The Death of the Emperor Theodosius in 391

Theodosius (378-395) was called the 'Great", he reunited the Eastern and Western halves of the Empire, and was the last strong Emperor of an Empire that stretched from the sands of Syria to Hadrian’s Wall in Britannia. But what if we cut the life of this great man short?

In 390 the Visigoths broke their commitments to the Roman Empire (probably due to the losses they suffered during the Maximus campaign) and invaded Thrace. In 391, Theodosius entered the province with an army to bring the Goths to heel. The rebellion brought to prominence Stilicho in 392 who became the commander of the troops of Thrace. The Gothic revolt was finally settled by negotiation and the Goths become valuable foederatti against the usurper Eugenius.
However, the Gothic rebellion was not danger-free for Theodosius. On the Maritza, he fell into an ambush and was almost killed, only to be rescued by a general named Promotus. But what if Promotus had arrived too late to save his Emperor and Theodosius died four years earlier than OTL?

Although blame is often assigned to Theodosius I (despite his military and ecumenical successes) for failing to produce a final solution to the barbarian problem, the far greater fault may lie in his continuing tendency to conduct civil wars within the Empire. Theodosius could not tolerate an independent dynasty in the Western Empire and the issue constantly had to be contested by war. The consequences of this policy were bloodshed and damage to the armies and the frontiers. In this respect, it matters less that there was a shortage of military manpower in the Late Roman Empire during the 5th century but rather that the recurrent conflicts destroyed the quality of the army in that period. The losses of highly trained Roman veterans in the ranks of the elite field armies could only be compensated for by the recruitment of either untried civilians or militarily competent but politically unreliable barbarians from across the frontiers.

The sudden death of Theodosius in 391 would immediately highlight the shortcomings of his policy towards the Western Empire. In 389 he had re-installed Valentinian II as ruler of the West after the defeat of the usurper Maximus. But Theodosius left the new Augustus as much a puppet as he had been throughout his previous reign, by installing one of his own generals (a Frank called Arbogast) as commander of the western field armies. In 391 Arbogast holds the real power in the West and when Valentinian committing suicide in 392 (which the PoD has done little to change) the Frank merely replaces him with a former teacher and civil servant called Eugenius (much as he did OTL). What would the East’s reaction be such an outrageous act of king-making?

In OTL, Theodosius refused to acknowledge Eugenius and instead invaded the West to install his own son (Honorius). In the ATL, this seems unlikely. If Theodosius had died in 391, the imperial purple would pass to his son, the weak and ineffectual Arcadius (at this moment only 15). The power vacuum left by this accession would spark off fierce competition between ambitious politicians and generals, and facilitate revolts among discontented forces within the Empire. Given the internal conflict at this ATL moment in history, it seems unlikely that the Eastern Empire would risk a war with the West.
Also the war with the Goths may still be ongoing. In order to avenge Theodosius, the war against the Goths would probably be prolonged past the OTL point of 392. Indeed, the political momentum of the time might demand the elimination of the Gothic threat or at least make a political settlement with the Goths less tenable. Given these considerations, I propose that the East Empire would prefer negotiation to war and formally recognise the usurper in the West. It is possible that war could be opened at a later date but given the challenges facing the Eastern Empire in the 390s, I doubt they will get around to it.

Would a longer reign of Eugenius mean a pagan ‘revival’ in the West? I don’t think this is likely. It was only Eugenius’ anxiety for support that led him to champion the pagan ‘party’ in the West and restore the altar of Victory to the senate house at Rome (he had previously turned down the same request twice before). In order to gain Eastern recognition and favour, Eugenius would remain at least nominally Christian, although he may repeal some of the laws Theodosius drafted in 391 (which constituted an unprecedented attack on the ancient cults). It is rather improbable that he would make the Bishop Ambrose’s cathedral a stable and conscript his priests into the soldiery.

And in the long-term? Theodosius's victory over the Western army at the River Frigidus in 394 demoralised the Western forces and weakened the defence of the northern frontier (according to Ferril as discussed in his The Fall of the Roman Empire). With a stronger Western military, it is quite possible that the barbarian invasion of Gaul (starting on the last day of the year 406) could be contained in Gaul and the Pyrenees defences could be maintained for longer than OTL which may prevent the loss of Africa. A more vigorous defence of the Rhine frontier would mitigate the civil wars of the 407-13 period and preserve a more coherent and stable Roman state into the 5th century.

