Could Western Roman empire be saved by being more open?

[telesien]

Basically this idea revolves around two concepts and one "what if"

The two immediate reasons why Western empire fell were fragmentation of the land and the final deposition of the last emperor (sure both have many underlying reasons, but let's not go that deep).

The "what if" that could make things different. The year was 414 and daughter of former emperor Theodosius just had a boy with Gothic king Ataulf. This kid would have been the prime candidate for the position of emperor after the death of Honorius in 423 instead of Valentian III (who wouldn't even been born in this scenario), but he died as an infant.

What it would mean? First of all there would be a person that would unite the title of emperor of Rome and king of Goths. This would mean that Goths would have strong incentive to be faithful part of the empire instead of carving their own domain in southern Gaul and Hispania respectively. Roman and Gothic army combined would be far more likely to prevent the fragmentation, have better chance against Huns and be more likely to drive Vandals from North Africa. In best case scenario the half-barbarian emperor would convince Vandals, that even they have chance to actually have some say in the empire instead of doing their own thing.

But most of all, with barbarians having access to legitimate power, there would be no real need for Odoacer to depose emperor in order to have some real power, so even in weakened state, the continuity of emperors would be preserved.

It also makes me think what could have been, had this barbarian barrier been torn down sooner and people like Stilicho could make their de facto position legal.

What do you think? I like this theory, because it goes against the usual popular theory, that Rome fell because they became too germanized (I say it fell because they were not germanized enough), but as it usually is with pet theories, people tend to ignore the weaknesses of it.

 

[IsadorBG]

Wasn't Valentinian III installed by the Eastern Emperor after his armies invaded Italy ? Often people who speakof the "fall" of the Roman Empire convienently forget the Eastern part and the important role it still played in the politics of the western part. That should partly answer why Odoacer sent the insigna to Constantinople instead of trying the usurp a by then useless title.

Also the fall of the western part of the empire is complex and the barbarisation of the army was only part of the problem.

I'd say Theodosius grandson certainly had some chance at emperorship... if he was raised as Roman and not as a Goth. So if he was not a barbarian at all basically. There's no way a Gothic king could be Roman emperor at the same time. It's one or the other and if it happens then that mean a few more civil wars which precipitate the collapse of the WRE and of course a probable invasion the East as it happened historically just for someone else instead of Valentinian III.

Perhaps even with the menace of a barbarian take-over, Thedosius II can convince the western aristocracy to reunite the empire once more under his rule instead of just installing a dynast in the west. (plus I don't think there's any legitimate Theodosian left if Valentinian is not born ?)

By the way despite the name "Barbarian" are not some kind of monolithic entity. They were many groups that invaded the west some like the Goth and the Franks were willing to integrate into the empire while some like the Suebi and the Vandals wanted to carve their own territory.

In fact most of the Gothic "conquest" in Hispania and Gaul was made at the expanse of those two groups. So I don't see how they would be pleased to see a Gothic emperor when they were already at war with them.

Yes that certainly opens the throne to pretty much anyone which is actually a bad thing. 'Cause the fact that usupartion was so easy was the fatal flaw that destroyed the empire so opening more avenues for it would just creates more wars and chaos and without the relative stability of Valentinian III's reign the west collapses even earlier than history or perhaps some parts are integrated into the east after Theodosius reunite the empire.

By the way if conjoints invasions of both the West and the East failed to dislodge the Vandals in Africa, I don't see how the no-navy Goths would fare any better.

 

[Barsoom]

Basically this idea revolves around two concepts and one "what if"

The two immediate reasons why Western empire fell were fragmentation of the land and the final deposition of the last emperor (sure both have many underlying reasons, but let's not go that deep).

The "what if" that could make things different. The year was 414 and daughter of former emperor Theodosius just had a boy with Gothic king Ataulf. This kid would have been the prime candidate for the position of emperor after the death of Honorius in 423 instead of Valentian III (who wouldn't even been born in this scenario), but he died as an infant.

What it would mean? First of all there would be a person that would unite the title of emperor of Rome and king of Goths. This would mean that Goths would have strong incentive to be faithful part of the empire instead of carving their own domain in southern Gaul and Hispania respectively. Roman and Gothic army combined would be far more likely to prevent the fragmentation, have better chance against Huns and be more likely to drive Vandals from North Africa. In best case scenario the half-barbarian emperor would convince Vandals, that even they have chance to actually have some say in the empire instead of doing their own thing.

