No Justinian - Consequences in the West?

There are no many threads about an eventual no-Justinian scenario, and the few I checked are mostly focused on the fate of the Byzantine Empire (war with Sassanians, Arabs etc.).

But what could have meant to the West a non-expanding Byzantine Empire which had stuck to the East and eventually stopped the expansion of Arabs/Turks/Iranians whoever to the West during all/most of the Middle Ages?

Many questions here:

- Would the Ostrogothic and Vandal Kingdoms succeed and prosper, or they would have fallen anyway?
- Would the Lombards migrate into a still Ostrogothic Italy anyway?
- Would the Franks expand as successfully as IOTL?
- Would the Visigoths endure and challenge the Frankish hegemony in the West? Maybe also the Ostrogoths?
- Would any restored Western Roman Empire/HRE be formed at all?
- Would Rome decay under continued Ostrogothic/Lombard dominion? Would the Papacy survive such situation or might be the Western Church would evolve into a multihead hierarchy?
 
Last edited:
IMHO:

- Would the Ostrogothic and Vandal Kingdoms succeed and prosper, or they would have fallen anyway?
I think it depends a lot on the exact circumstances.

The Vandals were in a pretty bad spot, being a small cultural/ethnic and religious minority ruling over a Romanized majority, with the Maurs constantly chipping away at the edges. They lose one big battle and they're more or less done for.

The Ostrogoths had the similar problems to a certain extent, although they proved to be much, much more resilient. In the long run though, I'd give them very meager chances of holding on to their language and most cultural characteristics, as they slowly assimilate into Roman society - this had started to happen OTL, with Queen Amalasuntha raising her kid as a Roman being one of the main factors leading to the war in the first place




- Would the Lombards migrate into a still Ostrogothic Italy anyway?
If Italy remains relatively stable and prosperous, I don't think so. The war and plague had utterly wrecked the land, and the Lombards had been serving as mercenaries there for many years. Absent those factors, I think a majority of Lombards would remain north of the Alps.

- Would the Franks expand as successfully as IOTL?
You mean with stuff like Charlemagne's conquests? With a united and powerful Italy, probably not.

- Would the Visigoths endure and challenge the Frankish hegemony in the West? Maybe also the Ostrogoths?
I don't think so. OTL, even after repeated Frankish invasions of Italy which ended in disaster, the Visigoths were unable to take advantage.

- Would any restored Western Roman Empire/HRE be formed at all?
Possibly. It's not outside the realms of plausibility that the Italian state, whether it has a Gothic Goth, a Romanized Goth or a pure-blood Roman at its head, conquers the weakening Vandals, Provence and eastern Spain.


- Would Rome decay under continued Ostrogothic/Lombard dominion?
Rome the city and Italy in general flourished under Theoderic (outside of him abandoning games in the Colosseum, even when the Roman elite was clamoring for them). Peace brought prosperity, and the massive latifundia in Latium were keeping Rome's 300k+ population fed and its large aqueducts brought water. As long as future civil wars are short and to the point, there's no reason to think the city couldn't heal the wounds it suffered at the hands of the Visigoths and Vandals during the late Empire.

Would the Papacy survive such situation or might be the Western Church would evolve into a multihead hierarchy?
Who knows. Hell, the Visigoths in Spain might stay Arian under the circumstances.
 
- Would the Ostrogothic and Vandal Kingdoms succeed and prosper, or they would have fallen anyway?
The Vandal Kingdom was in the process being swallowed up by Mauri during Justinian reign IOTL, as they mostly held the coastal region at this point. Assuming that Constantinople decides to not deal with Africano-Roman call, you'd end up, at middle term, with a Berbero-Roman ensemble in Africa, which would be close of what existed in Vth century western Romania (and that would probably somehow unify at least on the coastal and immediate hinterland at term, IMO)

The Ostrogothic Kingdom is another case : it knew both inner and outer crisises, loosing their edge on western Europe at the benefit of Franks, but still powerful if declining.
The immediate effect of such crisies is that their neighbours would still likely use this to carve out some parts (especially Provence and Illyricum). The very distinctivness of the indentitarian situation (Gothic and Roman elites being really set apart, at the contrary to Spain and evenmoreso Gaul) is going to be a thorn, with the threat of a Roman intervention being very present.r
Meaning that if not Justinian, any powerful emperor would at least toy with the idea of intervening at the benefit of the Pro-Roman faction, or even carve out something out of Sicily and Southern Italy.

Now, depending on the situation in ERE, I could still see Ostrogoths pulling a Reccared and not only take the upper part in Italy but as well taking back at least some territories they would have lost.
- Would the Lombards migrate into a still Ostrogothic Italy anyway?
That's a distinct possibility, but there's no clue on how efficient they could be as it depends a lot from inner situation and ERE's reaction.
But, without the devastating consequences of Gothic Wars, I think that Lombards would have an harder time being as successful they were IOTL. I'd rather see them carving out a territory in Pannonia at the expense of Herulii in a first time, and then being in a good position to deal with Illyricum and Italy from there.

At this point they could turn either as a threat, a rival or a even a tributary ensemble).

