Underrated Late Roman Empire PODs (4th century to 6th century AD)

[Deleted member 97083]

What are some underrated points of divergence during the fall of the Roman Empire and early "Dark Ages", especially from 313 AD to 565 AD?

Persia or China are relevant as well, though the main focus is Rome and the foederati.

 

[Avrorrange]

Basically,the entire period's underrated.

 

[Faeelin]

Basically,the entire period's underrated.

Eh, this goes to my "glass walls" theory. If the Empire had so many chances to turn it around, why didn't it seize any of them?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Basically,the entire period's underrated.

True, but what are some specific events that have potential?

For example, the Theodosian walls were nearly destroyed by an earthquake in 447 AD, and quickly rebuilt before Attila was able to conquer the city. What if the walls were not rebuilt in time and Attila sacked Constantinople?

Eh, this goes to my "glass walls" theory. If the Empire had so many chances to turn it around, why didn't it seize any of them?

Well, many Romans tried, just look at Diocletian, Constantine, and Majorian.

This isn't necessarily a 'save the Roman Empire' thread though, just a Late Antiquity thread.

 

[Avrorrange]

Eh, this goes to my "glass walls" theory. If the Empire had so many chances to turn it around, why didn't it seize any of them?

Because of human stupidity and bad luck.

 

[LSCatilina]

What are some underrated points of divergence during the fall of the Roman Empire and early "Dark Ages", especially from 313 AD to 565 AD?

Dun-Dun-DUUUUUUUN

Battles

- Battle of Argentoratum (357), which opposed Romans and Alemanni. Julian being defeated would have meant Gaul being less safe it was during the IVth, at least for the decade, pulling strategical changes in western Romania which would have made the situation managable, but at the cost of some sacrifices (maybe an earlier gradual pull-out of Britain?)
- Battle of Ctesiphon (363), opposing Sassanians and Romans. It could go two ways : either clear Roman victory with Julian surviving, either clear Sassanian victory. Both ways would have important macro-historical situations.

- Battle of Solicinium (368) which opposed Romans and Alemanni. It had potential to be a western Adrianople, meaning less big immediate changes, than the possibility for an Alemanic build-up in the region, where a leader could pull an Alaric.

- Battle of the Frigidius (395), which opposed Theodosius to Eugenius. The battle wasn't that well engaged by Theodosius, whom Gothic federates went trough severe losses. It litterally didn't asked for much more than a turning wind to provide Eugenius and Abrogast an advantage. A Theodosian defeat, and the victory of a pagan emperor and magister militiae, as well no career in the west for Stilicho would have massive consequences.

- Battle of Verona (402), which opposed Goths to Romans. The capture of Alaric would have certainly led to interesting change in the relationship with and between Goths. I'd expect some disbanding (while not much infra-structural weakening) leading to maybe a bit of respite for WRE.

- Battle of Obrigo (456), which opposed Goths to Suevi. A Gothic defeat, or rather a stalemate, may have provided Suevi enough base to hold their ground in Spain

- Battle of Deols (469) which opposed Visigoths to a coalition made of Britto-Romans, Gallo-Romans and Franks. It sealed Visigothic dominance in Gaul for decades, until Clovis' conquest. @galileo-034 is working on it since ages, but I generally agree that it might involves (in the case of a visigothic defeat) a Burgondian success in southern Gaul, an easier and earlier Frankish progression, Armorican Saxons being more important and a general mess in Aquitaine.

Other

- A more successful Armenian revolt movement in the late IVth may have been more problematic for Sassanians for what matter campaiging in Anatolia, or at least would have provided yet another battleground with Romans.

- Survival of Balthi dynasty in Gothic Spain may have helped to prevent the anti-dynastical take on kingship that went institutionalized between the VIth and the VIIIth. Conversly, the disappearance of Merovingian dynasty early on would have interesting consequences as well.

- An earlty death of Brunhild might have shortened the faida that existed between the various Frankish kings.

- The absence or early defeat (naval, tough) of the Vandalic War in the 530's would have in all probability led to a Maur takeover of post-imperial Africa


There's probably much more, but that's all I can think off on top of my head.

