WI: Majorian Successfully Invades Africa

Majorian's fleet is not burned. He invades Vandal Africa and defeats them. Now, much depends on what sort of resistance they offer. The Vandals were pretty convinced they were doomed if he managed to invade, so I don't know what they do to challenge him. Now, Majorian will look great, the WRE gets a new lease on life, yadda yadda.

How might the ultimate settlement look with the Vandals down in Africa? I could envision allowing some remnant as federates, while Rome controls the citites. But would this be secure enough for the grain supply, or might Majorian try to utterly wipe them out?
 
Majorian's fleet is not burned. He invades Vandal Africa and defeats them. Now, much depends on what sort of resistance they offer. The Vandals were pretty convinced they were doomed if he managed to invade, so I don't know what they do to challenge him. Now, Majorian will look great, the WRE gets a new lease on life, yadda yadda.

How might the ultimate settlement look with the Vandals down in Africa? I could envision allowing some remnant as federates, while Rome controls the citites. But would this be secure enough for the grain supply, or might Majorian try to utterly wipe them out?

Any African invasion wouldn't be to subjugate the Vandals and place them back into their legal status of Foederatii, Majorian was coming to reconquer the provinces completely. Any Vandals left would likely be slaves or mercenaries, there wouldn't be enough of them left as a political unit to warrant them settling the countryside, plus North Africa doesn't seem like the kind of place you can just partition like a province in European Rome. I don't know much about the yields of the African hinterland or the climate of North Africa for that matter, but I don't see much elbow room for a settlement between the Romans and Vandals in any fashion.

Add to the fact that the Vandals had done something damn near unspeakable to Rome, by sacking the city they sealed their fate in the fate of any response by the Romans. Just for the honor of the state brutality was imperative, lenience wouldn't be acceptable.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the desire to wipe them out and the rationale behind it. However, that would give the Vandals cause to fight to the death.

Perhaps settling them as federates elsewhere?
 
I agree with the desire to wipe them out and the rationale behind it. However, that would give the Vandals cause to fight to the death.

Perhaps settling them as federates elsewhere?

They aren't going to escort them to other parts of their land just so they can do the same thing.

Two areas I'm ignorant are what happened during the OTL conquering of Vandal Africa and the actual effects of Majorian's campaigns. I don't know what Majorian did in Europe when he fought those barbarians so I have no reference of what he might do in Africa, and I don't know the specifics of Belisarius' invasion and the aftermath of the Vandal surrender. So if anyone can shed light on those areas it would be great for this thread.
 
Well, first, Majorian did generally have a policy of leaving the defeated tribes generally in place. He beat the Visigoths, Burglary ndians, and Seubi, and simply reduced their territory and autonomy after his successes. I would not be surprised if he engaged a similar policy with he Bandals, the grain trade being the only complicating factor.

Now, its hard to compare the attack to Belisarius' invasion, since the Byzantine Empire didnt really need to rely on N. Africa for grain loke the West did, so their cnsiderations were differet. Further, they didn't have their backs to the wall like Majorian did, so they could afford to be more decisive.
 
Now, its hard to compare the attack to Belisarius' invasion, since the Byzantine Empire didn't really need to rely on N. Africa for grain like the West did, so their considerations were different. Further, they didn't have their backs to the wall like Majorian did, so they could afford to be more decisive.

I just thought they'd be a special case for that exact reason. Leaving foreigners with horrendous history in place just doesn't seem like a good move, especially in a delicate area like Africa.
 
Now, its hard to compare the attack to Belisarius' invasion, since the Byzantine Empire didnt really need to rely on N. Africa for grain loke the West did, so their cnsiderations were differet. Further, they didn't have their backs to the wall like Majorian did, so they could afford to be more decisive.
The only obstacle to invading North Africa successfully was the Vandal fleet. Once they landed, victory is almost assured (albeit it will be tough going). The Vandals have proven themselves time and time again to be no match against the Romans in a land conflict, dating back to their days in Spain. More importantly, what you mentioned gives Majorian more reasons to need to wipe out the Vandals. He needs to have complete control of North Africa without any chance of the Vandals doing what they did a second time. He can't afford the political consequences of simply achieving a settlement like Aetius did before him. That wouldn't be enough to placate the nobles of Italy that hated him, and if anything, it would be enough for them to pounce like OTL-Ricimer wasn't completely acting on his own when he killed Majorian-he was the one in Italy who needed to keep the Italian aristocracy placated.

It is imperative for Majorian that he gets nothing less than total victory.
 
The only obstacle to invading North Africa successfully was the Vandal fleet. Once they landed, victory is almost assured (albeit it will be tough going). The Vandals have proven themselves time and time again to be no match against the Romans in a land conflict, dating back to their days in Spain. More importantly, what you mentioned gives Majorian more reasons to need to wipe out the Vandals. He needs to have complete control of North Africa without any chance of the Vandals doing what they did a second time. He can't afford the political consequences of simply achieving a settlement like Aetius did before him. That wouldn't be enough to placate the nobles of Italy that hated him, and if anything, it would be enough for them to pounce like OTL-Ricimer wasn't completely acting on his own when he killed Majorian-he was the one in Italy who needed to keep the Italian aristocracy placated.

It is imperative for Majorian that he gets nothing less than total victory.

So in this ATL Majorian stays in power, how likely is his death or Ricimer's at this point?
 