- Would the Franks expand as successfully as IOTL?
Probably, assuming you're talking about Merovingian success in the VI/VIIth centuries : being largely peripherical to the Justinian conquests, they were the ones that were the less touched by its consequences. Byzantine intervention appeared later, especially during Maurice's reign (who seems to have toyed with the idea to carve out a Gallic exarchate out of the remains of Gondobald's followers)

- Would the Visigoths endure and challenge the Frankish hegemony in the West?
Well, Visigoths could be a stronger shape than IOTL, but I don't think it would be that obvious : Byzantine conquest in Betica did provided Visigothic kingship with a focus and a political way to strengthen itself.
And Visigoths were still quite fragile institutionally at this point : Balthi dynasty vanished, Ostrogothic protection as well. They were found pants down by Byzantines (possibly litterally so in Theudigisel's case) that used the inner fights to carve out a coastal province.

While Visigoths, even in this state, were certainly strong enough to repel Frankish interventions in their province of Gaul (the modernly misnamed "Septimania"), I doubt they could be in any state to rival their rise in western Romania as a whole : they'll likely experiment as IOTL with sub-kingship and fighting against Suevi, and maybe you'd see an earlier recovery and possibly the return of a dynastic succession.
But at short term, I don't think that it would appear as an obvious outcome.

Maybe also the Ostrogoths?
As said above, I don't think they could pull it immediatly, and while they could recover earlier than Visigoths, they probably could rival Frankish hegemony (especially in Central Europe) rather than challenging it.

- Would any restored Western Roman Empire/HRE be formed at all?
Carolingia and HRE (themselves relatively unrelated on the institutional level) weren't a tentative of restoring WRE anyway. So I'd go with a big loud "no".

- Would Rome decay under continued Ostrogothic/Lombard dominion?
Probably, altough not as radically so it went IOTL mostly because of Gothic Wars being butterflied away. At the very last, you could prevent a part of structures being mishandled or left unmaintained, meaning the countryside wouldn't be as nearly swampy and unlivable it became after the wars.

But Rome had a lot of its structural features being maintained thanks to its political relevance (and the presence of a proper municipe), which in spite of Theodoric's efforts didn't really managed to significantly hold off.
Eventually, Rome will quietly diminish ITTL but not radically so as IOTL, probably keeping more population and regional importance.

Would the Papacy survive such situation or might be the Western Church would evolve into a multihead hierarchy?
I think the question is faulty there.

Papacy was never only the bishopry of Rome, even in Roman or Ostrogothic times, but it doesn't mean its power grew without issue. Its political independence and universalism didn't became to appear before the VIIth centiry IOTL, but it doesn't mean it didn't have an important symbolical, moral, pastoral and dogmatical role (if not a prevalent one).
It's not about Papacy surviving, ITTL, it's about Papacy evolving or not as it did historically.

Now, ITTL, you'd likely still see a development from "Ostrogothic Papacy", meaning that Ostrogothic and Italo-Roman nobility mainly kept a neutral stance when it came to dogmatic and pastoral roles of Roman church, but deeply intervened in its structural functioning and elections of the pope, even if Roman church kept strong ties with Constantinople.

It would likely not remain as such, especially if Romans decide to intervene directly in Italy as mentioned above, but that would be the departure point.
 
Last edited:
- Would the Ostrogothic and Vandal Kingdoms succeed and prosper, or they would have fallen anyway?

The Vandals are pretty much at their end so they would had fallen.

The Ostrogoths are a different matter.

If, like the Visigoths, they manage to unify the Goths and the natives into one people then they can establish a decently powerful Italian Kingdom. Theodoric was a great ruler that both sides admired with the Romans of Italy going as far as giving him the informal title of Augustus (informal because he never claimed to be an Emperor and it was meant to be more of a way to show admiration for him).

Now with another great King they can save themselves but OTL they got dynastic disputes after his death. Athalaric was weak, Theodahad didn't had a strong grip on the throne, we know almost nothing about Vitiges, Ildibad was decent and managed to fight back, for a while, the ERE but was too dependent on the Gepids, Eraric was a nothing, Totila was a strong and a capable leader, had he survived Taginae he could had dragged the war and the cost could make the ERE think twice about continuing it and Teia didn't had time to do nothing other than a last stand.

So if the ERE doesn't expands to Italy, either the Sassanids are too powerful and they are forced to focus on the east more or any other POD you want, there will be a time of troubles but if a strong leader manages to become king they can establish a Kingdom in Italy, but Pannonia will be lost and they will probably lose Provence as well.

- Would the Lombards migrate into a still Ostrogothic Italy anyway?

Italy proper I doubt but they may capture Pannonia.

- Would the Franks expand as successfully as IOTL?

Define successful.

Sure they will most likely annex the Thuringii (532), Burgundes (534), and Saxons and Frisians (c. 560), but what after? Will the Merovingians lose power like OTL to the Prince of the Franks? If yes it depends on who will be the Prince of the Franks and if the other Kings of Frankia will accept him as their ruler.

Worst case scenario the Frankish Kingdom breaks into several independent Kingdoms (note that even when divided between multiple Kingdoms the Franks saw the lands as one realm ruled by multiple kings).

Best case scenario Carolinian Empire v2.0, it all depends on who gets the throne.

- Would the Visigoths endure and challenge the Frankish hegemony in the West? Maybe also the Ostrogoths?

It depends on too many POD's to know what will happen.

