Eastern empire falls, Western Empire lasts till 15th Century

Status
Not open for further replies.

Duncan

The problem with diverting the Slavic expansion east and ultimately into Anatolia is that, as far as I can see, the Slav migrations had trouble crossing the steppe belt that was dominated by the nomads - Huns and Oghurs in this TL. Right up to the middle ages, Khazars and Pechenegs and Cumans made this a no-go area for Slavonic settlement. I think either Slavonic expansion is going to be curtailed on a long-term basis, or else they will manage to infiltrate into the Balkans and eventually take parts of the region from the Goths just as they did in OTL from the eastern Empire - but perhaps a bit later.

Hun alliance with the West sounds plausible. However, there's a limit to how much "ganging up on Byzantium" they can do with the Gothic kingdom in the way. Perhaps if the Gothic kingdom holds only the western Balkans and parts of Greece, the Huns still have a raiding route open via the eastern Balkans, OTL Bulgaria - unless butterflied migrations have turned that into a Gepid or Lombard state or something like that...
 

Ar Skoul

What about that :
After Andinople Theodose buys the peace by giving the Goths lands in Anatolia (on the Persian border). Goths are settled as foederati and are supposed to fight persians. They do so, but they also expand their territorial basis and for all practical purpose take over they Eastern army. By 410 - 420 the eastern emperor is a puppet of his gothic commender in chief. Religious tensions between arians and othodox lead to local revolt so that when the slavs or the huns strike - or when a serious political crisis occurs - the Empire desintegrates with
- a Gothic Anatolia (probably united and claiming to be the original empire)
- a Slavic Greece (probably pretty barbarian)
- Syria and Egypt going their own way ala syagrius and fall to Islam (if it is not butterflied away)

On the West, the Roman power disintegrates on schedule even if the vents and personalities involved differ. The vandals set up a kingdom in Spain and the Burgonds in in Auvergne, they are, however far less powerful than the Goths were, so when the equivalent of Syagrius Kingdom forms, it is slightly larger (perhaps encompassing part of Aquitaine).
Another side effect is that Riothamus' expeditionary force is not wiped out. British immigration is stronger and British principalties formed on the Loire Valley as well as in Armorica. Those principalties albeit barbarian in outlook are loyal to the imperial idea, so when Clovis invades he faces British heavy cavalry, is defeated and killed.
After a number of internal struggles the successor of Syagrius or some British High King appoints himself Emperor. His empire is a patchwork of feuding principalties, some of them very unroman in outlook, but this proves to be an asset rather than a disadvantages as the Renovated Western Empire doesn't need to keep as large an army as the original empire did.
At some point this quasi-feudal empire is likely to go south against the burgonds (easy), the vandal (not so difficult) and whoever holds Italy

Some consequences :
- the church will be divided in three : Catholic (Rome), Arian or Orthodox (Byzantium) and Celtic.
Greek would go extinct in Europa but survive in Asia
-French would never develop. Instead we wouuld have :
- a british romance dialect in lowland England
- a brythonic tongue in highland Britain, Armorica , Normandy and part of the Loire Valley.
- Various romance dialect in the rest of France (sorry Gallia)
 

Duncan

Ar Skoul: I do like the idea of a Gothic Anatolia (if we're allowed a 4th-century PoD).

In OTL the Slavs aren't moving into Greece till the late 6th century, so if we are trying to bring down the Eastern Empire in the 5th, we need someone else there - plenty of tribes on the move to choose from. Gepids? Alans? Huns?

Always feel uneasy about using "Syagrius' kingdom" because I don't really know what to make of Edward James et al's revisionist approach to Syagrius. Still, it's an ATL, so if we want S to be a king, let's make him one...

Who holds Africa in this scenario? We could end up with two "western empires", the Arthurian (well, Riothamian) one in Gaul and a "continuing" regime in Italy and Africa.
 

Abdul Hadi Pasha

Banned
DominusNovus said:
I can't get the image of anatolia being TTL's balkans out of my mind; embroiled in religious, ethinic, political, and territorial conflict.
Click to expand...

