Could Rome Have Been Saved?

Another look at alternate history and, yes, once again the Germans are the bad guys.

Perhaps no single event has had a more dramatic an impact on the history of the West as we know it as the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5^th century AD. This led to a massive Germanification of much of Europe which changed culture, language and the progression of knowledge. Europe would slip into its “dark ages”, passing influence to the Byzantine East and then the rising Islamic powers in the 7^th century. But could Rome have survived?

There are lots of theories about why the Western Roman Empire fell. Of course, no single thing was responsible…history is complicated. I’ve also seen people point to various inflection points, some to the very founding of the Empire itself as if the seeds of its destruction were planted by the first emperor Augustus himself. However, we’ll begin with a somewhat more modest timeline, with the assumption that the empire was entirely salvageable at least until the early 5^th century.

Rome certainly did have its ups and downs. Rome survived a nearly disastrous 3^rd century, only to emerge stronger in the 4^th century, swapping out its pagan gods for the previously deplored Christianity in the process. There are theories about Christianity’s role in Rome’s demise, but I don’t think the new faith was particularly critical here. Smaller European states (including the Germanic ones!) would go on to do reasonably well with Christianity while Christianity’s monotheistic cousin Islam would be at the center of massive empires.

In my opinion, the critical period comes at the end of the reign of Emperor Theodosius the Great. Theodosius, who reigned between about 379-385 AD was about the last decent Roman Emperor (discounting the later Byzantine Emperors, some of whom were very good). I’m not sure he was “great”, but he was decent enough, famous for his devotion to Christianity as well as leaving the Empire on reasonably decent footing. Although he made two key errors that would reverberate once he died. Basically, the Empire’s problems, to my estimation, boil down to poor immigration policies and passing the Empire down to his doltish sons.

To be fair to Theodosius, he didn’t start the problem. That was the fault of Valens who, during the Roman Empire’s experiments with splitting the empire in two, ruled the Eastern part of the Roman Empire.

The Germanic Goth tribes, fleeing the Huns (and who wouldn’t) were granted entrance into the Roman Empire in the area of Thrace (roughly the area around northern Greece and modern Bulgaria). Typically, when new groups came into the Roman Empire, some of their men were recruited for the legions, with the rest scattered and absorbed by different regions. This sensible policy assimilated immigrants quickly and prevented them from becoming coherent rival groups.

Unfortunately, this time the Goths were allowed to remain together as an autonomous tribe and mismanagement of their welfare resulted in grain shipments to them going missing. Starving and angry, the Goths rebelled, and Rome had a big problem on its hands. So, yes, Rome had an immigration problem.

I’ve often heard it said that Rome’s problems involved allowing so many Germans into its legions, but this was never really the central problem, per se. The Roman Empire had long since ceased being dominated by the people of the city of Rome, which was no longer the capital anyway. By the late 4^th century, Rome was an unambiguous multiethnic state, including many Germans. But allowing the Goths to remain autonomous was a mistake, as was inciting them via mismanagement.

Valens, his armies already stretched by wars in the Middle East, rode to put down the Germans but was defeated and killed at the Battle of Adrianople. It’s worth noting that this all happened in the Eastern Roman Empire…a bit ironic given the Goths would ultimately fatally wound the Western Roman Empire. But by this time the Western Roman Empire was still successfully defending its borders against German invasions.

After Valens died, Theodosius came to power as emperor in the East and, ultimately the West as well, reuniting the empire once again. He made peace with the Goths…one that assured security during his reign but left them intact and semi-autonomous. While he was alive, they remained allies of Rome, but after he died (in 395 AD), relations soured under his sons Honorius (who became Wester Roman Emperor…the empire splitting again) and Arcadius, the Emperor in the East. The Goths would ultimately occupy Rome itself in 410AD, driving a mortal wound into the Western Empire’s heart from which it would never recover.

Theodosius’ second, and perhaps more critical, mistake was nominating his doltish sons, Honorius and Arcadius to rule the two halves of a once again split Roman Empire. This affliction of handing down the Empire to idiot children was hardly an invention of Theodosius, but it proved a fatal one. Consider that when Honorius took charge of the Western Roman Empire in 395, it was certainly under pressure from barbarian hordes albeit defending itself mostly successfully, but by the time he died in 423 it was in tatters. His reign was chaotic and feckless, and the Western Empire never recovered (the reign of Majorian from 457-461 showed a brief revival but not enough to save the Western Empire which officially ended in 476).

As perhaps a more minor issue, the Romans never seriously developed heavy calvary units, instead relying on their heavy infantry legions. Heavy calvary units were not unknown during antiquity (even Alexander the Great made use of them), but failure to develop them for the Roman Empire led to an advantage for their Germanic and Hunnic invaders.

So, was the Roman Empire doomed by the early 5^th century? Probably not. Had the Romans managed the Goths more efficiently, passed down the Empire to more meritorious leaders than Honorius, and kept up with calvary advances, they might have stemmed the barbarian tides and continued operating for centuries more. That would have meant no Germanification of Western Europe and Britain nor the collapse of science and learning in Europe that accompanied the Empire’s fall. It is interesting to think how history might have developed differently.