WI: Romans retreat to Italia + Dalmatian coast in early 5th century?

Teshuvah · Sep 13, 2012

Reading PyroTheGamer's "The Grand Eagle of Europe" has got me thinking about the scenario which allows the Roman Empire to survive ITTL. Namely, the Romans wisely decide to vastly shrink the size of their empire so that it's MUCH more defensible. This includes giving up, among other things, Gaul, Britannia, and most of Hispania.

So let's say that an early 5th century emperor-a much more intelligent Honorius, maybe-decides this is a good idea. Before the Huns arrive and Rome is sacked, the Romans abandon all of their holdings outside Italia proper, the Dalmatian coast, the Balearic Islands, and Carthage (the "nose" of OTL Tunisia and the surrounding area). How does this affect their odds at survival?

-AYC

Mumby · Sep 13, 2012

AYoungContrarian said:
Reading PyroTheGamer's "The Grand Eagle of Europe" has got me thinking about the scenario which allows the Roman Empire to survive ITTL. Namely, the Romans wisely decide to vastly shrink the size of their empire so that it's MUCH more defensible. This includes giving up, among other things, Gaul, Britannia, and most of Hispania.

So let's say that an early 5th century emperor-a much more intelligent Honorius, maybe-decides this is a good idea. Before the Huns arrive and Rome is sacked, the Romans abandon all of their holdings outside Italia proper, the Dalmatian coast, the Balearic Islands, and Carthage (the "nose" of OTL Tunisia and the surrounding area). How does this affect their odds at survival?

-AYC

While it might sound sensible to you, it would sound cowardly and weak to a fickle mass of Roman proles who idolise their Emperors for conquests, not sensible economic decisions. Remember that the Emperors often used the hoi polloi to circumnavigate the Senate to get what they wanted. Maybe, trying to make those provinces semi-self-sufficient and autonomous from Rome would get your outcome without losing face.

Errnge · Sep 13, 2012

So there go Rome's bread baskets in Africa, their main source of silver in Iberia, their main source of tin and copper in Britain, and their main source of manpower in Gaul...

While it might have been easier to defend a smaller area, you can see why they would want to hold onto the others and not just give them up without a fight.

yourworstnightmare · Sep 13, 2012

Didn't they do this?

Errnge · Sep 13, 2012

yourworstnightmare said:
Didn't they do this?

The OP's asking if they do this before the Attila the Hun and Alaric and his Visigoths wreaked havoc over the countryside. Essentially, give up the empire before it is taken by others.

De la Tour · Sep 13, 2012

You might want an earlier PoD to save Rome in the west. The consolidation you speak of might work if you held onto Africa as well, Italy needs the grain.

Marko · Sep 13, 2012

Even if Rome does that Italy will not be saved. They will have less manpower, less wealth and the peoples outside their borders where ever they may be will still want to get in.

Alex1guy · Sep 13, 2012

Italy by this point was massively urbanized and relied heavily on imports from other parts of the Empire to sustain itself. As others have pointed out, grain and food came from Africa and the East and raw materials from Iberia and Britain. Honorius would have been killed before his generals and rivals let him withdraw from the entire Western Empire.While it may seem pragmatic with hindsight, at the time the Romans were still a forefront military power and did have the capacity to resist and did so at the Catalunian feilds. To abandon everything would have been very unbecoming of an Emperor or any administration.

Avitus · Sep 13, 2012

Realistically you have a better chance of Rome simply never losing these territories. They weren't beaten by the barbarians so much as they beat themselves with constant civil war and nasty succession crisises. Have a competent emperor who can be succeeded by his competent adult son or son in law and repeat this once or twice and you could definitely keep the empire from catastrophic failure like OTL.

If they were to withdraw, I think the best you can get is withdrawal from Gual and Brittan. Africa was vital to their food supplies, especially without Gual, and Spain was very fully integrated and at 400 hadn't suffered much in raids and civil conflicts, so justifying leaving it would be nearly impossible without hindsight. I would also say that in Gual they would probably have to foster autonomy rather than flat out abandon it, but that might work provided the ruler in Gual doesn't just use his position as a launching point for an attempt at gaining the purple.

shakaka36 · Sep 13, 2012

The romans would never have WILLINGLY done this. Without Africa the fiscal structure of the West is crippled, without Gaul and the regions closer to the Danube their major sources of non-barbarian military recruits are gone.