Before the Turks, it WAS like the Balkans. You had Greeks, Armenians, Turks, Kurds, Isaurians, Celts, et. al., and it was a mess.
 

Duncan

DominusNovus said:
I still say Aetius and Attila could give the west the best chance. More legit than a barbarian becoming emperor, at least.
Click to expand...

I suspect Aetius is too late. Africa's gone by then, as well as Britain and Spain, and most of Gaul is occupied by Visigoths and Burgundians and Franks and Armorican British. All that's left is Italy, the Alps, and parts of south and central Gaul. Not enough to rebuild with, I think, even with the rather alarming prospect of the Huns on your side.
 

DominusNovus

Duncan said:
I suspect Aetius is too late. Africa's gone by then, as well as Britain and Spain, and most of Gaul is occupied by Visigoths and Burgundians and Franks and Armorican British. All that's left is Italy, the Alps, and parts of south and central Gaul. Not enough to rebuild with, I think, even with the rather alarming prospect of the Huns on your side.
Click to expand...
Stranger things have happened.

Anyone still interested in giving this a go?
 

DominusNovus

Norman said:
So we're looking at what as a POD?
Click to expand...
I say we go with Aetius and Attila. If you can keep the Western Empire and the Huns allies, Rome should be able to weather the storm, with some good diplomacy. Before I continue, I would like to curse accidently hitting the right combination of keys that totally erases your post (and the article of Murphy's law that states that you'll only do that when you've nearly finished). Consider them cursed. Friggin 'A.

Here's a good read on how the whole collapse went: http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/firsteuro/invas.html

In summation, at the time of Attila:
Britain was long gone, with no chance of being retaken in the near future. The Visigoths were in western Gaul (Aquitaine) and were in the process of moving into Hispania. The Franks were in Northern Gaul, near the Rhine. The Burgundians were in southeastern Gaul, with the Alans to their west. Pannonia was under Ostrogothic control. Hispania was mostly Roman, with the Suevi in the northwest. North Africa was under control of the Vandals, who had just left Hispania and were getting ready to raid Sicily and pillage Rome in a few years. The Balkans were under control of the Eastern Empire. Everything else in Europe was under the control of the Huns (in theory).

So, to save the Western empire, a few things have to happen:
1) Keep in good with the Huns, use them to beat the snot out of the other troublesome tribes.
2) Attila has to live longer. His empire isn't going to last long after his death. If he lives long enough to name an heir, I give it a generation. With a pro-Roman Attila (pro Western Roman, that is), Rome won't have to fear the Huns at the height of their power. Afterwards, they won't be much of a threat.
3) Aetius has to live longer. He was far more capable than Emperor Valentinian and his assassination led to Valentinian's.
3) Some of the tribes have to be redirected from attacking Rome.

The first two are easy. The third is a bit more complicated. The empire is going to have to deal with serious short term losses. To minimize them, there's gonna have to be some really good diplomacy going on here. I think Aetius and Attila (both had a good grasp of the political situation and how to handle it) could pull it off. To this end, I propose that:

1) The Franks be redirected to Britain. We'll have the Roman Celts of the island (who still controlled most of the former province) ask for their assistance against the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. This will likelyhave the added benefit of keeping some of the Romanization of Britain alive. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes almost completely replaced the Romanize population, unlike the Franks, both Goths, and the Vandals. Replace them with the Franks, and the culture will be more Roman.

2) The Vandals be redirected to Hispania and/or the Eastern Empire. They were, after all, just recently in Hispania and the East was, after all, wealthier than the west. I say that Aetius offers them land in Hispania.

3) The Burgandians and Alans be taken out.

4) The Visigoths be forced out of Gaul, while allowing them into Hispania. This will leave Gaul almost entirely under Roman control, while dividing Hispania between the Suevi, Vandals, Visigoths, and a few Romans. Keep the Romans, Suevi, and Vandals on the same side, and the Visigoths should have their work cut out for them.

