Eastern empire falls, Western Empire lasts till 15th Century

Hello all, Ive been lurking here for awhile now, think its about time that I posted something.

Anybody think that it whould at all be possible for the Eastern Roman Empire in the 5th century to fall, and have the Western Empire to last some centurys after that, or is that to Improbable?

If we're in the 5th century, have the Goths destroy it instead of Rome.

It could happen this way

1) The Goths don't divide West and East, but stay united.

2) a pestilence falls on the entire region, weakening the defenses of the East

3) The Goths, seeing an opening, attack and sack the city, but instead of moving on, they remain.

4) Many merchants and 'nobles flee to Italy, reinforcing it.

5) Iberia, Gaul and Italy make up the empire. (England is probably going to go, it's just to distant).

6) Western Empire falls as Northern Europe grows in power, and national forces begin to grow greater (Gaul for the gauling, etc.)

Atilla was originally going to attack the east, until Honora asked him for help. The Persians could also begin an offensive against the east.

DominusNovus said:

Atilla was originally going to attack the east, until Honora asked him for help. The Persians could also begin an offensive against the east.

Click to expand...

A Persian Empire with a centuries old hold on the Roman middle East would have a crippling effect on the rise of Islam, should that come about in this Scenario. Also, how whould the middle ages pan out with the West Roman Empire in France, Italy, Spain and North Africa(depending on how the Islamic conquest works out in this Scenario) and a Gothic or Hunnic Empire in Constantinople? Vikings take the West? Do the Mongols even happen?

Super55 said:

A Persian Empire with a centuries old hold on the Roman middle East would have a crippling effect on the rise of Islam, should that come about in this Scenario.

Click to expand...

I think it might hasten it, actually. Islam, on the whole, does not have a terribly original message (I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive, but one could say this about all major religions, to some degree). One of Muhammad's governing beliefs was that every people had its prophet and his message, and the Arabs's time had come. One of the reasons Islam spread so quickly was the devastation wrought by the endless wars between the Byzantines and the Persians, and the persecutions brought down upon the hapless people caught in the middle. Numerous Iranizing religions sprung up in the no man's land between the two warring empires - various Gnostic sects, the Manichaeans, and finally Islam. I think it was inevitable that someone would have eventually won the hearts and minds of these people and driven the interlopers out. If not Muhammad, then Mani. If not Mani, then some other prophet would have stepped into the breech. There was certainly no shortage of them in that time.

The Iranians have a tradition that Salman-e Farsi, the first Persian convert to Islam, taught the chief tenets of the Zoroastrian religion to Muhammad, who subsequently brought this "reformed faith" back to Persia. This story is apocryphal, but it illustrates how a Persian takeover of the Middle East might give rise to an Islam-like religion.

Super55 said:

Also, how whould the middle ages pan out with the West Roman Empire in France, Italy, Spain and North Africa(depending on how the Islamic conquest works out in this Scenario) and a Gothic or Hunnic Empire in Constantinople? Vikings take the West? Do the Mongols even happen?

Click to expand...

Huns will still probably stay in the Hungarian plain. The Goths might take the core of the Byzantine empire, Anatolia (maybe Greece too), the Vandals might take Egypt. I guess the Franks could end up in Germany or the Balkans. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes will still probably head to Britain.

The mongols are still likely to become a major force. Timujiin himself might be butterflied away, but someone will unify them eventually.

It's the economy

The problem with western survival scenarios is that you still need to find a way to give that part of the Roman Empire the kind of economic and cultural base the East had. It is said (though on dubious statistics) that Syria alone was worth, in monetary terms, more than all of Roman Germany, Gaul, Britain, and Iberia. More importantly, it had cities with literate middle classes and a local government that was not mostly colonial in nature.
It would be possible for the East to fall - the Persians could do it, the Huns or Goths might, though I would expect the latter to just try and set up their own successor states and 'go Roman', and if you wait just a little the Arabs had the best chances. But for the West to remain as stable and culturally homogenous as the East, it would need a firmer and broader economic and cultural base. Italy makes a good model, but it was too small OTL. OUtside of Italy (in fact, outside of Central Italy already), power had slipped largely into the hands of large landholders, cities were in decline, the economy almost completely dependent on primary-sector production (mostly farming, mining and stockbreeding) and the upper class language in slow decline. If you could manage some form of economic boom in the West that gave, say, Souther Gaul, Baetica, Hispania Citerior and Africa the economic staying power to act as a bastion of Latinity, and take the Papacy out of the equation...

