If Flavius Aetius survives and becomes Emperor, could his successors save Rome to last longer? Any thoughts?

I think that, by the time Aetius came along, the Western Empire was pretty much moribund in Gaul and Spain, although with more competent leadership and a bit of luck you might see a rump Empire surviving in Italy.
 
Majorian almost saved the Roman Empire, so maybe. It depends on if the Vandal Kingdom is taken care of.

Yeah. The whole motive of Vandals sacking Rome is because Valentinian III was murdered by Petronius Maximus, which the Vandal King saw as a violation to his treaty. Now it seems that Flavius Aetius and Valentinian made an arrangement to make Aetius son, Gaudentius emperor by marrying him to the daughter of Valentinian. So if Aetius is failed to be assassinated by Maximus, we could see Valentinian murder Maximus, and appoint Gaudentius as co-emperor. Though of course, Aetius would have real power. So the Vandals would not have a motive to attack Rome if there is a smooth, imperial, succession.
 
Majorian almost saved the Roman Empire, so maybe. It depends on if the Vandal Kingdom is taken care of.
I disagree, Majorian did the best he could with what he had, but at this point, Barbarians were a major (rather the major) factor in Roman politics and already began to carve their own.
He did managed to play Barbarians against other Barbarians but it was an expedient : not only Ricimer already had a critical control on the imperium, and wouldn't accept a too powerful emperor; but Majorian couldn't get rid of indepentent foedi as he based his recruitement and political support strategy on them.

Even if he took back part of Africa, I'd tend to think it would be short-lived, as he wouldn't get rid of Vandals (possibly pushing them back into their old foedi as he did for Goths, for a while tough, and that it would have overstretched its political and resources possibilities at this point.

But I digress.

For what matter Aetius : he more or less did the same than Majorian after him, playing Barbarians against other Barbarians but up to eleven (as hinted by his decisions against Huns) given a more helpless situation than Majorian in western provinces.

He litterally had no significant military support other than foedi, as the imperial armies were focused on Illyricum (which was, for various reasons, the Fulda Gap equivalent of Late Roman Empire).
His reputation as last defender of True Romanity (tm) is largely unfounded : not that he wasn't skilled or irrelevant historically, but his views were on par with the contemporary situation, and I don't see what he could have done significantly better with the structural issues of WRE at this point.

Arguably, it could have changed enough things for WRE being absorbated by ERE eventually rather than being barbarized.
 
Last edited:
I think the Sack of 410 is the point of no-plausible-return-even-with-a-genius and even then it might have been earlier than that. By your POD, we're not talking about saving the Roman Empire so much as a "how do we join the new elite" kind of thing. In Italia, they didn't do too bad under the Lombards (decades later), but in Brittania... well the who Anglo-Saxon invasion thing. The only thing left of the Brittanic-Romans fled to Brittainy or squeezed themselves into Cornwall. At that point, their language was closer to the language of the people living in Ireland than Latin language anyways.
 
I think the Sack of 410 is the point of no-plausible-return-even-with-a-genius and even then it might have been earlier than that.
It was on several aspects a non-event (macro-historically wise), having few to almost no consequencies on the fall of WRE. (The Vandalic raid on Rome had eventually more importance)

Not that the western Roman state wasn't in crisis then, but by the early Vth, it wasn't doomed to fail : you may arguably need more than one PoD (we're talking of a perfect storm there, after all), but it's not insanely hard.

First, having the Theodosian dynasty survive would be not only a good, but probably a basic asset, would it be only because it would avoid the huge political instability of the mid Vth, and could allow the dynastic principle to reinforce imperial institutions (as they almost always did, historically). Honorius, which gets a partially underserved bad rap (he wasn't a particularily good emperor), understood that the problem was less, at this point, about territorial losses than political, hegemonic losses : as long as foederati manage to crush rebellious Barbarian and to not threaten too much Roman hegemony, Rome could survive the crisis in more or less good shape.
Better being raided (and not exactly plundered), than loose political legitimacy and coherence. Of course, better not being raided in first place, but by the early Vth, it's going to happen sooner or later.

