WI: the Roman empire remained divided into 3 for the final duration of the 4th century?

[justiniano]

Constans I, constantius I & Constantine II are unable to get each other killed, keeping their states around for the rest of the century.  
I think the Huns would probably attack one of their empires instead of the Byzantines seeing them as easier targets, without the massacre the huns did to the Illyrians I think that the Byzantine empire would last much longer since Illyria was a really good recruiting territory for them.

[stevep]

Dec 1, 2022 21:23:07 GMT justiniano said:

Constans I & Constantine II are unable to kill each other, keeping their states around for the rest of the century.  
I think the Huns would probably attack one of their empires instead of the Byzantines seeing them as easier targets, without the massacre the huns did to the Illyrians I think that the Byzantine empire would last much longer since Illyria was a really good recruiting territory for them.

  Possibly although its doubtful that the three separate empires could survive without at least someone successfully uniting at least a couple of the factors.  Also - forgetting the borders but from what you say the eastern one is by far the largest and also contains the vast bulk of the wealth.  This makes it potentially stronger - albeit it has to deal with the Sassanids - but as the wealthiest its the most attractive in terms of gaining loot, whether by attacks or demanding protection money as the Huns did during the late 4thC after they 1st appeared. 

  Also butterflying away the reunification of the empire and that means that when the Goths are forced into refuge in the eastern empire if their treated as appallingly and revolt the eastern empire won't be getting much if any support from the other two.  As such it could have a significant crisis prior to the Huns actually reaching their borders.

  Of course this all depends on the level of leadership in each empire including how much internal problems each have as well as how they interact with each other and outsiders.

  If it helps this seems to be the boundaries of the realms including that of the caesars Dalmatius who ruled Thrace and Macedonia and those lands passed to Constants on his death - before Constans himself gained his majority.  Under pressure from Constantine II who was unhappy with having the poorest and least important of the three realms Constans passed part of Africa to Constantine but afterwards gained his majority and sought to establish himself as an independent ruler.  The two were squabbling over how much Africa should be transferred from Constans and Constantine invaded and died in an ambush.

  This map actually shows Illyriaium inside Constan's part of the empire and if he still gains Dalmatius's lands he has all of the European provinces of Byzantium. As such unless the Huns come across the Caucasus region their going to hit the central empire rather than the eastern one.

[justiniano]

Dec 2, 2022 15:12:33 GMT stevep said:

when the Goths are forced into refuge in the eastern empire if their treated as appallingly

r they likely to be treated any better or worse? Considering the eastern empire wouldn't have the other 2 parts holding it back, do u think perhaps it would be even wealthier and be able to accomodate them?

[raunchel]

The Huns still would have had a great reason to go for the East. It was pretty close and more importantly, it was where the real loot was. I also think that especially the westernmost empire (Hispania and Gaul primarily) was so much weaker that it would be inevitable for someone else to try taking it over again.

[stevep]

Dec 2, 2022 22:29:53 GMT justiniano said:

Dec 2, 2022 15:12:33 GMT stevep said:

when the Goths are forced into refuge in the eastern empire if their treated as appallingly

r they likely to be treated any better or worse? Considering the eastern empire wouldn't have the other 2 parts holding it back, do u think perhaps it would be even wealthier and be able to accomodate them?

  Actually it would be Constan's empire that would bear the brunt of the Gothic exodus and also the initial Hunnic attacks/threats if they go the same way.  It occupies the Balkans and Italy and with potentially hostile rival empires on both flanks could buckle under the strain.

  A lot would depend on the circumstances although there is a possibility with the empire split into 3 realms for a lasting period that the parts may become less despotic - albeit that's probably a low one,. especially in such a short period.  I don't know the details and rather than imperial intent it could well have been greed and corruption that prevented the Goths getting the promised food and the like, leading to the situation they were selling their children as slaves to get food!  Avoid doing that and you could get a valuable addition to military strength but doing the same again and a defeat as at Adrianople could well be a fatal disaster for the central empire.

