Justinian fails and falls

[MarkA]

Gelimer King of the Vandals ensured his communications with the other two sections of the Vandal Army was in order. It was not perfect and Ammatas, brother of the king was killed (as in OTL) but his nephew Gibamund attacked with his forces quickly trying to save his uncle (as he did not do in ATL).

This disrupted the Byzantine forces and the Huns hed back from committing their cavalry. Then Gelimer struck and cut Belisarius and his whole command from the rest of the Imperial force. While the Vandals under Gelimer attacked Belisarius' position, the remaining Vandal forces under Gibamund had swept the field of their immediate opponents and now attacked the remaining Imperials.

While the Huns now withdrew from the battle, the Vandal cavalry under the king destroyed the whole high command of the Byzantine army. With Belisarius' head displayed on a pike, the rest of the Imperials army surrended.

How could Justinian survive politically after such a defeat?

Italy would stay Gothic for the foreseeable future and so the importance of the Franks would be diminished and so no Holy Roman Emperor, or Empire. Italy, too, would remain fairly prosperous with no ruinous war raging up and down its length and breath for years.

What would the world look like a century from this if Byzantium was kept out of western affairs permanently? How would our modern world evolve?

 

[LordKalvan]

Interesting idea. I guess that Justinian would be in deep troubles, and possibly even ousted out from the throne. Certainly it would put paid to his obsession with the reconquest of West.

One of the obvious advantages would be the possibility for the ostrogothic kingdom of Italy to reach some kind of stability. The succession crisis at the death of Theodoric has still to be resolved, but without the pressure of an eastern invasion some kind of solution will be found.
It would also mark the end of the empire in the west, but maybe without the brutality of OTL. In 100 years a gothic-italian kingdom is quite likely to emerge; at this point the Ostrogoths control also Pannonia and Noricum, and they can be a bulwark against further invasions from east (Longobards, Avars, Hungars).

Annother interesting offshot might be a long-lasting arian church (churches?) in the west (Italy, Spain, Africa): which will do wonders to undermine the primacy of the bishop of Rome, and facilitate the growth of local churches (Gaelic in the British isles, Gallic in France). Possibly also a way to reach some kind of wider acceptance of different beliefs in the future.

The Eastern empire would be much more focussed on the east, and on better relations with the Persian empire. OTOH, there would be less need for a "catholic" outlook, and therefore the monophysites from Egypt and Syria would be less antagonised. Which would take away one of the opportunities when the arabs come screaming to conquer. Lots of possibilities

 

[Don_Giorgio]

This could lead to an early Nika Riots in which the Emperor without the help of his loyal Generals (already dead from the campaign) would fall quickly...
After Justinian the Senate the Army and the People would elect as Emperor Hypatius who was a nephew of the late Emperor Anastasius I (He was totally unfit for the Purple... Incompetent and accused of being homosexual...).
This election would lead to a serie of bad and useless Emperors and to the shrinking of the Empire due to continuous invasions of the Persians and Goths....

 

[LordKalvan]

The eastern empire can tolerate a bad emperor, or even more than one. Now it's also the right time, if there ever was one: there should be civil war in Persia, and the Danube border is safe enough (the Goths are in Italy, and they are also protecting the Pannonian border - and by extension the Balkans too; the hunnic egemony has been shattered, and there is more shuffling back and forth, rather than invasions). What the empire cannot tolerate is a wild expansionist policy like the one started by Justinian (and which in OTL ended up in the bloody, long-lasting Gothic war); even less it can tolerate the megalomaniac passion of Justinian for building churches and public works. If you throw on the scale his religious policy, which did everything possible to alienate the Monophysites, the plague [which was not his fault] and the scarce love of people and noble for this upstart emperor [which was his fault, and ended up in the Nike riots], I would say that the empire would certainly benefit by an early demise of Justinian.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

If Justinian had fallen early (or perhaps assassinated) there would someone of the army elected to succeed him (as it was a common practice back then) we could see a good Emperor like Tiberius II or Maurice which he would follow Justinian's example... But what if a wicked General usurped the power? Someone like Phokas the Tyrrant (602-610)?
If no Justinian era existed the Empire would have been weakened very very much by civil wars among blood and power thirsty Generals and it would be an easy target by a persian or arabian or barbarian (Avars) invasion...

 

[MarkA]

I agree with the consensus that the Goths continue to rule in Italy for the next century. During this time could there be a reapproachment between the Romans and the Goths so that they evolve a more politically stable society? In other words, would it need a Gothic king to convert to catholicism as did the Visigoths in Spain later in OTL or is there any remote possibiity that a new mind set could emerge that encouraged religious tolerance?

Vandal Africa would continue to grow more powerful. I suspect some arrangement between the Goths and them would need to occur. With Gothic numbers and Vandal control of the sea they would be a formidable combination once their states became more normalised. A convienient marriage perhaps?

