WI: No Concept of a Divided Roman Empire Going into the Middle Ages?

[B-29_Bomber]

As it says on the tin.

Prerequisites:

1) The Empire moves the Capital permanently to Byzantium/Alt-Constantinople. I think this is perfectly reasonable for an alt-Emperor to do such a move since Byzantium is such a damn good location for a Capital.

2) The West is ultimately lost to Germanic/other Barbarian groups. It doesn't matter when it happens or how long it takes. Italy itself is a wild card.

3) There can be divisions, but they are largely seen as civil wars, not a legitimate, deliberate effort to divide the Empire.

What would be the effects on the period of time known OTL as the Middle Ages? A period marked by efforts to preserve the legacy of Rome, with dynamic of a divided Empire.

 

[Karolus Rex]

There is always going to be a "divided" Roman Empire. Even before Byzantium rose to prominence, Mediolanum, Augusta Trevonarum and Antioch were, by all intends and purposes, "capitals" considering the time that the Imperial Court spent there, because they were better positioned to serve as command posts during wars.

Even if an Emperor changes the capital, permanently, to Byzantium, and that would be a big if, considering that if we go by location alone, you have better places, with Mediolanum being a better candidate because of it's control of the road networks going from Gaul to Illyria, you will still have to keep the other "military capitals", because Byzantium is too far away, to be a good place to command a war in Mesopotamia or Gaul, with the only border close enough, being the Illyrian border.

But accepting that that happens not much will change, given that TTL-HRE will just claim to be the "true Roman Empire", the Byzantines will do the same and the Iberian kings will still try to enter the competition with the "Emperor of all the Spains is the true Roman Emperor", given that from a certain POV in OTL the capital of the Empire never truly changed, with Rome having always been the de jure capital, even considering that it wasn't the de facto capital.

 

[James XI]

You could adopt the ancient Persian system of having a few capitals (or two principle, say Mediolanum and Byzantium' and two minor like Antioch and Trier with the court spending 4 months/year at the majors and 2 at the minors. This itself would foreshadow the practices of the 'middle ages' and also reflects the defensive military nature of the later Empire.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

There is always going to be a "divided" Roman Empire. Even before Byzantium rose to prominence, Mediolanum, Augusta Trevonarum and Antioch were, by all intends and purposes, "capitals" considering the time that the Imperial Court spent there, because they were better positioned to serve as command posts during wars.

Even if an Emperor changes the capital, permanently, to Byzantium, and that would be a big if, considering that if we go by location alone, you have better places, with Mediolanum being a better candidate because of it's control of the road networks going from Gaul to Illyria, you will still have to keep the other "military capitals", because Byzantium is too far away, to be a good place to command a war in Mesopotamia or Gaul, with the only border close enough, being the Illyrian border.

But accepting that that happens not much will change, given that TTL-HRE will just claim to be the "true Roman Empire", the Byzantines will do the same and the Iberian kings will still try to enter the competition with the "Emperor of all the Spains is the true Roman Emperor", given that from a certain POV in OTL the capital of the Empire never truly changed, with Rome having always been the de jure capital, even considering that it wasn't the de facto capital.

I don't think you quite get my meaning, Rex. When I say "Divided Empire" I don't mean multiple capitals. I mean more than one Emperor. Meaning in this ATL there won't be the Tetrarchy meaning there wouldn't be the legal precedent for the creation of Emperor of the West and Emperor of the East. Therefore during this ALT Middle Ages there wouldn't be a hypothetical revered title that an Alt-Pope in Rome could give because in the eyes of the Pope there's already a Roman Empire based out of Constantinople and any attempt to crown a Western Barbarian as Emperor would be seen as a Usurpation of an already held title.

 

[Karolus Rex]

I don't think you quite get my meaning, Rex. When I say "Divided Empire" I don't mean multiple capitals. I mean more than one Emperor. Meaning in this ATL there won't be the Tetrarchy meaning there wouldn't be the legal precedent for the creation of Emperor of the West and Emperor of the East. Therefore during this ALT Middle Ages there wouldn't be a hypothetical revered title that an Alt-Pope in Rome could give because in the eyes of the Pope there's already a Roman Empire based out of Constantinople and any attempt to crown a Western Barbarian as Emperor would be seen as a Usurpation of an already held title.

Yeah I misunderstood your point, sorry.

You can argue that OTL, from a Roman POV, the Empire had never been divided, for them it was one Empire two Emperors, so for them not appointing Caesars to serve under the Augustus would be counterproductive because the Augustus couldn't be everywhere at once, and with the Caesars protecting certain parts it was easier to avoid civil war. Best shot is if you avoid Theodosius making both his sons Augusti, one becomes the Caesar and the other the Augustus, making it clear that it's still one Empire two Emperors, with the senior in the East.

