The Southern Roman Empire
- Thread starter Prefrence
- Start date
Prefrence
Banned
My main consern is Pro-consular Africa, which is under control of the Roman senate. would its juristiction be moved to the Carthaginian Senate? or given direct control under Bonifacius?
That depends on Bonifacius's attitude toward what he has accomplished and what he thinks his prospects are of eventually ruling from Rome itself, over all, or most, of the Western Empire. From the thread title, we know from ATL hindsight that he will not manage that feat; what he's doing is laying the basis for a "new Rome" based on North Africa, that will expand beyond old Roman claims to the south, we don't know yet how far. But we have every reason to doubt he or his successors will make much progress in reconsolidating Carthage's hold on anything much north of the Mediterranean. Aside from the hint of the thread title, we have the common-sense observation that the basic institutions of Roman governance in Gaul, Germania, Britannia and Illyricum are splintering where they haven't already collapsed, leaving Italia itself badly exposed. The question is, will Bonifacius see the problem of eventually restoring Roman order to these regions in the same light as the challenges he's already answered in securing control of Africa? Or will he see the zones he already controls as a relatively sheltered port from an unstoppable storm descending on Rome from the north, and foresee (accurately) that he and his successors will need to hunker down and concentrate on developing a new southward base?
If Bonifacius has the ambition of by and by returning to Rome itself and securing at least the northern bounds of Italia as a safe buffer for that city, and eventually he and his successors will win back the Western dioceses to the limits that existed when he was born, then his decisions in these administrative matters now will regard himself as the true emperor in Rome, who needs an administrative structure appropriate to running the whole West, and perhaps the East as well. Besides ambition, such a claim might be seen as important to securing his legitimacy; if he has no intention of ever ruling from Rome, why should "Roman" forces rally to him?
This suggests he would not formally transfer PC-Africa from the Roman Senate; rather, he will speak for that Senate, since any word of contradictory rulings coming from the north will obviously be fraudulent; any so-called "Senate" sitting in Rome will be coerced or an outright fabrication by illegitimate pretenders or barbarian invaders. Only he can judge what a proper free Roman Senate would want. Of course, the privilege of the Roman Senate to rule this particular piece of Africa directly is something any Emperor could have changed at any time for any sufficiently good reason anyway; as an Emperor--the legitimate Western Emperor--he could change the status of that region anyway.
So, under that point of view, he'd keep the elaborate administrative hierarchy of diocese and province, never mind that temporarily some of his provinces belong to a diocese he mostly doesn't control. He'll just have his own administrators for Italia Suburbicarius and Aegyptus and Hispanae; these jobs could be meaningless sinecures or (more likely) they could be hats worn very seriously by agents whose real focus is reconquering their putative dioceses, while someone else runs the province that happens to be the sole piece of said diocese. Aegyptus of course belongs administratively to the East and there, if Bonifacius plans only to secure control of the West and not the whole Empire, he should be planning to hand over his holdings there, presumably for a quid pro quo where his proper role in the West is recognized. Setting up a formal diocesal administrator (sorry, I don't know the proper titles of the levels) there is a declaration that he either plans to secure both Empires, or he's unilaterally and permanently redrawing the lines. So there at least I think he might best skip the step of appointing one for Aegyptus, to avoid being too provocative.
I think it's too early for him to throw in the towel and formally declare a Southern Empire based permanently on Carthage and Africa generally. But pragmatically this is what he has. Pragmatically he doesn't need diocesal government, he has an African core with peripheral claims of a province or two on each of its borders, which call for special governance as disputed zones. Calling the special, presumably military, machinery there "diocesal" will gradually change the meaning of the term to marchland administration.
If he or a later generation successor do redraw the boundaries, on his current scale he hardly needs dioceses; simply setting up provinces all directly under Carthage seems good enough. It's a question of whether they ever get around admitting things have come to that pass.