The Eastern Empire would soon recover economically but could it retain its military reputation? I suspect the new emperor would have to launch some campaign or series of expeditions to improve domestic civilian and military morale and to show the barbarians it was still a force to be reckoned with.

One hundred years after the defeat in Africa I envisage a still economically and militarily strong Eastern Empire better able to deal with its Asian problems. The Vandals united somehow with the Goths, even if informally, and in complete control of the Western Med. but with their pirate days behind them they grow rich on trade and grain just like their ancient predecessors in the area.

The Goths control Italy and importantly some areas of the Balkans and Gaul. The Franks are just another tribe and have been chastened by repeated defeats at the hands of Gothic power. After the conversion to orthodoxy by one of the kings most Roman opposition dissapates in Italy. More Romans are recruited into the army and more Goths assume civil roles in the state. The papacy is the tool of the Gothic king and this creates some tensions with the Eastern Empire. In the long term, it means that the notion of orthodoxy assumes a slightly wider meaning.

 

[Max Sinister]

Er, which Huns? Were they somehow involved?

I guess the Ostrogoths would be assimilated given enough time, similar to the Franks in France or the Visigoths in Spain.

 

[MarkA]

Er, which Huns? Were they somehow involved?

I guess the Ostrogoths would be assimilated given enough time, similar to the Franks in France or the Visigoths in Spain.

The Huns were employed as mercenaries and formed an important segment of many Eastern Empire armies. They were generally illdisciplined and notoriously drunkards. They were also somewhat unreliable but so effective that these faults were overlooked.

Of course the Goths would be assimilated but what would their effect be on the new Italian society and particularly on the surrounding countries that is the question.

Once the Franks are not a powerful element in world history then what is the political development of western Europe going to look like? Would the urge to recreate the Empire in the west be as strong? My assumption is no. Partly because the Papcy would be under the control of the Goths and so there would not be an opportunity, or perhaps not even a motive, to create an Emperor.

 

[LordKalvan]

Bumping up this thread.

An alternate POD might be found in Belisarius not living a charmed life during the Gothic wars.
If anyone had ever written a TL where a Byzantine general conquer Italy with 5,000 soldiers, the consensus would be "ASB".

Just consider:

• the lucky acqueduct that let his men into Naples is not thre, or not found. After a few months, Belisarius is recalled to Constantinople in shame.
• alternatively, Wittigis does not go against the franks, but rather starts to deal with the Byzantines. As a consequence, the Gothic garrison in Rome does not abandon the city. Belisarius army is squashed between the Roman walls and the main Gothic army, and the general is killed.
• or again: Belisarius was caught by substantial Gothic forces while reconnoitering the land outside Rome. In OTL, he managed (against all odds) to extricate himself, and get safely back in Rome. Here he is just a bit unluckier, and is killed
• and again: Wittigis manages the siege of Rome just a tad better (not much required: it was the most incompetent siege in history). Belisarius is killed.
• and again: the pope manages to open a door for the Goths (in OTL this failed just by an unlikely chance). Belisarius is killed.

There are at least another 5 or 6 possible PODs during the Gothic wars. My favourite one would be Belisarius accepting the Goths' offer, and declaring himself emperor of the west (not that I think he might change history, but it would be fun). If you really want to change history, one of the early PODs works better: the Byzantine army is destroyed, there is a complete break between east and west, and (somehow) Wittigis does not make a mess of his reign (difficult: he looks like the prototype of "dumb barbarian"; still you never know). The management of the relations with the church is still quite tricky, and the Franks have to be dealt with; however, having defeated Belisarius, Wittigis manages not to make a complete mess. And by lucky chance his son is a good and strong king.

 

[Cloudy Vortex]

This is an interesting topic. I don't think that the Goths or the Vandals would assimulate easily. The Franks converted to Roman Orthodoxy, but the Goths and Vandals converted to what their Romantic subjects regarded as heresy. As I understand it, the Africans (in the Roman sense) regarded the overthrough of the Vandals as a liberation and many Italian landowners sided with Constantinople. Much of the reason that Clovis chose Orthodoxy was to be in religious communion with his subjects. Sigismund, the Burgundian king (you haven't forgoten them, have you ), converted from Arianism to Orthodoxy for much the same reason. King Reccared followed suit decades later. Had he not, the nonpersecuted TMK but nevertheless disloyal Trinitarian Spaniards may have done as the Monophysites had done and there would've been no Asturias and no Reconquista (the PODs keep poppin'). Question: would the Arabs conquer a wealthy, Ostrogoth Italy instead of ignoring a destitute Lombard one?

 

[Cloudy Vortex]

Hmm... I've been reading more of the Visigoth situation. I'll do more with the Ostrogoths and Vandals before I comment further.

