WI both eastern and western Roman Empires survive?

Well you've got to understand that Rome during and after the Crisis of the 3rd Century rapidly decentralized; it was becoming more and more feudal and manorial, and serfdom was basically poking its slimy head out of the ground.

By the early 5th century, the Empire was shabbily glued together through systems of honor and--basically--vassalage. The reason this all didn't fall apart so quickly is the greater degree of decentralization, meaning less taxes and more local decision-making, which leads to a happier populace. Still, while this decentralization meant that civil wars were smaller and harder to embark upon (mostly ending in one decisive battle, whereas Caesar's Civil War and the Final Civil War + Era of Violence and Unrest lasted in the first case 5 years, and in the latter 14), it also resulted in great ineffectiveness when it came to maintaining native troops and protecting the borders.

Christianity and the Crisis of the 3rd Century's decentralization led directly to the army basically becoming a 100% mercenary and barbarian force (it's a lot easier to "hire" [read: buy off] a large group of armed men who have nowhere to go and are quite happy to make violence in your city than it is to send hundreds of recruiters hundreds of miles on crumbling roads and through bandit-strewn hills--and in the end, to an ambivalent populace). This force, while professional, had no problem with accepting a wealthy governor's gold and turning on their erstwhile Emperors.

So when the Germans attacked and the gold dried up, the myriad of feuding (and almost feudal--excuse the homophonic pun) leaders for these mercenary contingents, plus disloyalty in some of the more newly settle foederati, made this army a hilariously ineffective fighting force. Cue Benny Hill music.

So then you have a Western Emperor with his palace falling around his ears, and an Eastern Emperor whose taxes don't come from there, and therefore who cares quite little. What he's hoping for is that the West will get weak enough that he can grab rich Italy and North Africa (the rest of Western Rome was quite poor) for himself.

Aaaand that's sort of about it. Unless I missed something.

Which I probably did, this shit can get complicated.

So, what you're saying, is that the Western Empire was well along the path to what we could call the Middle Ages; with serfdom, vassalage, manorialism and so forth. (This is actually the assumption I made while crafting my Amalaingian TL, actually)

Would, perhaps the best way for a Western Empire to survive, be for it to 'fall' and be reconstituted in a new form; based on the old, but more adapted to current realities?

Other than that, I have ot say, I really am somewhat taken by the notion of, say, Romulus Augustus surviving to maturity, and being able to hold together a 'Western Empire" that really only constitutes Italy, and for this Empire of Italy surviving as a direct descendent of Rome, but never really able to expand its power outside of the peninsula.

But, maybe that's just me. I'm a bit suspicious of the notion that the problems of Roman Italy were easily fixed and that the Empire could rebound during this period if only a few things had gone 'right'.
 
Other than that, I have ot say, I really am somewhat taken by the notion of, say, Romulus Augustus surviving to maturity, and being able to hold together a 'Western Empire" that really only constitutes Italy, and for this Empire of Italy surviving as a direct descendent of Rome, but never really able to expand its power outside of the peninsula.

But, maybe that's just me. I'm a bit suspicious of the notion that the problems of Roman Italy were easily fixed and that the Empire could rebound during this period if only a few things had gone 'right'.