The only obstacle to invading North Africa successfully was the Vandal fleet. Once they landed, victory is almost assured (albeit it will be tough going). The Vandals have proven themselves time and time again to be no match against the Romans in a land conflict, dating back to their days in Spain. More importantly, what you mentioned gives Majorian more reasons to need to wipe out the Vandals. He needs to have complete control of North Africa without any chance of the Vandals doing what they did a second time. He can't afford the political consequences of simply achieving a settlement like Aetius did before him. That wouldn't be enough to placate the nobles of Italy that hated him, and if anything, it would be enough for them to pounce like OTL-Ricimer wasn't completely acting on his own when he killed Majorian-he was the one in Italy who needed to keep the Italian aristocracy placated.

It is imperative for Majorian that he gets nothing less than total victory.

I have to agree overall. So, is the only option to wipe them out and scatter them to the winds?

So in this ATL Majorian stays in power, how likely is his death or Ricimer's at this point?

Directly proportional to how much he trusts Ricimer. Of course, even if Ricimer hates him and wants to do him in, if Majorian can gain some extra support among the Italian elite, he might be safe(r). Then again, Majorian could also annoy the Italians by being too generous to the African Romans...
 
All I know about Majorian is what I remmeber from Gibbon's section on him. Am I right in thinking that Majorian was generally one of the more competent later emperors, and that the purpose this POD is to try and salvage and recognizable Western Roman Empire?
 
All I know about Majorian is what I remmeber from Gibbon's section on him. Am I right in thinking that Majorian was generally one of the more competent later emperors, and that the purpose this POD is to try and salvage and recognizable Western Roman Empire?

Just to explore the ramifications of that specific victory in Africa.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I would love to see this as a timeline, just because it'd be interesting.

Regarding africa - considering he is instituting reforms in Italia, why wouldn't he enforce those same reforms in Africa? Conquered peoples do as they must and all that jazz.

More importantly would be what further reforms he would institute? We can reasonably assume that just as he used Italians and Gauls in the administration that he'd certainly include African elites so as to avoid preferential treatment destroying him. With his decisive policy making we could see an attempt to solve the wests manpower problem, and maybe even an attempt to improve the wests economy to make the east. Africa gives him the food security to really build up to a magnificent reign
 
So in this ATL Majorian stays in power, how likely is his death or Ricimer's at this point?


Directly proportional to how much he trusts Ricimer. Of course, even if Ricimer hates him and wants to do him in, if Majorian can gain some extra support among the Italian elite, he might be safe(r). Then again, Majorian could also annoy the Italians by being too generous to the African Romans...
It depends. Majorian and Ricimer were friends dating back to at least Avitus' reign. It's speculated that when Ricimer helped put him on the throne he expected him to be a puppet, but I doubt this-Majorian had shown promise as a general under Aetius and had only been shoved aside because of a personal spat with him. So it's pretty clear IMO that Ricimer knew what he was getting into when he supported Majorian for the throne. IMO though, once Majorian failed, he was a liability to Ricimer, who didn't want to be on his sinking ship (He of all people would have known, given he had to deal with the Italian nobility). So he did away with him before anyone else could do away with both of them.

But still, I don't think both of them can be around forever. Majorian will likely keep him for the time being-if he ever suspected Ricimer to start with, he wouldn't have gone back to Italy without at least some contingency plan. But eventually he'll have to get rid of him I think-or maybe not, maybe as long as he's successful Ricimer will stay loyal and Majorian will find use for him.

I have to agree overall. So, is the only option to wipe them out and scatter them to the winds?
Basically.


I would love to see this as a timeline, just because it'd be interesting.

Regarding africa - considering he is instituting reforms in Italia, why wouldn't he enforce those same reforms in Africa? Conquered peoples do as they must and all that jazz.

More importantly would be what further reforms he would institute? We can reasonably assume that just as he used Italians and Gauls in the administration that he'd certainly include African elites so as to avoid preferential treatment destroying him. With his decisive policy making we could see an attempt to solve the wests manpower problem, and maybe even an attempt to improve the wests economy to make the east. Africa gives him the food security to really build up to a magnificent reign
Well taking North Africa already seriously re-stocks the WRE's coffers and re-opens the vital grain supply route. Majorian had already achieved remarkable success given the circumstances, in Gaul and Spain. Aegidius was a close friend of Majorian's in Gaul dating to the time when they served under Aetius, so he'll remain loyal. Majorian was already successful in reigning in the Visigoths and Burgundians, and the Franks, as they always had been, were still allies of the Romans. My guess is he might try and finish off the Burgundians and Visigoths once and for all with Aegidius' help, and so restore control of Gaul fully back to Roman hands. Finishing where he left off in Spain is certain to occur as well.
 

Hecatee

Donor
Just doing all that would be a major achievement, and would do a lot for the safety of Italy. But I'm not so sure he'd have the manpower for it. I also wonder if he would not consider the Barbarians in Spain to be too weak for the time being and concentrate on either taking back the rest of Northern Africa or try to push in the Alps or toward the Danube, thus against the Ostrogoth while asking the Franks to distract the Alammans in exchange for some gold ?
 
Just doing all that would be a major achievement, and would do a lot for the safety of Italy. But I'm not so sure he'd have the manpower for it. I also wonder if he would not consider the Barbarians in Spain to be too weak for the time being and concentrate on either taking back the rest of Northern Africa or try to push in the Alps or toward the Danube, thus against the Ostrogoth while asking the Franks to distract the Alammans in exchange for some gold ?
That might work. The way I would see Majorian getting the manpower is basically having everything snowball-once you defeat one group, you enroll some of their men in their army. So defeat the Vandals, enroll those Vandals who surrendered into your army, move on to the next target, rinse and repeat. This was not unheard of for the Romans-Stilicho did this when a barbarian group invaded Italy-rather than kill them, surround them, cut them off, etc. etc. force them to surrender, and place them directly in your army (not as independent entities however. More like your standard foederati). Plus, the more land he takes back the more land he has available to draw manpower from.
 
Top