 

[LSCatilina]

Eh, this goes to my "glass walls" theory. If the Empire had so many chances to turn it around, why didn't it seize any of them?

It did, it's why we ended up with an (Eastern) Roman Empire in Constantinople. As far as chances to turn it around, it went fairly well giving they had to compete with Sassanians : most ancient and medieval chinese states can't tell that much of a good outcome.
As for why it didn't in the West : it did relatively well until the Vth, giving circumstances, but what allowed ERE to blossom made WRE a bit vulnerable and eventually holding to a thread. When this thread broke (namely, when Honorius died and dynastical stability, which was a huge thing with the sacralisation of the imperium), it went a long death that would have been salvagable trough absorbtion of some parts by ERE.

It did happened, eventually, but was badly managed.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

- Battle of Obrigo (456), which opposed Goths to Suevi. A Gothic defeat, or rather a stalemate, may have provided Suevi enough base to hold their ground in Spain

How might Suevic administration differ from Visigothic administration?

- Battle of Deols (469) which opposed Visigoths to a coalition made of Britto-Romans, Gallo-Romans and Franks. It sealed Visigothic dominance in Gaul for decades, until Clovis' conquest. @galileo-034 is working on it since ages, but I generally agree that it might involves (in the case of a visigothic defeat) a Burgondian success in southern Gaul, an easier and earlier Frankish progression, Armorican Saxons being more important and a general mess in Aquitaine.

Armorican Saxons? As in the mainland France Armorica? Where can I read more about this?

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I think that there is no (complete) Julian surviving TL on this board. However, keep in mind that his death was a turning point in Roman history. Many historians say that the Roman Empire was still predominantly Pagan in 361, so basically, Julian did have a chance to turn the tide back and at least preserve a tolerant and pluralistic Empire. Also, Julian was quite an intelligent man (a great general, an acceptable philosopher and a visionary reformer), and I think that he was a person who could have saved the Empire. 361 was before the Gothic invasions; sure, the Romans had lost Dacia, the Agri Decumates and the Kingdom of the Cimmerian Bosporus - but in general, the Empire was in a sound condition. Julian did, as far as we know, effectively combat rampant corruption. He was no fanatic reactionary as some depict him; au contraire, he had a vision of how Rome should be and was determined to implement this vision.

His death (and his associated failure) wasn't a necessity. He was still young in 363 (33 at the utmost) and could have lived on for 30, 40 years. He could have achieved much during these decades: securing the eastern border, driving back the Alemanns, successfully integrating the Goths into the empire, enforcing religious tolerance and the respect of Pagan temples, reforming the Roman administration... That he died so early was sheer luck (or misfortune from a Pagan point of view) and enabled the following Christian emperors to make Christianity the religion of state and to ban all other, non-Catholic cults.

- Battle of Ctesiphon (363), opposing Sassanians and Romans. It could go two ways : either clear Roman victory with Julian surviving, either clear Sassanian victory. Both ways would have important macro-historical situations.

And what would happen after a clear Roman victory? I don't think Julian had the means to besiege Ctesiphon.

Another point of divergence I can think of:

Persia (or some other oriental country) could go Manichaeist. There was no Manichaeist great power in history IIRC, so creating one could be quite interesting.

 

[LSCatilina]

How might Suevic administration differ from Visigothic administration?

It...didn't, being based on the same late Roman administration?

Armorican Saxons? As in the mainland France Armorica? Where can I read more about this?

More or less anywhere after a quick search : there or there. It was sometimes discussed on AH.com : myself and @The Professor somehow seems to agree that Kentish Eucii may likely be identifiable with Euthiones that are mentioned in continental shores, probably (IMO, Euthiones being possibly a sub-branch of Iutii having collected other groups in the way, ending up to form Euthiones, as it might have happened with Frisians, and then moving in Kent banding with related groups)

Channel wasn't in any way a bareer for population moves, at the contrary : and you had a lot of exhances between related groups established as neighbours or even on both sides (Saxons, Jutes, Franks, Frisians, etc.) What happened in the Xth and XIth, with the continuous round trips of Norses and Anglo-Scandinavian happened earlier.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

- Battle of the Frigidius (395), which opposed Theodosius to Eugenius. The battle wasn't that well engaged by Theodosius, whom Gothic federates went trough severe losses. It litterally didn't asked for much more than a turning wind to provide Eugenius and Abrogast an advantage. A Theodosian defeat, and the victory of a pagan emperor and magister militiae, as well no career in the west for Stilicho would have massive consequences.

