The resurgence of Roman power under the reign of Justinian and the military efforts of Belasarius was an impressive feat, and for a time restored Roman power in the West. Yet what would have happened if these military campaigns never occured? For an opportune point of divergence, let's say that the Nika Riots of 532 escalate beyond Justinian's power to contain. And the mob deposes him, placing Flavius Hypatius on the Imperial throne, however unlikely this may be. With Eastern Rome now mired in political issues for the foreseeable future, it never musters the strength to launch expeditions into North Africa or Italy. Thus the kingdoms of the Vandals and the Ostrogoths persist. How would this effect the balance of power in Europe in the long-term? Would it change much at all?
If Justinian's Reconquest Never Happened
- Thread starter Rogue Navigator
- Start date
-
- Tags
- justianian late antiquity rome
Oh dear, I've posted this in the wrong section. Well this is a little embarassing. My apologies everyone, please ignore this thread.
Generally speaking, just self-report and the unsung heroes, the Mods, shall move to the proper subsection.
I'm tempted to say the bigger impact is in a reduced relevance of the Roman Legacy - especially no Corpus Iuris Civilis is bound to have a large impact, as it forms the early nucleus of most Western Law codes.
I'm tempted to say the bigger impact is in a reduced relevance of the Roman Legacy - especially no Corpus Iuris Civilis is bound to have a large impact, as it forms the early nucleus of most Western Law codes.
Well, obviously the Goths and Vandals survive shortterm. I could see the Ostrogoths holding on for a while. They were going through a musical chair of rulers, but that will eventually sort itself when someone more competent rises to the challenge and given how tenacious they were despite that against the Romans, I suspect they'll be fine. Italy will be more populated and it will also be more centralized as the Lombards were not very centralized and anyway did not control most of the large towns. This may create an Italian state much earlier than OTL, though the Arianism issue is always going to be a problem.
In terms of the Vandals, they are in the same situation as always. They have a good geographical position and only the Eastern Roman Empire can pose a real threat to it among outside powers. There of course is always the chance of a revolt or gradual decline of authority in the backyard eventually causing a fall to Berbers. Other than that, nothing until Arab Conquest if it still happens. Although in terms of the Berbers, the Vandals were experiencing increasing difficulties in early 500s, lost most of Tripolitania and parts of interior Tunisia. Once again Arianism is going to be an albatross.
In terms of the Vandals, they are in the same situation as always. They have a good geographical position and only the Eastern Roman Empire can pose a real threat to it among outside powers. There of course is always the chance of a revolt or gradual decline of authority in the backyard eventually causing a fall to Berbers. Other than that, nothing until Arab Conquest if it still happens. Although in terms of the Berbers, the Vandals were experiencing increasing difficulties in early 500s, lost most of Tripolitania and parts of interior Tunisia. Once again Arianism is going to be an albatross.
Last edited:
Justinian’s reconquests, while impressive, were costly in a way that took the ERE quite awhile to recover from. It’s very possible that ITTL, the ERE is better positioned to hold off the Arabs and consolidate itself for long-term stability.
Uh, how? The plague and the world war with the Sassanids will not change, so the Arabs will also repeat their success. The maximum that can change for Byzantium itself is that the Sassanids will not invade..
Justinians conquest of Italy is something I rarely see discussed in these scenarios, which is a shame as it destroyed the country’s unity and it wouldn’t be unified for 1300 years afterwards. I’m curious as to what folk think would become of it in this scenario, I can imagine of the top of my head the status of the papacy in the Middle Ages would be radically changed with all the butterflies that entails.
the Gothic wars in Italy completely destroyed the peninsula for 30 years and then later alienated the population who slowly abandoned the Roman identity for a more bell-like one, to give you an example Belisarius at the beginning when it was thought that the war would not last long was acclaimed as hero, but then with the Goths reorganizing themselves and the Romans stalling due to few soldiers the war got worse, (the twice destruction of Naples and the continuous changes of control of Rome did not help the Romans to be loved, not to mention the treatment to the popes of the period (one imprisoned and the other killed) by those who the more time passed the more they were seen as invading Greeks from Rome upwards at least. Also the fact that until the last years of Theodoric the great Italy was the Roman Germanic kingdom with more continuity with the Late Imperial period it didn't help in that because many people could compare the earlier with the present period is l the difference was noticeable (even the use of the Greeks in key posts of the reformed government ( in particular Narses much hated by the population for his abuses )in place of the natives did not do much to appease spirits, emblematic was the letter sent to Justinian by the Roman senators to stop the war and keep the city under Ostrogothic control should make you think.
P. s.
I write it with knowledge of the facts, I am Italian this piece is studied a lot at school because it is one of the main moments in the formation of our regional identities it is the first step in abandoning the Roman one, together with the arrival of the Lombards it is the consequent split of Italy into 2/3 areas of influence: Lombards, Eastern Romans (from now on call Byzantines) Papacy + Franks.