There are myriad factors aside from internal stability that are working to the WRE's advantage in my ATL, most of which existed in the OTL. Clovis' conversion to Catholicism; the Arians' persecution of Chalcedonians in Visigothic Spain and Vandal Africa; the Franks' close affiliation with the Roman Church; or Vitalian's revolt in the ERE. As for Italy itself, it was actually doing fine - give and take - under the combination of Ostrogothic kingship and Roman civil government until the Byzantine invasion. Speaking of Ostrogoths, their failure to conquer Italy in my ATL consequently resulted in a more successful Frankish conquest of Gaul, given that Theodoric the Great wasn't around to aid the Visigoths against Clovis. Also, the Roman rebellion in Hispania - and there was evidence of discontent amongst the Hispano-Roman population - further undermined the Visigothic remnant state. But that's not to say the WRE's problems would be solved, not even close. It's not unusual for the Empire to prosper under a successful Emperor (OTL examples: Caesar Augustus, Trajan, etc) or to enjoy some degree of renewed stability (ex: Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine the Great, etc) as it's doing under Romulus Augustus. However, there are still problems with economic stagnation, a fractured population divided mostly between Roman Chalcedonians and Germanic Arians, a diminished professional military that still somewhat relies on foreign recruits, etc. My ATL's Romulus Augustus has indeed been more successful than his immediate predecessors, but it is due to factors that existed in the OTL, as well as new factors that have been created as a result of the changes in my TL. There are plenty of things that can still go wrong or will remain unsolved throughout the remainder of his reign (ex: economic instability, ongoing disputes between Church orthodoxy and various heresies, the constant danger of military insurrection, political schemes and self-serving opportunists in the Imperial Court, the question of succession, etc). The chances that his successors will do better (at least in the short run) are not good either, especially if the WRE revolves around an Emperor such as Romulus Augustus in a 'cult of personality' sort of way. I admit that some parts of my TL are optimistic. But in lasting as long as he has, Romulus Augustus has essentially given the WRE a new lease on life, which I believe is perfectly plausible if we consider the history of Caesar Augustus and his reformation of the Roman Republic, Aurelian's reign during the Crisis of the 3rd Century AD, Constantine the Great, Theodosius I, Heraclius, etc; or even individuals who weren't Emperor, such as Stilicho and Flavius Aetius.
 
Last edited:
Well you've got to understand that Rome during and after the Crisis of the 3rd Century rapidly decentralized; it was becoming more and more feudal and manorial, and serfdom was basically poking its slimy head out of the ground.

By the early 5th century, the Empire was shabbily glued together through systems of honor and--basically--vassalage. The reason this all didn't fall apart so quickly is the greater degree of decentralization, meaning less taxes and more local decision-making, which leads to a happier populace. Still, while this decentralization meant that civil wars were smaller and harder to embark upon (mostly ending in one decisive battle, whereas Caesar's Civil War and the Final Civil War + Era of Violence and Unrest lasted in the first case 5 years, and in the latter 14), it also resulted in great ineffectiveness when it came to maintaining native troops and protecting the borders.

Christianity and the Crisis of the 3rd Century's decentralization led directly to the army basically becoming a 100% mercenary and barbarian force (it's a lot easier to "hire" [read: buy off] a large group of armed men who have nowhere to go and are quite happy to make violence in your city than it is to send hundreds of recruiters hundreds of miles on crumbling roads and through bandit-strewn hills--and in the end, to an ambivalent populace). This force, while professional, had no problem with accepting a wealthy governor's gold and turning on their erstwhile Emperors.

So when the Germans attacked and the gold dried up, the myriad of feuding (and almost feudal--excuse the homophonic pun) leaders for these mercenary contingents, plus disloyalty in some of the more newly settle foederati, made this army a hilariously ineffective fighting force. Cue Benny Hill music.

So then you have a Western Emperor with his palace falling around his ears, and an Eastern Emperor whose taxes don't come from there, and therefore who cares quite little. What he's hoping for is that the West will get weak enough that he can grab rich Italy and North Africa (the rest of Western Rome was quite poor) for himself.

Aaaand that's sort of about it. Unless I missed something.

Which I probably did, this shit can get complicated.

Source of your information? Most of your information are so outdated and if not outright rejected by the modern scholarship.

Your view on the 3rd century and the 4th century is not well supported by the modern scholarships on this period. If anything, the Roman Empire became even more centralised than the Principate era.

Do not make the mistake of projecting the Roman Empire of the fifth century to the Roman Empire of the 3rd and 4th century.
 
Would, perhaps the best way for a Western Empire to survive, be for it to 'fall' and be reconstituted in a new form; based on the old, but more adapted to current realities?
I think this was Theodoric's idea, when he managed to unite temporarily both the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths. If the Ostrogothic political project had not been smashed to bits by the Langobards, this possible union might have eventually crystallized.
Of course, they would need first to actually fuse with the roman population, which in Hispania only happened in the late VI century.
 
I have serious doubts about Christianity being a major culprit in the fall of the military, considering that the Eastern Empire, even more Christian than the west, retained its legions.

IIRC, a bunch of the west's relatively quick final fall can also be attributed to it being something of a positive feedback loop. If you have a state suffering from lack of manpower and taxes to begin with, and so the state gives up territory inside its borders to what amounts to a giant, mobile mercenary nation in return for defense, it loses even more tax base and manpower...which prompts them to invite more. Y'know, if they aren't just crossing the border anyway because your earlier tribes don't really feel inclined to help you because you never bothered to assimilate them into your culture.
 