OTL Teudis managed to fend off a Frankish invasion but he was an Ostrogoth and I doubt the Visigoths would accept a man from Italy to create a dynasty (hell not even natives managed that feat OTL)

Best case scenario Liuvigild's line manages to become dominant they managed to associate themselves with the office of King and Liuva II defeats Witteric and establishes a hereditary monarchy in Hispania. This will help in stopping the usual palace coups that we associate with the Visigothic Monarchy and will create a more stable kingdom and by continuity a stronger kingdom. A unified stable Hispania with Roman and Goth being Hispani in equality would be able to fight off the Franks.

Worst case, OTL was pretty bad in many points, usurpation was common, coups were common. Worst thing I can imagine is a Suevi revolt combined with a Frankish attack that effectively kills the Visigothic kingdom.

- Would any restored Western Roman Empire/HRE be formed at all?

First to the Romans the HRE was never dissolved, in their heads the Empire had never even been divided into two political units it was one entity with two men ruling each half of the Empire just like during the times of Diocletian and Constantine (Early Constantine). The Ostrogoths were nominal vassals, Theodoric ruled "in name of Constantinople", the Franks also played this game until Theudebert that just decided to ignore the charade and begun to mint coins with his own image, the Visigoths also played the game even minting coining of Justinian. In the roman minds the West was never lost it still existed as part of the Empire what changed were the governors.

So when Justinian went west it wasn't as much a war of conquest it was a war to confirm imperial authority in the areas.

And no one ever attempted to restore anything.

Charlemagne's full title was "Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus magnus pacificus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam dei Rex Francorum et Longobardorum" That you can translate as "Charles most serene Augustus crowned by God, the great, peaceful Ruler of the Romans that manages the Empire/that manages supreme power, and by mercy King of the Franks and Lombards". By this formula his power comes from his Kingship of the Franks and the Lombards but the problem comes from Leo III that tried to use the Franks to confirm the Roman Church as the only power that can give the Universal Dignity of Imperator Romanum. This wasn't an attempt to create the second WRE this was an attempt by the Pope to confirm his power and independence from Constantinople so he just created a new protector.

The Franks didn't want the title because they didn't want to be associated with the Eastern Emperors, that used the title of Imperator Romanum, and for Charlemagne, a man more used to Frankish politics, adding the "Gubernans Imperium" meaning that he only manages the power was a way to escape from the title of Roman Emperor but for the Emperors in Constantinople the simple use of the Imperator Romanum, ignoring the context, was an insult and a attempt to usurp their power. If anyone wants to know more I advice the "Growth of the Papal Government in the Middle Ages" its free on google books.


- Would Rome decay under continued Ostrogothic/Lombard dominion? Would the Papacy survive such situation or might be the Western Church would evolve into a multihead hierarchy?

Rome actually prospered under Theodoric's rule and the division between Western Church and Eastern Church happened because the Pope wanted to confirm his place as head of all the Bishops so it would always be conflict between the Bishop of Constantinople backed by the ERE and the Bishops of Rome backed by I guess the Ostrogoths and possibly the Franks depending if the Ostrogoths convert from Arianism (which they would most likely do if only to integrate Goths and Romans).
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments!

Regarding some of the points stated in your previous posts:

- You all think that Lombards would probably stay out Italy if Ostrogoths remain strong in proper Italy and that Lombards may just take Pannonia. The porblem I see is that IOTL Lombards were actually pushed into northeastern Italy by the migration of the Avars into Pannonia. As far as I know, that region of nowadays Veneto-South Tyrol was hard to keep under control. If the pressure of Avars on the Lombards is high they will try to move in anyway. So either the Ostrogoths crush them and the Lombards vanish or, IMO more likely, they let them to settle in different areas of the Po valley as vassals or similar. The risk is that Lombards could take advantage of some of the Ostrogothic internal fights to eventually seize North Italy at some time or maybe Italy develops into a scenario of a Lombardic North vs an Ostrogothic Centre/South.

- When I referred to Papacy, I was mostly referring to their secular power. A strong Ostrogothic power in Rome which would not allow Frankish interference might lead to a Papacy with no secular power and no Papal states. If it is deprived from the relevance it achieved IOTL later thanks to the Franks, other powerful bishoprics could raise in the West (Cologne?, Tarragona?) that could eventually challenge the alleged leadership of the bishopric of Rome.

- The Visigothic Kingdom was neither stable nor strong enough to challenge the Franks by its end in 711, but if they would have survived (no Arab invasion) they could have probably interferred in some Frankish policies, i.e. the dominion of Aquitaine or the control of Provence. I'm quite sure that Francia and the Visigoths would have clashed in some big war during the late 8th century - early 9th century. Outcome difficult to predict.

- Do you all think that, after an eventual decline of the ERE influence in the West, some of the Germanic Kings (Frank, (Visi-/Ostro-)gothic, Saxon...) would have tried to impose his overlordship over the rest and to acquire some analogue title to Emperor/Great King, thus finishing the symbolic overlordship of Constantinople there? (I am talking about two centuries or so after Justinian).
 
If, like the Visigoths, they manage to unify the Goths and the natives into one people then they can establish a decently powerful Italian Kingdom.
That said, Goths did manage to pull that relatively late in Spain, even if by the end of the VIIth century it was achieved.

While remembering that Italian society seems to have been more divisie on these matters than in Gaul or Spain (mostly due to the proximity of ERE and the strong Italo-Roman identity), I can't see Ostrogoths being able to achieve this as easily that Visigoths did IOTL.

