AHC: Successful Western Roman Empire?

[Deleted member 67076]

Exactly what it says on the title, what would it take for a successful Western Roman empire. Before anyone asks, successful in this case means a long lasting (at least as long as the Byzantines), wealthy, prosperous empire that doesn't live under fear of being conquered by invaders (for most of its lifetime). The Empire does not have to be always stable, as the situation in the east shows. The empire's borders don't have to include France, Spain, England, etc. Just a successful Roman state based in Italy. Anyway, what does it take to achieve this and what are its effects?

 

[Elfwine]

Exactly what it says on the title, what would it take for a successful Western Roman empire. Before anyone asks, successful in this case means a long lasting (at least as long as the Byzantines), wealthy, prosperous empire that doesn't live under fear of being conquered by invaders (for most of its lifetime). The Empire does not have to be always stable, as the situation in the east shows. The empire's borders don't have to include France, Spain, England, etc. Just a successful Roman state based in Italy. Anyway, what does it take to achieve this and what are its effects?

The problem is that by the point there was a division into Eastern and Western (even just in the sense of co-rulership), the Western half was already beleaguered - and as the financially weaker half, that was only going to get worse.

I wouldn't say it would be doomed, but it was facing much stiffer problems than the eastern half in order to do as well.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

The problem is that by the point there was a division into Eastern and Western (even just in the sense of co-rulership), the Western half was already beleaguered - and as the financially weaker half, that was only going to get worse.

I wouldn't say it would be doomed, but it was facing much stiffer problems than the eastern half in order to do as well.

But is there anyway for the west to dodge the bullet and slowly be able to bounce back into greatness over next few centuries?

 

[Faeelin]

You know, while the Western half was weaker and poorer, it was also not facing a centralized state with a standing army, like the Eastern Empire was. Hrm.

 

[Elfwine]

But is there anyway for the west to dodge the bullet and slowly be able to bounce back into greatness over next few centuries?

I'm inclined to say no. It's too easy for it's overdependence on barbarian soldiers to wind up with it existing in name only - as they take more and more land.

I wouldn't say it's impossible per se, but the conditions where Rome rose in Italy and spread beyond are no longer there. And from there, it's lack of resources is a problem.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

During the reign of Valens and directly after Adrianopke and before theodosius stabilized everything, the east was weaker than the west. The three civil wars that the west lost in direct succession (2 at the hands of theodosius: Maximus and Arbogast) were what really dealt a near death blow to the western empire. Their army was devastated, and their morale was sacked.


Though if the invasions of 406 are stopped before they get going (as they nearly were) and Constantine III is defeated quickly, perhaps also having stilicho g through with his taking of illyricum, then the west can bounce back.

 

[Grognard42]

I'm inclined to say no. It's too easy for it's overdependence on barbarian soldiers to wind up with it existing in name only - as they take more and more land.

I wouldn't say it's impossible per se, but the conditions where Rome rose in Italy and spread beyond are no longer there. And from there, it's lack of resources is a problem.

Yeah. I think I recall reading about the loss of North Africa (Carthage), and it's grain production factoring into that. Late Roman laws freezing what occupations people can move into (Diocletian?) probably played a part too.

IIRC, the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire ignored some of those laws...

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Yeah. I think I recall reading about the loss of North Africa (Carthage), and it's grain production factoring into that. Late Roman laws freezing what occupations people can move into (Diocletian?) probably played a part too.

IIRC, the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire ignored some of those laws...

You can easily prevent the loss of North Africa by preventing the Vandals from crossing the Rhine. On December 31st, 406, the Franks did nearly beat the Germanic invaders. Even after that, Stilicho had a good chance to destroy the invasion (contrary to popular belief, they were not a vast horde at the start. That came after Constantine got them to help him, and a lot of people in Gaul supplemented their forces). However, Stilicho, not knowing Vandals were included in the invading tribes, sent the Pannonian Vandals to help the Gallic Army deal with the invasion (this is before Constantine landed). The people in Gaul didn't believe they were fighting for Rome, an thought they were simply part of the invading tribes. They were shut out from cities and forced to scavenge for supplies (as it was a quick move, they didn't carry much supplies). The Pannonian Vandals, running out of food and supplies, then joined the invading forces.