Any thoughts?
 
The Goths and other Barbarians

The death of Theodosius I in 391 at the hands of the Goths has a deep impact on the relations between the Eastern Empire and the Goths in Thrace. Despite the animosity of the imperial regime following his death, it is doubtful that the Eastern Empire could destroy the Gothic threat. In fact, without the tacit support of the West, the ATL Eastern Empire may have a more difficult time with the Goths and perhaps may be forced to offer them more favourable terms than OTL. Despite a change in circumstances, the once separate Tervingi and Greuthungi Goths would probably unite behind a king as OTL (becoming the Visigoths). The established dynasties of the Goths had been swept away, first by the Huns and later by the Romans. Without dynastic interests to keep the Goths apart, the way was open for a new overall leader to control these groups (at least this is according to Peter Heather in his essay on Goths and Huns c. 320-425). This new emerging Gothic king would probably be provoked by a weak emperor in Constantinople to renegotiate (through military means) the terms of the agreements made with Theodosius in 382 (much as they did in 395 after the OTL death of Theodosius).

This will not be a good time for the Eastern Empire. Revolt of the Ostrogoth peasant militias will weaken the defensive ability of the Empire and contests between rivals at the imperial court could spill over into worse bloodshed and civil war than OTL. Defeat of the Eastern armies by the Goths would probably bring the anti-barbarian fraction to power at Constantinople and incite fierce anti-barbarian riots which would weaken the barbarian dominated armies of the East. A weaker Eastern Empire could see more pervasive raids by the Huns and a weaker Danube frontier.
On the other hand, the East may be in a better position to defend against its barbarian enemies. Unlike OTL, the bulk of the eastern government’s troops are in Greece and not in the West. As a result the East would have more manpower to protect itself against rebellious Goths and invading Huns. With the Goths and Huns harassing the provinces of the provinces of Asia Minor, it seems likely that concord and unity with the West will be sought by the East.

But would such an alliance be forthcoming? A possible source of contention in this period could be the issue of Illyricum (which the Western Emperor Gatian had ceded to the East when he proclaimed Theodosius his co-ruler n 379). The Balkan peninsula was the best recruiting ground in the Empire for fighting men and the most useful soldiers in the Roman army were recruited from the highlands there (this was as true in the 4th as it was in 6th century). It might seem to those responsible for the defence of the West (as it seemed to the OTL Stilicho) that a partition which assigned almost the whole of this region to the East was unfair and the West should be given at least eastern Illyricum. Could a weaker Eastern Empire be pressured into accepting renegotiation on the partition of Illyricum? Or would the Western Empire seek to seize eastern Illyricum through conquest in the late 390s as the OTL Stilicho planned to do in the early 400s?
If the magister militum Arbogast (supreme commander of the Western armies in this ATL) attempts to contest the issue of Illyricum by force, he would have a strong ally in the new king of the Visigoths. The Visigoth king would be granted a title (magister militum per Illyrium), grain subsidies and his people land to settle in Illyricum in exchange for his part in the invasion. He may also be given the right to collect certain tax revenues (and food) from lands granted to him in Illyricum (this was the deal that Stilicho secured with Alaric in the early 5th century, when the latter planned to invade Illyricum). This invasion would occur probably in the mid or late 390s and, given the ferocity of the Goths and the weakness of the Eastern military (at this point), would probably succeed. And the aftermath of such a conflict? Any thoughts?

This possible war and the spoils of victory might make life in the Balkans more accommodating for the new king of the Goths, which might in turn encourage the Visigoths to remain in the East. On the other hand, the Goths may still move West. Due to the strength of the anti-barbarian sentiment in the Eastern Empire, the court at Constantinople would probably deny the Goths the further settlement and revenues they desired. If they are unable to press the issue with force in the East, the Goths would probably move into the Italian peninsula to try their luck in the Western Empire. In the early 5th century the West has more vulnerable and extensive frontiers than the East and provides greater rewards for plunders. Any thoughts?
 
