What if Justinian Fled Constantinople during the Nika riots ? Who would succeed him? Can he retake the throne at any point?
WI: Justinian flees during the Nika Riots
- Thread starter Hannibal The Bannable
- Start date
I seriously doubt the riot had any chance of deposing Justinian. The riot was largely in Constantinople and it ended with Justinian just paying off one side. I can't see the fragile coalition of the blues and greens being able to keep Hypatius (the man they'd crowned as Emperor) on the throne even if Justinian had just fled. Justinian's 'disgraceful retreat' could easily be propagandized as him needing to gather a legion from Anatolia or something.
So he would take back the throne ? Would it delay or halt his plans of reconquering the West?
Nika was really Just a big Football riot. Justinian would gather up some troops from Anatolia to put down the revolt. It would delay him by months at most.
You best shot is for the rioters to actually get their hands on Justinian and kill him. With no immediate or clear successor to the dead emperor, the rebels might actually get the chance to sway some of the capital and provincials officials to their side, probably enough to convince the others not to fight for a cause that was lost before the conflict even started (no way to put Justinian back to his place). And no one really liked Theodora among the elites, although general Sittas was related to her through marriage so she could potentially have a say on what happens next. But with the rioters taking Justinain prisoner/killing him, there is little chance that Theodora would actually make it out alive. Under these circumstances Hypatius is likely to succeed to Justinian for the time being, but how long his reign would last is totally another matter. I doubt however it would evolve into a full fledged civil war, more likely things remain limited to Constantinople itself.
Say Justinian was alive but in Anatolia could Hypatius even get any generals to support him?
With Justinian safe in Anatolia, the only thing Hypatius would have is an unstable alliance between Blues and Greens and the Walls. Doesn't inspire much confidence in his ability to resist a siege, which likely would not happen anyway since they would just throw his head out of the gate the moment before opening it to the returning emperor. You could up his chance by giving him control over the imperial fleet, the treasury which was flourishing back then, and troops from Europe (Romans or Barbarians) but still if you want Justinian out of the scene you need to kill him when he is most vulnerable, immediately after the start of the riot. Few people would be mad enough to side with a lost cause otherwise.
And the East. So much money and manpower wasted on Italy, Africa, and Hispania...for what?
Ego probably but I've always thought (or liked to believe) that he was a hopeless idealist who genuinely thought that he could reunify the Roman Empire. He almost did! If it wasn't for his paranoid distrust of Belisarius he might actually have held the recovered Italy and Africa. Though his oppressive taxation and conscription to fund his dreams were what certainly set the dominos in place for the Byzantine-Sassinid wars and the later Islamic conquests.
Justinian's conquests brought in control of part of the Spanish peninsula, the Balearic Isles, Sicily and most of Italy, the Roman province of Africa, and parts of the western Balkans. This brings control of several trade routes. The Exarchate of Africa also allowed a man named Heraclius to rise to power and later take the Empire and most people seem pretty fond of him. Hard to see them as anything but a boon for the eastern Empire.
Dagoth Ur
Banned
Africa and Sicily were alright.
I'll give you Africa and Sicily, but the rest were a drain of resources for no reason. Heraclius wasn't one of a kind, there were probably dozens of men who could have done what he did, he just got the chance. The resources wasted on the western Balkans, Italy, and especially Spain would have been better spent on fortifying the east or diplomacy with the Persians. Both empires should have realized that the Syrian desert is a good enough border, and just split Armenia between themselves. Warring with each other was just a huge waste for both, who both had barbarian problems on the other side of their respective empires.
Italy wouldn't have costed that much had he done it a little more correctly.
Had Belisarius been given a larger army under his direct command (I am not talking about the second army marching from Dalmatia under Mundus), he could have engaged (and defeated) the Goths in decisive battles - which would have quickly ended the Goths - one, two or three Taginae would be enough. There is one advantage that Narses had but Belisarius never had IOTL: Narses had 20-30k under his command in the final Italian campaign. This could have been easily achieved by abandoning the construction of Hagia Sophia and use the money to raise extra troops.
Carter I'm Yog
Banned
Even though emperors are expected to think of the big picture, I can't really agree with you on this since like his uncle Justin I, Justinian I is also of Illyrian stock. It is entirely understandable to go for the western Balkans, asides for the big picture reasons, just to keep his homeland in his empire.
They did - in 387. Then the Romans, in 421, cited oppression of Christians as casus belli to attack through Armenia.
Speaking of this fiasco, I wonder what that other poster meant on that other thread when he cited Ottoman sultan Abdulmejid I saying "he had religious obligations as Emperor of the Romans", since under sharia law promoting the right of Muslims over Christians is natural, and after ending the independent Egyptian Mamelukes the Ottoman sultans were also Caliphs. What religious obligation did he have as Emperor of the Romans, especially in the context of claiming this in face of a Russian invasion?
But it was also extremely prestigious, for both. Top rulers of Rome and Iran needed the prestige gained by beating up their biggest neighbor to shore up their rule. And also, both empires have the Hun problem breathing down their necks near their shared border - from the Caucasus, actually. That's why Khosrau the Immortal Soul demanded from Justinian a payment to defend the Caucasian Passes.
From royal gift plates, it appears Khosrau, internally, presented this fee as tribute - that the Romans were his tributary. Naturally, making your rival a tributary is prestigious.
Given the circumstances, Italy was actually done pretty well. As in, despite a general inability to raise any Roman soldiers, Justinian still managed to conquer the place through liberal employment of barbarian mercenaries.
Which would never have been a big issue in the Republic, but sadly is the norm for the Justinian dynasty. Though, given that Belisarius is rich enough to have 900 Gothic bucellari on his own payroll, I'd say Justinian has good reason to be wary of him.
OTOH, Narses, as a man by occupation naturally close to the emperor, certainly has less trust issues plaguing cooperation between him and Justinian. Though brash to claim thus, he probably also manages the finances of his army of Goths and Huns and whoever Justinian managed to scrap to his command, and the finances of said army comes from Constantinople, instead of personal estates. That is also all of Justinian's control over Narses' army, however. You may see why he is reluctant to entrust an army so large and so expensive to Belisarius, who could have children and end up like those Egyptian magnate families in the imperial heartland of Anatolia.
Dude would have marched his armies to Hadrian's Wall if he could.