AHQ: Roman Armada of 468 reconquers north Afric from the vandals, what now?

[The Anglo-Dutch Union]

So IOTL the eastern and western roman empires coordinated a large armada to retake North Africa for the western Roman empire, this did not go to plan and the result was a eastern empire without cash and a western empire doomed to fall.

However, what if this Armada succeeded? This would rejuvenate the western empire by reconquering a vital source of revenue and eliminating the vandals raiding the Italian coast. What would this empire look like? Would it be in a position to recapture most of the provinces? What would happen to the Ostrogoths, after all now they won’t be ‘invited’ by the eastern emperors to rule Italy for them.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

So IOTL the eastern and western roman empires coordinated a large armada to retake North Africa for the western Roman empire, this did not go to plan and the result was a eastern empire without cash and a western empire doomed to fall.

However, what if this Armada succeeded? This would rejuvenate the western empire by reconquering a vital source of revenue and eliminating the vandals raiding the Italian coast. What would this empire look like? Would it be in a position to recapture most of the provinces? What would happen to the Ostrogoths, after all now they won’t be ‘invited’ by the eastern emperors to rule Italy for them.

Most immediately, this strengthens Anthemius vis a vis the Italian aristocracy and Ricimer-Ricimer is, I imagine, not long for this world. It also gives Anthemius the resources to start re-projecting Roman power into southern Gaul, a power projection that was not entirely lost by this period, but had fallen by the wayside in the 460s as the West Roman administration became increasingly dominated by the Italian aristocracy and the Gallic Roman aristocracy became increasingly alienated after the downfall of Avitus and then Majorian.

 

[Vinization]

I wonder if Basiliscus would reign as emperor of the East for longer. He was the one who led the armada, after all, and will be associated with a victory instead of a complete humiliation.

 

[Xenophonte]

Most immediately, this strengthens Anthemius vis a vis the Italian aristocracy and Ricimer-Ricimer is, I imagine, not long for this world. It also gives Anthemius the resources to start re-projecting Roman power into southern Gaul, a power projection that was not entirely lost by this period, but had fallen by the wayside in the 460s as the West Roman administration became increasingly dominated by the Italian aristocracy and the Gallic Roman aristocracy became increasingly alienated after the downfall of Avitus and then Majorian.

The recuperation of North Africa aside of the already noted beneficies that would have been derived of a surviving and stabilized Western Empire core, with the subsequent tax income and military strength increases resulting in both in newly found political influence and power projection... I think that it would have allowed to increase the chances to if not revert/stooped, I'd suppose that at very least ITTL, it 'd have helped to decelerate the ongoing process, based on Romans inability/lack of success to do anything to stop/rever it and in the legal/political fiction from which the Germans 'foederati' tribes, already settled/ruling in the Roman Gallic and Iberian provinces, extracted their legitimacy. A process that, would OTL, have ended in the formalization of their rule over their Romans subjects with the formation/consolidation of the Romano-Germanic Kingdoms kingdoms/States.
Also, the economical/financial consequences for both Roman States aren't to be underestimated,given that the remotion of the Vandal piracy would likely have as one of its consequences a commercial boom and would aside to increase the popularity and prestige from both rulers. It also, would have increased the available taxable population and manpower for the Italy based Roman State. Finally, I think that would be safe to guess that a newly stabilized Western Roman, 'd aside from Provenza and the Baleares islands, would, as minimum, also extend their influence and/or authority/control in Dalmatia/Western Roman Balkans and even into Roman Pannonia...

 

[Avrorrange]

Would the Western Roman Empire be able to hold the place from the Berbers?

 

[Xenophonte]

Would the Western Roman Empire be able to hold the place from the Berbers?

Based, on both the Historical knowledge from Vandal kingdom and the Byzantine reconquest periods and their relations with the then called Mauri/Mauritians. I'd suppose that while would be a strong and stable central authority able to defend/deploy troops or have enough financial resources as for fight them off or if necessary to bribe their chieftains,I don't foresee that barring a major crisis, that the Berbers would cause too much trouble to the reestablished Carthage based Western Roman provincial administrations...