Will the Merovingians lose power like OTL to the Prince of the Franks?
Probably not. If Romans manage to relatively easily pull off Persians and if Arab conquests are then butterflied away, it's likely you won't see the decline of mediterranean trade roads (which were weakened but still there) and especially the link between Constantinople and western Romania.

For instance, you probably won't see, or as much, the shift between the Rhone/Seine trade road with the Rheinish/North Sea trade road, happening as quickly as IOTL.
It would make Neustrian courts in better position, especially with the decline of Merovingian Francia in the mid VIIth century being moderated.

Merovingians could still loose power, but I don't think it would be facing a strong Rheinish family (let's remember that Merovingians were still more pwoerful than Peppinid propaganda made them be by the early VIIIth century)

You all think that Lombards would probably stay out Italy if Ostrogoths remain strong in proper Italy and that Lombards may just take Pannonia.
Not exactly : I think that Lombardi could still raid the hell out of Northern Italy, but that they would have an harder time establishing their territorial power outside Illyricum (and possibly North-East Italy as well) giving that Italy ITTL have more ressources to use to fend them off.

If the pressure of Avars on the Lombards is high they will try to move in anyway.
Will Avars be that powerful ITTL, when ERE fend off Persians? They did managed to put a show IOTL, mostly because ERE was less interested on what happened on its Danubian borders.
Not that they wouldn't pull off an hegemonic rule as they did IOTL on central European Slavs, but with both a stronger ERE on the region AND a stronger post-classical Italy, it would be a bit harder for them.

Not only, indeed, Avars needed byzantine gold as tribute or loot in order to keep their hegemony in one piece, but you may even see peripherical opposition to them equivalent to Samo's Kingdom (except possibly partially Ostrogothic in origin rather than partially Frankish)

Now, Justinian plague effects are still going to play fully, disadvantaging more whoever controls Italy than an invader from Pannonia. But if we look at what happened in Francia IOTL, they didn't suffered much eventually from Saxon and Avar incursions.

I would tend to think that an Ostrogothic Italy that would manage to survive in one piece in the VIth century would have its fair chances and possibly turning Lombard as a quasi-independent duchy under their overlordship in Pannonia (not all of it, and probably taking its fair share of Illyricum) not unlike Franks did with Bavarii.

The risk is that Lombards could take advantage of some of the Ostrogothic internal fights to eventually seize North Italy at some time or maybe Italy develops into a scenario of a Lombardic North vs an Ostrogothic Centre/South.
That's admittedly possible, but for aformentioned reasons, clearly less likely to happen than IOTL.

A strong Ostrogothic power in Rome which would not allow Frankish interference might lead to a Papacy with no secular power and no Papal states.
Popes didn't need Franks to have temporal power : the Ducatus Romanus was largely autonomous from ERE by the VIIth century. Now, there's indeed the point to be made that an Ostrogothic kingdom wouldn't allow a quasi-independent pontifical power in Italy.

That said, you're largely underestimating the secular power of Papacy within Italy, especially as Ostrogothic political power was declining : because that secular power was largely symbolical doesn't mean it wasn't real when it came to municipal influence and on the Latium in general.

If it is deprived from the relevance it achieved IOTL later thanks to the Franks, other powerful bishoprics could raise in the West (Cologne?, Tarragona?) that could eventually challenge the alleged leadership of the bishopric of Rome.
You're confusing two things : Papacy as having a quasi-monopoly on Christiendom which was achieved IOTL, and Papacy having a significant (and unchallenged) dominant role over Christiendom.

Long story short, not only papacy was never only about the bishopry of Rome, but all Western Christiendom structures depended (even if from a symbolic level) from acceptance of Roman legitimacy, if formally.

Even in the Early Middle Ages, when church policies outside Rome were largely managed by national councils (most famous being Toledo's, but you have such for every entity), these national councils not only never challenged Roman legitimacy, but abided to it in order to get legitimized as well.

The Visigothic Kingdom was neither stable nor strong enough to challenge the Franks by its end in 711, but if they would have survived (no Arab invasion) they could have probably interferred in some Frankish policies, i.e. the dominion of Aquitaine or the control of Provence.
We discussed it in this thread : the consensus was that the Visigothic Kingdom went trough an important political crisis, and would probably rather be the target of Frankish interventionism than the reverse.
Basically : while Francia underwent an unifying trend, Gothia went the reverse road with a tradition of sub-kingdoms or separate kingdoms (as Paulus' kingdom) reagularily popping out.

Eventually, while there's a whole record of Frankish raids and interventions (as in 632, when Frankish help was decisive into the succession crisis of the time), when Goths were forced to see their northern provinces going more autonom (Toledo Councils generally had exemptions for provinces such as the province of Gaul).

- Do you all think that, after an eventual decline of the ERE influence in the West, some of the Germanic Kings (Frank, (Visi-/Ostro-)gothic, Saxon...) would have tried to impose his overlordship over the rest and to acquire some analogue title to Emperor/Great King, thus finishing the symbolic overlordship of Constantinople there? (I am talking about two centuries or so after Justinian).
It's hard to answer, but I'd go with no. IOTL the rupture between post-imperial western Romania and imperial eastern Romania was due to relatively specific conditions.
Namely :

1) Justinian conquests (that got rid of "buffer" regions in Italy and Africa, making the distinction between Romano-Barbarian kingdoms and Roman Empire more clear

2) The long Romano-Persian wars that weakened the commercial and political communication between East and West

3) Growing ritual differenciation between East and West (essentially due to how Byzantium abided by more authoritarian take on dogmatic definition, depending on how the war went with Persians and Arabs)

4) The Arab conquests that achieved most of its rupture.

