WI: Odoacer becomes Roman emperor?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date
If Odoacer had proclaimed himself Emperor, and after said proclamation, maintained control over the lands that had constituted the Western Roman Empire, then he's an official emperor.

The Roman Civil Wars clearly show the distinction between emperors and usurpers: emperors are claimants to the throne who won their wars, and usurpers are claimaints who were defeated. That's it.

If Odoacer had claimed the throne and vanquished all other claimants, the imperial title would have been rightfully his. But since the imperial title granted no additional power, Odoacer didn't want to risk conflict over a purely symbolic honorific.

Had he chosen to pursue it, he probably would've succeeded.
 
All of this is true.

Odoacer declaring himself Emperor will be an act of war, as far as Constantinople is concerned. I'd expect to see Zeno at least providing some material support to Julius Nepos, although memories of the debacle of 468 will be very, very fresh at this point.

I disagree with this. If Odoacer gaining effective control over the Western Roman Empire didn't provoke a war, why would taking a powerless honorific change that? Surely the former would be much more offensive than the latter.

If Zeno gave a damn about the pretense of the western throne, then he would've taken action when Odoacer began ruling without puppet emperors. But since he didn't, he must have realized that a symbolic title wasn't worth the trouble.
 
Odoacer, if memory serves, paid lip service to the idea of being the Emperor (in Constantinople)'s subject. So claiming the title would be making it clear he was anything but.
 
Odoacer, if memory serves, paid lip service to the idea of being the Emperor (in Constantinople)'s subject. So claiming the title would be making it clear he was anything but.

True, but Odoacer styling himself King of Italy almost implies a claim of sovereignty, no? I'd think that a nominal inferior would take a lower title like Praetorian Prefect.

But even if Odoacer hadn't paid lip service, I just don't think Zeno's power was secure enough to do anything about it. Wasn't he dealing with revolts and insurrections in the East?

Like I said, there were good reasons why Odoacer didn't risk it, but I still believe he could've gotten away with if he had the audacity.
 
If Odoacer had proclaimed himself Emperor, and after said proclamation, maintained control over the lands that had constituted the Western Roman Empire, then he's an official emperor.

The Roman Civil Wars clearly show the distinction between emperors and usurpers: emperors are claimants to the throne who won their wars, and usurpers are claimaints who were defeated. That's it.

If Odoacer had claimed the throne and vanquished all other claimants, the imperial title would have been rightfully his. But since the imperial title granted no additional power, Odoacer didn't want to risk conflict over a purely symbolic honorific.

This is definitely true. But I'm not sure that Odoacer could have or would have thought in those terms. He was a Germanic king settling his people on Roman soil, like many had before him. Like the others, he saw himself as part of the late Roman system and not as its destroyer.

More likely, IMO, would that he would install a puppet Western Emperor, as others have suggested. In fact, why didn't he do that? Does anyone know?

And then he could arrange a few marriages so his son or somebody could be the next Emperor. _That_ I could see, and it might be the best way to get an Emperor of Germanic descent.... if he can survive long enough, that is.

Had he chosen to pursue it, he probably would've succeeded.

I don't know, he couldn't defeat the Ostrogoths, and it seems to me that they are coming either way. Or do you mean succeeded in being Emperor, but not for long?

Or they would just send another Germanic tribe - like say the Ostrogoths or the Gepids to go after Odoacer and do much of the dirty work for them and then send the Byzantine army to reconquer the Italian boot!

And this actually happened, after all. They sent the Ostrogoths to go after Odoacer.
 
True, but Odoacer styling himself King of Italy almost implies a claim of sovereignty, no? I'd think that a nominal inferior would take a lower title like Praetorian Prefect.

King is not Emperor. Emperor is a special title.

But even if Odoacer hadn't paid lip service, I just don't think Zeno's power was secure enough to do anything about it. Wasn't he dealing with revolts and insurrections in the East?

Like I said, there were good reasons why Odoacer didn't risk it, but I still believe he could've gotten away with if he had the audacity.

I don't know if he was secure or enough or not, but I don't think pushing one's luck is the best move to take in Odoacer's circumstances.
 
I don't know, he couldn't defeat the Ostrogoths, and it seems to me that they are coming either way. Or do you mean succeeded in being Emperor, but not for long?

What I mean is that Odoacer styling himself emperor wouldn't have worsened his situation, as some suspect. Of course, it wouldn't have helped him either. He still would've been just as vulnerable as he had been in OTL, and still would've been defeated by Theoderic. But the difference is that Theoderic would've inherited the title of Western Roman Emperor, rather than the title of King of Italy.
 
Beyond the legal problem of declaring himself emperor, there's the simple fact that the (Western) Roman Empire was a legal fiction. The Empire had long since withered away. Though some invader tribes pledged a modicum of allegiance to Rome, the truth was that all of Western Rome outside of Italy was under the control of one barbarian kingdom or another.

When the throne in Rome was left empty, no one in the rest of the "Empire" really noticed a change.

The Empire hadn't been in control of those territories in a long time. Does that mean it's no longer the Roman Empire, simply because it lost control of Gaul, Spain and Africa ?