I imagine something like Ummayyad Spain, only Christian and Latin-speaking

carlton_bach said:

I imagine something like Ummayyad Spain, only Christian and Latin-speaking

Click to expand...

I suspect it'd be easier to extend umayyad spain to the channel.

Syagrius defeats and kills Clovis. The kingdom of Syagrius seemed to have had a loose alliance with theBritto-Roman and Armorican kingdoms (they felt they shared a common civilization). Together they manage to contain the anglo-saxons, form a kind of loose federation under a Britto-Roman-like high king. After a time they go south ala Justinian.
Now, it would make for a very weird Western Roman Empire

Ar Skoul said:

Syagrius defeats and kills Clovis. The kingdom of Syagrius seemed to have had a loose alliance with theBritto-Roman and Armorican kingdoms (they felt they shared a common civilization). Together they manage to contain the anglo-saxons, form a kind of loose federation under a Britto-Roman-like high king. After a time they go south ala Justinian.
Now, it would make for a very weird Western Roman Empire

Click to expand...

Hmm. It would be 'Roman' in mname, and very likely a touch more literate and civilised than what the Franks built, but I doubt it would qualify in any sense as a 'Roman Empire'. It'd be interesting, though: a medieval western Europe divided linguistically into Germanic (Germany, Scandinavia, Netherlands), Celtic (Britain, northern France) and Romance (souther France, Spain, Italy) states. If you assume that geopolitical dominance stays where it is, would the habits and patterns of Celtic life radiate from northern France throughout Europe? A Celtic feudal age? Why not?

Super55 said:

Hello all, Ive been lurking here for awhile now, think its about time that I posted something.

Anybody think that it whould at all be possible for the Eastern Roman Empire in the 5th century to fall, and have the Western Empire to last some centurys after that, or is that to Improbable?

Click to expand...

The problem is, the East survived so incredibly long because the critical cadre of experience administrators and tax collection bureacracy was preserved by the impenetrable walls of Constantinople, and there is nothing in the 5th c that has a prayer of getting in.

The only POD I can think of is a Civil War that leads to the sack of Constantinople and the subsequent collapse of Eastern administration.

For the West, I can't think of anything. Perhaps if the government had moved to Ravenna earlier?

Abdul Hadi Pasha said:

The problem is, the East survived so incredibly long because the critical cadre of experience administrators and tax collection bureacracy was preserved by the impenetrable walls of Constantinople, and there is nothing in the 5th c that has a prayer of getting in.

The only POD I can think of is a Civil War that leads to the sack of Constantinople and the subsequent collapse of Eastern administration.

For the West, I can't think of anything. Perhaps if the government had moved to Ravenna earlier?

Click to expand...

Constantine doesn't move his capital to the east and stays in the west.

Assuming we need a 5th-century PoD: Stilicho defeats and kills Alaric during the latter's invasion of Italy in 401. Radagaesus' invasion is diverted from a strong and unravaged Italy into the Balkans, where he joins up with the remnants of Alaric's Visigoths. Eventually a lasting Gothic kingdom emerges in Greece and the Balkans, weakening the Eastern Empire.

Stilicho, free from suspicions of collusion with Alaric, escapes assassination. He probably can't stop the Vandals and Suevii crossing the Rhine in 406, but is in a better position to limit the damage they do. Without the Visigoths to chase them into Africa, the Vandals settle permanently in Spain and Roman hangs on to Africa, the granary of the West.

Britain will go its own way, if not in 410 then sooner or later; the Franks will still take northern Gaul, but not as much territory as they took in OTL. The Western Empire hangs on to Italy, the Alps, Africa and Southern Gaul indefinitely.

Bringing down the East in the 5th century is I think harder unless you make Persia stronger. Hmm. Attila, instead of attacking the strengthened Western Empire held by the heirs of Stilicho, builds a stronger state in eastern Europe. When the Oghur migration shows up in the 460s, they cannot shake Hun power north of the Black Sea, so cross the Caucasus and invade Anatolia instead, creating a Turkish state there a few centuries early. The Persians take the opportunity to overrun Syria and Egypt.