Without all of this, and with a stronger post-classical Mediterranean continuum, I wouldn't see pretention to imperium over Christiendom (because it was what Carolingian imperium was all about) being seriously challenged, at least not that quickly.
Maybe later, but for what interests us? I don't think so.

That said, you could have pretention to hegemony in western Romania, without the need of claiming an universal imperium.
 
It's hard to answer, but I'd go with no. IOTL the rupture between post-imperial western Romania and imperial eastern Romania was due to relatively specific conditions.
Namely :

1) Justinian conquests (that got rid of "buffer" regions in Italy and Africa, making the distinction between Romano-Barbarian kingdoms and Roman Empire more clear

2) The long Romano-Persian wars that weakened the commercial and political communication between East and West

3) Growing ritual differenciation between East and West (essentially due to how Byzantium abided by more authoritarian take on dogmatic definition, depending on how the war went with Persians and Arabs)

4) The Arab conquests that achieved most of its rupture.

Without all of this, and with a stronger post-classical Mediterranean continuum, I wouldn't see pretention to imperium over Christiendom (because it was what Carolingian imperium was all about) being seriously challenged, at least not that quickly.
Maybe later, but for what interests us? I don't think so.

That said, you could have pretention to hegemony in western Romania, without the need of claiming an universal imperium.

I mostly agree with all these points, but I think we should not grant that this scenario would necessarily imply a stronger Mediterranean continuum. It could be, but I think it would depend on the evolution of the ERE during the 7th century.

Let's suppose that by the early 600s the ERE is in a better shape as it has avoided the Gothic Wars. And then a similar or analogue War with the Sassanians happens anyway (not difficult due to the long-lasting rivalry between them); or just the ERE intervenes in a Sassanian civil war similar to the 630s one.

Given a stronger ERE and might be a weaker Sassanian Empire, the later completely (or just partially) collapses, with the ERE carving out most/part of the former Sassanian territory. Considering that Christianity was already widespread in many Sassanian lands, this gives the chance to enforce the Byzantine authority eastwards.

If in this case the ERE expands eastwards (instead of westwards like happened with Justinian), apart of preventing the spread of Islam outside Arabia, it could lead (with time) to an eventual shift of the core of the Byzantine power also to the East: Constantinople might cease to be the capital in favor of Edesa/Nínive/Ctesiphon whatever and then pass to be a sort of fortified border city, and thus the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean also become peripheral.

Then, a gradual Byzantine withdrawal from the Balkans would be also likely: Slav raids and later expansión of Bulgaria was a headache for Constantinople and, provided a good amount of new rich and populous lands in the East, they might be tempted to abandon the Balkans, just keeping some 'border strongholds' like Constantinople, Athens and other coastal cities. Withdrawal from Cirenaica is also likely.

What I want to mean: if the Roman Empire shifted its core eastwards once (from Rome to Constantinople by 330s), they might do it once again if they are eventually able to take most of the Sassanian lands (it does not need to be as big as Alexander's Empire, no need of subdueing all the Iranian plateau).

If this happens, and the Balkans are left for Slavs/Bulgars etc as well as today's Libya, that continuum you mentioned would be probably disrupted. I think this would be an interesting TL: "ERE says goodbye to Europe and moves further East into Asia".
 
I mostly agree with all these points, but I think we should not grant that this scenario would necessarily imply a stronger Mediterranean continuum. It could be, but I think it would depend on the evolution of the ERE during the 7th century.
Giving that the TL implies a better Roman performance against Persians, and that it would likely butterfly away Arab conquests, you will have a stronger Mediterranean continuum. IOTL it collapsed, ITTL it survives : that's pretty much the definition of stronger.

Given a stronger ERE and might be a weaker Sassanian Empire, the later completely (or just partially) collapses, with the ERE carving out most/part of the former Sassanian territory. Considering that Christianity was already widespread in many Sassanian lands, this gives the chance to enforce the Byzantine authority eastwards.
That would be extremely difficult to do actually.
In the case the conflict is shorter and ends more decisively, Sassanian Empire wouldn't have depleted enough ressources to allow a Byzantine conquest.
In the case the conflict is equivalent to the historical one, then Byzantines wouldn't have enough ressources either to pull of a conquest in Persia.

Basically : while you may end with a civil war in Persia, and that you may even see ERE supporting one or more candidate, a conquest of Persia or even only part of its core, is simply too huge to pull with the VIth/VIIth Roman Empire possibilities. By the end of VIIIth, you'll likely have a rather strong Persian Empire (if possibly not Sassanian).

You mentioned religion and Christian presence in the Empire, but remembers that the Christianity practiced in Persia was essentially Nestorian and a "nationalized" version of it : odds that it would favour Rome are relatively low.

As for Byzantines willingly letting Balkans to Avars and Slavs when they would have the ressources to do so, it would be such a strategical non-sense that you'll be bound to have a coup at some point. The region was strategically vital to control, or at least oversee when it came to keep away the threat of a double front : during most of Byzantine history, whenever possible, emperors went to secure the region as much as they possibly could.