  The other issue that comes to mind is how does religion develop?  Does the west see a revival and survival of pre-Christian religions as they seem to have still been demographically dominant there?  Do different empires follow different sects, which is one way the three empires could solidify their separation from each other.  This was another problem the Goths had as the Christians among them, along with many of the other German tribes were followers of Arianism, as opposed to the Nicene creed,which was established by the council of Nicaea.  This became the dominant sect which meant that the Goths were often distrusted or persecuted.  Constantius who inherited the eastern part of the empire was himself an Arianist so it could become the state religion in the east - although might have difficulties with the Egyptians.  Constan might follow the Nicene creed in part to separate his realm from eastern one.  Constantine II could end up choosing a 3rd option if he avoids prompting his death as OTL or some usurper there could select another option including a revived paganism.

[justiniano]

Dec 3, 2022 14:54:21 GMT stevep said:

there is a possibility with the empire split into 3 realms for a lasting period that the parts may become less despotic

What's the connection between more division and less despotism?

Dec 3, 2022 14:54:21 GMT stevep said:

 Constantius who inherited the eastern part of the empire was himself an Arianist

(no offense) it's Arian, not Arianist.

Dec 3, 2022 14:54:21 GMT stevep said:

  Actually it would be Constan's empire that would bear the brunt of the Gothic exodus and also the initial Hunnic attacks/threats if they go the same way.  It occupies the Balkans and Italy and with potentially hostile rival empires on both flanks could buckle under the strain.

With all this taken into consideration, how I see this happening is basically if the WRE was split into 2 instead of 3 in 395 and the Germanic invasions happened 8 dozen or so years earlier.

A weaker west would fall to the barbarians faster, certainly by 400 AD. These barbarian kingdoms would have a mostly hostile populace still, and issues of paganism v. Christianity ongoing. The barbarian kingdoms would be weaker than OTL.

Weaker barbarian kingdoms would more easily fall to Attila in the 440s and be conquered. In OTL, Aetius managed to organize a coalition of foederati to defend the WRE, but in this timeline there is no WRE and no foederati. The west would fall to Attila. This would probably gut most of the barbarian leadership, opening them up to conquest. The ERE would probably launch an invasion, overrunning the provinces of Italy, Africa, and Spain.

Edit: Or if I'm wrong the Ere teams up with the Germanic peoples or huns to conquer much of the 2 western empires

In OTL, when Justinian took Italy, he was engaged in a long guerilla war with the Goths and Lombards, plus hostilities with the Persians. But in the 400s Persia was peaceable with the Romans, and the Lombards were a long way off. The ERE would probably have no problems holding it's Mediterranean empire, fortified along the sturdy Danube and Alpine frontiers.

With a stronger hold on the West, the ERE could focus on defending the east more - in OTL, the overextensions of Justinian led the Persians to believe they could conquer the ERE. Without that perceived weakness, I think a cold war of sorts would last for several centuries between ERE (by this point, probably just calling themselves the Roman Empire). With Persia and Rome both far stronger that OTL, Islam would likely never expand beyond Arabia, and the Arabs wouldn't expand into the middle East.

Then again if the Persians aren't dealing with Rome they could engage in more wars in the stans and india. Pls tell me what you think would happen here

France would likely remain under either Frankish or native Romano-Gaulish rule, and Britain would still fall to the Anglo-Saxons. The Slavs would push to the Elbe as they did in OTL, but they would probably be repulsed along the Danube by a stronger Rome.

[stevep]

Dec 3, 2022 18:25:10 GMT justiniano said:

Dec 3, 2022 14:54:21 GMT stevep said:

there is a possibility with the empire split into 3 realms for a lasting period that the parts may become less despotic

What's the connection between more division and less despotism?

Dec 3, 2022 14:54:21 GMT stevep said:

 Constantius who inherited the eastern part of the empire was himself an Arianist

(no offense) it's Arian, not Arianist.

