Justinian - anything but "great"?

Did he really have these resources available without uncovering the Persian border and the Balkans? Maybe. Would he have committed these resources from start? 100% no: his well known paranoia (an unsurprising familiar trait for a late Roman emperor) would not allow him to commit them. Besides the possibility of creating an usurper, Justinian and his uncle before him were from Tracie, did not belong to the core patricians families of Constantinople and the risk of riots or outright insurrection in the city was always paramount.

The desire of reconquer Italy (and Rome in particular) was certainly understandable; it should have been obvious to an emperor hailed as "Great" that it was not likely to happen.

I do blame Belisarius: if the expedition against the Vandals had failed (as it was very likely to happen: OTL it was a kind of Mary Sue story), the pipe dream of reconquering the west would have been put to sleep and the ERE would have greatly benefited in the long term.

So you blame the puppet for doing admirably what the master has instructed him to do?
 
I've also always wondered about that. Do you think he was semi-aware of the fact that he would be the last Latin emperor, and that this was the empire's last realistic chance to reconquer the West?

Doubtful. Rather, I think Justinian saw an opportunity the empire had not had in decades. It was at it's zenith really when Justinian took over. Anastasius had left the empire swimming in gold, the border with the Sassanians was never stabler, Rome's enemies in the west never weaker, and his position after the Nika Riots as strong as it could be. He was in the absolute perfect position to retake the west.

I just think Justinian was the ultimate opportunist, which combined with his energy and ambition made him go for it all.
 
Not if you are a paranoid Roman emperor (an obvious tautology): a successful delegate can cost you the throne, and unsuccessful one can usually cost you some troops and money
 
I do blame Belisarius: if the expedition against the Vandals had failed (as it was very likely to happen: OTL it was a kind of Mary Sue story), the pipe dream of reconquering the west would have been put to sleep and the ERE would have greatly benefited in the long term.

That's the thing, it wasn't exactly a pipe dream, plague is what made the whole venture wasted, that and maybe pulling Belisarius out of Italy, the idea in itself was more than possible, it was feasible and pretty much guaranteed to stick if Narses didn't invite the Lombards and the plague didn't cripple the Empire's morale and finances.
And if Africa failed, they would have just done it again, Africa is a good asset to hold and the Vandals are a horrible contemporary to live with. That wasn't the first expedition by the Romans to gain Africa. And I'm not too sure that even taking Africa would have been the catalyst for an imperial restoration, but it certainly would have drew the Romans to Sicily, and from Sicily the whole things seems a bit more digestible but no less likely to be attempted.
 
The first attempt to retake Africa was a very costly failure. If there is a second failure, I doubt very much that there will be a third one.

But my point is really that Justinian will not stop: Africa, Sicily, Italy, Hispania.
The gambler is always going for another throw. Will Gaul be the next one?

OTOH, the former WRE is much poorer than the ERE, and population has sharply decreased. Who is going to pay for the defense of a much longer border? Who is going to man it?

In the 6th century the ERE does not need the WRE, and should concentrate on holding the truly important borders: the Balkan one and the Persian one.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Not if you are a paranoid Roman emperor (an obvious tautology): a successful delegate can cost you the throne, and unsuccessful one can usually cost you some troops and money

Because the Romans never employed Generals or Governors. :rolleyes:

The first attempt to retake Africa was a very costly failure. If there is a second failure, I doubt very much that there will be a third one.

But my point is really that Justinian will not stop: Africa, Sicily, Italy, Hispania.
The gambler is always going for another throw. Will Gaul be the next one?

OTOH, the former WRE is much poorer than the ERE, and population has sharply decreased. Who is going to pay for the defense of a much longer border? Who is going to man it?

In the 6th century the ERE does not need the WRE, and should concentrate on holding the truly important borders: the Balkan one and the Persian one.

Well, Africa and Italia were the main targets - and prior to the damage caused in the Gothic Wars, both Africa and Italia were very wealthy - and would have paid for themselves - and without the Vandals on the sea, the navy wouldn't have to be expanded much because there was no other naval power to worry about.

So we're taking the choicest provinces. Spain is next on this list, and capturing Spain would make the borders to control smaller - whilst allowing access to Spanish metals that would benefit the Empire. The only territory left is Gaul - and defending the Alps and Pyrenees is a pretty decent border IMO.

Now - regarding the wealth - sure the west isn't as wealthy - but it is still wealthy enough to pay for its own defense - its biggest shortfalls before 453 were tax revenues were practically non-existent in Italia, and manpower.

Now the manpower problems will still have to be resolved through conquered Goths and Vandals - not impossible, but if these new troops are dispersed across all fronts, then they can't form a coherent force to be an issue. - financially, the ERE with its financial reforms, and its money, can back the west, safer trade in the Med because there are no vandals and fewer pirates will also provide revenues to pay for soldiers.

The issue with Justinian isn't that he's a compulsive gambler - he's an opportunist on a mission to reunite the Roman Empire. That combined with the typical behavior of an Empire (Expansion) means that this would happen under any opportunist. In fact, cowering in one half of the Med may end up being bad for the Romans, as the West gets stronger.
 

Deleted member 67076

PS: Well the idea of investing all the money Anastasios accumulated into a serious eastern campaign, as mentioned above, instead of fully ruining Italy finally, is tempting.

There's potential in this: The Sassanids are still dealing with the Mazdakite threats, and Khosrau hasn't implemented his reforms to strengthen the state.

Could it be that Justinian would be able to push the borders to the Zagros, much like the Ottomans did nearly 1000 years later?
 
Well, reconquering the West probably seemed more meaningful that expanding into a region that was never considered part of the Roman Empire. Eliminating the Vandals was a chance to reconquer a wealthy region and also keep the Mediterranean a Roman lake (not allowing another strong naval power to develop to contest that).

I think the reconquest could well have happened under a wide range of different Emperors - the time was right for a Western expansion of some sort.

Also, pressing the Sassanids too hard seems to be just inviting steppe nomads to roll over Persia, and introduces a lot of different variables. Not that Justinian or alt-Justinian necessarily would have predicted that, though.
 
Well, reconquering the West probably seemed more meaningful that expanding into a region that was never considered part of the Roman Empire. Eliminating the Vandals was a chance to reconquer a wealthy region and also keep the Mediterranean a Roman lake (not allowing another strong naval power to develop to contest that).

I think the reconquest could well have happened under a wide range of different Emperors - the time was right for a Western expansion of some sort.

Also, pressing the Sassanids too hard seems to be just inviting steppe nomads to roll over Persia, and introduces a lot of different variables. Not that Justinian or alt-Justinian necessarily would have predicted that, though.

Exactly, plus you have the problem that the Sassanian border had been more or less static for centuries by this point. It was just one series of massive fortresses after another. Successfully holding it would be incredibly costly and probably wouldn't work in the long run. Whereas from the perspective of Justinian, the west looked like easy pickings, and, for the most part was easy pickings until the plague came along.
 
Top