Justinian's conquest of Italy lasts longer

[Johnrankins]

Let's say the Lombards get into a major war outside of Italy and the Lombards and some other German tribe are greatly weakened and when the Lombards try to invade Italy they are stopped. Assume the Lombards are unable to try again for at least 20 years. Can Constantinople hold onto Rome for at least 40 years more?

 

[Faeelin]

If it can stop the Lombards? Sure, I don't see why not, although I wonder if it'd fall a few years later when the Byzantine Empire was at its nadir.

 

[Alratan]

It's the Plague of Justinian that really broke Byzantine power in Italy, and removing that would have far larger effects than just allowing Italy to remain "Roman".

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Didnt he had some troubles with the Persians in the eastern fronts? He had to move armies to Euphrates from Italy just in case the Persians tried anything funny...

 

[Max Sinister]

And they had the problem that Justinian's wars, although their result looked impressive, had emptied his coffers. Some more time to recover would help the empire very much.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

Yes Justinian emptied the treasury and every nickel that was gathered during Anastasius I reign was scattered during Justinian's war...

 

[Johnrankins]

It's the Plague of Justinian that really broke Byzantine power in Italy, and removing that would have far larger effects than just allowing Italy to remain "Roman".

OK, the plauge doesn't happen then and that is why they are able to hold it.

 

[Johnrankins]

Yes Justinian emptied the treasury and every nickel that was gathered during Anastasius I reign was scattered during Justinian's war...

A few years of peace should help refill the coffers.

 

[trajen777]

A common misconception is the cost of the recon quest of Italy and Africa to the Byzantines. The reason for the recon quest was in many ways to expand the economic base against all enemies. The conquest in Africa was paid for by the capture of the Vandal treasury. The tax revenue would supply a strong positive cash flow for the Empire and increase the population base by 15%.

The conquest of Italy was originally an easy conquest and again the capture of the Treasury made the military campaign a positive cash flow operation. Then came the plague. The population ended up being the same as before the addition of Italy and Africa however the cost of defense of the addition of Italy & Africa was dramatically increased. Justinian was forced to reduce the Army of face bankruptcy. This of course led to endless revolts in Italy which left Italy a mess.

So if the plague had never happened you would have had a quick conquest of a wealthy Italy which could have held off the Lombard’s when they invaded 15 years later. In addition the Byzantines would have had approximately 40% more population base to support a stronger army. Justinian based his conquests on easily defended locations. He was also a great builder of fortifications. So he would have had 15 years of greater wealth and a strong series of fortifications to defend Italy against the Lombard’s, with a larger army.

 

[M79]

Holding Italy would not be easy, but if they can hold it, I think Northern Italy becomes a major source of manpower and revenues for the next few hundred years. It stops Venice and Genoa from rising to trade promenince except as Byzantine cities that pay taxes. I also think that moving into Helvetica and southern Gaul could also be achieved easily along with a more feasible defense of the Danube frontier. If the Arabs make their inroads into Spain it might also be a Byzantine-Frank army that checks them at Tours, perhaps with the Byzantines making a mark at Spain and maybe even directing/influencing the way Spain herself will develop. A stable Byzantine Empire that holds Italy, Anatolia, and the Balkans when a strong emperor like Basil II comes to power means a crack at restoring much more, but somehow I doubt that Constantinople will hold onto Italy that long unless thery can retake more. More likely we get a southern Italy that goes Greek with the Lombards taking some/all of Northern Italy and becoming at best a Byzantine protectorate by 750.

 

[chunkeymonkey13q]

Let’s say that instead of winning an overwhelming victory against the Gepids in the Battle of Asfeld, the Lombard’s suffer a Pyrrhic victory instead, and are either vassalized by the incoming Avars or flee disorganized into Italy in greatly reduced numbers. Though the Empire is in a weakened position regarding Italy due to the effects of the plague, the devastation of the peninsula due to the Gothic Wars and the lack of wealth in the treasury, the Lombard’s are now in no position to seize control of two thirds of the Italy. Perhaps this would give the Empire the time necessary to consolidate its position in the region, however, Italy is fertile and a tempting target for any migrating tribe.

 

[Advernt]

Holding Italy would not be easy, but if they can hold it, I think Northern Italy becomes a major source of manpower and revenues for the next few hundred years. It stops Venice and Genoa from rising to trade promenince except as Byzantine cities that pay taxes. I also think that moving into Helvetica and southern Gaul could also be achieved easily along with a more feasible defense of the Danube frontier. If the Arabs make their inroads into Spain it might also be a Byzantine-Frank army that checks them at Tours, perhaps with the Byzantines making a mark at Spain and maybe even directing/influencing the way Spain herself will develop. A stable Byzantine Empire that holds Italy, Anatolia, and the Balkans when a strong emperor like Basil II comes to power means a crack at restoring much more, but somehow I doubt that Constantinople will hold onto Italy that long unless thery can retake more. More likely we get a southern Italy that goes Greek with the Lombards taking some/all of Northern Italy and becoming at best a Byzantine protectorate by 750.

What if Islam is butteflied away? Will the Byzantine Empire collapse sometime in the Late Middle Ages into Civil War , or even slightly earlier?
There is an excellent chance that this might become a No Islam Thread , or at least one where a stronger Byzantine Empire means that the rise of Islam is stillborn.

