Justinian fails and falls

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.

I'm not trying to hi-jack your POD :D
My point would rather be that without the Byzantine invasion, Gothic Italy would always be in the sphere of influence of Byzantium, and the link between the pope and the Byzantine emperor would not be severed. OTOH, after the sack of Naples and the high handed attitude of Byzantine officials in Rome, Italy would be more likely to go on its own separate road (and find some way to overcome the difference in faith and laws between Goths and Italians)
 
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?

Could work, but remember that Vandals in Africa (same as Ostrogoths in Italy or Visigoths in Spain) are a thin slice of population (and certainly not the better educated portion either). After any kind of rapproachment, they would be swamped by the original population (not necessarily by a revolt, mind: the ruling house might even stay the same, but the political clout of the non-Vandals would become greater and greater).
 
I've read a bit about the West Mediterranean Germanics, and the Vandals had a far more difficult time getting along with their subjects. They were a much smaller nation than either of the Gothic peoples (or the Franks, for that matter) and formed a smaller percentage compared to the Romantics of Africa.

(I don't know for certain, but suspect they spoke a language ancestral to modern Sardinian and Corscan, which form a brance of the Romance languages comperable to Romanian and Italo-Gallo-Iberian. It probably was spoken in Sicily, Malta, and the Balearics, too, but was replaced by Arabic as in Africa. Just something to consider in any TL.)

The tolerant Ostrogoths could've conquered Vandalia whenever they wanted. They didn't even need to do it all at once. Capture Sicily one generation, Sardinia and the other isles the next, then on to Carthage:D. It's obvious that Ostrogoth Italy would've worked; Visigoth Spain did with setbacks and the Franks even convinced the Gauls to adopt their name. I just don't think that it would be the case for Vandal Africa.
 
Last edited:
I'm not trying to hi-jack your POD :D
My point would rather be that without the Byzantine invasion, Gothic Italy would always be in the sphere of influence of Byzantium, and the link between the pope and the Byzantine emperor would not be severed. OTOH, after the sack of Naples and the high handed attitude of Byzantine officials in Rome, Italy would be more likely to go on its own separate road (and find some way to overcome the difference in faith and laws between Goths and Italians)

I see your point. After all even Theoderic got exasperated by the lingering Imperial loyalties of the Roman population and executed Boethius.

What I am trying to do is have the papacy a political tool of the Goths while not alienating the Roman population too much. One strategy may be to ensure that any future pope would be a native Roman or even Italian but no more Greeks.

This would be enough to ensure that the intellectual calibre of the papacy would be less than in OTL and of course may arouse a nascent nationalism, although I use that term cautiously. In any event in may make the Roman population side with the papacy as in OTL and because it would be more likely that the pope would be in disagreement with Constantinople more regularly and more deeply (even more than in OTL) this may well lead to a schism that has more permanent political overtones.

If this could be engineered then your point about Italy going its own separate road and coming to a compromise about the faith and the secular law may eventuate without an actual invasion. Indeed, it maybe that the popes would be even more independant and would not only refuse to comply with edicts from the east but even issue more of their own than in OTL and deepen any split between east and west.
 
Could work, but remember that Vandals in Africa (same as Ostrogoths in Italy or Visigoths in Spain) are a thin slice of population (and certainly not the better educated portion either). After any kind of rapproachment, they would be swamped by the original population (not necessarily by a revolt, mind: the ruling house might even stay the same, but the political clout of the non-Vandals would become greater and greater).

I agree they would be rapidly absorbed. However, in the time it took the resulting population would be more 'Italian' in its outlook than Imperial. That is, the romantic longing for reincorporation into the Empire that was only shattered by the realities of the actual invasion and reoccupation itself, would dissipate and the influence of the Gothic notion of the separateness of the west would dominate political and social thinking.
 
I've read a bit about the West Mediterranean Germanics, and the Vandals had a far more difficult time getting along with their subjects. They were a much smaller nation than either of the Gothic peoples (or the Franks, for that matter) and formed a smaller percentage compared to the Romantics of Africa.

