WI both eastern and western Roman Empires survive?

[Mathalamus]

What would happen if both the Empires survive? the (smaller) western Empire in Spain, and the larger Eastern Empire in the obvious location.

would Hispaniola (western Empire) voluntarily give up its independence to be ruled by Constantinople?

or would they work together to reunite the Roman Empire, with Rome as the capital?

what would the possible effects be?

it has been an idea of mine for quite a while, but i dont know enough to make it plausible.

 

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Yeah, I don't see the Western government pulling out of Italy any time soon. As in OTL, I think they'd withdraw and spend all their resources defending Italy before they would attempt to defend places like Spain and Gaul.
Italy is more defensible anyways; I think with a POD far enough in the past, you can get the Western government to abandon everything but Italy and a few islands, and the barbarians will be content with settling in Spain and Gaul instead of crossing the Alpine passes (now bolstered by the withdrawn legions) into Italy.

 

[Lalli]

I don't think that Western Rome can survive any kind of way after the division. And WRE hardly has even any kind of changes get Hispania. If WRE survives it probably contains Italy but hardly much more. But I don't see re-union possible. Empires probably are warring about who gets whole Roman Empire.

 

[Agricola]

When I remember right a small peace of the western roman empire survived pretty long: Mauretania Tingitana.

In late empire the province was already shrunken to a few cities in the small tip near Gibraltar. The Vandals bypassed this area during their invasion of Africa, because it was poor and no threat. Tingitana had just a few hundred limitanei. Afterwards Tingitana was hard to reach from Mauretania Caesariensis, which was mostly under control of the Berbers anyways. That was one reason, the romans administered this part of Africa from Spain and not from Carthago. And the Visigoths never moved to Africa. So most probably, if the Berbers did not occupy them, Tingitana was roman until conquered by the moslems end of the 7th century. Well, perhaps Justinians general, who reconquered Baetica in South Spain for a few years came along.

And no, they never asked East-Rome for reunion, afaik

A more serious example: the roman empire of Syagrius in Gallia existed until the mid eighties of the 5th century. Such local warlords had no interest in the empire. They were like every other new nation after the fall of Rome. Regardless if roman or german.

The question is also, if Julius Nepos, the last west-roman emperor, who died in 480 had a son, so that a legitime west-roman emperor could have moved to Spain.

 

[Mathalamus]

Yeah, I don't see the Western government pulling out of Italy any time soon. As in OTL, I think they'd withdraw and spend all their resources defending Italy before they would attempt to defend places like Spain and Gaul.
Italy is more defensible anyways; I think with a POD far enough in the past, you can get the Western government to abandon everything but Italy and a few islands, and the barbarians will be content with settling in Spain and Gaul instead of crossing the Alpine passes (now bolstered by the withdrawn legions) into Italy.

well, i remember a timeline in which the SPQR survives in OTL spain. im not qute sure how it happened (i glanced at the timeline) but it seemed interesting.

a united Italy would make it a great power at the time, along with the ERE. possibly the only two real nations in a land of barely centralized states. maybe after the initial troubles are over, Italy can try reconquering? they definitely cant reach the height again, but they can control a huge area, assuming the Arabs didn't spoil the fun.

it would be an interesting idea...

 

[Codae]

well, i remember a timeline in which the SPQR survives in OTL spain. im not qute sure how it happened (i glanced at the timeline) but it seemed interesting.

You're probably thinking of Zuvarq's Remnants of Rome. ITTL, this guy maintains his regime in Spain while the Visigoths destroy Roman power in Italy.

 

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

well, i remember a timeline in which the SPQR survives in OTL spain. im not qute sure how it happened (i glanced at the timeline) but it seemed interesting.

a united Italy would make it a great power at the time, along with the ERE. possibly the only two real nations in a land of barely centralized states. maybe after the initial troubles are over, Italy can try reconquering? they definitely cant reach the height again, but they can control a huge area, assuming the Arabs didn't spoil the fun.

it would be an interesting idea...

Well you've got to remember that the "initial troubles" are 250+ years in the making.

At this point almost 100% of the Western Empire's armed forces were barbarian foederati who had loyalty more along tribal lines than patriotism. The Christian population really wasn't all too hyped up to join the legions and defend the Empire: the barbarians were there to do it; after all, barbarian emperors had been in power more than two hundred years ago, what would it matter for another barbarian to take power, as long as he treated them the same and defended them?
Plus, his army could actually defend the Empire.

