The society of a longer lived Western Roman Empire.

Let's say that Majorian manages to conquer the Vandals and keep Ricimer and his faction loyal (or deals with them in some other way). He goes on to rule the empire for around 20 years subjugating the Franks and reestablishing the Rhine border as well as grooming a capable heir. Lets assume that this leads to a century or more of relative stability in the empire which manages to recover somewhat.

If this WRE survives into OTL middle ages how does it's society evolve. Will it become more feudal in character (especially considering the many federate tribes within its borders)? Will urbanization still decline?

What would the empire's relationship be with the germanic barbarians? Will they become more or less of a threat as they convert to christianity (If they even do)? Will they be more likely to become Niceans rather than Arians ITTL?

And finally. What would be the relationship between church and state? Will it be similar to the relationship between the Holy Roman Emperors and the pope IOTL or will it be more like in the eastern empire?
 
I love western Roman Empire PODs, especially ones centered around Majorian. It would be interesting to see what a surviving WE would be like, I’d imagine that like how the east became more Greek the West would become more Germanic, maybe not outright Germanic but still heavily influenced by them. Although I don’t think they could outright conquer the Franks in Majorian’s lifetime, iirc the Franks at this time were very powerful and most of their territory was still on the other side of the Rhine, so I can’t see them taking land on that side of the Rhine if the empire at its height couldn’t. I wonder if feudalism would still develop like it did in otl, I imagine something like it would develop but not as decentralized like in otl where kings sometimes had little control over their lords. It really depends on how Majorian and his successors deal with the big landholders and the foederatti.
 
Let's say that Majorian manages to conquer the Vandals and keep Ricimer and his faction loyal (or deals with them in some other way).
He goes on to rule the empire for around 20 years subjugating the Franks and reestablishing the Rhine border as well as grooming a capable heir. Lets assume that this leads to a century or more of relative stability in the empire which manages to recover somewhat.

At this point, things already went too far for being really reversed in WRE : Majorian managed to put foedi into obedience, and would have he managed to defeat Vandals, it would in all likeness turned the same : putting them back to their original foedus (in this case, Numidia) and at the first crisis, Barbarians would have returned to their usual policy of negotiating in a position of strength that Ravenna couldn't have really curbed down. At best, we're talking of Constantinople assuming the contol of Africa and Italy, which is arguably a huge change. But WRE was done for : it depended too much from either Barbarians or Constantinople to remain independent.
(In addition, the problem of Ricimer was not his lack of loyalty, but being much more bent on preserving what was possible of WRE from Italy even if it did mean giving up on provinces, which wasn't a goal on itself as the expeditions of 460's point)

If you want a surviving WRE, you'd really need a much earlier PoD that would prevent at least part of the damaging crises of the Vth, probably no later than the 430's, probably earlier if you want to butterfly away the Hunnic hegemony and its consequences.

Will it become more feudal in character (especially considering the many federate tribes within its borders)?
As feudality, understood as the fusion of beneficii and honores (roughly, making public land and nobiliar power indistinguishable) appeared only with the rise of Peppinds/Carolingians, I think it's safe to assume it wouldn't appear as such.
If you meant, however, a greater regionalisation, socially or politically-wise, it's likely to have something still emerging especially with permanence of foedi but elsewhere in Romania too : still, the permanence of an imperial figure would probably make these regional ensemble more tied together, not unlike the situation you eventually ended up in Gaul.

Will urbanization still decline?
It's really debatable if the urbanization in the VIth century was significantly declining relatively to the Vth century : most of the damaging effects on this regard happened in the IIIrd century (especially in Western Romania, were a city was less defined by its population than its basic structures). More importantly damaging was the decline of the urban middle-class that lived from the existence of a same political-economical structure, and that was disappearing in the VIth due to the ongoing trade decline.

What would the empire's relationship be with the germanic barbarians?
In the Vth, considering Barbarians as Germans is more an ethnicized pseudo-history than really accurate : materially and politically, we're talking Romanized populations growingly made up of bona-fide Romans.
Depending on the PoD, we're talking more or less powerful foedi and mercenaries, : if we consider something roughly comparable to IOTL, they would act as a double regional hierarchy with the Roman state, rather than something really subordinated. It's hard to give a comparison giving the relative originality of the structure, but consider these as a vassalized independent states who would still be dependent on their relation with Romans.

