What if the 468 expedition to recover North Africa from the Vandals had succeeded?

[Ecthelion]

I recently finished the Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather, an interesting read.

His thesis is that the Western Roman Empire did not fall mainly due to internal reasons as suggested in traditional analysis starting with Gibbon, but that specific events are to blame.

The central event that he points out is the movement of the Huns into the Hungarian Plain. This displaced the Vandal, Alan, and Suebi across the Rhine in 406, eventually leading to the fall of Carthage to the Vandals.

The loss of Africa to the Vandals, and the subsequent failure to recover it, are cited as the direct causes of the precipitous decline of Western Imperial power in the latter half of the 5th Century.

Heather asserts that had the North African provinces been recovered in the joint expedition of 468, the Western Empire could have gone on even without northern Gaul, Britannia, or parts of Hispania. Italy, Sicily, and the central North African provinces around Carthage alone could sustain a rump Western Empire until the Northern provinces can be reclaimed by Anthemius, a capable Emperor with the blessing of Constantinople.

So, what do you all think?
Would a recovered North Africa have saved the Western Empire for generations to come? Or was the Empire too far gone for recovery?

Personally I think Heather is correct. The political anarchy that directly resulted in the rise of Odoacer was brought about by the failure of the expedition. Anthemius fell out with Ricimer and was not able to gather support from Constantinople all because the same failure.

Roman North Africa was extremely rich, and could easily generate enough revenue to maintain a field army in Italy and legitimize a Roman regime over a Gothic one. Its loss was catastrophic for the Empire, and had Attila not decided to invade the Balkans when he did, Carthage would have been recovered in the time of Aetius, shortly after it fell.

[IrishBlood]

I argued something very similar in an essay I did in college years ago. The romans, but east and west, poured a lot of time, money, resources and effort into that fleet/armada and its destruction basically crippled them. If the Vandels their would be nothing stopping them from retaking north africa and then onto spain.

Spain was held by a variety of warlords and there would have been a lot of pro-roman sentiment too, so its reconquest would not have been impossible and at the very least the eastern coastal provinces could have been recaptured.

If all of Iberia was to be retaken, then I argued that the Romans could have made another hadrians wall in the Apennines to prevent any further incursions from Gaul. This, combined with better forts/defenses in the Italian alps, would have allowed the empire to revert back to the position it was in before Caesars conquest of Gaul.

[Ecthelion]

I argued something very similar in an essay I did in college years ago. The romans, but east and west, poured a lot of time, money, resources and effort into that fleet/armada and its destruction basically crippled them. If the Vandels their would be nothing stopping them from retaking north africa and then onto spain.

Spain was held by a variety of warlords and there would have been a lot of pro-roman sentiment too, so its reconquest would not have been impossible and at the very least the eastern coastal provinces could have been recaptured.

If all of Iberia was to be retaken, then I argued that the Romans could have made another hadrians wall in the Apennines to prevent any further incursions from Gaul. This, combined with better forts/defenses in the Italian alps, would have allowed the empire to revert back to the position it was in before Caesars conquest of Gaul.

Southern Gaul was still under Roman control even after the failure of the 468 expedition. It was the failure of the expedition that led directly to its takeover by the Visigoths who sensed blood in the water. In fact, northern Gaul was technically in the hands of Romans as well, the bagaudae, Roman rebels, former slaves and peasants who had taken to asserting themselves in the absence of the Imperial legions. These bagaudae can be easily reincorporated into the Empire as soon as a substantial Imperial field army arrives.

The failure of 468 also caused a paradigm shift in Gothic thought. Up until that point, the idea was always to ride the Empire through puppet Emperors. But after the complete and total failure of the expedition, the Goths adopted the idea of subverting the Empire entirely and forming their own independent kingdoms under their direct rule.

[Dromikaites]

Recapturing North Africa would not have guaranteed the survival of the Western Roman Empire by itself. 100 years later Justinian's generals reconquered North Africa, Italy and a piece of Spain and then stopped, for lack of resources. A lot of money went into the monumental buildings started during Justinian's reign and a lot of people got killed by the plague. Combine those factors together and we see why Justinian could not restore the Western borders of the Roman Empire even though his generals delivered.