EDIT : See the following post as I did forgot some stuff (as Valentinian III being a thing, among others)

Arguably, you might deal a better situation without a Theodosian dynasty, but it would require an early Vth PoD as well IMO : namely a victory of Constantine III's troops in Valentia, could turns the tables a bit, with a competent emperor in place.

But a strict Theodosian survival strikes me as a better outcome in short term : granted you'd be bound to see foederati gaining a significanty independence and authority in Romania, but that may be an acceptable loss instead of the political instability that would allow Barbarians to crave principalties on their own as IOTL) anyway.

Roman civil rule would probably be impopular with such changes so I'd understand why someone would prefer toppling Honorius as a PoD : but it wouldn't be unconsequential especially if it involves an anti-Barbarian faction being too powerful in Rome.
It worked, while not immensely, later in Constantinople because they had the ressources to : but in the west it would rather be a sign that Romano-Barbariand loyal (more or less) generals wouldn't be really acknowledged or prized for their service, when they were more and more important in the military part and military administration.
.
Then preventing Huns to form a too important hegemony could be useful : not because they were an existential threat, but because it forced the aformentioned balance policy that Aetius and Majorian had to resort to.
Now Romans would need Huns would it be only because they were useful federates or mercenaries to deal against other threats (I don't expect an absence of pendulum policy, just not something as forced it was IOTL). But at least it wouldn't force Roman to give foederati a too great autonomy at once.

but in Brittania... well the who Anglo-Saxon invasion thing.
It's essentially due to the significantly weaker late imperial structures in Britain, more than anything else, real of fantasmed.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the central government had any legitimacy left after 410.

But I did say the turning point might have been earlier than that. Theodosian survival you gave was plausible.
 
Yeah so lets say the Vandals are fought defeated in Sicily (OTL the Romans prepared for a battle here but for some stupid reason left) and the Vandals retreat. The Romans could keep going for a while longer I guess?
 
First, I don't know why, but I always forget about Valentinian III : he's still a Theodosian emperor with only a relatively shaky enthronement (almost a regular succession for what matter Theodosians), and still his reign saw the degradation of imperial power. I should have said, a direct continuity of Theodosian dynasty in the West, with Honorius siring a successor, without short-lived usurpation or regency more or less propelled by Constantinople.

I do agree that an equivalent to Stilicho or Aetius would be welcomed at this point, possibly a Constantius that would not search the imperium but relatively content with magister militii charge (maybe Galia Placidia dies before 416, leaving Constantius with no way to tie himself to Theodosians?). Maybe a good PoD would be to have Honorius having a son, timely dying, and have Constantius working as a regent for the Theodosian emperor. Fragile, but doable.

I don't think that, even if I tought of this, Constantius surviving Honorius and being made emperor would have been acknowledged by Constantinople, even if it would have been the best choice on a geopolitical/geostrategical level.

(The whole point about Huns still mostly stands, tough)

I don't think the central government had any legitimacy left after 410.
It did at least partially, mostly because of the still relatively important (I do not say intact, far from it) prestige of Theodosian dynasty. Not that Honorius or Valentinian's rule wasn't disputed, but it wasn't especially different from the situation before the sack of Rome. Now Honorius did lowered the imperial authority over provincial civil militia, as in Seven Provinces or Africa,
 
Last edited:
Yeah so lets say the Vandals are fought defeated in Sicily (OTL the Romans prepared for a battle here but for some stupid reason left) and the Vandals retreat. The Romans could keep going for a while longer I guess?
The problem of the Roman counter-expedition of 441 may have been the general issue of Eastern Roman expeditions in the West, namely that they weren't that bound on western interests : the immediate goal was to prevent Genseric to take Palermo and at least part of Sicily, and Huns were raiding Thrace in the same time. The agreement passed with Vandals (which more or less shared Africa between Genseric and Valentinian III; while sanctuarizing Mediterranean islands up to 455) was relatively correct, Hunnic threat being accounted in the context.
 
The problem of the Roman counter-expedition of 441 may have been the general issue of Eastern Roman expeditions in the West, namely that they weren't that bound on western interests : the immediate goal was to prevent Genseric to take Palermo and at least part of Sicily, and Huns were raiding Thrace in the same time. The agreement passed with Vandals (which more or less shared Africa between Genseric and Valentinian III; while sanctuarizing Mediterranean islands up to 455) was relatively correct, Hunnic threat being accounted in the context.

