Brainstorming: Cultural and Religious effects from a surviving Justinian Empire

So, assuming (most of) Justinian's Empire manages to get consolidated back into Rome, what are some of the possible effects of this?

The Empire would include most of Italy (leaving a small quasi-vassal Lombardy in the Northern half), North Africa up to Tunisia, almost all of the Balkans, and of course Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt. It would be THE Mediterranean superpower, even more so than OTL.

Eventually, the Empire in Italy would recover and stabilize under Roman rule, and pay more in taxes and manpower than they cost to maintain.

Some possible effects on population:

-I'd imagine most of Southern Italy would be repopulated by Greeks. It may even be possible for a Roman Emperor to "restore" the city of Rome itself with peoples from Anatolia.

-Greek would still definitely remain the primary culture of this nation, just like OTL. EDIT: By culture, I mean language. Culturally, Rhomanian Greek is Roman by this point.

-With a focus on the west, is it possible that Armenia might be lost to the Persians? Or, perhaps more likely, it would end up as a buffer state between Rome and the Sassanids

On religion:

-Could Chalcedonian remain the dominant form of Christianity in the west? There is no Pope (at least not like the OTL Popes) of Rome, so all five patriarchs would be under Roman rule and might be seen as simply too Roman. In this case, could heresies like Arianism take on a dominant form in Northern and Western Europe?

-So let's assume some other religion rises out of Arabia, either an ATL Islam or an eastern heresy such as Nestorianism. With Italy providing for a more stable Empire and assuming this religion did not rise right after the Empire was exhausted, they should have very little trouble putting it down, correct?

-Persia, is likely to be whatever religion Rome is not. What is more likely to happen, for Zoroastrianism to stay in power,for them to be grabbed ahold of by Nestorianism or some other persecuted Roman heresy, or the ATL Islam?

On Culture:

-Obviously, the Empire is not going to be moving its capital to Rome anytime soon, but I could see Constantinople not being quite so important to Romans as it was OTL. Especially if cities like Alexandria, Antioch and eventually Rome could rival it. Perhaps it may be viewed as an important capitol, but not quite as a religious and Roman symbol? (i.e how most others view their capital, instead of like New Jerusalem)

-Would Latin remain so important to both the Romans and the Western Europeans? With Rome so strong, it's doubtful anyone will try to claim to be Western Rome (HRE), and the desire to imitate Rome might be lessened with an existential Roman threat on their borders all the time. Could there be no lingua franca of Europe, or could it even be a completely different one like Greek of Frankish:eek:?

And that's just some of the things I am thinking of. Obviously, such a PoD would have MASSIVE butterflies, but we are just looking at Europe and the Near East during the Early-High Middle Ages.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

Interesting thoughts. First question comes to mind? When's the POD? Because that will be what determines policy and thus the after effects of holding Justinian's conquest. Do we have, say a quick and easy Gothic war where it ends in around 5 years or so instead of the long, drawn out affair of OTL?
 
Interesting thoughts. First question comes to mind? When's the POD? Because that will be what determines policy and thus the after effects of holding Justinian's conquest. Do we have, say a quick and easy Gothic war where it ends in around 5 years or so instead of the long, drawn out affair of OTL?

tbh, I wasn't really thinking about PoDs when I made this post:eek:. Blasphemous, I know, but the idea just sort of went into my head and refused to leave, so I decided to post it and hopefully start an interesting conversation.

Let's go with Belisarius being given more support and troops in his initial invasion of Italy, and being able to crush the Lombards and Ostrogoths from there quicker and using less time and resources.
 

Deleted member 67076

tbh, I wasn't really thinking about PoDs when I made this post:eek:. Blasphemous, I know, but the idea just sort of went into my head and refused to leave, so I decided to post it and hopefully start an interesting conversation.

Let's go with Belisarius being given more support and troops in his initial invasion of Italy, and being able to crush the Lombards and Ostrogoths from there quicker and using less time and resources.
Hmm, Belisarius actually gets an army, probably 40K or so (more than double than what he had OTL), invades via the south, takes Rome quickly, crushes the Goths with overwhelming force, war wraps up by 540 nice and easily.

Ok, so Italy is restored mostly intact, not draining the treasury and damaging the infrastructure. Well, you'd added another 6 million taxpayers and a large, urbanized and developed province thats a good source of manpower.

The Roman Empire is obviously stronger and richer. This translates into a bigger army, more pay for the soldiers and Justinian having more funds to play around with. So we'd probably see a building spree in Italy after this is over, and then later Africa. More forts and what not.