Now, if the conflict follows roughly historical conditions (even if ERE would have certainly more of an edge than IOTL, and I simply don't see ITTL Persian being the threat they were to eastern provinces), the Mediterranean continuum could be weakened. But as ERE wouldn't have swallowed up Italy and Africa, that were important political/economical/cultural transmitters to the West, the effects of the temporary weakening of the continuum would be diminished, cushioned : it wouldn't decline to the point it did IOTL even before the Romano-Arab wars.
And eventually, with the end of Romano-Persian wars, the ties with western Romania would recover relatively quickly.

I'm simply not seeing a situation where, without Arab conquests, without the decline of both Italy and Africa, and with a better position for ERE; where the mediterranean continuum would decline as much as it did in the VIIth century IOTL, let alone collapsing as it did later.

I'd even think that the closest thing of a situation such as you described could more likely happen (while not really likely overall, but still) with a Justinian reconquest in the West leaving the exarchates mostly to themselves, and with Byzantines attempting to pull a (mostly foolish) rush into Persia.
 
One of my bugbears is the often repeated claim in histories that Justinian's western wars were a bad strategy, that drained the empire of resources for no benefit.

For one thing, Justinian fought his western wars on the cheap (compare Belisaurius' expedition to Africa with the one led by Basilicus), and most of the effort were put into the wars with Persia which weren't his fault, neither was the plague.

But the other thing is that a united Italian kingdom under a non-Roman government was a serious long term threat to Constantinople, and this had long been recognized. During the fifth century, the East Roman Empire intervened repeatedly in Italy to ensure that there was a friendly government installed there. The East Romans retained certain legal rights in Italy which the Ostrogoths were in the process of violating in the sixth century. Some idea of the scale of the potential threat from Italy can be gained from the appearance of an Ostrogothic fleet in the Aegean during Justinian's wars, by the repeated problems Norman (and Agevine) Sicily caused the Byzantines, and the fact that the death blow to the empire was essentially delivered by the Italian organized Fourth Crusade.

A surviving Ostrogothic Italy could have become very powerful and dominated the Mediterranean. If Justinian's policies can be criticized in this area, it would be that the result they wound up getting might have been gotten much more cheaply by bribing the Lombards or the Avars to migrate into the peninsula.

I'm also somewhat skeptical of claims that the Vandals and the Visigoths were on the verge of collapse on their own without the East Roman intervention. The Visigoths after all lasted for a century and half after Justinian's death, conquered the Suevi and reconquered southern Spain, and a portion of them survived the Arab conquest in the Asturias. The Berbers for both the Visigoths and the Vandals, as with Byzantine Africa, were pretty much an irritant unless a foreign power invaded with a real army. The question for the Vandals is whether someone goes after North Africa later, and if so who.
 
Not incidentally, the East Romans/ Byzantines historically did their West Med operations on a shoestring, and always pushed resources there only if the eastern and balkan frontiers were quiet. This was even the case with Justinian. Not having the historical fifth century campaigns in the West Med does not strengthen Constantinople against the Persians and the Arabs at all. They always prioritized dealing with threats from that direction.
 
One of my bugbears is the often repeated claim in histories that Justinian's western wars were a bad strategy, that drained the empire of resources for no benefit.
While not was not per se a bad general strategy, it was poorly strategically and operatically done :
- in Africa, campaigns against weakened Vandals was indeed short, but it went out as decades of ruinous campaigns and fortifications against Berbers because Constantinople decided to ignore everything about local politics, and ended controlling even less territories than Vandals did when Byzzies came.
- in Italy, it went down to decades of war, effectively ruining Italy economically and as a political/cultural/economical transmitter to the West
- in Spain, acquisition of a narrow coastline provided Constantinople with a fairly uninteresting (strategically-wise) territory and assurence of constant attacks from the peninsula.

The Roman Empire could have dealt with that, having big resources at disposal : but Romano-Persian did kick in, and the empire ended being too short on means to make up for the ill-concieved conquests (ill-concieved not because of the initial cost, but because of the cost long campaigns represented as well than to make up for the regional decline).

During the fifth century, the East Roman Empire intervened repeatedly in Italy to ensure that there was a friendly government installed there.
Mostly because it was still under the WRE governance (including extra-Italian regions) and that cooperation with what remained of WRE was considered strategical when it came to protect the whole of Romania against both pressure from Danube and Vandalic fleet.
By the VIth century, tough, pressure on the Danube was significantly less urging, and Vandals were loosing much of Africa.

Not that you didn't have reasons for Rome to intervene in Italy : the pro-Roman faction was being crushed by their opponents, and it was indeed not a good idea to have a second Romano-Barbarian kingdom (especially a fairly prosperous one) going the same route than Africa. Not only Constantinople saw itself as the protector of Italo-Roman populations, or rather nobiliar factions, (as it saw itself to Africano-Roman populations, answering their call for help before Berber advance), but it wasn't a good idea in their opinion to have an unstable entity being ripe to decline quickly as Vandalic kingdom did.

Again : good reasons to intervene, not that well concieved interventions.

by the repeated problems Norman (and Agevine) Sicily caused the Byzantines, and the fact that the death blow to the empire was essentially delivered by the Italian organized Fourth Crusade.
Holy equivalence, Batman! By the XIth century, the Empire was significantly less rich and powerful that it was under Justinian : and when the Fourth Crusade kicked in, the empire was in the middle of another of his crisis.
By the VIth century, the only danger Ostrogothic Italy could deal to Constantinople was mosquitos bites in comparison of the imperial ressources.