Duncan said:

Assuming we need a 5th-century PoD: Stilicho defeats and kills Alaric during the latter's invasion of Italy in 401. Radagaesus' invasion is diverted from a strong and unravaged Italy into the Balkans, where he joins up with the remnants of Alaric's Visigoths. Eventually a lasting Gothic kingdom emerges in Greece and the Balkans, weakening the Eastern Empire.

Stilicho, free from suspicions of collusion with Alaric, escapes assassination. He probably can't stop the Vandals and Suevii crossing the Rhine in 406, but is in a better position to limit the damage they do. Without the Visigoths to chase them into Africa, the Vandals settle permanently in Spain and Roman hangs on to Africa, the granary of the West.

Britain will go its own way, if not in 410 then sooner or later; the Franks will still take northern Gaul, but not as much territory as they took in OTL. The Western Empire hangs on to Italy, the Alps, Africa and Southern Gaul indefinitely.

Bringing down the East in the 5th century is I think harder unless you make Persia stronger. Hmm. Attila, instead of attacking the strengthened Western Empire held by the heirs of Stilicho, builds a stronger state in eastern Europe. When the Oghur migration shows up in the 460s, they cannot shake Hun power north of the Black Sea, so cross the Caucasus and invade Anatolia instead, creating a Turkish state there a few centuries early. The Persians take the opportunity to overrun Syria and Egypt.

Click to expand...

Very nice balance of the forces involved. We have a 'rump of Rome in the West [Italy, parts of France, the North Coast of Africa, a possible Vandal client state in Spain, and [I would guess] parts of the adriatic coast.]

If the turks are defeated by the huns, the slavic migrations in to the Balkans could turn turned East [bounce off the Gothic Kingdom] then maybe on into OTL Turkey.

Duncan's scenario is pretty interesting. Norman's Slavic Anatolia is also pretty cool.

Perhaps we can make a full-blown TL out of this.

Matt Quinn said:

Duncan's scenario is pretty interesting. Norman's Slavic Anatolia is also pretty cool.

Perhaps we can make a full-blown TL out of this.

Click to expand...

Very good idea. Yes, we should try it.

This is pretty good idea, and it makes sense too.

You know a POV from a Slavic Anatolia would be interesting

Norman said:

This is pretty good idea, and it makes sense too.

You know a POV from a Slavic Anatolia would be interesting

Click to expand...

I can't get the image of anatolia being TTL's balkans out of my mind; embroiled in religious, ethinic, political, and territorial conflict.

With Movement of the Slavs into Anatolia, and with all the butterflies, they would probably remain Christian. It is also interesting to consider a Slavic Ottoman-like empire.

So, how're we gonna approach this? Here's my proposal for how we go about it:

If the Huns focus on the Eastern Empire, its not unrealistic to imagine them as allies of the west (they were often allies anyway). This could help the West hold on to their territory, assuming both sides honor their agreement. The Hunnic empire would keep the barbarians in line, mainly by getting everyone they ruled to gang up on Byzantium, while ganging up with Rome against the other tribes (like the Visigoths). I figure many of the tribes will start settling in Byzantine territory, to get away from the Huns.

For this to happen, we would need some effective leadership on both the part of Rome and the Huns. We could easily find it in General Aetius and Attila, both who died before their time (and who both happened to be friends). Avoid the debacle with Honora, and Attila leaves the West alone. Smooth things out between Aetius and Emperor Valentinian, and keep Attila from dying in his sleep.

Or, have Valentinian marry Honora to Attila. He actually had his other sister, Placidia, marry a Vandal prince, so this would be within the realm of plausibility.

Either way, if Aetius stays around (we could even make him Emperor, if we wanted), the West will fare much better. He's the kind of guy who could hold things together. It'd be even easier with the Huns on his side.

So, what do you guys think we should go with? Just have the Huns allied, or should we marry Honora and Attila? If they get hitched, the Huns could prove to be more valuable and loyal allies, but, there's the possibility of court intrigues messing stuff up. Which would be ironic, as thats the kind of stuff you'd expect from Byzantium.


Or, of course, we go with one of the other ideas, I'm just throwing out ideas for you guys.