Also, Odoacer did have influence on the Med:

He achieved a solid diplomatic coup by inducing the Vandal king Gaiseric to cede to him Sicily.

for the first time since the mid-3rd century copper coins were issues with the legend S(enatus) C(onsulto). Jones describes these coins as "fine big copper pieces", which were "a great improvement on the miserable little nummi hitherto current", and not only were they copied by the Vandals in Africa, but they formed the basis of the currency reform by Anastasius in the Eastern Empire.[28]




Yeah. If I may fly my contrarian colors--Romulus Augustus was merely the latest of quite a few pretenders, and Julius Nepos the latest of Eastern Empire backed strongmen whose title and authority were virtually meaningless. Personally, I count the last REAL Western Roman Emperor as Valentinian III--after him, "Western Emperors" are little more than local strongmen whose standing in Western Europe isn't any better than the various kings and chiefs that surround them, with a large number of them being usurpers.

And there is another question: - what is a 'legitimate Roman Emperor'? As opposed to 'usurper'.

But don't tell me that a legitimate Roman Emperor is someone appointed or proclaimed by the Roman Senate. That is not true and not valid since Octavianus Augustus.
* Now here I am speaking about the Western Roman Empire of the V-th century A.D. mostly. But it is true for the IV-th century as well.

What is a 'true' Roman Emperor?
That is someone proclaimed such by somebody and strong enough to enforce his authority over some part of the Roman territory for some period of time. (It so happened that he had to be ethnic Roman to be called that title).

What I would not call a 'true' emperor - a puppet, a Roman nobody of high birth fom noble senatorial family of pure ethnic Roman blood, a figurehead who was proclaimed an emperor by some Germanic warlord, a strongman lacking 'Roman ethnicity' to be proclaimed Emperor himself.

For me, being the legal emperor of Rome means:

1. having the former emperor no longer hold that office (death or resignation)
2. be proclaimed emperor by the Senate

There were multiple times throughout the empire's history where more than one person claimed to hold the office, however, the legitimate one was the guy who got the senate's backing.

If you were not proclaimed by the Senate, you were not the emperor.

As for the other criteria, an emperor is an emperor, regardless of how much territory he controls or wether he is a puppet or his successor fails or whatever. Some emperors are powerfull, some are not, but they're still emperors.

Is Elizabeth not the queen of Britain, even though she has little to no power ?



If Zeno gave a damn about the pretense of the western throne, then he would've taken action when Odoacer began ruling without puppet emperors. But since he didn't, he must have realized that a symbolic title wasn't worth the trouble.

Well, he did actually. He had the Rugians attack Odoacer, and, when these failed, he sent the Goths.

He was a bit busy with Illus' revolt to do anything more...



What I mean is that Odoacer styling himself emperor wouldn't have worsened his situation, as some suspect. Of course, it wouldn't have helped him either. He still would've been just as vulnerable as he had been in OTL, and still would've been defeated by Theoderic. But the difference is that Theoderic would've inherited the title of Western Roman Emperor, rather than the title of King of Italy.


He absolutely needed the support of the Roman nobility. That's why he went out of his way to appease them, granting them titles and power and prestige.

But let's say he doesn't. He forces the Senate in Rome to declare him emperor at swordpoint and executes anyone who publicly disagrees.

Then what ?

The nobles are going to become dissatisfied. Tax returns will begin to dry up, assassination attempts will take place and most of Italy will become restless. This means Odoacer now has less money to hire mercenaries and has to disperse a lot (probably most) of his small force of Heruli troughout Italy to keep everyone in line. This puts him at a severe military disatvantage.

Next, Zeno bribes the Rugians to attack, which they do, as OTL. Either they win, or they loose, but weaken Odoacer in the proces, most likely enough for him to succumb to either a rebellion by the Romans backed by a small force from the east headed by Nepos. Or, if he wins even that, then against the Burgundians and Vandals, who, like sharks, will sense blood in the water and strike the critically weakened state in Italy.
 
What if, instead he decides to take the purple and crown himself, Roman emperor of the West and what effects would this have?

Most propably, it would change nothing.

As Odoacer recognized very pecisely, when he sent back the emperors insignia to Constantinople, there was no need for a west-roman emperor anymore. Some historians argue, that this need started to cease with the Magister Militum Arbogast end of the 4th century. From this time on, the Magister Militum ruled the empire, and if needed, they enthroned emperors at their own discretion. There were some measures by the east-roman emperor to act against this evolution, but without success finally. From now on we also can identify a new type of usurpator. Usurpation was now rather against the Magister Militum, than against the emperor.

Zeno would have been very diasppointed about Odoacer. He would not give him the title of a "Patricius", which made him de facto the governor of the province Italy, from a roman point of view. At least this was the situation after Nepos died. Zeno was propably not able at this point of time, to invade Italy, regardless if Odoacer calls himself King and Patricius or Emperor. The roman senators and landlords, would perhaps be disappointed, too. But they have proven elsewhere, that their opportunism was endless, as long as they could keep their social status and wealth.

