If Flavius Aetius survives and becomes Emperor, could his successors save Rome to last longer? Any thoughts?
If Flavius Aetius survives and becomes Emperor, could his successors save Rome to last longer? Any thoughts?
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.Majorian almost saved the Roman Empire, so maybe. It depends on if the Vandal Kingdom is taken care of.
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)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's essentially due to the significantly weaker late imperial structures in Britain, more than anything else, real of fantasmed.but in Brittania... well the who Anglo-Saxon invasion thing.
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,I don't think the central government had any legitimacy left after 410.
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 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.
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.)Yeah, so basically his motive to attack Rome was a violation of the treaty.
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).So if the Vandals recognize Valentinian III's successor, he would not sack Rome. That would probably make Rome survive longer.
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.
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.Maybe we can see Genseric as a de-facto ruler with puppets.
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).If we see him trying to appoint Huneric as Emperor