Make Justinians conquests stick

Under Justinian's reign the size of the Eastern Roman Empire was almost doubled. Italy, Dalmatia, Africa, and southern Hispania were all recovered. However, within 10-20 years of his death Spain and Northern and most of Central Italy were permanently lost.

Is it possible to make partial Restoration of the Roman Empire stick for at least a century? And if so how?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Very difficult. The very act of winning back such large amounts of territory exhausted the empire in terms of both manpower and treasure. In short, too much was won back too quickly. If Justinian had contented himself with the reconquest of North Africa and left Italy to be regained over the next century or so by his successors, something might have stuck.
 
And even if Justinian focuses on Italy as some have suggested he do instead of OTL giving Belisarius the minimum amount of support, that's a fair amount of work for the Empire to bite off - especially since Justinian has multiple frontiers to juggle.
 
And even if Justinian focuses on Italy as some have suggested he do instead of OTL giving Belisarius the minimum amount of support, that's a fair amount of work for the Empire to bite off - especially since Justinian has multiple frontiers to juggle.

So lets say Justinian gives Belisarius the necessary troops he needs, what then? I would assume that the second stage of the Italian wars would be more successful and would end quicker but how woulf that effect Roman Italy in the long run?
 
So lets say Justinian gives Belisarius the necessary troops he needs, what then? I would assume that the second stage of the Italian wars would be more successful and would end quicker but how woulf that effect Roman Italy in the long run?

Depends on how well it's defended.

It probably won't be as ravaged and fought over as OTL, but if it's insufficiently garrisoned, the next bunch of invaders - since it's unlikely they'll be butteflied completely - will be a problem.

And then what? That might lead to OTL like ravaging.
 
Maybe they could restrict their more far flung conquests to strategic cities?
In Iberia for instance they just need a few forts and the Balaerics from which they can use their navy to try and control trade in the western med, will give them the advantage of a lot of income from the area without having to spend quite so much on administration and defence.

With the gift of hindsight of course the smart thing to do would be to raid into Arabia and throw enough butterflies into the works to stop Islam further down the line (probally wouldn't work though, such things don't just happen). In Justinians time though...need to be rid of the plague somehow.
 

elkarlo

Banned
What if it was done more gradually? For instance Justinian just takes modern day Tunis and west? Justin II maybe takes Malta and Sicily, and they just take the low hanging fruit for a while. They would not leave them open to massive Persian invasions, as they wouldn't be as exhausted.
 
What if it was done more gradually? For instance Justinian just takes modern day Tunis and west? Justin II maybe takes Malta and Sicily, and they just take the low hanging fruit for a while. They would not leave them open to massive Persian invasions, as they wouldn't be as exhausted.

The Persians might not attack Justinian so forcefully if he were not so ambitious. For one thing, the Persians would not be so tempted with the complete absence of the Byzantine army in the east, and for another, Khusrau Anushrivan feared that Justinian was re-uniting the entire old Roman empire for a massive invasion of Persia. Finally, in order to placate the Persians, he might just let them take Lazica (modern day Georgia) (instead of opposing them as IOTL) to compensate for their allowing him to take parts of the old Roman empire.
 
Belisarius accepts the Gothic crown and reigns as a viceroy (with the emperors blessing)?
 
The resumption of hostilities between the Byzantines and Sassanids were a significant blow to the recovery of the western empire. If Belisarius was allowed the 540s to solidify Justinian's rule in Italy, I think that part of the empire could have been held.
 
For one, you just need to forget about Hispania. Trying to take and hold it just wastes time and money. It's too far away from the empire's center of gravity to reliably supply, especially when it's surrounded by a semi-hostile power and has zero defensive hinterland. It's just one long line of coast.

One of the things you could do to hold Italy long term however, is to keep Justinian from shuffling about who's in charge of conquering the damn thing every week. Keep Belisarius in charge somehow (I dunno how you'd make Theodora less suspicious) and you have a much better chance of Italy remaining intact as a useful addition to the empire--not to mention a shorter war that wastes less manpower!

Africa's easy to hold, after all they did so perfectly well in OTL. You have Moors to worry about, sure, but nothing extraordinarily bad until...well, who even knows if the Muslims will even show up, or if Persia and Rome will have had it out as in OTL, or if they'll keep to border wars.
 
Africa's easy to hold, after all they did so perfectly well in OTL. You have Moors to worry about, sure, but nothing extraordinarily bad until...well, who even knows if the Muslims will even show up, or if Persia and Rome will have had it out as in OTL, or if they'll keep to border wars.

Actually, the NOMADIC Berbers by this point had become quite the issue. You see ever since the loss of Tripolitania to the Vandals the traditional Romanized Berber/Urban/SemiUrban society had become split and fractured. The introduction of camels prior to the arrival of the Arabs only made this worse. The urban populations that had been thriving over a century before shrank drasticly despite some advances by Justinian. The trend had and would move toward de-urban population The Limes south had even become its own De Facto Independent state of semi allied border communities.

The great centers of population such as Leptis Magna became little more then glorified naval ports rather then thriving urban communities. By Justinians point the Byzantines were really just a naval empire extending their reach where they could. It is only that Justinian took interest in the region that the Byzantines made such gains.
 
i think it would help a lot if there was no plague. That was a game changer. Lots of tax payers and future soldiers died. Get rid of the plague, would help a lot.
 
