Mediterranean World Without Justinian

Roman Emperor Justinian is perhaps the most well-known figure in "Byzantine" history. He presided over an Empire that was expanding and reconquering, both in Africa and Italy, extending its diplomatic influence on all sides, growing economically, and gaining prestige. During his reign, a whole new code of law was established that still forms the basis of much of modern Law, while Imperial troops, led most notably by Belisarius, took back foreign lands with far less resources than it was expected to take.

However, he also left the Empire overextended and with its coffers empty. There had been little demographic growth since the birth of Anastasius, despite retaking Italy, Africa, and Southern Spain. This was not entirely his fault- the plague named after him did most of the work on that front- but in overextending the Empire he left not enough resources to be used on any front, as the Sack of Antioch could show.

No matter how anyone feels about Justinian, he left a profound impact on the whole Roman and Mediterranean World. So what if Justinian never rose to the purple?

The why isn't really part of the discussion, but for extra change, let us assume that Hypatius somehow assumes the position of his uncle Anastasius instead of Justin I.

So what we have now is yet another Monophysite as Emperor in Constantinople. The Acacian Schism is unlikely to be broken in this situation, and Severus of Antioch is going to stay right where he is. Perhaps the Henotikon is still followed, and compromise continues to be sought from the other end of the schism. Monophysites are obviously not going to feel persecuted, but the opposite might be true; with non-Chalcedonianism seeming to be on the rise both inside the Empire and out as it had been throughout the first two decades of of the 6th century, many Chalcedonians might begin to feel under attack. I don't think a repeat of Vitalian is likely, however; Anastasius might have been controversial, but he was not hated, and from what we can tell Hypatius wasn't exactly a zealot.

As to the Persians, it's hard to tell exactly what would happen. Justinian's strategy of essentially paying off the Sassanids was more or less followed by Anastasius as well, so I can't really say with certainty that Hypatius and his successors would commit to a costly and drawn out war with Persia. Without the zealoutry of Justinian, it's also possible that an early war with the Persians is avoided (in regards to Armenia at least). It's also possible Hypatius, as former commander of the Army of the East, is more than eager to settle old scores.

Would Rome reconquer even Africa if not for the will of Justinian? The Andal Kings certainly seemed to have wanted to provoke war between themselves and the Empire, and the Vandals are such a glass cannon at this point that I don't think it would take someone as determined as Justinian to reconquer the province. What I am pretty sure of is that when/if Africa is conquered, Roman armies will take the time to consolidate afterwards, instead of immediately invading Italy.

It's also worth noting that the Plague is coming, with or without Justinian. So the 540s are going to be a tough period, regardless of overextension.

These are just my initial thoughts on the subject. A lot of this is pure speculation, but that's what AH is about, isn't it?
 
The Ostrogoths would probably see off the Lombards and found a longer lasting Romano-Gothic State. Not taking Italy would help the Empire long term but probably any eastern Emperor at the time who thought he stood a chance would take the risk: Rome is too psychologically important.
The effects of the plague will decide events regardless of who is in charge.
 
The Ostrogoths would probably see off the Lombards and found a longer lasting Romano-Gothic State. Not taking Italy would help the Empire long term but probably any eastern Emperor at the time who thought he stood a chance would take the risk: Rome is too psychologically important.
The effects of the plague will decide events regardless of who is in charge.

Now, the Ostrogoths are interesting. There's no reason to assume a Roman army couldn't, under the right circumstances, decisively and quickly defeat them in Italy. They would just have to be well-supplied and under capable command.

However, I agree that any potential attempt to take Italy isn't happening soon by any party. The Lombards might not even try for it; hell, the Avars might not even move West ITTL. In addition, with a powerful Ostrogothic Italy alongside a Visigothic Spain, the Franks couldn't afford to be nearly as ballsy ITTL as they were OTL.

It's worth noting, though, that without the incredibly efficient administration of Justinian, the Empire might not be too much better off after a plague as they were OTL, even without any conquests.
 
Would Rome reconquer even Africa if not for the will of Justinian? The Andal Kings certainly seemed to have wanted to provoke war between themselves and the Empire, and the Vandals are such a glass cannon at this point that I don't think it would take someone as determined as Justinian to reconquer the province.
Vandal Kings didn't wanted a war against Byzantium, as they tried to hold as much they could against Maurs : while the succession wars did eventually provided a likely pretext for Constantinople, what really won the decision was the certainty of a support from Africano-Romans as Vandals were unable to hold the Maur advance in Africa.

Doesn't mean the conquest was a piece of cake, even IOTL. While Vandals (pretty much restrained to the coast at this point) were easily defeated once their fleet sunk down, Byzantines had to deal with Maurs and it took time and ressources to simply hold them out of Byzacene (most trough sensible diplomacy than blunt force as Solomon tried so).

