What if Africa is not lost to the Western Roman Empire?

With no Vandals in southern Spain, Boniface would have fewer choices on whom to invite into Africa to aid him in his dispute with the empire. The African barbarians are no option. If he tried to enlist their help his own soldiers would turn against him and the civilian population would probably lynch him. I would assume that Boniface would therefore be forced to submit before Placidia discovered the truth. This would mean she would have no future champion to rival Aetius. The latter’s political and military power and influence would be strengthened significantly.

There are doubts that Boniface invited the Vandals into Africa, there are indications they were raiding Africa before the crossing. Besides it was only after Boniface revolted seemed on the verge of failure, that he "invited" the Vandals in and his rebellion was concerned with seizing power in Ravenna rather than making Africa independent. I think the actions of Aetius in Ravenna and in Gaul (where he had gotten rid of his rival Felix and was fast becoming the ruler of the Western Empire in all but name), would have pushed Boniface into open revolt regardless of whether they were Vandals in southern Spain. My thinking is that Boniface is probably defeated by the Goth Sigisvult in 428 in this ATL (who was on the verge of defeating him OTL but was forced to make peace after the Vandals invaded and the Romans closed ranks to defend Africa), thus sparing the Western Empire a particularly destabilizing civil war in 432.
 
I understand what you are saying regarding Aetius and his great victories and successes but I can't see how he has avoided assassination in this TL. The circumstances are still much the same: the Huns are no longer a threat (or available as potential allies), the Visigoths are in disarray and the Franks are quiet. As far as Valentinian is concerned, there are no evident threats to the Empire and Aetius has out lived his usefulness. We could say that the butterflies of this OTL have allowed Aetius to hear about Valentinian’s assassination plot against him (as Valentinian is probably inevitably going to try at some point to assassinate this great rival). If Aetius is able to mobilize those forces loyal to him, he could seize the imperial throne from Valentinian. Now what would that be like?

When you discuss Aetius’s successes against the barbarians before 450 and the Hunnic War, we must remember that Aetius was only able to accomplish his great victories against the barbarians in Gaul and Germania (pre-450) through the use of Hunnic mercenaries. Throughout the 430s and early 440s, the Western Empire used increasing numbers of Hunnic mercenaries to maintain the northern frontiers, suppressing the Bagaudae and enforcing the loyalty of the ‘federate’ territories. But the Hunnic manpower did not last. With the political unification of the Huns in the mid 440s, the continued supply of Hun mercenaries begins to dry up. The Hunnic War cost the Western Empire greatly, large swathes of Gaul and Italia were devastated and although the Western Empire survived, the cost in money and manpower had been enormous. The sudden disappearance of Hunnic power prompted both the remnants of the Huns and their Germanic vassals to seek greener pastures inside the Empire. But more dangerous, was the effect of the war on the ‘federate’ barbarians within the Empire. Previously Hunnic power had been used to contain the barbarian ‘federates’ and minimize their political influence. Now these kingdoms, not failing to note the weakness of the Empire, began to pursue an expansionist policy that put an end to the fiction of their ‘federate’ status.
Now maybe Aetius could engineer new military alliances during this post-Hun period and we could see the Roman Empire bounce back but it would be a difficult job. He would face stiff resistance from the Visigoths and the Burgundians (who were some of first major barbarian powers to recover from the Hunnic War) and he would have to do it without his old allies the Huns. On other hand, if anyone can pull the Empire back from the brink it is Aetius. But the way I see it he has to find some way to counter his manpower shortage, now that the Huns are no longer a viable source of mercenaries. Any thoughts?

Now in terms of the Empire’s territorial extent, my current thinking is that the Western Empire in the 6th century includes: the provinces of Africa, southern and central Italia, the Mediterranean coast of Gaul (principally the province Gallia Narbonensis and the Auvergne), the Western Mediterranean islands and southern Spain (the province of Baetica and southern Carthaginiensis). Northern Italia, Noricum, Pannonia and Dalmatia are under the control of Gothic ‘federates’ but legally subject to by the Western imperial government. Those parts of Spain not under imperial control would be fragmented into small barbarain kingdoms under the control of Basque, Suevi and Alans. I was thinking that the Western Empire has entered into formal alliances with the independent Germanic nations of southern Gaul (Aquitania and Burgundy and maybe Alamannia) creating a Roman-Germanic league of some kind. This league would attempt to hold the line against the growth of Frankish power in northern Gaul. Now your thinking seems to suggest a larger Empire in Gaul than I had imagined, now how big were you thinking? The original borders of the diocese? Any other thoughts about the territorial extent of this Africa centred Western Roman Empire?
 
