeback?
 
By 430 CE the Western Roman Empire was too far gone for a comeback. I think the fundamental problem is that few citizens really cared for it anymore. That's why they needed barbarian mercenaries or "federates." When your own people don't support the state anymore, at the end of the day I don't think there's any hope.
Leadership wasn't the problem. Fifth century western leadership was often quite good--Stilicho, Constantius, Aetius, Majorian. The problem was lack of enough military resources they could count on.
 
By 430 CE the Western Roman Empire was too far gone for a comeback. I think the fundamental problem is that few citizens really cared for it anymore. That's why they needed barbarian mercenaries or "federates." When your own people don't support the state anymore, at the end of the day I don't think there's any hope.
Leadership wasn't the problem. Fifth century western leadership was often quite good--Stilicho, Constantius, Aetius, Majorian. The problem was lack of enough military resources they could count on.
Most people don’t really care about what goes on in the country anyway,though I do agree that Roman ‘nationalism’ was a spent force compared to the days of the Punic Wars.The reason why they needed federates wasn’t because people stopped caring,but because manpower was completely spent.WRE was bankrupt and depopulated.

Another problem was that the leaders you mentioned did not rule successively. They generally come to power after a period of chaos,and their predecessors’ work completely undone.There’s also the fact that people like Stilicho and Aetius were not rulers in their own right.This meant that they had to constantly battle potential rivals while trying to keep the empire alive at the same time. Constantius died too prematurely and by the time of Majorian,his position was just too weak.
 
Last edited:
I'm a bit of an optimist and think that Majorian was exactly the sort of figure the Empire needed, in terms of strong fiscal reforms in Italy that would allow a new Roman Army alongside Federates. I think to an extent that is why Ricimer killed him, he wasn't just a threat to him, but the entire system he relied on for his success.

However, he's a great PoD - you're looking at a Western Empire that is as 'Vulgar Latin' as the East is Greek, but if he'd been able to defeat the Vandals in Africa at that point, I think you've got the building blocks of a long-term restoration.

But the reality here is you're just asking to bring forward Justinians attempts by a few decades, or an incredible comeback by Nepos.

We could try and prevent Nepos being killed, and somehow overthrowing Odoacer. It isn't the most likely bargain, but you could have Nepos do Zeno a favour, and offer Theodoric and the Ostrogoths a deal - recognise and support them as eternal allies in the Carpathian basin north of the Danube, complete with offering whatever engineers are required to fortify the passes, etc, and an annual tribute for (50?) years, in exchange for their assistance in overthrowing Odoacer. Effectively a long-term alliance with the Ostrogoths. Which if accepted and successful actually leaves Nepos in a good position - the Ostrogoths being friendly and secure in OTL Hungary, and the ERE not being hostile, if not friendly, gives him secure borders if he can rebuild a fleet - and the sort of position that in the long term would allow reconquest of the rest of the Empire in time. The hard part (and the sensible action) would then be to rebuild the sense of "Roman-ness". If that means a successful African campaign, and defeating the Vandals, all the better rather than try and reconquer it all in one go.
 
.... Roman ‘nationalism’ was a spent force compared to the days of the Punoc Wars.

I'll say--the heart of the problem IMO.

The reason why they needed federates wasn’t because people stopped caring,but because manpower was completely spent.WRE was bankrupt and depopulated.

Generally they depended heavily on mercenaries and federates only after the death of Stilicho in 408. In the time of Honorius i.e. before loss of North Africa, the WRE was neither bankrupt nor depopulated. In theory it still could've raised a big army. Look at all the gold Alaric was able to extort from the Romans. There was talk of getting Hun mercenaries. Money to pay troops was still there, but they were dependent on often untrustworthy barbarians instead of citizen soldiers.


Another problem was that the leaders you mentioned did not rule successively. They generally come to power after a period of chaos,and their predecessors’ work completely undone.

But third (and some fourth) century rulers had the same problems and worse, yet before 300 CE were still able to revive the Empire. The difference was that plenty of citizens were still willing to fight hard.

There’s also the fact that people like Stilicho and Aetius were not rulers in their own right.This meant that they had to constantly battle potential rivals while trying to keep the empire alive at the same time.

Again, third century rulers had the same problem but....
 
The mass indenture of farm workers also meant that aristocrats living on Italian estates were loathe to let their workers go off to fight and die. The army was recruiting increasingly from what had once been the frontiers, rather than the traditional heartland of the Empire. I don't think it's a loss of nationalism in say, the modern sense so much as a changing of priorities and an inability to see the Empire as something that could just stop existing. Romanness was so universal at that point, too.
 
So other people have made some good contributioms here for possible PODs, but I'm going to construct the earliest possible one given the date range:

Interdict the vandal invasion of North Africa in the 430s by some means and Rome can't really fall. As long as the empire possesses North Africa, the Western half can continue on indefinitely. According to Peter Heather the Vandals could field an army of 15-20,000, which is formidable for the era but by no means unbeatable. You made 430 the cutoff date so that means they will still cross in 429. However here's your POD: Boniface was defeated in battle in 430 and then sieged out in Hippo. The Vandal army wasn't particularly large and Boniface is a capable commander so it isn't hard to see him pull off a victory here. Better yet, have Genseric die in the battle. The Vandal force was very much an amalgam of different groups really only United by Genseric's leadership: two separate Vandal groups in addition to the Alans. Without Genseric and having just suffered a big defeat, they can easily fragment, and Boniface can deal with them piecemeal.

