What if? Justinan only focus on taking city of Rome.

[ray243]

Instead of spreading his campaign or reuniting the roman empire, and trying to take back almost every land available in his lifetime, Justinan only focus on taking the city of rome and other nearby cities?

Which means he is ignoring other parts of Italy first, and once he take Rome, he tried to fortify it and build massive defense and so on.


Will the consequences of such actions ensured that first, the real roman empire will be viewed as the real or true roman empire all the way into the middle ages by every european and so on, and most importantly, ensure that the eastern empire will not be bankrupted?

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by ray243

Instead of spreading his campaign or reuniting the roman empire, and trying to take back almost every land available in his lifetime, Justinan only focus on taking the city of rome and other nearby cities?

Which means he is ignoring other parts of Italy first, and once he take Rome, he tried to fortify it and build massive defense and so on.


Will the consequences of such actions ensured that first, the real roman empire will be viewed as the real or true roman empire all the way into the middle ages by every european and so on, and most importantly, ensure that the eastern empire will not be bankrupted?

This could be done quite easily, and with all the rest of Italy and North Africa too, if only Justinian had not been quite so paranoid of Belisarius. By 540, final victory for Belisarius was probably just a few months away, but the Emperor recalled him to Constantinople out of a mixture of jealousy, and the threat of a Persian invasion. If you have Khosrau I, for whatever reason, delaying his invasion by say six months, then Italy and Carthage are recovered quickly and relatively peacefully, and both Italy and Justinian's coffers are spared thirteen years of warfare.

[Promethean]

You want to create a second Ravenna for the Byzantines? I dont know if it would be plausible since Rome is not builded as a forth. On the other hand there is no nation in Italy who would be able to take 10 M high walls without treachery.

[jkay]

I'm afraid it wouldn't make such a difference.

First, Rome wasn't so much a military problem. Because the Empire was centuries out of practice on conquering things, Justinian was as clueless as Bush II about the need for and how to run post-conquest occupations to preserve internal order and to convert the new people to the Imperial side.

Mostly to the point, it wouldn't keep Rome from being reconquered as soon as somebody not up to the job (the usual way of it) came on the throne.

[Mikey]

Would an Emperor Belisarius help?

[Philip]

Originally Posted by jkay

Because the Empire was centuries out of practice on conquering things, Justinian was as clueless as Bush II about the need for and how to run post-conquest occupations to preserve internal order

He seemed to do well enough in North Africa, Sicily, and Southern Africa.

and to convert the new people to the Imperial side.

Convert? New People? Italy was still very Roman. Even the Gothic elite was, due to Theodoric's influence, partially Romanized.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Mikey

Would an Emperor Belisarius help?

Are you suggesting that he accept the Gothic offer to become the Western Emperor? Or that he overthrow Justinian?

[ray243]

How about something appear in Justinian dreams and told him he should have a western emperor?

[Constantius]

Originally Posted by ray243

How about something appear in Justinian dreams and told him he should have a western emperor?

Justinian was exceptionally paranoid.

[Porsenna]

I think I have a good POD. If I remember Procopius correctly, the Goths offered to partition Italy with the Romans so that they would keep the lands north of the Po river, where they lived in the highest concentration anyway, leaving the peninsula proper to the authority of Justinian.

If Belisarius and Justinian went along with it, they could have Italy fall in their hands with little efforts, and gain a buffer state to shield Italy. With a little diplomatic effort and some pressures, this rump Gothic state could also become a good source of mercenary troops.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Porsenna

I think I have a good POD. If I remember Procopius correctly, the Goths offered to partition Italy with the Romans so that they would keep the lands north of the Po river, where they lived in the highest concentration anyway, leaving the peninsula proper to the authority of Justinian.

I think I recall Justinian making the offer so he could focus on the Sassanids. The Goths accepted, but Belisarius refused to stop prosecuting the war. IIRC, this led the Goths to believe they could separate Belisarius from Justinian.

[jkay]

Philip wrote:

He seemed to do well enough in North Africa, Sicily, and Southern Africa. Convert? New People? Italy was still very Roman. Even the Gothic elite was, due to Theodoric's influence, partially Romanized.

You're soundind remarkably like our Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bush before Iraq. Of course, the result of that 'tude was spiraling violence, as it was back then (and not just in Rome). Even the Netherlands after WWII - hardly big Nazi-lovers - needed occupation forces because their police and army needed replacing and that takes time.

There are some interesting ideas in this thread, but none of them would save the Empire from the long-term rot of regularly having stupid people on the throne and high office. There was a pattern of losing city after city after province until there was just one city, and then it was gone.