Less obvious is that that any credible threat to Roman Mediterranean supremacy is gone. Which means more troops can be shifted to the frontier (less garrisons against Vandal and Visigothic incursions). That means the Moors will have more trouble with their raids in Africa and the Balkans can be better defended against Slavic and Avar incursions in the upcoming decades.

Religious wise Chalcedonianism will be the major sect of Europe. The Franks have already converted to it and were they major power in Northwest Europe so most of Europe will convert in the long term. Whats obviously different is Papal Primacy, which is going to shift into a Primusr Inter Pares relationship with the other bishops.

What happens in Persia depends on Sassanid Policy. If its anything like OTL Zoroastrianism will win out due to Persian government policies aiding it (although the rigidness of the clergy will probably lead to Mazdaki style revolts in the future).
 
I'm not just looking at cultural and religious effects; what about government?

Another thing I'm wondering about: would feudalism as we know it even develop?

Papal Primacy is gone, and in its place is a powerful centralized government stretching across the Mediterranean. Now, it's going to be difficult to avoid the Germanic system of succession in France, Germany, and other places, but now there is no Pope that a King looks up to. In the same token, perhaps dukes and other powerful vassals who are almost as powerful as the king may never rise. Might more centralized realms be the norm?

Perhaps most importantly, Islam is not spreading into the med. North Africa will remain Chrisitan, as will the Levant and Iberia. With Christian hegemony as far as the eye can see, there is simply not going to be as much cohesion even in Western Europe v.s Rome. I could see Bishops grabbing massive amounts of temporal power in regions farther from Rome (Germany, France, Spain, Britain) or, alternatively, Kings deciding how religion is dictated. It just doesn't seem likely in the long term that people will always adhere to the far-away patriarchs that are mere puppets of Rome.
 
What happens in Persia depends on Sassanid Policy. If its anything like OTL Zoroastrianism will win out due to Persian government policies aiding it (although the rigidness of the clergy will probably lead to Mazdaki style revolts in the future).

I don't know much about Zoroastrianism, but from what I understand it was on the way out when Islam emerged. Could the religion be saved in this ATL, and what steps would need to be taken?
 

Deleted member 67076

I don't know much about Zoroastrianism, but from what I understand it was on the way out when Islam emerged. Could the religion be saved in this ATL, and what steps would need to be taken?
Yeah probably, with a change in government in Persia. Zoroastrianism had become increasingly rigid and caste based as time went on thanks to Sassanid policies of ensuring feudal divisions. Which is why you get things like Mazdakism in reaction.

Now, I'm of the belief the Sassanids would eventually be toppled by another dynasty as time goes on seeing as how increasingly rigid they became after Khosrau the Great.

I should note Zoroastrianism stuck around for a very long time, and even in 1100 or 1200 Iran was 1/5 Zoroastrian.

Anyways, so lets go with a new dynasty. This new dynasty, assuming its not Christian or Buddhist or Tengri will probably reform the religion and make it more appealing to the masses, which will allow it to combat the influence of Nestorianism which had been creeping in. Dunno how it'll be different, but we can probably look to how Hinduism evolved to combat the influence of Buddhism in India for parallels.
 
So, assuming (most of) Justinian's Empire manages to get consolidated back into Rome, what are some of the possible effects of this?

The Empire would include most of Italy (leaving a small quasi-vassal Lombardy in the Northern half), North Africa up to Tunisia, almost all of the Balkans, and of course Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt. It would be THE Mediterranean superpower, even more so than OTL.

Eventually, the Empire in Italy would recover and stabilize under Roman rule, and pay more in taxes and manpower than they cost to maintain.

Sounds about right. What sort of POD are we assuming for this? I'll go with a double one of Justin II being a reasonably decent Emperor, and the Iranian front experiencing a peaceful period between 560 and 590ish, allowing the ERE the breathing space of a whole generation to "relax".

Some possible effects on population:

-I'd imagine most of Southern Italy would be repopulated by Greeks. It may even be possible for a Roman Emperor to "restore" the city of Rome itself with peoples from Anatolia.

It might be: although I'm no expert on this. Certainly Kalabria and Sicily were primarily Greek speaking in the Byzantine (by which I mean after c.650) period, and had been before Roman rule, but did they remain Greek speaking areas throughout the Republic, Principate and WRE? I know that Byzantine Apulia was always a Latin speaking region.

-Greek would still definitely remain the primary culture of this nation, just like OTL.

Greek culture is Roman culture in Late Antiquity: there's no practical difference, although obviously different emphases. There's no reason to assume that Latin is doomed in this scenario though: there's plenty of evidence that Latin literature flourished in seventh century North Africa and of course it never vanished at all in Italy.

