Justinian doesn't try to reconquer the West

What would have happened had Justinian deemed a reconquest of the western Roman Empire too expensive and hard to maintain (considering that it had fallen apart to begin with, how would he have had any better luck holding it together?)
 

Dorozhand

Banned
Someone else will try later on. Reconquering the Western Empire is a dream that would hang over the head of any emperor with power, security and ambition. As for immediate consequences, why does Justinian not turn west? Do the Nika Riots result in his overthrow? Does he slip on a banana peel after his coronation? Does he instead turn his efforts east and try to secure Armenia and Mesopotamia from the Sassanids? In the latter case, the dynamics of the Arab invasions, if they still occur, will be altered in interesting ways. Do the Persians ally with the Arabs and try to short-sightedly get back at Rome like Song did with the Mongols IOTL? Perhaps the other way around, and the Arabs focus their efforts northeastwards and perhaps become Persianized.

Or, the Arab invasions are butterflied entirely and the peninsula remains a collection of sleepy coastal kingdoms, in which case we may be looking at continuous pattern of conquest and reconquest between Rome and Persia for the foreseeable future until another wildcard screws with things at some later date. Maybe a turkic invasion of Persia from the north, or an internal rebellion, or war with a powerful Indian state, or for Rome the emergence of a power to the north on the Danube or in Italy attempting to reunite the Roman Empire from the other side. Perhaps an African power conquers Roman Egypt.

If Justinian doesn't do it, the dynamics in Italy might change for the better or worse for anyone who tries it later. But stability in the east might also remain unless Iran becomes extremely powerful. Thus the reunification of the empire might actually become a reality at some point.
 
Well it was obvious through events OTL that Justinian was a Genius, so if he had instead dedicated his time to something else he could do some pretty amazing things.

And if he left the empire in great shape after his death, later Emperors could make better headway in Italy and Reclaim Rome.




(It would be fun to see someone come up with a wacky POD that lets a Byzantine Emperor reconquer Rome and make it the Capital again to Legitimize himself)
 
Well it was obvious through events OTL that Justinian was a Genius, so if he had instead dedicated his time to something else he could do some pretty amazing things.

And if he left the empire in great shape after his death, later Emperors could make better headway in Italy and Reclaim Rome.

(It would be fun to see someone come up with a wacky POD that lets a Byzantine Emperor reconquer Rome and make it the Capital again to Legitimize himself)

Is it obvious? Where you see genius I see a reckless waste of resources on devastating campaigns which ruined Italy and cost the Empire dearly. Sure, it wasn't all bad, and taking North Africa, Sicily, etc. were good plays. But the Italian campaign was ruinous, and Spain just unnecessary.

Generally I see him as someone with that specific personality type to accomplish grand projects - an intelligent man to be sure, but also a bit paranoid and maybe a little megalomaniac.

One way or another, he'd find something to spend Imperial resources on. Given the Roman history of campaigns against Persia, I can see any invasion that way being every bit as much of a brutal grind as the invasion of the West, and potentially for even less gain.

I agree with Dorozhand that someone will try. In a timeline I wrote, it was the general Flavius Vitalianus, after a successful coup, to shore up legitimacy and otherwise for many of the same reasons as Justinian. Arab invasions are likely butterflied, as is Islam. Potential wildcards abound to break up a Roman-Persian stalemate - something has to give, regardless, I think.

Justinian did pretty well though. Maybe not as well as possible, but anything too much better and I'd probably say it was an Rome-wank.
 
Why are all the people blames Justinian's reconquest of Western Rome as the source of all of Rome's problem..... He only use 15.000 men in his conquest of North Africa and 7.500 on first Italian Campaign. Sure he use 30.000 soldiers in the second italian campaign, but its is hardly a problem for a empire that stretches from Bulgaria to Egypt.... And even if north Italy was expensive to maintain, South Italy,Sicily and North Africa was not.

If anything, Rome's problem in that era is The Justinian's plague and his endless construction of monuments.
 

trajen777

Banned
Reconquering the west was a very good move.

1. Africa was very profitable - and happened in 1 year - the treasury of the Vandals by themselves paid double the cost of the expedition,
2. Sicily fell in months -
3. The conquest of Italy was done very quickly
4. The mistake was not sending enough troops to Italy to garrison AFTER THE CONQUEST - and perhaps stopping the massive building projects in Constantinople (Hagia Sophia etc) until after the conquests were stabilized.
5. IN addition the great schism in Orthodoxy (Egypt Syria vs Constantinople) had almost died out until Justinian caught the plague. Theodora faned the flames back by creating an entire new set of Bishops in the East which recreated the Schism.

Then came the Plague -- absolutely devastating --

Results :
1. The population fell (pick a number -- 25% - 40% ) but the borders still needed the expanded army. So devastation. The Goths rebelled and Italy had the long war vs the initial success of conquest.

Without the Plague -- you would have had defensible borders- Italy to the Alps (with friendly Franks and traditional Allie Lombard's to the north), North Africa (Desert), Sicily (an island) --- all of these were very profitable endeavors. Each of these would have created tremendous resource advantages for defending the eastern borders.

Justin 2 - took this situation and made three mistakes -- provoked a war with Persia which forced all of the Roman resources East = did not maintain the diplomatic balance north of the Danuabe ( Avars - Lombard's - Gepids ) and allowed the Avars to dominate this area. The Lombard's (pick your choice of a dismissed Narses inviting them to Italy or their fear of the much to powerful Avars) and thirdly went on a massive spending spree and tax reduction to gain favor. This left Justinian's reserves wiped out.
 