The various provinces you mention already exist and for the most part, he already has them--I think from the maps I've seen he doesn't yet fully control Baetica in Hispanae and it isn't clear to me that its former borders are sensible frontiers or not; frankly I'd think there especially, unless he or a successor eventually secure control of the whole diocese, with its natural boundary on the northern mountains, the actual borders will fluctuate wildly with the fortunes of war. If they wind up holding only a foothold in Hispanae, I guess it might be called "Baetica," or its name might change. With Sicily, that he already holds, the question is, will they get more of the former diocese of southern Italy, and will that claim include Rome itself. But as a province, Sicily is already his and was previously its own province. I certainly don't see why it should be lumped in with the Balerics! They too are their own unit on the provincial level and were a different diocese on that level; if they retain the two-level system in the future it might make sense to put the Med islands in a new island diocese, but certainly not to consolidate their provincial-level governments!
It seems likely to me that all the dioceses but Africa itself will be border zone military governments; for that reason their historical division will be retained but fluidly reorganized--an Insular Diocese would for instance be logical because its forces would be naval and its communications are all by sea. But if the later course of the southern Empire involves reconquest of a significant part of mainland Italy, I'd think that's where Sicily would go--after all then Sicily would no longer be a frontline border.
Prefrence
Banned
Thanks for the great feedback! I like the idea of frontier provinces simmilar to the marches alot.
Bonifacius for the moment doesn't have the strength to take on the Western Empire. Aetius still has a sizeable chunk of his orignial army, and has the Visigoths, a force comporable to all of Bonifacius' regular troops. Bonifacius need not worry about them attacking the African mainland because the Western Roman navy is almost nonexistant at this point. Bonifacius needs to worry about the Eastern Empire, which doesn't need a navy to reach him (wants revenge for the loss of Libya Superior), and would pounce as soon as he tries anything of size in the Western Empire. For now, Bonifacius has his hands tied and hes smart enough to realize it. Since he has the navy to contain Western Roman agression likely will concentrate on the Eastern Empire should war start up again.
Bonifacius initially was only trying to secure his political independence from Ravenna, but after being crowned Emperor (he didn't know he would be crowned), it became impossible for reunion. Bonifacius' Victories have made him very popular amongst the public and the Vandal Core of the army(he also liberated the oppresed Sicilians and Libyans who very much want him to be Emperor), and as a result they want him to be Emperor over the weak Valentinian. It might appease the populace if he cuts all ties with the Western Roman senate and sets up a local senate in Carthage, but im not sure about this. Bonifacius as Southern Emperor has the ability to appoint a governor of the province however (every emperor since Constantine had been doing this, even though its the Senates job to appoint someone)
They might have been im not sure.
can i just say, i love it when Shevek has something to say
I do as well
Nice timeline!!! I always wandered how would a Souther Roman Empire exist and develope itself.
I agree that the WRE is doomed, 10-20 years at most, the Huns will certainly crash the whole thing down
For Bonifacius and his succesors the only safe venue of expansion would be Hispania, if they can reach and fortify the northern mountains with Gaul before the barbarians arrive in huge numbers, the SRE could certainly hold and add a new province.
Neither Italy nor Gaul offer good prospects due to unrelenting warfare
The rest of Libya and Egypt sound nice but the ERE would certainly have something to say about it
Go south now, to Nigeria and beyond
I agree that the WRE is doomed, 10-20 years at most, the Huns will certainly crash the whole thing down
For Bonifacius and his succesors the only safe venue of expansion would be Hispania, if they can reach and fortify the northern mountains with Gaul before the barbarians arrive in huge numbers, the SRE could certainly hold and add a new province.
Neither Italy nor Gaul offer good prospects due to unrelenting warfare
The rest of Libya and Egypt sound nice but the ERE would certainly have something to say about it
Go south now, to Nigeria and beyond
Prefrence
Banned
Nice timeline!!! I always wandered how would a Souther Roman Empire exist and develope itself.
I agree that the WRE is doomed, 10-20 years at most, the Huns will certainly crash the whole thing down
For Bonifacius and his succesors the only safe venue of expansion would be Hispania, if they can reach and fortify the northern mountains with Gaul before the barbarians arrive in huge numbers, the SRE could certainly hold and add a new province.