That said, Vandals would be likely out of the game eventually. Either Maurs set up a Romano-Berber entity/entities in the region that would be essentially the African equivalent of Merovingians or Ostrogoths; either Byzantines try to do the same than IOTL with possibly less chances (especially if Vandals avoid having their naval structures simply crushed).

Without takeover of Africa, there would be no intervention in Spain (which was more a support of a claimant with benefits, than a tentative of conquest).

As for Italy...Ostrogoths were in a precarious position, but still more strong than Vandals.
It certainly declined since Theodoric predominance in post-Imperial west, while it remained largely tied up with the imperial model that survived both in Italy and Constantinople : no protectorate on Spain, loss of said predominance at Frankish benefit, sucession crisis, no important support from Roman elites...

I could see Franks eventually going for Provence, Byzantines for Sicily (especially if they takeover Africa) and peoples as Lombards or Gepids trying their best for Illyricum.

Eventually, Ostrogothic could go either the Visigothic way (meaning an anti-dynastic kingship) or its own special way : distinction between Romans and Germans was particularly important in Italy mostly because of the prestige of the former in Italy. A fusion of populations as it happened in Gaul and eventually in Spain, should it happen, would happen quite late.

(I could see something akin to southern Gaul, with a population and elite still identifying itself as Roman. Except that in Gaul, Franks were still a "popular identity", critically in the Northern part; while Ostrogoths would be too few and too "unnatractive" in the Italian context to be so as quickly and efficiently)

That said, Niceanisation of Goths, trough dynastical conflict, could help smoothen things as well a certain form of clientelisation by Constantinople (at least for a time).
 
Last edited:
Vandal Kings didn't wanted a war against Byzantium, as they tried to hold as much they could against Maurs : while the succession wars did eventually provided a likely pretext for Constantinople, what really won the decision was the certainty of a support from Africano-Romans as Vandals were unable to hold the Maur advance in Africa.

The Vandal Kings may not have wanted a war per se, but they did seem content to aggravate the Romans in more ways than one. Even with the pledged support of the Romans in Africa, nobody thought the invasion would go as smoothly as it did, not even Justinian. It's not too much of a stretch for me to imagine a similar situation ITTL; there's some sort of Roman revolt, Constantinople intervenes with an expeditionary force, and it goes far better than expected, prompting whoever's Emperor to push for a conquest. That doesn't mean it'll happen, but it certainly could.

Doesn't mean the conquest was a piece of cake, even IOTL. While Vandals (pretty much restrained to the coast at this point) were easily defeated once their fleet sunk down, Byzantines had to deal with Maurs and it took time and ressources to simply hold them out of Byzacene (most trough sensible diplomacy than blunt force as Solomon tried so).

I'd argue the conquest itself went really well, the subsequent occupation could have gone better. A large part of this had to do with Belisarius immediately moving on to Italy.

That said, Vandals would be likely out of the game eventually. Either Maurs set up a Romano-Berber entity/entities in the region that would be essentially the African equivalent of Merovingians or Ostrogoths; either Byzantines try to do the same than IOTL with possibly less chances (especially if Vandals avoid having their naval structures simply crushed).

Without takeover of Africa, there would be no intervention in Spain (which was more a support of a claimant with benefits, than a tentative of conquest).

Agreed. I'm leaning slightly more towards Rome actually re-incorporating the Coastal parts of Africa similar to OTL, though.

As for Italy...Ostrogoths were in a precarious position, but still more strong than Vandals.
It certainly declined since Theodoric predominance in post-Imperial west, while it remained largely tied up with the imperial model that survived both in Italy and Constantinople : no protectorate on Spain, loss of said predominance at Frankish benefit, sucession crisis, no important support from Roman elites...

I could see Franks eventually going for Provence, Byzantines for Sicily (especially if they takeover Africa) and peoples as Lombards or Gepids trying their best for Illyricum.

The big thing in Italy is avoiding the major population loss that occured IOTL due to the Gothic Wars+Franks ransacking Italy. Constantinople is still going to be into Gothic affairs and succession crisis, but who knows for the future?

Sicily is definitely something I could see the Romans trying to carve off of Ostrogothic Italy, but the Goths aren't going to like it.

And who even says that the Lombards go South at all? There were no Gothic Wars for them to be mercenaries in, no depopulated countrysides in Italy and Illyricum to fill up, and possibly no Avars uniting everything up to the Danube and driving the Lombards away. We'll also see a stronger Danube frontier most likely, so staying where they are or migrating elsewhere might seem more attractive to the Lombards or Gepids.

Eventually, Ostrogothic could go either the Visigothic way (meaning an anti-dynastic kingship) or its own special way : distinction between Romans and Germans was particularly important in Italy mostly because of the prestige of the former in Italy. A fusion of populations as it happened in Gaul and eventually in Spain, should it happen, would happen quite late.

