Justinian symbolically moves the empire's capital back to Rome.

What are implications of this if it did happen? If it would never have happened in a million years, why?

I know Rome was a shithole at the time compared to Constantinople, but it would be a symbolic move. He'd really only have to bring some artwork and statuary to the city, refurbish the forum, repair the aqueducts and do some population moving. It wouldn't be terribly difficult for the guy who had the Hagia Sofia built, right?

It would be a huge morale boost for the Roman people and maybe could have prompted a renaissance of Roman culture and militaristic will in time for the lombard invasions.

What do you guys think?

Galaxy999 said:

What are implications of this if it did happen? If it would never have happened in a million years, why?

I know Rome was a shithole at the time compared to Constantinople, but it would be a symbolic move. He'd really only have to bring some artwork and statuary to the city, refurbish the forum, repair the aqueducts and do some population moving. It wouldn't be terribly difficult for the guy who had the Hagia Sofia built, right?

It would be a huge morale boost for the Roman people and maybe could have prompted a renaissance of Roman culture and militaristic will in time for the lombard invasions.

What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

Uh, not only is it a shithole but he's already got his hands full and pockets empty(or something close to it) rebuilding Constantinople and that city was much, much more central, defensible and strategic(and better positioned to withstand most any nasty shock that could be thrown at it-look at how much work it took to ruin the city in the Byzantine period and how it was comparatively quickly revived by the Ottomans) to the empire of 550 than Rome ever could have been. Besides, the capital hadn't been at Rome since 300 CE anyways.

Roger II said:

Uh, not only is it a shithole but he's already got his hands full and pockets empty(or something close to it) rebuilding Constantinople and that city was much, much more central, defensible and strategic(and better positioned to withstand most any nasty shock that could be thrown at it-look at how much work it took to ruin the city in the Byzantine period and how it was comparatively quickly revived by the Ottomans) to the empire of 550 than Rome ever could have been. Besides, the capital hadn't been at Rome since 300 CE anyways.

Click to expand...

This, pretty much.

And I don't see anyone being suddenly inspired by it either.

Play any CKII recently?

Imperial Capital, never gonna happen. I don't think that it was even made the capital of the restored province of Italy. It could have had a similar moral boost if Justinian had made it the capital of Italy and put some real effort into rebuilding it, but for that he would need to pull in money from somewhere else, and as has been mentioned he was often short of money.

Hello Galaxy,

A lot of questions here before I can answer yours.

Most importantly: What is the point of departure? Is it before the Gothic Wars, or after? It makes a difference as to what Rome we're talking about.

Folks here talk about Rome being a "s***hole," but that was really only true in an absolute sense after the disaster of the Gothic Wars, when Rome changed hands multiple times, and its aqueducts were smashed. Before that, however - right up to the sieges of the 540's, Rome still had a population over 100,000, its Senate still met, games were still held at the Colosseum, its infrastructure and public buildings were still basically intact. It may have been a shadow of its self from its glory days, but it was still a considerable city, with its sense of Romanitas still intact. In short, it was still salvageable as a major metropolis up until that point.

The final collapse of Late Antiquity Rome was in large measure the result of Justinian's frugality and distrust in providing Belisarius with sufficient forces to conquer the Ostrogoths in one campaign - and, in lesser measure, the population loss caused by the Plague of Justinian (542), which devastated the Eastern Mediterranean (including Constantinople itself) even more heavily. Belisarius had only barely sufficient forces to take Rome in 536, but not to press the war to a conclusion, with the result that he was forced to stand siege in 537-38 - the first of three sieges over the next decade.

There's not much that can be done about the Plague, but there's much that Justinian could have done to avoid multiple sieges of Rome and the destruction of its aqueducts. And if he does so, he has more options on the table regarding what he might do with the City of Rome.

While Rome hadn't been the effective capital of anything in the West since the early 4th century, the decision of Justinian and his successors to settle on Ravenna (which had been the final capital of the Western Empire, and the Ostrogothic capital as well) as a mere provincial capital in Italy was due as much to the destruction of Rome in the Gothic Wars as it was easy sea access to Constantinople and defensibility of Ravenna (which I think was always overrated).

Well Rome already was a symbolic capital of a sort, even if it hadn't been an actual one for the better part of three hundred years by Justinian's reign. Justinian won't move from Constantinople, though, because unlike any other city founded by an Emperor, Constantinople was conceived from the beginning by Constantine as the real deal new capital, as we can see from the creation of a new Senate based on the Bosphorus. By Justinian's time, it would be difficult to conceive of even considering the Old Rome to be much more of an historically interesting empty husk, with all its real power long since having moved to the Bosphorus by an Emperor who was, as God's chosen one, more legitimate than any other.

In a nutshell.

During Ostrogothic times, the Senate of Rome gained a lot of actual power and prestige as the Goths saw it as a means of controlling their Roman subjects, probably without having to rely on any one individual, and with the claim of adhering, at least in part, to tradition (since they used an established institution and didn't have to create a new one).

Thus, in a TL where Italy goes from Gothic to Eastern Roman rule with most of the battles taking place somewhere other than central Italy, Rome will be a serious rival to Ravenna for the title of the province's capital. If Ravenna is also destroyed (see my TL*), than Rome, especially if there are lots of crisis happening at once forcing the emperor to compromise with the local elites, has a serious chance at being the political and administrative center of Italy (moreso if the ERE is fighting wars in the western mediterranean, for which Rome is better suited to coordinate).

That still leaves the question of Rome becoming capital of the empire. I can see this only in the case that the above scenario happens, the empire then suffers some huge civil war somewhere down the line with Constantinople seriously destroyed, and where the faction in the west wins out after a long fight. Even then, it will probably be used as capital as a temporary measure untill a new one is established near the Marmara.

* - shameless plug