If you can think of a POD where the Empire reseparates AND the Senate's power is restored over that half, then there might be some possibilities. But it's no easy task before you to do that, as Justinian was paranoid enough to kill the man who brought him so much success.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Originally Posted by jkay

Philip wrote:
You're soundind remarkably like our Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bush before Iraq. Of course, the result of that 'tude was spiraling violence, as it was back then (and not just in Rome). Even the Netherlands after WWII - hardly big Nazi-lovers - needed occupation forces because their police and army needed replacing and that takes time.

There are some interesting ideas in this thread, but none of them would save the Empire from the long-term rot of regularly having stupid people on the throne and high office. There was a pattern of losing city after city after province until there was just one city, and then it was gone.

If you can think of a POD where the Empire reseparates AND the Senate's power is restored over that half, then there might be some possibilities. But it's no easy task before you to do that, as Justinian was paranoid enough to kill the man who brought him so much success.

If this is true, how do you explain two centuries of resurgence under the Macedonians in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, when the Romans regained Crete, Cyprus, Syria, Armenia and the Danube frontier?
And also Justinian never killed Belisarius... unless you are talking about someone else...

[Philip]

Originally Posted by jkay

Philip wrote:
You're soundind remarkably like our Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Bush before Iraq.

Of course, the result of that 'tude was spiraling violence, as it was back then (and not just in Rome). Even the Netherlands after WWII - hardly big Nazi-lovers - needed occupation forces because their police and army needed replacing and that takes time.

None of this contradicts the fact that North Africa, Sicily, and South Italy were conquered and reintegrated into the Empire. Justinian's successes in these regions completely contradict your earlier claim that 'Justinian was as clueless as Bush II about the need for and how to run post-conquest occupations to preserve internal order'. The historical fact is that Justinian left the Empire in control of 45% more territory than when he became emperor. Much of the land was held for nearly a century after its conquest. When the Empire did lose portions such as North Africa, it was due to an invading army, not a failure to understand the 'need for and how to run post-conquest occupations to preserve internal order'.

Offering irrelevant modern comparison (and ever more irrelevant political commentary) does not help your point. To sustain your claim that Justinian was 'clueless' you must explain how he was so successful in Africa, Sicily and Southern Italy. Can you do so?

There are some interesting ideas in this thread, but none of them would save the Empire from the long-term rot of regularly having stupid people on the throne and high office. There was a pattern of losing city after city after province until there was just one city, and then it was gone.

I seem to remember the Empire for lasting for nearly another 1000 years. During that time it experience a couple periods of growth. The period under the Macedonians was particularly successful and included cultural and political advances in addition to geographic expansion.

Further, your focus on 'stupid people on the throne' glosses over the fact that Rome was also hamstrung by some rather unlucky (from Rome's POV) turns of events. Particularly relevant to this discussion was the Persian violation of the Eternal Peace in 540 and the Plague of Justinian. Delay either of these by a decade, and all of Italy ends up in Roman hands

Justinian was paranoid enough to kill the man who brought him so much success.

Who do you have in mind? Belisarius? Justinian did not have him killed.

[jkay]

I did oversimplify when I said the Roman Empire only shrank after its initial growth period. What really IS true is that it had dynamic border regions, and was always changing size. Over time, if you look at my European maps-over-time book, you see it get overall smaller and smaller,

Philip wrote, rightly:

Who do you have in mind? Belisarius? Justinian did not have him killed.

Whoopsie! You're right - he was just found guilty of treason despite long, in fact loyal service, blinded, and impoverished, But that hardly invalidates my point about Justinian's overactive suspicion.

Philip wrote, less rightly:

None of this contradicts the fact that North Africa, Sicily, and South Italy were conquered and reintegrated into the Empire.

Conquered, yes. Reintegrated, no.

Philip wrote, rightly, but only with half the truth:

I seem to remember the Empire for lasting for nearly another 1000 years. During that time it experience a couple periods of growth. The period under the Macedonians was particularly successful and included cultural and political advances in addition to geographic expansion. ...

Further, your focus on 'stupid people on the throne' glosses over the fact that Rome was also hamstrung by some rather unlucky (from Rome's POV) turns of events.

Yeah, all true as far as it goes. Except, it's only half the story - over those thousand years, far more losses than gains happened - that's how they got down to one city and lost it to a neighboring culture able to adapt to cannon. Where was all the turf the Empire had lost - France, Britain?) - instead we have, during that period, some minor reconquests - and in the meantime lost Southern Italy over the period. On my map, it more looks like shifting the Empire East than a gain in turf. Was it 1,000 years of bad luck?

And all that cultural and political improvement is pretty limited compared to what their neighbors the caliphates, isn't it? And, the Caliphates were the most tolerant place on Earth, and the Empire under the Macedonians was pretty intolerant.