AHC/WI: Roman Empire Revival

Given Justinian the Great's attempts to take Rome succeeded for a time, was there a chance for a true revival of most or all of the Roman Empire by Justinian the Great or his descendants, particularly if Theodora had given him an heir?
 
Last edited:
Not all, I don't think. Most? Certainly. There are many ways Justinian's conquests can be consolidated. With a POD in the 6th century, I imagine the realistic largest extent of this empire would include Italy, southwest and maybe northwest Spain, and the southern Gallic coastline.
 
Butterfly away the Plague of Justinian, and the Empire would have far more resources with which to secure its conquests (plus to bring the Italian war to an earlier end, meaning that province is much more wealthy and less of a drain on Imperial finances). With luck the Byzantines might be able to take over Spain, meaning that they now own all the old Empire save for Gaul and Britain. Conquering these last two would probably be more difficult, simply due to the distance between them and Constantinople, so you might need to split the Empire in two again. A conquest of the Franks would be made easier by the Frankish custom of splitting inheritances, which lead to periodic civil wars within the Frankish kingdom. Britain IOTL was divided into lots of little kingdoms until the ninth century, so assuming this is the same ITTL this would again make a Roman reconquest easier.
 
Rome's major problem was the two-front war - the RE and the ERE were always catched between the western barbarians (Goths, Langobards, Bulgarians, Slavs, Hungarians) and the eastern Empires (Persians, Arabs, Seljuk Turks, Ottomans). So the trick is to have peace on the one front to expand on the other side. Justinian had peace on the eastern front and could achieve wonderful victories in the west (well, he with the help of an admirable army and skilled commanders). His successor, most notably Heraclius, had to concentrate on the east to save Byzantium from the Sassanids and Umayyads. Italy, only poorly defended, was relinquished to the Langobards; Rome and Carthage were lost to the pope and to the Arabs. Even Sicily, basically easy to hold, was conquered first by Muslims, then by Normans.

So my patent remedy is the following: fight severley on the east so you can later win easy victories in the west.

The Ostrogoths are gifted rulers, they will preserve Roman culture and administration in Italy for a long time (compared with other Germanic kingdoms like the Langobards or Anglo-Saxons). Furthermore, the Ostrogothic kings accept the EREmperor as their nominal ruler: so there is really to need to hurry up in the west. Instead of sending armies in the west to conquer land that will be lost after some decades, instead of building beautiful but utterly useless monuments like the Hagia Sophia, Justinian should have gathered his troops in Syria and launched ceaseless war against Persia. OTL, Justiniand paid large sums as a tribute to the Persians to get peace for the western conquest. Use it better! Bribe the eastern neighbors of Persia (e. g. the Hephthalites, Göktürks) to attack Persia, provoke civil wars and rebellions in Persia, use every mean to drive Persia to its knees.

An advantageous border for Rome is to have Mesopotamia, Assyria and Babylonia as provinces and Arabia and the Caucasus as vassal states. Without Mesopotamia, the Sassanids are deprived of major economic power and income; they will slowly become a client state of Rome. After having dealt with Persia, Arabia isn't much of a problem any more. In this scenario, Arabia of the year 580 AD is a conglomerate of Roman satellite kingdoms - an Arabian/Muslim empire will not exist in the world described by me. Though, the Slavic populations attacking the Balkans will be an important problem not to underestimate.

In 600 AD however, the Roman position will be strong enough to send troops in the west and to start the Roman Reconquista. First goal is Carthage and the Vandalic Kingdom, then Sicily and Italy. It was imprudent to land in the south of Spain without controlling Gaul; so, in my scenario, the Roman Empire first attacks the Frankish Empire, and then attacks Spain from both the north and the south. In the 8th century, Rome can hope to finally retake Britain (without finding much Roman left on it) and to launch offensives into Germany.

To sum up: if Justinian had dealt with the Sassanids instead of overstreatching his Empire by conquering indefensible territories in the west, his successors would have had a good chance to restore the whole Empire.
 
Rome's major problem was the two-front war - the RE and the ERE were always catched between the western barbarians (Goths, Langobards, Bulgarians, Slavs, Hungarians) and the eastern Empires (Persians, Arabs, Seljuk Turks, Ottomans). So the trick is to have peace on the one front to expand on the other side. Justinian had peace on the eastern front and could achieve wonderful victories in the west (well, he with the help of an admirable army and skilled commanders). His successor, most notably Heraclius, had to concentrate on the east to save Byzantium from the Sassanids and Umayyads. Italy, only poorly defended, was relinquished to the Langobards; Rome and Carthage were lost to the pope and to the Arabs. Even Sicily, basically easy to hold, was conquered first by Muslims, then by Normans.