5) The Ostrogoths be directed into Thracia, instead of Italia.


The Huns, of course, are allied with the West and will probably be extorting the East for everything they can get. The East will likely be a bit more willing, as they now have to deal with the Ostrogoths and Vandals at the same time.

Aetius will be very popular, having played so many of the tribes against each other and saving the empire for now. If we don't go with Attila marrying into the Imperial Family scenario, one of Aetius' sons will likely become the next Emperor.

The Emipire will control Italia, as well as most of Gaul. North Africa and Hispania will only be weakly held, as the tribes there will divided, spread out, and/or fighting each other. The time would be ripe for the Empire to expand into either, though whether the Legions would be in any shape to go campaigning, I'm not sure. Britain isn't likely to be regained, since the Franks were pretty formidable, and were coming to the aid of "Romans", so the Empire would have no good reason to attack them anyway.

Next, I'll takle taking down the East.
 

DominusNovus

The Eastern Empire, at first, seems very difficult to take down as easily as the Western Empire. It was more stable and the barbarians did happen to spend most of their time in Western territory, leaving much of the Eastern Empire untouch (though the Balkans got their share of incursions). One of the main problems is that Theodosius, even though he was manipulated alot, was an effective ruler (or the people manipulating him were, whatever floats your boat.). Plus, he had a long-term peace treaty with the Persians, which both sides generally upheld (though there were definately times when it was broken).

But, we can take down the Empire. My plan is to have Theodosius live longer. Thats right, longer. He died in OTL from falling off a horse (which is where, incidently, I think I got the death of Silvanus in my Roman Timeline) in AD 450. Lets have him live a bit longer, which will let us kill him off on purpose, rather than accident. Two features of his reign that we can work with are:

1) The Persian Empire originally threatened invasion if he didn't become Emperor, back near the beginning of the century. To this end, Theodosius' father, Arcadius, had Isdigerdes, the Persian Emperor, become Theodosius' guardian (well, not exactly, but it was likely Arcadius' plan).

2) In 449, Chrysaphius, a member of the Imperial court (and therefore, one of the many people who had effectively ruled the empire), tried to have Attila assassinated. This gives Attila a really good excuse to invade.

Also, as per TTL, the Ostrogoths, Huns, and Vandals are causing trouble for the Eastern Empire already. The Ostrogoths are probably looking for land, the Huns are looking for tribute, and the Vandals are mainly raiding coastal areas.

We'll have Theodosius settle the Ostrogoths as foederati (federate allies) in Thracia or so, or we have them just take the area. Either way, they're there. We'll also have the Huns continually demanding more and more tribute (which is what they did anyway). Eventually, the Empire wouldn't be able to pay much more, so they refuse. Attila will take this oppurtunity to teach them a lesson and invades.

Assuming the Ostrogoths were foederati, they'll likely be called upon to defend the Empire. However, just to make things easier for us, we'll have them join up with Attila, rather than risk fighting the Huns. Attila will likely head directly for Constantinople. I figure the Vandals would be interested in raiding one of the wealthiest cities in the region, so we'll have them come along for the ride.

Constantinople was definately a tough nut to crack. It was the Theodosian walls, just recently completed, that would foil so many attackers. Of course, Greek fire also played a major role in keeping the beseiging armies from success. Luckily for us, Greek fire is a few centuries away from being invented. This means that the Vandals will have a shot at doing their thing on the water. Since there's no such thing as an totally impregnable fortification, the Huns and Ostrogoths could conceivably take the city. Maybe we'll have someone on the inside switch sides or succumb to bribery. Either way, we'll have Constantinople fall and sacked.

Here's where the fun starts. Attila comes in and has Theodosius killed. Or, if we wanna be dramatic, have Theodosius pull a Constantine XI (XIII) and die defending the city. Or he gets killed trying to flee. It doesn't really matter how he dies, so long as he does.