If we take those factors into account and return to evaluating the failure of 468 AD then we realize that quite likely it was the loss of the soldiers and the ships which seriously crippled the ability of the Romans to handle the other enemies in the West, not necessarily the failure to capture North Africa.

[Roma_Victrix]

If all of Iberia was to be retaken, then I argued that the Romans could have made another hadrians wall in the Apennines to prevent any further incursions from Gaul. This, combined with better forts/defenses in the Italian alps, would have allowed the empire to revert back to the position it was in before Caesars conquest of Gaul.

If only the Romans also had the giant citadel of Carcassonne Castle in southern France, near Catalonia.

A lot of money went into the monumental buildings started during Justinian's reign and a lot of people got killed by the plague.

I sometimes wonder how the Byzantine and Sassanid empires would have later fared against the Rashidun Caliphate a century later, had it not been for the devastating Plague of Justinian. This represented a serious loss of manpower and revenues for both empires, and as you say a major setback to Justinian's ambitions in capturing and holding parts of the former Western Empire. However, the Antonine Plague of 165-180 AD struck Rome when it was at the height and zenith of its strength and territorial extent, wiping out about a fourth of the population, similar to the Plague of Justinian and the Black Death of the 14th century. The Roman Empire seemed to quickly recover from this before its collapse into three warring kingdoms during the Crisis of the Third Century.

In any case, there was no devastating plague in Rome at the time the Vandals conquered North Africa. Even in the absence of a plague, though, the Roman coffers simply didn't have enough coin to pay the already overly stretched troops across its dwindling border. The Roman Empire came to rely on the many components (i.e. regions) to form a strong whole and maintain a functioning economy. When trade routes were compromised and enemy borders established in places that had for centuries been under Roman control, commerce naturally dwindled and with it the ability to gather enough resources to pay a large effective army and navy.

[Ecthelion]

Recapturing North Africa would not have guaranteed the survival of the Western Roman Empire by itself. 100 years later Justinian's generals reconquered North Africa, Italy and a piece of Spain and then stopped, for lack of resources. A lot of money went into the monumental buildings started during Justinian's reign and a lot of people got killed by the plague. Combine those factors together and we see why Justinian could not restore the Western borders of the Roman Empire even though his generals delivered.

If we take those factors into account and return to evaluating the failure of 468 AD then we realize that quite likely it was the loss of the soldiers and the ships which seriously crippled the ability of the Romans to handle the other enemies in the West, not necessarily the failure to capture North Africa.

Restoring Roman rule in North Africa in 468 and restoring it 100 years later are two very different things. 100 years is at least 2 generations. In that time a cultural can be broken beyond repair. Justinian's efforts just came too late.

[Latin Knight]

You know, I was about to start an AH thread on this exact topic, about this very PoD

One advantage we have (at least) for the W. Roman Empire even in this late era is that the Hunnic Empire had already been shattered, so Attila is not a concern as it was a couple decades earlier. I'll go for the presumption that only the Huns were truly bent on the annilation of Rome. Just as Ecthelion said above, the Germanic invaders at least were comfortable with the idea of a vestigial empire, and content with occupying Gaul and Iberia (presuming the Britain is an entirely lost cause).

Historians seem to agree that Majorian was the last capable Roman leader. I really don't know much about Anthemius, and Ricimer seemed too concerned about his own skin than the preservation of the empire. Majorian assured the status quo in Gaul by defeating the Burgundians and Visigoths, so Italy itself might be safe for a while.

Now, if we have a longer reign for Majorian, instead of an ignominous assassination, and a successful recovery of North Africa, I'm positive that it could have given a lease of time for the Empire, more so if the Eastern Empire provides military and financial help.

After that, I suppose they would have to focus firstly on Iberia instead of Gaul, perhaps imitating the early Republican expansion after annexing former Carthaginian possessions in 3rd b.C. After that, if the Domain of Soissons manages to survive a while longer against the Frankish onslaught, the Romans could join forces to at least submit the Visigoths in southern Gaul into a client state, and even keep Clovis' hordes at bay in the Netherlands.

Of course, I'm butterflying away the internal usurpers and conspiracies that eventually killed of the last capable rulers. If instead of Ricimer we could have another Stilicho or Aetius that contributed to the cause of securing the borders of Italy and Africa at least, I guess the WRE can survive a while longer, perhaps later holding of an Ostrogothic or Lombard invasion.

