Roman victory at adrianople

How will a victory here change the empire? If Theodosius doesn’t come to the throne then the empire won’t have to deal with the civil wars he fought. And what about the Hellenistic faith? Without him to persecute them what will they do?
 
I think that the Empire still will end up being divided again. The pressure of the various tribes followed by the Huns is going to make ruling the entire empire as one man much harder. This of course largely benefits the East, which has much more infrastructure and urbanisation than the west, asOTL. However, the fact that this division could be more managed might mean that the period following could play out much more like the Tetrarchy, with the various factions of the Empire much more committed to supporting one another. Indeed, the Empire could reunify after the Huns have passed through and the Goths have been integrated, with the model of unity-tetrarchy-unity playing out over and over during the next centuries. It'd be interesting to see if the Empire could re-enter a period of unity corresponding to OTL's Justinian period, save without the exhaustion his policies induced, and endure the Arab and then Magyar and possibly Norse invasions.

The big question is how the Empire responds to Islam. I can see several possibilities, actually, most of which depend on how the religious dispute ends up playing out. As I see it there are 3 possibilities, here presented as I see them from most to least likely

1. Christianity remains what it was OTL, both persecuting pagans and heretics. ITTL, the Copts and other Monophysites might well welcome the Muslims, who might still treat them as second-class citizens but won't actively persecute them. If the Empire is reunified by this point it might endure the conquest, but it could easily be overwhelmed in full or in part. I personally would bet that the Muslims would take Egypt, Syria, and the Palestine, which have high populations of monophysites, but possibly not North Africa (if they do take North Africa and Spain as OTL I seriously doubt that the West can survive the Magyars). They may also take the Sassanids as OTL, resulting in a smaller Arab empire that is more thoroughly Persianised. becoming the rival of a somewhat reduced Rome.

2. A tolerant Christian emperor takes the throne and heals the rifts between Orthodox Christians and Monophysites. Thus, the Empire manages to hold on to Egypt and Syria when the Muslims come, further reducing the spread of Islam. I imagine that such an Empire would tolerate Muslim proselytizing if it is done peacefully and even allies with the Muslims against the Sassanids, but that may be unlikely. However, such tolerance will make it easier to assimilate the Goths and other Arians.

3. A pagan emperor a la Julian takes the throne and renews purges of the Christians. By this point it's probably too late to reverse the Christianization of the Empire, and the next Christian emperor will likely go path #1. However, a successful enough pagan emperor could do just enough to create widespread unrest between the Christians and a revived pagan sect(s), likely splitting the East and West and--if the Pagans are dominant--driving the Christians to support the Muslim conquest. Thus the Muslims take Anatolia in the initial wave of conquest and the Empire falls apart if it has not already done so.
 
How will a victory here change the empire?
There would be changes, certainly but not necessarily overwhelmingly good or bad for Romania.

Now, it's worth pointing that the historical importance of the battle might have been inflated : while certainly consequential, the future of the Empire wasn't set there. Valens mostly searched to strong-arm Goths not leaving Romania, but returning to their Moesian foedus without their loot, mostly as Julian did with Alamans in Germania Inferior at the Battle of Strasbourg (which certainly did not ended the trouble, I'll mention the Battle of Solicinium later). And even after their victory at Adrianople, Goths were totally unable to take on important cities or to really threaten Roman rule.
That said, this defeat had the distinct (if middle-term) advantage for the various Trevingi people to benefit from having defeated an imperial army led by the emperor, and even as they were historically put back into their initial settlement regions, they had reason to consider themselves in position to get more eventually and impose their claims to Romans again.
On several aspect, the problem was less Adrianople, than the overall situation of the Late Empire whom Adrianople was essentially an important symptom.

I consider the battle of Solicinium as a potentially good example of what could have been a Roman victory at Adrianople : heavy losses for Romans (due to the poor strategical and tactical management of Valens), but Barbarian defeat. I could see Trevingi remaining partially divided into tribal groups, although tied up trough a political-cultural Gothic ensemble, and from this division (with a more important "loyalist", so to speak, stance of Gothic peoples) a lesser threat. That being said, the temptation would be great for Romans, especially as Gothic foedus would be overrun by more refugees and warbands from Barbaricum, to play one tribe against the other which might lead to an Alaric-style obtention of resources trough special subsides and mercenariate.
Eventually, the system of foedi was far too useful and used for Romans (especially in the soft underbelly of Romania, namely Illyricum that relied too much on Barbarian presence by the Vth) that I don't think it would be abandoned but it might be possibly stuck into Romania's borders ITTL as it was originally planned by Romans, Goths turning either as Alamanic (rebellious but relatively nonthreatening) or Frankish (fairly loyal) laeti and foedi.

