Justinian the Great was one of the most controversial Roman Emperors.You either love or hate the guy.He spent his entire reign fighting against the Persians to the east,enjoying spectacular success.Large new territories were gained in east where the empire would permanently hold.On the other hand,the empire was more or less bankrupt and his successors would have a hard time fixing its’ finances.What would happen if he tried to spent his resources on the reconquest of the west instead?Would it have been far easier?
DBWI:Justinian went west?
It would be easier, I guess, but would it be worth it? Justinian pushed the Persians back far to the east, reconquering Mesopotamia, expanding Roman control of the Caucasus, and even he took bits of Western Persia itself (though they would lose that bit). Going west would be pretty bad anyway, even if it would be somewhat easier. The Ostrogoths would be defeated, but Italy would be damaged as well. Not sure whether the East or Italy would've been more profitable, but I'm going to say Mesopotamia would be more valuable. Justinian's complete destruction of Persian power also ensured they would remain weakened for a long time, as Persia fell into a massive civil war. This probably saved the Byzantines from the Great Arab Invasion, which was a narrow victory OTL. Without Persia being defeated, they would've backstabbed Rome while they were defending against the Arabs, which would weaken the Empire so badly it basically would end up losing the West anyway.
So going west we probably see Persia pushing deep into Anatolia, and the Arabs conquering the Levant and Egypt would fall to someone. The West would obviously end up falling as well, with Italy probably being invaded by the Pope or the Franks or any other kingdom around there. The Byzantines probably don't survive until the modern era as they have IOTL.
So going west we probably see Persia pushing deep into Anatolia, and the Arabs conquering the Levant and Egypt would fall to someone. The West would obviously end up falling as well, with Italy probably being invaded by the Pope or the Franks or any other kingdom around there. The Byzantines probably don't survive until the modern era as they have IOTL.
This probably strangles the Kingdom of Italy in the cradle, preventing them from consolidating their rule. Weren’t they still Arian at this point? On the other hand, this resolves the Magna Graecia issue much earlier than IOTL.
From there all of Western European history is changed as well. Someone else conquers Pannonia, for instance—the Lombards only stopped there because they feared Italian might.
Even regions farther afield would be affected. I’d be curious as to whether the Byzantines might try to involve themselves in Africa if they went West since they made a lot of noise about it in that era. The Byzzies might have been less objectionable to the locals than the Vandals proved to be, which would butterfly the invited conquest of the region by the Garamantes.
From there all of Western European history is changed as well. Someone else conquers Pannonia, for instance—the Lombards only stopped there because they feared Italian might.
Even regions farther afield would be affected. I’d be curious as to whether the Byzantines might try to involve themselves in Africa if they went West since they made a lot of noise about it in that era. The Byzzies might have been less objectionable to the locals than the Vandals proved to be, which would butterfly the invited conquest of the region by the Garamantes.
Deleted member 97083
I think pushing west would have been a smart idea for the Romans under Justinian. Given the Roman Empire's growing and growing population at the time, they could have recolonized the former western parts of the Empire with Greco-Roman settlers who might have even formed a plurality of the population by the 7th century, had some sort of "Roma Exarchate" been formed during the mid 6th century.
To the contrary, the constant wars with Persia sapped away the Roman Empire's population leading to somewhat of a disaster in the Balkans.
The time of Justinian seems like it had the potential to be an era of demographic expansion, with the urbanized Anatolia being relatively safe from disease outbreaks as history showed. But this economic potential was all wasted in the cataclysmic battles and wars of attrition in Mesopotamia and western Persia.
To the contrary, the constant wars with Persia sapped away the Roman Empire's population leading to somewhat of a disaster in the Balkans.
The time of Justinian seems like it had the potential to be an era of demographic expansion, with the urbanized Anatolia being relatively safe from disease outbreaks as history showed. But this economic potential was all wasted in the cataclysmic battles and wars of attrition in Mesopotamia and western Persia.
IMO the Romans crushing the Persians as they did forever ensured their superiority over their long term rivals, which was probably the point. Heading West would’ve been a greater risk, greater reward scenario—more land but a risk of a devastating Persian invasion of core Roman territories. IOTL almost all of the devastation occurred in Persian territory.
