Theoderic the Great as magister militum of the west

So, so time ago I wrote this short TL - basically Julius Nepos survives his assassination and is figurehead Emperor for Theoderic Strabo's conquest of Italy from Odoacer. Once Nepos dies, Theoderic the Amal takes the other half of the Goths and conquers Italy from his rival Strabo, sanctioned by the eastern emperor and in support of Nepos' fictional son Leo.

Assuming either this or something similar happens, and Theoderic (IOTL 'the Great'), becomes magister militum to a young and compliant puppet Roman Emperor - so no different from other (half)barbarian strongmen like of Stilicho, Flavius Aetius, Ricimer, Gundobad - how are things different from OTL?

IMO, having to work even more within the Roman system than OTL, some of the major changes would be:
1. Theoderic not having the clout necessary to ban the expensive games and ceremonies in the Colosseum against the wishes of the Roman elite
2. Increased hostility and distrust on the part of foreign polities (Visigoths, Vandals etc) towards Theoderic's state, possibly enough to result in war
3. Pressure by the Roman senatorial elite for action against the Vandals in north Africa, possibly also southern Gaul
4. a mixed Romano-Gothic army instead of the purely Gothic force of OTL
5. [depending on how later events turn out] 476 A.D. is not seen by future generations as this momentous event, and is instead relegated to minor footnote status

How might relations between the two halves of the empire continue in the near future, particularly after Anastasius leaves the east with a big budget surplus and Justin mends the Acacian schism? Is a long, grueling war over Italy inevitable, or might a more political solution be attainable? What other butterflies might we expect?

I'm curious as to your thoughts.
 
4. a mixed Romano-Gothic army instead of the purely Gothic force of OTL

I generally agree with most of your points.
I have some doubts only here...
I mean long before Theoderic (the Great) the WRE's army was not too mixed - the overwhelming majority were the non-Romans (mostly Germanic).
Why would Theoderic have changed the trend?
 
I generally agree with most of your points.
I have some doubts only here...
I mean long before Theoderic (the Great) the WRE's army was not too mixed - the overwhelming majority were the non-Romans (mostly Germanic).
Why would Theoderic have changed the trend?
At Chalons in 451, around 1/3 of the force under Aetius' command was Roman. It's not unreasonable to assume that at least some part of the army in Italy was ethnically Roman. In this case, Theoderic wouldn't be changing the trend, merely keeping in place what was already there. Although I agree, there aren't going to be a lot of Roman soldiers in Theoderic's field armies ITTL, most would probably be local limitanei garrisons of one sort or another.
 
At Chalons in 451, around 1/3 of the force under Aetius' command was Roman. It's not unreasonable to assume that at least some part of the army in Italy was ethnically Roman. In this case, Theoderic wouldn't be changing the trend, merely keeping in place what was already there. Although I agree, there aren't going to be a lot of Roman soldiers in Theoderic's field armies ITTL, most would probably be local limitanei garrisons of one sort or another.

I guess Chalons of 451 is the last time when we hear of such big number of the "ethnic" Romans in the army of the WRE.
Since then it went steadily downhill and by the time of Theoderic moving into Italy it was close to non-existant.
It's a generation distance away...
 
Top