The Last Great Military Endeavour of the Roman Empire

468 was the year of the Last Great Military Endeavour of the Roman
Empire, the year that the two halves of the Roman Empire embarked on
their last grand adventure. Their object was the destruction of the
Geiseric's Vandal kingdom, which threatened not just Italy and Sicily
but the entire commerce of the Mediterranean. The expedition was
organised on an impressive and remarkable scale, the number of vessels
that set sail from Constantinople was said (by Cedrenus) to have been
1113, 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.
However, the Eastern emperor Leo (under the influence of his wife
Verina and his friend Aspar) appointed as leader of this Great Roman
Armanda, the incompetent Basiliscus. According to Bury (in his History
of Later Roman Empire), Aspar schemed to have the emperor appoint an
extremely dubious general as he was fearful that Leo's position should
be strengthened by such a prestigious conquest. Whatever the reasons,
the result was a humiliating disaster and defeat of the imperial
forces.
Just at the moment when the expedition was approaching success and all
that was needed was for Basiliscus to strike a decisive blow, the man
hesitated. Taking up a position at Cap Bon (some distance from
Carthage), he granted Gaiseric a respite of five days to negotiate
conditions of peace. During this time, Gaiseric prepared a new fleet
and a number of fireships. According to Bury: "...he suddenly bore down
on the Roman armament, which under the combined stress of surprise,
adverse wind, and destructive ships of fire, was routed and at least
half destroyed." This defeat sealed the fate of the Western Empire and
put the treasury of the Eastern Empire on the verge of bankruptcy for
more than thirty years.

However, what if the expedition had been successful? What if
Basiliscus had struck against Gaiseric without hesitation or Leo had
given the command of the fleet to a more capable general? If we
consider the latter POD, Tarasicodissa is probably the best of the
options available. At the time he was perhaps the most gifted military
leader at the emperor's command and in the course of events become
magister militum (supreme commander of the army) after Aspar's death
in 471 AD.

But what have been the effects of a successful expedition?

Presumably, the most immediate consequence would be that
Constantinople would have an even greater influence over Italy (and
subsequently the rest of the West). But would it be enough to prevent
Ricimer rising against Anthemius? In Italia, Anthemius was not
popular. He was too Greek for the Italians, too fond of philosophy and
(if we are to believe Damascius) inclined towards paganism. However,
the Roman State always favoured Anthemius before the German Ricimer
and the ATL success of the Vandal expedition would greatly enhance his
prestige. In OTL, the competition between these two men resulted in
Ricimer's open rebellion in 472 AD, when he besieged Rome in the name
of the usurper Olybrius. Out of this contest of wills, Ricimer emerged
victorious and the Western Empire "ended" three years later. How would
the POD alter this chain of events? Could this ATL see imperial power
and government (perhaps under Byzantine control/influence) preserved
in the West? Peter Heather (in his "Fall of the Roman Empire: A New
History of Rome and the Barbarians") advances the notion that a
successful campaign against the Vandals could have halted the vicious
circle of Western decline and given the Western Empire a new lease on
life.

It is doubtful that Leo would allow North Africa to revert to the
control of the West unless he was confident in Anthemius's ascendancy.
In all probability (and despite the precedents of history) Africa
would become part of the Eastern Empire. It is also doubtful that
Ricimer could force the issue with Constantinople, had Leo chosen to
incorporate North Africa into the East. Such a move would translate
into much larger revenues for the Eastern Empire and in the end a more
powerful economic base from which to strengthen and maintain the
military. A stronger, wealthier Byzantine Empire may have better luck
with the barbarian invaders of the 6th century or even gain a decisive
victory over the Persians during the numerous wars of that period.

With the pirate kingdom of Gaiseric defeated, presumably Mediterranean
commerce can flourish once again. In this ATL, maybe the relative
prosperity of 4th century commerce can be restored. However, there is
a problem with this theory: the naval strength of the Western Empire
had been greatly diminished by this point. The Vandals captured the
North African fleet in 439 (the bulk of the Western Empire's navy at
the time) and crushed another large fleet (gathered from the Spanish
coast and under the command of Majorian) at Cartagena in 461. By 470
AD the Western navy was all but exhausted by the numerous wars
(especially Gaiseric's frequent attacks on Sicily and Italy). The
destruction of the Vandals would leave a maritime power vacuum that
the Western Empire would be hard pressed to fill. Who would fill the
vacuum? Maybe the Romans would recover their old maritime domination
and the Mediterranean would become a Roman lake once again. Maybe the
Balearic Islands and Corsica would become nests of pirates (and carry
on the cycle of violence) or maybe some other barbarian power would
develop their own pirate fleet.

Thoughts?
 
Well, this is the first real piece of thread necromancy I've performed in these fora :p, but while plumbing the depths for interesting posts I came across this interesting discussion of a fascinating period in Roman history. Since I’ve recently been doing some reading on Majorian and the end of the Western Empire, this post caught my eye. Additionally, the blatantly insulting response by Blizrun demands some sort of reply.