This is a massive boon for the empire. Without the disruption in Africa and the eventual loss in the entire province, the Western empire maintains both its breadbasket and a vital source of revenue, the loss of which was catastrophic to the strength of the empire. From there events should play out as OTL for a couple years: Aetius dispatches Felix, Boniface beats Aetius in battle but is mortally wounded, Aetius is supreme.

Except now Aetius has far more to work with, and one less major threat to deal with (I should note the impact this has on the east. Attila timed one of his campaign to coincide with the east sending an expeditionary force under Aspar to try and retake North Africa, and it had to be called off prematurely because of that. Events in the Balkans might play out a bit differently).

Aetius still wrecks the Burgundians, and probably also will a bit better against the Goths. More importantly though, the Vandals won't be raiding Spain, and Aetius has a far better chance of getting the situation there under control, dealing with the Suebi and the Baguadae (maybe he also has some Vandal and Alan soldiers rolled into Bonifaces army after he defeated them). If he can pull this off, that makes the two most economically vital parts of the empire (Spain and North Africa) safe and economically productive.

I also wonder if Attila might have different calculations about invading a stronger Western empire given he was already seriously overstretching his supply lines IOTL.
 
Last edited:

ar-pharazon

Banned
Forgive me if I'm mistaken of this but I read some Roman emperor-Majorian or one of the other better ones had some plan to emulate the Roman conquest of the 2nd-1st centuries BC.

Basically use the same strategies and line of conquest as the Roman's had hundreds of years prior.

A sort of Roman conquest of the west 2.0.

Though for the life of me I can't find the source.
 
I'll say--the heart of the problem IMO.
The eastern empire lasted for a thousand years despite this.


Generally they depended heavily on mercenaries and federates only after the death of Stilicho in 408. In the time of Honorius i.e. before loss of North Africa, the WRE was neither bankrupt nor depopulated. In theory it still could've raised a big army. Look at all the gold Alaric was able to extort from the Romans. There was talk of getting Hun mercenaries. Money to pay troops was still there, but they were dependent on often untrustworthy barbarians instead of citizen soldiers.
Mercs were in a sense ‘cheaper’,given they could be hired and dismissed with ease.The Roman army had to be paid on a regular basis.Manpower definitely tanked.Been so since Frigidus.A major reason why Alaric was defeated by Stilicho but never destroyed had a lot to do with the need to win Alaric’s troops over,not to kill them all.The amount of money Alaric extorted wouldn’t have been suffice to maintain an army to expel the barbarians.The empire wasn’t just fighting one group of barbarians,but many others.



But third (and some fourth) century rulers had the same problems and worse, yet before 300 CE were still able to revive the Empire. The difference was that plenty of citizens were still willing to fight hard.



Again, third century rulers had the same problem but....
Manpower hasn’t tanked yet in third and fourth century,judging from the fact that people like Constantine and Maximius can field around a hundred thousand people each from the territories they command.By the fifth century however,entire provinces in the west have been depopulated.Money and reinforcements from the east were also not forthcoming.WRE most likely would have been a vastly different story if the ERE sent 10-20k soldiers to Gaul during the Barbarian crossing of the Rhine for example.
 
Last edited:

ar-pharazon

Banned
So does anyone have a source on the Roman emperor that planned to emulate the Roman conquest of Gaul, carthage, and Spain?

I remember reading it somewhere but I can't seem to find it.
 
I think so I'm just not sure though.
He is probably the one you are talking about.Beat the Visigoths and the Burgundians,managed to retake a large part of Gaul and Hispania,only to fail when he tried to take Africa because his captains were bribed by the Vandals.
MajorianEmpire.png
 
Last edited:

ar-pharazon

Banned
He is probably the one you are talking about.Beat the Visigoths and the Burgundians,managed to retake a large part of Gaul and Hispania,only to fail when he tried to take Africa because his captains were bribed by the Vandals.
MajorianEmpire.png
That's probably who I was thinking of.
 
The mass indenture of farm workers also meant that aristocrats living on Italian estates were loathe to let their workers go off to fight and die. The army was recruiting increasingly from what had once been the frontiers, rather than the traditional heartland of the Empire. I don't think it's a loss of nationalism in say, the modern sense so much as a changing of priorities and an inability to see the Empire as something that could just stop existing. Romanness was so universal at that point, too.

This is true, but the Roman army was recruiting from the frontiers for a long time. Though not quite "The Frontier," Illyria produced more than its fair share of soldier-emperors, notably Diocletian and Constantine. When we go back to the days of Pax Romana, the auxiliaries formed a major portion of Roman power and those were frontier units.

Sure, this becomes a weakness when the frontier is lost, but Italy stopped serving as a major manpower source long before this period.
 
Top