WI Campaign against Vandals was succesfull in 468 AD?

In 468 AD Emperor Leo I gathered an enormous fleet of 1113 ships and 100000 men and launched a camapign against the Vandal Kingdom... The plan was concerted between Eastern Emperor Leo, Western Emperor Anthemius, and Magister Militum per Illyricum Marcellinus, who enjoyed independence in Illyricum, while the Magister Militum per Thraciae Basiliscus was appointed supreme commander. Basiliscus was ordered to sail directly to Carthage, while Marcellinus attacked and took Sardinia, and a third army, commanded by Heraclius of Edessa, landed on the Libyan coast east of Carthage, making rapid progress. It appears that the combined forces met in Sicily, whence the three fleets moved at different periods...
King Gelimer was terrorised by the size of the Roman army and asked Basiliscus for 5 days so he could draw a peace instrument... In these 5 days Vandals build a fleet of fire ships and almost completely destroyed the Roman fleet... Basiliscus fled the battle and returned hastily to Constantinople...
WI The campaign was succesfull Vandals were annihilated and North Africa reverted once more to Roman Province? Could Leo I have used the resources for an early Reconquista? Hispania would be an easy target for such a huge fleet while Carthage serves as an excellent naval base...
How is that altering History? Any thoughts?
 

Nikephoros

Banned
To make this campaign sucessful Leo would have to keep Basiliscus out of the campaign. IIRC Leo had little choice but to send Basiliscus. This was mostly due to the politics in Constantinople.
 
Uff.

My best guess is that if the Western Empire is still abolished in 465, the Roman governor in North Africa defects to Byzantium, giving it a significantly larger tax base.
 
Uff.

My best guess is that if the Western Empire is still abolished in 465, the Roman governor in North Africa defects to Byzantium, giving it a significantly larger tax base.

Well WRE fell on 476 not 465... but if this campaign is successfull they can buy some years...
 
The problem is, it still does not resolve the issue of Ricimer. Perhaps it can buy Anthemius just a bit more time on the throne, during which he might be able to do something about Ricimer, but not much more. Now, if Ricimer is out of the picture, and perhaps with Leo interfering a bit more actively in Italy, Western Empire may yet live on even as a puppet entity for some more time. What happens afterwards is anyone's guess - I don't think the Western Empire can stage a full comeback, but with a bit of luck, it can at the very least manage to maintain an appearance of existence, and eventually de-barbarise.

However, tt would be much harder for the Western Empire than it was for the Eastern, given that it no longer has as large a population base as it once had, and cannot easily draw armies from Roman citizens (which was Zeno's and Leo's solution by turning to Isaurians instead of the Germanic tribesmen to fill the ranks of the Imperial army). Without an army, it is at mercy of any strongman who decides to play kingmaker, which means the only way to truly save the Western Empire at that point, barring a miracle, is to have strong military presence from the East subordinate to whoever the Western Emperor is. This state of things needs to continue for enough time for the Western Empire to actually create its own army, drawn from the Roman citizens while expelling the "foederatii" from its ranks and, most importantly, from its chain of command.

The problem with the above scenario is that there is little incentive for an Eastern Emperor to essentially prop up the Western Empire through considerable expenditure of military force and money necessary to keep it in line (not to mention the always-real possibility that such a force would mutiny and try to put one of their own on the throne of the West, which may not be what the Eastern Emperor seeks). It does, however, depend on who the Eastern Emperor is. With the victory at Carthage and conquest of the Vandals, Basiliscus may emerge as a much stronger candidate for the throne than he was in OTL, and may actually end up being successful in his bid, thus removing Zeno.

Zeno probably would not care too much for the Western Empire, concerned more with preserving his own skin and his own domain (just look at the actions he took in OTL in order to rid himself of the troublesome Ostrogoths). Basiliscus, on the other hand, is more of an unknown quality. His actual time in power in OTL was not only very short, but also marred by ongoing civil war. Here, if he manages to eliminate Zeno, the fact that Basiliscus seems to have been an intellectual, and therefore more likely to hold some sort of an idea of Pax Romana being resurrected, might actually be a blessing in disguise for the Western Empire. As long as Basiliscus (as an Emperor) is relatively secure on his throne in Constantinople, he might actually be willing to prop up the Western Empire, if only for sentimental reasons. From there on, anything can happen... and if some smarter and more competent leaders emerge in the West, and manage not to royally piss of Constantinople (think Majorian, and what he could have done if not for Ricimer), some limited restoration of the Western Empire is very possible, with a little luck going their way.
 
Belisarius' campaign was touch and go (I think he is a very overrated general) so it is not impossible that this earlier attempt succeeds. Just a little more luck on the Roman side.
 
An interesting question is how the Romans themselves would have percieved the situation. Did the Western Emperors realise how vulnrable they were to kingmakers, or would they harbor delusions of a restored Western Empire?
(Or perhaps something I haven't thought of)
 
Belisarius' campaign was touch and go (I think he is a very overrated general) so it is not impossible that this earlier attempt succeeds. Just a little more luck on the Roman side.

Actually Romans needed a better General... not luck... If Leo I had captured North Africa i guess that he would use its vast resources to fund another campaign against Visigoths in Hispania... Maybe he could persuade Western Emperor to attack Gaul too in the same time...
 
Actually Romans needed a better General... not luck... If Leo I had captured North Africa i guess that he would use its vast resources to fund another campaign against Visigoths in Hispania... Maybe he could persuade Western Emperor to attack Gaul too in the same time...

That still does not resolve the issue of barbarian kingmaker-generals, who saw it to their advantage to keep the Western Empire weak and unable to take on the offensive (as such an expansion would diminish their own power and control of the army, and perhaps result in a recreation of a true Roman army under control of the Emperor, instead of a foederati-based one).

Also, all it really boils down to is one decision made by Basiliscus. No matter how poor of a general he was, if he perhaps listens to someone with half a working brain in his command staff, or for whatever reason decides to ignore the Vandal pleas for negotiations, even Basiliscus could have captured Carthage. And that may give him reputation and place in history much greater than he deserved - not to mention it may strengthen his claim to the throne once Leo is dead.

Carinthium brings up a good point - it is obvious that some of the Emperors realized their vulnerability, but were powerless to do much about it (Anthemius later in his reign was one of them, as was Majorian, Avitus, or Julius Nepos). Some others were essentially creations of their barbarian Magisters Militum, and were essentially non-entities, figureheads with no power or even illusions of their own. Many of the "shadow Emperors" seemed to harbor delusions that the barbarian kingmakers were actually serving them, and tended to end up with appropriately inglorious ends. On the other hand, a major Roman victory would very likely respawn the expansionistic or imperialistic streak in the rulers of the West, which may, in fact, bring them further on a collision course with their barbarian kingmakers.

Presuming that the expedition against the Vandals occurs as in OTL, we can expect Anthemius as the Western Emperor, which brings an entire set of issues. For one, there is Ricimer, who will likely still revolt and install another puppet ruler if his power is not curbed, and nothing short of massive intervention by the Eastern Empire is going to do that, barring near-miracles. For two, even if Ricimer himself is removed, he was only the most powerful of a group of similarly disposed men - so if not him, it would simply be another barbarian general taking his place. Again, without a major intervention by the Eastern Empire, the Western Empire is almost certainly doomed, if not to extinction, then to a very long period of barbarian domination.
 
Top