So my patent remedy is the following: fight severley on the east so you can later win easy victories in the west.

The Ostrogoths are gifted rulers, they will preserve Roman culture and administration in Italy for a long time (compared with other Germanic kingdoms like the Langobards or Anglo-Saxons). Furthermore, the Ostrogothic kings accept the EREmperor as their nominal ruler: so there is really to need to hurry up in the west. Instead of sending armies in the west to conquer land that will be lost after some decades, instead of building beautiful but utterly useless monuments like the Hagia Sophia, Justinian should have gathered his troops in Syria and launched ceaseless war against Persia. OTL, Justiniand paid large sums as a tribute to the Persians to get peace for the western conquest. Use it better! Bribe the eastern neighbors of Persia (e. g. the Hephthalites, Göktürks) to attack Persia, provoke civil wars and rebellions in Persia, use every mean to drive Persia to its knees.

An advantageous border for Rome is to have Mesopotamia, Assyria and Babylonia as provinces and Arabia and the Caucasus as vassal states. Without Mesopotamia, the Sassanids are deprived of major economic power and income; they will slowly become a client state of Rome. After having dealt with Persia, Arabia isn't much of a problem any more. In this scenario, Arabia of the year 580 AD is a conglomerate of Roman satellite kingdoms - an Arabian/Muslim empire will not exist in the world described by me. Though, the Slavic populations attacking the Balkans will be an important problem not to underestimate.

In 600 AD however, the Roman position will be strong enough to send troops in the west and to start the Roman Reconquista. First goal is Carthage and the Vandalic Kingdom, then Sicily and Italy. It was imprudent to land in the south of Spain without controlling Gaul; so, in my scenario, the Roman Empire first attacks the Frankish Empire, and then attacks Spain from both the north and the south. In the 8th century, Rome can hope to finally retake Britain (without finding much Roman left on it) and to launch offensives into Germany.

To sum up: if Justinian had dealt with the Sassanids instead of overstreatching his Empire by conquering indefensible territories in the west, his successors would have had a good chance to restore the whole Empire.

Sorry but there is no way that works. Seriously there is no point for Justinian that he could actually bring the Sassanid Empire to it's knees in the way you are describing. The first conflict with the Sassanids isn't feasible because Justinian wanted an end to the war and Belisarius had just lost a battle, given that he was still trying to secure his position on the throne he couldn't just launch an invasion of the Sassanid Empire. Justinian needed peace and that was the only way to get it.

Also the Hagia Sophia was because Constantinople was burnt to the ground and it needed rebuilding so Justinian decided to build it better than before, the money wasn't wasted. You also have to bear in mind that Justinian couldn't just invade places because he needed a reason to do so such as with the Vandals and Ostrogoths in both cases events gave him a reason to invade them.
 
Seriously there is no point for Justinian that he could actually bring the Sassanid Empire to it's knees in the way you are describing.

There is a good strategic reason to do so - avoiding being stabbed in the back. I propose something similar to the Schlieffen plan. In 1914, the Germans wanted to beat the Frenchs in some weeks before turning on the Russians. My plan is to fight the Persians during Justinian's reign before turning on the Goths unter his successors.

Also the Hagia Sophia was because Constantinople was burnt to the ground and it needed rebuilding so Justinian decided to build it better than before, the money wasn't wasted.

A more modest church would have been sufficient - and it isn't only the Hagia Sophia, there are many other unnecessary projects in Justinian's reign.

You also have to bear in mind that Justinian couldn't just invade places because he needed a reason to do so such as with the Vandals and Ostrogoths in both cases events gave him a reason to invade them.

A reason? In politics, this is called a pretense, and such excuses are commonly used to start a war wanted for other reasons. Justinian's goal was very likely the restoration of the Western Roman Empire, and he was going to do it sooner or later, with or without a "reason".
 
I'm unconvinced that the Romans under Justinian are suddenly capable and willing to do to the Sassanians what they had failed to do for 500 years by that point.
 
