Two WRE Questions

[TheDoofusUser]

So, I was on the AH Discord for the time I was away (Long story short, I couldn't get to my computer and my phone is incompatible with this site fsr) and I consistently asked several questions on the Western Roman Empire. I did do some research here and there, but not much, so please, feel free to tell me as much info as possible with the answers to these questions.

1) Could Stilicho have placed his son Eucherius as Emperor should Honorius die in 400 or so and win the Civil War that would've followed him doing such a thing? Or would later on have worked better for him?

2) Is it possible for the WRE to survive to at least the mid 8th century before falling apart due to Slavic, Norse, and Arabic invasions/migrations? I genuinely don't know how much Western Rome could've lasted, but I think with a POD of after Fragidus, it had a lifespan of a few centuries left.

 

[StevenIronside]

So, I was on the AH Discord for the time I was away (Long story short, I couldn't get to my computer and my phone is incompatible with this site fsr) and I consistently asked several questions on the Western Roman Empire. I did do some research here and there, but not much, so please, feel free to tell me as much info as possible with the answers to these questions.

1) Could Stilicho have placed his son Eucherius as Emperor should Honorius die in 400 or so and win the Civil War that would've followed him doing such a thing? Or would later on have worked better for him?

2) Is it possible for the WRE to survive to at least the mid 8th century before falling apart due to Slavic, Norse, and Arabic invasions/migrations? I genuinely don't know how much Western Rome could've lasted, but I think with a POD of after Fragidus, it had a lifespan of a few centuries left.

I highly doubt Stilicho would have successfully put his son on the throne which is why i think he had his daughters married to Honorius.

As for the western surviving i think there are definitely a few pods that could work a favorite of many js Majorian

 

[Avalon]

So, I was on the AH Discord for the time I was away (Long story short, I couldn't get to my computer and my phone is incompatible with this site fsr) and I consistently asked several questions on the Western Roman Empire. I did do some research here and there, but not much, so please, feel free to tell me as much info as possible with the answers to these questions.

1) Could Stilicho have placed his son Eucherius as Emperor should Honorius die in 400 or so and win the Civil War that would've followed him doing such a thing? Or would later on have worked better for him?

2) Is it possible for the WRE to survive to at least the mid 8th century before falling apart due to Slavic, Norse, and Arabic invasions/migrations? I genuinely don't know how much Western Rome could've lasted, but I think with a POD of after Fragidus, it had a lifespan of a few centuries left.

There was enough possibility of such being possible that a conspiracy to eliminate him over it started. Whether he could have actually done so and proceeded to win in doing so is another issue. At the very least he himself never wanted to do so and never had any wishes to go against Theodosius' heirs. One could find it'd be best to delay it as late as possible as doing so early would see Honorius' brother on the eastern throne but even later doesn't prevent his brother's heirs from attacking him anyway. What it does do is change the underlying military calculus of who and what is going to be fighting and why. For example, depending on when exactly you put this the Goths as one important Germanic tribe and military force are either fighting Stilicho or in his service. Also what intrigues exactly are going on at the time and by who and whether the Rhine has been crossed starting of the apex of the Migration period for example. A whole host of questions and answers. What I will say is that imo Eucherius with Stilicho backing him would be far better and Emperor than Honorius.

I think so at the least. I, personally, see no determinant of essential decline and even less of essential fall even as late as Frigidus. Others don't and you'll see some assigning doom as early as Adrianople. I don't think a general opinion has ever formed in regards to WRE survival and in general, general opinions forms more rarely in pre-1900 than post-1900. Heck, you often see members still bring up Gibbons' arguments in regards to this topic nearly word for word.

 

[TheDoofusUser]

There was enough possibility of such being possible that a conspiracy to eliminate him over it started. Whether he could have actually done so and proceeded to win in doing so is another issue. At the very least he himself never wanted to do so and never had any wishes to go against Theodosius' heirs. One could find it'd be best to delay it as late as possible as doing so early would see Honorius' brother on the eastern throne but even later doesn't prevent his brother's heirs from attacking him anyway. What it does do is change the underlying military calculus of who and what is going to be fighting and why. For example, depending on when exactly you put this the Goths as one important Germanic tribe and military force are either fighting Stilicho or in his service. Also what intrigues exactly are going on at the time and by who and whether the Rhine has been crossed starting of the apex of the Migration period for example. A whole host of questions and answers. What I will say is that imo Eucherius with Stilicho backing him would be far better and Emperor than Honorius.

