In OTL, the Visigoths defeated the Romans at Adrianople in 378 and won
the ability to stay on Imperial soil as a sovereign, allied presence
on Imperial soil. From the late 390s on, the Visigoths under Alaric
raided through Greece and the Balkans, and then into Italy, eventually
sacking Rome in AD 410, until moving on to Gaul. From 476, when
there was no longer an Emperor in the west, the Visigoths founded one
of the major successor kingdoms. Meanwhile, the Eastern Empire
continued to have Emperors until 1453.
But it was interesting that the Visigoths’ pre-Roman homeland, their
initial settlements within the empire and the site of their first
victory over Legions at Adrianople, and their subsequent big raids and
sackings were all in or near the Eastern Roman Empire (primarily in
what is now Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania)
which ultimate endured another millennium and not the Western Roman
Empire which was defunct less than a century after Adrianople.
But what if the Visigoths had ultimately stayed and migrated about the
eastern territories instead of the western.
A first POD might have been if they had stormed and sacked
Constantinople immediately after winning at Adrianople. Or, if
Constantinople were too hard a target, Visigoths still might have
raided, captured some boats and crossed from Gallipolli to Asia Minor,
sacking some of the major cities there. For instance, Nicodemia might
be a target.
Could the Visigoths have succeeded if they had taken either of these
approaches after Adrianople, or would this have been a recipe for them
being ultimately caught and destroyed by Roman forces in Thrace or
Asia Minor. In OTL, they did settle down for an agreement with
Theodosius, and relative Visigoth weakness probably had something to
do about it.
A later opportunity with perhaps greater potential could have been in
the late 390s under Alaric, when the Visigoths sacked some Greek
cities before heading west. Here again, could they have sacked
Constantinople (whose walls were not as good as they later became) and
then crossed into Asia? Or weakened the eastern empire to the
breaking point by crossing over Gallipolli and migrating to Asia
Minor, or by crossing the Aegean in boats acquired in Greece (I don’t
know much about Roman naval power at this time).
Ultimately, if the Visigoths had managed to establish themselves in
Asia Minor, they could raid from there down into Syria and Palestine
and even Egypt. They would add to the considerable security burden
the Eastern Romans were already dealing with from the Persians, who
might have cooperated with Goths, and possibly on some occasions Arab
raiders.
If the Visigoths became recognized Roman foederati in Asia, or
established their own kingdom there, they might have had an easier
time ruling there in some ways than in the west. According to the
Will and Ariel Durant history, the Arian heresy was far more popular
in the Eastern Empire than in the Western, and the Visigoths were
Arian. Arianism versus Trinitarianism was a big split among
Christians in the 4th and 5th century. Perhaps also they would have
been less odious to Monophysites and Nestorians than the Byzantines,
although I do not know if that theological dispute was very salient at
this time or only gained political implications later.
The main long-term drawback for the Visigoths is that some very
advanced competition is available in the form of the Persians and
later Arabs, either of whom could uproot a Visigoth state.
What would the likely effects be on the Huns and the Visigoths fellow
Germanic tribes in the event the Visigoths go to Asia and never
disturb Italy?
Would the pathway the Visigoths blaze be followed by Huns and East
Germanic groups like Vandals and Sueves and Ostrogoths? Could the
demonstrated vulnerability of the east invite continued raiding and in-
migration, and indirectly give the western empire a longer lease on
life, possibly of up to a millennium?
Waves of invaders over the subsequent centuries, Persians, Avars,
Bulgars, Avars, Slavs, Arabs, Eastern Norsemen (from Sweden), for
example, would all have greater geographic proximity to the fractured
states of the Balkans, Asia Minor, the Levant and Egypt than to the
more unified, and presumably tougher to crack, Western Roman Empire
based on Italy and Gaul. Only the western Norse, coming out of
Denmark and Norway, are going to favor raiding westward instead of
eastward due to geographic proximity.
In earlier centuries, the Franks are closest to Gaul, but their
potential to take it over might be compromised if they do not have the
eastern Germanic tribes and Huns weakening the western Romans. Also,
the Angles, Saxons and Jutes are closest to Britain, and are likely to
invade it and take it over.