The Collapse of the Frontiers

The ATL death of the Theodosius I in 391 has meant that the West has avoided the destructive civil war of 493. This has resulted in a remarkably different military position for the Western Roman Empire at the start of the 5th century. Less bloodshed and damage has been done to the Western armies and the frontiers than OTL. The loss of highly trained Roman veterans in the ranks of the elite field armies has been lessened and the quality of the army has been better maintained. The quality of the Western armies has also been improved by acquisition of Eastern Illyricum in the late 390s, which provides a prime recruiting ground in the Empire for fighting men.
The ATL shift of dynasties in the West has also meant that the OTL decision to shift the Western Roman imperial capital from more exposed city of Milan to the more military defensible Ravenna has not occurred. With the succession of Eugenius to the imperial purple in the West and the continuing prominence of the magister militum Arbogast, the imperial residence of the West remains at Vienne (in southern Gaul along the River Sâone). According to Arther Ferril, the OTL decision to shift the imperial residence from Milan to Ravenna was an incredibly “foolish” strategy. This move exposed the Rhine frontier, so far removed from the northeastern corner of Italy where the mobile army was now stationed. The abandonment of the Rhine frontier led to a disengagement from events beyond the Alps, and signalled the abandonment of the clear and consistently held view of all of the Empire’s predecessors that the safety of Italy was guaranteed by the security of the northern and western provinces.

Although the West is in a better position to defend itself against barbarian invaders than OTL, it is doubtful that ATL frontiers could survive the onslaught of 400-10. There is the Vandal and Alans invasion of Raetia in 401 as well as the Ostrogoth invasion of Italy under Radagais in 405. Moreover, an earlier and stronger division between East and West would significantly impair the ability of the West to defend itself. Threats to the Danube frontier will force Arbogast to recall troops from the Rhine frontier, allowing the Vandals, Suevi and Alans to invade northern Gaul in 407 (much as in OTL). If this happens, then the Burgundians (and probably the Alamanni) will make incursions across the Rhine into Roman Gaul. However, without the Gothic invasions of Italy (the Visigoths receive land and titles in Illyricum after helping the West seize part of the prefecture from the East) in the early 5th century, the Rhine frontier is less stripped of troops than OTL.

Therefore in the ATL, unlike OTL, we would see a more resolute and rapid response to the 407 Rhine incursions. In OTL the invasions created a power vacuum that the usurper Constantine (and later Jovinus) sought to exploit. However, by a more energetic reaction to the northern invasions, the imperial court is able to retain the loyalty of the armies and nobility in Gaul (who were strong supporters of the OTL usurpers Constantine and Jovinus) and thus prevent rebellion there. Although, the British armies will probably still revolt in 406, the rebellion will be unable to gain the momentum to invade Gaul (the OTL rebellion depended upon a considerable power vacuum in Gaul as there were no substantial mobile military forces in Britain at the beginning of the 5th century).

However, there are limits to what even a stronger 5th century Roman army could achieve. With often unreliable barbarian allies and limited manpower, the army is probably inadequate to the task of completely destroying the invaders. Even a strong Roman counteroffensive across the Western Alps would not be able to save Gaul from barbarian occupation and it seems likely that large swathes of Gaul will be occupied by barbarians and many of her cities sacked and plundered during the ensuing years.
But without the OTL Constantine rebellion, the invaders could have been contained in Gaul, and Spain would be safe against barbarian incursion. The Pyrenees formed a natural military barrier against encroachment that a competent Roman army could easily defend. The only reason the barbarians were able to cross into Spain OTL was that Constantine weakened the Pyrenees defences (Constantine’s son, Constans, entrusted the Pyrenees passes to the incompetent Gerontius and a band of untrustworthy and indifferent barbarian foederatti known as the Honorians).

The Western Empire could also call on the Goths for support against the Rhine invaders, perhaps commissioning the Visigoths to wage war the Burgundians in northeastern Gaul. However, with Roman armies battling for survival in Gaul and Italy practically defenceless, the Visigoth king would able to pressure the Roman Senate into paying him exorbitant subsidies (in OTL 408, Alaric forced the Roman Senate to pay him 4,000 pounds of gold in a similar example of extortion) not to invade Italy. This could poison relations between the Goths and Rome, leading to war. Any thoughts?
 
The Anti-Barbarians

After the death of Theodosius I in 391, the Goths are able to exploit the political chaos that follows to secure Roman titles and revenues in Illyricum that place them in a stronger position than OTL. After the Rhine invasions of 407 and attentions of Rome’s armies are drawn westward to the Rhine frontier, the Visigoths seek to expand their powerbase (currently located in Illyricum) within the Roman Empire. After campaigning against the Burgundian and Alamanni in Upper Germania and helping to re-establish the Rhine frontier, the Visigoths demand compensation and seek to renegotiate their relationship with Rome (much as they did after the OTL civil war of 394 ). The Visigoth king demand control of Noricum and Raetia (thus monopolising the land route between the Western and Eastern Empire) as well as more extensive revenues in the form of grain (these were the OTL demands of Alaric during the first siege of Rome). Is the imperial regime in the West willing and able to negotiate with the Goths?

