Faeelin
Banned
The East was more urbanized and more defensible. Arguably it may have had a stronger peasant class, instead of huge aristocratic estates, and I'd bet it was more populated. Those seem like key differences.
WI: Valens and the Romans win at Adrianople?
- Thread starter Tom Colton
- Start date
The East was more urbanized and more defensible. Arguably it may have had a stronger peasant class, instead of huge aristocratic estates, and I'd bet it was more populated. Those seem like key differences.
I've heard this theory sent around a lot, and I simply don't buy it, and neither do many other other historians. The danube region was raided multiple times, with Thrace utterly devastated several times by goths and Huns between 375-460. In the East, I've actually lost count of how many times Antioch was captured and sacked by Sassanids. The East had more money, but that would have meant little if she had been more divided or less lucky in when she fought her enemies.
The West just got a poor set of luck.
At least at first glance, the east also has far less defensible borders. The west has natural frontiers-the Alps protecting Italy, the Rhine protecting Gaul, and the Danube protecting Pannonia. Also, all of the west's major recruitment and economic centers were insulated and far from the border. Spain, Italy, North Africa, and the southern part of Illyricum (which was originally part of the western empire until Gratian gave it to Theodosius), were the economic heart of the empire and well removed from the frontier. Compare that to the east, where Syria was right on the frontlines, and any breakthrough into Syria and Palestine by the Sassanians could lead to an invasion of Egypt, as would happen after the death of Maurice. They also did not have effective natural defensive frontiers, hence the string of heavily defended fortresses that guarded the frontier.
Really, the west on paper is in a much better geographical position. And as Peter Heather demonstrated, the western economy was not faring worse than the eastern at the start of the 5th century.
Why aren't there more west survives timelines starting in the beginning of the 5th century if that's true?
There aren't many west survival timelines in the first place. Most ancient history timelines focus on the Late Republic-Early Empire, the Punic Wars, or the Hellenistic Age.
Hecatee
Donor
Well I did a study on Ancient History POD's for a conference back in 2014. I used the uchronia.net database and came out with 247 POD between 7000 B.C. and 700 CE :
VIIe siècle av. J.C. et antérieur 49
VIe siècle av. J.C. 02
Ve siècle av. J.C. 10
IVe siècle av. J.C. 13
IIIe siècle av. J.C. 17
IIe siècle av. J.C. 04
Ier siècle av. J.C. 32
Ier siècle 34
IIe siècle 06
IIIe siècle 00
IVe siècle 28
Ve siècle 24
VIe siècle 12
VIIe siècle 15
I should do a similar work on alternatehistory.com content, but it would take me ages due to the need to scrap all the timelines' URL in an excel file and then open each to define period, pod and nations involved...
Faeelin
Banned
Which historians don't buy it?
What are the western cities to compare to Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Ephesus? Rome and Carthage.
Or look at the tax revenues of the two halves.
Last edited:
Given that Valens was an Arian, his continued rule would have likely been destabilizing on the ERE and for Christianity in the East. Valentinian was Nicene so the two may come to blows if Valens survives not only survives but is victorious at Adrianople.
Gratian was also Nicene, and favored the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, who themselves were Nicene. I can probably see the Bishop of Alexandria being a point of contention between them.
Peter Heather is rather critical of the idea that the East was somehow intrinsically better. He makes it very clear that it took a series of disastrous events with poor timing to bring down the west. More modernist (revisionist) historians of late antiquity have also criticized the "East better" theory-though I believe that this period it is still overwhelmingly taught as if there were major defensive/military/administrative differences.
Of course the East had more money, and a more defensive capital, but both these factors proved to overcome or lost later in Byzantine history. The West should still have been able to call on large amounts of forces (on paper) and still had access to Spain, Gaul, Sicily and N-Africa, which should have been more than enough. Yet, through a series of incompetent leaders, poor decisions, unfortunate civil wars and most of all very large barbarian forces within imperial borders that could intervene/exploit these events (which were currently not happening in the east) ensured that these rich, still fairly urbanized and fertile provinces were lost.
A possible war between Gratian and his uncle, would be interesting. Nicene Christianity wasn't the dominating force in the East that it would become under Theodosius so the religious makeup of Valens' troops would be more diverse than in later periods, but might Valens' Nicene troops mutiny in favor of Gratian? If Gratian looks to curry favor in Egypt by accentuating the power and role of the Bishop of Alexandria then this will weaken Valens' position. In addition, a victory at Adrianople will help Gratian as it will temper the resentment many in the Roman military had for him. Magnus Maximus may not launch his rebellion that left Roman Britain naked of troops and marked the end of Roman rule in Britain.
A civil war is not at all likely imo. Public spats and political backdealing to give their preferred brand of Christianity an edge is probable, but a war? They were on fairly friendly terms IOTL.
Hecatee
Donor
Yes, uchronia.net only references commercialy published timelines, see page http://www.uchronia.net/bib.cgi/diverge.html
Faeelin
Banned
Where does Peter Heather make this argument? If it's in the Fall of the Roman Empire, then I think he's very selective. The examples of late-Roman prosperity are all in the Eastern Empire, and his explanation for the decline of western urban centers is that the Roman cities there were a cultural, not economic artifact.
At the ground level, it looks like a more oppressive society too. Instead of a series of villages across the Empire, we have peasant holdings clustered around great estate. Sounds ugly to me.
But that's the point. The Barbarians could get through those territories, crossing a huge swathe of territory and a thin border. The barbarians couldn't reach Egypt or Syria. Put a hostile Sassanid Empire in play in the 5th century and things might get rather ugly...