Even the fact that when the emperors showed up in Italy ( only two have done so in at least 250 years or so, namely Pochas and Constants II ), it wasn't to be seen and known by the people but to exploit them and strip them of the little that was left in the rubble, didn't really fuel the desire to stay with this empire (even the linguistic gap that it got worse and worse it made things worse : knowledge of Greek in the West was in constant decline since the beginning of the fourth century so much so that authors such as Boethius (they wanted to translate the works of Aristotle and Plato into Latin, to make them easier to understand and access)
in fact if the Italians abandoned the Roman Empire over time (even for voluntary abandonment or not by the elite of Constantinople) the idea itself was not forgotten it was only changed to the circumstances it belongs to the Italian priorities (see the choice of the Franks: able to promptly intervene in aid of the pope, speaking the same language or a variant of it not too distant at the time and similar in terms of religious ideas).
P. s.
I write it with knowledge of the facts, I am Italian this piece is studied a lot at school because it is one of the main moments in the formation of our regional identities it is the first step in abandoning the Roman one, together with the arrival of the Lombards it is the consequent split of Italy into 2/3 areas of influence: Lombards, Eastern Romans (from now on call Byzantines) Papacy + Franks.
Even the fact that when the emperors showed up in Italy ( only two have done so in at least 250 years or so, namely Pochas and Constants II ), it wasn't to be seen and known by the people but to exploit them and strip them of the little that was left in the rubble, didn't really fuel the desire to stay with this empire (even the linguistic gap that it got worse and worse it made things worse : knowledge of Greek in the West was in constant decline since the beginning of the fourth century so much so that authors such as Boethius (they wanted to translate the works of Aristotle and Plato into Latin, to make them easier to understand and access)
in fact if the Italians abandoned the Roman Empire over time (even for voluntary abandonment or not by the elite of Constantinople) the idea itself was not forgotten it was only changed to the circumstances it belongs to the Italian priorities (see the choice of the Franks: able to promptly intervene in aid of the pope, speaking the same language or a variant of it not too distant at the time and similar in terms of religious ideas).
Last edited:
It's hard to tell, really.
The Pope started to become relevant only a century later, and for reasons that are only fairly indirectly connected to Justinian (as in, there's the conquest, then the plague, then the Lombard invasion, then a lot of neglect, and only then finally the Pope starts having some relevance instead of being Just a faithful subject of Constantinople).
Similarly, what may or may not be of Italy is hard to tell as we move away from OTL and start really diverging; it probably stays richer, but even that can prove eventually problematic and tempting other invaders from ATL.
Last edited:
I see two things happening without the western campaigns of the Romans, the first is that the Franks and Ostrogoths contained the leadership of Romance Europe (with fighting in both southern Gaul and Hispania, Theodoric had completely vassalized the Visigothic kingdom, while he was preparing a punitive expedition against the Vandals (as both a way to appease the spirits of the Nicenes of his kingdom and as a booty for the Goths), we will probably see the Vandals fall as quickly as Otl (also due to the fragility of the kingdom, in addition to the religious disputes between Aryans , Niceni and Donatists) perhaps we are witnessing the formation of a Latin Berber kingdom outside Carthage (which I believe ends up in the hands of the Goths) with the aim of reconquering it.
thus we witness the ethnogenesis of a proto-Romance-speaking hybrid people (similar in process to the formation of Frankish identity). we have to see how these events are seen by the emperors of the East.
The timing would have changed, so it would have definitely affected the Arabs' success. For example, if it happened 20 years early then the winner would have had time to recover.
I don't any succeeding Roman Emperor would have overlooked Africa - it had a strategic position and was an easy picking due to the Vandals' weakness - perfect target to boost their prestige. At the same time, the ERE still had a full treasury thanks to Anastasius.
Unlike the Goths, the Romans (and the Vandals as well) actually had strong sea power.
Last edited:
They won’t waste 30 years of money fighting over Italy. War is really expensive. Especially an overseas war. And would have been able to deploy the soldiers against the Persian in the East to be more effective there.
As for Arianism, as seen with Mathalsuntha and the Visigoths later on, they were moving towards Orthodoxy and I suspect there would be internal issues over Orthodoxy vs Arianism, maybe a civil war.
If this like with the Visigoths happens around when the Arabs are invading and if the Arabs take out the Vandals, then both Italy and Spain fall to the Arabs.
However, would the Vandals even fall to the Arabs or even earlier to the Amazigher?. Given the Romano-Moor Kingdom of Atlava and the Aures Kingdom later on, I think there's a good chance that the Semi-Romanized Berbers usurp the unstable era of the Vandals.
Last edited:
Well, for one, belisarius would stay and campaign against the Sassanids.
And why should the Arab invasion start earlier?
The wars with the Sassanids were even more expensive in terms of spending. And also from the time of the war in Italy to the Arab invasion, they spent 51 years in a state of war. Despite the fact that they were often lucky, such as situations with nomads.
I doubt he will be able to bury the Sassanids. Especially with such bosses as Justinian and Theodora