That said, Niceanisation of Goths, trough dynastical conflict, could help smoothen things as well a certain form of clientelisation by Constantinople (at least for a time).

I think a combination of all the above is going to happen to Gothic Italy. There wasn't widespread resistance to Gothic rule like in Africa or even in Spain, and some time or another the Goths will be integrated into the rest of Italy. The alternative would be something more like Muslim Spain, where the ruling classes remain pretty distinct.
 
but they did seem content to aggravate the Romans in more ways than one.
Apart from their religious policy, that was nowhere as dogmatic, devastating and "barbarian" that Byzantines tried to picture (and critically short-lived), I don't see much things prooving that Vandals didn't cared about the effect of their policies on Romans.
Don't get me wrong : they often failed at it.

It's not too much of a stretch for me to imagine a similar situation ITTL; there's some sort of Roman revolt,
Africano-Romans weren't in a situation on which a revolt could take place : stuck between Vandals (their fall could be compared, if you allow me the anachronism, to France in 1940 : it's not because it fell quickly that they were definitely and greatly weaker) and Maurs (and alliance with Maurs is definitely out of question).

I'd argue the conquest itself went really well, the subsequent occupation could have gone better.
A large part of this had to do with Belisarius immediately moving on to Italy.

I'd disagree : while Belisarius was undoubtly politically skilled, he had eventually to follow the imperial policy, as his tractations with Ostrogoths point out IOTL.

And Constantinople's vision on Africa was based on an idealized vision of Roman Africa, on which the imperial power was not only hegemonic but the only one. Maurs being considered as invaders, you had to wait decades before Byzantines attempts a better policy at them, meaning turning back to the actual previous Roman policy.

Agreed. I'm leaning slightly more towards Rome actually re-incorporating the Coastal parts of Africa similar to OTL, though.
Oh, that's more than probable if they attempt to go for Africa, no doubt about it.

The big thing in Italy is avoiding the major population loss that occured IOTL due to the Gothic Wars+Franks ransacking Italy. Constantinople is still going to be into Gothic affairs and succession crisis, but who knows for the future?

While Italy would be wealthier, being wealthy didn't saved Visigothic Spain to enter in a cycle of growing unstability. While the anti-dynastic part is mostly coming from the VIIth century, and in spite of powerful, skilled and strong kings, Visigoths never really managed to pull off disunity, foreign intervention and were eventually unable to really intervene outside their borders.

More opposed pro-Roman and anti-Roman factions in Ostrogothic court, more distinction between Italo-Romans and Ostrogoths (what helped Lombards to unify Italian population on them was precisely the less trouble to deal with a weakened society)... You could end with, as in Aquitaine during Gondoval's revolt, militant Roman groups (as in, with a Romano-German king, a Romanity influenced by Barbarians).

At best, Constantinople forces stabilisation by favouring the pro-Roman faction in Italy. It's going to be fought against at the first crisis weakening Byzantine grasp and influence on the region, but better than the alternatives.

Sicily is definitely something I could see the Romans trying to carve off of Ostrogothic Italy, but the Goths aren't going to like it.
Who cares about them in Constantinople? Nobody, that's who.
More seriously, I could see Byzzies pulling the same thing than in Spain IOTL : support of a pretender and taking territorial benefits opportunistically.

And who even says that the Lombards go South at all?
Mostly because with a destabilized Ostrogothic Italy, there's still opportunities to take. As going North makes no sense, that Gepids are still in the way, and that you'd continue to have an eastern pressure...Illyricum is still a valable target.

And possibly no Avars uniting everything up to the Danube and driving the Lombards away.
If not the Avars someone else.t That's pratically a rule at this point, with the constant steppe pressure, someone will eventually try to build an hegemony over the northern Danubian basin. Gepids, Avars, "Bulgars".

As Byzantine needs to take care of the mess in the region (would it be only for stability sake and prevent northern borders to be raided), they would call for someone doing the dirty work. Avars were a more likely candidate than, say Gepids, because they didn't have important interests on the region and looked strong but weak enough to not be a threat.

Heck, Justinian actually proposed them to settle in the Heruli Kingdom (Pannonia). If they didn't have refused, you'd end with an earlier Avar regional presence.

There wasn't widespread resistance to Gothic rule like in Africa or even in Spain, and some time or another the Goths will be integrated into the rest of Italy.
The widespread resistance in Africa isn't that obvious : again, Africano-Romans were relativly fine with Vandals as long they could protect them and not being too much dicks.
It's comparable to the situation in Visigothic Gaul, actually : if someone comes with a better offer, they would turn.

Italo-Romans aren't going to think of themselves as Goths. It didn't happened in Aquitaine or Provence in spite of a largely integrated Frankish identity, and I don't see it happening in most of Italy for similar reasons (altough the relative weakness of Frankish power in southern Gaul after the VIth century is another factor : didn't prevented a strong Roman identity in southern Gaul before*).