Something comparable to the relations Constantinople had with Barbarians IMO, meaning sending prestigious gifts (such as silk) but more importantly gold (generally coined locally) and subsides. Giving that Barbarian princes tended to consider negotiations and treaties passed by the emperor more as a personal agreement than something tied to the Roman state, it would mean WREmperors would still have to regularly fight back or to renegotiate. Giving that WRE was extremely dependent on either Constantinople (that would be too busy in the East to really be helpful continuously) and foedi to raise armies, they wouldn't be able to get rid of them.

(Of course, if you still consider a Majorian PoD, then we're talking of a sole Roman Empire that would likely have absorbed Africa and Italy, letting Spain and Gaul as foedi, but that's another debate).

Will they become more or less of a threat as they convert to christianity (If they even do)? Will they be more likely to become Niceans rather than Arians ITTL?
Two things there.
They weren't as much an existential threat (they became such because WRE became a failed state after the 430's) than an inner threat due to their powerful position in the Roman military militia and chain of command, and the reliance of Romans on their foedi and mercenaries as both police and army.
Without talking about a symbiotic relationship, we'd be rather considering a twinned state if you allow me the expression : and more Barbarians would be integrated into Roman institutions, more likely that in a time of constant crisis, they could rise higher.

As for Christianity, by the 430's, Barbarians were as said above, essentially Romanized which means they were mostly Christianized. Homeanism was dominant at first because Barbarians played lip service to the emperor by abiding to his own belief, and they kept it (even switched from Nicean credo to Homean for what matter Suevi and Burgundians) as it allowed them to mark a distinct identity in a period they basically looked and sounded like Romans.
ITTL, I could see Barbarians remaining Homeans longer than IOTL, everyone benefiting from having a marked distinction between romanized Barbarians and Romans; but at term the sheer gravity of Niceanism and the fusion of Barbarian and Roman elites would lead to at least a mainly Nicean dominance.

As an aside, I use Homeanism rather than Arianism, because you have important differences : roughly speaking the first is a semi-Arianism which "only" subordinated the Son to the Father while Arius considered only the Father as divine. Homeanism also is not really dogmatically defined and seems to have actively prevented really going in detail about what made the divinity or not (contrary to what happened with eastern Christology) arguing that it was insane to claim grasping divinity : it eventually allowed it to pass as close enough to Niceanism, and to not implode into various sub-beliefs.

What would be the relationship between church and state? Will it be similar to the relationship between the Holy Roman Emperors and the pope IOTL or will it be more like in the eastern empire?
It would not look like what happened in HRE at all, of course : Rome had centuries to emerge as an independent institutions and defining itself as a prominent power (which is arguably a consequence of Ottonian intervention), which wouldn't happen there.
I don't thi it would be entirely comparable to Constantinople, even if it would be closer : EREmperors had to deal until the VIIth with various patriarchates and propelled Constantinople to impose their religious policies all the easier (especially when the empire lost Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch)

In a surviving WRE, there would be only one big seat to deal with, its probable moral and pastoral prominence not being put in question, so I guess a relatively smoother (for the emperors) relations, and no quasi-federation of royal churches as it appeared in the Early Middle Ages IOTL. Definitely something more imperially driven, although the religious unicity wouldn't make the pope a mere figurehead.
 
Last edited:
II’d imagine that like how the east became more Greek the West would become more Germanic, maybe not outright Germanic but still heavily influenced by them.
Barbarians by the Vth were essentially romanized culturally : the actual Germanic influence on post-imperial Romania does exist but is extremely limited, barely worth of mention for anything institutional or material.
Most of what was considered as "typically Barbarian" in the XIXth is generally seen as Roman in origin : Barbarian laws are mostly a mix of Roman law on Barbarians and Biblical influence; material culture is virtually the same safe identitarian tools that were made on the spot (such as clothes or "totally typical weapons", administtation is essentially the same while evolving due to being in a poorer context, etc.