Last edited:
Source of your information? Most of your information are so outdated and if not outright rejected by the modern scholarship.

Your view on the 3rd century and the 4th century is not well supported by the modern scholarships on this period. If anything, the Roman Empire became even more centralised than the Principate era.

Do not make the mistake of projecting the Roman Empire of the fifth century to the Roman Empire of the 3rd and 4th century.
Yeah, there were much fewer local government jobs and much more centralize bureaucratic jobs for one thanks to Diocletian.
 
There are myriad factors aside from internal stability that are working to the WRE's advantage in my ATL, most of which existed in the OTL. Clovis' conversion to Catholicism; the Arians' persecution of Chalcedonians in Visigothic Spain and Vandal Africa; the Franks' close affiliation with the Roman Church; or Vitalian's revolt in the ERE. As for Italy itself, it was actually doing fine - give and take - under the combination of Ostrogothic kingship and Roman civil government until the Byzantine invasion. Speaking of Ostrogoths, their failure to conquer Italy in my ATL consequently resulted in a more successful Frankish conquest of Gaul, given that Theodoric the Great wasn't around to aid the Visigoths against Clovis. Also, the Roman rebellion in Hispania - and there was evidence of discontent amongst the Hispano-Roman population - further undermined the Visigothic remnant state. But that's not to say the WRE's problems would be solved, not even close. It's not unusual for the Empire to prosper under a successful Emperor (OTL examples: Caesar Augustus, Trajan, etc) or to enjoy some degree of renewed stability (ex: Aurelian, Diocletian, Constantine the Great, etc) as it's doing under Romulus Augustus. However, there are still problems with economic stagnation, a fractured population divided mostly between Roman Chalcedonians and Germanic Arians, a diminished professional military that still somewhat relies on foreign recruits, etc. My ATL's Romulus Augustus has indeed been more successful than his immediate predecessors, but it is due to factors that existed in the OTL, as well as new factors that have been created as a result of the changes in my TL. There are plenty of things that can still go wrong or will remain unsolved throughout the remainder of his reign (ex: economic instability, ongoing disputes between Church orthodoxy and various heresies, the constant danger of military insurrection, political schemes and self-serving opportunists in the Imperial Court, the question of succession, etc). The chances that his successors will do better (at least in the short run) are not good either, especially if the WRE revolves around an Emperor such as Romulus Augustus in a 'cult of personality' sort of way. I admit that some parts of my TL are optimistic. But in lasting as long as he has, Romulus Augustus has essentially given the WRE a new lease on life, which I believe is perfectly plausible if we consider the history of Caesar Augustus and his reformation of the Roman Republic, Aurelian's reign during the Crisis of the 3rd Century AD, Constantine the Great, Theodosius I, Heraclius, etc; or even individuals who weren't Emperor, such as Stilicho and Flavius Aetius.

Oh, no, that comment wasn't aimed at your TL which, from what I've read, is actually very good. I need to go back and read it in more detail, but I've enjoyed what I have read.

I was just poking at a scenario, which seems to have become a bit of a trope, that Rome can just miraculously spring back to life, that late in the game, and resecure its old borders with no apparent difficulties.
 
Oh, no, that comment wasn't aimed at your TL which, from what I've read, is actually very good. I need to go back and read it in more detail, but I've enjoyed what I have read.

I was just poking at a scenario, which seems to have become a bit of a trope, that Rome can just miraculously spring back to life, that late in the game, and resecure its old borders with no apparent difficulties.

Oh, my mistake then. Never mind. :D But thanks for clearing that up. By the way, I've also read some of your ATL. I still have to read more to know the details, but I'm intrigued by the concept of a Gothic Empire. From what I know, it did become a reality to some extent under Theodoric the Great, given his rule of Ostrogothic Italy and influence over Visigothic Spain.

Yeah, I've also seen a few TLs where the Empire comes back from the edge of the abyss, which is still plausible, but then goes on to reclaim all of its lost territories in the process...and then some. I think it's safe to say that for the time being, my TL's Western Empire will have to manage without large territories like Gaul, Spain and especially Britain, all of which are far too difficult to reclaim given the condition of a post-AD 475 Western Empire (even one that is only just beginning to recover as of the early 6th century AD).
 
Top