But most of all, with barbarians having access to legitimate power, there would be no real need for Odoacer to depose emperor in order to have some real power, so even in weakened state, the continuity of emperors would be preserved.

It also makes me think what could have been, had this barbarian barrier been torn down sooner and people like Stilicho could make their de facto position legal.

What do you think? I like this theory, because it goes against the usual popular theory, that Rome fell because they became too germanized (I say it fell because they were not germanized enough), but as it usually is with pet theories, people tend to ignore the weaknesses of it.

Sure, coopting Germanic armies is a good way to supplement the failing forces of the old empire. There's just one problem with your scenario. The Visigoths historically did pretty much as you say without that marriage. They drove the Vandals out of Hispania and brought the largest allied contingent to the battle against the Huns on the Catalaunian Fields.

About the only thing they didn't do that you describe is fight the Vandals in Africa. But the Vandals weren't terribly strong, a small people to begin with and already on the verge of extinction twice before (at the crossing of the Rhine and during the Gothic invasion of Hispania). Their strength lay in the control of the seas, where the Visigoths could not contribute. And in their playing off the eastern and the western emperors, which the introduction of a half-Gothic emperor would be unlikely to help.

Besides, with or without marriage, the Visigoths needed resources to sustain themselves. Whichever lands provided for them, did not provide for the Roman army. The Visigoths were as good as foederati got, they didn't threaten Rome again, didn't raid or plunder as far as I know, and contributed to the defense of their province. But was the empire better off with the resources of Aquitania, and later Hispania, going to the Goths' army or their own?

 

[IsadorBG]

Nah Visigoths were terrible feoderati. Rome's sacking (two times! in 410 and later in 455) aside they were warring against romans almost as much as againt the Suebi or the Vandals. That's how they conquered Southern Gauls which was still mostly held by romans legions.

And while Visigoths holding Hispania was marginally better then Suebi or Vandal. Having them hold a third of this part of the empire was not something the emperor wanted. This is why one of the first thing Majorian did was to put the Visigoth back in their place.

Plus of course their involvement in roman politics which directly led to the latter sacking of Rome.

If there was one "good" feoderati it would have been the Franks. Who mostly kept to the territory allocated until long after the collapse of the west. The Visigoth were an integral part of the fall and it's mostly from them that comes the image of the Feoderati backstabing Rome.

 

[Barsoom]

Nah Visigoths were terrible feoderati. Rome's sacking (two times! in 410 and later in 455) aside they were warring against romans almost as much as againt the Suebi or the Vandals. That's how they conquered Southern Gauls which was still mostly held by romans legions.

And while Visigoths holding Hispania was marginally better then Suebi or Vandal. Having them hold a third of this part of the empire was not something the emperor wanted. This is why one of the first thing Majorian did was to put the Visigoth back in their place.

Plus of course their involvement in roman politics which directly led to the latter sacking of Rome.

If there was one "good" feoderati it would have been the Franks. Who mostly kept to the territory allocated until long after the collapse of the west. The Visigoth were an integral part of the fall and it's mostly from them that comes the image of the Feoderati backstabing Rome.

The sacking of 455 was done by the Vandals, who came by sea. I've never heard of any Visigothic involvement. Are you sure?

 

[IsadorBG]

My bad it was indeed the Vandals. Don't know why I thought it was the Visigoths.

 

[Avernite]

Nah Visigoths were terrible feoderati. Rome's sacking (two times! in 410 and later in 455) aside they were warring against romans almost as much as againt the Suebi or the Vandals. That's how they conquered Southern Gauls which was still mostly held by romans legions.

And while Visigoths holding Hispania was marginally better then Suebi or Vandal. Having them hold a third of this part of the empire was not something the emperor wanted. This is why one of the first thing Majorian did was to put the Visigoth back in their place.

Plus of course their involvement in roman politics which directly led to the latter sacking of Rome.

If there was one "good" feoderati it would have been the Franks. Who mostly kept to the territory allocated until long after the collapse of the west. The Visigoth were an integral part of the fall and it's mostly from them that comes the image of the Feoderati backstabing Rome.