An important trend in this period was the growing hostility to military domination of the state, and with it (because the two were almost synonymous) to barbarian soldiers and their commanders. Legislation was introduced forbidding the wearing of barbarian garments such as trousers or the sporting of long hair. This trend might impede negotiations with the barbarians (much as it OTL) and threaten the Frankish magister militum of the Western armies Arbogast (just as it threatened Stilicho). It may appear to the Senate, the Emperor and the Roman people that the Frank has failed to halt the barbarian invasion in Gaul has left the Senate open to extortion from the Visigoths. No doubt these failures will be exploited by Arbogast’s enemies and perhaps even by the Emperor and his entourage (who may hope to gain their autonomy after the fall of Arbogast). However Arbogast may have enough prestige to remain in control of imperial affairs and subvert the anti-barbarian movement. This would certainly have profound effects on the settlement of the barbarian federates. Any thoughts or ideas about this ATL possibility?

If Arbogast survives and subverts the anti-barbarian tendencies of the imperial court than the families of barbarian federate troops are not massacred and thousands of federates don’t join the Empire’s enemies. Moreover, the survival of the general and the restraint of the anti-barbarian fraction could translate into a more peaceful resolution between the Empire and the Visigoths. The Goths could be given more land and grain, in exchange for alliances against the Empire’s remaining enemies in Gaul. The Visigoths would prove startlingly efficient at eradicating these enemies (when commissioned, in OTL, to campaign against the Siling Vandals in Spain, the Visigoths annihilated this group in Baetica in the 410s). The Romans, fearing their rapid success, would offer the Alans and their king Addax ‘federate’ status and settlement in Gaul in the hope that this group would act as a counterweight to the Goths (or perhaps they would treaty with another group, any thoughts?). Since the majority of the fighting would take place in central Gaul, I presume that the Romans would grant ‘federate’ territory there. Perhaps western Gaul in the area of Gallia around Limonum (Poiters), or in eastern Lugdunensis near Augustodunum (Autun). Any thoughts or ideas about this possibility?

If Arbogast is killed and the anti-barbarian fraction takes power than negotiations between the Goths and the Empire will fail and the situation for the West would be dismal. The ATL imperial court would probably follow a course similar to OTL: they would refuse to placate the barbarians and the Visigothic leader marches his army across the Julian Alps in an invasion of Italy. The Western army is spread thin on the ground in Gaul (and suffering from the barbarian desertions if Arbogast is dead) and even if an army could be assembled capable of challenging the Visigoths, it would mean abandoning the Gallic front. This would threaten the imperial residence at Vienne (in southern Gaul along the River Sâone) and leave the rest of the Western Empire open to barbarian invasion.

Ferril (discussed in his The Fall of the Roman Empire) suggests that with the capital in southern Gaul, the emperor in Constantinople could not justify his OTL inactivity in the West on the fact that his fellow emperor was safe at Ravenna and was geographically based between Constantinople and the scene of the fighting. He argues that a strategic withdrawal from Italy would have brought irresistible pressure to bear on Arcadius and the Eastern Empire to share in the effective defence of Italy against barbarian attack. However, I doubt that the Eastern Empire would offer the resources necessary to save Rome from the Visigoths (especially considering the fact that the Eastern Roman army was still weak). The gravest problem faced by the western government was the unwillingness of the eastern one to help in moments of military crisis. Although I would be open to the possibility that a significant commitment of Eastern troops could prevent the fateful sack of Rome. Any thoughts or ideas about this ATL possibility?
 
Crisis at the Centre

At the end of 419, stability has been restored to the Western Empire amidst a revival of imperial prestige. With the settlement of the Alans in Gaul and the Visigoths in eastern Illyricum as ‘federates’, the Germanic migrations have been contained and peace has been restored. However from 425 onwards, political crises at Rome give these ‘federate’ groups free rein to advance their own interests and the Western Empire returned to war. The situation for the Empire was dire –as a three-way power struggle was fought out between the commanders of the main western army groups, relations with the Eastern Empire collapsed into hostility.