 

[Max Sinister]

Why 5,000? AFAIK he had 60,000.

 

[LordKalvan]

60000? No way to transport them, no way to feed them, no way that Justinian gives so many troops to a general with a command so far from Constantinople

 

[chunkeymonkey13q]

I don't think that the Vandals would be able to revive the super-state originally created by Geiseric, or at least not without the emergence of another truly spectacular “Great Leader,” as most sources I've read seem to indicate they were in a period of general decline and decadence. With the hostility of the natives, their general lack of involvement in the state and Berber invasions, the Vandal kingdom might very likely collapse, or reform itself under “Roman” leadership.

 

[MarkA]

Bumping up this thread.

An alternate POD might be found in Belisarius not living a charmed life during the Gothic wars.
If anyone had ever written a TL where a Byzantine general conquer Italy with 5,000 soldiers, the consensus would be "ASB".

Just consider:

• the lucky acqueduct that let his men into Naples is not thre, or not found. After a few months, Belisarius is recalled to Constantinople in shame.
• alternatively, Wittigis does not go against the franks, but rather starts to deal with the Byzantines. As a consequence, the Gothic garrison in Rome does not abandon the city. Belisarius army is squashed between the Roman walls and the main Gothic army, and the general is killed.
• or again: Belisarius was caught by substantial Gothic forces while reconnoitering the land outside Rome. In OTL, he managed (against all odds) to extricate himself, and get safely back in Rome. Here he is just a bit unluckier, and is killed
• and again: Wittigis manages the siege of Rome just a tad better (not much required: it was the most incompetent siege in history). Belisarius is killed.
• and again: the pope manages to open a door for the Goths (in OTL this failed just by an unlikely chance). Belisarius is killed.

There are at least another 5 or 6 possible PODs during the Gothic wars. My favourite one would be Belisarius accepting the Goths' offer, and declaring himself emperor of the west (not that I think he might change history, but it would be fun). If you really want to change history, one of the early PODs works better: the Byzantine army is destroyed, there is a complete break between east and west, and (somehow) Wittigis does not make a mess of his reign (difficult: he looks like the prototype of "dumb barbarian"; still you never know). The management of the relations with the church is still quite tricky, and the Franks have to be dealt with; however, having defeated Belisarius, Wittigis manages not to make a complete mess. And by lucky chance his son is a good and strong king.

Any of those PODs would work but I am looking to have Belisarius defeated in Africa before he even gets to Italy.

The defeat of the Vandals was extremely lucky and had one of a few small incidents gone differently, the Imperials would have been defeated. Both Vandal Africa and Gothic Italy would then be left alone by the Eastern Empire if not forever then for a very long time.

 

[MarkA]

I don't think that the Vandals would be able to revive the super-state originally created by Geiseric, or at least not without the emergence of another truly spectacular “Great Leader,” as most sources I've read seem to indicate they were in a period of general decline and decadence. With the hostility of the natives, their general lack of involvement in the state and Berber invasions, the Vandal kingdom might very likely collapse, or reform itself under “Roman” leadership.

I think the notion of decline and 'decadence' (love that word haven't seen it for a long time in a historical discussion) is the result of hindsight.

As I noted previously, the victory by the Byzantines was a very close run thing. It could just as easily turned into a military disaster for them. There was no hint of the Vandal forces being somehow inferior, indeed it would appear they were caught in a flanking movement by the Huns who had probably secretly assured them they would do nothing or would even betray and attack the Byzantines.

Africa was incredibly rich. Also at this date there appears to be no overt persecution of the catholics. Indeed, there seems to be a sort of reapproachment between the Vandal ruling class and the Roman population, albeit a more cautious and limted one than in Gothic Italy. If this trend continued how would it affect the state? Would the Vandal king and nobility need to convert to orthodoxy eventually? If the pope is the political tool of the Arian Goths, then what would the definition of orthodoxy be in the west?

 

[MarkA]

This is an interesting topic. I don't think that the Goths or the Vandals would assimulate easily. The Franks converted to Roman Orthodoxy, but the Goths and Vandals converted to what their Romantic subjects regarded as heresy. As I understand it, the Africans (in the Roman sense) regarded the overthrough of the Vandals as a liberation and many Italian landowners sided with Constantinople. Much of the reason that Clovis chose Orthodoxy was to be in religious communion with his subjects. Sigismund, the Burgundian king (you haven't forgoten them, have you ), converted from Arianism to Orthodoxy for much the same reason. King Reccared followed suit decades later. Had he not, the nonpersecuted TMK but nevertheless disloyal Trinitarian Spaniards may have done as the Monophysites had done and there would've been no Asturias and no Reconquista (the PODs keep poppin'). Question: would the Arabs conquer a wealthy, Ostrogoth Italy instead of ignoring a destitute Lombard one?

Good points.