Addressing the second point first, let me say that it is childish and unbecoming of a civilized poster to reply to an honest invitation to intellectual discourse by simply pointing out minor flaws in the grammar and formatting of the post. For all you know, English is not steven24gorden's first language, while had taken the time to notice that he (or she) had under 10 posts to their name, you would, perhaps, have overlooked their inexperience with the formatting used by this webforum. I sincerely hope that Blizrun's insulting response has not driven a promising poster from these fora.

Onward!

I think that the expedition of Basiliscus in 468 (or even Majorian's abortive campaign against the Vandals in 461) was a real turning point in the history of the Roman west. I've always seen the loss of Africa (particularly Proconsularis) as a particularly damaging blow to the Western Empire. With the Vandals in Carthage, Rome not only lost one of her richest possessions (Victor of Vita tells us that the wealth of Carthage not only enriched Africa, but the entire empire as well), but also effectively ended large-scale commerce in the Western Mediterranean. The chroniclers tell us that the Vandals routinely raided Roman Italy, suggesting that they had free-range over the seas. Excavations at Carthage have shown that following the Vandal takeover, imports from western regions declined.

In short, by depriving Rome of Africa, the Vandals not only cut off a major source of income (Africa was a leading producer of grain, oil, and trade items such as tableware), but also disrupted, throughout the western Med., the maritime trade which kept the Roman economy afloat (no pun intended :D).

As steven24gordon suggests, the recovery of Africa might have been able to reverse some of disastrous effects of the Vandal takeover. If Majorian had succeeded in 461, there may even have been a large enough Roman naval presence to keep private piracy from rising to fill the void left by the Vandals (As suggested, this probably would have been a major problem had Basiliscus' invasion succeeded). Even if the Romans were able to eliminate large-scale piracy, it is, perhaps, overly optimistic to imagine commerce rapidly returning to 4th century levels. By the later 5th century, the urban fabric of Roman society (a prerequisite for the Roman system of commerce) had seriously declined. Across Italy, we see evidence for a decrease in urban populations, while private construction of public buildings (a hallmark of Classical urbanism) was virtually nonexistent save for ecclesiastical buildings. The urban infrastructure of the Western Empire needed serious help before long-range commerce could make a serious comeback.

Still, had Africa been recovered, the Vandal raids of Sicily and Southern Italy would have been stopped, while some sort of maritime commerce may have been able to resume. Most importantly, however, would have been the recovery of Africa's agricultural resources. Africa supplied Rome with the grain annona (government sponsored free bread) which supported much or Rome's massive population of urban poor. The ability to supply the cities of the West with free or cheap grain may have helped slow or reverse the decline in urban population seen throughout the 5th century.

The morale victory gained by a reconquest of Africa is harder to assess, but we should probably not overlook this aspect altogether.

So what would have happened had Majorian managed to recapture some or all of Africa in 461? Although I believe Basiliscus' expedition probably had a better chance of succeeding, I think the ramification of a Majorian victory are more interesting, so I will suggest a few possible political results of such a victory.

1. The economic ramifications have been discussed above.

2. The most important result of a victory by Majorian in Africa would have been the political capital earned by such a success. Majorian came to power by working with Richimer (a Gothic commander in Roman service who wielded enormous power over the armies). Although Majorian had the loyalty of the palace guard and the army of Italy (he had held the post of comes domesticorum before his ascension), he needed the support of Richimer to stay in power. In OTL, Majorian suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Vandals. The disgrace weakened his political power and led to his removal by Richimer. Had Majorian been successful in Africa, he may have been able to win enough political support from the armies to do away with Richimer instead of being done away with himself. Ultimately, if the Western Empire was to survive, the pattern of powerful Barbarian generals had to be stopped since such strongmen greatly weakened the power of the legitimate head of state. A Majorian victory in Africa might have provided the perfect opportunity to break that pattern.

3. Assuming Majorian was able to capitalize on his victory and consolidate his political base, his next task would be to reassert imperial control in Gaul. The conquest of Africa would have facilitated future military campaigns by providing funding (both in terms of booty captured from the defeated Vandals, and the taxable wealth of Africa), and perhaps even a new source of manpower.

4. In 461, Majorian was on good terms with the Visigoths in Aquitania and the Gallo-Roman strongman Aegidius in northern Gaul. Assuming these alliances held, Majorian could have used the wealth gained in the African campaign to raise an army to try and reestablish the Rhine frontier. Having a corp of veteran soldiers leftover from the African adventure would have been an added bonus.

5. Assuming That Majorian was able to bring some sort of stability to Gaul, the Western Empire would have found itself in a much stronger position than in OTL. The borders would have been at least somewhat more secure, but most importantly, the economic situation would have been vastly improved over OTL. Any comments on what might transpire in the years to follow would be most welcome!
 
Top