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Would the Western Roman Empire be able to hold the place from the Berbers?

Berbers would not be too much of a threat, to my knowledge. As Xenophante pointed out, they weren't really a major problem in this period. Another interesting wrinkle in all of this is how much leftover from the invasion force provided by Leo is available to Anthemius. I imagine some of those forces are being permanently allocated to securing and maintaining North Africa, but I'm not really sure what Leo's long-term plans in the west were. Anthemius is popular in Rome (which does matter-Rome was increasingly the primary seat of the western emperor from the 440s onward, and Anthemius made it his sole base of operations), and he is in lockstep with the east, something the west has not seen since Valentinian III.

 

[Andristan]

If the combined armies re-capture Africa, then perchance the assassination of Marcellinus (probably by/for Ricimer) is less likely to happen; murder a down and out defeated commander sure, kill the savior of Africa less so. If that killing is avoided, then Dalmatia, Sicily and Sardinia remain in the hands of supporters of Anthemius, Julius Nepos stays deputy of his uncle, and maybe Ricimer stays on friendlier terms with Anthemius. The victory could persuade Aegidius, or more likely Syagrius, to support Anthemius or at least seek his support.

 

[GodEmperorG]

You know with all these threads set in this period which have Richimer as the lynchpin of evil that will topple any emperor, whats stopping someone from just killing him first? Or am I to believe Richimer is assasination proof?

His ability to just kill any Emperor who even slightly fails a campaign (Majorian) shows he is very politically influential within Italy proper, but if he were to die who would avenge him?

 

[Concerned Brazilian]

The Western Roman Empire's fate was sealed by that point, so the barbarians would seize the Italic peninsula when they were distracted with North Africa.
I can see the Western Roman Empire moving to North Africa though, until being conquered by the Arabs

 

[Hearkener]

However, what if this Armada succeeded? This would rejuvenate the western empire by reconquering a vital source of revenue and eliminating the vandals raiding the Italian coast. What would this empire look like? Would it be in a position to recapture most of the provinces? What would happen to the Ostrogoths, after all now they won’t be ‘invited’ by the eastern emperors to rule Italy for them.

Retaking Africa may delay the collapse by a few decades, but cannot at this point save the Empire. The WRE would return to the state of affairs it had faced in the 420s and 30s. That still means massive systemic corruption in the army, and an administration more loyal to the provincial elites than to the central government. It means big time ethnic tensions between the Germanics and the Romans. And it means an ERE that can basically play kingmaker in the West, and uses that more to get a willing buffer than a strong ally.

Bigger than that, Rome was an urban civilization, and climate change meant that urbanism was on its way out in most of the WRE. The Roman state couldn't function without cities, and as these disintegrated due to massive food shortages, so did Roman power. While the Romans can still smash any army the barbarians can field, they have lost the ability to permanently pacify them.

A victory for the coalition would be another Catalaunian fields, not another Zama. A delay of the inevitable, just as Attila's retreat from Rome (Which imo could have destroyed the Empire three decades early).

Now, I do think the WRE might survive this way until the end of the century, and there might even be a rump state based in Carthage.

But the days of empire had run their course. There will never again come a time when Rome could plausibly rule from Chaldea to Scotland.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The WRE would return to the state of affairs it had faced in the 420s and 30s.

The WRE wasn't a beacon of strength in the 420s and 430s, but it would also be a mistake to think they were on the verge of complete and total collapse until they lost Africa.

an administration more loyal to the provincial elites than to the central government.

I don't think this was the case? The rapid breakdown in provincial control happens after the loss of Africa (well, with the notable exception of northern Gaul and Britain) and the causation here is inverted-it was the sudden fatal weakening of the imperial administration that caused local administrators and elites to prioritize their own localitaties, not the other way around.