(I don't know for certain, but suspect they spoke a language ancestral to modern Sardinian and Corscan, which form a brance of the Romance languages comperable to Romanian and Italo-Gallo-Iberian. It probably was spoken in Sicily, Malta, and the Balearics, too, but was replaced by Arabic as in Africa. Just something to consider in any TL.)

The tolerant Ostrogoths could've conquered Vandalia whenever they wanted. They didn't even need to do it all at once. Capture Sicily one generation, Sardinia and the other isles the next, then on to Carthage:D. It's obvious that Ostrogoth Italy would've worked; Visigoth Spain did with setbacks and the Franks even convinced the Gauls to adopt their name. I just don't think that it would be the case for Vandal Africa.

The Vandals in Africa were a collection of peoples that banded together along the migration routes and probably bore little resemblance ethnically to the original Germanic nation that set out on their wanderings.

Yet the essential elements of a german kingdom like the rights of the folk and the elective nature of the kingship lasted until Gaiseric was able to change it by his authority alone. Not even Theoderic changed his nation so much.

So it probably would matter little if the Vandals were 'incorporated' into a new state as you say the ruling house would probably remain and the essential changes from a Roman society to a more germanic one would still occur.

I am not so sure about the Goths being able to conquer the Vandals whenever they wanted. The Vandal navy was impressive and feared. Would the Goths really want to conquer Sicily and have continuous pirate raids on the Italian mainland as a result? It ould certainly engender disquiet and even revolt among the Roman population.

That is why I suggest that a compromise between the two would likely result. Perhaps a marriage or even just a recognition that each had its own sphere of influence. Of course this would not mean perpetual peace, it may even mean a sort of cold war that got hotter at times but did not lead to a full scale invasion by one against the other. Invasion of Africa would be a hard thing for the Goths to do.
 
I see your point. After all even Theoderic got exasperated by the lingering Imperial loyalties of the Roman population and executed Boethius.

What I am trying to do is have the papacy a political tool of the Goths while not alienating the Roman population too much. One strategy may be to ensure that any future pope would be a native Roman or even Italian but no more Greeks.

This would be enough to ensure that the intellectual calibre of the papacy would be less than in OTL and of course may arouse a nascent nationalism, although I use that term cautiously. In any event in may make the Roman population side with the papacy as in OTL and because it would be more likely that the pope would be in disagreement with Constantinople more regularly and more deeply (even more than in OTL) this may well lead to a schism that has more permanent political overtones.

If this could be engineered then your point about Italy going its own separate road and coming to a compromise about the faith and the secular law may eventuate without an actual invasion. Indeed, it maybe that the popes would be even more independant and would not only refuse to comply with edicts from the east but even issue more of their own than in OTL and deepen any split between east and west.

