Romulus Augustus is not the last Roman Emperor

What would have had to happen for Odoacer to put another, different "shadow" Emperor on the throne of the Western Roman Empire? If this happened, would it be possible for a shadowy line of Roman Emperors to have continued until a time when they were powerful enough to step back out of the shadows, as occurred in Japan in the 19th century? If this doesn't seem likely, what POD after the first Sack of Rome by Alaric would have made it possible for a separate line of Roman Emperors to remain in the West?
 

maverick

Banned
I'd love to see a long line of Roman Emperor reigning in the Hamlet/City-State/micro-state of Rome ala the Vatican today or the Dalai Lama, or the Emperors of Japan under the different Shogunates.

Them surviving ala San Marino would amuse me. :p
 
I'd love to see a long line of Roman Emperor reigning in the Hamlet/City-State/micro-state of Rome ala the Vatican today or the Dalai Lama, or the Emperors of Japan under the different Shogunates.

Them surviving ala San Marino would amuse me. :p

I guess something like Japan would have to develop in Italy. The Western Roman Emperor is recognized as a de jure authority but is paid little attention to by various city-states and kingdoms.
 
Well, one could argue that's sort of how they treated the Holy Roman Emperor, so it's not without precedent.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Minus the elections I suppose. Rome is where the Emperor might actually rule.

Considering succession was left rather vague by Augustus (mostly adoption and vague heredity but still), election was probably just as good an option than "he who has the most legions".
 
Minus the elections I suppose. Rome is where the Emperor might actually rule.

You'd have too much conflict with the Papacy for both figures to inhabit the same city. Maybe if Rome doesn't become/ceases to be the focal point of Western Christianity and the Papcy is either a different kind of institution or is located somewhere else (Carthage, Hippo, hell maybe somewheer in Greece or Alexahdria) then the Emperor could have Rome as his main place.
 
I guess something like Japan would have to develop in Italy. The Western Roman Emperor is recognized as a de jure authority but is paid little attention to by various city-states and kingdoms.

Well, one could argue that's sort of how they treated the Holy Roman Emperor, so it's not without precedent.

Perhaps more relevantly to this time period, it's also how the various successor states treated the Emperor in Constantinople, at least until Justinian's wars. That, I think, is the main problem for getting this scenario to work- Odoacer could and did still claim the Emperor ruled in Italy and the West- they just used a gratifyingly distant and disinterested Emperor who could not become an alternative ruler within their kingdoms.
 
Western empire would face troubles of declining territorythey actually controlled and hence shrinking of economy. I don't see how they could prevent Franks, Goths, Vandals.... carving their own coutnries on it's territory. If (and a big one at that) eastern empire would be willing to back it, turning it into de-facto protectorate they might defeat one such group. Defeating all is impossible. WE becomes a shadow of itself, EE satellite and likely battleground between EE and some succesor state.
 
How about the Papacy putting the Emperor under their protection? With a puppet Emperor, the Pope can claim both heavenly and secular power.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I think that any kind of surviving figure head western Emperor would complete upend the traditions of religious and temporal power in the west. If the Emperor was kept on as a figure head by the Goths it could start a tradition that regional powers seek validation from the Emperor. Maybe he acknowledges them as Foederati in the same way the Pope would extend a crown to say Pepin of the Franks or Stephen of Hungary.

Interestingly this almost suggests a more secular idea of feudal power in the west. You would probably not see a Most Christian King of France, maybe a Most Loyal or Most August King. OTH the Papacy, as pointed out, will still be around. So would there be some kind of Cesaro-Papism a la the Byzantine Empire. It seems like the power of the Papacy will be reduced if so many duties and perogatives remain vested in a figurehead Emperor. The main question is, how is the Emperor's successor determined? Is it some kind of symbiotic relationship where the Pope confirms the next Emperor and vice versa? Do the Eastern Emperors intervene to put in there own candidate? Or does the most most powerful King in western Europe get to decide? Ultimately the position sounds a lot like what the Papacy became by the 10-11th centuries minus the theological role. So I guess that makes it a secular-Papacy?
 
Top