Justinian's western conquests would be tough to sustain even if you butterfly the plague. Again, you're getting into the consequences of an overstretched empire which will have to contend with enemies on multiple fronts. Sooner or later, something's going to come along and seriously threaten the ERE to the point that one front is going to start to cave in.

Maybe you get a longer-lasting Roman revival in the west and larger pockets of Greek influence that create their own butterflies before the western areas inevitably slip into the hands of other forces.
 
Justinian's western conquests would be tough to sustain even if you butterfly the plague. Again, you're getting into the consequences of an overstretched empire which will have to contend with enemies on multiple fronts. Sooner or later, something's going to come along and seriously threaten the ERE to the point that one front is going to start to cave in.

Maybe you get a longer-lasting Roman revival in the west and larger pockets of Greek influence that create their own butterflies before the western areas inevitably slip into the hands of other forces.
It would be a lot easier to hold if Justinian didn't constantly undermine Belisarius, allowing the war to wrapped up fairly quickly and not become the never-ending quagmire that it became.
 
Given Justinian the Great's attempts to take Rome succeeded for a time, was there a chance for a true revival of most or all of the Roman Empire by Justinian the Great or his descendants, particularly if Theodora had given him an heir?
Yes, almost certainly. The majority of Justinian's conquests lasted for more than a century after his death, and the Byzantine Empire survived as a great power until 1204 despite facing every kind of hardship an empire can face, constantly able to reinvent itself.

With a POD as early as Justinian, the Caliphate would be butterflied away, removing the strongest enemy of the Byzantines besides the Bulgars. Over the subsequent thousand years after Justinian, a largely intact Eastern empire would have a significant chance at completing the western reconquest.
 
There is a good strategic reason to do so - avoiding being stabbed in the back. I propose something similar to the Schlieffen plan. In 1914, the Germans wanted to beat the Frenchs in some weeks before turning on the Russians. My plan is to fight the Persians during Justinian's reign before turning on the Goths unter his successors.

A strategic reason? Sure. Of course there was a strategic reason but it physically is incredibly unlikely to happen. Justinian almost physically can't just bring down the Sassanid Empire, if he could have brought it down in the way you are describing then I'm sure it would have been done. He did fight the Persians before turning on the Goths, the Battle of Dara was right at the beginning of his reign. Bear in mind that the plan to defeat France in a few weeks fell apart when they decided to dig in in 1914 and worked in WW2 because they misjudged where Hitler would invade from and were overwhelmed early. (I'm not an expert on WW1 and WW2 so I'm probably wrong here). Either way this is in no way feasible for a 6th Century empire like the ERE to just defeat the Sassanids like this, you can't compare WW1 and 6th Century warfare in how feasible such a plan is. Alexander managed something similar, yes, but that still took years and was based on him being a significantly better commander than his enemies and having an objectively better army as compared to the Sassanids who have strong leadership and a damn good army that managed to defeat Belisarius shortly before the peace treaty.


A more modest church would have been sufficient - and it isn't only the Hagia Sophia, there are many other unnecessary projects in Justinian's reign.

Fair enough there were a lot of wasteful projects that drained the treasury of the ERE under Justinian but he did have the funds to spare when these projects were built and really funds didn't become a very major problem until much later in his reign when the Plague of Justinian effectively helped destroy much of what he built. However you could say that his wasteful use of money contributed to this and made the effects worse.

A reason? In politics, this is called a pretense, and such excuses are commonly used to start a war wanted for other reasons. Justinian's goal was very likely the restoration of the Western Roman Empire, and he was going to do it sooner or later, with or without a "reason".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli

Little history lesson about Rome, the ancient Rome as opposed to the ERE. The ancient Romans loved to feel that they were on the right and moral side of a war and nearly every war was 'justified' in some way or another such as the 2nd Punic War where they claimed that Hannibal violated the treaty by crossing the River Ebro or the Cimbrian War which was based upon the Romans 'justifying' it with the Cimbrian attack on the Norici. With the rise of Christianity this became even more important as Christianity preaches peace and loving your neighbour so Christian rulers generally didn't want to appear as being 'unchristian' by randomly attacking people and so would use various claims and reasons to go to war. Yes this is a pretence as an excuse to launch an invasion but Justinian couldn't just invade people out of the blue for the sheer desire to conquer. This was especially true given that the king of the Vandals prior to his invasion was very pro-Byzantium and it wasn't until he was overthrown that Justinian invaded with the intention of supposedly placing him on the throne.
 
Top