I think that there is no (complete) Julian surviving TL on this board. However, keep in mind that his death was a turning point in Roman history. Many historians say that the Roman Empire was still predominantly Pagan in 361, so basically, Julian did have a chance to turn the tide back and at least preserve a tolerant and pluralistic Empire.

...enforcing religious tolerance and the respect of Pagan temples, reforming the Roman administration...

Eugenius the usurper was Christian but supported Roman polytheism. Perhaps he could be succeeded by a Julian-like pagan. Maybe that's another way to expand paganism in the empire, have it expand again slowly over decades.

It...didn't, being based on the same late Roman administration?

Well, maybe administration was the wrong word. I meant, how would Suevi be different than the Visigoths other than having a different dialect?

 

[Faeelin]

It did, it's why we ended up with an (Eastern) Roman Empire in Constantinople. As far as chances to turn it around, it went fairly well giving they had to compete with Sassanians : most ancient and medieval chinese states can't tell that much of a good outcome.

That's a fair point about the Byzantines, but I think most people are more interested in the western empire, given our background. And it seems like every time someone tried to turn it around, another problem emerged.

 

[Faeelin]

What's the consensus on the western empire's economy, anyway? Peter Heather and a few other historians I've read try to say it was all fine, but they mostly rely on finds from Roman Africa and the East, not Gaul or Hispania.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

What's the consensus on the western empire's economy, anyway? Peter Heather and a few other historians I've read try to say it was all fine, but they mostly rely on finds from Roman Africa and the East, not Gaul or Hispania.

It wasn't all fine, but I'm convinced it wasn't catastrophic. Better keep the Empire together, that should do the trick.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

It wasn't all fine, but I'm convinced it wasn't catastrophic. Better keep the Empire together, that should do the trick.

Or pull back to the areas of strong Romanization like Africa and Italy, using Eastern reinforcements to fortify. Then push back against the Germanic kingdoms when the Franks have a succession crisis.

 

[LSCatilina]

Many historians say that the Roman Empire was still predominantly Pagan in 361

Pagan is, still, an historiographical term and not modelling an historical reality : it name a really diverse array of beliefs and rites that had not that much to do with each other except for what matter important urban and imperial network.
Treating it as one big ensemble makes as much sense that considering whole regions as "wholly Animist" : it does a bit, but not as a same entity.

Julian tried to keep an "universal" imperial religious policy and domination over a lot of various non-Christians religions and beliefs. Not that much trying to create a structured paganism, but treating the aformentioned entities as various Christian beliefs were : diverse but eventually the same core. It...didn't go so well.

so basically, Julian did have a chance to turn the tide back and at least preserve a tolerant and pluralistic Empire.

The meteoric reign of Julian points that you had still a strong anti-Christian political faction among Roman elites (it's as well highlighted by the relative softness of his predecessor on pagan features), but how quickly his policies were reverted point as well how rooted Christianity was politically-wise (the Semi-Arianism/Homeism successive crisis probably helped a lot to provide anti-Christian nobles with an opportunity)

Would Constantius II have lived yet a bit more, I wonder if Julian's usurpation and neo-platonicist policies wouldn't have been marked as some passing curiosity (while it's definitely not anecdotal)

Julian looks a bit like a Late Antiquity equivalent of Marcus Aurelius : competent, efficient and philosopher...
But eventually unable to really go against the tendencies of his time, attempting to create an alternative to imperial Christianity trough revival of the situation before Constantine (non-structured Christianity and various cults) as if almost a century of identification of Christianity as an imperial feature never happened.

And that's the problem : when predecessors to Constantine pulled imperial cults, they neither faced a structured rival, or attempted to pull an universal religious policy.
Julian did both. It certainly pleased a large part of traditional Roman aristocracy, but wasn't understood from most of the population (see how well he was received in Antioch*), and rejected from a not much less important part of Roman aristocracy.