We're quite in agreement on this. IMO, what would have been needed was another 2 generations without too much trouble. Barring the unfortunate imperial intervention, I do believe that Gothic Italy might have managed that: Theodoric had been able to set up marriage ties to all the other barbarian "kingdoms" in the west; the Vandals in Africa would not have any special reason to go for adventures (possibly some pirate raids, but nothing too much); the two most dangerous borders were Pannonia (protected by Longobards, who were under the Gothic influence) and Provence (but here even Wittigis was able to keep the Franks away; and there was always the opportunity of Visigothic support). Assuming that your POD works (Belisarius loosing a battle and his head in Africa), the backlash in the empire would likely to topple Justinian, and to put to sleep for a long time any ambition to reconquest the west; which would mean that Dalmatia would be secure, and that Byzantine troops on the Danube would anchor the Gothic eastern flank (ok, I'm pretty sure that whenever a migration comes, the Byzantines would bribe the barbarians to go toward Italy rather than in the Balkans: it would not be an alliance, just common interests, and in any case the border to protect would be shorter).
I would also anticipate that, once the news of the (failed) invasion of Africa reach Ravenna they should provoke an anti-Greek (but also anti-Catholic) reaction: something like the last years of Theodoric's reign, the African developments justifying and vindicating his late policy. Amalaswentha's demise should be on schedule (or even earlier): everyone is expecting a Greek fleet landing in Southern Italy from one day to the other (*), and a woman (in particular a woman who is known for "Greek" sympathies is not the right person on the throne). Quite likely that Wittigis once again gets the crown: there should be no butterfly yet, and a great bear of a king should look attractive to the Goth warriors.
It should be more interesting to see what happens in Rome: Silverius is a sure bet, even more so than in OTL (he was elected pope against the opposition of Vigilius, who was a Byzantine stooge). I would not really know if Silverius was a scoundrel (the alleged attempt to let the Goths in Rome from porta Asinaria, close to the Lateran, after which in OTL he was removed from the papacy and sent in exile to Lycia) or a saint (the catholic church canonised him not long after his death): what is certain however is that his puppeteers are in the Curia, not in Constantinople. These churchmen should see the need to appease the Goths, and therefore I would expect three things:
  • better revenues for the crown (what better way to make a king happy?)
  • bending backwards to show that they are not a Greek fifth column (possibly denouncing Byzantine meddling, and forcing some kind of wedge between east and west)
  • going somehow beyond the council of Chalcedonia to try and find a common ground somehow between catholicism and arianism (which is pretty difficult, agreed: however, theologians are the right guys to prove the unprovable)
Overall, I can imagine churchmen and patricians wagging their lil tails and trying to look inoffensive and pro-Goths :D

Wittigis should reasonably try to arrange some kind of naval alliance with the Vandals, in order to make sure that there is not any repetition of the African adventure. I doubt that he's the guy to go for these fancy strategies: the best one might expect is that he can tame the Franks (and he should manage this at least). The second thing one might expect is that he's not becoming too bloody, and start a persecution (again, it takes a brain and a goal: Wittigis, beyond his desire to become king, lacked any other long-term plan).

I agree they would be rapidly absorbed. However, in the time it took the resulting population would be more 'Italian' in its outlook than Imperial. That is, the romantic longing for reincorporation into the Empire that was only shattered by the realities of the actual invasion and reoccupation itself, would dissipate and the influence of the Gothic notion of the separateness of the west would dominate political and social thinking.

If the Goths remain completely separate, I do not give them a very long life expectance. However, it is quite likely that the lures of civilization will work pretty well: maybe by 600 we might have a strong Gothic-Italian kingdom
 
I am not so sure about the Goths being able to conquer the Vandals whenever they wanted. The Vandal navy was impressive and feared. Would the Goths really want to conquer Sicily and have continuous pirate raids on the Italian mainland as a result? It ould certainly engender disquiet and even revolt among the Roman population.

Sicily was Goth, not Vandal: Belisarius landed in Sicily on his way to Africa, to renew his provisions; and the conquest of Italy started with a landing near Syracuse.
If I remember right, a daughter of Theodoric married Gaiseric of Carthage, and her dower included vast lands in Sicily . So there possibly was a Vandal claim, but never enforced (this was one of the reason that the Byzantines mentioned in their declaration of war: having replaced the usurper in Africa, they got all of his right and claims:D)
 
Sicily was Goth, not Vandal: Belisarius landed in Sicily on his way to Africa, to renew his provisions; and the conquest of Italy started with a landing near Syracuse.
If I remember right, a daughter of Theodoric married Gaiseric of Carthage, and her dower included vast lands in Sicily . So there possibly was a Vandal claim, but never enforced (this was one of the reason that the Byzantines mentioned in their declaration of war: having replaced the usurper in Africa, they got all of his right and claims:D)

You are right the Vandals under Gaiseric did conquer Sicily but Odoacer bought it back with annual subsidies. But it seems the Vandals did have some permanent claim on parts of the western coast.
 
Top