--Or, is a more likely result of Visigothic focus on the east to be a
near simultaneous collapse of both the Eastern and Western Empire, as
most or all other barbarian groups successfully raid and invade mostly
in the western empire instead of the eastern, as in OTL?
the ability to stay on Imperial soil as a sovereign, allied presence
on Imperial soil. From the late 390s on, the Visigoths under Alaric
raided through Greece and the Balkans, and then into Italy, eventually
sacking Rome in AD 410, until moving on to Gaul. From 476, when
there was no longer an Emperor in the west, the Visigoths founded one
of the major successor kingdoms. Meanwhile, the Eastern Empire
continued to have Emperors until 1453.
But it was interesting that the Visigoths’ pre-Roman homeland, their
initial settlements within the empire and the site of their first
victory over Legions at Adrianople, and their subsequent big raids and
sackings were all in or near the Eastern Roman Empire (primarily in
what is now Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania)
which ultimate endured another millennium and not the Western Roman
Empire which was defunct less than a century after Adrianople.
But what if the Visigoths had ultimately stayed and migrated about the
eastern territories instead of the western.
A first POD might have been if they had stormed and sacked
Constantinople immediately after winning at Adrianople. Or, if
Constantinople were too hard a target, Visigoths still might have
raided, captured some boats and crossed from Gallipolli to Asia Minor,
sacking some of the major cities there. For instance, Nicodemia might
be a target.
Could the Visigoths have succeeded if they had taken either of these
approaches after Adrianople, or would this have been a recipe for them
being ultimately caught and destroyed by Roman forces in Thrace or
Asia Minor. In OTL, they did settle down for an agreement with
Theodosius, and relative Visigoth weakness probably had something to
do about it.
A later opportunity with perhaps greater potential could have been in
the late 390s under Alaric, when the Visigoths sacked some Greek
cities before heading west. Here again, could they have sacked
Constantinople (whose walls were not as good as they later became) and
then crossed into Asia? Or weakened the eastern empire to the
breaking point by crossing over Gallipolli and migrating to Asia
Minor, or by crossing the Aegean in boats acquired in Greece (I don’t
know much about Roman naval power at this time).
Ultimately, if the Visigoths had managed to establish themselves in
Asia Minor, they could raid from there down into Syria and Palestine
and even Egypt. They would add to the considerable security burden
the Eastern Romans were already dealing with from the Persians, who
might have cooperated with Goths, and possibly on some occasions Arab
raiders.
If the Visigoths became recognized Roman foederati in Asia, or
established their own kingdom there, they might have had an easier
time ruling there in some ways than in the west. According to the
Will and Ariel Durant history, the Arian heresy was far more popular
in the Eastern Empire than in the Western, and the Visigoths were
Arian. Arianism versus Trinitarianism was a big split among
Christians in the 4th and 5th century. Perhaps also they would have
been less odious to Monophysites and Nestorians than the Byzantines,
although I do not know if that theological dispute was very salient at
this time or only gained political implications later.
The main long-term drawback for the Visigoths is that some very
advanced competition is available in the form of the Persians and
later Arabs, either of whom could uproot a Visigoth state.
What would the likely effects be on the Huns and the Visigoths fellow
Germanic tribes in the event the Visigoths go to Asia and never
disturb Italy?
Would the pathway the Visigoths blaze be followed by Huns and East
Germanic groups like Vandals and Sueves and Ostrogoths? Could the
demonstrated vulnerability of the east invite continued raiding and in-
migration, and indirectly give the western empire a longer lease on
life, possibly of up to a millennium?
Waves of invaders over the subsequent centuries, Persians, Avars,
Bulgars, Avars, Slavs, Arabs, Eastern Norsemen (from Sweden), for
example, would all have greater geographic proximity to the fractured
states of the Balkans, Asia Minor, the Levant and Egypt than to the
more unified, and presumably tougher to crack, Western Roman Empire
based on Italy and Gaul. Only the western Norse, coming out of
Denmark and Norway, are going to favor raiding westward instead of
eastward due to geographic proximity.
In earlier centuries, the Franks are closest to Gaul, but their
potential to take it over might be compromised if they do not have the
eastern Germanic tribes and Huns weakening the western Romans. Also,
the Angles, Saxons and Jutes are closest to Britain, and are likely to
invade it and take it over.
--Or, is a more likely result of Visigothic focus on the east to be a
near simultaneous collapse of both the Eastern and Western Empire, as
most or all other barbarian groups successfully raid and invade mostly
in the western empire instead of the eastern, as in OTL?