Historiography after Successful Justinian?

Let us presume that everything goes right for Justinian in his reconquest of the West. Italy falls as easily as Africa (and the Lombard looks elsewhere), and Hispania soon after. Gaul falls with more effort, maybe takes a generation, but is conquered as well.

How does history look on this period between the end of western emperors and the reconquest by Justinian? Similar to the Crisis of the Third Century? Might the histories attribute some credit to the Catholic Church as a unifying force?
 
I think you hit the nail on the head. History would look on it as a longer and more extreme version of the Crisis of the Third Century. It would be seen as the culmination of the same forces and trends that lead to the Crisis. In both, the Roman Empire splintered and endured civil war and foreign invasion. The difference was that in the pre-Justinian period half of the empire actually fell.

I'd also agree that the Catholic Church would be seen as an important unifying factor. History would probably look on it as beneficial to the Reconquest by adding a common social and religious identity to the Roman Empire. That would be seen as bolstering the political and military power of the Empire and working with a "roman" identity more in sync with the state.

The more I think about this, the more interesting the idea gets, honestly. Both the process of Justinian's reconquest, but also the way later generations would view hime. Perhaps as a second Augustus or Caesar?
 
Aurelian feels more fitting as a comparison to me.

Julius Caesar was a conqueror; Aurelian and now Justinian are restorers.
The same in regards to Augustus and like Augustus,Justinian seats at the back while his generals does all of the fighting.The guy was also a reformer like Augustus.
 
Or, perhaps, Theodosius: Devout Christian, active in church affairs, based in the East, re-unifies the Empire in the face of military opposition to re-unification.

Except Theodosius was more interested in Orthodoxy, while Justinian was more interested in unity.
 
The same in regards to Augustus and like Augustus,Justinian seats at the back while his generals does all of the fighting.The guy was also a reformer like Augustus.

Yes, but since Augustus built the empire, his shadow looms over anyone and everyone else who rules a Roman Empire.

Unless Justinian were to, say, conquer and hold all of Persia. Then that would merit honor as a second Augustus.

Or, perhaps, Theodosius: Devout Christian, active in church affairs, based in the East, re-unifies the Empire in the face of military opposition to re-unification.

Except Theodosius was more interested in Orthodoxy, while Justinian was more interested in unity.

Well, Theodosius died and split the empire between his sons, which started this whole mess in the first place.

So I guess this all depends on the stability of Justinian's succession?
 
Well, Theodosius died and split the empire between his sons, which started this whole mess in the first place.

So I guess this all depends on the stability of Justinian's succession?

Dividing the empire's administration was standard procedure, for logisticsl reasons. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.

It occurs to me that it might be possible that Justinian's dynasty was relatively similar to the five good emperors: a series indirect inheritance, adoptions, and marriages. The parallels would be likely considered more obvious of that dynasty oversaw the reconquest of the entire West.
 
I don't think Spain and Gaul could be directly incorporated into the Empire for long but Exarchates seem doable. Maybe not all at once though.

I think you hit the nail on the head. History would look on it as a longer and more extreme version of the Crisis of the Third Century. It would be seen as the culmination of the same forces and trends that lead to the Crisis. In both, the Roman Empire splintered and endured civil war and foreign invasion. The difference was that in the pre-Justinian period half of the empire actually fell.

I'd also agree that the Catholic Church would be seen as an important unifying factor. History would probably look on it as beneficial to the Reconquest by adding a common social and religious identity to the Roman Empire. That would be seen as bolstering the political and military power of the Empire and working with a "roman" identity more in sync with the state.

The more I think about this, the more interesting the idea gets, honestly. Both the process of Justinian's reconquest, but also the way later generations would view hime. Perhaps as a second Augustus or Caesar?

I'm not sure about that. The two periods just seem so radically different to me, both in the causes for them and in what happened. There are some superficial similarities that you point out but even then though, there are differences. For example, the barbarian kings who actually took over the West were vassals that accepted roman authority, and slotted more or less seamlessly into the roman system. The splintering during the Crisis wasn't accepted by any of the roman generals while the East-West division was an accepted administrative practice. The Civil Wars were far less chaotic and brutal than the Crisis. And so on.

In terms of it being a culmination of Crisis trends, Constantine makes for a very solid stopping point when it comes to the Crisis (what with the century long stability,the finishing of reforming the state, and patronage of Christianity). I think that-historiographically speaking- the periods would go from Constantine to Theodosius, Theodosius to Zeno, Zeno to Justinian. Of course, what actually happened wouldn't fit into neat little boxes but I think each of those rulers makes nice stopping points.
 
I don't think Spain and Gaul could be directly incorporated into the Empire for long but Exarchates seem doable. Maybe not all at once though.



I'm not sure about that. The two periods just seem so radically different to me, both in the causes for them and in what happened. There are some superficial similarities that you point out but even then though, there are differences. For example, the barbarian kings who actually took over the West were vassals that accepted roman authority, and slotted more or less seamlessly into the roman system. The splintering during the Crisis wasn't accepted by any of the roman generals while the East-West division was an accepted administrative practice. The Civil Wars were far less chaotic and brutal than the Crisis. And so on.

I generally agree with your assessment. I think there's a solid case to be made that the Crisis and the "pre-Justinian crisis" (or whatever we want to call it) is a substantially different event than the Crisis. However, I'm not convinced that's how historians would see it in this alternate scenario. To them, they'll see a number of periods of division of the empire followed by conflict and eventual reunification. That pattern goes all the way from the Triumvirates of the Late Republic through the Octavian-Antonine division, to the Crisis, and to the division of the empire into Eastern and Western portions. And in each case there were outside threats assailing the divided empire, it's just that those threats were on a generally upward trend, which, combined with the most recent period of division, brought down half of the empire. That's why I think historians in this world will trace a continuum from the Crisis to Justinian.

In terms of it being a culmination of Crisis trends, Constantine makes for a very solid stopping point when it comes to the Crisis (what with the century long stability,the finishing of reforming the state, and patronage of Christianity). I think that-historiographically speaking- the periods would go from Constantine to Theodosius, Theodosius to Zeno, Zeno to Justinian. Of course, what actually happened wouldn't fit into neat little boxes but I think each of those rulers makes nice stopping points.

Again, I agree. Constantine's unification does make an excellent stopping point for the long-term definition of the Crisis. It strikes me as a similar concept to the long ninetheenth century idea of more modern historiography. You can identify a shorter, more extreme Crisis period, but also a longer stretch that was defined by the same forces. So you'd have a short definition of the Crisis that comprises the actual period of military anarchy, and a longer one that lasts until Constantine really completes the reformation of the Principate into the Dominate. And speaking of, this scenario would settle the debate over when exactly the Dominate ended in the East. Justinian's reconquest and likely governmental reforms would make another convenient end point.
 
Top