If Rome Hadn't Fallen

by Timothy Venning

  First published in Great Britain in 2011 by

  Pen & Sword Military

  an imprint of

  Pen & Sword Books Ltd

  47 Church Street

  Barnsley

  South Yorkshire

  S70 2AS

  Copyright © Timothy Venning 2011

  ISBN 978–1-84884-429-2

  ePub ISBN: 9781848849020

  PRC ISBN: 9781848849037

  The right of Timothy Venning to be identified as Author of this Work

  has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and

  Patents Act 1988.

  A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

  All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in

  any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying,

  recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without

  permission from the Publisher in writing.

  Typeset in 11pt Ehrhardt by

  Mac Style, Beverley, E. Yorkshire

  Printed and bound in the UK by MPG

  Pen & Sword Books Ltd incorporates the Imprints of Pen & Sword Aviation,

  Pen & Sword Family History, Pen & Sword Maritime, Pen & Sword Military,

  Pen & Sword Discovery, Wharncliffe Local History, Wharncliffe True Crime,

  Wharncliffe Transport, Pen & Sword Select, Pen & Sword Military Classics,

  Leo Cooper, The Praetorian Press, Remember When, Seaforth Publishing

  and Frontline Publishing.

  For a complete list of Pen & Sword titles please contact

  PEN & SWORD BOOKS LIMITED

  47 Church Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, S70 2AS, England

  E-mail: enquiries@pen-and-sword.co.uk

  Website: www.pen-and-sword.co.uk

  Contents

  with summary of nine turning points and

  nineteen speculated consequences

  Acknowledgments

  Introduction

  Part I: Turning Points

  Chapter 1: Two Reasons for Rome’s Problems – Did They Make

  Collapse More Likely? Were They Avoidable?

  (a) Military ‘What Ifs’ from AD9

  (b) Instability from AD180

  Chapter 2: The Roman World – The Western Empire in the Fifth Century

  Overview of real-life history. Decline and fall, how much has it been exaggerated, and was it inevitable? Problems of state structure and control. Religion, governance, and failings in the structure of the bureaucracy. Division of the Empire, militarily necessary, or extra problems? The state and the army: too heavy a burden, or irrelevant to the question of survival? Germans and Romans. 476, a convenient but misleading date? A vicious circle of gradual collapse? Potential alternatives and the crucial moments of Roman collapse.

  1. The Romans win the Battle of Adrianople

  2. Strong Roman leadership could have seen off the Germanic challenges 395–455. It only needed Theodosius, Stilicho, Constantius, Aetius or a combination of them to have lived longer

  Chapter 3: Inherited Problems, the Nature of Roman Instability in Transmitting Power, and What Could Easily have Happened

  Earlier ‘What Ifs’: the crises that led to the creation of the later Empire.

  3. Strong Roman leadership through crises in the Roman Empire of 235–284 after Septimius Severus

  The Empire’s problems in the third and fourth centuries. How might they have been reduced by earlier military successes?

  4. Varus or Germanicus secure the Elbe frontier in AD9 or thereafter State structures and the succession: from ‘First Citizen’ to hereditary autocrat.

  5. Better succession management overcomes the crises of the 250s The 250s and after: dynastic mischance and its exploitation. The survival of the Western Empire: feasible with better luck?

  (a) As a larger state: a match for the Germans and the East?

  6. Theodosius the Great lives longer

  7. Aetius avoids murder and overthrows Valentinian III

  8. Justinian never becomes Eastern Emperor

  (b) As smaller state, similar to reality.

  9. The West regains North Africa in 462–3 (Marjorian) or 468 (Basiliscus)

  Part II: Consequences

  What would have been the likely developments in the Western Empire had one of the foregoing scenarios occurred?

  Chapter 4: Western Empire: the British Isles, the Vikings, and North-eastern Germany

  1. A kingdom of Britain. Roman Britain survives – no successful Anglo-Saxon invasion?

  2. Continental developments. The Roman Empire annexes Jutland

  3. Ireland. Pro-Roman client High King established in Ireland

  4. Dalriada and the Irish overseas. Irish missionaries convert pagan central Europe?

  5. Western Christianity – Emperor and Pope. Papacy remains subordinate to Imperial interests

  6. Military matters. Western Empire able to hold off and subordinate Germanic tribes

  7. The Viking threat. Viking invasions of Britain and France repulsed

  Chapter 5: The Western World – Some Further Speculation

  8. Rome in the Americas?

  9. Rome and the civilizations of Mexico

  10. The conquest of Mexico and North America. Rome versus the Vikings?

  11. Society in post-fifth century Roman Europe

  12. The steppes – and the Mongols

  13. Religion – an Imperial-led Reformation?

  Chapter 6: The Eastern Empire – Effects of the Survival of the Western Empire

  14. The sixth and seventh centuries – a far stronger reaction to the Avars, Persia, and the Arabs?

  15. The Northern frontier – less of a tribal threat to the Balkans?

  16. A lesser Balkan threat – no Eastern Roman collapse after 602?

  17. Long-term results in the Middle East – effects on the Arab invasions?

  18. After the seventh century. The Eastern Empire versus the Turks in the eleventh century – any difference from reality?