[Ecthelion]

You know, I was about to start an AH thread on this exact topic, about this very PoD

One advantage we have (at least) for the W. Roman Empire even in this late era is that the Hunnic Empire had already been shattered, so Attila is not a concern as it was a couple decades earlier. I'll go for the presumption that only the Huns were truly bent on the annilation of Rome. Just as Ecthelion said above, the Germanic invaders at least were comfortable with the idea of a vestigial empire, and content with occupying Gaul and Iberia (presuming the Britain is an entirely lost cause).

Historians seem to agree that Majorian was the last capable Roman leader. I really don't know much about Anthemius, and Ricimer seemed too concerned about his own skin than the preservation of the empire. Majorian assured the status quo in Gaul by defeating the Burgundians and Visigoths, so Italy itself might be safe for a while.

Now, if we have a longer reign for Majorian, instead of an ignominous assassination, and a successful recovery of North Africa, I'm positive that it could have given a lease of time for the Empire, more so if the Eastern Empire provides military and financial help.

After that, I suppose they would have to focus firstly on Iberia instead of Gaul, perhaps imitating the early Republican expansion after annexing former Carthaginian possessions in 3rd b.C. After that, if the Domain of Soissons manages to survive a while longer against the Frankish onslaught, the Romans could join forces to at least submit the Visigoths in southern Gaul into a client state, and even keep Clovis' hordes at bay in the Netherlands.

Of course, I'm butterflying away the internal usurpers and conspiracies that eventually killed of the last capable rulers. If instead of Ricimer we could have another Stilicho or Aetius that contributed to the cause of securing the borders of Italy and Africa at least, I guess the WRE can survive a while longer, perhaps later holding of an Ostrogothic or Lombard invasion.

Majorian was a competent leader, but he lacked the blessing of Constantinople, which is why Ricimer felt safe to just kill him outright. Anthemius was from the East and the 2nd most influential figure in court. Had Carthage been retaken, the East and West would have continued their path of reconquest into Spain and perhaps even Gaul.

I maintain that the definitive event that dealt the death blow to the West was the loss of North Africa to the Vandals.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

These bagaudae can be easily reincorporated into the Empire as soon as a substantial Imperial field army arrives.

Considering that Constantius of Lyon said that these Bagaudae drove Aetius into a rage, I'd argue with this point. The concept that the Romans had firm control of the Domain of Soissons is rather false, as Dr. Hyun Jin Kim argues, who points out that the literary sources indicate Syagrius was essentially a vassal of Childeric and later Clovis. Aegidius had military forces, but those were destroyed in 464 in a 4-way conflict in which after the Romans of the Comes Tractus Armoreciani Paulinus, the Salian Franks of Childeric, and the Scirii of Odovacar (yes Scirii, that is a long story that revolves around the Battle of Chalons 13 years prior) defeated the Visigoths, they turned on each other over the loot and the Franks came out on top.

Majorian was a competent leader, but he lacked the blessing of Constantinople, which is why Ricimer felt safe to just kill him outright.

Ricimer was a Burgundian and it was clear that Majorian was not willing to be a puppet of the interests of Gundioc in Gaul, especially considering he defeated the Burgundians in 460, took back Lugdunum, and then recieved a Pangeyric when he reconciled the rift between the Possessores of Gaul and Italy. Majorian then followed up on Aetius' plans of an African reconquest via Spain.

Had Carthage been retaken, the East and West would have continued their path of reconquest into Spain and perhaps even Gaul.

I disagree, the Romans had a bad habit of annihilating the infrastructure when reconquering: just look at the reconquest of Africa in the 520's-530's. The Romans ended 90 years of prosperity that had been brought under the Vandals and turned Africa from a breadbasket and major revenue source like it had been prior to 439, to a money pit.

I maintain that the definitive event that dealt the death blow to the West was the loss of North Africa to the Vandals.

I've crunched the numbers from the Novella Valentiniani and I wholeheartedly agree. The loss of 60,000 infantry and cavalry basically left Aetius with about 55,000 men to defend the empire, of which only 23,000 were the in field army. It crippled the Roman military capacity: in 454 the army just disbanded without Aetius to lead them (and with pay being intermittent at best, they were serving out of pure loyalty). The Foederati in Roman service revolted too upon his death (just look at Comagenis, one of the first entries in the Vita Sancti Severini which begins in 453).

