No plague of Justinian

Yep, I'm still in my little Byzantine faze. It is heading back towards a safe, normal Roman fascination however.

So....this one....WI no plague of Justinian. It should be an AH standby as big as axis win ww2/allies win ww1/south wins acw.... but it isn't.
A quick search of the forum doesn't throw up any recent threads about it.

So what if it never happens?
Rome fully restored?-except with some pretty significant northern neighbours....
 
It's possible to see both maximal (Justinian's Flea) and minimal (The Making of Orthodox Byzantium) interpretations of the impact that the Plague of Justinian had on the empire. Currently, I tend rather towards the more minimalist interpretation. Justinian's Western wars took so darned long not because of the plague, but because of his refusal to spend much money on them. The grand strategic balance with Persia, equally, was pretty much unchanged in 550 to what it had been in 530. Mediterranean trade was as busy in 600 as it had been a century before, so it's difficult to find much room for the plague here.

Nonetheless, the state definitely seems to have been short of money by the time of Justinian's death, and his successors, especially Maurice, apparently found it difficult to raise more cash. If we accept the notion that Justinian's Western wars were relatively cheap in the long run, it seems clear that the reason his successors were unable to build up an Anastasius I style surplus is because of a reduced population due to the ravages of plague. So, perhaps one direct POD of a plague-free ERE is a more prosperous 550s. It'll be much easier to bribe the Slavs and Avars, so the Latin core of the Balkans likely does not come under sustained attack in the latter part of Justinian's reign.

The Italian war may be won somewhat earlier if one believes that Justinian's competent cousin Germanus died in 550 of the plague- but not massively so, and the damage will have been done to Italy. Nonetheless, if the Empire has more cash to throw about, it's likely able to prevent the migration of the Lombards into the peninsula, or, at worst, make sure that this happens on terms reasonably favourable to the Empire. Italy thus gets a good twenty or thirty years at minimum to recover from the Gothic wars. Without the plague, recovery will come somewhat more quickly, though this probably shouldn't be exaggerated.

The apocalyptic tone of the times was doubtless heightened by the plague, so, without it, Church politics will be impacted. Whether these flaps of the wings of small butterflies go on to create hurricanes cannot be foreseen. Personally, I think it's likely that the Empire will go on as before- with vocal minorities denouncing the "heresy" of others, while the great mass of the populace carry on with very little awareness of what exact "heresy" they are supposed to be professing.

Basically, I'd say the Plague of Justinian sparked a series of small PODs, the results of which were probably not immediately clear to the Romans of Justinian's day. A world without it is not guaranteed to be radically different from OTL.
 
Some posit that the decline in quality of Justinian's decisions in his later life were the result of his mental facilities being partially damaged by his exposure to the plague. His wife dying also compounded his mental instability to some degree, but I think most of it could be attributed to the damage wrought on his mind by the plague.
 
It's possible to see both maximal (Justinian's Flea) and minimal (The Making of Orthodox Byzantium) interpretations of the impact that the Plague of Justinian had on the empire. Currently, I tend rather towards the more minimalist interpretation. Justinian's Western wars took so darned long not because of the plague, but because of his refusal to spend much money on them. The grand strategic balance with Persia, equally, was pretty much unchanged in 550 to what it had been in 530. Mediterranean trade was as busy in 600 as it had been a century before, so it's difficult to find much room for the plague here.
I wouldn't place the rising empire as a cause for the plague, merely what happened to be taking place when it did pass through. Which was unfortunate.


I see the plague as rather a big thing which really did slam the breaks on the Roman resurgence and practically allbut doomed any hope of reunification. To me it is the event which set Europe off on its disunited trajectory.
 
Justinian's Western wars took so darned long not because of the plague, but because of his refusal to spend much money on them. The grand strategic balance with Persia, equally, was pretty much unchanged in 550 to what it had been in 530. Mediterranean trade was as busy in 600 as it had been a century before, so it's difficult to find much room for the plague here.