My questions are would the Goths convert to orthodoxy eventually and/or would the definition of orthodoxy change over time in the west if the pope was under their control?

Perhaps the Islamic conquest would not occur in this ATL. After all, if the Eastern Empire now looked east almost exclusively, they would be in a better position to consolidate their neglected borders with Persia and the desert.

Justinian had let those impressive fortifications deteriorate and levied the garrisions to persue his western ambitions. Once Belisarius was defeated in Africa and the survivors ransomed, there would be no further western campaigns to drain the treasury or the manpower of the army. This would be particularly so if Justinian was overthrown.

 

[Paul Spring]

In the long run this would probably be good for the East Roman Empire, which wouldn't suffer the imperial overstretch that it did in OTL. More troops would stay in the East, facing the Sassanids, and protecting the Danube frontier in the Balkans. Long-term, it might mean less of a Slavic incursion into the Balkans, or the Slavs settling under imperial authority rather than independently.

It would certainly be a lot better for Italy, at least in the immediate future. I still think that the Ostrogoths and Vandals would eventually abandon pure Arianism, as they did in OTL, but here Arianism might remain influential enough to make the mainstream Catholic/Orthodox church to make a few compromises in doctrine.

 

[trajen777]

Its interesting on the overstretch part. If you read older versions of the Justinian histories it basically is surmised by --- Justinian overextended the empire and lead to the collapse by Justin 2. However many of the newer Historians (Treadgood) / and Biologists (whoever wrote “impact of disease on History) have a very different take on things.

In the first part of Justinian’s rule (pre Plague) he had conquered Africa in 2 yrs and the treasure captured was greater then the cost of the expedition (very cheap 14,000 men). The income generated from an easily defended Theme (except for scattered warfare with the Moors) was a positive cash flow and the army even increased from the capture of Vandal troops who were transported to Armenia.

In Italy the war was quick and decisive and once again the Gothic treasure off set the cost of the Invasion. The capture of the northern Italian area would have again secured a safe easily defended Theme (or series of Themes). It was only after the Plague hit that Justinian was forced to cut expenses, cut troop levels etc.

After the plague hit he had an empire which had the same population as before the re-conquest but only after adding the population of Italy and Africa to the empire. In other words if he had not started the conquest of the West his tax base would have dropped by 40 – 45 % (loss of population in the east). His conquests left him with the same tax base --- Eastern + Conquest = same tax but with twice the territory to defend. If he had left Belisarius in Italy to finish the conquest of Italy he might still have had some true balance with the complete defeat of the Goths vs. a ¾ defeat.

If the plague (who could have assumed that) had not struck the Empire would have conquered the West (Spain – Italy – Africa) and had much greater resources to deal with Persia etc. The Franks were strong allies at this time.

But to the time line – Have the Goths in Italy deny Belisarius the use of Sicily as a base to attack the Vandals or have the Vandal fleet not in Sardinia and meet the Roman fleet.

 

[MarkA]

Its interesting on the overstretch part. If you read older versions of the Justinian histories it basically is surmised by --- Justinian overextended the empire and lead to the collapse by Justin 2. However many of the newer Historians (Treadgood) / and Biologists (whoever wrote “impact of disease on History) have a very different take on things.

In the first part of Justinian’s rule (pre Plague) he had conquered Africa in 2 yrs and the treasure captured was greater then the cost of the expedition (very cheap 14,000 men). The income generated from an easily defended Theme (except for scattered warfare with the Moors) was a positive cash flow and the army even increased from the capture of Vandal troops who were transported to Armenia.

In Italy the war was quick and decisive and once again the Gothic treasure off set the cost of the Invasion. The capture of the northern Italian area would have again secured a safe easily defended Theme (or series of Themes). It was only after the Plague hit that Justinian was forced to cut expenses, cut troop levels etc.

After the plague hit he had an empire which had the same population as before the re-conquest but only after adding the population of Italy and Africa to the empire. In other words if he had not started the conquest of the West his tax base would have dropped by 40 – 45 % (loss of population in the east). His conquests left him with the same tax base --- Eastern + Conquest = same tax but with twice the territory to defend. If he had left Belisarius in Italy to finish the conquest of Italy he might still have had some true balance with the complete defeat of the Goths vs. a ¾ defeat.

If the plague (who could have assumed that) had not struck the Empire would have conquered the West (Spain – Italy – Africa) and had much greater resources to deal with Persia etc. The Franks were strong allies at this time.

But to the time line – Have the Goths in Italy deny Belisarius the use of Sicily as a base to attack the Vandals or have the Vandal fleet not in Sardinia and meet the Roman fleet.

Africa was a nett gain no doubt. But the Italian campaign was a long, drawn out disaster for the Peninsula.

My understanding is that the plague hit the Persians too. In other words, while the tax base would be reduced the enemy would be in a bad position too.