How could this empire under Justinian the Great survive and last until at least the 20th century. Also, during the colonial times, what could the Byzantine Empire colonize?
Questions about the Byzantine Empire
- Thread starter Jabe Thomas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- byzantine empire
How could this empire under Justinian the Great survive and last until at least the 20th century. Also, during the colonial times, what could the Byzantine Empire colonize?
Honestly the question is just way too broad. There’s a thousand years between Justinian and colonialism, andany sequence of events that caused for instance Italy to be held by Justinian would produce major changes going forward.
Beyond that, holding southern Spain is untenable long-term, its too far away and has too many local threats to be held.
It didn't all the blood Justinian the Butcher spill make him hated, everyone declared on his own way after he died and his successor were weak
Tiberius II and Maurice were not exactly weak. Plus, there is a chance for Justin II to never become emperor and be replaced by his cousin (also named Justin), who happened to have military experience.
Hispania and is far and borders not chaining I see it but most of it surviving is possible with some scenarios
Wankium and lots of it. Of course, colonialism may well not happen due to different stimuli occurring.
Short answer was it couldn't.
Justinian bit off way more than he could chew. While I don't subscribe to the belief that the ERE was 'overstretched' in it's original borders (Greece, Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt) it did have a lot of internal and external pressure on it as all Empires do. Expanding at the pace that he did was disastrous. The money, manpower, and resources wasted on North Africa and Italy would have been better spent on diplomacy with the Sassinids and quelling internal issues.
Justinian bit off way more than he could chew. While I don't subscribe to the belief that the ERE was 'overstretched' in it's original borders (Greece, Anatolia, Syria, and Egypt) it did have a lot of internal and external pressure on it as all Empires do. Expanding at the pace that he did was disastrous. The money, manpower, and resources wasted on North Africa and Italy would have been better spent on diplomacy with the Sassinids and quelling internal issues.
Last edited:
There's nearly no way Justinian's Eastern Roman Empire could have survived very long, let alone until the present. The speed and success of North Africa's conquest probably provided the Empire a stable and wealthy southwestern frontier, especially given how long it held out against the Arabs, but the Gothic War made Italy a depopulated wasteland that wasn't enriching Constantinople-and vulnerable to the Lombard invasion. The southern coastline of Spain was also unstable against the Visigoths, and with the spread of Justinian's Plague right after these (re)conquests much of the west became difficult to keep under the weakened Empire's control. This isn't even mentioning the Sassanid threat the westward re-extension brought.
A major historical change, like the Plague of Justinian disappearing, might have salvaged part of the Eastern Roman Empire's west and south, but a larger and weakened empire simply couldn't withstand the Lombards, Avars, Persians, and Arabs who would result in much of the Empire collapsing over the next century or so.
A major historical change, like the Plague of Justinian disappearing, might have salvaged part of the Eastern Roman Empire's west and south, but a larger and weakened empire simply couldn't withstand the Lombards, Avars, Persians, and Arabs who would result in much of the Empire collapsing over the next century or so.
quite disagree on north africa , and some what on italy , italy could have been a quick conquest like north Africa or like you and other said trying to figth for an pro roman Ostrogothic candidate would have made sense for the force Justinian actually sent which was puny
What manpower and money? The North African campaign and the conquest of Rome was done with minimum resources. Its kinda true for the Gothic wars but even then i dont get why people keeps pointing at this as the main cause of the empire's decline when there's the Justinian's plague going on.
The money, manpower, and resources he spent on North Africa and Italy were after he had conducted diplomacy with the Sassanids and the internal issues were subdued. The rest was basically unavoidable. A big reason for the North African campaign was that Justinian desperately needed to have a solid win. You can attribute its success to good intelligence or plain old luck, but the campaign did pay off massively.
So massively in fact that it created a new problem for Justinian, ie, Belisarius. History was witness to what happened to Emperors with generals more popular and talented than their own self. So he sends Belisarius on what was basically a doomed expedition with half the men, probably expecting him to take Sicily and parts of the South at most. But Belisarius again complicated the situation by being more successful than anyone could have imagined (due to a combination of factors, a major one being the fragmented Ostrogothic leadership).