"Paganism" seem to have suffered from a huge credibility crisis at this point, at least among urban population, and I wonder if Julian didn't tried to resolve that with a philosophical answer to philosophical dismemberment of traditional beliefs.

*Basically that they rejected the idea of an emperor deciding how traditional beliefs should look like in a similar way previous emperors had a final word on what Christian orthodoxy should look like.

@Calaritanus disagree with me on some of these points tough, so his take on this might be interesting.

And what would happen after a clear Roman victory? I don't think Julian had the means to besiege Ctesiphon.

First, a clear roman victory wouldn't end up with Jovian basically leaving as quickly he did, without really settling the matter at hand and loosing Roman Mesopotamian provinces. Eventually it made Rome loosing the military edge on the region.

Then, I don't think the goal of Julian was to besiege Ctesiphon than force a surrender trough a policy of scorched earth, defection of Sassanian vassals and beating up the army in front of the city, in order to strengthen, reinforce and avance Roman edge against Persians (hence why he choose Antioch as imperial residence).

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, maybe administration was the wrong word. I meant, how would Suevi be different than the Visigoths other than having a different dialect?

It's likely that Suevi speech would have gone the same way than Gothic : meaning dying out safe for ceremonial and institutional purposes in the VIth.

What would have been different then? Well, a more western and altantic focus, to begin with, which would have made Suevi courts more interested on Atlantic trade (trough Aquitaine, IMO), an earlier break with late imperial commonwealth making Suevi being a bit less tied up to the mediterranean Late Antiquity.

 

[LSCatilina]

What's the consensus on the western empire's economy, anyway?

It really depends from which period and which region we're talking : the consensus seems to be declining, but not collapsing and not without revival.
It seems to be true of late Roman agriculture that was plagued enough by the lack of manpower that it called for Barbarian manpower and declining enough to see the great transformative structures as Barbegal mills falling out of use (altough not everywhere, they seems to have worked in Italy).

It seems that late Roman agriculture focused less on grain and more on natural ressources as wood or salt by the IVth and early Vth. Similarily, you had a refocus within peri-urban and rural demesnes (villae) to what matter artisanal production.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

I suggested this POD earlier in another thread but I think it could be worth consideration.

In the 550s AD, two Nestorian monks smuggled silkworm eggs from China into the Byzantine Empire for Emperor Justinian. This created the Byzantine silk industry, a thriving source of income for the Eastern Roman Empire. Byzantines held a monopoly on silk for centuries, until the Normans captured Byzantine silkworms to produce silk in Sicilian plantations.

What if, in addition to smuggling silkworm eggs, these Nestorian monks managed to bring a collection of Chinese agricultural or metallurgical texts into the Empire, including knowledge of the heavy plough?

Although of the territories inside the Empire, only Bulgaria really could have benefited from the heavy plough, this technology could spread north from Byzantine Thrace into "barbarian" territories, allowing Eastern Europe to become populous, and the center of powerful kingdoms, centuries before OTL. Notably, during the time that Slavic was still one mutually intelligible language. Slavic Empire, anyone?

Would there be a reverse Ostsiedlung?

 

[LSCatilina]

Or pull back to the areas of strong Romanization like Africa and Italy

Africa and Italy weren't so much "more romanized" than Gaul or Spain, than they remained close enough to Constantinople and then less structurally damaged by the collapse of Roman state in the west. Even that is more gradual trough the late Vth and early VIth, and mostly based on a post-imperial Romanity in the west (where civil militia is centered on episcopalian features) and the late imperial Romanity in central and eastern Romania

Then push back against the Germanic kingdoms when the Franks have a succession crisis.

Germanic kingdoms are so prone to divide themselves among various kings within a same political entity. Not at all like Romans in the IVth cent...
Well, division is still something Germans did. Ah, someone points me to the part where there's no proof whatsoever that division of the imperium was a thing among Franks before the Vth.

More seriously, most of Frankish institutions were based on Late Roman, pretty much up to the use of sub-kindgoms co-kingship (that you find more or less equally in Gothic Spain, for instance). It was agravatted by the tradition of faide (unknown among Romans as an institution, tough familial vandetta is a classic of mediterranean world). "Germanic kingdoms" is, at the latest, a very misleading formulation.