Maybe the court could relocate to Sicily from Ravenna?

Now this would be interesting. However, as I understand it, the 4th and 5th century Roman Emperors placed their courts (and the imperial army that accompanies it) close to some troubled frontier. That was the reasoning behind moving the court to Ravenna, the thinking was that it would make it easier to defend the northeast Italy (thinking that was wrong). My thinking was that the imperial court might be placed at Carthage (rather than somewhere else) to make it easier to defend Africa's frontiers but maybe I am wrong. What would an imperial residence placed at Sicily look like? And how would it affect the Western Roman Empire?
 
Remember that the final fall of Western Empire was rather rapid.

In 467, Anthemius was taken seriously throughout Italy, Illyria, much of southern Gaul and eastern Spain. 10 years later, the whole Southern Gaul and Eastern Spain were ruled by Visigoths and Euric, Italy by Odoacer and Illyria by Julius Nepos.

The death knell was the defeat of the large East Roman expedition against Vandals, in 468. After that, it was known that the Roman Empire could no longer mobilize significantly to deal with a danger. And Euric felt free to proceed with grabbing what he could, without fear of reprisal. In less than ten years, the remnant was destroyed piecemeal.

What is significant is that the Visigoths stayed somewhat put in Aquitaine for 50 years, 418 to 468. There were conflicts, but the price areas of Rhone valley and even Clermont-Ferrand were in Roman hands till 470-s. A strong Roman Empire that kept Africa would be safe against this kind of takeover.

Let´s guess Constantius lives a few more months, and the Vandals are thrashed in 422 so far that the remnant flees to Suebi and is far away from Gibraltar, unable to attempt crossing.

What next?

The start of Hunnic attacks, in 441-442 was very clearly a response to Vandal conquest of Africa. The Eastern Empire sent forces to Sicily to recover Africa, but was then attacked by Huns in Balkan.

Butterfly away Vandals in Africa, and Rome is not committed on another front in 441-442. Much of the incentive for Huns to attack goes away.

What DO the Huns do faced with still weakened (Suevi and Vandals confined to northwest Spain, Visigoths to Aquitaine) but nevertheless stronger West, capable of aiding East in Balkan?
 
There are doubts that Boniface invited the Vandals into Africa, there are indications they were raiding Africa before the crossing. Besides it was only after Boniface revolted seemed on the verge of failure, that he "invited" the Vandals in and his rebellion was concerned with seizing power in Ravenna rather than making Africa independent. I think the actions of Aetius in Ravenna and in Gaul (where he had gotten rid of his rival Felix and was fast becoming the ruler of the Western Empire in all but name), would have pushed Boniface into open revolt regardless of whether they were Vandals in southern Spain. My thinking is that Boniface is probably defeated by the Goth Sigisvult in 428 in this ATL (who was on the verge of defeating him OTL but was forced to make peace after the Vandals invaded and the Romans closed ranks to defend Africa), thus sparing the Western Empire a particularly destabilizing civil war in 432.

It seems clear that Boniface was simply following the traditional Roman practice of using available barbarians, in his case Vandals, to help further his political/military ends. There would be no other barbarian options available to him if there were no Vandals to recruit. As a result, there would be no rebellion or it would be supported only by the Roman soldiers in Africa and both Boniface and Ravenna knew this would be insufficent to defend the province against the empire. It may be likely that Boniface's troops would not support his rebellion if faced with probable defeat.
 
