Restoration of the West by the Eastern Roman Empire?

[Huehuecoyotl]

Just how much of the former Western Roman Empire can the East restore after the West's fall in 476? Are its OTL reconquests under Justinian et al. as far as it could go? If it manages to recover a substantial portion of the West, what effects could it have on Byzantine history, and European history as a whole?

 

[LSCatilina]

It would be really hard. The germano-roman kingdoms pretty well managed to replace the WRE in almost all its institutions (mainly except the urban managment that was let or to church, or to locals).

Just look at the Gothic Wars : it took 20 years to conquer the peninsula.
Given how quick should be an ERE conquest of west before it's going to be attacked by Persians, Germans, Arabs or others, it's nearly impossible.

The projection capacity of ERE was really limited, and you didn't had that interests for the empire to invading the West except for controlling Mediterranea (and having only strong points, as the exarchates did was enough : no need to make a wank).

Now, it's technically possible, if you manage to have a shorter Gothic War in Italy, to have byzantines armies going further in Betica or Spanish Levante. But I'm not sure at all they would be able to take more than Justinian's conquests.

 

[Crimea]

While I'm not convinced the Western Roman possessions could be recaptured in one go, averting the Justinian Plague would at least let the Eastern Roman Empire hold and consolidate their initial territories, and let future generations do the rest.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Just look at the Gothic Wars : it took 20 years to conquer the peninsula.
Given how quick should be an ERE conquest of west before it's going to be attacked by Persians, Germans, Arabs or others, it's nearly impossible.

The Gothic war only lasted as long as it did because Justinian wasn't willing to spend more than tiny sums on reconquering the peninsula (which proves wrong the idea that the war was somehow fiscally crippling). Once proper resources were put into Italy after 551, Gothic resistance folded very quickly indeed. Agree with you, though, that protecting the Eastern front from the Iranians will always be Constantinople's priority.

A good POD might be to have the Hephthalites (or others) continue to hamstring the Sasanians as they did for much of the fifth century, thus allowing the Romans breathing space in the West. Italy and North Africa can probably be conquered fairly quickly without Ctesiphon interfering. From there on, the difficulty is convincing Justinian (or whoever the Emperor is) that further conquests are actually worthwhile. I can see bigger-than-OTL chunks of Iberia being grabbed if the opportunity arises, and there might be opportunistic attacks on Gaul, but really, there's not all that much of a reason for any Emperor to do it. That's not to say it wouldn't happen, but I'd think adventures in the Caucasus will probably come before Gaul. And an Iranian peace won't last forever, even in an optimistic scenario like the one outlined above.

OTL's ERE of 565 achieved by, say, 550 with a continued Iranian peace will likely be a stronger and more dynamic entity in the West than it was IOTL. We could well see a return of an Emperor of the West at some stage, though I'd think any Western Emperor would definitely be the junior partner in any alliance post-reconquest.

 

[LSCatilina]

The Gothic war only lasted as long as it did because Justinian wasn't willing to spend more than tiny sums on reconquering the peninsula (which proves wrong the idea that the war was somehow fiscally crippling).

I don't see well the point : whatever the factors, Gothic Wars showed the capacity of resistence of former western provinces (while Italy was probably the place, except Africa, where you had the more important pro-byzantine faction) and the relative disinterest of byzantines elites for them.

Italy and North Africa can probably be conquered fairly quickly without Ctesiphon interfering.

North Africa is without doubt the most easiest conquest, as OTL, due to the Vandals being particularly distinguished and rejected by the local population that formed a large pro-byzantine faction.

Italy, on the other hand, was far more divided. While having a strong byzantine faction and even "opportunists" (Amalasuntha being a good exemple) searching a support from Constantinople. A good bunch of the roman population didn't enjoyed that much the return of Byzantines, critically in the aeras where the old senatorial class was mixing with Ostrogoths (as well in the highlands aeras that always were dubious towards Rome).

Even with PODs allowing more ressources and no pressure on the East, the conquest is going to be harsh. It's why, in first place, Byzantines would have favoured a "vassalisation" (I use this word anachronically, but you get what I mean) of Ostrogoths.

From there on, the difficulty is convincing Justinian (or whoever the Emperor is) that further conquests are actually worthwhile.

That's actually the most hard. While making the Mediterranea a byzantine lake with their monopole and control on trade was an obvious gain, going further in the hinterland would have costed too much men, effort, logistic and finances to be really worthile.

