Saved, yes probably if the invasions are stopped. Also there is a timeline on this
A few months after to be precise. Hopefully you will, It was good.A couple actually I think. Your's starts right after Stilicho's fall though right? Though I kinda abandoned mine (although I am gonna restart it at some point in the future).
The Rhine only opened up as the main place of crossing over thanks to the complete frontier collapse seen when the invasions of 405-406 happening simultaneously with the British legions landing in Britain completely screwed the empire over. The Danube will likely remain the main threat as it had always been when it comes to barbarian migrations/incursions into the empire. That alone has serious butterflies.
And WHY are we assuming that if 405-406 fails, no one tries later (either tries again or a different group tries)? That the Rhine is impenetrable/seen as such?
Things like this are why I have such a low opinion of the WRE's chances - there's no acknowledgment that beating off one invasion is the beginning, not the conclusion.
I'm going off Peter Heather here. Notice that after 405-406 and 408-409, there weren't really any more major penetrations across the Rhine until Atilla.
This assumption that "the Romans can just keep up what they've always been doing as if circumstances haven't changed at all" just falls flat. This ISN'T the situation they always had, even if the West controls Illyricum and even if no one assassinates Stilicho (sooner than 410, at least).The whole reason they went across the Rhine and not the Danube was because Stilicho had drawn troops away to prepare for his invasion of Illyricum, among other reasons (for weakening the Rhine defenses). It was only so successful because it coincided with Constantine landing in Britain and instead of defeating them, using them and opening them up to Spain to help in there.
There's little reason to assume that with a POD right after Theodosius's death, the western romam empire can't continue to defend the Rhine border in the same effective way they had always had. Especially with control of Illyricum, as having control of that vital praefecture would more or less solve their manpower problems.
Not to be confused with the fact the Roman Empire in the West had already been walked over by the Visigoths and other groups (see the 451 map in The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History - or the 420 one for that matter, where even more of the territory is still technically Roman.).Now, once the Hunnic empire (assuming it forms into a single empire under a TTL Atilla) collapses (as it certainly will once said TTL Atilla dies) then, there's going to be huge problems on the Rhine. It was really the collapse of the Hunnic Empire that did the most harm to the Western Roman Empire.
You are correct partially. A group of Vandals entered the empire earlier in Pannonia and were settled there. After 405-406 though, the Vandals didn't enter the empire again to my knowledge. Both the Hasding and Siling Vandals entered in 405-406, one of them (I forget which) being destroyed as an independent entity in Spain after the Romans beat them.So after the Vandals had already entered the empire, they didn't enter it again?
Picking one of the groups that caused trouble.
The situation in 476 is markedly different than the situation in 406.It's interesting how technically the WRE controls a large chunk of the territory it held a century earlier in the mid-5th century, on paper - but by 476 the fact that barbarians are ruling, not Roman governors, had kicked in.
They can at least until the 430's when the Hunnic Empire forms.This assumption that "the Romans can just keep up what they've always been doing as if circumstances haven't changed at all" just falls flat. This ISN'T the situation they always had, even if the West controls Illyricum and even if no one assassinates him (sooner than 410, at least).
What? Alaric was for the most part settled in eastern roman territory. He attempted to force Stilicho to grant him land in the west in 402 but Stilicho beat him and forced him back. Butterflying away what happens in 409-410 is probably the easiest of all these things to do.Not to be confused with the fact the Roman Empire in the West had already been walked over by the Visigoths and other groups (see the 451 map in The New Penguin Atlas of Medieval History - or the 420 one for that matter, where even more of the territory is still technically Roman.).
Oh, I know. But theres other figures that can take his place like his staunch ally and extremely talented commander Constantius, who died prematurely in 421 OTL for reasons unknown.Finally, and not irrelevantly, Stilchio is going to be 51 in 410. Being generous, he has another 10-20 years. Let's be really, really generous and say thirty.
What then depends on a number of factors, specifically how the Romans handle Stilicho's death, who the emperors are, what the Huns are doing, etc.What then? The barbarians haven't disappeared.
You are correct partially. A group of Vandals entered the empire earlier in Pannonia and were settled there. After 405-406 though, the Vandals didn't enter the empire again to my knowledge. Both the Hasding and Siling Vandals entered in 405-406, one of them (I forget which) being destroyed as an independent entity in Spain after the Romans beat them.
The Suevi didn't either, and neither did the Alans to my knowledge.
Sure. But that seventy years turn things from "looking reasonably good" to being "There is no Roman emperor in the west, here's the insigna back." is not a good sign.The situation in 476 is markedly different than the situation in 406.
I admire but do not share your confidence.They can at least until the 430's when the Hunnic Empire forms.
Alaric is ONE of the WRE's problems. I'm looking less at the sack of Rome and more about stuff after it - and the Visigoths establishing what amounts to a kingdom of their own in SW Gaul. It was the ability of the barbarians to do the latter that did more to turn the west from at least nominally Roman to something once under Roman rule than any damage to Rome the city.What? Alaric was for the most part settled in eastern roman territory. He attempted to force Stilicho to grant him land in the west in 402 but Stilicho beat him and forced him back. Butterflying away what happens in 409-410 is probably the easiest of all these things to do.
How old was he?Oh, I know. But theres other figures that can take his place like his staunch ally and extremely talented commander Constantius, who died prematurely in 421 OTL for reasons unknown.
And if they are crushed, they don't exist. If, for example the Franks defeat them, which they very nearly did, they are all but destroyed.And they don't really need to, thus my post - they've already entered, the damage was done.
It isn't you are right. But the WRE experienced a run of extremely bad luck in the 5th century.Sure. But that seventy years turn things from "looking reasonably good" to being "There is no Roman emperor in the west, here's the insigna back." is not a good sign.
Why?I admire but do not share your confidence.
Alaric was the one who sacked Rome. The whole reason they moved into Southern Gaul can be traced directly to the fall of Stilicho.Alaric is ONE of the WRE's problems. I'm looking less at the sack of Rome and more about stuff after it - and the Visigoths establishing what amounts to a kingdom of their own in SW Gaul. It was the ability of the barbarians to do the latter that did more to turn the west from at least nominally Roman to something once under Roman rule than any damage to Rome the city.
We don't actually know, though he was probably 40, if you trace back his career. I don't mean prematurely as in he died young, more that his death came suddenly and unexpectedly. He didn't show any signs of ill health-he had been elevated to co-emperor by Honorius the year before he died-.How old was he?
And if they are crushed, they don't exist. If, for example the Franks defeat them, which they very nearly did, they are all but destroyed.
It isn't you are right. But the WRE experienced a run of extremely bad luck in the 5th century.
Why?
Alaric was the one who sacked Rome. The whole reason they moved into Southern Gaul can be traced directly to the fall of Stilicho.
We don't actually know, though he was probably 40, if you trace back his career. I don't mean prematurely as in he died young, more that his death came suddenly and unexpectedly. He didn't show any signs of ill health-he had been elevated to co-emperor by Honorius the year before he died-.