I understand what you are saying regarding Aetius and his great victories and successes but I can't see how he has avoided assassination in this TL. The circumstances are still much the same: the Huns are no longer a threat (or available as potential allies), the Visigoths are in disarray and the Franks are quiet. As far as Valentinian is concerned, there are no evident threats to the Empire and Aetius has out lived his usefulness. We could say that the butterflies of this OTL have allowed Aetius to hear about Valentinian’s assassination plot against him (as Valentinian is probably inevitably going to try at some point to assassinate this great rival). If Aetius is able to mobilize those forces loyal to him, he could seize the imperial throne from Valentinian. Now what would that be like?

When you discuss Aetius’s successes against the barbarians before 450 and the Hunnic War, we must remember that Aetius was only able to accomplish his great victories against the barbarians in Gaul and Germania (pre-450) through the use of Hunnic mercenaries. Throughout the 430s and early 440s, the Western Empire used increasing numbers of Hunnic mercenaries to maintain the northern frontiers, suppressing the Bagaudae and enforcing the loyalty of the ‘federate’ territories. But the Hunnic manpower did not last. With the political unification of the Huns in the mid 440s, the continued supply of Hun mercenaries begins to dry up. The Hunnic War cost the Western Empire greatly, large swathes of Gaul and Italia were devastated and although the Western Empire survived, the cost in money and manpower had been enormous. The sudden disappearance of Hunnic power prompted both the remnants of the Huns and their Germanic vassals to seek greener pastures inside the Empire. But more dangerous, was the effect of the war on the ‘federate’ barbarians within the Empire. Previously Hunnic power had been used to contain the barbarian ‘federates’ and minimize their political influence. Now these kingdoms, not failing to note the weakness of the Empire, began to pursue an expansionist policy that put an end to the fiction of their ‘federate’ status.
Now maybe Aetius could engineer new military alliances during this post-Hun period and we could see the Roman Empire bounce back but it would be a difficult job. He would face stiff resistance from the Visigoths and the Burgundians (who were some of first major barbarian powers to recover from the Hunnic War) and he would have to do it without his old allies the Huns. On other hand, if anyone can pull the Empire back from the brink it is Aetius. But the way I see it he has to find some way to counter his manpower shortage, now that the Huns are no longer a viable source of mercenaries. Any thoughts?

Now in terms of the Empire’s territorial extent, my current thinking is that the Western Empire in the 6th century includes: the provinces of Africa, southern and central Italia, the Mediterranean coast of Gaul (principally the province Gallia Narbonensis and the Auvergne), the Western Mediterranean islands and southern Spain (the province of Baetica and southern Carthaginiensis). Northern Italia, Noricum, Pannonia and Dalmatia are under the control of Gothic ‘federates’ but legally subject to by the Western imperial government. Those parts of Spain not under imperial control would be fragmented into small barbarain kingdoms under the control of Basque, Suevi and Alans. I was thinking that the Western Empire has entered into formal alliances with the independent Germanic nations of southern Gaul (Aquitania and Burgundy and maybe Alamannia) creating a Roman-Germanic league of some kind. This league would attempt to hold the line against the growth of Frankish power in northern Gaul. Now your thinking seems to suggest a larger Empire in Gaul than I had imagined, now how big were you thinking? The original borders of the diocese? Any other thoughts about the territorial extent of this Africa centred Western Roman Empire?

Good point about the assassination still occuring. It was probably just wishful thinking on my part that it could be avoided.

If Africa remains an imperial province, its food, ships, soldiers and taxation revenues would still be available to Aetius when he was attempting to reclaim Gaul and stablise the empire. My point is that this maybe enough to tip the balance towards the empire and allow Aetius to bribe and/or buy German help in the form of alliances and soldiers. Using his undoubted political skill he may very well be able to divide and rule using the barbarians against each other. No Huns necessary.

In regard to the extent of the empire in Gaul, it need not be exceedingly large but it does need to be of a sufficent size to act as a 'defence in depth' buffer to protect the empire's core areas including Gallia Narbonensis. A strong alliance with the Goths in Aquitania maybe enough to fulfil this requirement.
 
What is significant is that the Visigoths stayed somewhat put in Aquitaine for 50 years, 418 to 468. There were conflicts, but the price areas of Rhone valley and even Clermont-Ferrand were in Roman hands till 470-s. A strong Roman Empire that kept Africa would be safe against this kind of takeover.