Neither Italy nor Gaul offer good prospects due to unrelenting warfare
The rest of Libya and Egypt sound nice but the ERE would certainly have something to say about it
Go south now, to Nigeria and beyond
Question is, if the Huns take Italy, will they go on to conquer the rest of Western Europe save Sub-Roman Britain?
Hispania does look promising, but the Subei, Visigoths, and Local Western Romans would want it for themselves.
taking Italy and Gaul would not be a smart move by Southern Rome, as it would be a defensive nightmare (Calibria or a little chunk of Southern Italy maybe not)
Libya, but mainly Egypt would be great additions, but because they are the breadbaskets of the Eastern Empire they wont be too willing to lose it
I think if the romans expanded south, they would grab oases along the way and make almost a chain, and after they reach the Niger river, it should be easy to set up a new wealthy province.
Prefrence
Banned
Chapter VII
Even after defeating the armies of two empires and forcing upon them humiliating terms, the Southern Roman Empire's future was shaky. The war had extended the frontiers of the Southern Roman Empire hundreds of miles, and added many new diverse groups under the control of Carthage. Bonifacius decided that in order to prevent his Empire from falling apart, its legal and provincial organization would need a complete overhaul. Bonifacius encouraged Latin as the language of the court and empire, but recognized Vandalic, Greek, and Vulgar Punic as official languages as well. This decision would prove to have a great impact on Latin, as new words were gradually added to its vocabulary. Next, Bonifacius hoping to avoid religious strife, decreed that Arianism and Donatism must be tolerated. However, Bonifacius encouraged conversion to Catholicism, and restricted most political positions to Catholic's with only a few select exceptions. Bonifacius also lowered taxes on peasants and began construction on monuments to celebrate his victories on the Battlefield.
Bonifacius then began the process of reorganizing his provinces. First, he organized his new conquests into 3 new provinces separate of the Diocese of Africa called Aetas'[1]. The Aetas of Tingitana, was made from Hispanian Africa and the european Greater Pillar of Hercules. The Aetas of Libya was essentially the Eastern Roman province of Libya Superior, but with some desert lands in the south abandoned. The Aetas of the Insularum was compromised of every island conquest made. Bonifacius resettled many Vandals and Eastern Roman defectors into the Aetas', and gave them and their families sizeable amounts of land. The Aetas' would be governed by Bonifacius' generals Eusebius[2], Respendial[3], and Sebastianus[4]. The Governor's were given a wide degree of autonomy to do as they pleased, because Bonifacius believed that his armies autonomy won him the war.
Bonifacius then began a reorganization of the Diocese of Africa. Pro-Consular Africa, which had its governor appointed by the Roman Senate, from then on had its governor appointed by the newly formed Carthaginian Senate. Bonifacius decided to create a new Carthaginian Senate, to increase his popularity amongst the local elite, and to assert the Southern Roman Empire as a legitimate empire, and not the possession of an upsurper. Bonifacius then split the remainder of the Diocese of Africa into two. This was done to make the management of the empire go more smoothly and reduce the threat posed by potential upsurpers. Numidia, and the Mauritania provinces were grouped into the Diocese of Mauritania, the remaining provinces were made into a rump Diocese of Africa. After Bonifacius had completed his reforms, the Southern Roman Empire was one of the most prosperous places in the world, however that can't be said about the Western Roman Empire.
_________________________________________________________________
[1]-Latin for "placement", the Greek of placement is Themes.
[2]-of Tingitana
[3]-of Libya
[4]-of Insularum
Even after defeating the armies of two empires and forcing upon them humiliating terms, the Southern Roman Empire's future was shaky. The war had extended the frontiers of the Southern Roman Empire hundreds of miles, and added many new diverse groups under the control of Carthage. Bonifacius decided that in order to prevent his Empire from falling apart, its legal and provincial organization would need a complete overhaul. Bonifacius encouraged Latin as the language of the court and empire, but recognized Vandalic, Greek, and Vulgar Punic as official languages as well. This decision would prove to have a great impact on Latin, as new words were gradually added to its vocabulary. Next, Bonifacius hoping to avoid religious strife, decreed that Arianism and Donatism must be tolerated. However, Bonifacius encouraged conversion to Catholicism, and restricted most political positions to Catholic's with only a few select exceptions. Bonifacius also lowered taxes on peasants and began construction on monuments to celebrate his victories on the Battlefield.