A surviving Ostrogothic Italy could have become very powerful and dominated the Mediterranean.
I disagree: Theodoric's hegemony did looked like that, but even at his death, it was already being reversed due to factional conflict in Italy : Franks managed to get the lead in Central Europe and Mediterranean Gaul; and the Ostrogothic protectorate on Spain vanished the second Ostrogoths ceased to look at it.

I'm also somewhat skeptical of claims that the Vandals were on the verge of collapse
Here's a full study on how Berbers were about to take control of Vandalic Africa, and why Byzantines never really managed to hold more than the coastline depsite their (ruinous) efforts)
As it's in french, there's the translated conclusion.

Visigoths were on the verge of collapse
Nobody so far even suggested that : all that was said is that Visigoths were still recovering from the political implications of the disappearance of Balthi, and that while the byzantine presence did helped having visigothic king gaining legitimacy by fighting to recover it, you'd have less unifying tentative IOTL.
That said, you could have an earlier Niceanisation of Gothic Spain, which could admittedly accelerate the fusion of nobilities.

But really, nobody said they were going to collapse : just they weren't in the best shape to effectively launch a bid for western domination : there's a world of differences between these.
 
That would be extremely difficult to do actually.
In the case the conflict is shorter and ends more decisively, Sassanian Empire wouldn't have depleted enough ressources to allow a Byzantine conquest.
In the case the conflict is equivalent to the historical one, then Byzantines wouldn't have enough ressources either to pull of a conquest in Persia.

Basically : while you may end with a civil war in Persia, and that you may even see ERE supporting one or more candidate, a conquest of Persia or even only part of its core, is simply too huge to pull with the VIth/VIIth Roman Empire possibilities. By the end of VIIIth, you'll likely have a rather strong Persian Empire (if possibly not Sassanian).

You may introduce a third actor in the war that would help in exhausting the Persians without eroding Byzantines resources: some alternate form of Arab Caliphate which may engage in a conflict against the Sassanians (without attacking Byzantines at the same time) or an earlier massive migration of Turkic/Mongol peoples into the Iranian region.

You mentioned religion and Christian presence in the Empire, but remembers that the Christianity practiced in Persia was essentially Nestorian and a "nationalized" version of it : odds that it would favour Rome are relatively low.

But Christians in Persia were unhappy with that situation (sp. control of the state) and this is the reason why many of them welcome the Arab invasion at first. Probably they would have been not specially enthusiastic with Catholic Byzantines but some sort of deal regarding cult is possible (Armenians did it many times).

As for Byzantines willingly letting Balkans to Avars and Slavs when they would have the ressources to do so, it would be such a strategical non-sense that you'll be bound to have a coup at some point. The region was strategically vital to control, or at least oversee when it came to keep away the threat of a double front : during most of Byzantine history, whenever possible, emperors went to secure the region as much as they possibly could.

The problem here was the lack of realism of Constantinople. From 6th century onwards, and excepting some brief periods, the ERE only really controlled the coastline and some certain patches around fortified cities in the whole Balkans. Since mid-6th century most of the Balkans is called Sclavinia for a reason.

Obviously, the ERE tried to at least keep that situation in the Balkans because a major takeover would have compromised a lot the safety of the capital itself and other important cities like Athens. But if the core of the Empire would have not been there anymore, the resources wasted in reverting the Slavic domination in the Balkans would have been relocated to another issue.

Now, if the conflict follows roughly historical conditions (even if ERE would have certainly more of an edge than IOTL, and I simply don't see ITTL Persian being the threat they were to eastern provinces), the Mediterranean continuum could be weakened. But as ERE wouldn't have swallowed up Italy and Africa, that were important political/economical/cultural transmitters to the West, the effects of the temporary weakening of the continuum would be diminished, cushioned : it wouldn't decline to the point it did IOTL even before the Romano-Arab wars.
And eventually, with the end of Romano-Persian wars, the ties with western Romania would recover relatively quickly.

The key here is: an eventual ERE being pretty successful in the East, that could subdue Persia (and this might open their doors to major trading routes in Central Asia/India up to China) and neutralize the Arabs, would be interested anymore in a bunch of poor Germanic states as long as they do not bother?

I'm simply not seeing a situation where, without Arab conquests, without the decline of both Italy and Africa, and with a better position for ERE; where the mediterranean continuum would decline as much as it did in the VIIth century IOTL, let alone collapsing as it did later.

It would not collapse, but it could decline if the commercial focus of the ERE shifts heavily to the East.

I'd even think that the closest thing of a situation such as you described could more likely happen (while not really likely overall, but still) with a Justinian reconquest in the West leaving the exarchates mostly to themselves, and with Byzantines attempting to pull a (mostly foolish) rush into Persia.

An anti-Roman Ostrogothic power with puppetized Vandals and Lombards might play a similar role of disruption I guess. But you are also right in this.
 