I think so at the least. I, personally, see no determinant of essential decline and even less of essential fall even as late as Frigidus. Others don't and you'll see some assigning doom as early as Adrianople. I don't think a general opinion has ever formed in regards to WRE survival and in general, general opinions forms more rarely in pre-1900 than post-1900. Heck, you often see members still bring up Gibbons' arguments in regards to this topic nearly word for word.

Maybe both Honorius and Arcadius die in 400 AD somehow (Honorius dies from disease while Arcadius pisses off a member of the court by accident and gets poisoned for it, maybe?). That begs the question as to who might replace Arcadius as Emperor of the East then. Meanwhile, Stilicho is a proven general, given his OTL campaigns and with the East in Chaos, he'd probably be able to beat Alaric into submission for good and take Illyria for the West, securing a large tax and manpower base for it until Gaul recovers from the multiple population losses in the civil wars. The Franks apparently almost beat back the Vandals, so if they do that here, then that buys the West another few decades until the Huns come in.

As for Eucherius, he was Theodosius' Great-Nephew as his mother was the Emperor's niece (who he adopted as his daughter) Serena. Technically speaking, had some claim to the throne even if its matrilineal. But seeing that every other commander of the West at the time seemed to be Paper Tigers, I think Stilicho could win, purge the West of his enemies, and enact true reforms as Eucherius' puppet master, regent, and mentor until he (Stilicho) dies in the 420s or 430s. From there, Eucherius could probably rule on his own. No idea what'll happen with a better-off Western Rome when the Huns break the doors into Gaul or what'll happen to the Germanic tribes if the Franks successfully beat them back and hold the line.

 

[Tarabas]

You may want have a look at this outstanding TL by @Flavius Iulius Nepos.

 

[Jonathan1997]

Emperor majorian was most likely the last soldier emperor that could have turned thing around but he was assassinated.

I believe the Western Roman Empire could have survived in Italy and North Africa but a part from that it will need time to recover.

The problem with the Roman succession system is that is a monarchy with Republic and characteristics the proplem of the Roman succession play The Empire from the time of emperor Augustus to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The proplem was never truly fixed.

Emperor diocletian, Constantine the Great and preceding emperors try to make The co emperor's there successes but the system never really worked.

The true is the Romance would need the same miracle which happened with the Capation dynasty main line ruling France from 987 to 1327 and it's cadet house ruling from 1327 to 1848 altogether the Capations ruled from 987 to 1848 apart from the disposition of Louis XVi of France.

I think an dynastic miracle it the only why to go but it goes against the Roman system.

My be you could go for an Self insert but with them being an original character and no fan wank could be an option

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

I think it’s possible that he could’ve replaced Honorius with Eucherius but he probably would’ve had to marry him to Honorius’s sister to strengthen his claim and tie up loose ends. After that I agree with what @TheDoofusUser said.

As for the WRE Majorian was it’s last bet to make a recovery, if he could’ve retaken North Africa, made reforms, fixed the finances, had a long stable rule, and had a clean succession then the empire could’ve made a comeback.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

You may want have a look at this outstanding TL by @Flavius Iulius Nepos.

I really am delighted to hear such praise about my story, thank you!
And while that is a fictitional story, with a different POD and a fair amount of extreme luck on the roman side, I truly believe the empire could have survived with a V century POD.

But to answer your questions:
1) He could but under what circumstances? Eucherius being partly barbarian (1/4) should not be really a problem. Theodosius II was as well. Although in his case his barbarian heritage came from the mother, whose heritage if I remember correctly, only really mattered when the father was unknown (not the case here). Now the question is how does Eucherius come to power?