Bonifacius then began the process of reorganizing his provinces. First, he organized his new conquests into 3 new provinces separate of the Diocese of Africa called Aetas'[1]. The Aetas of Tingitana, was made from Hispanian Africa and the european Greater Pillar of Hercules. The Aetas of Libya was essentially the Eastern Roman province of Libya Superior, but with some desert lands in the south abandoned. The Aetas of the Insularum was compromised of every island conquest made. Bonifacius resettled many Vandals and Eastern Roman defectors into the Aetas', and gave them and their families sizeable amounts of land. The Aetas' would be governed by Bonifacius' generals Eusebius[2], Respendial[3], and Sebastianus[4]. The Governor's were given a wide degree of autonomy to do as they pleased, because Bonifacius believed that his armies autonomy won him the war.
Bonifacius then began a reorganization of the Diocese of Africa. Pro-Consular Africa, which had its governor appointed by the Roman Senate, from then on had its governor appointed by the newly formed Carthaginian Senate. Bonifacius decided to create a new Carthaginian Senate, to increase his popularity amongst the local elite, and to assert the Southern Roman Empire as a legitimate empire, and not the possession of an upsurper. Bonifacius then split the remainder of the Diocese of Africa into two. This was done to make the management of the empire go more smoothly and reduce the threat posed by potential upsurpers. Numidia, and the Mauritania provinces were grouped into the Diocese of Mauritania, the remaining provinces were made into a rump Diocese of Africa. After Bonifacius had completed his reforms, the Southern Roman Empire was one of the most prosperous places in the world, however that can't be said about the Western Roman Empire.
_________________________________________________________________
[1]-Latin for "placement", the Greek of placement is Themes.
[2]-of Tingitana
[3]-of Libya
[4]-of Insularum
Pending your next map, I was trying to research the timing of the adoption of camels (dromedaries that is) in the Sahara region. The Wikipedia articles mention that the oldest domestication of camels goes back pretty far before our period, and that at some unmentioned point in time the Eastern Romans adopted dromedary cavalry, which worked very well for them. But I seem to remember reading (decades ago!) that actually camels were not widely adopted by the Arabs until not long before the rise of Islam; this is one reason why the Arabs could sweep over the southern margins of the classical world so rapidly under Islam but nothing like that had happened before.
The question here is, can the Southern Empire adopt camels for transiting the Sahara and finding the trade partners to the south we all hope they can? If they are well established doing that kind of thing then if something like Islam does arise in Arabia, they might still be pre-empted from taking over the western desert, if Southern Roman society is going reasonably strong at that point and the desert peoples are reasonably happy to be a part of it.
With "desert power," to lift a phrase from Frank Herbert, based on both camels and a secured alliance/incorporation of desert-dwelling peoples, the Carthage-based empire might even bypass the East's continued control of Egypt itself, link up with the Sudanese and perhaps Axumites, and perhaps even establish direct relations with the Arabs on the Red Sea, conceivably butterflying Islam away completely. (In fact the conventional view of butterflies is that having Muhammed preach Islam as OTL is already impossible, but I am more flexible in these matters--if you want Islam to rise on schedule I think it can be justified. If you don't, just go with consensus and no one can say boo to it!)
If camel-borne, desert savvy Christian loyalists to Carthage are roaming all around the Sahara, then even if they started by bypassing Egypt and avoiding war with the East, sooner or later when that conflict heats up they'd have an advantage comparable to the one the Arabs had. If they can add to it the offer of religious tolerance then, unless the Eastern emperors were astute enough to rein in their own intolerance and neutralize that point, they'd have the other one--Christians in the southern parts of the Eastern empire went over to the Arabs OTL because they were the "wrong" denomination according to the Emperor and had suffered persecution and discrimination; the Arabs offered a better deal. ITTL a tolerant and partially desert-based South Empire should be able to scoop up Egypt eventually, and depending on circumstances might well get Palestine as well.