The Slavic migrations into the Balkans were horribly mismanaged, I’ll give you that, although the Roman opinion at the time was that those border regions were unimportant compared to the wealthy metropoli of Greece, Anatolia, and Syria, which was certainly true then (and eventually became true again after the decline of the nomadic empires...)
This.I also think that the Roman populace of the former western provinces would have risen up against their barbarian overlords and welcomed the return of Imperial rule should the ERE even bothered to send a small force to the west.
Last edited:
Would they have, though? I’m not sure that the decimated Roman populace had the power to successfully expel the Germans—after all, in Africa the Romano-Berbers called in the Garamantes to kick the Vandals out even with the nominal Byzantine support of Justin.
Deleted member 97083
I'd argue it would be lesser risk, equal reward. As invasions of the west would only require a relatively small Roman force, with the majority able to remain at the eastern limits of the empire. The value of Vandal North Africa would have been about equal to that of Mesopotamia--considering, especially, that it was easier to transport all manner of goods from Carthage by sea than from Justinianopole/Ctesiphon by land.
Greece itself was also damaged by the Slavic migrations, at least if you include Macedonian and Thracian cities such as Thessalonica and Adrianople. Although, ironically, maybe the mass of Slavic tribes was beneficial to the empire in the long run considering that after Heraklius's resettlement program they ended up being the main frontier settlers in Mesopotamia for so many years.
That’s because Justinian ignored their plea when they sent a delegation to Constantinople asking for Roman rule. The Visigoths for example were eventually overthrown by native Romans and they were completely exterminated.
Deleted member 97083
That's what primary sources and legends said, but archaeologists have theorized otherwise. The Visigoths and Romans had been heavily intermixed by that point. At the time of the Defenestration of Gódica, the Basque-Roman lower nobles who exterminated the Goths likely had significant Gothic ancestry themselves. While the purged Goths were probably mostly assimilated Roman upper classes, rather than "Pure Goths".
The Amalasunthid dynasty was also totally spared due to their allegiance with Flavian Cristian Caesar and the senatorial classes of Asturias.
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn’t necessarily count out Italy so easily—they certainly made a good showing when they conquered Narbonensis a decade later.
Also, if the Romans hadn’t taken Mesopotamia we wouldn’t have gotten all of those churches there that depict Justinian as Alexander reborn, and who would want to butterfly away that?
The aftermath of Sack of Adrianople was probably when the Romans took the Sklavenian threat most seriously, and with good cause—IMO Radoslav could have sacked Thessalonica as well that year.
Ooh, no Mesopotamian Slavs gets rid of Matija of Amida and his forays into Yemen. How does that change things?
Deleted member 97083
They did, but don't forget that the Ostrogoths/Italians had hordes of Lombards and Gepids on their borders. An East Roman invasion would not only preclude the Italian expansion to Narbonensis, but also potentially involve a Lombard/Gepid intrusion. This would form a significant distraction to the Italian Goths and divide their forces.
...hmm, come to think of it, the Lombards and Gepids might have tried to take Italy for themselves if the Gothic regime collapsed. That could pose a problem for the Romans.
Well, Justinian would probably still be canonized as a saint. But I prefer non-heretical iconography.
A world without Matija of Amida would be incredibly different, almost like imagining a world without Alexander of Macedon or Julius Caesar. I haven't read up much on Matija's campaigns but it seems to me that without him, Axum/Aethiopia probably wouldn't have conquered Yathrib.
The Lombards were chomping at the bit for Italian expansion right up until the Treaty of Aquileia, so that sounds highly likely.
As for the Gepids, they were always the weakest of the Goths. They only broke free of Avar domination due to mutual exhaustion on the parts of the Lombards and Avars following the former group’s uprising. This gave Ardamund I time to fortify Sirmium against the eventual Avar attempt at re-asserting sovereignty.
Take it up with the Mesopotamian Church, then; they’re the ones who’ve prevented the churches being stripped of their idols as “historical monuments.”
Well, it all comes down to trade, huh? It wasn’t like Matija’s conquest of Arabia was perceived as a big deal at the time—Aethiopia had been trying to take control of the region for quite some time, and he was considered to just be some Roman Sklav leading a band of raiders about under their banner. It was Aethiopia’s sudden domination of the Indo-Roman trade as a result that had such gigantic consequences.