The Visigoths took advantage of the chaos, and the divisions between the Western and Eastern Empires, to great advantage. Throughout the 420s, under their charismatic king Respa, the Goths marched and won victories against first the Eastern and then the Western Empire, gaining land and subsidies from both. In 429, when the Romans refuse to pay the ruinous subsidies demanded, the Goths invaded and seized key ports along the Adriatic Sea, a campaign that culminated in the capture of Salonae. With access to the Mediterranean, Respa unleashes a flood of pirates against Mediterranean commerce, raiding coastal towns throughout the Roman World. Who else exploits the power vacuum? Any thoughts?

Only when political unity was finally restored in 432 and one military commander had risen to power (by a combination of assassination, battle and luck), could the rogue Visigoths be confronted. The new commander (like OTL Late Roman commanders –think Constantius and Aetius –once they had eliminated their political rivals) organises a common front against the barbarian threat with the Eastern Empire. In OTL, the twin halves of the Roman Empire came together on several occasions to destroy the Vandals (unsuccessful every time unfortunately) and these occasions demonstrated that the Empire could still call upon large resources and extensive reserves of manpower in a coordinated effort in the 5th century. For example, the OTL expedition to destroy the Vandals in 468 was organised on an impressive scale, the number of vessels that set sail from Constantinople was said (by Cedrenus) to have been 1,113, and the total number of men who embarked was calculated as exceeding 100, 000. The cost of this endeavour was immense, (according to Procopius) the total cost was 130, 000 Ibs of gold.

The Roman campaign against the Goths is aided by the assassination of Respa in 434 by his ambitious nephew. At this point, command of this new Gothic entity rested on a rulers ability not on dynastic connections; there was no established tradition of dynastic leadership among the Goths as yet. According to Peter Heather (in his essay on Goths and Huns c. 320-425), it was only the longevity and fertility of Theoderic I that finally established a ruling dynasty. The result is that the Gothic kingdom is weakened by internal divisions as rival factions arise to contest the throne. Exploiting their opportunity, the twin halves of the Empire send a large expedition against the feuding Visigoths and, with the aid of their allies the Huns, invade Illyricum and capture the Gothic seaports.
In the long and bloody campaign that follows, the Visigoth kingdom is reduced to ruins (aided in no small part by Gothic disunity) and ceases to exist by 437. After their victory, the Goths are resettled within different parts of the Roman Empire: some are resettled along the Danube frontier in Noricum and Raetia to strengthen the frontier; others are settled in southern Gaul to guard against the Burgundian; others are allowed to remain in Illyricum; and still others are resettled in Thrace. This has parallels with the destruction and resettlement of the Burgundi after their kingdom was destroyed in 436. The Visigothic army is broken up and recruited into the Roman military machine (this has parallels with the defeat of the Vandals in 534 when many Vandal troops were subsequently recruited into the Roman army). Any thoughts on the resettlement patterns, is this feasible?

But what is happening in the rest of the Empire? Other immigrant groups have also taken advantage of the power vacuum and by diverting resources and manpower to the Balkans the Western Empire has allowed the situation along the Rhine and in Gaul to deteriorate. Frankish and Burgundi invasions of the 430s and 440s could be more successful, capturing a larger part of northern and eastern Gaul. The Burgundian kingdom would probably not be destroyed in 436 and the rebels in Armorica (northwest Gaul) might not be subdued. The Bacaudae in Gaul and Spain would be more powerful, and rebellions could break out in Gallaecia (northern Spain) and the region could become independent. Any thoughts about this chaos?

But what if the Goths are not destroyed but are peacefully integrated into Roman society? If the Goths settle down earlier than OTL, then we could see more extensive integration of the Gothic elite into Roman society. We could witness a flowering of Romano-Gothic culture which would alter the political aims of this ATL Gothic ‘federate’ nation. But would this integrating trend continue? The anti-Roman tendencies of the Visigoths could easily be revived by an ambitious Gothic general, especially if the regime fails to achieve its stated goals. Any thoughts or ideas about the trajectory of a surviving ATL Visigoth kingdom?
 
