Theodosius the Great: Part 0

This thread is some of my own ideas mixed in with comments and suggestions made by Mike Stone and others. I hope to develop this discussion into a full timeline in keeping with the great multi-part Threads of this group (although in truth I do feel that I am capable of so great an achievement). The premise of this thread is the early death of Theodosius I (378-395) who was called the 'Great". He was really the last Roman Emperor to rule a united Empire that stretched from the sands of Syria to Hadrian’s Wall.

Now I thinking about having him die in 391. You see in 390 the Visigoths broke their commitments to the Roman Empire (probably due to the losses they suffered during the Maximus campaign) and invaded Thrace. In 391, Theodosius entered the province with an army to bring the Goths to heel. The rebellion brought to prominence Stilicho in 392 who became the commander of the troops of Thrace. The Gothic revolt was finally settled by negotiation and the Goths become valuable foederatti against the usurper Eugenius. However, the Gothic rebellion was not danger-free for Theodosius. On the Maritza, he fell into an ambush and was almost killed, only to be rescued by a general named Promotus. The PoD of this ATL, is that Promotus arrives too late to save his Emperor and Theodosius dies four years earlier than OTL.

Now Theodosius is somewhat of a controversial figure, blame is often assigned to Theodosius I (despite his military and ecumenical successes) for failing to produce a final solution to the barbarian problem. However, I believe that his far greater fault may lie in his continuing tendency to conduct civil wars within the Empire. Theodosius could not tolerate an independent dynasty in the Western Empire and the issue constantly had to be contested by war. The consequences of this policy were bloodshed and damage to the armies and the frontiers. In this respect, it matters less that there was a shortage of military manpower in the Late Roman Empire during the 5th century but rather that the recurrent conflicts destroyed the quality of the army in that period. The losses of highly trained Roman veterans in the ranks of the elite field armies could only be compensated for by the recruitment of either untried civilians or militarily competent but politically unreliable barbarians from across the frontiers.

If Theodosius had died in 391 then imperial purple of the East would pass to his son, the weak and ineffectual Arcadius (at this moment only 15). The power vacuum left by this accession would spark off fierce competition between ambitious politicians and generals, and facilitate revolts among discontented forces within the Empire (probably far worse the malicious powerplays that follows Theodosius’s OTL death). In order to avenge Theodosius, the war against the Goths would probably be prolonged past the OTL point of 392. Indeed, the political momentum of the time might demand the elimination of the Gothic threat (or at least make a political settlement with the Goths less tenable) which would mean a long and more destructive war with the barbarians. Any thoughts?

The sudden death of Theodosius in 391 would have a drastic effect on the Western Empire. In 389 he had re-installed Valentinian II as ruler of the West after the defeat of the usurper Maximus. But Theodosius left the new Augustus as much a puppet as he had been throughout his previous reign, by installing one of his own generals (a Frank called Arbogast) as commander of the western field armies. In 391 Arbogast holds the real power in the West and when Valentinian committing suicide in 392 (which the PoD has done little to change) the Frank merely replaces him. Now OTL Arbogast choose as his puppet a former teacher and civil servant called Eugenius, but in the ATL another more attractive option is available: the 8 year old Honorius.

As magister militum, Arbogast would be the real power behind the throne in much the same way that Stilicho became after Theodosius’s OTL death. However, Arbogast is a very different man from his counterpart Stilicho and would adopt strategically different policies. Most immediate would be the retention of the Western imperial residence at Vienne (in southern Gaul along the River Sâone) close to Arbogast’s power base. The OTL decision to shift the imperial residence from Milan to Ravenna was an incredibly “foolish” strategy. This move exposed the Rhine frontier, so far removed from the northeastern corner of Italy where the mobile army was now stationed. The abandonment of the Rhine frontier led to a disengagement from events beyond the Alps, and signalled the abandonment of the clear and consistently held view of all of the Empire’s predecessors that the safety of Italy was guaranteed by the security of the northern and western provinces. So, unlike Stilicho, Arbogast conducts his defense of the West from a Gallic base rather than an Italian one. With a stronger Western military, it is quite possible that the barbarian invasion of Gaul (starting on the last day of the year 406) could be contained. A more vigorous defence of the Rhine frontier would mitigate the civil wars of the 407-13 period and perhaps prevent the rebellion of the army in Britannia. Any thoughts?

The downside to all this is that Italia is probably ravaged and maybe even settled by barbarian invaders, maybe by Radagaisus and his followers or others. The Roman Empire just didn't have the resources to defend both the Italian and Gallic frontiers at the same time. In OTL the Roman emperors sacrificed Gaul to try and save Italy, but on this TL it's more likely to be the other way round. This is probably better, as an Italy overrun by barbarians is a menace to East as well as West, in a way that a similar situation in Gaul is not. So Constantinople may assist them in driving out them out and re-establishing Roman control. Any thoughts?

All criticisms and comments welcome.
 
I guess my question would be why defend Gaul over Italy, which was richer and the psychological heart of the Empire?
 
Top