-With a focus on the west, is it possible that Armenia might be lost to the Persians? Or, perhaps more likely, it would end up as a buffer state between Rome and the Sassanids

The lesson of the sixth century is that there won't be a focus on the West at any point: every Emperor rightly saw Sasanian Iran as the powerful threat. Justinian's western adventures were opportunistic sideshows by his regime that were never allowed to distract from fighting the main Iranian enemy, as can be seen in the abrupt removal of resources from Italy in the 540s.



On religion:
-Could Chalcedonian remain the dominant form of Christianity in the west? There is no Pope (at least not like the OTL Popes) of Rome, so all five patriarchs would be under Roman rule and might be seen as simply too Roman. In this case, could heresies like Arianism take on a dominant form in Northern and Western Europe?

Modern Catholicism is a form of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, so, yes, and a more active Roman presence in the Western Mediterranean may actually speed up the death throes of Arianism. I'm inclined to wonder, however, in the long term whether Constantinople might prioritise the anti-Chalcedonian side of the schism over the West. The history of attempts at mediation always seem to suggest desperate attempts to bring the anti-Chalcedonians on board, generally ignoring the objections of the Chalcedonian bishops of Italy and Africa. This will spell trouble down the line, because the division was always a political one.

-So let's assume some other religion rises out of Arabia, either an ATL Islam or an eastern heresy such as Nestorianism. With Italy providing for a more stable Empire and assuming this religion did not rise right after the Empire was exhausted, they should have very little trouble putting it down, correct?

Reasonable to assume, on all counts. Don't overestimate Italy's contribution though. In "normal" circumstances, the Arab invasions should have been easy enough to see off even with just the resources of the Eastern Empire of Anastasius' day, before any of Justinian's conquests.

-Persia, is likely to be whatever religion Rome is not. What is more likely to happen, for Zoroastrianism to stay in power,for them to be grabbed ahold of by Nestorianism or some other persecuted Roman heresy, or the ATL Islam?

Could easily be any of the above. Christianity of various sects was growing strongly in Mesopotamia at the time, but more slowly in Iran itself, where traditional Zoroastrianism remained strongly rooted within the aristocracy.

On Culture:

-Obviously, the Empire is not going to be moving its capital to Rome anytime soon, but I could see Constantinople not being quite so important to Romans as it was OTL. Especially if cities like Alexandria, Antioch and eventually Rome could rival it. Perhaps it may be viewed as an important capitol, but not quite as a religious and Roman symbol? (i.e how most others view their capital, instead of like New Jerusalem)

Again, this is a reasonable assumption to make, IMO. I refer to the post-650 Empire as "Byzantine" in part because the Empire itself (as opposed to just its court) was so exclusively focused around Byzantion/Konstantinoupoli that the ERE of Justinian's day had not been, with it's three great urban centres and then various others. Constantinople will undoubtedly remain the heart of the Roman world, but it won't have such a degree of dominance as in OTL Byzantium.

[/QUOTE]-Would Latin remain so important to both the Romans and the Western Europeans? With Rome so strong, it's doubtful anyone will try to claim to be Western Rome (HRE), and the desire to imitate Rome might be lessened with an existential Roman threat on their borders all the time. Could there be no lingua franca of Europe, or could it even be a completely different one like Greek of Frankish:eek:?

And that's just some of the things I am thinking of. Obviously, such a PoD would have MASSIVE butterflies, but we are just looking at Europe and the Near East during the Early-High Middle Ages.[/QUOTE]
Yes, it would: although Greek would probably be considerably better known around the Mediterranean. Latin would remain in common use around the Western Mediterranean, though, and would be the everyday language of administration in all of the Empire's provinces in the area. By Latin I mean of course "fossilised" Virgillian Latin: the written language will remain in the "vice" that Attic Greek did throughout the Byzantine period.
 
Hmm, Belisarius actually gets an army, probably 40K or so (more than double than what he had OTL), invades via the south, takes Rome quickly, crushes the Goths with overwhelming force, war wraps up by 540 nice and easily.

It won't be that large. Standard sized Roman armies of the period, given what we know from Maurice's Strategikon (by far the most precise text we have about military matters) would be made up of between five and ten thousand men, with fifteen thousand being an exceptionally large force. Larger armies might have very occasionally been seen on the Iranian front, but not elsewhere.

LSCatilina will be along soon, no doubt, to give us all some more thoughts. Papal primacy, though, is not going to disappear, given the Bishop of Rome had been viewed as a cut above the other Patriarchs since the fourth century. Whether it'll be maintainable in the face of active bullying from a powerful Roman Emperor that owes Rome itself very little is another matter, mind you. I think more powerful local churches are probably likely, though.
 