[Dromikaites]

Hearclius sailed out of North Africa to capture the Byzantine throne. At first sight it seems to indicate North Africa could provide money and troops needed for operations elsewhere.

However Heraclius only took advantage of a long set of favorable circumstances. Most of the legion stationed in North Africa (III Augusta) was tied up fighting the Berbers. Therefore I wouldn't place much hope on North Africa, nor would I consider its loss to the Vandals a decisive blow.

What did the Western Roman Empire in were the loss of Gaul and Iberia.

In my opinion the reason why Anthemius tried to re-conquer North Africa first must have to do more with it looking like the easiest target compared to Iberia or Gaul.

Remember how easy Belisarius conquered it 100 years later, with an army allegedly much smaller than the Vandal one? And much smaller than Anthemius' too.

The explanation Procopius gives for that stunning victory is the Vandals had degenerated.

There is a serious problem with taking Procopius' explanation at face value. Belisarius discovered the Vandals had "degenerated" only after defeating them so easily.

Which means we need to also buy that Belisarius had engaged into what would have looked like a suicidal campaign. Not very likely, judging from Belisarius' track record against the Sassanids.

And considering the constant pirating the Vandals were engaged in, they would have had no idle time to degenerate.

What I think had happened was the Vandal army wasn't very large to begin with. It wasn't very large when they had conquered North Africa (it took them 14 month to capture Hippo Regius) and it didn't face much opposition at the time, meaning the legion supposedly stationed there existed mostly on paper.

It wasn't very large at the time of Belisarius, being only made so by Procopius who had an axe to grind with Justinian.

So it wasn't too large when Anthemius sailed, which explains why North Africa must have looked like an easy pick, and why the Romans had been so careless about security.

Later edit:

It seems by the time the Vandals landed, there wasn't any legion left operating in North Africa.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Africa was not an easy target. Gaiseric was a military genius, having defeated Bonifacius and Aspar in his conquest of Africa and outwitting the Romans several times, notably in the campaigns of Majorian and Anthemius. Gaul and Spain were not major tax bases, and had been ravaged pretty severely by the incursions of the Barbarians, although Spain was in far better shape than Gaul was. Africa, meanwhile, was the 3rd most important province in the Empire (with only Latium and Europa being greater than Carthago) and the largest source of revenue and grain for the West.

What I think had happened was the Vandal army wasn't very large to begin with. It wasn't very large when they had conquered North Africa (it took them 14 month to capture Hippo Regius) and it didn't face much opposition at the time, meaning the legion supposedly stationed there existed mostly on paper.

The majority of Africa was Limitanei garrisons not trained to do much more than control the migrations of the berber nomads from their summer to winter pastures. The field army was well trained but not very experienced, and had recently suffered in a civil war between Felix and Bonifacius when they engaged the Gothic Foederati sent under Sigisvultus in 427.

The Vandals had an invasion force of 80,000 nuclear families, so that was about 15,000 fighting men. And they were all veterans of the wars in Spain between the Suebes, Alans, and Romans there between 409-429. However, the primary sources say that many disgruntled berber groups assisted Gaiseric in his march across north Africa.

And the siege of Hippo Regius took 14 months because the Vandals lacked siege equipment like most other barbarian groups, and had to starve the city out. Also the African field army (which had recently been defeated by Gaiseric) was holed up in it. The city fell when Bonifacius negotiated with Gaiseric to allow the Romans to retreat.

[Ecthelion]

Africa was not an easy target. Gaiseric was a military genius, having defeated Bonifacius and Aspar in his conquest of Africa and outwitting the Romans several times, notably in the campaigns of Majorian and Anthemius. Gaul and Spain were not major tax bases, and had been ravaged pretty severely by the incursions of the Barbarians, although Spain was in far better shape than Gaul was. Africa, meanwhile, was the 3rd most important province in the Empire (with only Latium and Europa being greater than Carthago) and the largest source of revenue and grain for the West.



The majority of Africa was Limitanei garrisons not trained to do much more than control the migrations of the berber nomads from their summer to winter pastures. The field army was well trained but not very experienced, and had recently suffered in a civil war between Felix and Bonifacius when they engaged the Gothic Foederati sent under Sigisvultus in 427.