But what about the Burgundians? They were settled in OTL Sapaudia and Sequania (southeast Gaul) and in time became very influential in imperial period and managed to control the lion's share of the Rhone Valley. Could this be avioded in this ATL and if so then would the Burgundians ever get a homeland of their own?
 
It seems clear that Boniface was simply following the traditional Roman practice of using available barbarians, in his case Vandals, to help further his political/military ends. There would be no other barbarian options available to him if there were no Vandals to recruit. As a result, there would be no rebellion or it would be supported only by the Roman soldiers in Africa and both Boniface and Ravenna knew this would be insufficent to defend the province against the empire. It may be likely that Boniface's troops would not support his rebellion if faced with probable defeat.

The cause Boniface’s rebellion is a little obscure. It is found only in the introductory matter with which Procopius brings in the Vandal war. In his narrative Placidia gives Boniface the supreme command in Africa. Aetius is displeased, but hides his displeasure. When Boniface is away in his government, he tells Placidia that the count of Africa is aiming at tyranny, that he seeks to deprive Valentinian of the province; that she may judge of the truth of his charge by this sign. Let her summon Boniface to Rome, and he will not come. At the same time he writes a letter to Boniface, telling him that the emperor's mother is plotting against his life, and that the sign of her plots is this; she will recall him without cause. Boniface receives the letter summoning him to the emperor's presence; he refuses to go, but does not reveal the warning of Aetius. Placidia on this bestows her fullest confidence on Aetius, and debates what course to follow with regard to Boniface. Boniface meanwhile, feeling that he is not strong enough to withstand the emperor and that to go to Rome would be his destruction, turns his thoughts to the Vandals and invites Gaiseric into Africa, an invitation which the Vandal accepts and enters the province.

However, the Vandals had been sporadically raiding Africa in previous years and it had been suggested by some ancient historians that the Vandals merely took advantage of the chaos in Africa at the time of Boniface’s rebellion to invade. Beyond the rather bias and occasionally faulty account of Procopius, there is little to suggest that Boniface “invited” the Vandals. Now if we believe Procopius and Boniface only rebelled because he had barbarian allies close by in southern Spain than in our ATL (where there are no Vandals inBaetica) Boniface may decide to go into exile rather than face his destruction in Ravenna. This may mean that we have avoided the civil war motivated by him (and thus the Roman army is stronger than OTL) and given Aeitus supreme power in the Western Empire. Any thoughts?
 
What DO the Huns do faced with still weakened (Suevi and Vandals confined to northwest Spain, Visigoths to Aquitaine) but nevertheless stronger West, capable of aiding East in Balkan?

Although the Western Empire is stronger, I still think that the Huns would move against the Eastern Empire ravaging the Balkans. Given the problems facing the Western Empire at this stage, I believe that Aeitus would be happy to see the Huns make war against the East rather than the West. We mustn't overestimate the importance of Africa, which was suffering its own set of problems during this period. On other hand, the cost of Africa's loss in revenue and manpower was huge and it maybe by retaining Africa, the West is able to prevent the rise of the Hunnic Empire. Is this possibe? Any thoughts? If no Hunnic Empire, then we could both halves of the Roman Empire richer and more secure. But the Huns did control the movement of many Germanic peoples by forcing them into their service, so maybe more Germanic migrations during the latter half of the 5th century. Any thoughts? In the OTL, action by the West against the Huns was often problematic because the Western Empire depended on the Huns for mercenaries to keep their federate barbarain nations in line. Maybe in the ATL, the West will be more independent of the Huns. What are the consquences of this? Any thoughts?

But now I'm thinking abour the Hunnic War. In our ATL Hunnic War, the barbarain coalition may be able to push (against Romans interests) for the complete destruction of the Huns on the Gallic plains (in OTL Attlia was so worried about defeat that it is said that he prepared a funeral pyre in which he might perish rather than fall into the hands of his enemies). This would spare Italia the OTL 452 campaign and much destruction and hardship. Any thoughts or ideas about this possibility?
But what about a Hunnic victory? Such a victory would mean imperial hostages for the Hunnic court and expansion of Hunnic lands into Gaul. The Huns may even be able to create their own Augustus in Gaul and exercise considerable influence on the fortunes of that area. However, the Huns would be unable to impose their will on Gaul without the intervention of the Eastern Empire who, in OTL, sent an expeditionary force against Attila’s eastern allies in order to divert his attention from the West. Any thoughts or ideas about this possibility?