This was the mindset at the end of the Empire, and it's why the Magisteri Militi were 1. so easily able to get the job and basically wrestle power from the Emperor and 2. so relatively effective at defending Italy.

In the end they were overwhelmed too, though one could argue that if Odoacer had wanted to, he could have continued as Magister Militum and the Empire in the West would have limped on.

So, I don't see it happening unless there's an early POD where a wise Emperor who doesn't care what people think withdraws troops from Spain and Gaul.

 

[Elfwine]

So, I don't see it happening unless there's an early POD where a wise Emperor who doesn't care what people think withdraws troops from Spain and Gaul.

Which helps how?

How is Rome better off losing territory, and thus wealth and manpower?

Its not as if the WRE was overwhelmed by invasion in the sense of how say the Achaemenids or the ERE fell - it lost because of a failure of the state to be able to support a (loyal) military to keep the barbarians from de facto taking over (regardless of the state of the frontiers).

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I don't think that Western Rome can survive any kind of way after the division. And WRE hardly has even any kind of changes get Hispania. If WRE survives it probably contains Italy but hardly much more. But I don't see re-union possible. Empires probably are warring about who gets whole Roman Empire.

What? Western Rome was doing quite fine until their string of bad luck in the 5th century.

 

[Lleibi]

And the Visigoths never moved to Africa. So most probably, if the Berbers did not occupy them, Tingitana was roman until conquered by the moslems end of the 7th century.

From what I read, it's a bit uncertain. It is known that the Romans tried to exert some measure of control over the former province of Spania even after Spania was rolled back. Apparently Tingis (Tangiers) and Septem (Ceuta) were part of Spania.
Also, the legends around the fall of the Visigothic Kingdom suggest that the ruler of Septem was, somehow, a tributary of the King of Toledo. Whether he was a Visigoth himself, or an eastern Roman, or a Berber, it's anyone's guess.

If WRE survives it probably contains Italy but hardly much more. But I don't see re-union possible. Empires probably are warring about who gets whole Roman Empire.

The romance of the two kingdoms

Which helps how?

How is Rome better off losing territory, and thus wealth and manpower?

Its not as if the WRE was overwhelmed by invasion in the sense of how say the Achaemenids or the ERE fell - it lost because of a failure of the state to be able to support a (loyal) military to keep the barbarians from de facto taking over (regardless of the state of the frontiers).

This reminds me of how confused i felt in the lessons of History of Spain, about the whole genesis of the Visigothic Kingdom. I was thinking "So the visigoths settled here legally to expell the 'illegally formed' kingdoms of the Suebi, Vandals and Alans. They are granted lands, they 'turn their swords into plows'... and then they stop being allies of Rome? and somehow they create their own kingdom and the hispanorromans go along with it?"
At that time, the whole thing seemed to be a bit of a magical process Only later i understood how it was entangled with the whole de-urbanization process, and that Rome was actually suffering a terrible budget crisis.

 

[nomisma]

If the WRE survived, I think it have to be holding North Africa. Isn’t the fiscal crisis occur in WRE only after it loss the North Africa to Vandal which broke the Carthage-Rome tax spine? Not saying that the WRE cannot survive without North Africa, but it would be much more difficult.

If the WRE survive only with Italy, it is likely that it has to transform it economy, as it previous heavily rely on other part of the empire (mainly North Africa, and Sicily to the less extent). Not impossible as ERE has proved during 7th and 8th century OTL, but it has to take a lot of time.

 

[Elfwine]

What? Western Rome was doing quite fine until their string of bad luck in the 5th century.

I've said this before, but: It gets repeated that it was a string of bad luck, but one has to wonder why Rome was so utterly unable to deal with it if it was "doing just fine".

The seventh century eastern half faced much more overwhelming troubles (whatever one makes of Phocas's reign, it didn't stop them) and made it out okay - damaged but enduring.

Meanwhile, the West goes from the limes being broken early on to a situation where you can just treat the Roman Emperor of the West as an irrelevant figure in less than a century.

That's not the result of mere "luck", that's either terrible human decisions or an already ailing (not necessarily terminal, but ailing) state - if not both.