Furthermore, with the climate in Constantinople where the upper class (not really willing to loose money for chimeric reconquest) could (and actually did) launch revolts against the emperor...There's a point where the inner front would put an issue.

I can see bigger-than-OTL chunks of Iberia being grabbed if the opportunity arises, and there might be opportunistic attacks on Gaul, but really, there's not all that much of a reason for any Emperor to do it.

Eastern shores of Spain are doable. I don't think it would last very much, and that it would be very deep (after all, Betica was the most rich province of Spain while Carthaginensis wasn't really...productive) outside support points and fortified towns.

For Gaul, I'm even less sure : Clovis, as the only catholic king of the west could have been seen as a "natural ally". Furthermore, it's certain that he had the most support of local and that the pro-byzantine factions were totally absent from his kingdom.
Finally, the benefits of such expedition would have been...dubious as well.

I'd think any Western Emperor would definitely be the junior partner in any alliance post-reconquest.

Why the ERE emperor would have recreated a rival imperial title? I mean, not only the division between WRE and ERE is quite historiographical, as the contemporaries saw more an united empire divided between two heads.

I think it's more likely that Justinian/Other emperor would have kept his title (after all, Odoacre gave his predecessor back the imperial insigns).

 

[Archdevil]

We could well see a return of an Emperor of the West at some stage, though I'd think any Western Emperor would definitely be the junior partner in any alliance post-reconquest.

I think a larger restored WRE will be ruled by a collection of exarchs instead of a single recreated emperor.

Divide et impera.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I don't see well the point : whatever the factors, Gothic Wars showed the capacity of resistence of former western provinces (while Italy was probably the place, except Africa, where you had the more important pro-byzantine faction) and the relative disinterest of byzantines elites for them.

North Africa is without doubt the most easiest conquest, as OTL, due to the Vandals being particularly distinguished and rejected by the local population that formed a large pro-byzantine faction.

Italy, on the other hand, was far more divided. While having a strong byzantine faction and even "opportunists" (Amalasuntha being a good exemple) searching a support from Constantinople. A good bunch of the roman population didn't enjoyed that much the return of Byzantines, critically in the aeras where the old senatorial class was mixing with Ostrogoths (as well in the highlands aeras that always were dubious towards Rome).

Even with PODs allowing more ressources and no pressure on the East, the conquest is going to be harsh. It's why, in first place, Byzantines would have favoured a "vassalisation" (I use this word anachronically, but you get what I mean) of Ostrogoths.

I think you possibly overestimate the strength of Gothic resistance to the Roman state. The army sent by Justinian in the early 550s was in all probability considerably smaller than those fielded on the Eastern front- I've seen a figure of ten to fifteen thousand quoted, which seems reasonable to me. Nonetheless, the Goths did collapse rapidly.

I do agree with you that the return of Imperial tax collectors probably was rather unwelcome for the Italians, though that factor could be exaggerated- of all the Germanic successor states, I believe the Ostrogoths took more revenue, and did it in a more efficient matter, than any of the others. Again, I agree that Justinian probably favoured a vassalisation, hence the offer of peace while Belisarius was at the walls of Ravenna. It was only the general's dissatisfaction at being forced to retreat from his victorious campaign that prolonged the war unnecessarily.

That's actually the most hard. While making the Mediterranea a byzantine lake with their monopole and control on trade was an obvious gain, going further in the hinterland would have costed too much men, effort, logistic and finances to be really worthile.

Indeed. As Prof. Brown said in 1971, "Justinian was no dreamer".

Furthermore, with the climate in Constantinople where the upper class (not really willing to loose money for chimeric reconquest) could (and actually did) launch revolts against the emperor...There's a point where the inner front would put an issue.

In the 540s there hadn't been any sort of serious plot against a reigning Emperor for generations, and there wouldn't be another for even longer. The brake on East Roman expansion in the West will probably only come from the aristocracy of Iran, not Constantinople.

Why the ERE emperor would have recreated a rival imperial title? I mean, not only the division between WRE and ERE is quite historiographical, as the contemporaries saw more an united empire divided between two heads.

I think it's more likely that Justinian/Other emperor would have kept his title (after all, Odoacre gave his predecessor back the imperial insigns).

Well, it was mooted a few times after Justinian, and I think the idea could well have eventually come about. The Western Emperor would invariably be the junior partner in any partnership, though.