Ideal scenarios:

- Africa goes as historically.
- Sicily goes as historically.
- Byzantines cool their heels and only worry about anything in Southern Italy they think will flip easily. Focus mainly on control of the seas. If the Ostrogothic leadership is pro-Roman, great. If its anti-Roman, stoke dissent and invite the Lombards in to the north, while you take the south. And this is a formula I'm suggesting over decades, not immediately.
 
Someone else will try later on. Reconquering the Western Empire is a dream that would hang over the head of any emperor with power, security and ambition.

Why would it hang over their head? Later Byzantine Emperors didn't really dream of doing it, and even Justinian's invasion seems to be pretty contingent.

Does he slip on a banana peel after his coronation? Does he instead turn his efforts east and try to secure Armenia and Mesopotamia from the Sassanids?

Didn't Justinian have a war with Persia before trying to go west?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I'm with Dominus pretty much.

Justinians conquests, by and large, were reasonable based on the information he had at hand. The problem was that he never ensured that there was someone who could cover for Belisarius in Italy, or Anatolia.

But if he chose NOT to go West? Not even Africa? He'd probably be best placed to establish strong frontier forces across his realm, huge staging grounds for his successors invasion, which would prevent Khosrous invasion, but still suffer from the Plague.

Assuming he appoints Belisarius as his heir, or Belisarius seizes the throne, the forces are prepared for a massive invasion of Italy and Africa.

So maybe more secure in the long term, with better preparation.
 
I agree with others that Italy could have gone very differently. Instead of doing the conquest on a shoestring budget, if real resources were put into it, the conquest could have proceeded much faster and subdued the Goths entirely. Above all, Belisarius shouldn't be recalled until the conquest was complete. It left the Goths in control north of the Po River, and the Roman armies no longer had a commander-in-chief. This allowed the Goths to survive as an independent power and lead to the devastation after 540.

Instead of a ravaged peninsula that was a drain on resources, Italy could have been a net contributor easily protected at the alps. If I had to go for a POD to benefit Byzantium, it would be a better Italian conquest, not avoiding the Western campaigns entirely.
 
Instead of a ravaged peninsula that was a drain on resources, Italy could have been a net contributor easily protected at the alps.

The Alps seem like one of those protections that work except when they don't. The Franks crossed them, the Holy Roman Empire crossed them, kingdom of France crossed them, barbarians crossed them...
 
The Alps seem like one of those protections that work except when they don't. The Franks crossed them, the Holy Roman Empire crossed them, kingdom of France crossed them, barbarians crossed them...

The eastern Julian-Alps worked well, until Theodosius The Little, destroyed the forts and the core of the west-roman army, with his gothic foederati. And showed them this way precisely, how to pass this wall. Alarich used this a few decades later. If I am not mistaken, the romans started to fortify the Julian Alps, after the invasion of the Marcomanns in the late 2nd century.

The northern and western Alps worked for Gallienus, who could succesfully block them against Postumus. Or at least he made any attack for Postumus too risky. However, the Alemans and others invaded Italy later. Perhaps the fortification in the northern and western Alps were not very efficient. Or the romans just had not enough men to man the forts. Because they were too busy fighting other legions as usual. Usualy roman fortifications were no chinese wall. They were just good enough to slow the enemy down, to give the regional field-army the time to get into position. If there was an army at all, of course.

During the mid-ages you mentioned above, nobody really tried to seriously defend the mountain passes afaik.
 
Last edited:
I agree with others that Italy could have gone very differently. Instead of doing the conquest on a shoestring budget, if real resources were put into it, the conquest could have proceeded much faster and subdued the Goths entirely. Above all, Belisarius shouldn't be recalled until the conquest was complete. It left the Goths in control north of the Po River, and the Roman armies no longer had a commander-in-chief. This allowed the Goths to survive as an independent power and lead to the devastation after 540.

Instead of a ravaged peninsula that was a drain on resources, Italy could have been a net contributor easily protected at the alps. If I had to go for a POD to benefit Byzantium, it would be a better Italian conquest, not avoiding the Western campaigns entirely.

I agree with all of it except the Alps bit,

It would work if it was in your (relative) back yard like the old Roman Empire, but having it so far away would put huge strains on logistics and communication. It would probably be easier to construct something like the old Limes of the Rhine but along the Po River where armies use the River as a Natural Moat and keep a standing army at the area where you can go around the source of the river.

Besides trying to take on the Alps would mean conflict and neighbors with people they were not intentionally trying to fight.

Although they also should have built sufficient defenses to the south in order to keep Egypt under their control, because once they lose their main source of food for the army any hoped of restoring the Empire of Old are done.
 
Well it was obvious through events OTL that Justinian was a Genius, so if he had instead dedicated his time to something else he could do some pretty amazing things.

I'm going to have to agree with Practical Lobster. It is not obvious at all that Justinian was a genius. What is obvious is that he let his paranoia run away with him, listened to his equally awful wife far too often, and was surrounded by far more competent subordinates.
 
I'm going to have to agree with Practical Lobster. It is not obvious at all that Justinian was a genius. What is obvious is that he let his paranoia run away with him, listened to his equally awful wife far too often, and was surrounded by far more competent subordinates.
I think we can all agree though that he's an expert at finding competent individuals?But yes,I think the guy's completely overrated.Definitely not a genius.
 

fi11222

Banned
What would have happened had Justinian deemed a reconquest of the western Roman Empire too expensive and hard to maintain (considering that it had fallen apart to begin with, how would he have had any better luck holding it together?)
The immediate consequence would be a much stronger ERE in any confrontation with Persia (there were plenty of those in the VIth century). As a result, Sassanid Iran would probably collapse earlier than it did IOTL and this would probably butterfly Islam away (see this thread).
 
Top