 

[chunkeymonkey13q]

What if Islam is butteflied away? Will the Byzantine Empire collapse sometime in the Late Middle Ages into Civil War , or even slightly earlier?
There is an excellent chance that this might become a No Islam Thread, or at least one where a stronger Byzantine Empire means that the rise of Islam is stillborn.

Islam might be butterflied away in this scenario, but as there is a consensus among some historians that Arabia was a sort of powder-keg in this period anyway, perhaps another religion (Christianity?, Zoroastrianism?) or a secular leader, would be able to unite the Arabians instead. Without the emergence of Islam, however, this alternate Arabian expansion could happen a good deal later when the Eastern Roman Empire is in a much stronger position.

 

[Ran Exilis]

quote=chunkeymonkey13q;1311812]Islam might be butterflied away in this scenario, but as there is a consensus among some historians that Arabia was a sort of powder-keg in this period anyway, perhaps another religion (Christianity?, Zoroastrianism?) or a secular leader, would be able to unite the Arabians instead.[/quote]Well actually, the strenght of the Arabs during that period is often overestimated; even in OTL, it took the political-religious unifying factor of Islam and an extremely devastating war between Persia and Byzantium that had conveniently ended just before Islam arose for the Arabs to succeed in dominating the Middle East.

Without either of those two factors, the expansion of the Arabs would either be significantly less successful than it was in OTL, or it would even fail completely.

..
Also keep in mind that there is no need for Arabia to become properly unified, ever.
Just because it happened in OTL, doesn't mean that it's bound to happen.

Without the emergence of Islam, however, this alternate Arabian expansion could happen a good deal later when the Eastern Roman Empire is in a much stronger position.

Ah, there's the all too common misconception that the Arabs didn't venture out of the Peninsula until the rise of Islam!

Arab tribes had already started migrating into Syria and Mesopotamia centuries before the rise of Islam, and some of the more powerful Arab tribes and tribal confederations carved out their own kingdoms in these areas.

The two most powerful pre-Islamic Arab states in this area were the Ghassanid kingdom in southern Syria, which was a vassal state of Byzantium, and the Lakhmid kingdom in southern Mesopotamia, which was a vassal of the Persians. To my knowledge, both kingdoms had been founded in the 4th century, or perhaps even as early as the late 3rd century.

And there had already been earlier Arab migrations in this area, and some of them took place a few centuries before Christ...

Before Islam, the Arabs migrated northwards as individual tribes, or at best tribal confederations, which was a result of the utter lack of political unity in Arabia - and in a scenario/TL without Islam, this will propably remain the same.

And those individual tribes will propably drift into Byzantine or Persian spheres of influence, just like they did in OTL prior to Islam.

 

[htgriffin]

It's the Plague of Justinian that really broke Byzantine power in Italy, and removing that would have far larger effects than just allowing Italy to remain "Roman".

Given the level of devistation from the prolonged wars, I doubt the lack of plagues would have saved it.

I say a quick annexation leaving the place intact would have done a lot more.

HTG

 

[elomire678]

Given the level of devistation from the prolonged wars, I doubt the lack of plagues would have saved it.

I say a quick annexation leaving the place intact would have done a lot more.

HTG

The prolonged wars in Italy were caused by the plague. Belisaurius was sent to east to deal with the Persian invasion, with a token force left in Italy to maintain the conquest. By the time the Persians were taken care of the plague had hit and drained the empire of a good 30-40% of its population (most estimates estimate 25% for the entire Mediterranean region, but the plague did hit much harder in the more populous regions of the empire like Egypt, and Thrace.). Justinian was forced to use barbarian mercenaries for the bulk of his armies afterwards, thus driving up the costs of the wars and limiting the amount and quality of the soldiers Belisarius and the other generals had to push back the Gothic revolt. Also the cities of Italy became even more depopulated in the plague and further reduced the expected Italian tax-base and support for the Empire. The Gothic revolt most likely would've been easily mopped up by Belisarius in 544 or earlier if the plague had never hit.

I'd go even further to say if not for the plague it's very likely you'd see all of Spain in Byzantine hands as well and the tax-bases basically paying off the conquests within a few generations like Africa did even with the plague. The treasury would be strained but under no more strain than the disaster of 468, and likely much less. Justin II and Marcian would not have to scrounge for scraps afterwards and thus there would be no Phocas and no Persian Wars in the model of OTL. If the Arabs did still pour out of Arabia they would've been checked easily by a strong Roman Empire.

 

[Promethean]

so they are able to defeat the arabs. but every empire needs to fall sometime so when the invasion of the ottomans? or the avars? maybe the ottamans thought they could better invade persia?

 

[Advernt]

so they are able to defeat the arabs. but every empire needs to fall sometime so when the invasion of the ottomans? or the avars? maybe the ottamans thought they could better invade persia?

The Ottomans were Turks . I take it to mean that you are talking about the Turks?The Ottomans did not exist until the Turks took Anatolia.

 

[Promethean]

yes i mean the turks

what do you think would the turks be able to invade the Byzantine empire and keep it in their hands

 

[Advernt]

It depends , but without Islam , they would probably adopt Christanity anyway . A strong Byzantine Empire might simply absorb and Hellenize and Christanize them eventually . Plus , Constantinople was one of the hardest cities in the world to take , which accounts for the Byantines Longetivity.