Roman Rump States persists

I find the complex history of post-imperial Gaul very interesting with Aegidius and Syagrius hold on against Germanic invaders while being in different alliances and only de forma subordinate to Constantinople. So, what if other Soissons exists in other parts around the Mediterranean and Europe, with Romanized elites ruling ? Northern Africa would be interesting , maybe a reclaimed Carthage. Well there have to be many butterflies, factors are the Justinic Plague, the Arab conquest etc. But maybe one could integrate Roman rump states into a semi OTL history. Goal is to maintain Roman enclaves into the High Middle Ages. What would the relationship with Christian Europe and the Eastern Romans for example be ? How would they evolve independently from each other in a prolonged time frame?
 
Last edited:
North Africa and the Carthage region without a doubt. If the Vandals had been unable to cross over into North Africa (or otherwise North Africa conquered from them pre-Justinian), Africa province would be rather Roman indeed. The rest of Africa would have fallen to more-or-less Romanised Berber kingdoms (i.e. Altava), but in the area of modern Tunisia extending to coastal Tripolitania, you'd have an area to carve out a state in that manner. Ironic that Carthage would be the center of an heir to Rome. But it's a fine place to establish a Southern Roman Empire, although without the same official nature the Eastern Roman Empire was established.

If not conquered by the Caliphate, there's no real obstacle for this state in the immediate future aside from internal disputes, and they could eventually restore control over Mauretania and possibly even Sicily. The *Maghreb peoples succeeded well against the Caliphate in several battles OTL anyway, so perhaps the Arabs could be stopped at Cyrenaica. I think a North African/Carthaginian Roman successor has a much better prognosis than Syagrius's state, and probably would survive in some form into the modern age.
 
If the POD is no Islam, then the Roman Rump state(s) is/are inevitability.

The Berbers would rise inevitably and the North Africa would be theirs (Spain as well, but not for certain). So the North Africa would be something like Europe where instead of Germanics there are Berbers; and the other Holy Roman Empire(s) may/must appear.
The ERE might break apart and we have another Roman Empire in Egypt or/and Syria.
Those Roman Empires would rise, fall, reborn again, conquer each other and then fall apart, then again conquer... so many circles.

It was the Arab invasion which ruined the Roman World and changed the civilization pattern.
 
If a sub-Roman state did survive, would its ruler assume the title Emperor of the Romans after Romulus Augustulus was deposed?

It depends how strong said sub-Roman state is. Constantinople would laugh it off at best or be strongly pissed if some minor king declared himself Roman Emperor.
 
The Berbers would rise inevitably and the North Africa would be theirs (Spain as well, but not for certain).

If a Roman state persists in North Africa and somehow holds off the spread of Islam, then Spain doesn't happen. It was the Umayyads that crush the Visigoth Kingdom of Toledo. Without Islam the Iberian Pennisula may be divided in conflict between successor states of the Visigoth, Vandals, Austurians and the Basque.
 
If a sub-Roman state did survive, would its ruler assume the title Emperor of the Romans after Romulus Augustulus was deposed?
No--because they wouldn't recognize Romulus Augustulus and would have recognized Nepos instead,assuming there ain't no butterflies.
 
Last edited:
If a Roman state persists in North Africa and somehow holds off the spread of Islam, then Spain doesn't happen. It was the Umayyads that crush the Visigoth Kingdom of Toledo. Without Islam the Iberian Pennisula may be divided in conflict between successor states of the Visigoth, Vandals, Austurians and the Basque.

Are we going by my scenario where the Vandals don't cross over? Because they kinda got kicked out of Spain by that point. I don't think the Asturians or the Basques were any real challenge to the Visigoths outside of their own regions.

Whether a Roman successor state in North Africa invades Spain (imperial reconquest?) is something else entirely. Might be good to have more development of Mauretania as a springboard into Iberia, so you could attack Europe from both Iberia and Italy. But this successor state needs to sweep away the Romanised Berber states first, and probably conquer deep into Mauretania like the Romans proper never did (for border security). North Africa is highly defensible, assuming you have a good navy (which the Romans had some issues with when the Vandals grabbed the place). South is the Sahara, west is the Atlantic, and east is the Gulf of Syrte, which is difficult sailing and further, a difficult road to Cyrenaica and Egypt.