Peter Heather has an interesting book out which discusses Justinian's conquests, and he makes the claim that Justinian's conquests were built on sand; the Empire didn't lose them by accident, but rather because Islam was such a powerful threat that the Empire didn't have resources to hold onto them. It's an interesting argument, and at least to me one of merit. Egypt was lost quickly, but Africa, Sicily, and Italy were slow retreats over decades.

This makes me wonder how viable these conquests really were. I don't know if you can get a more successful Justinian.
 
Yeah probably, with a change in government in Persia. Zoroastrianism had become increasingly rigid and caste based as time went on thanks to Sassanid policies of ensuring feudal divisions. Which is why you get things like Mazdakism in reaction.

Now, I'm of the belief the Sassanids would eventually be toppled by another dynasty as time goes on seeing as how increasingly rigid they became after Khosrau the Great.

I should note Zoroastrianism stuck around for a very long time, and even in 1100 or 1200 Iran was 1/5 Zoroastrian.

Anyways, so lets go with a new dynasty. This new dynasty, assuming its not Christian or Buddhist or Tengri will probably reform the religion and make it more appealing to the masses, which will allow it to combat the influence of Nestorianism which had been creeping in. Dunno how it'll be different, but we can probably look to how Hinduism evolved to combat the influence of Buddhism in India for parallels.

It's a fairly safe bet to make that the Sassanids won't survive forever, but the Persian state will survive.

IMO, it's basically a coin flip on whether the Sassanids go Buddhist, a form of Christian, ATL Islam, or stay Zoroastian.

Sounds about right. What sort of POD are we assuming for this? I'll go with a double one of Justin II being a reasonably decent Emperor, and the Iranian front experiencing a peaceful period between 560 and 590ish, allowing the ERE the breathing space of a whole generation to "relax".

This is mostly what I was thinking of; Rome gets a respite in the late 6th century. If we have a PoD during the Italian Campaign, it's not a stretch to say this could happen.

It might be: although I'm no expert on this. Certainly Kalabria and Sicily were primarily Greek speaking in the Byzantine (by which I mean after c.650) period, and had been before Roman rule, but did they remain Greek speaking areas throughout the Republic, Principate and WRE? I know that Byzantine Apulia was always a Latin speaking region.

Greek culture is Roman culture in Late Antiquity: there's no practical difference, although obviously different emphases. There's no reason to assume that Latin is doomed in this scenario though: there's plenty of evidence that Latin literature flourished in seventh century North Africa and of course it never vanished at all in Italy.

When I said Greek culture, I really meant Greek Rhomanian culture, so speaking the Greek language. So when I refer to "Greek culture" it's basically what we perceive of as Roman culture in this time period.


The lesson of the sixth century is that there won't be a focus on the West at any point: every Emperor rightly saw Sasanian Iran as the powerful threat. Justinian's western adventures were opportunistic sideshows by his regime that were never allowed to distract from fighting the main Iranian enemy, as can be seen in the abrupt removal of resources from Italy in the 540s.

This is true. I am merely talking so much on Italy because of it's importance to the Western Europeans, a group I'd also like to talk about:D.

My question, though, is could this line of thinking ever be altered? As in, could Rome eventually view their Eastern and Western Flanks as of equal importance? Not in the course of a century, but over several, assuming Italy and the Balkans become almost as rich and populated as the Levant and Egypt.


Modern Catholicism is a form of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, so, yes, and a more active Roman presence in the Western Mediterranean may actually speed up the death throes of Arianism. I'm inclined to wonder, however, in the long term whether Constantinople might prioritize the anti-Chalcedonian side of the schism over the West. The history of attempts at mediation always seem to suggest desperate attempts to bring the anti-Chalcedonians on board, generally ignoring the objections of the Chalcedonian bishops of Italy and Africa. This will spell trouble down the line, because the division was always a political one.

This sort of trouble is exactly what I'm talking about;). There is going to be a division between east and west, especially with an unimportant Islam. Even though the Romans view the Pope as the most important patriarch, he is still junior to the emperor and this might not sit well with some down the line.

Yes, it would: although Greek would probably be considerably better known around the Mediterranean. Latin would remain in common use around the Western Mediterranean, though, and would be the everyday language of administration in all of the Empire's provinces in the area. By Latin I mean of course "fossilised" Virgillian Latin: the written language will remain in the "vice" that Attic Greek did throughout the Byzantine period.

Ah, so you don't think Greek could replace Latin?:( I'm not so sure, with half of the med speaking Greek it's entirely possible that others will still view it as the language of prestige. Maybe I'm just biased because I prefer Later Rome to pre-476 Rome.