The Franks also restored the West Roman Empire eventually, faithful Foederati not just to the last, but beyond it even.

 

[Sabotage13]

But most of all, with barbarians having access to legitimate power, there would be no real need for Odoacer to depose emperor in order to have some real power, so even in weakened state, the continuity of emperors would be preserved.

What would be the point of preserving that facade? Stilicho's fate shows the dangers of Roman palace politics, and from Odoacer's point of view it makes more sense to do away with that risk, especially when he could get a nominal regocnition by Constantinople at the same time.

Besides, with or without marriage, the Visigoths needed resources to sustain themselves. Whichever lands provided for them, did not provide for the Roman army. The Visigoths were as good as foederati got, they didn't threaten Rome again, didn't raid or plunder as far as I know, and contributed to the defense of their province. But was the empire better off with the resources of Aquitania, and later Hispania, going to the Goths' army or their own?

You are assuming that the resources of the Western provinces would have gotten anywhere but local provincial coffers to begin with, when the Empire since Diocletian was expending ever more effort to draw its resources from an ever decreasing tax base.

 

[IsadorBG]

Especially since by claiming to be emperor he basically claim to be the liege of all the western provinces and their foederati and an equal to Zenon. That's a lot of potential ennemy he just made to himself for... what exactly ?

Let's not forget that Odoacer did eventually lose his throne (and his life) because of the emperor displeasure infine. Even if the Imperial intervention was indirect in this case.

Plus something many ignore but Romulus Augustus was an usurper as far as the eastern court was concerned which de facto made him one. So Odoacer took little risk by getting rid of him. Bonus in that the legitimate emperor was still in the eastern part with a Zenon not really motivated in investing a lot of efforts in restoring him unlike Theodosius II a few decades earlier.

 

[MCMartel]

Could it have been restored by being more open? Dunno, there were a lot of factors at play.
Would it have helped? Undoubtedly.
1. Literally the entire Gothic War which devestated the empire was entirely caused by the incredibly bad treament of Gothic refugees who just wanted to peacefully settle in the empire, and were instead forced to sell their own children into slavery for food due to purposeful exploitation. Avoiding that would have helped a lot.
2. Most times the Romans revived their fortunes, it was because they brought in new blood to the imperial line, the substantially Spanish Antonine Dynasty brining a golden age, then the Illyrian Dynasty lifting them out of the crisis of the 3rd century. The awful and feckless Honorius did a lot to ruin the empire and degrade the prestige of the imperial throne. Had be worked on bringing in the Goths as advisors and then, maybe a couple emperors down the line, into the royal family, would likely have done wonders to improve emperor quality.
3. Honorius basically forced Alaric to sack rome (by denying their offer to literally fight for the empire in exchange for food and supplies, not only losing them an army, but forcing them to fight against the Romans), because he refused to work with them.

So yes, it would have substantially helped them if they'd been more open, whether or not this would have prevented them from falling is hard to say, but it's definitely within the realm of possibility.

 

[Barsoom]

You are assuming that the resources of the Western provinces would have gotten anywhere but local provincial coffers to begin with, when the Empire since Diocletian was expending ever more effort to draw its resources from an ever decreasing tax base.

True, I do assume that a part of the local resources reached the center normally. Only a part, and I am aware that it could be diverted when the central government was weak, but even a part is better than none at all, which is what Rome got when the Visigoths squatted on the land.

 

[telesien]

What would be the point of preserving that facade? Stilicho's fate shows the dangers of Roman palace politics, and from Odoacer's point of view it makes more sense to do away with that risk, especially when he could get a nominal regocnition by Constantinople at the same time.

Palace politics is of course dangerous, but Stilicho could never really sit comfortable as emperor. He could only rule through others and this is what only fueled the danger of palace politics. Odoacer did the good thing for him given the circumstances, but do you think he would actually do the same had he had any chance to become emperor himself?*

*This all of course ignores the big point in my "what if," that the timeline would diverge before Valentinian III, so there would likely never be any Odoacer

 

[telesien]

Plus something many ignore but Romulus Augustus was an usurper as far as the eastern court was concerned which de facto made him one. So Odoacer took little risk by getting rid of him. Bonus in that the legitimate emperor was still in the eastern part with a Zenon not really motivated in investing a lot of efforts in restoring him unlike Theodosius II a few decades earlier.