But that would ask for significant changes within the empire : a Roman victory at Adrinople alone wouldn't have saved the situation. What plagued the late IVth and Vth Romania (and critically its western parts) was the inability to really hold in check foedi or mercenaries save by integrating them within the Roman army as it did happen with Franks but as well with smaller groups as Huns or Alans and then being really passive-agressive about the whole Barbarian presence : Constantinople could goes this way, but Ravenna couldn't play the "Me Roman, You Barbarian" game very long. It really was a problem when dynastic instability kicked in and did a number on state authority not just on Barbarians (which tended to see agreement with emperor as personal agreements and not with the state) but on Romans as well with provincial cadres and elites drifting away (very slowly, I agree).
If it's not dealt with, while Trevingi could possibly play no major role in Late Romania ITTL, it's still possible we could see Greutingi, Taifali, Trevingi of Pannonia, Suebi, Heruli, Vandals (the Battle of Mogontiacum being TL's Adrianople), Huns, etc. playing their part.
There's a lot of possible candidates for who could have replaced Goths as foedus in or near Illyricum turning bigger from the opposition between Romans and eventually being more of a threat than Rome can crush.

Long story short, even after a Roman victory, the Empire can still go downhill if important changes aren't made. If they are tough, Romania can well survive the crisis IMO.

If Theodosius doesn’t come to the throne then the empire won’t have to deal with the civil wars he fought.
Theodosius would probably remain in western Romania ITTL, which could turn problematic as ERE was in a period of relative decline ITTL : Valens wasn't particularly competent and allowing him to be victorious could mean that the efficient Theodosian reforms wouldn't be enacted or less so than IOTL and it wouldn't butterfly away rebellions and civil wars in Romania. Maxim the Great is still likely to revolt against Gratian ITTL, as his power and rise came from unrelated events and process.
In the worst of cases, you end up with three or four emperors in western Romania. In the best of cases, Theodosius helps Gratian or replace him as WREmperor.

To be perfectly honest, I don't see Valens being emperor for much longer even ITTL : while not incompetent, he wasn't particularly so either. Maybe Valentinian II, trough agreement with Gratian and Theodosius? I don't think that's particularly plausible myself, but we're running out of possible candidates.
Arguably not that plausible either, we could end up with Maxim the Great's ambitions being diverted in ERE at the death of Valens, supported by Gratian/Valentinian II and/or Theodosius.

And finally, while fairly boring but plausible, we could have Gratian supporting Theodosius as EREmperor due to their general agreement on political and religious matters.

And what about the Hellenistic faith? Without him to persecute them what will they do?
At this point, Imperial Christianism is triumphant : Gratian underwent a strong religious policy all the same. The big change is that Valens is still likely to favor Homeism in ERE. But Paganism and its upper class forms would likely still be more and more cloisoned, even without a Theodosius to turn a blind eye to the clerical offensive from Constantinople (and it would likely still happen ITTL in western Romania).
 
Last edited:
1. Christianity remains what it was OTL, both persecuting pagans and heretics. ITTL, the Copts and other Monophysites might well welcome the Muslims
2. A tolerant Christian emperor takes the throne and heals the rifts between Orthodox Christians and Monophysites.
With a PoD in late IVth century, it's likely that Islam might be simply butterflied away.
That being said, Monophysism doesn't really exist yet. Neither Nestorianism. Eastern churches aren't really well differentiated at this point and you have to wait for the latter half of the Vth century to really have them appear as distinct religious bodies. Their development really depends on what happens in Romania.

However, such tolerance will make it easier to assimilate the Goths and other Arians.
Goths weren't as much Arians than Homeans (which, to make it simple, was a non-dogmatic semi-Arianism). They first converted to this half-Nicean Christianity because the eastern imperial court did supported it until Theodosian's reign; but they kept it until the VIIth century because it became an identitarian marker to differentiate themselves from Romans as there was an harder time making the difference in the late IVth and Vth centuries between Barbarians and Romans unless on a political level. Some peoples, as Burgundians, even switched from Nicean to Homean faith in the period for these reasons.
 
With a PoD in late IVth century, it's likely that Islam might be simply butterflied away.

Why would it be? Rome wasn't really projecting power into Arabia, and as the Kingdom of Himyar shows there was already the monotheistic presence in Arabia that Islam built upon.

And with regards to the fact that the monphysite/Nestorian schisms hadn't yet formally occurred, it seems likely that similar schisms (historically, not doctrinally) would still happen even if the timeline is changed.
 
Why would it be? Rome wasn't really projecting power into Arabia
Actually, the Roman empire did if indirectly : while Christianities (orthodox as heterodox) managed to reach Arabia mostly from trade roads and undirect influence from eastern Romania and Ethiopia; Romans still had a vested interest on anything that touched borders with Persia.
Ghassanids are recorded to be Roman clients only in the late Vth century, but the archeological evidences for Late Roman presence in Arabia doesn't show big differences from close periods : the main (and important) change was that Byzantine era saw the growing importance of tribal confederacies on the Roman border.
So, while limited compared to Sassanids, you did have a Roman projection (mostly by proxy) in Arabia : what would happen in Romania would definitely impact the peninsula.

It doesn't help that the rise of Islamic Empire was possible thanks to pretty much contingential events, namely the very long and costly Byzantine-Sassanian wars which aren't, at all, set in stone at this point.

as the Kingdom of Himyar shows there was already the monotheistic presence in Arabia that Islam built upon.
You had a generalized monotheistic presence in Arabia, while it wasn't always polity-supported as in Ethiopia and dependencies, or Himyar : between Niceans, Nazoreans, Nestorians, Monophysits,etc. communities, Christianism was a present feature on which Islam not only built upon, but directly came out from.
 
Top