It won't be that large. Standard sized Roman armies of the period, given what we know from Maurice's Strategikon (by far the most precise text we have about military matters) would be made up of between five and ten thousand men, with fifteen thousand being an exceptionally large force. Larger armies might have very occasionally been seen on the Iranian front, but not elsewhere.

LSCatilina will be along soon, no doubt, to give us all some more thoughts. Papal primacy, though, is not going to disappear, given the Bishop of Rome had been viewed as a cut above the other Patriarchs since the fourth century. Whether it'll be maintainable in the face of active bullying from a powerful Roman Emperor that owes Rome itself very little is another matter, mind you. I think more powerful local churches are probably likely, though.

My general thinking was that he stays there longer and gets the support of a second army to help conquer the rest. If we keep Rome and Persia at peace, this is a possibility.
 
Peter Heather has an interesting book out which discusses Justinian's conquests, and he makes the claim that Justinian's conquests were built on sand; the Empire didn't lose them by accident, but rather because Islam was such a powerful threat that the Empire didn't have resources to hold onto them. It's an interesting argument, and at least to me one of merit. Egypt was lost quickly, but Africa, Sicily, and Italy were slow retreats over decades.

This makes me wonder how viable these conquests really were. I don't know if you can get a more successful Justinian.

That's why what we're trying to accomplish is hard;)

Do keep in mind that if Anatolia was the heart of Rome, Egypt was the arteries and veins. Egypt and North Africa were vital to keeping Mare Nostrum and a fresh supply of grain and taxes, and once they fell Rome was in trouble. So without a muslim conquest and assuming a better job at consolidating, it's not too far-fetched at all to have Rome keep Italy and North Africa.
 
If the Romans manage to take and keep south+central Italy without destroying it (and so check the Lombard invasion), they may have enough of an advantage to tip the balance in the climactic war of 602-629, which basically consisted of the Persians wrecking their own economy while they ineffectually smacked the Romans about throughout Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt, and even helped the Avars besiege Constantinople for a while.

If the Romans have more resources and troops, maybe the Persians never make it (far) past the Levant; the Avar attacks are beaten back more effectively, and maybe Kavadh II deposes his father earlier (let's say 625 for a nice round number), thanks to the Romans (enabled by economy of scale) bribing the Turks into allying with them and attacking Persia.

End result, only the Persians and the Levant are devastated by the war, and come the Caliphate's invasions, the Romans hold the front in the Sinai and SE Anatolia (keeping Antioch, one hopes for their sake), preserving these vital regions.

A Roman Empire controlling the trifecta of Egypt, Anatolia and Italy, all of them productive and rich, would conceivably be able to weather the plague of the 540s to stabilize into a Med-based superpower that would check the western spread of Islam (probably accelerating its southern and eastern offensive into the bargain :() and have a decisive, even dominant effect on the political and religious evolution of Europe.

At the very least a stable Roman Empire in control of Rome, that isn't losing ground more or less by the year, and is protecting Christendom from the aggressive threat of the newest heathen trend would probably make the HRE impossible to take seriously. The fragmented lands of Germany and Northern Italy would probably become a secondary expansion theatre for the Romans, in competition with the more powerful Germanic tribes (first and foremost the Franks in the West), the Norse and the Slavs.

In terms of religion, depending on how successful this wanked Roman Empire ultimately is, so will its form of christianity succeed or fail by degrees to suppress/replace the Chalcedonian model. Certainly the Pope wouldn't be brought to heel immediately and permanently, but in time...

However the Roman Empire's own religion was unstable around this time (confusing sect conflict), so who knows if they themselves wouldn't evolve into a Pope-led ATL catholicism along with their Western rivals.

Quoth Wikipedia: "The Emperors, however, had a policy of preserving the unity between Constantinople and Rome; and this remained possible only if they did not swerve from the line defined at Chalcedon"
 
Last edited:
Well, check "Magna Graecia" on either Google or Wiki., always shown maps on "Ancient Greece", where it included Sicily)

Example:
1. 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article through WikiSource
2. New Advent
It is my understanding that parts of Southern Italy were heavily Greek in the Early Middle Ages. I would just imagine that under Constantinople the region would become even more Greek.

As for religion, Chalcedonialism is obviously going to be the religion of the Empire, and is going to stay that way. I mean, the council of Chalcedon is both for catholics and the orthodox, there is no reason whatsoever that the Empire would become another religion.

Western Europe is another matter. Could a Bishop of Paris or somewhere get ambitious enough to take power if the Franks and Saxons ever get into trouble? A Patriarch of Paris would be interesting to say the least.
 
Top