That way the Pope can only make a Western Emperor that is a clear junior to the Eastern Emperor, thus is subordinate which will ensure that TTL-Charlemagne will avoid the title even more than OTL, because, legally, it would place him bellow the Eastern Emperors, instead of having two Senior Emperors.

 

[Romulus Augustus]

The problem, however, is trying to keep the Caesar in line. Diocletian's solution was to keep the sons of his colleagues close-by, presumably in order to prepare them as for their potential role as future emperors, but also possibly in case the other Augustus or the two Caesars felt tempted to acquire more power by challenging his position. But the flaws in this system quickly revealed themselves after his abdication. This would also require a solution to the question of the army, whose loyalty to any individual besides the the current emperor could turn an entire system upside down. I'm not saying it isn't possible for there to have been a system of one, supreme emperor (i.e. Augustus) with at least one or more junior colleagues (i.e. Caesar), but the problem would still be the same, more or less with the Tetrarchy -- keeping the subordinates in line not just while the emperor is alive, but after he leaves office either by abdication or death.

 

[B-29_Bomber]

You can argue that OTL, from a Roman POV, the Empire had never been divided, for them it was one Empire two Emperors,

That's some sub-atomic hair splitting that is!

That way the Pope can only make a Western Emperor that is a clear junior to the Eastern Emperor, thus is subordinate which will ensure that TTL-Charlemagne will avoid the title even more than OTL, because, legally, it would place him bellow the Eastern Emperors, instead of having two Senior Emperors.

Except, how do you avoid this system evolving into one with two senior Emperors?

At the end of the day having more than one ruler was fatally flawed.

Also, if the West is lost sooner than OTL, say in the 4th century, due to the lack of the Tetrarchy, then that's fine. You still accomplish the OP.

 

[Karolus Rex]

That's some sub-atomic hair splitting that is!

If you think that, that is hair splitting just know that for the Romans the Western Provinces were never lost they were just under a "different administration", and even the Germanic Kingdoms played with this definition.

Except, how do you avoid this system evolving into one with two senior Emperors?

In practice? You can't.

At the end of the day having more than one ruler was fatally flawed.

Also, if the West is lost sooner than OTL, say in the 4th century, due to the lack of the Tetrarchy, then that's fine. You still accomplish the OP.

The problem is that the West was strong enough to survive the 4th century, it took a long period of conflicts and the loss of the Western armies while fighting Theodosius, to put the Western part in the path of destruction and there were still times when, if they had done the right choices, they could had survived for more time.

The Empire was just too vast to be ruled, during times of conflict, by a single man, specially after the legions understood their political power, during times of peace one man and the Senate could do the job, but when all borders are being attacked at the same time, you have to share the power to save the Empire or don't share it and then the legions can just create a new Emperor, because they feel abandoned by the Augustus when attacked.

So you have to go way back to fix the problems in the Roman system, and I mean all problems not just the military ones, and create a "caste" of loyal officers that would never think of betraying the Emperor, OTL the Emperors thought that the Equites would be loyal to them, so they raised them to post of power but that backfired.

 

[chrnno]

Only way I can see to accomplish the question of the title is to stop the Roman Empire from expanding so much, if at it's height it is only... say a third of OTL then it could happen. Half might be possible but stretching it.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

Yeah I misunderstood your point, sorry.

You can argue that OTL, from a Roman POV, the Empire had never been divided, for them it was one Empire two Emperors, so for them not appointing Caesars to serve under the Augustus would be counterproductive because the Augustus couldn't be everywhere at once, and with the Caesars protecting certain parts it was easier to avoid civil war. Best shot is if you avoid Theodosius making both his sons Augusti, one becomes the Caesar and the other the Augustus, making it clear that it's still one Empire two Emperors, with the senior in the East.

That way the Pope can only make a Western Emperor that is a clear junior to the Eastern Emperor, thus is subordinate which will ensure that TTL-Charlemagne will avoid the title even more than OTL, because, legally, it would place him bellow the Eastern Emperors, instead of having two Senior Emperors.

This is actually pretty amazingly parallel to the kinds of titles Chinese emperors would give to "barbarian" allies. "Commander of the Eastern Commandery" type titles.

 

[Karolus Rex]

This is actually pretty amazingly parallel to the kinds of titles Chinese emperors would give to "barbarian" allies. "Commander of the Eastern Commandery" type titles.