You may introduce a third actor in the war that would help in exhausting the Persians without eroding Byzantines resources: some alternate form of Arab Caliphate which may engage in a conflict against the Sassanians
Sassanians lost grasp on Arabia for a relatively short time : even at the early VIIth century, Persia did basically controlled eastern and southern Arabia. The rise of an Arabian Caliphate/equivalent to Caliphate would actually require weakened Sassanians rather than being the cause for.

an earlier massive migration of Turkic/Mongol peoples into the Iranian region.
Turkic migrations in the ME are actually largely the result of Arabo-Islamic takeover of the area, and then huge suction effect it had on Central Asia. Other wise the "traditional" road tended to pass trough steppe and eventually eastern Europe. That said, it's possible that an earlier breaking out of the Gokturk Khaganate (such as no reformation of the khaganate in the late VIIth century) may provoke a new wave of political moves and raids in the region. But it would be too far to really influe on the Romano-Persian wars, even if it would be a significant change.

If it happens, tough, I think it would rather *reinforce* the possibility of a Persian-centered empire or at least reinforce the region , rather than just being a nuisance : it's basically how it ended with IOTL Islamo-Turkic (meaning hugely Persianized) dynasties.

See, Turkic migrations worked a bit like Barbarian migrations did earlier in Romania : a bunch of peoples living in various regions bordering a big empire/cultural entity and being tied to, generally used as military auxiliaries. Then several crisis arise, and the border people just kick in, using their military authority to take over the old, weakened, institution.

But Christians in Persia were unhappy with that situation (sp. control of the state) and this is the reason why many of them welcome the Arab invasion at first. Probably they would have been not specially enthusiastic with Catholic Byzantines but some sort of deal regarding cult is possible (Armenians did it many times).
I think you're exagerating both the divisive capacities of Christianism, and the neutral benevolence that outer Christians could have for the Empire. (Rooting for the Roman Empire would have meant social suicide, regardless of who wins).

Quoting Touraj Dayree, author of Decline and Fall of the Sassanian Empire

The Sasanian relationship with the Christian communities of their domain seems to have been equally unaffected by a systematic policy. As Asmussen observes, periods of persecution notwithstanding, “[t]hroughout the whole Sasanid period, Christianity was tolerated . . . [so much so that] without reservaions on the part of the state, Christians performed services on an equal footing with their Zoroastrian fellow countrymen.” Elisë describes in emotive deail, for example, how in the days of Shaapur, when Christianity was on the rise in the Sasanian realm, the king took measures to stop its spread. But realizing the futility of his efforts, the king ordered “the magi and chief-magi that no one should molest them [i.e., the Christians] in any way, but that they should remain undisturbed in their own doctrines without fear, magus and Zandik and Jew and Christian, and whatever other many sects there were throughout thePersian Empire.”

While you did have periods of repression, these tended to be short-lived (if regular), and mostly focusing on precise areas. Generally, Christians (among others) seems to have managed to get posts of importance without too much issues (at least compared to what a Nestorian should have done for the same result in Eastern Roman Empire) ; it's telling that many Syriac chroniclers point often something like this "oh, yeah, he persecuted us at some point, but he was a good guy at heart")

Armenia is a bit of a special case, because it was a region that had already a distinct identity, its own customs, and overall its own cultural/political institutions, basically a sub-kingdom. But for the mass of Mesopotamian Christians, you wouldn't see that of a social rupture with Persia as a whole. A analogy that could be made (while certainly faulty) would be how because you have a distinct African-American culture in United States, it doesn't make Black Separatism any more plausible.

It could have been different, especially during a window of opportunity where Christians would have been more present demographically and socially, threatening the traditional religious magi and zoroastrian bases, but not eough to actually replace them. Maybe, ITTL, it would happen : but not by the VIth/VIIth centuries.

As far as a shah as Khosrow I was concerned, the more problematic religious communauties were ratherMazdakites and their likes, because they were not only actually revolting but attacked the institutional bases of Sassanian rule.

The problem here was the lack of realism of Constantinople. From 6th century onwards, and excepting some brief periods, the ERE only really controlled the coastline and some certain patches around fortified cities in the whole Balkans. Since mid-6th century most of the Balkans is called Sclavinia for a reason.
Sclavinae is rather a name for the small slavonic entities dwelling in Balkans rather than a name for Balkans, on this regard.

That they exist have relatively nothing to do with the lack of realism of the empire, but most about the lack of ressources due to the huge drain that was Romano-Persian wars (the drain is documented enough, for that it's not as much a matter of discussion itself, but rather how much and how long). Romania couldn't, simply as that, fight on two fronts especially when one of these actually threatened not only the most fiscally important provinces, but ERE as a state.

The key here is: an eventual ERE being pretty successful in the East, that could subdue Persia (and this might open their doors to major trading routes in Central Asia/India up to China) and neutralize the Arabs, would be interested anymore in a bunch of poor Germanic states as long as they do not bother?
I think I pointed above and in other threads why this is pretty much unlikely as a situation. Persia was insubduable save for applied handwavium, and at least partial hegemony was needed on western Mediterranean ensemble would it be only for ideological reasons (protection of Roman factions and populations; legitimity of Roman emperors as protectors of the whole of Romania) but strategical as well : while Romano-Barbarian kingdoms weren't really in measure to be an existential or even regional threat, they were well in position to make rear alliances with others and then proove to be a nuisance (Ostrogoths seems to have attempted than with Persians IOTL).
 
Just for summarizing, here is the map of the discussed scenario by the 7th-8th century:

No_Justinian (FILEminimizer).png
 
Top