 
Part V: An Empire United

This post follows on with the thread “no Vandal invasion of Africa scenario”. In this ATL, although significantly weakened and reduced by a century of war, the Western Roman Empire has survived. But as both halves of the Roman Empire undergoes a period of economic revival in the early 6th century, the traditional and evolving systems of Empire come under increasing strain. Soon the old balance of power will collapse and a new order will rise from the ashes...

The Western Roman Empire has all the familiar elements of the 6th century –clashing religious controversies, decaying political traditions, the rise of new social and economic forces, the intertwining of domestic and foreign affairs in the conduct of the Empire. But all this is pervaded by the indefinable force of human personality. The key to understanding the Western Empire in the 6th century lays in the character and personality of the Western Emperor Messianus. In 524 Messianus was a popular choice for the purple, a member of the Italian émigré, he had gained recent fame in campaigns to pacify and subjugate the Moors of Numidia and Mauretania. . He was also a keen reformer, promising to end the corruption and mismanagement that had festered under his gluttonous predecessor Paeonius. But behind the elegant panegyric of his coronation, lay a much deeper disorder, a disintegrating political system.

As the Western Roman Empire entered the latter half of the 6th century, it became clear that the old system was breaking down. The weakening of the military and administrative systems (after the barbarian invasions of the 5th century) had allowed local elites to considerable exert pressure on imperial authority. In order to maintain the loyalty of the provinces in the face of territorial and military decline, the central government created (or revived) provincial assemblies, and appointments to the provincial bureaucracy had been limited to members of the local senatorial elites. Barbarian 'federates' had been allowed unprecedented powers, and were virtual rulers of much of Italia and Illyricum. By the end of the 5th century, the centralised bureaucracy had largely collapsed and the Western government had increasingly come to rely on local elites (and the church hierarchy) to administer the provinces. These powerful local elites often avoided paying taxes, consolidating their local authority and using their influence to the detriment of the state, of smaller landowners, and of the general peasantry.

Messianus hope to end their flagrant corruption of the age and restrain the unprecedented autonomy of local elites by returning his government and the Empire to strong centralism and the ‘divine’ imperial authority of the 4th century. In the name of restoring tradition he embarked, with pedantry and stubbornness, on a campaign to pass laws curtailing the privileges of the aristocracies, the bishops and the ‘federates’. He campaigned vigorously against corruption, reforming the taxation system and freeing the tenant farmers from their rigid obligations. But for all his administrative skill and his moral piety, Messianus was too rash. He was utterly convinced of the correctness of his policies and in his quest to pursue them he alienated his allies among the landowning aristocracy. This left him vulnerable and isolated, rebellion and sedition became inevitable.

When the crisis broke, unsurprisingly, it was over a matter of religion. In Messianus’s mind, the imperial title meant a monarch without limits or challenges to his authority, not even from the Pope in Rome. In 529, he excommunicated and later arrested Pope Seronatus for refusing to support his affirmation on the teachings of the ascetic Maximus ‘the Confessor’. In response, a number of local synods were convened in Milan, in which Messianus was condemned. Encouraged by the backing of the now exiled Pope and the Italian bishops, the Gothic comes foederatorum Theodoric and his Gothic ‘federates’ revolted against imperial authority.
This affront to imperial authority forced Messianus to move quickly, and he raised a large force to quell the rebellion. But the war opened badly, Theodoric defeated an imperial army sent against him and won many of the Italian senatorial elite to his banner. Soon all of Italia was in open revolt. Meanwhile, the Eastern Roman Emperor realised that the time had come for him to profit from the tensions and disorder within the West. His own imperial dream was no less idealistic than Messianus’s: the re-unification of the Empire under his own rule. But, unlike Messianus, he had the resources and talent to realise his vision. In Italia he gained Theodoric’s allegiance and submission by recognising him as rex Gothorum and granting him the "right" to govern all Italy north of the Po as a 'federate' kingdom under Eastern suzerainty (effectively granting him recognising him as the king of northern Italy). In 531, Eastern forces (accompanied by Gothic allies) crushed the Western imperial army near Naples and secured Italia for the Eastern Empire.

