The conquest of North Africa wasn't exactly stellar.
When Byzantine defeated Vandals, the first searched to impose an idealized vision of the imperial rule over Mauri, crushing tribal structures autonomies when possible.
Definitely true, I won't argue with that. The Berbers seemed actually to initially welcome the Eastern Romans over the Vandals, but this good will was squandered early on. However, to the Romans in North Africa, this was one of the few areas where people seemed happy to rejoin the empire and the economic viability of North Africa wasn't seriously damaged until after the Islamic Conquest.
Now, that
is an interesting point, and it's not one I've seen argued elsewhere: so it's always nice to see some originality!
That said, is it true? The fact that it's so novel makes me raise an eyebrow, but my knowledge is sketchy, so I can't really say whether I agree or disagree with the assessment. Hopefully LSCatilina will turn up at some point to add his thoughts, as he knows the West much better than do I.
To be completely fair, its not something I have seen argued much elsewhere either. However, it is something of an inference drawn from a closer study of the Roman revival under the Ostrogoths and the Roman transformation into something completely different with the Eastern Roman Withdrawal. I've recently been listening to an audio course on the
Late Antiquity Crisis and Transformation, and while the professor never comes out and says it, he does heavily imply it.
The rest is me and my lurking here.
(Aside: Take a look at that price! Only buy it on clearance or get it at a local library...)
I can't really agree with this. Had the war in Italy ended in 540, then the apparent destructiveness would have ended at a stroke, and it's strongly suggested that Justinian was pushing for this aim: it was Belisarius who squandered the chance for peace. War continued, and no doubt it was unpleasant, but I am somewhat sceptical about the claims of Italy being left a blackened wasteland after the 540s. Syria and upper Mesopotamia, after all, were fought over repeatedly in the period and remained flourishing centres. I'd argue that the decline of Italy perhaps has at least as much to do with plague, the flight of the aristocracy to Constantinople and changing patterns of commerce as it does with Justinian's wars.
Syria and Mesopotamia had trade to fall back on, major urban centers, and its position as a crossroads of civilization. Italy wasn't as fortunate. One should assume hyperbole, but even then its very clear that something happened. Given that the Catholic Church became dominated by old Roman families and maybe little Italian republics also propped themselves up on old landed aristocracies, I question the extent to which the flight was actually truly damaging. The Roman Senate, which had sort of been reviving, almost certainly finally being crushed and lose all real significance with the restoration of Eastern Roman Rule and the appointment of officials from there certainly didn't help matters.
But your reason for disagreement hinges on an if and a shift of blame. Perhaps Justinian wasn't to blame for the war being protracted, but nevertheless it was under his watch that the war started in the first place, and its protraction damaged the credibility of Rome severely in the region. The result was ultimately the same. The Ostrogothic leadership had many ties with Roman aristocracy, marriages and patronage, and the two cultivated a strong relationship with the perceived support of the Roman Emperor. In the few generations the Ostrogoths were there, no doubt many of the soldiers had intermarried and adopted the customs of the region they moved into - this was common everywhere in the former Western Empire, though with varying levels of anti-romanism added into the mix. They started to identify themselves as Roman, and this apparently got bad enough that Theodoric actually tried to ban his followers from adopting Roman customs.
Though there are problems with this analogy, imagine you are a second or third generation immigrant to the United States. You speak English and probably your place of origin's language. Because of a tenuous political situation, your grandparents moved to this region to restore order with the blessing of Washington D.C. The political situation wasn't solved, but it was substantially better than it had been before. However, a change in leadership at Washington leads to the decision that the political situation must be resolved and a new army comes in - an army to root you out and take direct control. For years you are fighting with the people who sent you to this part of the US, and as you fight you are fighting alongside some of the people whom the government is ostensibly trying to take the land back for. After decades of conflict, a large amount of death, and the destruction of much that had been done, do you still see yourself as an American? If you do, do you see yourself as the same type of American?
Granted that analogy is fraught with problems, many of which you are no doubt already ready to respond with, but I think the point is made somewhat clearer. You see a heavily romanised group working with romans with the blessings of roman authority suddenly attacked by the "real" romans trying to kick you out or subjugate you.
How much of this is particularly realistic in the context of the time, though?
The last point about finances, finally, is worth bearing in mind. The Italian war took a long time because of lack of money, not in spite of it. I've made the point before, and I repeat it here because it's important: at no point in his reign did Justinian ever spend a great deal of money on Italy. The biggest investment in the peninsula seems to have been the army assembled by Narses in 553, which pretty promptly demolished the remains of Ostrogothic power and pacified the province. Prior to this, the region had been given only skeleton funding. The overwhelming bulk of taxpayers' money went to the armies and ambassadors on the Iranian front, and the financial difficulties of what followed almost certainly have considerably more to do with dealing with active and belligerent Iranian kings than they do Roman military adventures in the western Mediterranean.
It would have required a different type of leader, one more eager to play for influence and prestige over conquest and political control. Or one who desperately wanted to play an active role in the greater Roman World, but was unable to devote any serious assets because of problems with Persia making it mostly a prestige, trade, and cultural venture. There had been Emperors like this in the past, and plenty of examples to follow outside of OTL Roman tradition.
Italy wasn't the only campaign though, and Justinian did ascend to power with a relatively full treasury. Perhaps the war would have been over quicker if more funds were made to make the war possible, but once more it was the mishandling of that war that alienated people from Rome. Furthermore, your phrasing may also be used to highlight the disconnect between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Roman people and their Germanic leader. Justinian saw the reconquest of provinces, but provinces in the roman sense lost almost all of their significance. Now it was just Romans and their military leaders. To them it wasn't being restored as a province, but something being robbed from them.