Smallest possible surviving (Western) Roman Empire?
- Thread starter abc123
- Start date
Sort of a new challenge, but what about the Emperor either being the Pope or being closely related, so the Papal States or whatever state is carved out claims to be Rome?So, what's the smallest area that can allow WRE to survive post 476?
So, what's the smallest area that can allow WRE to survive post 476?
Italy, for obvious reasons.
Illyria, for fiscal revenues (even if damaged) and strategical purposes (keeping safe connection with ERE)
Africa, for fiscal revenues (the only province untouched in WRE before Vandals).
Short of that, I don't think it's possible.
Venice. They were, historically, simply the western-most part of the Empire that never fell to any barbarians, and came to fall under the authority of the Emperor in Constantinople.
If, for example, the imperial court were to establish itself at Venice, and maintain its independence as well as historical Venice did, then I don't see any reason why the Western 'Empire' could not continue on as a city-state.
I do see some threat coming from the fact that local warlords might want to control the Imperial Court, as was always a concern. As is the possibility that some ambitious Emperor might overestimate his power and attempt to expand too far outside of the lagoon.
On the other hand, given that a city-state is likely to be mercantile in nature, it could easily devolve into a similar government as historically happened, and the interests of the 'Roman Empire in Venice' would direct it in such directions as historically happened.
If, for example, the imperial court were to establish itself at Venice, and maintain its independence as well as historical Venice did, then I don't see any reason why the Western 'Empire' could not continue on as a city-state.
I do see some threat coming from the fact that local warlords might want to control the Imperial Court, as was always a concern. As is the possibility that some ambitious Emperor might overestimate his power and attempt to expand too far outside of the lagoon.
On the other hand, given that a city-state is likely to be mercantile in nature, it could easily devolve into a similar government as historically happened, and the interests of the 'Roman Empire in Venice' would direct it in such directions as historically happened.
In spite of...well, non existing? According Cassiodorus, the laguna at this point was a poor land ridden by disease and refugees. It could count as well as an empire than Charles was the king of the place where he was beheaded.
I'm not saying there was a grand city there in the 5th century (though tradition dictates that there was a church on the Rialto already). I'm just saying that an Imperial Court could have moved to that location at some point.
There were three or four rump states existing in 476 which could have proclaimed themselves a continuation of the WRE, thus carrying the empire past 476, not necessarily for very long:
(i) Dalmatia, ruled by the deposed emperor Julius Nepos. He hadn't abandoned his title and was recognized by the Eastern Emperor, and even, after a fashion by Odoacer. (Odoacer struck some coins in Julius Nepos's name, but gave him no further recognition). Dalmatia gets you to 480, when Julius Nepos was assassinated.
(ii) Northeastern Gaul, ruled by Syagrius until about 487. It hadn't broken away from the empire, but Syagrius and his father hadn't recognized the emperors after Majorian. We aren't sure what title he went by. His realm was conquered by the Franks in 486 or -7;
(iii) Britain. Circumstances after 411 are not well documented, but the Britons had sent a letter to Aetius (or Aegidius) around mid-century asking for help, which suggests a willingness to remain in the empire. Gildas says that the parents of Ambrosius Aurelianus had worn the purple, so maybe there was a breakaway WRE in Britain at one point. Latest end date -- when the last Welsh kingdom fell.
(iv) San Marino (maybe). Again, documentation of the early years is scanty, but it is plausible, even likely, that San Marino was still associated with the WRE until the end and just carried on as usual after 476. It makes for a very tiny survivor state, although it didn't appoint an emperor, which would have been contrary to it's raison d'etre and would have attracted unwanted attention.
(i) Dalmatia, ruled by the deposed emperor Julius Nepos. He hadn't abandoned his title and was recognized by the Eastern Emperor, and even, after a fashion by Odoacer. (Odoacer struck some coins in Julius Nepos's name, but gave him no further recognition). Dalmatia gets you to 480, when Julius Nepos was assassinated.
(ii) Northeastern Gaul, ruled by Syagrius until about 487. It hadn't broken away from the empire, but Syagrius and his father hadn't recognized the emperors after Majorian. We aren't sure what title he went by. His realm was conquered by the Franks in 486 or -7;
(iii) Britain. Circumstances after 411 are not well documented, but the Britons had sent a letter to Aetius (or Aegidius) around mid-century asking for help, which suggests a willingness to remain in the empire. Gildas says that the parents of Ambrosius Aurelianus had worn the purple, so maybe there was a breakaway WRE in Britain at one point. Latest end date -- when the last Welsh kingdom fell.