If Honorius dies at the hand of Stilicho, expect a full blown civil war against both the East (they are not going to stand for the murder of one of their own), like in 423-425, and possibly Africa. In such case he doesn't really stand good chances of surviving. If Honorius dies a natural death and Stilicho can prove that, the only possible legitimate claimants to the throne are Arcadius/Theodosius II in the East, Galla Placidia (she can't rule on her own but she can legitimize the rule of someone else), the Theodosian cousins in Spain or Eucherius.

Now, leaving aside the Spanish cousins (they are too far and probably with the wort claim possible), we are left with three claimants. Depending on the time frame you have in mind, the East might be busy with the whole Tribigild/Gainas/Alaric thing or the issue of the death of Arcadius, leaving them unable to stake their claim. They would intervene at this time directly only if they perceived someone hostile taking power in the West (like a murderer of Honorius for example). Galla Placidia is your best bet but she is unmarried, childless and a woman. No way she can pull an Irene at this point in time. That is where a marriage with Eucherius comes in handy. Eucherius is part of the family (the two are some sort of cousins) and might even get along considering they might have spent time together in the palace before then. Placidia is too young to really have a say, but she might not dislike an arrangement that would turn her into the Pulcheria of the West. The marriage also ensures the support of the army for the current dynasty. At this point, Stilicho can safely get rid of Olympius.

With good diplomacy (which might not be that easy given the mutual mistrust at the time between Milan and Constantinople) and good arguments, Stilicho should be able to get the East to accept the arrangement. The only problem with that is the "cousin marriage" thing between Eucherius and Placidia, something banned a few decades earlier under Theodosius, influenced by Ambrose.
Now the law I think banned only marriages between first cousins (I need to check this one), while Eucherius and Placidia were second cousins. But to be honest the law was quite recent and never really popular (at this time) among the upper levels of society. It was even acceptable at this time for the emperor to bestow exemptions from this law to members of the senatorial aristocracy who asked for it in order to marry close relatives from the same or allied families.
There is then the whole issue of how to handle Alaric's Goths but that is a different problem.

2) As for your second question, yes definitely, even longer than that. But at this point it is quite likely that the two halves would return to be one (keep in mind that the whole concept of two Roman Empires is a modern notion) at some point. Legally speaking this happened in 457/458, 465/467 and on three more occasions (408, 450, 472-4) one of the two emperors showed some sort of claim to handle affairs in the other half. Given the right circumstances, sooner or later one half would join the other (possibly peacefully). The impact of foreign invasion would be altered in this alternate timeline.

I hope I did not forget anything.

 

[TheDoofusUser]

I really am delighted to hear such praise about my story, thank you!
And while that is a fictitional story, with a different POD and a fair amount of extreme luck on the roman side, I truly believe the empire could have survived with a V century POD.

But to answer your questions:
1) He could but under what circumstances? Eucherius being partly barbarian (1/4) should not be really a problem. Theodosius II was as well. Although in his case his barbarian heritage came from the mother, whose heritage if I remember correctly, only really mattered when the father was unknown (not the case here). Now the question is how does Eucherius come to power?

If Honorius dies at the hand of Stilicho, expect a full blown civil war against both the East (they are not going to stand for the murder of one of their own), like in 423-425, and possibly Africa. In such case he doesn't really stand good chances of surviving. If Honorius dies a natural death and Stilicho can prove that, the only possible legitimate claimants to the throne are Arcadius/Theodosius II in the East, Galla Placidia (she can't rule on her own but she can legitimize the rule of someone else), the Theodosian cousins in Spain or Eucherius.

Now, leaving aside the Spanish cousins (they are too far and probably with the wort claim possible), we are left with three claimants. Depending on the time frame you have in mind, the East might be busy with the whole Tribigild/Gainas/Alaric thing or the issue of the death of Arcadius, leaving them unable to stake their claim. They would intervene at this time directly only if they perceived someone hostile taking power in the West (like a murderer of Honorius for example). Galla Placidia is your best bet but she is unmarried, childless and a woman. No way she can pull an Irene at this point in time. That is where a marriage with Eucherius comes in handy. Eucherius is part of the family (the two are some sort of cousins) and might even get along considering they might have spent time together in the palace before then. Placidia is too young to really have a say, but she might not dislike an arrangement that would turn her into the Pulcheria of the West. The marriage also ensures the support of the army for the current dynasty. At this point, Stilicho can safely get rid of Olympius.