I think a larger restored WRE will be ruled by a collection of exarchs instead of a single recreated emperor.

Divide et impera.

It's possible, certainly, but I think the idea of an Exarchate is probably a specific response to the challenges of Maurice's day. I think that it's more likely we'd seen (as IOTL pre-Maurice) restored Praetorian Prefectures of Italy and Africa, with attendant Military Magisters and field armies. These could very well be placed under the command on a revived Western Emperor, as the junior partner of the ruler of Constantinople.

This would be post-Justinian, obviously. There's no way that that man is going to allow anyone else a sniff of power if he can at all help it.

 

[cimon]

Actually velissarius landed in Italy with 7500 men.Justinian here proved to be a very small in size for an emperor and his jealousy and antagonism of his best general turn the reconquest of Italy into a sluggish match until Narses(the eunuch and Justinians favourite) arrived and the Goths saw a
very different army 30000 strong half cavalry,and that army,coupled with Narses tactical acumen carried everything before it while Velissarius could have finished the war in half the time if he had 2/3ds of that army he would have made sort work of the opposition.

 

[LSCatilina]

I think you possibly overestimate the strength of Gothic resistance to the Roman state.

Actually, it's not that the resistence that I think you may still underestimate (the conduct of the war shows that it was a continus ballet of hide and attack elsewhere for the Goths) but more their capacity to reform a coherent group even with Italy at 3/4 taken.

Totila's actions managed to take back almost all the peninsula and Justinianus had to send an actual BIG army, seeing that he considered as an actual important threat the capacity to Goths and part of Italian population (possibly most the northern one, but that's a supputation) could represent if lasting long enough.

The army sent by Justinian in the early 550s was in all probability considerably smaller than those fielded on the Eastern front- I've seen a figure of ten to fifteen thousand quoted, which seems reasonable to me. Nonetheless, the Goths did collapse rapidly.

Well, I don't really see how it's that obviously reasonable.
There's now a tendence to lower considerably the numbers given for Early Middle Ages battles (admittedly, to the extreme opposite, with battles as Guadania with only 5 000 men for both sides).
I'm not saying that the proportion of 1/50 is wrong (I don't think we can have that of a certitude regarding what we can have as sources) but that exageration of ennemy's troops is a common feature.

Now, the number of 7.500 men for Belisarius' army seems indeed reasonable, but (with taking account of the 6 000/ 8 000 men the general recieved as reinforcement), battles with sourced numbers for Goths show more often numbers ca 10/15 000. Considering the gothic population in Italy and IF the mobilisation system was more or less comparable to western Goths...

Let's say we could have up to 60 000 fighting goths. Against Belisarius troops (when in Italy) of ca. 16 000 it's indeed important, but you have to reduce again the numbers of the Goths following the more "pro-byzantine" faction (their number changing a lot, but as the event went, I think we can assume they reached their apex at the first years of Gothic Wars and during Eraric's reign).

I'm not sure as well about the "rapidly collapsed", when the war lasted 20 years.

Sure, byzantine forces taken control of a good bunch of Italy quickly, and critically the coastal regions allowing for reinforcement (and as the most productives, cutting ravitailment for Goths). Admittedly, the presence of a strong pro-roman feeling could have helped that.


But the war was'nt over, as the Goths didn't actually collapses : Vitiges (finally untrowned as obviously bad strategist) managed nevertheless to keep them in one part, and even when Eraric proposed the crown as acknowledgment of defeat it was to make Belisarius king of Goths and Italians, not to Justinian.

Justinian understood that, as he was pretty mad seeing Belisarius fucking up the opportunity, an having the war continues even more.

I do agree with you that the return of Imperial tax collectors probably was rather unwelcome for the Italians

It played more after the first part of the war, when they saw Romans not really able to take control of the land and, more importantly, their cities repetedly looted by armies AND by tax collectors.

though that factor could be exaggerated- of all the Germanic successor states, I believe the Ostrogoths took more revenue, and did it in a more efficient matter, than any of the others

That's...debatable.
Ostrogoths are the most sourced of germano-roman kingdoms of the V century, we just don't know enough about others to be really sure of a comparison being accurate.

Now, basing ourselves on later accounts, it appears indeed that we are in a different system (whom demonetarisation is a part). But is there something that existed in late V and Early VI, or an adaptation to an economy that had a more localised functionment?