Nonetheless, the state definitely seems to have been short of money by the time of Justinian's death...

They took a while because he couldn't spend money on them, given that there was basically none by the end of his reign.
 
It's a plague. It's not going to care if its victims are Italian or East Roman or Persian. It's going to hit just about everyone, although it's going to hit cities harder than villages. And because the mediterranean is more urbanized than the north, yes, it probably affected the mediterranean more.

It might affect the balance of power between the East Romans and the Slavs, but not significantly affect that between the East Romans and the Goths or the Persians.
 
I am rather interested in the cultural divergences that would result, given what BG said in paras 2-3 of his post.

With a less ravaged Southern Italy and Balkans, there is a longer run (may still go) cultural continuity in the early Eastern Empire with the Western lands. This in effect may make the Empire less "eastern", at least to the West anyway. Does this change much?

Well it may, as it keeps the Empire deeply involved in Italian religious affairs and therefore helps undermine the growing primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It may also keep large parts of S Italy Greek, or even extending further
 
They took a while because he couldn't spend money on them, given that there was basically none by the end of his reign.

That's just not true. There was certainly a lot of money awash in the state in the 530s, enough for Justinian to spend on numerous impressive building projects, but he still insisted on fighting his Western wars on a shoestring budget. Now, this may well have been due to a paranoid desire to squash Belisarius, but nonetheless, the fact remains that Justinian certainly could have massively increased the resources available to his armies in Italy after 535.

And I dispute the idea that he was unable to spend money after the plague. The expedition Narses led into Italy in 552 was well armed, supplied, and led- and Ostrogothic resistance to the Romans promptly collapsed. Justinian finally got a grip, and spent some serious money on the West in the 550s, and the result was a quick end to the wars there. There was money available to Constantinople in the 550s.

I am rather interested in the cultural divergences that would result, given what BG said in paras 2-3 of his post.

With a less ravaged Southern Italy and Balkans, there is a longer run (may still go) cultural continuity in the early Eastern Empire with the Western lands. This in effect may make the Empire less "eastern", at least to the West anyway. Does this change much?

Well it may, as it keeps the Empire deeply involved in Italian religious affairs and therefore helps undermine the growing primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It may also keep large parts of S Italy Greek, or even extending further

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by cultural continuity? I think, really, it's inevitable that the Empire is going to "Hellenise"- it had been doing so since the time of the Antonine Emperors, and would likely continue along this trajectory. A stronger Latin Balkans and Italy may slow this somewhat, but I think what's actually not unlikely to happen is the Hellenisation of these areas under the influence of Constantinople. IIRC, a lot of seventh century Popes adopted Greek styles of language and dress from Imperial officials.

The Papacy probably won't be any more undermined that it was IOTL. Italy's still likely to be something of a backwater, even if it is more prosperous ITTL. And proximity to the Emperor didn't stop the other four Patriarchs from being assertive and controversial figures. The Papacy may be slightly more "muffled" when compared to OTL, but I don't think massively so.
 
Cultural continuity is a pretty broad term and I'm not sure that I can give an adequate definition, now that I think about it!

Edit - I was reading through the first couple of chapters of Davie's Vanished Kingdoms yesterday, before posting and he was talking about the Northern Briton kingdom based around modern day Dumbarton. The passages about the language/cultural change pushed by the invading Gaelic speakers from Ireland, the Angles from the south and others I found rather interesting.

Now in that particular kingdom, like most northern British kingdoms of the era there were not a lot of people, so a bad battle or two could decimate the elites (military, political and cultural), leading to a decapitation of both the state and the culture of the peoples. The same is true in other areas like Italy and the Latin Balkans. Without the trauma IOTL then the process of assimilation to whatever replaced such is going to be far slower, which may result in a slightly different mid Byzantine culture. Still Hellenic but maybe slightly different at the edges
 
Last edited:
Top