So any attempt to benefit from centralizing resources in Italy/Dalmatia would rapidly be lost due to the inability of the Roman state to pay for its bureaucracy, and they also be forced to shrink their army, essentially erasing all gains from the shrinking and making Italy vulnerable to falling even earlier than it did OTL.

Plus, I doubt they could successfully withdraw from Gaul/Spain/Africa. Especially Gaul. Odds are local military leaders would just claim the purple themselves in protest of the policy. Comparatively the withdrawal from Britain was: 1. Probably not deliberate, Roman leaders always wanted to come back, at least until they had definitively lost the resources to do so. 2. The major stripping of central military resources from Britain was done by LOCAL leaders seeking the Purple, not by a centrally organized policy from Ravenna.

Lysandros Aikiedes · Sep 13, 2012

I hate using these initials...but this is ASB. No way would the Romans voluntarily purge themselves of many of its most vital and fully integrated provinces. Even Britain was abandoned only reluctantly in 410 CE. They only kept it for its silver, and the fact that most of its inhabitants were Roman citizens (part of its tax base). Honorius may have been a fuck-up, but to be fair to him, the weakened state of the western Empire wasn't all down to him.

Romanos · Sep 13, 2012

A Western Roman Empire that contains only Italy is bound to become part of the Eastern Empire quite soon, for various reasons and through various means. As an example, the Eastern Emperor would (rightfully) assume that the Western part is on the verge of collapse and that's the reason for the massive retreat; and there is no chance he wouldn't grab the opportunity to reunite the Roman Empire that contains both Romes.

More precisely: In the 420s, the Eastern Emperor Theodosius II deposed the Western Emperor/usurper and installed a puppet. If the Western part had become just Italy, he may have thought that it's not much more difficult to rule this region directly as well, so he may have just annexed it.

Alex1guy · Sep 13, 2012

Romanos said:
A Western Roman Empire that contains only Italy is bound to become part of the Eastern Empire quite soon, for various reasons and through various means. As an example, the Eastern Emperor would (rightfully) assume that the Western part is on the verge of collapse and that's the reason for the massive retreat; and there is no chance he wouldn't grab the opportunity to reunite the Roman Empire that contains both Romes.

It's impossible that ANY Emperor would do this. I am almost certain he would be killed.

The easiest way to save Rome has been mentioned before. Have somebody get on the throne that can keep things together for more than six months. Rome collapsed largely because it fought over itself for like fifty years straight.

Romanos · Sep 13, 2012

Alex1guy said:
It's impossible that ANY Emperor would do this. I am almost certain he would be killed.

Why's that? It had happened again, Theodosius I being the last Emperor who reunited both halves.

Many rulers of one half deposed rulers of the other half. Some of them imposed puppets on the other half, others kept it for themselves.

Ofaloaf · Sep 13, 2012

Holding onto Africa, or at least Carthage and its hinterland, is absolutely vital. That's Rome's breadbasket; without it, Italy would gradually shrivel and starve, as it historically did after the Vandals seized the place. Italy+Dalmatia+Carthage might be doable. The Alps, as always, serve as a good defensive line behind the Danube, so the main avenue of attack that the Romans would have to be concerned about is something from Pannonia into Italia, via Illyricum and the Via Postumia from Aquileia. If more resources were thrown towards the Limes Sarmatiae, that might be doable.

cimon · Sep 15, 2012

Theoretically possible only as a rush argument

ractically it is impossible because the military units in those aereas will retreat too and how is Rome going to feed them having lost all the revenues from Gaul Spain etc?
If the Emperor is not killed by those troops and Rome and Italian cities looted,
the abandoned provinces would see quite a number of individuals proclaimed Roman emperors and Itally would probably be lost faster than it finally would.