This is the point where the western conquests were doomed because Justinian could definitely not afford to let another man be called Restorer of Rome, and he also couldn't be seen not doing anything. So he sends off Narses, which fractures the Roman leadership allowing the Ostrogoths time to resolve their leadership issues. This transforms the war from a straightforward North Africa-like conquest to a slogging war of attrition, ensuring that neither party would come off this war as a victor.
So basically, Justinian didn't bite off more than he could chew- after the Nika riots, he was just too insecure to allow another man to get the kind of success Belisarius achieved. If he could have been a bigger man, the Gothic war might have been as smooth as the Vandalic one and would have been over before the Plague.
It's very difficult to keep these borders even until the 1000s.
Justinian's conquests were already shaky to begin with, and there was also a growing rift between the capital and the Monophysitic eastern provinces.
Seems like a recipe for disaster to me..
Not really while there was a rift that later emperor's like heraclius wanted a compromise it was not it had no real impact on the empire the ideas that the Monophysite yearned freedom from the Byzantines who always persecuted them is a myth
Egypt put up no resistance to the Islamic conquest because of the religious rift that had developed between Constantinople & Alexandria. The Church in Alexandria was allowed to develop on its own. The efforts to enforce orthodoxy all proved very divisive.
Some things I'd like to address real quick. (First time posting anywhere on this forum, hoping to have a great time here!)
I have a few issues with this statement in particular.
Firstly, Italy was enriching Constantinople. The restoration of Imperial control over Italy, Carthage and Spania increased the ERE's annual revenue with over a million soldi. [Source]
Secondly, the Gothic War wasn't ment to be a sloggish war of attrition in the way it was -- it could've ended far quicker and with less bloodshed. Belisarius swept over Italy and cornered the Ostrogoths by 540, to the point where they straight-up offered to make him the Western Roman Emperor, knowing his popularity allowed for it. Like NotAMyth said, the real problem was Justinian himself growing paranoid about Belisarius, who in his eyes, was doing too well. Justinian hence recalled Belisarius to Constantinople, after he gave signals of accepting the throne to the Ostrogoths. This was what gave the Ostrogoths the morale and strength to reverse the conquest. Put simply, the Gothic War only dragged on for as long as it did due to Justinian's paranoia. Had he not recalled Belisarius, the Gothic War could, and probably would have ended right there. This does mean you'd probably end up with Belisarius as Roman emperor of the west, which opens up a new can of worms that probably isn't what OP was searching. It's also possible that this doesn't happen, of course, but that the presence of the popular Belisarius as, say, a governor of sorts (a magister militum, maybe?) keeps Italy calm.
And lastly, even after the recalling of Belisarius, the ERE could've still held Italy and prevented the Lombards from invading. The Lombard conquests, just like the Gothic War dragging on, were the result of one emperor's dumb decision. It was all the result of Justin II, Justinian's successor, deciding to stop paying subsidies to the Avars, which his predecessors started. The moment he did this, the Avars sought new sources of incoming and directly pressured the Lombards into going westwards, whereafter they eventually overran Italy. Had Justin II continued paying subsidies to the Avars, it's quite possible that the ERE could've held the whole Italian peninsula, or at least for far longer than IOTL.
It effectively did facilitate the Muslim conquests. Many Christians of Egypt and Syria directly collaborated with the Muslims, whom they saw as more religiously tolerant than the Romans. This, together with earlier situations (Donatism in particular), also facilitated the Islamization of the Maghreb and the effective disappearance of Christianity and African Romance from North Africa.
I have a few issues with this statement in particular.
Firstly, Italy was enriching Constantinople. The restoration of Imperial control over Italy, Carthage and Spania increased the ERE's annual revenue with over a million soldi. [Source]
Secondly, the Gothic War wasn't ment to be a sloggish war of attrition in the way it was -- it could've ended far quicker and with less bloodshed. Belisarius swept over Italy and cornered the Ostrogoths by 540, to the point where they straight-up offered to make him the Western Roman Emperor, knowing his popularity allowed for it. Like NotAMyth said, the real problem was Justinian himself growing paranoid about Belisarius, who in his eyes, was doing too well. Justinian hence recalled Belisarius to Constantinople, after he gave signals of accepting the throne to the Ostrogoths. This was what gave the Ostrogoths the morale and strength to reverse the conquest. Put simply, the Gothic War only dragged on for as long as it did due to Justinian's paranoia. Had he not recalled Belisarius, the Gothic War could, and probably would have ended right there. This does mean you'd probably end up with Belisarius as Roman emperor of the west, which opens up a new can of worms that probably isn't what OP was searching. It's also possible that this doesn't happen, of course, but that the presence of the popular Belisarius as, say, a governor of sorts (a magister militum, maybe?) keeps Italy calm.