The Eastern Roman Empire also played with those titles. If you see some of the coins produced during the 6th century on the new Kingdoms on the former lands of the WRE you notice that they placed the name of the current Eastern Emperor, so technically they were "vassals" of Constantinople and technically the Western Provinces were still part of the Empire.

 

[Pischinovski]

Wait wait wait.
(It was a long time since I looked this stuff up [I might do it again soon] but right now I am posting this without looking at wiki)

Tetrachy and Charlemange? I am pretty sure the pope's reasoning behing crowing Charlemange Roman emperor had very very little to do with the tetrachy.
If I recall correctly the pope crowned Charlie emperor because he was convinced that the Roman emperorship was vacant, due to an empress (Irene?) reigning in her own right in Constantinople. That had nothing to do with the tetrachy but a lot with behind the scenes politics and mysoginy.

If you want to avoid the Franks (or western Europeans in general) seeing themselves as rightful heirs to the one and only Roman empire you shouldn't try to avoid the tetrachy but rather concentrate of getting rid of the concept "a monarch is a military leader and a woman can't lead an army, ergo a woman can't be a monarch" OR have the (Eastern) Romans keep central Italy so the pope doesn't get to do weird stuff like handing out titles he doesn't own.

 

[Karolus Rex]

Wait wait wait.
(It was a long time since I looked this stuff up [I might do it again soon] but right now I am posting this without looking at wiki)

Tetrachy and Charlemange? I am pretty sure the pope's reasoning behing crowing Charlemange Roman emperor had very very little to do with the tetrachy.
If I recall correctly the pope crowned Charlie emperor because he was convinced that the Roman emperorship was vacant, due to an empress (Irene?) reigning in her own right in Constantinople. That had nothing to do with the tetrachy but a lot with behind the scenes politics and mysoginy.

As I posted in a previous thread relating to this problem of Charlemagne titles:

Charlemagne's full title was "Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam dei Rex Francorum et Longobardorum" That you can translate as "Charles most serene Augustus crowned by God, the great, peaceful Ruler of the Romans that manages the Empire/that manages supreme power, and by mercy King of the Franks and Lombards". By this formula his power comes from his Kingship of the Franks and the Lombards but the problem comes from Leo III that tried to use the Franks to confirm the Roman Church as the only power that can give the Universal Dignity of Imperator Romanum. This wasn't an attempt to create the second WRE this was an attempt by the Pope to confirm his power and independence from Constantinople so he just created a new protector.

The Pope wanted political independence and the Franks gave him that, for a while. Now the act of crowning a rival as Emperor was old, and what Bomber wants, I think, is to avoid creating rival Emperors, and de facto the heirs of Charlemagne became rivals of the Byzantines for the title.

And you also had the Iberian rivals for the title of Emperor, the obscure Emperor of all the Spains, and that wasn't created because the person in the east was a woman.

If you want to avoid the Franks (or western Europeans in general) seeing themselves as rightful heirs to the one and only Roman empire you shouldn't try to avoid the tetrachy but rather concentrate of getting rid of the concept "a monarch is a military leader and a woman can't lead an army, ergo a woman can't be a monarch" OR have the (Eastern) Romans keep central Italy so the pope doesn't get to do weird stuff like handing out titles he doesn't own.

So you want to end the Pater Familias? That would require a POD way back, so way back that trying to guess what happens in the middle ages is impossible.

 

[Pischinovski]

So you want to end the Pater Familias? That would require a POD way back, so way back that trying to guess what happens in the middle ages is impossible.

No I want to get rid off the notion that you have to be a general to be a monarch (I am aware that this and Pater Familias are related concepts rooted in similar conceptions of masculinity, femininity and gender in general), because that was the popes arguement.

My main arguement was that the tetrachy had little relavancy for popes reasoning, as he wasn't claiming to create Charlemange one of several emperors. Instead he claimed that Charlemange would be the sole Roman emperor.

 

[Karolus Rex]

No I want to get rid off the notion that you have to be a general to be a monarch (I am aware that this and Pater Familias are related concepts rooted in similar conceptions of masculinity, femininity and gender in general), because that was the popes arguement.

My main arguement was that the tetrachy had little relavancy for popes reasoning, as he wasn't claiming to create Charlemange one of several emperors. Instead he claimed that Charlemange would be the sole Roman emperor.

The Soldier-Emperor was born from the 3rd century, so avoid the crisis and its done.

Now to coronation, the Pope would had done that eventually, the sex of the Emperor in Constantinople was of little interest, that Irene was the one in power meant Charlemagne was crowned as the successor of Constantine VI and not Romulus Augustus, but that meant little because you could always crown him as an Augustus because there was the precedent from the tetrachy.