What is the best POD that will have the fates of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires switched, where the east falls to barbarian invasions and the west holds on to most of their territories?
Switch the fates of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires
- Thread starter Sextus Munatius Piso
- Start date
-
- Tags
- eastern roman empire western
What's the earliest POD you'll allow? The simplest way is to have the east crumble in the third century crisis. Don't let Odenathus spring a trap on the Sassanians and much of the east, certainly Syria and maybe Egypt, may fall to the Sassanians in the coming years, with Rome's internal troubles providing them with enough time to consolidate their control. From there if you want to wank the Sassanians you could have them take Anatolia as well, though that would be a very difficult endeavor, given Rome still had a not insignificant number of troops there (that IOTL came under the command of Odenathus). From there you could get the Danube frontier to collapse under its own weight in the third century. Alternatively it could just crumble later.
Eventually the Gallic and Roman Empires will re-unite, and you will probably see an attempt to reconquer (with some or a lot of success) the Balkans, sort of like in a reverse Justinian analogue.
Eventually the Gallic and Roman Empires will re-unite, and you will probably see an attempt to reconquer (with some or a lot of success) the Balkans, sort of like in a reverse Justinian analogue.
Abhakhazia
Banned
A fact of the matter is geography here.
The Western Empire has a long frontier with Germany, a mostly fertile region, if a bit cold and damp by Roman standards, that can support a fairly large population. It isn't steppes, so it's "barbarians" are pretty settled and organized, especially compared to the brief rises and falls of steppe empires. So, the Germans had the ability to carve out much of the west and create successful, long-lasting kingdoms out of it.
Meanwhile, the East has a vastly different situation. To the South, they have the Arabs, which are probably your best chance for this. The Eastern Empire even had a similar system of federate Arab troops to the west with the Ghassanids. The problem is that Anatolia is so easy to defend that the Eastern Empire can hole up there and wait out invasion. However, in a situation similar to the fall of the West, you'd need Romans to be heavily involved in the collapse, so unlike early medieval Theme-based Fortress Byzantium, and more like intrigue-ridden Arles, Milan and Ravenna.
I think probably the best way to do this is to have the Goths essentially take over the Roman Empire via Theodosius, the son of Galla Placidia and Atualf. With the Goths acting as the Isaurians did for the east (a tribe of our own "barbarians" who have much more interest in Imperial survival rather than collapse), the Empire might be able to prevent the utter disaster that was the Vandal invasions of Africa. Meanwhile in the east, population pressure in Arabia (which could have caused an invasion to happen with or without Mohammad) might allow something similar to happen to Egypt, Syria and Anatolia.
The Western Empire has a long frontier with Germany, a mostly fertile region, if a bit cold and damp by Roman standards, that can support a fairly large population. It isn't steppes, so it's "barbarians" are pretty settled and organized, especially compared to the brief rises and falls of steppe empires. So, the Germans had the ability to carve out much of the west and create successful, long-lasting kingdoms out of it.
Meanwhile, the East has a vastly different situation. To the South, they have the Arabs, which are probably your best chance for this. The Eastern Empire even had a similar system of federate Arab troops to the west with the Ghassanids. The problem is that Anatolia is so easy to defend that the Eastern Empire can hole up there and wait out invasion. However, in a situation similar to the fall of the West, you'd need Romans to be heavily involved in the collapse, so unlike early medieval Theme-based Fortress Byzantium, and more like intrigue-ridden Arles, Milan and Ravenna.
I think probably the best way to do this is to have the Goths essentially take over the Roman Empire via Theodosius, the son of Galla Placidia and Atualf. With the Goths acting as the Isaurians did for the east (a tribe of our own "barbarians" who have much more interest in Imperial survival rather than collapse), the Empire might be able to prevent the utter disaster that was the Vandal invasions of Africa. Meanwhile in the east, population pressure in Arabia (which could have caused an invasion to happen with or without Mohammad) might allow something similar to happen to Egypt, Syria and Anatolia.
IMO, a good way to achieve this would be for the Empire to reorganise itself around Treverorum (or somewhere on the Gallic border) - at least in the West. Whilst it isn't a magic bullet, it is in a good defensive position, and can be at the heart of a western Roman project to push into Germany, and hold it.
If the West can turn Germania into a series of client states under its tight control rather than various 'allies' that can throw their weight around, then it secures itself against eastern invasions, providing a huge area for defense in depth in Germania - that can bog down any invasion, whilst the East is suddenly comparatively easy to invade and wealthier - a better risk/reward ratio.
If the West can turn Germania into a series of client states under its tight control rather than various 'allies' that can throw their weight around, then it secures itself against eastern invasions, providing a huge area for defense in depth in Germania - that can bog down any invasion, whilst the East is suddenly comparatively easy to invade and wealthier - a better risk/reward ratio.
The main problem is that the western half of the empire ha a lot of inherent weaknesses compared to the east. They're further from the trade centers and they have less population. They're also divided by mountains and have a longer sea voyage to their African provinces. That said, I think it's definitely possible. One way would be weakening the east. Perhaps a few lucky battles from an ambitious Persian emperor during one of the later Parthian or early Sassanid wars could do enough damage to the Roman legions in the east that they have to turn to foederati to fill their numbers, and then collapse like the west did in OTL? Or maybe a closer enemy, something making the Huns go for the east rather than the west. At the same time, you want something to keep the western half strong. Keeping the vandals out of Africa is a good start, keeping them out of the empire altogether is better. Perhaps the western empire just never bothers much with Germany and keeps its borders closer and better guarded.
The western empire seems to me to have potential to last longer. Its core in heavily latin (and wothout the Gothic invasions religiously unified) Iberia and Italy has rather defensible borders in the Alps and Pyrenees, and unlike the eastern empire has no real peer competitor on its border- the only real threat would come from the Rhine or Danube borders or maybe an Arab invasion, while the Eastern Empire had to deal with the Balkans, Italy, and Persia and the Levant as well as their proximity to the steppe. Even if Gaul ends up like OTL Bulgaria I dont think it would be as dangerous as the steppes, you probably won't get any Turkish invasion or the like.
Of course this empire is likely to make an attempt at Greece and possibly Egypt if everything goes well, and IMHO they can take and hold the former due to again the defensible frontier and the naval supremacy that the OTL Romans enjoyed.
Of course this empire is likely to make an attempt at Greece and possibly Egypt if everything goes well, and IMHO they can take and hold the former due to again the defensible frontier and the naval supremacy that the OTL Romans enjoyed.