Dec 3, 2022 14:54:21 GMT stevep said:

  Actually it would be Constan's empire that would bear the brunt of the Gothic exodus and also the initial Hunnic attacks/threats if they go the same way.  It occupies the Balkans and Italy and with potentially hostile rival empires on both flanks could buckle under the strain.

With all this taken into consideration, how I see this happening is basically if the WRE was split into 2 instead of 3 in 395 and the Germanic invasions happened 8 dozen or so years earlier.

A weaker west would fall to the barbarians faster, certainly by 400 AD. These barbarian kingdoms would have a mostly hostile populace still, and issues of paganism v. Christianity ongoing. The barbarian kingdoms would be weaker than OTL.

Weaker barbarian kingdoms would more easily fall to Attila in the 440s and be conquered. In OTL, Aetius managed to organize a coalition of foederati to defend the WRE, but in this timeline there is no WRE and no foederati. The west would fall to Attila. This would probably gut most of the barbarian leadership, opening them up to conquest. The ERE would probably launch an invasion, overrunning the provinces of Italy, Africa, and Spain.

Edit: Or if I'm wrong the Ere teams up with the Germanic peoples or huns to conquer much of the 2 western empires

In OTL, when Justinian took Italy, he was engaged in a long guerilla war with the Goths and Lombards, plus hostilities with the Persians. But in the 400s Persia was peaceable with the Romans, and the Lombards were a long way off. The ERE would probably have no problems holding it's Mediterranean empire, fortified along the sturdy Danube and Alpine frontiers.

With a stronger hold on the West, the ERE could focus on defending the east more - in OTL, the overextensions of Justinian led the Persians to believe they could conquer the ERE. Without that perceived weakness, I think a cold war of sorts would last for several centuries between ERE (by this point, probably just calling themselves the Roman Empire). With Persia and Rome both far stronger that OTL, Islam would likely never expand beyond Arabia, and the Arabs wouldn't expand into the middle East.

Then again if the Persians aren't dealing with Rome they could engage in more wars in the stans and india. Pls tell me what you think would happen here

France would likely remain under either Frankish or native Romano-Gaulish rule, and Britain would still fall to the Anglo-Saxons. The Slavs would push to the Elbe as they did in OTL, but they would probably be repulsed along the Danube by a stronger Rome.

  My argument on the 1st point is that with multiple competitors there is pressure for rulers to be less despotic as that encourages people resentful of their rule to looking for alternatives.  However of course this might not apply in this case with only three candidates - at least before the Germanic tribes invade when other options become available.  Especially if the three empires becomes divided by religion which would make moving between them somewhat more difficult.

  Not sure what you mean by the bolden section?  Before you were talking about the entire empire being split into 3 parts until ~400 now your talking about the WRE being in two rather than three parts.  Also "8 dozen" is an odd term so I suspect that there's a typo there? 

  Given a POD in ~337 then while the Huns might still occur they could follow a different path and be stronger or weaker during this period and its likely that a specific Attilla would be born.

  Don't forget in this case the central empire - which might collapse under Hunnic power in the late 4th C - contains the bulk of the Balkans.  As such unless the ERE manages to take over control of this without major conflict its going to be significantly weaker than OTL - ditto if it takes over a region that has been devastated by Hunnic invasions and destruction.

  You could have had an earlier Justinian like figure seek to reunite the empire, or at least seek to regain the Balkans, Italy and N Africa along with possibly a part of Iberia.  This could however be a strain and as OTL political and religious differences could make it a long and bloody issue as OTL although if this ruler was less of an idiot than Justinian.  Most of the German nations are likely to be Arian, which will be an issue again unless the eastern empire has gone Arian in which case their likely to be more friendly to the German but less popular with the 'Romans' their coming to liberate.

  Basically their going to have so many potential butterflies that just about anything could happen.