WI: Odoacer becomes Roman emperor?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date
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?

Odoacer's force numbered 20-25.000 men when he faced Theodoric at the Isonzo and Verona for instance. Had it not been for the interevention of the Visigoths, he could probably have defeated Theodoric whilst besieging him in Tincinum (which he could thanks to a number of Theodoric's forces changing sides)

An army of 20.000 mercenaries is no laughing matter in late antiquity.


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.


On the other hand, the eastern empire will bleed considerably in its confrontations with the Goths, who would still be in Thrace.
 
An army of 20.000 mercenaries is no laughing matter in late antiquity.

20.000 makes indeed a reasonable roman field-army for Italy. Of course Nepos should have a field army of about this size. I doubt the italian economy could afford more.

Nepos would be busy to hold Italy with this one field army. Like Odoaker was. So whats the difference? Do you expect, that he could invade Africa and get it back? Or that East-Rome would be able to support such a camapaign earlier than Anastasius / Justinians reign? Why do you think so?
 
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.

I doubt, Italy could do more than survive.

I agree, that Justinians campaign in Italy was desastrous. But would Italy be strong enough to repulse the Lombards without it? And perhaps the Avars showing interest? Italys economy was already very weak before Justinian arrived; afterwards it was just annihilated. And how would this change the real finishing event: the desastrous war against the Sassanids and the following arabian invasion in the early 7th century? After the loss of the eastern provinces, Rome was no longer an empire, just a Kingdom of Anatolia. With or without Nepos and his successor ruling perhaps still minor parts of Italy

I still don't see how Nepos and one rather weak province more makes the difference. How could all this change social and economical structures and processes, which would have been neccessary for the empire to survive?
 
Last edited:
I doubt, Italy could do more than survive.

I agree, that Justinians campaign in Italy was desastrous. But would Italy be strong enough to repulse the Lombards without it? And perhaps the Avars showing interest? Italys economy was already very weak before Justinian arrived; afterwards it was just annihilated. And how would this change the real finishing event: the desastrous war against the Sassanids and the following arabian invasion in the early 7th century? After the loss of the eastern provinces, Rome was no longer an empire, just a Kingdom of Anatolia. With or without Nepos and his successor ruling perhaps still minor parts of Italy

I still don't see how Nepos and one rather weak province more makes the difference. How could all this change social and economical structures and processes, which would have been neccessary for the empire to survive?
Well an Italy not drained and torn apart by Justinian's conquests is going to be much more able to resist the Lombards than they were OTL. Plus they could use the help of a fresh Byzantine field army.
 

Deleted member 67076

Why do you think so?
More recourses would be directed toward fighting off the Lombards because Italy's economy won't have been annihilated from the Gothic war, in addition, its population wouldn't have dramatically dropped due to said war. Also the Byzantines, w/out that costly war would also have more money and soldiers to throw at the Lombards.
 
I don't understand why everyone assumes the lombards attacking and trying to settle Italy is set in stone. It was a specific set of circumstances that led to this event OTL, and which could have easily been altered with a 476 POD.
 
Septimus Severus for example was just as Roman as Stilicho
No, you are wrong.
Septimius Severus was ethnic Roman in the eyes of the Roman population he had a right to be a 'legitimate' Roman Emperor.

Ancestry on his mother's side:
His mother was Fulvia Pia.
Her ancestors had moved from Italy to North Africa: they belonged to the gens Fulvia, an Italian patrician family that originated in Tusculum. Severus’s maternal cousin was Praetorian prefect and consul Gaius Fulvius Plautianus.

Ancestry on his father's side:
His father was Publius Septimius Geta.
Geta's father Lucius Septimius Severus (c. 70 – aft. 110) was a Roman Eques, who may have been the wealthy equestrian that is highly commemorated by the Flavian dynasty poet Statius. Geta's mother Vitoria, born c. 85, was a daughter of Marcus Vitorius Marcellus (c. 60 – aft. 105), Consul Suffectus in 105, and wife Hosidia, born c. 65 and daughter of Gaius or Gnaeus Hosidius Geta.

So, we see that:
1) Septimus Severus' mother was pure ethnic Roman
2) Septimus Severus' grandmother (his father's mother) was pure ethnic Roman
Which makes him at least '75% ethnic Roman' :D which is good enough to be a 'legitimate' Roman Emperor.

-----------------------------------------------------------
To make that simple - the rule is:
if your mother was an 'ethnic Roman' and your father's mother was an 'ethnic Roman' you have a right to be proclaimed a 'true, legitimate' Roman Emperor.