While Messianus’s battered army prepared to evacuate Sicily, Fasir (a Moorish camel-borne prince of Ouarsenis and former ally of Messianus) swept down from his mountain stronghold and raised the African aristocracy in revolt. Faced with rebellion at home and defeat in Italia, Messianus attempted to join his army in Sicily but was murdered by own generals in exchange for amnesty. Soon afterwards the Eastern Emperor Belisarius was joyously welcomed into Carthage, where he rewarded Fasir with the title magister militum per Africae and restored the privileges of the African aristocracy. In 533, Belisarius is supreme ruler of a Roman Empire stretching from the sands of Syria to the Pillars of Hercules. The civil war that led to the re-unification of the Empire was not a replay of the destructive Justinian wars of the OTL which ruined Italian infrastructure and left the country depopulated. Despite a few bloody battles in Campania, the ATL reconquista of the West is a relatively short, profitable (for the East) and popular.

Any thoughts?
 
If Africa remains an imperial province, its food, ships, soldiers and taxation revenues would still be available to Aetius when he was attempting to reclaim Gaul and stablise the empire. My point is that this maybe enough to tip the balance towards the empire and allow Aetius to bribe and/or buy German help in the form of alliances and soldiers. Using his undoubted political skill he may very well be able to divide and rule using the barbarians against each other. No Huns necessary.

In regard to the extent of the empire in Gaul, it need not be exceedingly large but it does need to be of a sufficent size to act as a 'defence in depth' buffer to protect the empire's core areas including Gallia Narbonensis. A strong alliance with the Goths in Aquitania maybe enough to fulfil this requirement.
The Vandal invasion of Africa did have some relevance in 430-s - but it was only their conquest of Africa Proper in 439 that really hurt the empire. In 429...435, the Vandals were dealing with the remoter and less prosperous parts of Africa.

Have a look at what Aetius and the Huns were doing in 420s before Vandal invasions and in 430s that the Vandal invasion did not yet hit home. Aetius got the Hun allies to try and uphold usurper Johannes in 425, then fight for a position for himself, in 430-s he used Huns to suppress the Burgundians, he was fighting to keep Visigoths in their place in Aquitaine, he fought Franks, Armoricans... He was defending Gaul, including northern Gaul (which went its own way only in 461, when Aetius´ supporter Aegidius decided that the current regime in Rome was not to his taste).

If no Vandal attack in Africa, 430-s should unfold much as per OTL. The butterflies start to work around 440, when Attila and Bleda consider whether to continue the status quo of fighting to keep the Germans in lne for Attila or whether the OTL switch to fighting against Rome would be sufficiently safe to chase the possible rewards.

Attila was OTL defeated by Aetius twice in a row, in 451 (pitched battle of Catalaunian Fields) and in 452 (with Aetius running a successful harrying campaign, the Huns were reduced to taking a few towns through prolonged sieges, hunger and illness for besiegers, and little loot). In just two years, the Huns would lose the battle of Nedao.

What would have happened to the Huns if they had suffered this kind of inconclusive defeats in 440-s?
 
IIRC One of the language majors on this board pointed out that likableness of a Fifth Romance language arising in North Africa if Rome holds for another couple hundred years.
Fifth? Let's see Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Romanian, Catalan, Romansch, just for officially recognized national languages.
 
If no Vandal attack in Africa, 430-s should unfold much as per OTL. The butterflies start to work around 440, when Attila and Bleda consider whether to continue the status quo of fighting to keep the Germans in lne for Attila or whether the OTL switch to fighting against Rome would be sufficiently safe to chase the possible rewards.

What would have happened to the Huns if they had suffered this kind of inconclusive defeats in 440-s?

An interesting question, perhaps the short-lived Hunnic Empire is strangled in its cradle and the Roman Empire is spared the war and violence of the chaotic years of Hun dominance. However, this may not mean that all is quiet along the Empire's northern borders: the Huns brought a measure of peace and stability to the Germanic tribes under their rule. With no Hunnic Empire we could see further Germanic migrations into the Empire during the late 440s.