With good diplomacy (which might not be that easy given the mutual mistrust at the time between Milan and Constantinople) and good arguments, Stilicho should be able to get the East to accept the arrangement. The only problem with that is the "cousin marriage" thing between Eucherius and Placidia, something banned a few decades earlier under Theodosius, influenced by Ambrose.
Now the law I think banned only marriages between first cousins (I need to check this one), while Eucherius and Placidia were second cousins. But to be honest the law was quite recent and never really popular (at this time) among the upper levels of society. It was even acceptable at this time for the emperor to bestow exemptions from this law to members of the senatorial aristocracy who asked for it in order to marry close relatives from the same or allied families.
There is then the whole issue of how to handle Alaric's Goths but that is a different problem.

2) As for your second question, yes definitely, even longer than that. But at this point it is quite likely that the two halves would return to be one (keep in mind that the whole concept of two Roman Empires is a modern notion) at some point. Legally speaking this happened in 457/458, 465/467 and on three more occasions (408, 450, 472-4) one of the two emperors showed some sort of claim to handle affairs in the other half. Given the right circumstances, sooner or later one half would join the other (possibly peacefully). The impact of foreign invasion would be altered in this alternate timeline.

I hope I did not forget anything.

Thanks for your answers and replies!

It was originally planned for Placidia to marry Eucherius from what I've read, so Stilicho would likely set up the marriage right away. With Eucherius in power and his wife being there for his son when he's off campaigning along with the few allies he does have, I expect him to be able to conduct a competent campaign against Alaric and either destroy him or subjigate him for good before taking Illyria from the East and then stopping any attempted incursons from the Vandals and the like into Italy with the new manpower and such. From there, I have a feeling, he'd be taking a more administrative and tutoring role, filling the court with competent people who aren't egomaniacal, steering the empire into a better direction, etc, etc, leaving the west in a better state than when he found it. For Migrations, I don't think they would change all that much. Most of them happened because of Climate Change and Overpopulation, both of which a PoD really isn't able to control unless we're effecting the Earth itself. Still, it would be interesting to see Slavs in France and North Italy, Norsemen in Iberia, and Arabs in Southern Italy from the Invasions.

As for the empires combining into one, wouldn't two families ruling seperately be locked in stalemate with neither side really being able to unify it into one megastate again until the West's collapse?

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Thanks for your answers and replies!

It was originally planned for Placidia to marry Eucherius from what I've read, so Stilicho would likely set up the marriage right away. With Eucherius in power and his wife being there for his son when he's off campaigning along with the few allies he does have, I expect him to be able to conduct a competent campaign against Alaric and either destroy him or subjigate him for good

More likely the latter. The empire was experiencing a period of great trouble gathering the new generation of recruits for their armies, a consequence of a combination of civil wars and a sequence of emperors not strong enough to enforce the law in the West (Gratian, Valentinian II and Honorius). No one at the time could expect the Goths to turn this dangerous, especially since up until that point they had been decently reasonable.

before taking Illyria from the East

No! Assuming you mean the Eastern portion of Illyricum (and not Dalmatia/Pannonia), that is going to end only one way, with the WRE crushed. Even assuming the joint western roman-gothic campaign happens and is a success, all that it will manage to achieve is securing the enmity of Constantinople and a western empire overstretched while the situation is spiralling out of control in Gaul, all the while the succession is not yet safe in the West. The West cannot afford a third beating from Constantinople.

and then stopping any attempted incursons from the Vandals and the like into Italy with the new manpower and such. From there, I have a feeling, he'd be taking a more administrative and tutoring role, filling the court with competent people who aren't egomaniacal, steering the empire into a better direction, etc, etc, leaving the west in a better state than when he found it.

One can hope.

For Migrations, I don't think they would change all that much. Most of them happened because of Climate Change and Overpopulation, both of which a PoD really isn't able to control unless we're effecting the Earth itself.