While the Romans can still smash any army the barbarians can field, they have lost the ability to permanently pacify them.

They never really had this ability?

Now, I do think the WRE might survive this way until the end of the century, and there might even be a rump state based in Carthage.

The WRE was never really in danger of losing Italy. And even by 469, with 30 years of fiscal and subsequent administrative collapse in the rearview mirror, Anthemius was still holding Arelate, and could project his power into Gaul enough to launch a serious campaign against the Visigoths.

But the days of empire had run their course. There will never again come a time when Rome could plausibly rule from Chaldea to Scotland.

Instead they're ruling from Nisibis to Avaricum.

 

[Hearkener]

They never really had this ability?

I mean they did incorporate Gaul and Iberia into the Empire to such a degree that these places permanently became part of the Latin cultural sphere. The Romans were great at creating buy-in, incentivizing conquered populations to identify with the Empire and participate in its political, economic and military system. This began in the Republic with the Socii, and continued into the early Empire through the Auxilia, but essentially ended when the Severans made all free residents of the Empire into citizens. In contrast, the late Empire largely failed to create buy-in from the migrating Germanics, by declining to integrate them into the imperial administration or military, and by treating them in extremely bad faith. Just look at how the Roman government abused the Gothic migrants of the 390s, which can be seen as one of the inciting incidents of the 5th century crisis.

I don't think this was the case? The rapid breakdown in provincial control happens after the loss of Africa (well, with the notable exception of northern Gaul and Britain) and the causation here is inverted-it was the sudden fatal weakening of the imperial administration that caused local administrators and elites to prioritize their own localitaties, not the other way around.

To me the rapid nature in which the Empire completely seized to exist in under a decade means that it was ready to come apart any second. The total defeat of the African Expedition was just the straw that broke the camel's back. At this stage the only thing keeping the state together was the threat of invasion on part of the central government. Once it became apparent that the Romans were in no position to do that succesfully, the Emperor's authority evaporated entirely. So retaking Africa only really maintains a broken status quo. This means that the next big setback the Romans suffer, can spiral into complete collaps just as easily as the African campaign.

The WRE was never really in danger of losing Italy. And even by 469, with 30 years of fiscal and subsequent administrative collapse in the rearview mirror, Anthemius was still holding Arelate, and could project his power into Gaul enough to launch a serious campaign against the Visigoths.

Which failed, showing that Rome was a paper tiger which could not succesfully defend the frontier from invasion.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I mean they did incorporate Gaul and Iberia into the Empire to such a degree that these places permanently became part of the Latin cultural sphere

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the imperial period.

In contrast, the late Empire largely failed to create buy-in from the migrating Germanics, by declining to integrate them into the imperial administration or military, and by treating them in extremely bad faith.

This is a misreading of what was going on. The empire did create buy in from the Germanic tribes. They wanted nothing more than to be Romans or be involved in the Roman state in some way. Alaric spent his entire career trying to get an official position inside the Roman military administration! Multiple barbarian groups in the latter 5th century tried to sponsor an emperor favorable to their status and position. They were as involved in imperial politics as everyone else, right up until the end. What changed was the empire's capacity to disperse them and isolate them from their ethnic identities. What separates, say, Arbogast and Silvanus from Alaric is Arbogast and Silvanus were ethnically Frankish generals of Rome-whereas Alaric was not just Gothic, he was at some level the commander of a Gothic force. That Gothic force still wanted to be full participants in the Roman Empire, just on their own terms and as their own distinct group.

To me the rapid nature in which the Empire completely seized to exist in under a decade means that it was ready to come apart any second

It's somewhat a matter of interpretation here-the Roman administration and military did not cease to exist in under a decade. All that changed was Odovacer declined to do what Ricimer or Orestes was doing and did not appoint a Roman emperor to rule through. Otherwise, Odovacer was a Roman ruling a Roman administration with the Roman army.