The Vandals had an invasion force of 80,000 nuclear families, so that was about 15,000 fighting men. And they were all veterans of the wars in Spain between the Suebes, Alans, and Romans there between 409-429. However, the primary sources say that many disgruntled berber groups assisted Gaiseric in his march across north Africa.

And the siege of Hippo Regius took 14 months because the Vandals lacked siege equipment like most other barbarian groups, and had to starve the city out. Also the African field army (which had recently been defeated by Gaiseric) was holed up in it. The city fell when Bonifacius negotiated with Gaiseric to allow the Romans to retreat.

I would argue that Africa was the MOST important province save Italy itself.

Belisarius decision to sack Africa after the reconquest was an ill fated one to say the least. Africa was booming under Vandal rule, especially in the days of Geiseric. The province was competently managed and it no longer had to ship out grain and food stuffs at a steep discount to feed Italy, or pay taxes beyond its borders.

And I sincerely doubt that Anthemius would have sacked Africa after his reconquest. His primary motivation was to recover it as an economic asset, the key source of revenue to sustain the Empire.

The West really did bleed out after losing Africa. Things got so desperate that the Imperial Court at Ravenna had to take the unprecedented step of taxing the Italian Senatorial class, and heavily too, just to sustain a standing army in Italy.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I would argue that Africa was the MOST important province save Italy itself.

It was the most important province. From the Roman perspective though, Rome and Constantinople were considered more important.

The West really did bleed out after losing Africa. Things got so desperate that the Imperial Court at Ravenna had to take the unprecedented step of taxing the Italian Senatorial class, and heavily too, just to sustain a standing army in Italy.

Novella Valentiniani 14.2 I believe but I'd have to check that. Yes, Aetius had other reasons for doing this too: for one the Italian aristocracy had been evading taxes for centuries, and it was also one of the political objectives of the Gallic aristocracy, who were alienated by the Italic aristocracy (this would later help contribute to Majorian's demise).

[Cyclops]

The sense of entitlement that emanates from accounts of the late WRE is astounding. Its as though the privileged class imagined "the Empire will always exist, its up to us to make the most out of it for ourselves".

I know its a poetic trope to copmpare the decadent later Empire with the bold vigorous republic "then none was for a party, then all were for the state" but the contrast between the gutless senators backing Ricimer's emperor mill and (to pick just one example) the concerted will to survive demonstrated in the punic wars is stark.

If the WRE had retained Africa, with a reasonable control of the sea and communications with the ERE, they might persist a little longer and even win back some other provinces but no doubt the selfish senatorial class of Italy would sell the state out for some personal advantage, probably kowtowing to a new arrival willing to actually get his hands dirty while they enjoy tax-free lifestyle for a last generation or two before the real barbarians arrive to take their grandchildren down.

Not to labour the political point but the recent finacial meltdown in the US that hurt the world so badly is the sort of thing the late WRE could not sort out. Hopefully the US can, the interests of a few rich people can't outweigh the needs of the state or the whole thing will capsize. The WRE was "too big to fail" once apon a time, now its just a subject in history classes.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Its as though the privileged class imagined "the Empire will always exist, its up to us to make the most out of it for ourselves".

This was part of the Roman ideology, and not just amongst the upper class. For the common man they were just troubled times, there was never any indication that the western administrative half would "fall." Many Limitanei garrisons went on serving into the 480's and 490's without any idea that the empire had fallen, and the Roman landowners and peasants under new "barbarian" rule saw it moreso as a transformation of the system (which it was), oblivious to the fact the western empire was gone.

I know its a poetic trope to copmpare the decadent later Empire with the bold vigorous republic "then none was for a party, then all were for the state" but the contrast between the gutless senators backing Ricimer's emperor mill and (to pick just one example) the concerted will to survive demonstrated in the punic wars is stark.

They backed it because the system revolved around an emperor whose role was primarily religious and somewhat legislative, with an active "manager" partner like Constantius III, Theodosius II (early in Valentinian's reign) or Aetius (who replaced Theodosius II in that role effectively in 433.) Ricimer was the active partner, had the backing of the Burgundian Foederati, and the backing of the Italic Aristocracy, so he remained in his role as manager.