On the other hand, there is another parallel that we could follow: the Avars. In exchange for gold, these nomadic horsemen agreed to subjegate the "unruly gentes" on behalf of the Byzantines in the 6th century. They defeated and incorporated the various nomadic tribes- Kutrigurs, Sabirs, Antes and Onogurs, and by 562 controlled the vast steppes of Ukraine and the lower Danube basin. They then turned their attention to the Carpathian plain, and the natural defenses it afforded. By 600 AD, the Avars had established a nomadic empire stretching from Austria in the west to the Pontic steppes in the east, ruling over a multitude of peoples.
Scholars propose that a highly structured and hierarchical Avar society existed, having complex interactions with other 'barbarian' groups. The khagan was the paramount figure, surrounded by a minority of nomadic aristocracy. A few exceptionally rich burials have been uncovered, confirming that power was limited to the khagan and a close-knit class of 'elite warriors'. There also appeared to have existed semi-independent 'client', predominantly Slavic, tribes which served strategic roles such as guarding the Avars western borders. The Avar Empire lasted until their destruction at the hands of the Charlemagne in 790.


If the Huns are blocked from their rapid expansion in 440s by some early defeats, they may expand more slowly and under treaty imperial obligations. This slower growth may give them the breathing room to evolve the structures needed to support a large and complex Empire. We could see an Avar-style Empire on the Carpathian plain a century or two before OTL. Any thoughts?
 
If Rome is still holding Spain and the South Coast of Gaul. in 500 AD. ?Do whe still get Regmyn Francorvm? along the Chanel coast. And ?What does this do to the Saxons?
The Roma/Celtics were still trading with Rome and Constantinople in the early 6th Century.
http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_0500.html

You mean Francia or the Frankish Empire (Latin: imperium Francorum)? My current thinking is that in about 500 AD we have a much more divided Gaul. I believe that the Franks will still be able to grab a substantial amount of territory (although not nearly as much as OTL). Remember that the Roman Empire effectively lost control of northern Gaul sometime to usurpers in the mid 460s and was never really able to influence events there afterwards. I believe that the Franks would capitalize on these imperial divisions to conquer and settle the lion's share of northern Gaul (perhaps in the name of the ‘official’ Roman government or perhaps not). I definitely think we will still see Frankish kingdoms in Austrasia and Neustria. However, like I mentioned in an earlier post the last thing a Western Roman Empire centred at Carthage wants to see in Europe would be strong unified anti-Roman states. Something like Francia or Visigothic Spain would terrify Carthaginian officials in much the same way that the idea of a united Balkans scared the court of 6th century Constantinople. Therefore we could see the Romans attempt to keep the Gaul divided and work towards preventing Frankish expansion. In this scenario the Visigoths retain their hold on Aquitaine and the Burgundians in eastern Gaul around Genéve. The Romans will probably be able to hang on to the Mediterranean coast and Rhône River Valley with Lyon a buffer city between the semi-barbarian kingdoms and the imperial Gallic provinces. We may see an independent Alamannia around Strasburg but maybe not as it’s a bit far from the Roman sphere of influence. I am thinking that the Visigoths and Burgundians (and maybe the Alamanni) would join the Romans in an anti-Frankish alliance in order to maintain the status quo in Gaul. This could see a more harmonious relationships develop between these powers and Rome.

Now a smaller Francia has some interesting effects: we could see earlier Frankish consolidation, perhaps more eastward Frankish expansion and certainly more Romanization. If the Franks are to successfully defend and wage war against their rich southern neighbors they will need to build a more advance administrative and military structures than OTL. What effects will a more centralized and capable Frankish state have on the development of Europe? Any thoughts?
 
The idea is absolutely fantastic. But: I need maps. Me is a man of vision.

I adore maps! Did I say that already? :D

Thanks for the encouragement, I must say that you a man of taste and disinction. I also I am keen fan of the map but so far my map-making efforts have been plagued with failure. If you would like to give me a hand with the map business that would be great.
 
Top