(iv) San Marino (maybe). Again, documentation of the early years is scanty, but it is plausible, even likely, that San Marino was still associated with the WRE until the end and just carried on as usual after 476. It makes for a very tiny survivor state, although it didn't appoint an emperor, which would have been contrary to it's raison d'etre and would have attracted unwanted attention.
Tradition, after being hugely modified by Venetian historiography critically when it came to origins, is maybe not enough to proove the presence of a safe haven there.
Again, we're talking of a deserted laguna, without ressources whatsoever.
Would it be only considering the cost of building enough infrastructures to host a whole court there (and ravitail it, and allow it to rule something), while all this effort could be used to something more constructive (and not as obviously "Abandon ship") and the possible reaction of roman elites that would simply get rid of any emperor crazy enough to propose that...
No, that's not credible. It's like asking US governement and institutions, in the case of its territory being slowly invaded, to settle in the Death Valley because nobody would chase them there. Granted, it may be true, but it's obviously not viable, not even a second.
Allow me to disagree strongly.
The so-called "Kingdom of Syagrius" was everything but an unifided or something remotly corresponding to a roman state. At least three other counts or leader had a strong power on the region between Franks, Alamans and Wisigoths : Syagrius himself, Abrogast (a frankish count), Paul, and Riothamus. There's no positive proof about them being unified.
It's likely that it was essentially the emanation of the Gallo-Roman land owners, supported by militias (probably as much barbarised than Frankish troops, or other late roman armies), without a clear leadership. At this point, it's even possible that Clovis had more imperial "legitimacy" : his rule coming from a late imperial institution, the exercitus Francorum, a foedus; while Syagrius isn't acknowledged by Constantinople. I don't want to say Clovis was "more" roman than Syagrius, but in Vth Gaul, the difference between both sides was probably minimal.
And of course, there simply no indication at all, that he claimed the imperium on all Gaul, let alone the empire (he seems to have been rather clientelized by Visigoths).
The only reason it gets represented as one entity in many maps (though the trend gets reversed now), it's because it fills a region on the map, thanks to debatable informations gave by Gregorius of Tours (especially the very un-roman title of "King of Romans")
Actually, Ambrosius Aurelianus is more often identified with the Breton presence in Gaul, going back to the second point.
There's absolutly no proof of a direct transmission, or even a continuous survival.
San Marino isn't distinct from other central Italian communauties, falling under the domination of Goths, Byzzies, Lombards, Franks without mention of any autonomy left alone independence from Roman times.
Not before the end of XIIIth century (and not even recognized as such by the Pope before the XVth), San Marino communa proclaimed clearly its autonomy.
Of course tradition said otherwise, as Venetian tradition claims that its history cames all the way from Attila. It's simply not a trustworthy story.
We could as well indulge ourselves with the obvious forgery of Constantin Donation to claim Vatican is the Roman Empire, as it was created by Constantin.
Last edited:
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Ravenna, as some kind of city state for puppet emperors of the Goths/ Lombards/ Franks/ whoever park an army outside.
I like the idea of Venice, and I do agree that there just wasn't any settlement there in the 5th Century. There was something else in the area, though, the town of Eraclea. It was the first seat of the first few duces - the Dogi - that would later move to Malamocco and then to Rialto (basically the city centre of later Venice).
The Imperial court could move to Aquileia, a quite important city in Veneto at the time, that lost much of its importance after a series of barbarian attacks, and then move to Eraclea and to Venice proper later on. The presence of the Imperial Court could help the pro-byzantine faction to maintain itself in power. That could spell a completely different Early Middle Age in Northern Italy, with possible huge repercussions on the Franks and indirectly on the rest of Europe.
The Imperial court could move to Aquileia, a quite important city in Veneto at the time, that lost much of its importance after a series of barbarian attacks, and then move to Eraclea and to Venice proper later on. The presence of the Imperial Court could help the pro-byzantine faction to maintain itself in power. That could spell a completely different Early Middle Age in Northern Italy, with possible huge repercussions on the Franks and indirectly on the rest of Europe.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
It'd be really interesting to see another Roman Africa timeline - there was one about a S.Roman Empire built by Boniface.
An interesting PoD for a 'Smallest Roman Empire' could be a Vandal invasion of Italy, rather than Spain.
If they could devestate and occupy Italy enough, you could see a Roman Empire based in Africa, with aims on similar targets to Carthage. I can imagine an extant Roman Empire there if that is the core of their territory - regardless of the worst. No more tax-stingy Italian Senators, protection by the East, and even with the worst circumstances, as long as they have the sea, they just need a strong fortress at the Strait to prevent the worst invasions.