Odoacer will change nothing about the strategic situation of western Europe. Regardless, if he calls himself King of the Goths or Emperor of the Western Empire. Therefor he would need to conquer at least Africa back, in order to get the income for further expeditions. He was not able to do so as the King of Goths, so why should he be able to do so with another title?

When Odoacer died, the Goths started to fight about the crown. Same would have happened after "Emperor Odoacer" dies. This was the moment, when the roman empire saw the best chance for action. They sent an army lead by their foederatus and general Theoderich to takeover Italy. From a roman point of view, Italy was again a province under roman control ruled by a roman patricius and everything was fine.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

I like the idea of nepos making a triumphant return.
That'd make a good timeline. I also like the idea of emperor Theodoric, first of the Amal dynasty of Western emperors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That'd make a good timeline

I do not see the difference: Nepos, Odoaker, Theoderich. Who cares who is the "roman governor" of the province Italy? Yes, I call the west-roman empire a province at this point of time. At least looking to its wealth and capabilites. Loosely coupled under a german patricius, but still part of the roman empire.
From a roman point of view, and Rome was Constantinople since over 100 years, nothing would change.
 

Deleted member 67076

I do not see the difference: Nepos, Odoaker, Theoderich. Who cares who is the "roman governor" of the province Italy? Yes, I call the west-roman empire a province at this point of time. At least looking to its wealth and capabilites. Loosely coupled under a german patricius, but still part of the roman empire.
From a roman point of view, and Rome was Constantinople since over 100 years, nothing would change.
It would effect down the line whether or not Justinian decides to conquer Italy, which would drastically affect both empires and the world, in the long run. For example in that timeline, we might not have Italian because the Lombards would likely be repulsed from Italy due to it being much stronger.
 
Most propably, it would change nothing.

As Odoacer recognized very pecisely, when he sent back the emperors insignia to Constantinople, there was no need for a west-roman emperor anymore. Some historians argue, that this need started to cease with the Magister Militum Arbogast end of the 4th century. From this time on, the Magister Militum ruled the empire, and if needed, they enthroned emperors at their own discretion. There were some measures by the east-roman emperor to act against this evolution, but without success finally. From now on we also can identify a new type of usurpator. Usurpation was now rather against the Magister Militum, than against the emperor.


Zeno would have been very diasppointed about Odoacer. He would not give him the title of a "Patricius", which made him de facto the governor of the province Italy, from a roman point of view. At least this was the situation after Nepos died. Zeno was propably not able at this point of time, to invade Italy, regardless if Odoacer calls himself King and Patricius or Emperor. The roman senators and landlords, would perhaps be disappointed, too. But they have proven elsewhere, that their opportunism was endless, as long as they could keep their social status and wealth.

Odoacer will change nothing about the strategic situation of western Europe. Regardless, if he calls himself King of the Goths or Emperor of the Western Empire. Therefor he would need to conquer at least Africa back, in order to get the income for further expeditions. He was not able to do so as the King of Goths, so why should he be able to do so with another title?

When Odoacer died, the Goths started to fight about the crown. Same would have happened after "Emperor Odoacer" dies. This was the moment, when the roman empire saw the best chance for action. They sent an army lead by their foederatus and general Theoderich to takeover Italy. From a roman point of view, Italy was again a province under roman control ruled by a roman patricius and everything was fine.


Where do you get the bolded bits from ?
 
I do not see the difference: Nepos, Odoaker, Theoderich. Who cares who is the "roman governor" of the province Italy? Yes, I call the west-roman empire a province at this point of time. At least looking to its wealth and capabilites. Loosely coupled under a german patricius, but still part of the roman empire.
From a roman point of view, and Rome was Constantinople since over 100 years, nothing would change.


With julius Nepos, the East can still:

  • obtain tax income from Italy
  • influence economic policy regarding trade, currency etc.
  • utilize Italy for military purposes, like, for instance, another shot at retaking Carthage or getting involved in Visigothic or even Frankish/Burgundian politics
  • influence religious issues in Italy
  • influence legal issues in Italy
  • have private individuals from the east still control assets they owned located in Italy (lands, mines, trade networks etc)
With the likes of Odoacer or Theodoric, it can hardly do any of these.
 
With julius Nepos, the East can still:

  • obtain tax income from Italy
  • influence economic policy regarding trade, currency etc.
  • utilize Italy for military purposes, like, for instance, another shot at retaking Carthage or getting involved in Visigothic or even Frankish/Burgundian politics
  • influence religious issues in Italy
  • influence legal issues in Italy
  • have private individuals from the east still control assets they owned located in Italy (lands, mines, trade networks etc)
With the likes of Odoacer or Theodoric, it can hardly do any of these.

Sure, direct control means more influence.

But why do you think, that Italy could do more economically than pay a rather small italian field army?
 
Sure, direct control means more influence.

But why do you think, that Italy could do more economically than pay a rather small italian field army?
It can do more economically for the east. Plus, the extreme strain on the economy that Justinians conquests brought, and the destruction of Italy and Rome that came with it, won't happen.
 
Top