This reminds me of how confused i felt in the lessons of History of Spain, about the whole genesis of the Visigothic Kingdom. I was thinking "So the visigoths settled here legally to expell the 'illegally formed' kingdoms of the Suebi, Vandals and Alans. They are granted lands, they 'turn their swords into plows'... and then they stop being allies of Rome? and somehow they create their own kingdom and the hispanorromans go along with it?"
At that time, the whole thing seemed to be a bit of a magical process Only later i understood how it was entangled with the whole de-urbanization process, and that Rome was actually suffering a terrible budget crisis.

Yeah. Rome was not necessarily doomed here, but it was facing problems beyond what it had the resources (speaking of the state - what the economy was like as far as the average Roman or the Roman elite experienced is another story) to cope with.

That it settled the Visigoths in Iberia (for example) instead of just kicking out the Subi, Vandals, and Alans with its own forces loyal to and only to Rome is not a sign of strength.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Stilicho was unable to respond to the Germanic invasions for a couple reasons: one he had just withdrawn troops from the border to Italy to fight radagaisus and had yet to send them back. Two, it was winter and he did not have adequate intelligence ands so was unaware of the size of the force.

This gave Constantine iii the power vacuum he needed to Mary into Gaul and take control of the legions. Stilicho's enemies in the senate saw an opportunity and around the same time Alaric marched into Italy to demand better pay. Stilicho was overthrown and Germans were massacred. Rome is still paralyzed to deal with the Germans in Gaul and Constantine because Alaric is about to sack th city.

Constantine can't take advantage and restore order because due has a usurpation onuis own in Spain to deal with. He lets the Germans into Spain which causes all kind of problems. A power struggle is occurring in the roman military, which Constantine emerges the victor of. Now by the time of his rise, a size able portion of the romanilitaty that was around in 405 is dead according to the notitia dignatum.

Yet he spends the next decade methodically securing the empire. First dealing with the goths, then Constantine, then the Germans in Spain, but his early death prevents him from completing the conquest of Spain and starts a power struggle that let's them take a breather.

I'd go on but I'm on my phone and typing this is getting hard. As you can see it was just one big stroke of bad luck after another. Yet they still were not out as long as they had North Africa but on e the vandals crossed over that province was as good as lost since they didn't have any large amounts of troops defending it.

 

[Elfwine]

I'd go on but I'm on my phone and typing this is getting hard. As you can see it was just one big stroke of bad luck after another. Yet they still were not out as long as they had North Africa but on e the vandals crossed over that province was as good as lost since they didn't have any large amounts of troops defending it.

No, its not just "one big stroke of bad luck after another".

Let's take the first point. A strong, healthy Rome should not have to strip the Rhine to defend Italy - and if it does, it should be able to send them back in time to do something useful.

Similarly, Alaric being in a position to sack Rome speaks volumes for Rome's (lack of) effective defense - more a leadership factor than a fortification one from what I understand, but still a failing of the state, not fate.

And it goes on from there.

Certainly, Rome in the fifth century had to face an awful lot of things going wrong at once. This is indisputable. But Rome faced an awful lot of things going wrong in the seventh century, it faced an awful lot of things going wrong in the third century, and it faced an awful lot of things going wrong versus Hannibal.

It survived the others.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

No, its not just "one big stroke of bad luck after another".

Let's take the first point. A strong, healthy Rome should not have to strip the Rhine to defend Italy - and if it does, it should be able to send them back in time to do something useful.

Similarly, Alaric being in a position to sack Rome speaks volumes for Rome's (lack of) effective defense - more a leadership factor than a fortification one from what I understand, but still a failing of the state, not fate.

And it goes on from there.

Certainly, Rome in the fifth century had to face an awful lot of things going wrong at once. This is indisputable. But Rome faced an awful lot of things going wrong in the seventh century, it faced an awful lot of things going wrong in the third century, and it faced an awful lot of things going wrong versus Hannibal.

It survived the others.

The Roman Empire in the third century came into a hairs breath of collapse. Interestingly enough, it was the split of the empire that saved it-the Gallic Emperors were able to stabalize the crumbling Rhine frontier, the Roman emperors were able to focus on the Danube, and the Palmyreans saved the Roman east-literally, there were next to no Roman forces left in the east when the Palmyreans ambushed and defeated the Sassanid army out of nowhere. There were plenty of structural problems then, perhaps moreso than in the late empire. They were able to survive in the 7th century mainly due Constantinople being a fortress from what I understand.

