What if? African Rome

Historically, the Roman Empire was split between East and West. Maybe a little too much as both Empires were whittled away over the centuries. Anyway, my question is, what if there were a third? A southern Rome consisting of North Africa,African Horn and Levant. What would be the butterflies of this and would they be better prepared to deal with the Islamist Hordes?
 
Well, you had at times three empires, or rather an empire split in three rather than in two (as they were still considered as part of a same political ensemble).

That said, they weren't randomly split : usually, they formed coherent political-military ensemble, that could be funded thanks to their own fiscal ressources.

And that's where Africa kick in : see, it was one of the most financially safe provinces of Western Romania, the only that remained (up to the 430's) untouched by the raids, piracy, civil wars, etc. that plagued the Late Empire.
Separating Africa from WRE or a "Central"RE would have eventually meant abandoning these ones.

You always have the possibility of an usurper split off, but I doubt it would easy : as said, Africa was too damn important politically and financially to be let wandering about on its own.

And if you add to Africa Egypt and Cyreanica and Syria...Then you not only handicapp WRE but as well ERE : basically the whole northern, politically vital part of the Empire.

this and would they be better prepared to deal with the Islamist Hordes?
Seriously? I mean, for real?
 
Historically, the Roman Empire was split between East and West. Maybe a little too much as both Empires were whittled away over the centuries. Anyway, my question is, what if there were a third? A southern Rome consisting of North Africa,African Horn and Levant. What would be the butterflies of this and would they be better prepared to deal with the Islamist Hordes?

(emphasis mine)

I'm not sure we can predict how they'd face threats such ISIS/Daesh. Frankly, they seem like they'd be butterflied away. As would political Islamism as a movement. And the Muslim religion entirely, and thus any polities espousing the Muslim religion, horde[1] or otherwise.

Splitting Rome along the south would be unlikely because both East and West depended initially on their African and Egyptian provinces for grain. Making a separate Emperor to govern this territory seems unwise, not to mention that geographically it makes little sense. The East-West split is by far the most logical, considering it allows for two Emperors, both near one frontier. A third Emperor on a largely quiet frontier would just be asking for trouble.

[1] Echoing LSCatilina, I mean really?
 
What about a Roman Africa based out of Egypt? Western Roman Empire would still get Carthage, Mauritania, and Libya but perhaps as the Western Roman empire breaks up Roman Egypt would be able to snatch up those provinces. It would be interesting if this Roman Egypt had its own brand of Christianity. Or maybe it is closer to Rome's Catholicism.

Perhaps if Roman Egypt existed and expanded in the red sea including where Muhammad was born, it might have to deal with Islam in it's very early form. Or perhaps Roman Egypt adopts Muhammad in a syncretic way.
 
Imperial splits were often made along borders, as in : each emperor (or caesar) had a border to defend.

Egypt itself was a bit far from the hot points : usally borders were Rhine/Danube/Euphrates. A bit too far, IMO, to be the center of one of these imperial ensembles.
I'd think, futhermore, that it would be too close and too vulnerable to Persians to really be maintained as an imperial center.

EDIT : That said...What about an Exarchate of Egypt?

Let's imagine that for some reason, ERE is unable to keep on Syria, and while able to keep/reconquer parts of Egypt, have to treat it more or less autonomously in face of other matters. Would that work?
 
Last edited:

TinyTartar

Banned
I firmly believe that had the WRE been able to keep Africa, they could have survived for much longer. Militarily, they really were not that weaker than the Germanic enemies they were facing. Even up to the end, I would say that Romans generally won pitched battles. Africa allows the economy to stay afloat and the state to continue functioning.

Now, if Africa had for some reason split off or been administratively split off, this creates a massive problem, as besides Egypt, Africa was the breadbasket of the empire. The ruler in Rome would not allow his two chief grain supplying regions to not be under his command. It would be lunacy.

Now, you can make the argument that Southern Italy and Sicily could have been refashioned for food production more so than in OTL. To do this, however, would mean that the large landholders would likely make less money, and this simply won't fly. You would need a Roman aristocracy that is utterly cowed for this to occur. The old families if anything would be allies; it would be the mercantile wealth that would need to be proscribed.
 
We already had many discussion about a Southern Roman Empire. There is even a nice TL with maps and everything. With the search function the OP should find the threads easily. His question was always answered there in detail.
 

trurle

Banned
The creation of Southern Roman Empire is difficult unless in the latest stages of disintegration of 5th century. The Rome will try to keep a Carthage for all costs, for reasons explained earlier by LSCatilina.

But if Southern Roman Empire be created anyway (the situation in 5th century was too chaotic to exclude this possibility), it will face 3 challenges:
1a) Continued desertification of North Africa (driven mostly by over-grazing, not climate change). The population of Roman North Africa has plunged form 8.7mln. 1 AD to 5mln. by 350 AD.
1b) Overcrowding near sources of income (ports) and water sources (Nile river), resulting in susceptibility to epidemics.
2) Logistical problems (easily blocked on-land and sea routes, plus a lot of vulnerable coastline)

Therefore, even if created, Southern Roman Empire will end up in fashion similar to OTL: some provinces captured outright (IOTL - Berber invasions), some captured after devastating epidemics (IOTL - Muslim conquest of Egypt during Plague of Justinian epoch (541-750 AD) ).
 
I was thinking along the lines of LSCatilina. Let the Basileus keep Syria and Arabia but have an Exarchate of Africa and an Exarchate of Egypt and Cyrene. The Exarch's authority derives from the augustness (sebastocracy) of the Emperor (Basileus) rather than the lordship (Dominate) conferred by a Patriarchal coronation.

The Exarch position is secular, and can't take action to infringe on the religious expression of the exarchate's citizens, but can take judicial measures to protect the citizenry. So for instance he could oppress religious mob violence. The Exarchs must send tax revenue, resources, and soldiery as needed by the Emperor.

So I imagine this religious freedom might help keep the Copts of Egypt happy enough to resist the Islamic invasion and to placate the Donatist/Papist division in Carthage. I think a strongly allied Berber state in Morrocco and western Algeria would help the African Exarch resist Vandalic and Visigothic invasion. This arrangement could conceivably begin in the reign of Marcian, or even between Claudius II and Diocletian. Another thing that might help is if Septimus Severus did not destroy Byzantium, that city might have been able to check Gothic raiders from the Black Sea.

To address the population decline, I think it was less grazing by the AD350s, and more Smallpox.
 
Top