The exceptions are Britain and Illyricum, but these regions were already ruined by the early Vth, and even there some Roman features didn't disappeared alltogether entierely.

iirc the Franks at this time were very powerful and most of their territory was still on the other side of the Rhine
In fact, at this point, Franks are basically underdogs. They're led by several petty-kings, have mostly an hold on Belgium and Netherlands, and doesn't have nearly half of the same prestige than Goths had.
They were still in a good regional position, being relatively trustworthy allies of the Romans since generations, having tied good relationship with Gallo-Romans since a century, and without immediate rival in Northern Gaul.
But yeah, before Chilperic, nobody wouldn't have bet a denarius on Franks becoming the alpha dog of western Romania.
 
How romanized were they?
To the point most of Barbarian languages fell into disuse by the VIth century, and that it's really difficult (if possible at all) to make a difference when it come to material culture.
It didn't happen overnight, but Barbarian peoples such as Goths, Franks, Alamans, Vandals, etc. emerged on the limes in the IIIrd century from a mix of various peoples that weren't all Germanic (especially in the Danube) but that were all living under the political, economical and cultural influence of Rome since the Ist century. Of course they didn't considered themselves as Romans and you can still make an important material difference between the Barbaricum and the Romania by then, but they weren't two definitely splitted worlds (proofs of Roman military presence, probably as "advisors" were found recently up to Poland for instance).
When Barbarian peoples moved trough the limes in the late IVth/early Vth they already were in deep contact with Rome thanks to raiding, mercenariate (see the stele found in Pannonia that said Francus ego cives, miles romanus in armis, meaning "I'm a Frankish citizen, but serving as a Roman soldier" for this double identity) : they even converted to what was initially an imperial-supported credo of Christianity to pay lip service to the emperor.

They weren't there to play nice, of course, and it was easy for them to pass from a prestigious payed service to bluntly taking over for raiding or strong-armed negotiation. Some people appears to have been chill about the whole thing as Franks, some being unmanagable on the long run such as Alamans. Many, as Goths, switched from one to another depending of their interests;

In the IVth and Vth century, a Barbarian was effectively someone that obeyed to a Barbarian king regardless of their origin (Barbarians more or less enrolled anyone able to fight or even willing to join them due to prestige or fiscal matters) and many Barbarians commanders of the Roman army stressed they were Roman citizens (such as Merobaud or Stilicho in the West). Of course, this was theory, and Roman elites were often undergoing anti-Barbarian policies to remove this rivalty, mixing political concerns and ethnicized clichés.
On the other hand Barbarians stressed their own Barbarity up to the caricature, their kings (as Euric) pretending to not understand Latin and going with "no take candle" speach or using interprets, but were known to know Virigl by heart. Maintaining their Homeanism (or even, as Burgundians and probably Suevi, switching from Niceanism to Homeanism) became an identitary matter as they were growingly indistinct culturally from their neighbors.

With the collapse of Roman state, as Barbarians took the imperium over western Romania, things were a bit different because the political differenciation in identity didn't really worked out anymore : the Barbarian king ruled on everyone, Roman as Barbarians. So it quickly became apparent that Barbarians were effectively Romanized safe some particularities : more particularities were then made up on the spot such as "totally rad Barbarian clothes with jewels" effectively bling-bling dresses; more or less caricatural origin stories "we're totally Trojans/had a big empire/encountered basically everyone from Virgil or the Bible" etc. To quote Bruno Duméail : Romans played Barbarians, and it worked good enough.

It's not to say you didn't have actual Barbarian influence in Romania, of course : linguistic substrate (essentially in Gaul, tough), some political considerations, etc. But it's not only particularly limited, but not even a given that it's related to the Vth century all together as you had Barbarian settlement in provinces since the Ist century, such as laeti (which certainly helped the fusion of Barbarians within Romania).
Most of what was considered Barbarian, with a Germanic origin, is essentially Roman in disguise, inspired by the Bible, born out of necessity, when not all that in the same time.

So, by the Vth century : they were essentially Romans. Not your classical Roman senator in toga from the Ist century, obviously, but something born out of the Late Empire Romanity and evolving from there; just as it happened (on vastly different grounds, of course) with Romans in the Eastern Empire.
 
Top