  19. The Eastern and the Western Empires confront the Mongols

  Notes

  Bibliography

  Index

  Acknowledgements

  Thanks are due to the staff who created the ‘Trigan Empire’ comic strip for Ranger and subsequently Look and Learn magazine, which first gave me the concept of ‘what if ’ fantasy when I was at primary school in the late 1960s. This innovative science-fiction series showed what a Roman-type civilization might have looked like if it had survived to the Space Age, particularly due to the artwork of Don Lawrence. My exploration of the scenarios took off from there.

  Introduction

  The question of how much the course of history is dependent on personality and chance has always been a pertinent one. Historians have disagreed to what extent the outcome of events in shaped by broad social and economic developments as opposed to the quirks and decisions of strong individuals, and some have held it fashionable to downplay the effects on the mass of people of political and military struggles among those in authority. Dates and lists of rulers, once the staple of learning history in schools, were replaced in the 1960s and 1970s by studies of the lives of the ordinary people and the social, economic, and cultural factors that shaped their existences rather than the intricate and remote political events in their countries’ capitals. But in recent years there has been a degree of reaction to that, with more recognition that individuals are not always powerless to shape the outcome of major events. One person’s actions can alter the course of history, and a political or military mischance can touch off a catastrophic reaction that has repercussions over centuries. The ge
o-physical theory that a butterfly beating its wings in one continent can ultimately cause a hurricane in another one can have its counterpart in history. Whatever the importance of broad social or economic trends on the development of society, ultimately the safe existence and prosperity, and in many turbulent periods the lives, of the ordinary citizens depend on the nature and stability of the political structure of their states.

  It is political and military leadership that determines the outcome of political struggles and military campaigns which decide whether a state survives and prospers or falls victim to its own feuding or its enemies’ conquest. The nature of personal leadership is as crucial as the social and economic circumstances that give a state its strength or its weakness and enable these people to fulfill or fail in their struggles. This was particularly the case in constantly competing and threatened states, where warfare and conquest were the norm before the rise of a relatively stable international system of determining relations. Again, before the rise of a complex system of bureaucracy much depended on the personal leadership (or not) of the rulers, and one wrong decision on the battlefield or the untimely death of a charismatic leader could plunge a nation or an empire into decades of crisis.

  Still important over much of the world today, these factors were particularly apparent in the Ancient World with its constant political flux between a multiplicity of dynastic kingdoms, city-states, and nomadic peoples. Both internal and external factors could easily bring a fragile state to chaos, and undermine the most extensive and politically cohesive one. Despite the powerlessness of any ruler and the limitations of his ambitions in the face of a natural disaster such as drought or an epidemic, a human mistake could be just as catastrophic – particularly in the event of invasion or a potential civil war.

  The career of Alexander the Great provides the most notable example of the effect of one personality on the fortunes of peoples from the Balkans to the Punjab. The uncertain outcome of the titanic battles he was engaged in also invites the natural response. What if things had gone another way in one of them and a chance arrow or sword-thrust had cut his career short? It nearly did on two particular occasions, when Cleitus saved him at the battle of the Granicus at the start of his Asian campaigns in 334 BC and when he was shot down in an Indus valley town in 326. The premature death of Alexander at the height of his triumphs has also long begged the question of what would have happened if he had continued his career and not died at 32, with the nature of his future plans from June 323 only known in uncertain detail. This led to the first serious ‘What if ?’ scenario of classical history on the subject of what might have happened if Alexander had lived longer, by Arnold Toynbee, based on a question first posed by Livy. His optimistic scenario had Alexander living to the approximate age of his grandfather Amyntas III and various of his own generals who died in their beds (i.e. dying in 287 at the age of 69) rather than his father Philip, assassinated at 46/7. Alexander would supposedly have gone on to conquer Carthage, India, and China and create a worldwide empire of provinces linked by trading and military co-ordination, ripe for conversion to the new religion of Buddhism in the third century. This is perhaps a little implausible, but the basic point is sound, that a long reign for the creator of a new order could have created a long-standing new empire in the same manner as Cyrus and Darius did in Persia in the sixth century BC.

  What is true of Alexander, whose new Greco-Persian realm broke up into competing states led by his generals after the collapse of his posthumous son’s regency, is no less true of Rome. Here the possibilities of alternative scenarios are as endless as for Greece, although the Roman Republican polity started out as a more stable long-term political structure than the divided, faction-ridden Greek states. Indeed, it was designed to minimize the effect of one person’s ambitions on the state, supposedly due to a fear of a return to monarchy. The long-term international results of a few crucial events perhaps starts with the narrow margin by which Rome survived the threat of Hannibal in the 210s BC. What if Hannibal had achieved his aim of breaking up the Roman leadership of the Italian peoples? Seemingly unstoppable after the battle of Cannae, he could have returned Italy to the mass of competing peoples and states of the fifth and fourth centuries BC, restoring local independence to the once-powerful peoples of the South such as the Samnites and Marsi, or even physically have conquered Rome, expelled its people, made its Latin clients independent, and prevented it from restoring its fortunes after the Carthaginians had gone home.