Now if we have an invasion out of Africa, or Egypt - that is more of a threat.
It'd be sad to see them reduced to a 'Kingdom of the Latins' in same way the 'Kingdom of the Greeks' was, but it would be hard to eliminate them if Africa is kept intact.
Eraclea didn't existed by the Vth century, as other lagunar cities. Melidissa didn't became the siege of a bishopry before the late VIth with the Lombardic invasions (the same that provoked the definitive establishment of settlements in the laguna)
It's doable, while the region is far less accessible for ERE, and that the abandon by the administration (instead of only emperors moving from different centers) would be still huge problems.
With, as you noticed, the issue that Aquilea was right in the way of raid and romano-barbarian campaigns. While it makes the city a perfect place for a QG (as Marcus Aurelius used it), it's far more perillous for a whole administration. (Without mentioning the problem of walls : they were destroyed by Huns in the 450's)
But wouldn't that be a similar situation than Bee pointed out with Julius Nepos : an at best puppetised rump imperial court in Illyria, eventually absorbated, while Italy is held by romano-barbarian rulers? (I'm not talking only of romano-barbarian states, as Odoacer's, but as well de facto rulership of patricians as Ricimer)
Frankly, I don't think so. ERE mostly survived because Egypt, Syria and Pontic regions were spared. If it had to count only on European territories, it would have vanished as well.
The Diocletian reforms worked so much, but involved regular revenues. Without these, and in West only Africa could really both gives that (in addition of agricultural ressources) and be spared invasion.
Byzantine conquest had other motives, but re-take one of the richest part of the West wasn't a minor factor.
I suppose that if Rome manages to keep Spain and southern Gaul, Africa may not be that mandatory. But it's more a technical point, for I don't see how it would be possible (while I could be convinced otherwise) for Romans to do that, and in the same time to loose Africa (Berbers were, at this point, too much unorganised and isolationists to really hope to take on themselves).
This basically. Although I think you can get by with just Dalmatia rather than the whole of Illyria (the rest being in control of the east after all). Though at that point, I wouldn't be surprised if you see an eastern emperor just not appoint a western colleague eventually, and rule both himself.
Contradicts Gregory on Syagrius, Jordanes on Riothamus and Gildas on Aurelianus Ambrosius.
Syagrius ruled from Soissons; I won't speculate on how large a territory, but it shouldn't have been too tiny since the outcome of his war with Clovis wasn't a foregone conclusion (other Frankish rulers stayed out of it because they didn't know who would win). I agree that the title "King of the Romans" doesn't feel right. Gregory probably didn't know the actual title, so he called him a king because he did what kings do (exercised supreme civil and military command) and said "of the Romans" because Romans were the dominant group.
Syagrius fled to Visigothic territory after the losing battle against Clovis. If that's the reason for considering him a Visigoth client, it's not much to go on.
Gregory wrote on this quite a time after, and only gives some lines to it, and only some tiny parts to Clovis' reign as a whole.
He's know, for example, to shortening events in order to point our the general lines : the campaigns in Gaul are always said to happen in a year, but this is generally contradicted by other sources. There's no real reason to think it happened otherwise in northern Gaul for the sake of being northern Gaul.
As for Jordanes, there what he said.
First, I'll like to point out that Riothamus came from Brittania for Jordanes.
Then, Rigo-tamos, is more of a title, basically meaning "high king". At this point, we have a powerful character coming from Britain and holding the hell out of a prestigious position.
So, he have someone with a impressive title on Romano-Brittons, having ties with Romans, and ruling in both side of the Channel.
The other contemporary chronicles mention one name that could fit it. Ambrosius Aurelianus.
Either you have two distinct great leaders living in the same aera, ruling over similar populations, but never mentioned in the same time.
Either, there's a strong possibility for them to be the same.
I'll concede that Jordanes isn't that trustworthy, essentially as he search to point out Goths are a people with history alike with romans (using Old Testament and Eneid parallels at such hands) but we're on the non mythical and historiographical part there, so I tend to be less suspicious.
Basically, a critical reading of sources is needed there. (Or at this point, we can all agree Franks are Troyans
)Exactly how? I admit I'm far less familiar with Gildas, and that I can be wrong a lot, but what I found doesn't strikes me as contradictory.
[Britto-Romans] took arms under the conduct of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a modest man, who of all the Roman nation was then alone in the confusion of this troubled period by chance left alive.