There is also this big thing, that Constantinople was basically broke thanks to the military "genius" of Basiliscus, so there was really nothing they could do about Odoacer anyway.

 

[IsadorBG]

Zenon did get rid of Odoacer. He sent Theodoric after him.

Not because he deposed Romulus tough and they would never have been any direct involvement from the East anyway. First because Romulus was an usurper and him being deposed was what Constantinople wanted in the first place and Zenon being the closest thing to a Barbarian Emperor the empire ever got, he was far too busy staving various conspiracies to try adventurous campaigns with or without Basiliscus.

Zenon only decided to deal with Odoacer after he became a menace for his throne by trying to involve himself in Imperial politics and supporting various rivals of him. (just like many powerfull barbarians did in the west as it was collapsing)

You'll have to wait emperors with more legitimacy before the empire tried to reassert itself in the west.

 

[Yakman]

it was already too late.

 

[Henry IX]

A better policy by the late WRE emperors could have allowed the WRE it survive in some form, perhaps as a regional power based around Italy and southern Gaul, in a manner analogous to the survival of the Byzantine state two centuries later. The empire certainly had some significant advantages over the barbarians, such as the administrative infrastructure of the empire and the support of the Catholic church, which could have held it together if the leadership of the empire had been of a higher calibre.

I cannot see any realistic scenario where the WRE restores the boarders and returns to dominate Europe.

 

[Barsoom]

A better policy by the late WRE emperors could have allowed the WRE it survive in some form, perhaps as a regional power based around Italy and southern Gaul, in a manner analogous to the survival of the Byzantine state two centuries later. The empire certainly had some significant advantages over the barbarians, such as the administrative infrastructure of the empire and the support of the Catholic church, which could have held it together if the leadership of the empire had been of a higher calibre.

I cannot see any realistic scenario where the WRE restores the boarders and returns to dominate Europe.

It becomes easier to imagine when you look at the ERE, which recovered from some really dire straits. For example, shortly after the loss of the Levant to the Arabs, the ERE also lost most of the Balkan peninsula. Left with a few tenously held, and continuously raided, provinces in Asia Minor and some scattered plots of land in Italy, the ERE nevertheless clawed its way back.

The WRE had all the advantages you name. They were impressive enough that even after their fall, Germanic kingdoms on formerly Roman territory not only copied administrative structures but also used Roman insignia as marks of distinction. It is thinkable that more astute rulers would have used those advantages to rebuild their authority, at first piecemeal but with gradually increasing force. In my opinion, the crucial territory is Africa, which was both rich and served as a breadbasket for Rome. It was also relatively safe; Berber raids were more of a nuisance than a threat and it was only the exceptional ability of Vandal king Gaiseric that allowed his diminished people (already defeated by the Visigoths in Spain) to seize first parts of the countryside and then, in a separate coup, Carthage. Had the WRE somehow kept or regained control of Africa, it would have been in a much better position to both finance and provision its armies. It would also not have to contend with a rival at sea, allowing easy transport to Spain and southern Gaul.

OP's question is right IMO in identifying a real chance of survival for the WRE even after the first sack of Rome in 410.

 

[IsadorBG]

There's no comparison between the fall of the west and the fall of the east. The east was conquered by foreign invaders slowly but surely eaten away.

The west just collapsed. Like literally so. When Odoacer a simple soldier who immigrated in the empire not even ten years ago can depose the emperor and conquer the whole of Italy without encountering any resistance it just shows how rotten it became in its last years.

Scipio, Capitolinus, Claudius and many others would be rolling over their graves if they saw such weakness.

 

[Barsoom]

There's no comparison between the fall of the west and the fall of the east. The east was conquered by foreign invaders slowly but surely eaten away.

The west just collapsed. Like literally so. When Odoacer a simple soldier who immigrated in the empire not even ten years ago can depose the emperor and conquer the whole of Italy without encountering any resistance it just shows how rotten it became in its last years.

Scipio, Capitolinus, Claudius and many others would be rolling over their graves if they saw such weakness.