  Ironically, the results of the early death of Alexander had their impact on Roman history, as the alleged list of his future plans released by his generals after his death included conquering the Greeks’ Carthaginian enemies. If Alexander had turned his vast armies onto Carthage after consolidating his Eastern conquests, at a date around 320 to 315BC as surmised by Toynbee, the Punic state would probably have fallen and Rome had no rival in the Western Mediterranean in the third century BC. Given Roman leaders’ appetite for intervention in neighbouring states that seemed to pose a threat, as Philip V’s Macedon did to their Adriatic role in the 210s, Rome could thus have intervened in Greek affairs earlier and more strongly.

  The permutations of the political conflicts of the declining republic saw a supposedly monolithic balanced constitution, designed to keep a longterm political order stable by preventing one man gaining undue power, collapse into vicious faction and ultimately revolution. The complexities of conquering and administering a spreading dominion around the Mediterranean, and the temptations of the wealth and mass of clients that went with that for the successful generals and politicians (the two were often the same) saw the emergence first of dominant politicians, some leaders of oligarchic factions and others demagogic ‘populares’ exploiting the troubles of the lower classes, and later of generals whose armies were more loyal to them than to the state and could be turned on the latter. In this scenario personal qualities of leadership were crucial and one lucky gamble or minor miscalculation could not only end a career but also affect the future of an empire. The conflicts that consumed and eventually destroyed the Republic in the first century BC may have been a probability, given the weaknesses of the outdated Roman constitution in coping with being a world power. The nature of Roman politico-military leadership and the problems of the social classes in the capital and Italy gave a broad outline of what sort of men would rise to power to exploit the situation, what they would do, and how Rome would alter. But the outcome of the struggles owed most to the individual qualities of the men that fought over and achieved power, both as political leaders and increasingly as generals whose success brought them wealth, popularity, a body of clients, and armies to use against their enemies. The careers of Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Antonius, Cassius, and Octavian/Augustus depended as much on military as political skills, although there could still be political leaders who operated within more traditional civilian parameters while still commanding armies at times (such as Cicero, Cato, or Brutus). Octavian showed that a shrewd Roman leader with political skills could triumph without being a good general, provided that he understood and could play the role of a military commander as well as civilian faction-leader, knew how to manipulate propaganda and win popular acclaim, employed terror and patronage with equal effect on the political class, and had effective subordinates like Agrippa to do the fighting.

  The chaos of the last Republican decades argued in favour of the emergence of rule by one man as head of all the potentially disruptive armies and suppresser of political faction. But the form that the new Empire took, as a superficial restoration of the existing republican constitution, but in fact a disguised autocracy, depended on Octavian’s concept of what would secure stability and his own position. The fate of Rome would have been different if Pompey had prevailed against Caesar in 49–8 or the assassins of Caesar had prevailed in the struggles of 44–2 and restored the old constitution with idealistic determination, though an eventual renewal of faction and military challenge was inevitable. S
imilarly, if Antonius not Octavian had prevailed in 31 it is unlikely that he would have been any better than Caesar at making provision for long-term stability after his death, with or without a partnership with Hellenistic Egypt to rule the Eastern Mediterranean.

  Once the Empire was established, the personal fates and politico-military choices of Emperors had substantial results even if the structure of the largely decentralized Empire before the reforms of Diocletian was such that chaos or misrule at the centre had limited effects on the provinces (apart from causing damage by civil war, as in AD69–70). The quirks and psychological instability of Caligula, Nero, or Commodus may have been of little immediate importance outside political circles in Rome, but the personal nature of rule meant that the accumulative effects of prolonged misgovernment, or a frequent change of regime as in the third century AD, could seriously undermine the entire Roman polity. The repeated political crises after 180 and 235 may have developed independently of the rising pressure of external enemies (the Germans and Persia) on the frontiers, but they provided enemies with a chance to attack, limited the effectiveness of the Imperial response, and undermined the Empire’s ability to ride out such challenges.

  The system established for a smooth succession by Diocletian, a careful ruler who had created two senior Emperors, one for the East and one for the West, to guard each half of the huge Empire, arranged for pre-selection and training of two heirs, ‘Caesars’, to their seniors, the ‘Augusti’. Galerius succeeded Diocletian in the East, and Constantius succeeded the other ‘Augustus’, Maximian. In the West it was meant to ensure that when the senior rulers died or resigned their successors would be ready to step in, though it is arguable how much it owed to the circumstance that Diocletian had no son, forcing him to improvise for the succession. It was at least partly intended to choose the best man rather than the closest genealogical heir (the normal procedure) to succeed, as it explicitly left out Maximian’s young and inexperienced son Maxentius. Human nature being what it is, the latter then staged a revolt to regain his ‘rightful’ position, as did Constantius’ son Constantine when the latter was denied the right to succeed his father too, and both, significantly, had military support against Diocletian’s choices. The system collapsed within Diocletian’s own lifetime; and Constantine duly reunited the Empire and took the epoch-changing decision to make Christianity the State religion.