Would the WRE have been better suited to having a capital in a rebuild Carthage?

GdwnsnHo

Banned
As per title really, it confuses me that Ravenna is right on the edge of the WRE territorially, and as a result is rather vulnerable, plus, being at the top end of the Adriatic Sea, trying to go from Ravenna to anywhere else by sea is delayed by the great big ol' boot of Italy.

So whilst a Military capital is probably best suited to being on the border, what if the major peacetime capital was a massively rebuilt Carthage, or somewhere else in Africa.

It is centrally placed in the Empire, with the arguable exception Gaul, which would have the Military capital anyway.

Or was Ravenna being on the border a crucial reason it WAS such a useful capital for the WRE?
 
As per title really, it confuses me that Ravenna is right on the edge of the WRE territorially, and as a result is rather vulnerable, plus, being at the top end of the Adriatic Sea, trying to go from Ravenna to anywhere else by sea is delayed by the great big ol' boot of Italy.

So whilst a Military capital is probably best suited to being on the border, what if the major peacetime capital was a massively rebuilt Carthage, or somewhere else in Africa.

It is centrally placed in the Empire, with the arguable exception Gaul, which would have the Military capital anyway.

Or was Ravenna being on the border a crucial reason it WAS such a useful capital for the WRE?

Having a centrally placed capitol is overrated, doesn't matter how far you have to go into enemy territory if the enemy is too far away to coordinate an adequate defense.

I never considered Ravenna at the edge, Augusta Treverorum was a border capital, Ravenna is just a bit too close to disputed lands but Mediolanum was no better and Rome, while not as close, ultimately carried too many disadvantages for what amounted to a few dozen miles of distance from the chaotic frontier. And considering where most of the true enemies of the state lay, having the capitol on the eastern coast was the best they could do; Rome had been sacked twice by Vandals, as such everything on the Western Mediterranean was fair game for raids and even if the Roman could combat Vandal naval supremacy they still had Burgundii, Visigoths, and even the rogue state of Syagrius in Northern Gaul. In the east you had nominally subjugated foederatii under the Eastern court who were in theory an automatic ally to the West, you have disparate barbarian tribes looking for land to settle their families on and a Gepid kingdom more at home beyond the Danube than past it. The East was where the barbarians were comparatively content, the East was where their wealthy brethren ruled the other half of the Empire.

Peacetime is not something that the late empire can afford to have, at least not if it wants to prosper, a peacetime capital would simply be where ever the court of the Emperor finds itself whensoever Italy finally falls, you're asking for a rump state.
 
As per title really, it confuses me that Ravenna is right on the edge of the WRE territorially, and as a result is rather vulnerable
How so exactly? Ravenne wasn't taken over and pillaged as Rome, for one, while not having particularly important defenses (compared to, say Constantinople)

plus, being at the top end of the Adriatic Sea, trying to go from Ravenna to anywhere else by sea is delayed by the great big ol' boot of Italy.
1) Being close to the sea is actually a major point in favour of its "capitalisation". It meant a close and relatively safe (giving ERE naval supremacy) access to ERE.
2) You forgot to take in account roman roads and communication lines : its geographical position allowed to move swiftly to the North, to Rome, and generally in Italy.

So whilst a Military capital is probably best suited to being on the border
Ravenna wasn't : it's just that it was better located strategically. As in a place where you can beneficy from quicker movement to "hot" points, and better reinforcements/support from allies.

what if the major peacetime capital was a massively rebuilt Carthage, or somewhere else in Africa.
I think there's a contradiction there : you argue that Ravenna wasn't placed well as it was too far from Central Italy, but Carthage would do fine?
Even disregarding that navigation in bad months was generally a bad idea (especially if it was about crossing troops), that it was far from foedi (you could as well say to Barbarians "help yourselfs, we give up"), having the WRE clearly not beneficing from a that good naval edge, and being a general show of weakness...

It is centrally placed in the Empire
It wouldn't : it would dependent far too much from naval organisation, and would have far too issues reacting quickly to provincial matters compared to land connections.

which would have the Military capital anyway.
You mean having two capitals? One Military and the other "Civil"?
Giving the military nature of the imperium in the Late Roman Empire, I'll approximatly give 3 seconds before the guy in charge of military matters gets proclaimed emperor by his troops, a Roman Senate pissed being disregarded, and populations considering the usurper as the real leader.

Or was Ravenna being on the border a crucial reason it WAS such a useful capital for the WRE?
As a rule of thumb, if something happened IOTL...Well, it was generally for good reasons.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Lol, and today we see my late night mental meanderings get absolutely curbstomped :p

How so exactly? Ravenne wasn't taken over and pillaged as Rome, for one, while not having particularly important defenses (compared to, say Constantinople)

I find that peculiar, as it was closer to the Lombards, and other tribes that OTL migrated in that way. Perhaps there are some defensive details I overlooked at 3am


1) Being close to the sea is actually a major point in favour of its "capitalisation". It meant a close and relatively safe (giving ERE naval supremacy) access to ERE.

Being on the sea is great - I was just confused by the choice of the Adriatic - surely being on the Western Med would be better for the WRE itself. (Though I guess worse for support from the ERE).

2) You forgot to take in account roman roads and communication lines : its geographical position allowed to move swiftly to the North, to Rome, and generally in Italy.

Now that is a might fine map.

Ravenna wasn't : it's just that it was better located strategically. As in a place where you can beneficy from quicker movement to "hot" points, and better reinforcements/support from allies.

And an even better point (feels daft)

I think there's a contradiction there : you argue that Ravenna wasn't placed well as it was too far from Central Italy, but Carthage would do fine?
Even disregarding that navigation in bad months was generally a bad idea (especially if it was about crossing troops), that it was far from foedi (you could as well say to Barbarians "help yourselfs, we give up"), having the WRE clearly not beneficing from a that good naval edge, and being a general show of weakness...

I didn't mean too distant from Central Italy - I meant the WRE as a whole, as in Gaul, Hispania, Africa, and Italia. Whilst ok, navigation in bad months is pretty much an idea-killer.

As a rule of thumb, if something happened IOTL...Well, it was generally for good reasons.

Hence the question. Thanks!
 
I find that peculiar, as it was closer to the Lombards, and other tribes that OTL migrated in that way. Perhaps there are some defensive details I overlooked at 3am
It's more or less the contrary : Barbarians raids/campaigns became closer to Italy rather than the Ravenna being chosen because it was in the way.
Again, that's more about Barbarians following roads, that unsurprisingly tied urban centers, than emperors using their capitols as human shields (altough it's more or less the case with Constantinople, that was concieved and coherently walled for this purpose)

Being on the sea is great - I was just confused by the choice of the Adriatic - surely being on the Western Med would be better for the WRE itself.
Closer from western ERE's map, mostly : it allowed quicker reaction.

I didn't mean too distant from Central Italy - I meant the WRE as a whole, as in Gaul, Hispania, Africa, and Italia.
Carthage was further than Gaul and border provinces, actually. Both geographically and in communication.
 
Top