 

[Benjamin XVIII]

You need a fairly early POD. The fact is that in the last years of the empire it wasn't a place worth living in. The government treated citizens terribly near the end, forcing people to stay in occupations, drawing preposterous taxes from people (90%+) and when the Germanic invaders came life actually improved for most people. Early on, Roman citizenship was coveted; by the end it was a curse that cost you your freedom and the fruits of your labor. Taxes were lower under goths and franks and quite frankly they protected you better.

Something needs to be done earlier to stop the crises which lead to these measures being taken.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

You need a fairly early POD. The fact is that in the last years of the empire it wasn't a place worth living in. The government treated citizens terribly near the end, forcing people to stay in occupations, drawing preposterous taxes from people (90%+) and when the Germanic invaders came life actually improved for most people. Early on, Roman citizenship was coveted; by the end it was a curse that cost you your freedom and the fruits of your labor. Taxes were lower under goths and franks and quite frankly they protected you better.

Something needs to be done earlier to stop the crises which lead to these measures being taken.

Maybe go back to Augustus and start there? Or not having Caracalla make everyone a citizen?

Though I am not very familiar with the 3rd century, so I don't know if this would help much.

 

[Malta]

Also, there wasn't a major attempt to 'Hellenize' the East until Heraclius.

I have proposed before if Gerontius had been loyal the usurper Constantine III. He could have crushe the Visigoths, Suveis, and such saving Hispania from Being lost to Rome.

 

[lordyu]

Heraclius was simply the first to accept reality.

 

[Elfwine]

Yeah. The East didn't need to be Hellenized by Heraclius, the East was Greek speaking far more than Latin speaking from the start.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Would the empire be decent just with Italy, Illyricum and North Africa.(Italy for bureaucracy, Illyricum for recruits and North Africa for grain to feed the population? Also is it possible to use the Alps as a border?

 

[Malta]

Heraclius was simply the first to accept reality.

It had by the end of his reign been reduced primarily to its Greek speaking sections. If larger parts of the West had been maintained then Latin would have persisted.

Would the empire be decent just with Italy, Illyricum and North Africa.(Italy for bureaucracy, Illyricum for recruits and North Africa for grain to feed the population? Also is it possible to use the Alps as a border?

Alps didn't stop as many barbarians as they should. Also, the prime concern was the primacy of Rome or Constantinople. Which Emperor was stronger.

 

[Elfwine]

Soverihn: "Italy for bureaucracy" is not a good idea. And just Illyricum for recruits may not be enough.

It had by the end of his reign been reduced primarily to its Greek speaking sections. If larger parts of the West had been maintained then Latin would have persisted.

You'd need more than anything held even by Justinian for it not to be Greek dominated.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Maybe a POD with Caesar?

 

[lordyu]

It was because his new army spoke Greek more than Latin. It was more efficient. Even in Syrian and Egypt the language of trade, law and government had been Greek and remanded Greek during the roman times. It was not because of the Arab invasion. The east had been drifting away from Latin use for some two centuries. It was the language of the bureaucracy and there had to be a lot of translation. Remember that syriac and Coptic started to use Greek script for there own language in this time.

 

[Deleted member 67076]

Soverihn: "Italy for bureaucracy" is not a good idea. And just Illyricum for recruits may not be enough.
.

Why would having a large bureaucracy in Italy be bad? Was the Senate really that out of touch and taxes really that bad? I'm thinking that by keeping the centralized bureaucracy roman institutions can be kept and help prevent feudalism (or at least lessen it). Yes I am aware of the Diocletian laws preventing people form changing jobs. Also, if the empire takes all these hits can't it stabilize after the migrations are done and the invasions stop?

 

[Elfwine]

Why would having a large bureacracy in Italy be bad? Was the Senate really that out of touch and taxes really that bad?

You don't want the bureaucracy to be made up of people only from one part of the empire.

The other parts will not be happy about being second class citizens, and Italy isn't strong enough to do much about it.