What Province's Can Realistically Allow A Western Revival?

While common and almost predictable, there is no denying that surviving Western Empire is a favorite topic of this site. There have been many timelines. However some of the timelines are very ASB or have everything go right despite the odds.

So my question is: realistically, what are the provinces that the last bit of the empire could be pushed to that, given the circumstances, that a truly Roman authority return to the west and why?

Note: if this not clear, I'll try to explain it further.
 
While common and almost predictable, there is no denying that surviving Western Empire is a favorite topic of this site. There have been many timelines. However some of the timelines are very ASB or have everything go right despite the odds.

So my question is: realistically, what are the provinces that the last bit of the empire could be pushed to that, given the circumstances, that a truly Roman authority return to the west and why?

Note: if this not clear, I'll try to explain it further.

Gaul(s) maybe, it was a nice fertile province(s set) for the Empire, BUT it was in path for germanic invasions. Still, technically, the Soisson domain and cie was in a way a last remnant it is argued at times... The now 'occitan south' may have been a good spot. Maybe.
 

Redhand

Banned
It's been said that if Rome kept Africa, they could've lasted a lot longer. It was the breadbasket and the only truly profitable province of the very late empire.

An interesting idea is if Britain keeps Roman traditions alive and does not have British influence but rather stays Roman due to trade connections with Byzantine merchants. They could have a titular emperor who would of course be subservient to Constantinople in order to get troops and money. They might be able to withstand the Germanic invasions with support and become the successor form of the Western Empire.
 
As others have mentioned, Africa was the key to Roman survival. It was not only the breadbasket of the empire, but also the wealthiest western province. Especially after losing their tax bases in Gaul and Spain, North Africa was vital. As long as the western empire maintains north africa, they can survive indefinitely.
 
I don't think Britain was likely to continue as "Roman" in any meaningful sense after 410. It was, after all, probably the least Romanised of all the Western provinces, and whilst trade would have continued with Byzantine merchants (assuming that in this TL there's no Saxon conquest), this wouldn't have been nearly enough to keep any real <I>Romanitas</I> going.

Regarding the OP, it depends on how far you want this "truly Roman authority" to stretch. I agree that controlling Africa would have been a necessary prerequisite to any large-scale reconquest effort, but IMHO a Western Roman Empire controlling only Italy would have been quite viable. IOTL the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy seemed to be doing alright until Justinian's invasion, and even then it put up a stout fight against the invaders. Provided that the Western Emperors made sure to keep the East on-side, then, there's no reason why they couldn't keep their rump empire going.
 
However some of the timelines are very ASB or have everything go right despite the odds.

It's worth bearing in mind that in OTL, everything for the WRE went wrong despite the overwhelming odds in its favour at the beginning of the fifth century. You don't need to change much to have the Western state survive much later.

IOTL the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy seemed to be doing alright until Justinian's invasion, and even then it put up a stout fight against the invaders. Provided that the Western Emperors made sure to keep the East on-side, then, there's no reason why they couldn't keep their rump empire going.

Agreed on this: although it's arguable that the Goths were able to keep going so long because Justinian wasn't really trying. After all, when the East Romans put serious resources and focus into Italy in the early 550s the war was wrapped up very rapidly. Although that's after the Goths had been dealing with war for fifteen years, so, yeah, debatable really.

Anyway, more broadly I agree that keeping Africa is pretty much a prerequisite for a seriously powerful WRE but you can perhaps have a sort of WRE without it: the ERE survived without Egypt, after all.
 
Regarding the OP, it depends on how far you want this "truly Roman authority" to stretch. I agree that controlling Africa would have been a necessary prerequisite to any large-scale reconquest effort, but IMHO a Western Roman Empire controlling only Italy would have been quite viable. IOTL the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy seemed to be doing alright until Justinian's invasion, and even then it put up a stout fight against the invaders. Provided that the Western Emperors made sure to keep the East on-side, then, there's no reason why they couldn't keep their rump empire going.

I agree with this. The problem with the empire's survival in Italy was the fact that there was no strong adult emperor-Italy could be ruled by a strongman acting like emperor as Odovacer proved.
 
To clarify what I mean as Roman Authority, I mean that the real power of the empire is both Roman in ethnically and can be showed to have a direct connection of Roman state.

Basically like the Eastern Empire, where the Emperor potion had a direct connection to original roman empire/republic, rather than someone using the title as simple window dressing that started to happen in the late western empire.
 
Top