No state ever "just" collapsed. There are always causes. I think your meaning is that the root cause is institutional erosion or something like that. It's certainly a factor but IMO it wasn't what made the difference between WRE and ERE. The wall of text below is why:

The immediate cause in this case is a revolt by a large part of the army of Italy. The mutineers were largely barbarian cohorts and the revolt was led by one of their officers. It was aimed at the previous officer leading such a revolt, Orestes, who failed to deliver the promised booty. The man leading the latest revolt, Odoacer, was of barbarian descent but at the time of his revolt was not a simple soldier but an officer. Big difference, it's not one army fighting another but a single army defecting.

The new strongman realized his position was not strong enough to install an emperor of his own choosing (let alone become one himself), so he obeyed the forms of deference to the sitting emperor of the east, Zeno, and that of the west, Julius Nepos, whom he never deposed and even claimed to avenge after his murder. This coup was not that different from previous ones, which also resulted in a military strongman, not infrequently of barbarian descent, exercising real control while paying lip service to a figurehead emperor. What's different is that no new emperor took the old one's place, even if as figurehead, but I'm not sure contemporary witnesses realized that this time was different.

The decision not to install a new emperor of the west after Julius Nepos died was not Odoacer's alone, the eastern emperor probably had a bigger say. In this case a weak emperor, Zeno, may have figured that whomever he appointed as colleague would constitute a risk to his own position. Why was Zeno different? Because he was a barbarian officer; the Isaurians had been Roman subjects for centuries but habitually revolted, raided and otherwise misbehaved, to the extent that army units were regularly stationed as guards around their mountain territory. Zeno's rise to power came at the expense of another barbarian military strongman, Aspar. He and his predecessor had usually dominated the emperor, Leo, who responded with assassination attempts and marriage politics, using these to play one military strongman candidate off against the next. Pretty much the same situation as in the WRE under Stilicho.

Except the scheme broke down when Leo died and the empire passed on to his 7-year old grandson, the son of Zeno, with Zeno as co-emperor. After the son also died of an illness a revolt at first successfully drove Zeno away. Division among his enemies allowed him to return to power, again with the help of his barbarian (Isaurian) troops. Zeno faced two more revolts from inside the army within the first decade or so of his rule and had real trouble preventing the leaders of mercenary bands of Goths setting themselves up as alternative to the Isaurians. With all those going on, Zeno didn't have the time or resources to do anything about the WRE. I argue, therefore, that the demise of the WRE is a product of institutional rot in both halves of the Roman empire. If institutional rot is the root cause, I'm fairly certain it affected ERE and WRE in roughly equal measure in the 3rd and 4th century and most of the 5th.

A cause that applies to both halves can hardly be the explanation for the fall of one while the other remained. Then it's either blind luck or there is another factor lurking behind it. I suggest that a real difference is that the resource base of the ERE at that point in time was in much better shape than the WRE. That's because probably the East was economically stronger to begin with and usually the part chosen by the senior emperor when he assigned a junior to the other half. It was also less threatened by internal rebellions or external raids. Not the Balkans, those were plundered in turn by Goths, Huns, and more Goths. The Syrian border was never entirely quiet either. But Egypt, Constantinople's breakbasket was relatively safe. By contrast disorder in the West reached its safest province and breadbasket in the 430s while barbarians taking to the sea cut the safest routes of commerce and control. I think the West could have recovered before that time or after if it had been able to win back Africa quickly. Having a safe base from which to supply a core army makes all the difference; the ERE kept it throughout all the disorders, the WRE lost it.

 

[IsadorBG]

Of course they are causes and I was purposefully exaggerating a bit. Yes the West did not simply "collapse" but one fundamental difference between the West and the East is that by the end nobody really cared for the fate of the Western Emperor.

Economic factor only explains so much. After Orestes was defeated, Italy fell without resistance. None. Nobody cared that a barbarian king ruled it. None of the remains of the western legions in Gaul, Not the Senate of Rome, Not even the Eastern court. (Emperor, Senate and Army included)

Now granted this was mostly because nobody saw this as the fall of anything. There was still an emperor and there was still a Senate. As for a barbarian ruling Romans well that was not a novel phenomena by then. Heck Ricimer was basically the actual ruler of the Empire before Odoacer.

Still when Constantinople first fell while the empire did collapse by losing its heart it did not truly fall. What remained of the romans continued their fight in typical roman fashion (ergo mostly fighting themselves) and managed to restore the empire if only for a time.

When Ravenna fell tough everyone was just meh I guess there's no use to continue to shoot at the ambulance.