There would definitely be some changes here and there: for example the Romans played a key role in the VI century in the downfall of the Gepids and the rise of the Avars as an existential threat. Likewise the Arab invasion may or may not coincide with the aftermath of a deadly struggle between Romans and Persians. But they would still happen indeed.

Still, it would be interesting to see Slavs in France and North Italy, Norsemen in Iberia, and Arabs in Southern Italy from the Invasions.

Nothing for the Romans left, huh?

As for the empires combining into one, wouldn't two families ruling seperately be locked in stalemate with neither side really being able to unify it into one megastate again until the West's collapse?

That contradicts the many times the empire managed to reunite itself: Tetrarchy (bloody affair), 350-353 (bloody affair), 361 (barely avoided civil war, but the situation on the ground would have favoured a peaceful transition anyway), 379 (it was up to Gratian to keep the East under a separate emperor), 388 (Theodosius could have kept the whole thing under and to a degree he did, considering the key figures in the West answered to him, not to Valentinian II) and 394.

You may say that the V century was exceptional, given the length of division, but was it truly unique? From 286 to 324 there are 38 years and from 337 to 353 there are 16 years. Between 395 and 425 (when the East was again master of the fate of the West for a short amount of time) you have 30 years. Then you have 450 when Valentinian III refused to acknowledge Marcian as emperor. Sure he was too weak by that point to do anything, but in a timeline where the West is still doing reasonably well you can beat that would have gone the way of Magnentius and Arbogast, with one side master of the whole thing. I don't remember exactly how the situation between the two was in 455, but in 457 Italy was under the control of Patrician Ricimer who ruled there as a deputy of emperor Leo I. And then of course there are all other examples mentioned in my previous post, not to mention the illusion of Theodorician Italy still being part of the empire.

My point being that the situation of the V century demanded having two or more emperors, thus always reverting back to such arrangement after briefly achieving unity, but at many times throughout the century both halves (more often the East than the West) got the chances to restore unity in the Roman world.

 

[TheDoofusUser]

More likely the latter. The empire was experiencing a period of great trouble gathering the new generation of recruits for their armies, a consequence of a combination of civil wars and a sequence of emperors not strong enough to enforce the law in the West (Gratian, Valentinian II and Honorius). No one at the time could expect the Goths to turn this dangerous, especially since up until that point they had been decently reasonable.

No! Assuming you mean the Eastern portion of Illyricum (and not Dalmatia/Pannonia), that is going to end only one way, with the WRE crushed. Even assuming the joint western roman-gothic campaign happens and is a success, all that it will manage to achieve is securing the enmity of Constantinople and a western empire overstretched while the situation is spiralling out of control in Gaul, all the while the succession is not yet safe in the West. The West cannot afford a third beating from Constantinople.

One can hope.

There would definitely be some changes here and there: for example the Romans played a key role in the VI century in the downfall of the Gepids and the rise of the Avars as an existential threat. Likewise the Arab invasion may or may not coincide with the aftermath of a deadly struggle between Romans and Persians. But they would still happen indeed.

Nothing for the Romans left, huh?

That contradicts the many times the empire managed to reunite itself: Tetrarchy (bloody affair), 350-353 (bloody affair), 361 (barely avoided civil war, but the situation on the ground would have favoured a peaceful transition anyway), 379 (it was up to Gratian to keep the East under a separate emperor), 388 (Theodosius could have kept the whole thing under and to a degree he did, considering the key figures in the West answered to him, not to Valentinian II) and 394.

You may say that the V century was exceptional, given the length of division, but was it truly unique? From 286 to 324 there are 38 years and from 337 to 353 there are 16 years. Between 395 and 425 (when the East was again master of the fate of the West for a short amount of time) you have 30 years. Then you have 450 when Valentinian III refused to acknowledge Marcian as emperor. Sure he was too weak by that point to do anything, but in a timeline where the West is still doing reasonably well you can beat that would have gone the way of Magnentius and Arbogast, with one side master of the whole thing. I don't remember exactly how the situation between the two was in 455, but in 457 Italy was under the control of Patrician Ricimer who ruled there as a deputy of emperor Leo I. And then of course there are all other examples mentioned in my previous post, not to mention the illusion of Theodorician Italy still being part of the empire.

