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?