If the WRE had retained Africa, with a reasonable control of the sea and communications with the ERE, they might persist a little longer and even win back some other provinces but no doubt the selfish senatorial class of Italy would sell the state out for some personal advantage, probably kowtowing to a new arrival willing to actually get his hands dirty while they enjoy tax-free lifestyle for a last generation or two before the real barbarians arrive to take their grandchildren down.

The return of Africa would have likely resulted in a restoration of the professional Roman field army in Italy. The Empire had competent leaders ready to take the manager role Aetius had fulfilled: Ecdicius Avitus or Marcellinus (who would have survived if Africa hadn't been lost) are likely candidates. The Italic Aristocracy was a problem but had a negligible effect on the Empire in the majority of the 4th and the first half of the 5th century. They weren't a real burden until the growing rift between the Italic and Gallic/Hispenic aristocracy split wide open after Avitus' deposition in 457.

Not to labour the political point but the recent finacial meltdown in the US that hurt the world so badly is the sort of thing the late WRE could not sort out.

The Late Roman Administrative system was plenty capable of handling the financial meltdown that resulted in the loss of Africa. They did the thing the US still refuses to do: they cut spending. A lot of spending.

Hopefully the US can, the interests of a few rich people can't outweigh the needs of the state or the whole thing will capsize.

This statement underlines your ignorance of the principles upon which the U.S. was founded. No offense intended, of course. But this is not the place for political debate.

The WRE was "too big to fail" once apon a time, now its just a subject in history classes.

In the mindset of the Roman people it was, but the reason why the Roman state inevitably collapsed between 439-1453 AD was the fact that it could not find a stable administrative system, with periodic exceptions like the Theme System, nor did it declare rights of succession.

[Cyclops]

...
The return of Africa would have likely resulted in a restoration of the professional Roman field army in Italy. ...

We have an example of a stable Roman administration discarding a proven military system in a period of peace when the Zoe marriage machine was in operation. I suspect the Imperial aristocracy capable of similar stupidity.

...The Late Roman Administrative system was plenty capable of handling the financial meltdown that resulted in the loss of Africa. They did the thing the US still refuses to do: they cut spending. A lot of spending.

I got shivers down my spine when it was announced the Feds responded to the GFC by printing money: they did promise a return to regulation but that somehow got lost in comittee...

...This statement underlines your ignorance of the principles upon which the U.S. was founded. No offense intended, of course. But this is not the place for political debate .

Thx for the heads up, my view of the Founding Fathers as slave owning plutocrats keen on evading taxes needs to be updated. Should I head to the mudpit or FOX news?

...In the mindset of the Roman people it was, but the reason why the Roman state inevitably collapsed between 439-1453 AD was the fact that it could not find a stable administrative system, with periodic exceptions like the Theme System, nor did it declare rights of succession.

There's strengths and weaknesses to the succession problem. Its telling Commodus inherited legally from his father, whereas the previous five Antonines adopted suitable young men as heirs. Guns like Basil I (and by extension the Makedonian dynasty) and Nikephorus and John Tzimiskes came to power by less than legal means.

You're bang on that the civil wars sparked by disputed succession drained the state but thats true of most political systems up to the 19th centtury (and many still suffer from it), even well established monarchies like the UK, France etc.

The ERE evolved the Theme system as a response to change (the depressed economic situation after the fall of the West/Rise of Islam/Dark Ages etc). I think the unchanged outlook of the Western aristocracy was a problem, "no taxes for us, we're Imperial Honestores dudes" and the idea of Italian Exceptionalism you mention vs the Gallic Aristocracy (thx for mentioning that btw, very informative and something I was really unaware of) does have modern parallels. Maybe that could change?

I guess the Empire did not respond quickly enough to the changing economic situation after the collapse of the 3rd century. The ERE did adapt after Mahmud kicked the door down in the East. Maybe the West could have too if Africa was available as a solid hinterland for Italy instead of a pirate base/bad poetry appreciation centre? If the Italian senatorial class could have been wiped out before Narses, or started to actually serve en masse in the military again so they felt a vested interest?

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Thx for the heads up, my view of the Founding Fathers as slave owning plutocrats keen on evading taxes needs to be updated. Should I head to the mudpit or FOX news?

We both have our opinions and that's alright. And I don't like FOX news any more than you do (albeit probably for different reasons, I do enjoy joking about it though as a conservative.)