Anyway, yes, the western Roman empire was still recovering from being defeated twice in civil wars by Theodosius. I'll give you that. It wasn't that they couldn't send them back-Stilicho took a calculated risk, betting that he could keep them with the army of Italy and thus under his direct control, because the Rhine frontier had been quiet for quite sometime, and because it seemed like all the threats to the western empire lied in and around Italy-Radagaisus had just came through the Alps, and Alaric was right next door in the Balkans. It was a blunder on his part, but he could hardly have predicted the Rhine exploding.

As you pointed out, under normal circumstances (i.e. pre Stilicho fall) Alaric wouldnt be in any position to sack Rome. He had been defeated in northern Italy only a few years before, and regardless Stilicho's whole plan had been to win him over to his side and use him for his own ends. The slaughter of the German auxillaries and the subsequent fleeing of them to Alaric's army only exasperated the situation.

Even then, Rome and Ravenna held out. Alaric went back and forth to Rome and Ravenna, trying desperately to strike a deal. Breaking Rome by assault wasn't likely, he was lucky to have the gates opened to him-but sacking Rome was an admission of defeat more than a great victory.

 

[Elfwine]

The Roman Empire in the third century came into a hairs breath of collapse. Interestingly enough, it was the split of the empire that saved it-the Gallic Emperors were able to stabalize the crumbling Rhine frontier, the Roman emperors were able to focus on the Danube, and the Palmyreans saved the Roman east-literally, there were next to no Roman forces left in the east when the Palmyreans ambushed and defeated the Sassanid army out of nowhere. There were plenty of structural problems then, perhaps moreso than in the late empire. They were able to survive in the 7th century mainly due Constantinople being a fortress from what I understand.

The point is, it didn't collapse. Despite all that crap.

And from being better lead and with a less compromised military and . . . a bunch of things that aren't "luck" (and Constantinople being a fortress wouldn't have held Asia Minor).

Anyway, yes, the western Roman empire was still recovering from being defeated twice in civil wars by Theodosius. I'll give you that. It wasn't that they couldn't send them back-Stilicho took a calculated risk, betting that he could keep them with the army of Italy and thus under his direct control, because the Rhine frontier had been quiet for quite sometime, and because it seemed like all the threats to the western empire lied in and around Italy-Radagaisus had just came through the Alps, and Alaric was right next door in the Balkans. It was a blunder on his part, but he could hardly have predicted the Rhine exploding.

No, but that it exploding created a situation that couldn't be resolved can be blamed on the Roman state (how much Stilicho and how much the fact that a stronger Rome should have had other things than what he could do I leave to the experts).

To put it another way, the Empire's legions should be able to hold Italy and the Rhine border - that Stilicho had to take legions from the latter to the point of what happened OTL (including the fact it wasn't just a crossing of the border but they were not pushed back by legions coming up from wherever to deal with the problem) to shore up the former sounds like an overstretched military.

As you pointed out, under normal circumstances (i.e. pre Stilicho fall) Alaric wouldnt be in any position to sack Rome. He had been defeated in northern Italy only a few years before, and regardless Stilicho's whole plan had been to win him over to his side and use him for his own ends. The slaughter of the German auxillaries and the subsequent fleeing of them to Alaric's army only exasperated the situation.

Even then, Rome and Ravenna held out. Alaric went back and forth to Rome and Ravenna, trying desperately to strike a deal. Breaking Rome by assault wasn't likely, he was lucky to have the gates opened to him-but sacking Rome was an admission of defeat more than a great victory.

And the gates were opened to him by something other than the cruel hand of fate. This is not a strong, stable situation that he upset - this is a tenuous and unstable situation that he exploited.

At some point, WRE's advocates need to see that Rome's mistakes and failings bear a certain responsibility. Any state can have something like what happened to Stilicho happen to a man, that undermining the defense of Italy against Alaric is a bad sign.

 

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Yeah I'm gonna agree with Elfwine here.

You're only enforcing his point, that the Romans in the Crisis of the 3rd Century faced even tougher odds than the Western Romans in the 5th century, and managed to pull through.