My point being that the situation of the V century demanded having two or more emperors, thus always reverting back to such arrangement after briefly achieving unity, but at many times throughout the century both halves (more often the East than the West) got the chances to restore unity in the Roman world.

Thanks for all these answers and further explanations. Alright, so Stilicho destroys the Goths, which buys the West some time, especially if the Franks wins against the Vandals (I think the Huns are coming no matter the case. They were too strong a force and too overwhelming that eventually, I think both parts of the Empire would face them in battle, though an interesting thing is the Eastern Roman Emperor dies in battle against the Huns and yet Eucherius successfully defeats him and unifies the Empire for a brief period).

I meant as in Daltmatia/Pannonia unless it was already in the Empire. Everyone talks it up about being such a massive manpower and tax base for the West that would be badly needed, though without Alaric and the Vandals wreaking havoc, I think the 50 years in between Eucherius becoming Emperor and the Huns arriving could allow for a new generation or two to grow up and train to reinforce the Army and make it an actual force to be reckoned with again, though the administrative system may have to be fixed entirely.

Who were some of Stilicho's staunchest allies, if he had any, and were they competent? And any ideas of the Reforms he'd have Eucherius do?

I can see maybe Central Italy remaining Roman, but I'm of the Opinion that eventually, the Migrations are going to be too much for the West and they're going to collapse in on themselves due to all the Invasions hammering them from all directions as well as rebelling/rogue generals, which could weaken the West even more. The mixture of culture all over the place would be amazing to see, however. Another question is, what happens to Germany and Christianity here? Germany would be in the path of the migrations from the Slavs into the West, but I can see one tribe eventually becoming more powerful than the others and creating a federation/kingdom as everyone fights over land across the Rhine and Alps while for Christianity, could we see an East/West split earlier with the Emperor managing both regions of Christianity?

As for the Arabs, I think it would just take one bad general losing a really important battle to screw things up for a decade or so. Then again, maybe the East wouldn't be so overstreched if there is no Justinian and the West is still around here, though the other invasions happening at around the same time or later wouldn't exactly help matters.

and thanks for the explanation on the two halves of the empire.

 

[piratedude]

Honestly i don't think you even need to get rid of Honorius, a POD with Constantius III not dying would stabilize the situation in the west

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Others have mentioned it but a favorite POD of mine is what if Majorian had crushed the Vandals and retaken lucrative North Africa. That tax base would go a long way towards keeping the WRE around. Not to mention not losing all those men and ships doesn't cripple the ERE financially as well.

 

[TheDoofusUser]

Honestly i don't think you even need to get rid of Honorius, a POD with Constantius III not dying would stabilize the situation in the west

Good idea, but I really want Eucherius on the throne mainly because it seems to be agreed that the 410 sack of rome was the straw that broke the Camel's back.

Others have mentioned it but a favorite POD of mine is what if Majorian had crushed the Vandals and retaken lucrative North Africa. That tax base would go a long way towards keeping the WRE around. Not to mention not losing all those men and ships doesn't cripple the ERE financially as well.

Agreed, but again, the WRE would barely be able to keep all the territory Majorian conquered and like we saw OTL, once he's dead, it'd likely collapse again.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Thanks for all these answers and further explanations. Alright, so Stilicho destroys the Goths, which buys the West some time, especially if the Franks wins against the Vandals (I think the Huns are coming no matter the case. They were too strong a force and too overwhelming that eventually, I think both parts of the Empire would face them in battle, though an interesting thing is the Eastern Roman Emperor dies in battle against the Huns and yet Eucherius successfully defeats him and unifies the Empire for a brief period).

No Eastern emperor at this time ever led personally an army in battle (they did so before becoming emperor though). Having one die to the Huns would prove difficult.

I meant as in Daltmatia/Pannonia unless it was already in the Empire. Everyone talks it up about being such a massive manpower and tax base for the West that would be badly needed, though without Alaric and the Vandals wreaking havoc, I think the 50 years in between Eucherius becoming Emperor and the Huns arriving could allow for a new generation or two to grow up and train to reinforce the Army and make it an actual force to be reckoned with again, though the administrative system may have to be fixed entirely.