I think the unchanged outlook of the Western aristocracy was a problem, "no taxes for us, we're Imperial Honestores dudes" and the idea of Italian Exceptionalism you mention vs the Gallic Aristocracy (thx for mentioning that btw, very informative and something I was really unaware of) does have modern parallels. Maybe that could change?

The Italic Aristocracy were the only ones who really were the burden, because the Gallic Aristocracy were still paying taxes, etc. etc. They didn't get the same priveleges (I couldn't detail them all).

Other solutions included the Siliquatia, a tax levied on sold goods in 444 to fund the military specifically, and the elimination of the extreme tarrifs on Greek/Eastern merchants in Rome which opened up a lot of trade between the East and West due to the need for cheap grain.

Also, after the fall of Africa we actually see a growing importance of South Italian and Po River Valley farms and plantations in the West, which were needed to supply grain to the Military (and the population of Rome).

I guess the Empire did not respond quickly enough to the changing economic situation after the collapse of the 3rd century.

The Crisis of the 3rd century was a result of the problems with the previous system being drastically enlarged due to the shift of economic powerhouses from Greece and Italy to Syria and Africa, and the necessary enlargement of the military. Peter Heather explains this very well IIRC. Diocletian centralized the government which helped the problem some, and Constantine's introduction of the Solidus and other currencies alleviated the inflation issue. (The Solidus wasn't debased until the 10th century in fact.)

Many historians consider the 4th century (the Dominate) the true height of the Roman Empire. I'm inclined to agree, to some extent.

If the Italian senatorial class could have been wiped out before Narses, or started to actually serve en masse in the military again so they felt a vested interest?

Two comments here:

1. The Italian Senators were the ones who owned the (overwhelming majority of the) massive grain plantations in Africa, Numidia, and Byzacena, and the also lucrative Olive Oil groves that extended from Tripolitania to Mauretania Tingitania. North Africa was a lot greener back then, more of Mediterranean climate.

2. The lack of manpower in the military was because although there were plenty of able-bodied people willing to serve, by this point much of the Roman population had been forced into indentured servitude by all of the Empire's landowning classes. When recruitment time came around, most of them would rather pay a tax called an "Aedoratio" than give recruits, and in the early 5th century they just stopped doing either. This problem plagued the East as much as the west.

The ERE evolved the Theme system as a response to change (the depressed economic situation after the fall of the West/Rise of Islam/Dark Ages etc).

The loss of Egypt really caused the depressed economy in the East, on top of the massive tax drain that was Justinian's reconquest.

As for the Theme system, I don't think it would have developed had the West not fallen, reason primarily being that the established Limitanei-Comitatenses system of centralized armies and border forces was extremly efficient, but the collapse of the Western half changed much of the cultural influence in the East and also left large gaps in defenses and administration exposed that meant the system could no longer work.

[Cyclops]

...
Many historians consider the 4th century (the Dominate) the true height of the Roman Empire. I'm inclined to agree, to some extent....

I knew about the long term stability of the solidus, but the dominate is the high point? I'd need to see more detail about the terms set, but I'm not sure my brain would make much of that as I haven't studied the subject since the 80's.

My poor state of knowledge was the economic web of the WRE was burnt in the 3rd century and basically not re-established. Local trade did not make up for the collapse of nearly all the long distance trade in the western Med, leading to lower populations , lower available manpower (much of that as you say from increasingly joblocked humiliores) and the city-state overseer role of the Principate falling over as impoverished cities couldn't keep upm local infrastructure, meet administrative needs etc. requiring centralisation to keep a shadow of a state going.

I'm guessing the Eastern Med did not take the big hit until Islam arrived, did it really more than make up for the western slump 200-500AD? Or have I misunderstood the degree of the collapse in the West?

[Ecthelion]

I think everyone in this thread would love the book Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather.

It's a solid read. Professional, but still very much accessible.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I think everyone in this thread would love the book Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather.

It's a solid read. Professional, but still very much accessible.

I have it, it is a fantastic read and I highly recommend it.

For a better understanding of the function of the Roman Government in the 5th century I recommend Meaghan McEvoy's very recent work "Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West." I recommend reading it in Conjunction with Ian Hughes' "Aetius: Attila's Nemesis" and "Stilicho: The Vandal who Saved Rome", because McEvoy does mix a few things up that Dr. Hughes gets right, such as military titles and structure.