They faced a united Gaul and Hispania, under a Roman Emperor, with Roman troops that their populace would accept indifferently--in the WEST; in the EAST they faced a Roman Empress with Roman troops. In addition there was invasion, civil war, plague, hyperinflation, decreased trade, and deurbanization.

On the other hand, the Fall of the Empire saw Rome facing brutal--but DISUNITED--tribes who managed to push their way through the Alpine Passes--unthinkable from the time of Gaius Marius--and sack Rome.

This is not just a string of bad luck, it's a road of mismanagement and social unrest. Between the 3rd and 5th centuries were the rise of Christianity, increased reliance on tribes and foederati to provide soldiers, and generous amounts of civil war. This isn't just bad luck or coincidence, it's a result of conscious decisions that didn't look more than about twenty years down the line.

Something drastically changed if the Rome that could beat the Etruscans and Samnites into submission through sheer perseverance, beat around the bush for Hannibal for seventeen years, lose 200,000 men to the Germans through sheer stupidity and yet produce a man like Gaius Marius to save them, conquer the known world; is sacked.

This isn't any inspirational shit, it's just rational; it doesn't make sense for a "string of bad luck" to destroy Rome as it once was.

Also, *hair's breadth*, not "hair's breath", just saying.

 

[Elfwine]

Something drastically changed if the Rome that could beat the Etruscans and Samnites into submission through sheer perseverance, beat around the bush for Hannibal for seventeen years, lose 200,000 men to the Germans through sheer stupidity and yet produce a man like Gaius Marius to save them, conquer the known world; is sacked.

This isn't any inspirational shit, it's just rational; it doesn't make sense for a "string of bad luck" to destroy Rome as it once was.

That's the thing I don't get. Clearly Rome in late antiquity was not a poor place, with only shadows of its past wealth a la 15th century Byzantium. It still at least nominally has the same borders as better days, and everything.

And yet once the Germans pierce through and the early events (Vandals, Alaric, etc.), things fall apart like there's nothing in there holding it up. How the hell does that work?

 

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

That's the thing I don't get. Clearly Rome in late antiquity was not a poor place, with only shadows of its past wealth a la 15th century Byzantium. It still at least nominally has the same borders as better days, and everything.

And yet once the Germans pierce through and the early events (Vandals, Alaric, etc.), things fall apart like there's nothing in there holding it up. How the hell does that work?

Well you've got to understand that Rome during and after the Crisis of the 3rd Century rapidly decentralized; it was becoming more and more feudal and manorial, and serfdom was basically poking its slimy head out of the ground.

By the early 5th century, the Empire was shabbily glued together through systems of honor and--basically--vassalage. The reason this all didn't fall apart so quickly is the greater degree of decentralization, meaning less taxes and more local decision-making, which leads to a happier populace. Still, while this decentralization meant that civil wars were smaller and harder to embark upon (mostly ending in one decisive battle, whereas Caesar's Civil War and the Final Civil War + Era of Violence and Unrest lasted in the first case 5 years, and in the latter 14), it also resulted in great ineffectiveness when it came to maintaining native troops and protecting the borders.

Christianity and the Crisis of the 3rd Century's decentralization led directly to the army basically becoming a 100% mercenary and barbarian force (it's a lot easier to "hire" [read: buy off] a large group of armed men who have nowhere to go and are quite happy to make violence in your city than it is to send hundreds of recruiters hundreds of miles on crumbling roads and through bandit-strewn hills--and in the end, to an ambivalent populace). This force, while professional, had no problem with accepting a wealthy governor's gold and turning on their erstwhile Emperors.

So when the Germans attacked and the gold dried up, the myriad of feuding (and almost feudal--excuse the homophonic pun) leaders for these mercenary contingents, plus disloyalty in some of the more newly settle foederati, made this army a hilariously ineffective fighting force. Cue Benny Hill music.

So then you have a Western Emperor with his palace falling around his ears, and an Eastern Emperor whose taxes don't come from there, and therefore who cares quite little. What he's hoping for is that the West will get weak enough that he can grab rich Italy and North Africa (the rest of Western Rome was quite poor) for himself.

Aaaand that's sort of about it. Unless I missed something.

Which I probably did, this shit can get complicated.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Civil Wars were far more commonplace during the dominate than in the pre-3rd century principate (only 2 of note lasting one year each).