Yeah, so basically his motive to attack Rome was a violation of the treaty. So if the Vandals recognize Valentinian III's successor, he would not sack Rome. That would probably make Rome survive longer.
 
Yeah, so basically his motive to attack Rome was a violation of the treaty.
Less litterally so as he would have invaded the Meditteranean islands first if it was the case IMO (altough the raid on Rome really helped to make his point very very clear), than the end of Genseric's hopes to control the imperial court by proxy, and then deciding to get as much as he could out of it (not just ransomning the city, but taking slaves, specialized workers, part of buildings, etc.)
In a way, it was particularily similar to the sack of Constantinople in 1204 : planified plunder that was not particularily bloody, but really torough.

So if the Vandals recognize Valentinian III's successor, he would not sack Rome. That would probably make Rome survive longer.
Even if Valentinian's successor was acknowledged (it would probably require him to be Valentinian's son or nepos at latest), Genseric would probably consider the treaty passed in 442 as a personal treaty as it was customary : maybe Rome wouldn't be sacked, but Genseric would probably go for the islands and at least a tribute from the empire, considering further that it would require the maintain of betrothing between Huneric and Eudocia (which was broke by Petronus).

ITTL, the latter will implies some large influence of Genseric onto the western Roman state (something he more or less gave up after 455, and that Huneric definitely did).

The western Roman state wouldn't be exactly reinforced from this, only exchanging Ricimer for a Genseric.
 
Less litterally so as he would have invaded the Meditteranean islands first if it was the case IMO (altough the raid on Rome really helped to make his point very very clear), than the end of Genseric's hopes to control the imperial court by proxy, and then deciding to get as much as he could out of it (not just ransomning the city, but taking slaves, specialized workers, part of buildings, etc.)
In a way, it was particularily similar to the sack of Constantinople in 1204 : planified plunder that was not particularily bloody, but really torough.


Even if Valentinian's successor was acknowledged (it would probably require him to be Valentinian's son or nepos at latest), Genseric would probably consider the treaty passed in 442 as a personal treaty as it was customary : maybe Rome wouldn't be sacked, but Genseric would probably go for the islands and at least a tribute from the empire, considering further that it would require the maintain of betrothing between Huneric and Eudocia (which was broke by Petronus).

ITTL, the latter will implies some large influence of Genseric onto the western Roman state (something he more or less gave up after 455, and that Huneric definitely did).

The western Roman state wouldn't be exactly reinforced from this, only exchanging Ricimer for a Genseric.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Maybe we can see Genseric as a de-facto ruler with puppets. If we see him trying to appoint Huneric as Emperor, he could be secretly assassinated by a master militum at the time. Majoran at the least, I believe, will thrive under a government run by his patron. So in the ATL, the master militum(a.k.a Majoran) is chosen by the Senate as emperor at Gaudentius dying.
 
Maybe we can see Genseric as a de-facto ruler with puppets.
It could work, for a time. But while Ricimer-appointed emperors were generally recieved with an hostile indifference from Constantinople (at the exception of the semi-acknowledgement of Majorian), they didn't tried to actively topple the magister militium.
ITTL, allowing a Vandalic king to simply get its way in western Mediterranean wouldn't have been acceptable for Constantinople, as even Ricimer was forced to eventually acknowledge Eastern Romania's supremacy in Central Mediteranean regions. An expedition similar to the one that happened in 468 would probably happen earlier, this time without a Ricimer to actively sabotage it.

(To not mention that Rome would have even less credibility than IOTL for what matter Goths)

If we see him trying to appoint Huneric as Emperor
He may try, but you'd have a general opposition to this (including the Eastern Roman Empire) partially due to that a Barbarian emperor would be definitely illegitimate. One could argue that he would not care, but any ambitious magister militum-wannabee would find there a fertile ground for advancing his own pawns (figuratively and litterally).

I think that, overall, it's less Genseric dominance that would be weakening Rome, but its political consequences. Of course, we might see some interesting butterflies there.
 
Last edited:
Top