That it would eventually happen is possible, but again, I think it would take longer and would be incomplete (mostly concerning Northern Italy), even if, as you said, things can evolve differently (a unorthodox Imperial religious policy could admittedly push Italo-Romans into Gothic hands that, like all Romano-Barbarians, prided themselves to maintain religious "diversity")

*At the point Mauricius could have craved some form of exarchate in Provence after Gondovald's revolt, but that's another discussion.

The alternative would be something more like Muslim Spain, where the ruling classes remain pretty distinct.
The main difference is that Arabo-Andalusian ruling elite proposed something "attractible" fiscally, culturally, politically. Ostrogoths didn't beneficied from that, as actually romanised themselves in a center of post-classical Romanity.
 
Would Rome reconquer even Africa if not for the will of Justinian?...
What I am pretty sure of is that when/if Africa is conquered, Roman armies will take the time to consolidate afterwards, instead of immediately invading Italy.
I think that in the world without Justinian the (Eastern) Roman Empire would not reconquer the North Africa, Italy (and the Southern Spain of course).

After Anastasius I the (Eastern) Roman Empire was one of the most prosperous entities in the world; but it had very serious problems: 1) the Persian border 2) the North Balkan border
It did not need the North Africa.
It did not need Italy.
It did not need Hagia Sophia either.

Who needed all these things?
- Justinian. For his own personal grandeur.

So 'no Justinian' means 'no (re)conquest of the North Africa and Italy'.

What would other emperors (instead of Justinian) do?
- Usual stuff, down-to-earth things like defending Persian border and at the same time trying not to get the Balkans devastated, building new fortifications, renewing city walls; and when the plague hits - helping the populace.
You see, no grandeur in it, kind of boring.

- What are the consequences?
- I don't know. Best case scenario: a couple of new strong fortresses on the Persian border might help to avoid the dramatic events of Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 of OTL; and instead in this ATL make the Persian army get stuck there for half a year. And the usual stalemate (draw) will follow.
So when the Muslim Arabs appear they are crushed by strong Roman and Persian Empires.

And in 2015 we might have a nice Roman State alive and kicking :D
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

I see the eastern Goths being completely assimilated as time passes.

The Vandals are gone. The ruling people dont like them, the Berbers were already pushing them back, and without Justinians intervention this trend continues. By the end of the century the Vandal Kingdom is replaced by a Moorish Kingdom ruling over Roman Africa. Probably would be decently Romanized at the least.

Spain? Gothic disease will never go away. Probably means the Franks take Septima earlier.

Dunno about the Pannonian plain and north of the Danube; that area is always in flux and hard to predict IMO.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
illyria and pannonia become the stem duchy of "lombardy" in an eventual "germany". the areas are never slavicised or magyarized.
 
illyria and pannonia become the stem duchy of "lombardy" in an eventual "germany". the areas are never slavicised or magyarized.

That's unlikely, to say the least. Besides, it's ridiculously far in the future, and we have no reason to assume anything like Germany would ever form.

Revisiting this topic, it would be interesting to see a Rome that instead of paying the Persians off, fights them. Once we got into the late 6th century OTL we saw that the Roman military could and did defeat the Persians on even terms, consistently. With no Western push, Roman Emperors would be less inclined to pay them off and more inclined to fight the Sassanids. Instead of sacking Antioch and gaining tribute from Syria as well as the yearly fee they got from the Empire IOTL, The Sassanids could well be facing a hostile Rome that enforces its own demands upon them. Unable to keep up with payments to the White Huns and seemingly losing on both fronts, might we see the fall of the Sassanids (the dynasty, not necessarily Persia as a whole)?

I also think the Avars would be less inclined to move West. With a Danube frontier more strongly enforced and no habit of paying off Slavs to leave the Empire alone, why move West at all? It could still happen, but if the Sassanids really do fall apart, the Avars might just try their hand at the Caucasus (which would be a problem for the Romans as well, mind you.) Even if they do move West, a stronger Roman presence could keep them in check, as shown under Maurice.

So I foresee the Romans being strong and possibly even gaining land in the East, maintaining the Balkan frontier, and having new vassal states in Italy (the Goths) and Africa (The Mauro-Romans). Maybe they'll regain Illyricum, Sicily, or the area around Carthage in the West, but unless the ball really got rolling, full scale conquests in Italy, Africa, and let alone Spain just aren't happening.

Is the Empire better off? Perhaps. I think you all are overblowing the negative effect Justinian had on the Empire, and downplaying the positive effects. The plague is still coming, regardless, and that is what ate up most Roman resources and population IOTL, not various underfunded conquests that ended up succeeding.
 
Top