And lastly, even after the recalling of Belisarius, the ERE could've still held Italy and prevented the Lombards from invading. The Lombard conquests, just like the Gothic War dragging on, were the result of one emperor's dumb decision. It was all the result of Justin II, Justinian's successor, deciding to stop paying subsidies to the Avars, which his predecessors started. The moment he did this, the Avars sought new sources of incoming and directly pressured the Lombards into going westwards, whereafter they eventually overran Italy. Had Justin II continued paying subsidies to the Avars, it's quite possible that the ERE could've held the whole Italian peninsula, or at least for far longer than IOTL.
It effectively did facilitate the Muslim conquests. Many Christians of Egypt and Syria directly collaborated with the Muslims, whom they saw as more religiously tolerant than the Romans. This, together with earlier situations (Donatism in particular), also facilitated the Islamization of the Maghreb and the effective disappearance of Christianity and African Romance from North Africa.
Except it did
As for the Coptic religious drift I did a whole response that I will copy here
So I decided since blue talked about Egypt and the Heraclian dynasty is my favorite of the roman empire I will dress I claim I see far to often in youtube comments, alt hist forums, and even academia the one that the copts ("Monophysites") who disliked the Romans imposing Chalcedonian views helped the Muslims and even saw them as liberators.
like many popular notions, it can be traced to Edward Gibbon " The Origen and progress of the monophysites controversy, and the persecutions of the emperors which converted into a sect and alienated Egypt from their religion and government, the Saracens were received as deliverers of the Jacobite church"
Some more modern scholars also have shared gibbon claim Ostrogorsky in his book history of the byzantine state has said that the church of Constantinople the "Monophysite" Churches of the east damaged roman administration so far as it became a rallying cry of the Copts and Syrians against Roman rule
however from However, Gibbon did not make this idea up we find ideas of the Arabs been liberators or at least a punishment to the Romans in Coptic writings like John of Nikiu ( who is one of the earliest) wrote of the conquests that God, “the guardian
of justice,” allowed the Islamic expansion for the sake of his persecuted people, the
Monophysites, and as a punishment upon those who “had dealt treacherously against Him,”
The Lord abandoned the army of the Romans as a punishment for their corrupt faith, and because of the anathemas uttered against them by ancient fathers, on account of the Council of Chalcedon” ( history of the patriarchs of Alexandria)
but as you noticed these are explanations that came after the conquest to explain why God would allow the non-Christians to expand this was an evolution of the thought ( see more the Christian reaction towards Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries by Doç. Dr. Đsmail)
recent scholarship, in this case, John Moorhead to the Arab invasions is the most famous book against the "monophysite" separatist or viewing the Arabs as liberators idea
Simply put there was no massive rift egypt like Syria especially with Heraclius, the only group we have such evidence of helping and hailing the Arab as liberators are the Jews for good reason as heraclius was going to make. A new round of persecutions , the reason why egypt most likely didn't resist as much like north Africa because the provinces were re-covering from sassanid occupation, there is not a single account of an opening the gates at the first sing of Arabs the roman armies in Egypt had to be beaten and two major sieges occurred
Last edited:
Jack Tannous' recent book elaborating on the concept of simple believers is probably fairly instructive too. If we accept that the vast majority of the population had no strong conception of high intellectual schisms in the Church, then it would hardly make sense for us to claim that there was some great groundswell of support for the Arab conquerors. You could argue it was for simple political reasons such as overtaxation, but I am a little in doubt that there was this mass awareness of the fine theological points between Constantinople and Alexandria that alienated the majority of the population so strongly that they chose to jump ship.