alternatehistory.com

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?
Top