 

[Lascaris]

Is there any reason Constantinople will be leaving the just reconquered Africa to Western administration instead of keeping it for itself? After all they did all the heavy lifting and have the boots on the ground.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Is there any reason Constantinople will be leaving the just reconquered Africa to Western administration instead of keeping it for itself? After all they did all the heavy lifting and have the boots on the ground.

That's not how Constantinople sees it. Anthemius is a product of the court of Constantinople, handpicked by said court to go be Leo's co-emperor in the west (Indeed he had a pretty great claim already to being emperor over Leo in the first place). Him and the invasion force are sort of a joint package-hes coming in to rule the west as Leo's junior Augustus and as part of that the two are jointly conquering Africa.

 

[piratedude]

It would probably take a bit of time for him to get things settled in North Africa and they'll probably also going to need a short campaign (or good diplomacy) to dislodge the vandals on in Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily. Maybe Anthemiolus gets put in charge of taking care of those little campaigns and administrating the newly reconquered territories.

Ending the vandal piracy threat and restoring the cheap grain imports will earn Anthemius a lot of political points with the italian aristocrats, probably enough for them to let the empeor quietly off Ricimer, who is too much of a problem to let live, and find a more appropriate marriage for his daughter Alypia.

The problem with getting rid of Ricimer though is that his sister is married to Gundioc king of the Burgundians, so relations might sour with them unless a solution is found (hopefully not by throwing Alypia at one of the burgundian princes, the gal deserves better than that). And Anthemius definitely needs them on side if his goals of reeling Gaul back into the fold/bringing the visigoths to heel is to stand any chance of working out.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The problem with getting rid of Ricimer though is that his sister is married to Gundioc king of the Burgundians, so relations might sour with them unless a solution is found (hopefully not by throwing Alypia at one of the burgundian princes, the gal deserves better than that). And Anthemius definitely needs them on side if his goals of reeling Gaul back into the fold/bringing the visigoths to heel is to stand any chance of working out.

The solution to the Ricimer problem is to just freeze him out without killing him, which is essentially what Anthemius had managed to do prior to the Africa disaster. Obviously this is not perfect-he came back IOTL after all-but it seems to me it would continue to be effective for the time being.

 

[Avrorrange]

It would probably take a bit of time for him to get things settled in North Africa and they'll probably also going to need a short campaign (or good diplomacy) to dislodge the vandals on in Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily. Maybe Anthemiolus gets put in charge of taking care of those little campaigns and administrating the newly reconquered territories.

Ending the vandal piracy threat and restoring the cheap grain imports will earn Anthemius a lot of political points with the italian aristocrats, probably enough for them to let the empeor quietly off Ricimer, who is too much of a problem to let live, and find a more appropriate marriage for his daughter Alypia.

The problem with getting rid of Ricimer though is that his sister is married to Gundioc king of the Burgundians, so relations might sour with them unless a solution is found (hopefully not by throwing Alypia at one of the burgundian princes, the gal deserves better than that). And Anthemius definitely needs them on side if his goals of reeling Gaul back into the fold/bringing the visigoths to heel is to stand any chance of working out.

Is it not essential to destroy the Burgundians in order to restore Gaul? They cut off connection to Gaul.

 

[piratedude]

Is it not essential to destroy the Burgundians in order to restore Gaul? They cut off connection to Gaul.

Long term yes*, but the Burgundians at least continued to acknowledge Roman overlordship (to a degree), whereas the visigoths and king Euric in particular do not and are far more combative.


*or well, maybe not destroy so much as assimilate them. The romans may have had been struggling to do so for much of the 5th century, but if they can get their feet back under themselves I think they could bring the Burgundians and the Franks into the system. The big obstacle to that is the...xenophobia? nativism? That had been developing among the Italian aristocrats. A concerted effort is needed to make the elites of Gaul (particularly the romano-gallic ones but also the Burgundians, Alans, Franks, etc) feel like an appreciated part of the empire