Bear with me here for a moment, 'cos I'm going to explain the leadup to this. Scroll down a few paragraphs and start reading after the bolded bit if you don't like words or are familiar with the late Imperial era.
By the 460s, the Western Roman Empire was a clusterfuck of a mess, but everybody still believed it still had life in it. Euric, the famed Visigothic king, only forced the Romans to recognize an independent Visigothic kingdom in 475-- before then he was (formally) a legate of the Western Roman Empire ruling territories in Gallia and Hispania in the name of Rome. The Franks, likewise, were still technically foederati at this time, as were the Burgundians. Those 'barbarians' all still were (in theory) loyal to Rome and would fight for them, although of course they tried to further their own interests at the same time.
Part of this reason this didn't work out for the Romans is because of Ricimer, a powerhungry douchebag who kept installing and deposing puppet emperors up to 472, when he died of the plague. By then everything had become an even bigger clusterfuck and the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist four years later, in large part due to how much of a cocksucker Ricimer was.
One of Ricimer's "puppet emperors" who almost developed a spine was Anthemius. Ricimer kind of liked the Vandals, but Anthemius did not, and despite Ricimer being a total dickwad Anthemius organized a massive campaign against the Vandals, to be carried out in 467. Bad weather fouled everything up, and instead they had to try next year in 468 (together with the Eastern Roman Empire)-- but by then the Vandals were ready and totally wrecked the Romans' shit. Anthemius went on to cock up an attack on the Visigoths and was beheaded by Ricimer's henchmen in 472.
What if Anthemius had succeeded in his 467 or 468 campaign against the Vandals, recapturing Carthage and possibly scattering the Vandals into obscurity?
With the revenue of Africa Proconsularis flowing back to Rome again, the Emperor's political position strengthened and things generally rosy for once, the WRE could probably make it to the end of the fifth century, and Ricimer was already in his 60s and might very well die around 472 anyways.
The thing is, by this point there's barbarians heavily entrenched within Roman territory. Most of them recognize Roman suzerainty and their kings hold Roman titles to justify their rule, so theoretically their lands are all still Roman territory, but by 467 their rulers were much less enchanted with Roman splendor and much more assertive. I doubt the Romans can totally destroy them.
Over time, would the autonomy of the "barbarian" territories within the Roman Empire be formally recognized? Would the Visigothic, Burgundian and Frankish lands eventually end up like post-Golden Bull states, acting autonomously within what's theoretically a gigantic-ass empire? What could come of a Western Roman Empire that survives the fifth century while decentralizing?
By the 460s, the Western Roman Empire was a clusterfuck of a mess, but everybody still believed it still had life in it. Euric, the famed Visigothic king, only forced the Romans to recognize an independent Visigothic kingdom in 475-- before then he was (formally) a legate of the Western Roman Empire ruling territories in Gallia and Hispania in the name of Rome. The Franks, likewise, were still technically foederati at this time, as were the Burgundians. Those 'barbarians' all still were (in theory) loyal to Rome and would fight for them, although of course they tried to further their own interests at the same time.
Part of this reason this didn't work out for the Romans is because of Ricimer, a powerhungry douchebag who kept installing and deposing puppet emperors up to 472, when he died of the plague. By then everything had become an even bigger clusterfuck and the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist four years later, in large part due to how much of a cocksucker Ricimer was.
One of Ricimer's "puppet emperors" who almost developed a spine was Anthemius. Ricimer kind of liked the Vandals, but Anthemius did not, and despite Ricimer being a total dickwad Anthemius organized a massive campaign against the Vandals, to be carried out in 467. Bad weather fouled everything up, and instead they had to try next year in 468 (together with the Eastern Roman Empire)-- but by then the Vandals were ready and totally wrecked the Romans' shit. Anthemius went on to cock up an attack on the Visigoths and was beheaded by Ricimer's henchmen in 472.
What if Anthemius had succeeded in his 467 or 468 campaign against the Vandals, recapturing Carthage and possibly scattering the Vandals into obscurity?
With the revenue of Africa Proconsularis flowing back to Rome again, the Emperor's political position strengthened and things generally rosy for once, the WRE could probably make it to the end of the fifth century, and Ricimer was already in his 60s and might very well die around 472 anyways.
The thing is, by this point there's barbarians heavily entrenched within Roman territory. Most of them recognize Roman suzerainty and their kings hold Roman titles to justify their rule, so theoretically their lands are all still Roman territory, but by 467 their rulers were much less enchanted with Roman splendor and much more assertive. I doubt the Romans can totally destroy them.
Over time, would the autonomy of the "barbarian" territories within the Roman Empire be formally recognized? Would the Visigothic, Burgundian and Frankish lands eventually end up like post-Golden Bull states, acting autonomously within what's theoretically a gigantic-ass empire? What could come of a Western Roman Empire that survives the fifth century while decentralizing?