Fair enough, although the Huns are already there. The only thing that changed 50 years later was the decision to stop sending Huns to fight as mercenaries for the empire.

Who were some of Stilicho's staunchest allies, if he had any, and were they competent? And any ideas of the Reforms he'd have Eucherius do?

Constantius III and Sarus. Possibly also other figures at the imperial palace. I don't think Eucherius needs to enact any reform at this time, he just needs to be able to enforce the law more thoroughly throughout the empire and leave the military to someone extremely competent.

I can see maybe Central Italy remaining Roman, but I'm of the Opinion that eventually, the Migrations are going to be too much for the West and they're going to collapse in on themselves due to all the Invasions hammering them from all directions as well as rebelling/rogue generals, which could weaken the West even more. The mixture of culture all over the place would be amazing to see, however. Another question is, what happens to Germany and Christianity here? Germany would be in the path of the migrations from the Slavs into the West, but I can see one tribe eventually becoming more powerful than the others and creating a federation/kingdom as everyone fights over land across the Rhine and Alps while for Christianity, could we see an East/West split earlier with the Emperor managing both regions of Christianity?

I don't agree on the West being doomed to collapse no matter what. As for Germany, anything could happen there. One tribe gaining hegemony over all the other, the area remaining fractured between different peoples and kingdoms etc. The POD is too vague and early to say with certainty.
As for the split in Christianity, that is just projecting a view that emerged during the XII/XIII century on the V century church. There is no reason to believe the OTL schism would happen in this timeline as well. Certainly not this early.

As for the Arabs, I think it would just take one bad general losing a really important battle to screw things up for a decade or so. Then again, maybe the East wouldn't be so overstreched if there is no Justinian and the West is still around here, though the other invasions happening at around the same time or later wouldn't exactly help matters.

I don't see the Arabs successfully taking down the ERE, WRE and Persia all at the same time. Not without all of them being exhausted by conflict or civil war first. In that case you may have something resembling OTL, keeping in mind that a V century POD would drastically change things there anyway.

 

[ImperialxWarlord]

Good idea, but I really want Eucherius on the throne mainly because it seems to be agreed that the 410 sack of rome was the straw that broke the Camel's back.


Agreed, but again, the WRE would barely be able to keep all the territory Majorian conquered and like we saw OTL, once he's dead, it'd likely collapse again.

I disagree on both parts. While 410 was a smack in the face to Rome there were chances to recover or at least survive in some form.

It depends on if he can have a successor take the reins successfully without a civil war and rule competently for awhile then I don’t see why it would collapse again. If he can successful defeat and subjugate the main threats, namely the the vandals things can become much easier for the empire and allow it to focus on one threat at a time. The Huns are down and the migrations have ended. The storm had passed and the chance of recovery was there, even if hard.

 

[TheDoofusUser]

@Flavius Iulius Nepos would the Magistrates of the WRE really accept Eucherius on the throne? Also, who would rule/take over in the east if Arcadius died around the same time as Honorius?

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

@Flavius Iulius Nepos would the Magistrates of the WRE really accept Eucherius on the throne?

Again it depends on when and how Eucherius takes over.
With a later POD, Britain and Gaul are already gone.
With a violent (Honorius assassinated) succession, Africa is likely to support the East until Eucherius and Stilicho are crushed.
Italy is likely to side with Stilicho by virtue of the general physically being there to keep things under control.

Also, who would rule/take over in the east if Arcadius died around the same time as Honorius?

Theodosius II. If not him, someone from the civilian administration, who at the time were doing a decent job at keeping the military in check (compared to the West at least) and occasionally swaying the emperor their way.

 

[Avrorrange]

Good idea, but I really want Eucherius on the throne mainly because it seems to be agreed that the 410 sack of rome was the straw that broke the Camel's back.


Agreed, but again, the WRE would barely be able to keep all the territory Majorian conquered and like we saw OTL, once he's dead, it'd likely collapse again.

Only on a symbolic level.