His parents, who for their merit were adorned with the purple, had been slain in these same broils, and now his progeny in these our days, although shamefully degenerated from the worthiness of their ancestors, provoke to battle their cruel conquerors, and by the goodness of our Lord obtain the victory.[/QUOTE]
A Britto-Roman lord, with ties with Roman nobility, and battleing invaders.
EDIT : Re-reading my last post, I indeed really poorly put it. My bad.
What I wanted to say was : Aurelius Ambroisius is more often identified with the presence on Gaul as well than on Britain.
As for no help to Clovis : Ragnachar, king of Cambrai, did helped him in this campaign(Gregory).
As for Syagrius ruling from Soissons, that's a huge hypothesis basing on nothing, not even Gregory.
A wall of text later.
And that's about it.
There's absolutly no mention of a territory. Nada. Syagrius ruled a city, and maybe the land around it, as a comes would have done.
It is telling that Clovis doesn't seems to take control of Orléans in the wake of Syagrius' defeat, but 10 years. It's possible that a good chunk of Northern Gaul wasn't neither into Syagrius' hand or Clovis before some date.
In fact, it's even possible that Syagrius more or less usurped the power there,
Edward James brillantly pointed out several clues.
It is indeed known by contemporary sources, that Childeric had the imperium over Belgica Secunda.
You can see there that the provinces goes quite far and includes Soissons (It is also telling that, at the death of Clovis, the part trusted to Clotaire spouse the whole Belgica Secunda as well, including Soissons that was his main residence.).
At that's the least Childeric could have gathered, it's not improbable given his intervention in Gaul against Goths, Saxons and Alains, that he was trusted (or trusted himself) with more. (Gregory, but it's unknown at which point he have to be confident, said that Franks influence in Gaul was important enough during his reign)
It's not even clear if Childeric was an ally, an ennemy or alternativly both of Egidius. It's possible that Soissons was at this point, a capture of war. There's simply not enough evidence about grasping the limit between Gallo-Roman and Frankish influences (material culture doesn't help at all : both are extremly similar, and are divided thanks to what we know about the conquest of Gaul. Talk about circular reasoning).
After all Arbogast was a Frankish comes of Gallo-Roman eastern Gaul.
Does this totally disproove the existance of a or more gallo-roman entities in North-Western Gaul, with Syagrius having some form of dominance over (past a local one)? No.
Aegidius is after all mentioned in eastern roman chronicles, as an important leader. (But nothing is said on his son) but alternativly we know of a strong possibility about Egidius having relied on Frankish troops.
The whole hypothesis of "Soissons Demesne" covering all of Northern Gaul is build on really tiny evidence, and a lot of baseless assumptions. The most simple honesty would be to not present it as an obvious fact.
The reverse theory isn't totally proven as well, but does have the merit to search actual evidence, by actual critical reading and analysis of sources.
The biggest problem I've with your theory is that Gregory was a Roman of Auvergne himself, let alone being a bishop (a political and intellectual elite).
Having him not knowing about the roman titulature or presence would be...surprising.
It's probable that he called Syagrius such because Syagrius didn't had a title of its own, at least a legitimate title given by Rome. He wasn't a patrice (or a legit one), a consul, a duke (given he led a really composite army), doesn't seems to have held Soissons from a legit authority...
He gave him whatever title could fit on face of the political emptiness (maybe to discredit him as well, concious of the contradiction?). And the modern association between king and kingdom being obviously tied to each other made the rest.
This, kids, is how you create states out of nowhere
Would it be only fleeing to Visigothic court would be enough. It's not as he hadn't choice : Bretons, Burgondians, etc.
The problem is that Burgondians were very about legitimacy (as Franks were, would it be at their benefit
). Syagrius was, legally, nothing.Breton seems to have supported him on the other hand, so fleeing westwards would have make sense as well (critically when Armoricains managed to hold Clovis)
Considering this, and that after the Battle of Déols, Goths didn't advanced in northern Gaul (whereas Euric was on a conquering spree in Aquitaine), it would be only normal to speculate on an agreement between Gallo-Romans and Britto-Romans, that given their respective power, would imply a dominant/dominee relationship.
There's other clues, such as the presence of southern Gallo-Romans in the Vth in the Loire basin and estuary : Namatii, Nonechii; or the reject of local bishopry that's hard to explain against a catholic roman if it wasn't about some agreement with an arian king that struggled with the catholic aquitain clergy.
So while you don't have one safe proof there, the whole net of clues is at least strongly implying the existance of such relationship.
Last edited: