Justinian I ruled over the Eastern Roman Empire between the years 527 and 565. During this time he managed to retake large swaths of land including North Africa, Italy, and parts of Spain. However, in doing so, he would squander the Byzantine treasury and weaken it's military, leaving it ill prepared after his death. That said, what if Justinian had instead focused on more realistic aims like an advantageous peace with Persia or expelling the barbarians from the Balkan provinces? Would the Byzantines fare better and perhaps survive into the modern day? What're your thoughts?
What if Justinian I hadn't tried to reconquer the West?
- Thread starter EmperorKazooKid
- Start date
I personally think that it could, though the Muslims would probably conquer some areas like Egypt, North Africa, and perhaps the Levant.
Could they survive to 2018? Possibly. There's no way to be even close to sure. No PoD that far back is going to have any direct impact on what happens now - too much other stuff will have to happen and those have their own consequences.
What is for certain is that the ERE will be better off in the VI and likely VII centuries. Past that? Who knows? The strengthened economy could lead to military reforms and the ERE remaining strong. A continuing Ostrogothic presence in Italy could also mean that the Lombards instead head for Greece and burn Constantinople 10 years after Justinian dies in a Fourth Crusade-type war. And obviously, if the second scenario happens there's no way the ERE lives until today.
- BNC
What is for certain is that the ERE will be better off in the VI and likely VII centuries. Past that? Who knows? The strengthened economy could lead to military reforms and the ERE remaining strong. A continuing Ostrogothic presence in Italy could also mean that the Lombards instead head for Greece and burn Constantinople 10 years after Justinian dies in a Fourth Crusade-type war. And obviously, if the second scenario happens there's no way the ERE lives until today.
- BNC
TruthfulPanda
Gone Fishin'
What cmakk wrote - a POD that early has no bearing on the Roman Empire's survival to this day.
It could just as well get snuffed out in 602AD - as it was close to.
Or we could all be typing in Greek ...
It could just as well get snuffed out in 602AD - as it was close to.
Or we could all be typing in Greek ...
What about the Justinian Plague in my opinion it weakens the ERE more than the conquest of some western territories.
Honestly, I'm of the opinion if Justinian hadn't gone west, he'd almost certainly have gone EAST. Which in all honesty is probably better for the Empire in the long run because you're undercutting the Sassanids at their height.
This sort of war is more costly, but Mesopotamia will lead to higher returns, and the war would almost require Arabian campaigns to be as final as Justinian wanted his western campaigns to be.
Whether that would secure the Empire long term? I don't know. I lean towards it securing Anatolia, Syria and Egypt long term. That alone keeps the Empire alive. Having Roman forces stationed in more of Arabia and stemming the outward migrations by hiring/settling them over the long run would certainly butterfly away any sort of alt-Mohammed, simply by disrupting Yathrib and potentially Mekka.
(I do quite like the idea of the Kabba in an ATL becoming a Christian Cathedral - Hagia Abgar perhaps?)
This sort of war is more costly, but Mesopotamia will lead to higher returns, and the war would almost require Arabian campaigns to be as final as Justinian wanted his western campaigns to be.
Whether that would secure the Empire long term? I don't know. I lean towards it securing Anatolia, Syria and Egypt long term. That alone keeps the Empire alive. Having Roman forces stationed in more of Arabia and stemming the outward migrations by hiring/settling them over the long run would certainly butterfly away any sort of alt-Mohammed, simply by disrupting Yathrib and potentially Mekka.
(I do quite like the idea of the Kabba in an ATL becoming a Christian Cathedral - Hagia Abgar perhaps?)
No.
No Justinian conquest means no Heraclius (He was from North Africa).
No Heraclius means the Persian war is changed drastically. Plus, without the empire being over extended to the west, the Persian war may not even start in the first place. Khusraw attacked because he saw an opportunity, which may not exist in this scenario.
No Persian war drastically changes the conditions of the Arab conquest. OTL the conquest took place with Persia and Rome both severely weakened. But without the war, the Arab conquest may not even happen.
Aside from all that, no empire lasts forever. The chance of Byzantium surviving till today is 0%, because history doesn't work that way (an empire never falling). What is possible though is that Greek language, culture and Orthodox Christianity survive across more of the ERE territory today than our TL.
Imperial China, with the appropriate reforms, could have survived to today easily enough. The Japanese monarchy has survived to today. There's no inherent reason why the ERE can't do the same. Sure, they'll have to evolve and reform as time passes, and we wouldn't be seeing crucifixions or chariot races in an ERE's 2000s, but with decent leadership states can continue for very long periods of time.
That's not to say it's likely, but the chance isn't 0%.
- BNC
Lol, now I’m picturing modern chariot races as some kind of Imperial NASCAR
Would he defeat the Sasanids considering that in OTL he never managed to score anything more than a stalemate?
That's silly. Many states have been around a very, very long time and have never fallen on the level of Byzantium. Take France for example. They've had numerous ups and downs over the past millenium and a half but they're still around. The end of the French monarchy didn't mean the end of France.
He didn't have all his resources at hand in any of those fights. But Belisarius, no western deployments and a focus to ensure he hired the Arab mercs instead of Khosrau? Thats a pretty heavy hand on the scales.
trajen777
Banned
It seems a popular theory is the over extension of the Byz emperor by Justinian led to a weakening of the empire overall and led to a future disaster. IN my opinion after reading lots of Treadgold and Haldan etc i have a very different opinion of this and will explain why. It was really the massive Justinian plague that caused the disruption vs the invasion of the west. If the plague had not happened you would have had significant more resources to defend in the east or even expand in the east.
Justinian strategy :
1. Make peace in the East to reconquer the West
2. retake a poorly defended west, with clearly defensive able borders, which provided a positive cash flow
3. Use these resources to increase fortifications and military forces to better defend in the east
Notes
1. Vandals were determined to be weaker then in the past, with defensive able borders to the south
2. Chaos in Italy with the change of leadership
Time frame
1. 527 - 532 war in the east with some success and defeat --- with peace treaty in 533
2. 530 ::: Gelimer overthrows leader of the Vandals and is hostile to Byz
3. 533 to 534 -- Conquest of Vandals in NA --- the remnant of their army deported to fight for Byz in the East --- massive treasure captured and transported to Const. (MISTAKE 1. NOT LEAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO SUPPORT OCCUPATION FORCES -- IF THEY HAD KEPT ENOUGH THE MUTINY OF THE FORCES WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED)
4. 535 - 540 --- Italy captured -- (IF JUSTINIAN HAD WAITED ON BUILDING THE HAGIA SOPHIA (532) AND UTILIZED THESE FUNDS TO ADD 10,000 - 15,000 MORE TROOPS TO BELISAURIS this would have made a massive difference) however Italy was taken at this time. So a strong and prosperous Italy with defensible borders (Alps) and allies to the west (Franks) and the East (Lombard's). The mop up of the Goths would have been relative easy if 542 had not happened.
5. 542 -- the Plague of Justinian -- (read Justinian flea) -- over the course of the next 10 years their are est that up to 1/3 of the population died. This disrupted the flow of taxes, soldiers died, and trade ground to a halt.
So you have a situation where the Persians attacked in 540, the Plague in 542, and the mop up of the Goths in Italy was delayed.
If you had stabilized Italy in the period of 535 - 540 (10,000 more troops vs building in Const) -- you would have had massive more resources to fight in the East. If no Plague you would have had about 45% more population and 35% more excess income to defend in the east.
I think an argument can be made that even with the Plague with out the conquests in the West the Byz would have fallen to the Persians.
Justinian strategy :
1. Make peace in the East to reconquer the West
2. retake a poorly defended west, with clearly defensive able borders, which provided a positive cash flow
3. Use these resources to increase fortifications and military forces to better defend in the east
Notes
1. Vandals were determined to be weaker then in the past, with defensive able borders to the south
2. Chaos in Italy with the change of leadership
Time frame
1. 527 - 532 war in the east with some success and defeat --- with peace treaty in 533
2. 530 ::: Gelimer overthrows leader of the Vandals and is hostile to Byz
3. 533 to 534 -- Conquest of Vandals in NA --- the remnant of their army deported to fight for Byz in the East --- massive treasure captured and transported to Const. (MISTAKE 1. NOT LEAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO SUPPORT OCCUPATION FORCES -- IF THEY HAD KEPT ENOUGH THE MUTINY OF THE FORCES WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED)
4. 535 - 540 --- Italy captured -- (IF JUSTINIAN HAD WAITED ON BUILDING THE HAGIA SOPHIA (532) AND UTILIZED THESE FUNDS TO ADD 10,000 - 15,000 MORE TROOPS TO BELISAURIS this would have made a massive difference) however Italy was taken at this time. So a strong and prosperous Italy with defensible borders (Alps) and allies to the west (Franks) and the East (Lombard's). The mop up of the Goths would have been relative easy if 542 had not happened.
5. 542 -- the Plague of Justinian -- (read Justinian flea) -- over the course of the next 10 years their are est that up to 1/3 of the population died. This disrupted the flow of taxes, soldiers died, and trade ground to a halt.
So you have a situation where the Persians attacked in 540, the Plague in 542, and the mop up of the Goths in Italy was delayed.
If you had stabilized Italy in the period of 535 - 540 (10,000 more troops vs building in Const) -- you would have had massive more resources to fight in the East. If no Plague you would have had about 45% more population and 35% more excess income to defend in the east.
I think an argument can be made that even with the Plague with out the conquests in the West the Byz would have fallen to the Persians.
He wasn't warring in the West when he inherited the Iberian War from Justin, which saw Belisarius' career starting and that ended in a stalemate with Belisarius suffering a defeat at Callinicum, the Persians are on a completely different league than the Ostrogoths and the Vandals.
Mesopotamia was also struck by plague during the 540s, although details are about the damage are lacking.
Imperial China is more of an exception, rather than a rule, because the only other significant power in the area is Japan, which wasn't even a real power for most of its history. So basically for almost all of history, China had no competition from other great powers, which can't be said for the Byzantines or any other empires.