Huns and the Need for Manpower


At the end of 430s, stability has been restored to the Western Empire amidst a revival of imperial prestige. With the destruction Visigoths the eastern frontier has been secured and in the west the Germanic migrations have been contained in Gaul, and Spain (and therefore Africa) is safe from invasion. However the Rhine frontier still remains violate with imperial control significantly eroded over large swathes of Gaul. As Roman resources are diverted to destroy the rebellious Visigoths in the Balkans, the situation in Gaul becomes even more chaotic than OTL. The Franks expand in the north-east, the Burgundi and the Alamani push into Upper Germania and the northwest is chronically disturbed both by internal unrest and by immigrations, including waves of refugees from Britain (which has been effectively lost to the Empire following a rebellion in 406). As a consequence military defence is re-centred on southern Gaul, this new frontier quickly becomes a haven for the fleeing Gallo-Roman nobility who flock to its cities.

Although the Roman army is still in decline (the Roman military still experience a loss of manpower and an increasing dependence on mercenary or barbarian foederatti), the destructive nature of the period 400-15 has been mitigated. In the ATL, the Empire has suffered a less significant loss in terms of logistical and tax base which means that the imperial court has greater resources with which to maintain control over the remaining areas under direct imperial rule. In effect, the Empire’s economy has been improved by the ATL imperial retention of Africa (described by Peter Heather as the economic “jugular vein of the western Empire”) and Spain. In other words, the severe OTL financial crisis of the 440s has been avoided. However the Empire is still suffering from a significant loss of manpower. With the virtual independence of the Germanic kingdoms in Gaul making recruitment problematic, the West is in desperate need of soldiers for her armies.
The answer to this problem is the Huns. Throughout the 430s and early 440s, the Western Empire used increasing numbers of Hunnic mercenaries to maintain the northern frontiers, suppressing the Bagaudae and enforcing the loyalty of the ‘federate’ territories. Since, in the ATL, the barbarian invasions of the early 5th century were contained and the Pyrenees defences were maintained, this is a more effective strategy than OTL. The imperial court is able to focus on the strengthening the Rhine and Danube frontiers without the OTL loss of Africa. In the 430s, the Roman Empire in alliance with the Huns destroys the Visigoth ‘federate’ kingdom in the Balkans (this has parallels with the destruction and resettlement of the Burgundi –see last post for further discussion).

But the Hunnic manpower cannot last. With the political unification of the Huns in the mid 440s, the continued supply of Hun mercenaries begins to dry up and the Huns begin punitive raids against the Eastern Empire. After the Balkans lands had been wasted by the raids of the late 440s, the West becomes a more fertile target, to which the armies of the Huns are drawn in the early 450s. What are the possible outcomes of this war?

It could be said that since Gaul is more divided than OTL, that the Huns would be able to exploit the divisions of the competing polities to ensure the neutrality of one or more parties and therefore gain victory (in the OTL, Attila attempted to secure the neutrality of the Visigoths in his 451 campaign). But this is perhaps unlikely given the mutual interest the various “federate” nations had in preventing a Hun invasion and a grand coalition of barbarians seems probable. A Gaul with more powerful and numerous ‘federate’ nations would produce a different coalition than the one that faced the Huns OTL. This ATL coalition may be able to push (against Romans interests) for the complete destruction of the Huns on the Gallic plains (in OTL Attlia was so worried about defeat that it is said that he prepared a funeral pyre in which he might perish rather than fall into the hands of his enemies). This would spare Italia the OTL 452 campaign and much destruction and hardship. Any thoughts or ideas about this possibility?
But what about a Hunnic victory? Such a victory would mean imperial hostages for the Hunnic court and expansion of Hunnic lands into Gaul. The Huns may even be able to create their own Augustus in Gaul and exercise considerable influence on the fortunes of that area. However, the Huns would be unable to impose their will on Gaul without the intervention of the Eastern Empire who, in OTL, sent an expeditionary force against Attila’s eastern allies in order to divert his attention from the West. Any thoughts or ideas about this possibility?

Regardless of the outcome of this war, it is unlikely that the Empire of the Huns would survive the death of its leader. The social fabric of the Huns and all their social structures are opposed to the concentration and organisation which could maintain a permanent empire. This view relies heavily on Bury’s and Peter Heather’s thesis and could be contested, any thoughts about a longer lived Empire of the Huns?
 