Sorry, but Flavius Stilicho does not qualify to be proclaimed the Roman Emperor - only his mother was 'ethnic Roman', but his father was 'ethnic Vandal'. But Stilicho's son might have become the Emperor, at least he had that right given the luck.
 

Deleted member 67076

Anyone feel like taking a crack at this idea and making a timeline?
 
Anyone feel like taking a crack at this idea and making a timeline?

As already mentioned, I don't think, that the loss of Italy made a great difference for the Roman Empire.

Now, if you could come up with very good reasons, why an emperor in Italy after 476 could be able to reconquer Africa, history could change longterm.
With the rich province of Africa, the West Roman Empire, would perhaps been able, to reconquer Hispania too, and get an even better taxbase. Well taxes are not everything. Much more important are reforms to get a balanced society back like in the East. Such a renewed West Roman Empire with decent borders might survive for the next 200 years and help the East during the desastrous last war against the Sassanid in the early 7th century. This way, the following arabian invasion might be repulsed and the Empire does not fall. At least not yet.

But honestly, I don't see, how this could happen. Not with Odoaker, not with Nepos or Jesus himself coming back to earth.
 
Last edited:
As already mentioned, I don't think, that the loss of Italy made a great difference for the Roman Empire.

Now, if you could come up with very good reasons, why an emperor in Italy after 476 could be able to reconquer Africa, history could change longterm.
With the rich province of Africa, the West Roman Empire would perhaps been able to reconquer Hispania too and get an even better taxbase. Well taxes are not everything. Much more important are reforms to get a balanced society back like in the East. Such a renewed West Roman Empire with decent borders might survive for the next 200 years and help the East during the desastrous last war against the Sassanid in the early 7th century. This way, the following arabian invasion might be repulsed and the Empire does not fall. At least not yet.

But honestly, I don't see, how this could happen. Not with Odoaker, not with Nepos or Jesus himself coming back to earth.

For all that to happen, it'd be much easier to have Majorian rule longer.
 

Deleted member 67076

As already mentioned, I don't think, that the loss of Italy made a great difference for the Roman Empire.

Now, if you could come up with very good reasons, why an emperor in Italy after 476 could be able to reconquer Africa, history could change longterm.
With the rich province of Africa, the West Roman Empire would perhaps been able to reconquer Hispania too and get an even better taxbase. Well taxes are not everything. Much more important are reforms to get a balanced society back like in the East. Such a renewed West Roman Empire with decent borders might survive for the next 200 years and help the East during the desastrous last war against the Sassanid in the early 7th century. This way, the arabian invasion might be repulsed and the Empire does not fall. At least not yet.

But honestly, I don't see, how this could happen. Not with Odoaker, not with Nepos or Jesus himself coming back to earth.

Theodoric if he takes the purlpe afterward , maybe? If he diverts his power to taking out the vandals.*I don't know
 
Theodoric if he takes the purlpe afterward , maybe? If he diverts his power to taking out the vandals.*I don't know

If i would bet on any Italian these times, then it would be Theoderic. But honestly, I have to dive deeper into this part of the history. It is not so much about Theoderic as a person, but economic and political measures.

The Vandals have'nt been invincible. The defeat of the roman fleet at the shores of Africa was avoidable. At least in Justinians times it was not a very big problem to beat them.

However, East Rome was busy. And I doubt they would support a Gothic Emperor in the 5th century. I am afraid, West-Rome has to conquer Africa without help. However, Africa is the key. Over time, the East would perhaps accept Germans on the roman throne. On the other side, the East managed it, to get the gothic foederates under control. With Theoderic as emperor of the West, things might work different in the East, too and we would see 2 Gothic Roman Emperors. And finally in 650 AD the combined forces of the "Holy Gothic Empire of Roman Nation" conquers Mekka after the Arabs lost their battle in Syria.
 
Last edited:
For all that to happen, it'd be much easier to have Majorian rule longer.

I would say, if he could avoid, that his fleet burns down, he might rescue the West. But I doubt Majoran had the ressources to try it again, after he lost his fleet, even if Ricimer would not kill him. Ricimer is another key, or the Magister Militum of the West Roman Empire at all. The East managed it, to balance the power between their multiple magisters, the civil head clerks in Constantinople and the royal family. In the West the one and only Magister Militum went out of control since Arbogast end of the 4th century. Majoran has to change that, too. Killing Ricimer is not sufficient. And Theoderic had at least an army. Majoran had nothing after he failed in Spain.
 
Last edited:
Top