A Carthage-based "Southern Rome", under strong leadership, would have a real shot at taking Rome itself and becoming a bit more than a Roman rump state.
 
It depends how strong said sub-Roman state is. Constantinople would laugh it off at best or be strongly pissed if some minor king declared himself Roman Emperor.

Yeah, but are Constantinople going to do, really? Maybe if the state in question was in Italy or North Africa they could invade, but anywhere else is going to be out of the Eastern Empire's reach.
 
Whether a Roman successor state in North Africa invades Spain (imperial reconquest?) is something else entirely.

For starters, an invasion of coastal regions, such as Gibraltar, seems plausible in the name of war on the Arians. Papal backing and a population base helped by Sardinia, Corsica, and eventually Sicily should be enough, assuming the Southern Roman military and tax collection are organized enough.

From Spain, it seems like southern Italy, Mediterranean Gaul, and then maybe Dalmatia and the Peloponnese would be next up on the list.
 
Yeah, but are Constantinople going to do, really? Maybe if the state in question was in Italy or North Africa they could invade, but anywhere else is going to be out of the Eastern Empire's reach.
It'll be a title nobody recognizes.Have fun not getting laughed off,including by the barbarians.In fact,trying to claim such a title might actually incite your neighbours to gang up and attack you.
 
It'll be a title nobody recognizes.Have fun not getting laughed off,including by the barbarians.In fact,trying to claim such a title might actually incite your neighbours to gang up and attack you.

If the state in question can plausibly claim a continuous descent from the Western Roman Empire, I think they could declare themselves Emperor without looking like an idiot.

And even if the surrounding states didn't take this seriously, they'd be quite unlikely to actually start a war over it. Nobody started a war over the kings of Castile calling themselves Imperatores Totius Hispaniae, even though Castile had less of a claim to be the descendant of the Roman Empire than a hypothetical sub-Roman state would.
 
If the state in question can plausibly claim a continuous descent from the Western Roman Empire, I think they could declare themselves Emperor without looking like an idiot.

And even if the surrounding states didn't take this seriously, they'd be quite unlikely to actually start a war over it. Nobody started a war over the kings of Castile calling themselves Imperatores Totius Hispaniae, even though Castile had less of a claim to be the descendant of the Roman Empire than a hypothetical sub-Roman state would.
That's only because the King of Castille had control over most of what remained of Christian Spain--that and there's the Pyrenees.The Muslims ain't gonna get fussed about whether their enemies are a king or an emperor.Their title of emperor was unrecognized internationally and to by knowledge,met by angry protests by the other remaining Christian states in Iberia--who were too weak to fight Castille in a meaningful manner--even if they are allied.

For an claimant of the Roman throne to have any merit to their claim,they require either a proclamation by the senate or recognition by the senior emperor(the guy in Constantinople).When Nepos died,the authority of the Western Emperor devolved to the Eastern Emperor.
 
Last edited:
The roman empire was never fully divided. The emperor of the ERE was always the Senior Augustus. Without the approval of the emperor in Constantinople, you are just another usurpator. Like Romulus Augustulus and his father.
But perhaps the roman leader in Carthago might get such an approval. Lots of late roman emperors started as usurpator. Diocletianus, Constantinus, Julianus, ... all these famous guys have been usurpators.

I am also convinced, that a southern roman empire cannot survive against the berbers. Just with them. Latest when they have to repel the arabs. The integration of the berbers into a still roman society is perhaps the most tricky part of such an alternate history. You need a lot of knowledge about the african society of the 5th/6th century.
 
Gregory the Patrician had papal backing and religious reasons for rebelling. He was also a Heraclian by blood. He has what it takes to declare himself Augustus and be received by many as enjoying a real claim. If he could somehow have more troops at Sufetula and stop the Arabs before they get reinforced, it's conceivable that other orthodox Nicene Christians would rally to him in Italy against the Monothelitism in Constantinople. He then would need to shore up his eastern defences ASAP. Expansion opportunities would seem to most obviously present themselves in Hispania and Italia. It doesn't seem so implausible that he could do this.
 
Top