Part VI: The Aftermath of Hunnic War

The Hunnic War cost the Western Empire greatly, large swathes of Gaul and Italia were devastated and although the Western Empire survived, the cost in money and manpower had been enormous. The sudden disappearance of Hunnic power prompted both the remnants of the Huns and their Germanic vassals to seek greener pastures inside the Empire. But more dangerous, was the effect of the war on the ‘federate’ barbarians within the Empire. Previously Hunnic power had been used to contain the barbarian ‘federates’ and minimise their political influence. Now these kingdoms, not failing to note the weakness of the Empire, began to pursue an expansionist policy that put an end to the fiction of their ‘federate’ status.

In OTL, imperial politics (post-451) moved to include all or some of these ‘federate’ kingdoms within the Western Empire’s body politic rather than excluding them (which traditionally had been the case). Indeed every OTL imperial regime after Valentinian III sought to attract the support of either the Goths or Burgundians or both. In order to attract this support the various barbarian groups demand compensation, often seeking to expand their own powerbase. After 454, there was a vicious circle within the Western Empire, with too many groups squabbling over a shrinking financial base. In political terms, this meant that there were always enough groups left out in the cold, after any division of the spoils, which wanted to undermine the prevailing political configuration. Moreover, with every change of regime, there had to be further gifts to conciliate supporters anew (for more info see Peter Heather’s paper ‘The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe’).

However the ATL Western Empire doesn’t follow this path and continues to exclude and remain independent of these barbarian groups. In the ATL, the barbarian invasions never penetrated the Pyrenees and the Western Empire is in better shape (compared with OTL), as Africa and Spain have been largely spared OTL’s devastations and occupations. The Empire has suffered a less significant loss in terms of logistical and tax base which means that imperial finances are healthier and the military is larger and better equipped. With this more dynamic military powerbase, the Empire is able to exclude the barbarians from internal imperial politics.

The problem of the ‘federate’ barbarians was most profound in Gaul, where there had been a gradual contraction of the Roman military presence over the course of several decades, with at the same time an increased dependence on mercenary or federate troops to preserve an ever dwindling enclave under direct imperial rule. After the Hunnic War, the armies of the Western Empire are weak, overextended and lacked the necessary population and tax base to maintain control over Gaul. Despite vigorous military campaigns in the late 450s and early 460s, the Romans are unable to maintain their control and abandon the northern and central provinces of Gaul.
In 468, a large Roman army under the Western Empire Flavius Marcianus’s son (Verinianus) enters Gaul to reverse this decline and retaliate against Alan raids into Spain, but he is defeated and killed by the Alan king Sisebur on the Rhône. In the power chaos that follows this defeat, the Germanic magister militum Gunthamund rebels against Marcianus and seeks to secure his own power within the Empire by proclaiming the docile primicerius notariorum Gaudentius as emperor. In the civil war that follows, the Roman army is divided: the Emperor Marcianus is supported by the native Romans while the usurper Gaudentius is supported by barbarian ‘federates’. After the former besieges Rome, the magister militum per Gallias Ecdicius abandons the Gallic battlefield and withdraws his forces to Italy. With Roman Gaul denuded of her army, imperial control in Gaul is reduced to the pockets around Clermont, Arles and Marseille.

But disaster befalls Gunthamund and his puppet Gaudentius. The mighty general Gunthamund is captured when his expedition to capture Africa fails and the weak Gaudentius is unable to maintain the unity of his barbarian armies. Some of his ‘federates’ abandon him, and he is defeated soon after by Ecdicius in climatic battle outside the gates of Rome. The civil war is over and barbarians have been kept from the gates of Eternal City...
Can Marcianus and Ecdicius reform the military and reserve the barbarianisation of the army? Given the manpower and resources shortage following the Hunnic War, the ATL Western Empire desperately needs to address its finances, streamline the military budget and abandon expensive and useless military garrisons. However reserving barbarianisation of the army would require recruiting from the native population, this would mean higher taxes for the nobility and land grants for the peasants willing to serve in the army (a minor social revolution). Are such reforms possible and how could they take place?

In Gaul, the imperial Empire would maintain control only over the Mediterranean coast (with fortresses at Arles and Marseille) but loose command of the interior. How would the Empire react to the loss of Gaul? And how would imperial policy treat the new independent kingdoms in Gaul? Given the new dynamics of Gaul, would the Franks still emerge as dominate players? As the Franks migrate into northern and central Gaul, they could put push the former ‘federate’ barbarians of Gaul south towards Italia or Iberia. Any thoughts?
 
Top