On the other side of Africa, I'd think that once overland routes to West Africa were explored, given the confidence of knowing a viable commercial destination exists on the far side, coastwise shipping from west Mauretania around the desert coasts to West African ports ought to develop. In turn this might lead to the discovery of the Azores and the rediscovery and incorporation of other Atlantic islands; and eventually even landings in the Americas. "Eventually" might be a very long time down, given that ships need to evolve as well as navigational techniques, and it might very well be long after the Southern Empire itself has fallen--but there would be successor nations merging late Roman and West African cultures.
So--who knows stuff about the history of camel domestication in the Sahara? If they were already established long before our period, then the question arises of whether the new Empire has any advantage over the historical OTL realms there in North Africa or for that matter older Roman regimes. If it is ASB to have camels come into use about now, then the contact with West Africa is more problematic.
Basically I want someone to tell me that now is a good time for the camel to be introduced into western North Africa and that with it, a political and social union of the desert peoples with Southern Rome is possible.
The question here is, can the Southern Empire adopt camels for transiting the Sahara and finding the trade partners to the south we all hope they can? If they are well established doing that kind of thing then if something like Islam does arise in Arabia, they might still be pre-empted from taking over the western desert, if Southern Roman society is going reasonably strong at that point and the desert peoples are reasonably happy to be a part of it.
With "desert power," to lift a phrase from Frank Herbert, based on both camels and a secured alliance/incorporation of desert-dwelling peoples, the Carthage-based empire might even bypass the East's continued control of Egypt itself, link up with the Sudanese and perhaps Axumites, and perhaps even establish direct relations with the Arabs on the Red Sea, conceivably butterflying Islam away completely. (In fact the conventional view of butterflies is that having Muhammed preach Islam as OTL is already impossible, but I am more flexible in these matters--if you want Islam to rise on schedule I think it can be justified. If you don't, just go with consensus and no one can say boo to it!)
If camel-borne, desert savvy Christian loyalists to Carthage are roaming all around the Sahara, then even if they started by bypassing Egypt and avoiding war with the East, sooner or later when that conflict heats up they'd have an advantage comparable to the one the Arabs had. If they can add to it the offer of religious tolerance then, unless the Eastern emperors were astute enough to rein in their own intolerance and neutralize that point, they'd have the other one--Christians in the southern parts of the Eastern empire went over to the Arabs OTL because they were the "wrong" denomination according to the Emperor and had suffered persecution and discrimination; the Arabs offered a better deal. ITTL a tolerant and partially desert-based South Empire should be able to scoop up Egypt eventually, and depending on circumstances might well get Palestine as well.
On the other side of Africa, I'd think that once overland routes to West Africa were explored, given the confidence of knowing a viable commercial destination exists on the far side, coastwise shipping from west Mauretania around the desert coasts to West African ports ought to develop. In turn this might lead to the discovery of the Azores and the rediscovery and incorporation of other Atlantic islands; and eventually even landings in the Americas. "Eventually" might be a very long time down, given that ships need to evolve as well as navigational techniques, and it might very well be long after the Southern Empire itself has fallen--but there would be successor nations merging late Roman and West African cultures.
So--who knows stuff about the history of camel domestication in the Sahara? If they were already established long before our period, then the question arises of whether the new Empire has any advantage over the historical OTL realms there in North Africa or for that matter older Roman regimes. If it is ASB to have camels come into use about now, then the contact with West Africa is more problematic.
Basically I want someone to tell me that now is a good time for the camel to be introduced into western North Africa and that with it, a political and social union of the desert peoples with Southern Rome is possible.
Prefrence
Banned
Good Information, It will be put to good use.
As for Camel domestication, I wonder if it would be possible for the Berber's to domesticate camels, then seek greener pastures in southern rome, peacefully like the vandals did. These berbers could introduce the camels to the Southern Romans who then utilize them for first trade then military. Is that plausible?
Last edited:
Good Information, It will be put to good use.
What information? I've handed you nothing but questions and airy speculation! I was fishing for someone who actually knows something to say yea or nay about the timing of dromedary use! I wish I knew! It sounds all right. The question arises, why, if camel use is spreading north and west from its heartland (which I gather may have been Somalia) why they wouldn't be first known to the Eastern Empire.