As much as it hurts to say this, kill Khosrau I and replace him with an incompetent. He was a good enough Shah that no matter what the eastern frontier is going to be a problem with as a competent Shah as that in charge, with a lesser enemy they would probably be much better off in the east.
 
Justinian's conquests held all that they needed to, really. Pressure could be successfully maintained over the Papacy for at least a century over his death, and the wealthy islands remained well in Constantinople's orbit for centuries after.
 
Very difficult. The very act of winning back such large amounts of territory exhausted the empire in terms of both manpower and treasure. In short, too much was won back too quickly. If Justinian had contented himself with the reconquest of North Africa and left Italy to be regained over the next century or so by his successors, something might have stuck.

The Persians might not attack Justinian so forcefully if he were not so ambitious. For one thing, the Persians would not be so tempted with the complete absence of the Byzantine army in the east, and for another, Khusrau Anushrivan feared that Justinian was re-uniting the entire old Roman empire for a massive invasion of Persia. Finally, in order to placate the Persians, he might just let them take Lazica (modern day Georgia) (instead of opposing them as IOTL) to compensate for their allowing him to take parts of the old Roman empire.

And even if Justinian focuses on Italy as some have suggested he do instead of OTL giving Belisarius the minimum amount of support, that's a fair amount of work for the Empire to bite off - especially since Justinian has multiple frontiers to juggle.

I find it amusing that all of your arguments directly contradict one another, stemming from Procopius' tendency to attack everything Justinian ever did without actually applying any logic. Justinian either exhausted the Empire by raising troops he didn't have, or he stripped the East of troops, or he put in minimal effort. He couldn't have done all three. As usual, the correct answer belongs to Elfwine, but it's a mistake to think that Belisarius in Italy was operating with an unusually small army- a generation later, the Strategikon suggests that between five and ten thousand was a perfectly respectably sized army for warfare in the West.

Maybe they could restrict their more far flung conquests to strategic cities?
In Iberia for instance they just need a few forts and the Balaerics from which they can use their navy to try and control trade in the western med, will give them the advantage of a lot of income from the area without having to spend quite so much on administration and defence.

This is of course more or less what happened under Justinian's successors.

For one, you just need to forget about Hispania. Trying to take and hold it just wastes time and money. It's too far away from the empire's center of gravity to reliably supply, especially when it's surrounded by a semi-hostile power and has zero defensive hinterland. It's just one long line of coast.

One of the things you could do to hold Italy long term however, is to keep Justinian from shuffling about who's in charge of conquering the damn thing every week. Keep Belisarius in charge somehow (I dunno how you'd make Theodora less suspicious) and you have a much better chance of Italy remaining intact as a useful addition to the empire--not to mention a shorter war that wastes less manpower!

Africa's easy to hold, after all they did so perfectly well in OTL. You have Moors to worry about, sure, but nothing extraordinarily bad until...well, who even knows if the Muslims will even show up, or if Persia and Rome will have had it out as in OTL, or if they'll keep to border wars.

Well possibly, but Belisarius was recalled because he openly disobeyed a direct command by the Emperor to negotiate with the Ostrogoths in 540, instead seizing Ravenna and prolonging the war by another decade. Have Belisarius and his allies be a little less precocious in 540 and you have a restored Roman Italy that enjoys the benefit of a friendly buffer-state north of the Po.

Islam certainly won't emerge ITTL, but there could well be serious Arab expansion.

As much as it hurts to say this, kill Khosrau I and replace him with an incompetent. He was a good enough Shah that no matter what the eastern frontier is going to be a problem with as a competent Shah as that in charge, with a lesser enemy they would probably be much better off in the east.

This too. There seems to be a tendency in this thread to reduce the Iranians to passive figures in the sixth century, who behaved only to react to Roman behaviour, rather than as imperial actors in their own right. Khusrau is very likely to adopt an aggressive stance towards the old enemy, to unite Iran behind his far-reaching reforms of the whole state apparatus which were done largely to heal the wounds of Hephthalite invasion in the late fifth century and the temporary adoption of Mazdakism as a religion in the early sixth.
 
This too. There seems to be a tendency in this thread to reduce the Iranians to passive figures in the sixth century, who behaved only to react to Roman behaviour, rather than as imperial actors in their own right. Khusrau is very likely to adopt an aggressive stance towards the old enemy, to unite Iran behind his far-reaching reforms of the whole state apparatus which were done largely to heal the wounds of Hephthalite invasion in the late fifth century and the temporary adoption of Mazdakism as a religion in the early sixth.

Indeed, the only thing that would draw Iranian eyes from the Byzantines would have to be incompetance and corruption or a large enough threat elsewhere. Then again, the Byzantines are just as likely to take advantage of their situation without a major Byzantine-Sassanid War like the 602-28 one.
 
I find it amusing that all of your arguments directly contradict one another, stemming from Procopius' tendency to attack everything Justinian ever did without actually applying any logic. Justinian either exhausted the Empire by raising troops he didn't have, or he stripped the East of troops, or he put in minimal effort. He couldn't have done all three. As usual, the correct answer belongs to Elfwine, but it's a mistake to think that Belisarius in Italy was operating with an unusually small army- a generation later, the Strategikon suggests that between five and ten thousand was a perfectly respectably sized army for warfare in the West.

I'm flattered (at the underlined bit).

The main thing about the small forces (to me) is that the Strategikon - as I understand it - is not advising warfare of the old Roman model of seizing vast amounts of territory, but reliant heavily on "fight smarter, not harder" - so "small" armies make a great deal of sense.
 
Top