Alright, so the first known major outbreak of the bubonic plague was during the reign of Justinian during the sixth century. What would the consequences on modern history be had the plague simply not happened (the bacteria never mutated into the correct form, or it killed off all of its hosts too soon, or whatever)? I think that the Byzantine Empire and Persia would probably be able to stay at their heights of power (although it still might collapse at some point), meaning that Islam, if it develops at all, would have more difficulty spreading in the way it did in OTL (since its early military victories might be prevented by Byzantine- or Persian-back soldiers). Any other thoughts?
No Plague of Justinian?
- Thread starter LordMoogi
- Start date
Islam is butterflied. Rome rises again from the east; Italy is held and Spain is fully recovered by the end of Justinian's reign. The Empire's tax base remains intact, as does its military recruiting pool. Because Egypt isn't going to be lost, there's no massive grain shortage and the empire avoids famine. The urban population centers thus do not collapse in the seventh century. Rome's strength precludes the popes needing the appeal to the Franks for protection, so any sort of HRE is butterflied. Byzantium still holds a strong position in the west, and it's not unlikely that southern Gaul will eventually be recovered, if not all of Gaul. The presence of continuing Latin populations in the empire's borders perhaps keeps Latin as an official language alongside Greek, or perhaps Constantinople's influence Hellenizes the recovered provinces.
Could this lead to the bishop of Rome being absorbed into the Orthodox (or the equivalent at the time) faith? If so, would the church still split apart? Did that make any sense?
Yeah, I had a massive post, but the forum went down and ate it. Suffice it to say that the papacy in Byzantine Italy would be much like the papacy in OTL Avignon - much more subservient to the desires of the emperor.
As discussed here, one possible effect is that the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain might be delayed or permanently halted. In OTL, the British had gained the upper hand over the invaders after the Battle of Badon Hill (c. 490)...the archaelogical evidence suggests that the invaders were pushed back into their coastal enclaves, and the British enjoyed over a half-century of peace and prosperity as a result. But the Yellow Plague of ca. 549, which was part of Justinian's Plague, caused such devastation among the British (the Anglo-Saxons were strangely immune, for reasons which are unknown...possibly because the Britons were still connected with continental trade, whereas the early Saxons weren't so much) that by the end of the sixth century, the British were pushed back into Wales, Cornwall, and Scotland and the Anglo-Saxons held most of the island. Absent the plague, you perhaps have the British further consolidate their position and one day even expel the invaders from their shores.
I agree here. Note that modern scholarship suggests this isn't just a question of the military impact of proportionally more Britons dieing than Saxons, but that post-Plague the general reduction of trade affected the "globalised" British economy and culture significantly more than the more self-sufficient Saxons.