Attila then places a puppet on the throne. He could probably claim it for himself if he wanted, however, that would cause a few problems for us (it could piss of the Western Empire, and could lead to a Hunnic rump Empire, which could last long enough to violate the conditions of the POD). So, he picks someone he can control and puts him on the throne. The Western Empire won't at all be happy with any of this, but they'll likely think "its better them than us", and let it slide.

Now, the Persians were pretty chummy with Theodosius. Not so chummy that they wouldn't cause trouble from time to time, but they got along relatively well. However, they could easily use this turn of events as an excuse to invade. After all, here's some barbarian barging in and placing a pretender on the throne. Who does he think he is? If anyone's gonna place a puppet on the throne, it'll be us!

So, the Persians invade, on the excuse of trying to restore the "proper" Emperor to the throne. With its head cut off, I don't think the Empire will be able to do much against them initially. Palestine and Syria go down quickly. Egypt probably would fall easily too, but I expect the Persians to head up to Anatolia.

Now, we have to consider what the Eastern Legions do in this case. Do they side with the Hunnic puppet, the Persian puppet, or do they proclaim their own emperor?

1) They side with the Huns. The Persians are stopped and Anatolia remains in "Roman" hands. If things go well, the Persians are pushed out of Syria and Palestine

2) They side with the Persians. Best case scenario for the Persians, they Huns are soundly defeated and they take Costantinople. Less optimisticly, they could take most of Anatolia.

3) They go their own way. This is hard to say. The Romans would have to side with someone, leading to pretty much the same as #1 or #2, or they get squeezed out between the two. Maybe they retreat to Egypt and hold out there? If they do that, they'll either have a rump empire, or they could declare for the Western Emperor. That'd give Western Empire some territory in the East, though tenously.

No matter what, its gonna be messy and confusing. Which do you guys think would be the best/most interesting? No matter what, the Eastern Emperor should probably remain a puppet to an outside force, so that he can be easily deposed and the Empire extinguished. I'd also like to have the Persians hold onto at least Palestine and Syria, to make things interesting further down the road (it'll force the Arabs to try to go through a powerful Persian Empire when Islam comes around).
 

DominusNovus

Norman said:
Very nice, makes sense, fits together well.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I don't know why, but I decided to tackle the whole scenario about about 2am, so I wasn't sure how well it would turn out (especially when I deleted the original post). :D

So, you have any opinion on what would be the most interesting course of action for the Eastern Romans?
 

Hierophant

I'd like to see either the Roman legions to side with the Western Empire(though really rule themselves) or for them to side with Attilla.
 

DominusNovus

Justin Green said:
I'd like to see either the Roman legions to side with the Western Empire(though really rule themselves) or for them to side with Attilla.
Click to expand...
Ok, so thats ammounts to one vote against the Persians.

I'm abstaining, I think any of them could be interesting and give us what we want.

So somebody, cast a vote for one of our options for the east.
 

MerryPrankster

Dominus,

I'm not entirely sure...I thought the White Sheep Turks hung around Asia Minor and formed dangerous alliances with the rump Byzantine state in Trebizond, which lead to the latter's obliteration.
 

DominusNovus

BTW, what do you guys think will happen to the Schism? I think that the Patriarch of Constantinople will be knocked down a few pegs, in terms of prestige. This could prevent the Schism in the first place. Or, perhaps the eastern Churches start to split away independently from the western Church. So, you might have a church centered around Constantinople, one around Alexandria, one around Jerusalem, and one around Antioch (or some others, i just picked the 4 majors patriarchates).
 

DominusNovus

Ok, the votes are in and... ah dammit, nobody else voted! :mad:

Oh well, screw you guys! :p I'm gonna have the Eastern Legions side with...

(in my best Dr. Zoiberg voice)
oh, the Western Emperor, whynot? hurray!

ahem.
So, they regroup in Egypt, where they declare for the Western Emperor Valentinian. Being far from the major theater, the Persians and Huns leave them alone. Besides, I doubt even Attila planned on going to Egypt. Some remnants probably stay in Anatolia, where they get swept up in the battles between the Persians and Huns.

Now, the question is, who wins in Anatolia, the Persians or the Huns?
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top