A possible answer, "because the East was run by arrogant religious bigots." But then, the fatal failure to hold on to the loyalties of the southeast was some centuries later. And I still don't know when the Byzantines adopted their dromedary mobile legions. If they did it well after the loss of Egypt and Palestine, it could be they foolishly blew off opportunities to set down roots among the camel traders earlier as I suggest above, but learned their hard lesson belatedly after it was too late.
But if they actually had Dromedarii before Islam, then there's that wild speculation shot down. Presumably if they had a camel corps that early, then it is hard to see why they couldn't pioneer trans-Saharan trade routes themselves.
I'm always happy to provide wild wooly speculation! But when people start just accepting my word as gospel, that's when I get scared and freeze up.
So yes, your "Berbers cozy up to Carthage from the south, arriving on camels" seems plausible enough to me, but I don't really know enough to have any kind of authoritative answer. Sorry!
Prefrence
Banned
Glad you liked it.
I wish I knew! It sounds all right. The question arises, why, if camel use is spreading north and west from its heartland (which I gather may have been Somalia) why they wouldn't be first known to the Eastern Empire.
A possible answer, "because the East was run by arrogant religious bigots." But then, the fatal failure to hold on to the loyalties of the southeast was some centuries later. And I still don't know when the Byzantines adopted their dromedary mobile legions. If they did it well after the loss of Egypt and Palestine, it could be they foolishly blew off opportunities to set down roots among the camel traders earlier as I suggest above, but learned their hard lesson belatedly after it was too late.
But if they actually had Dromedarii before Islam, then there's that wild speculation shot down. Presumably if they had a camel corps that early, then it is hard to see why they couldn't pioneer trans-Saharan trade routes themselves.
I'm always happy to provide wild wooly speculation! But when people start just accepting my word as gospel, that's when I get scared and freeze up.
So yes, your "Berbers cozy up to Carthage from the south, arriving on camels" seems plausible enough to me, but I don't really know enough to have any kind of authoritative answer. Sorry!
I hadn't known Camels were domesticated so early thats the information i will put to use, and all questions have a fact in them, If you said "what if they had dromedarii before Islam" then I know that they didn't have dromedarii's until after islam.
However, the effects of Camel's in the Eastern(or Southern) Roman Army could be interesting. For the most part I belive the Sassanid Calvary was superior to the Roman's, and the Roman Infanty was superior to the Sassanid Infantry. Now if the Eastern Romans got Camels (which could prove to be superior Calvary to the sassanids) the persians could be in trouble in the future.
I never said they were?
Last edited:
Prefrence is was not directed a you but Shevek23.
The Eastern Empire will never let egypt be taken by south rome. They will come for the Territory captured by south rome and will send a very competant general. I still think that your characterization Theodosius II in taking to the feild was wrong on highky unrealisted no matter how you justify it. It would never happen. Heraclius was the first emperor in centuries to personally lead troops. This would be left to close family and professionals.
Horses was still the main mode of transport during this time.
The Eastern Empire will never let egypt be taken by south rome. They will come for the Territory captured by south rome and will send a very competant general. I still think that your characterization Theodosius II in taking to the feild was wrong on highky unrealisted no matter how you justify it. It would never happen. Heraclius was the first emperor in centuries to personally lead troops. This would be left to close family and professionals.
Horses was still the main mode of transport during this time.
Prefrence
Banned
Theodosius I did it less than Forty Years ago. Theodosius didn't campaign in the Roman-Persian War of 421-422 because he was still very young (late teens), however by now hes in his late twenties and early thirties, prime time to lead a camapign. Plus, with the Western Roman forces added, Theodosius II had a 4:1 advantage, and his enemy was split up over a wide area. This would be an easy chance for glory, and Theodosius could use his help as leverage to the western empire (i.e we got you back Africa, you owe use Pannonia) Theodosius was accomponied by a general, but after intially beaten the Southern Romans, he was confident he could lead troops, in the later battles, his general was in command, but the Southern Romans had gained a decisive edge and won the battle.
Last edited: