The dominate province Mesopotamia (that is only nothern Mesopotamia) or the whole region (like under Trajan)?
[POLL] Would Byzantium be better off without Justinian's conquests?
- Thread starter Alcsentre Calanice
- Start date
The dominate province Mesopotamia (that is only nothern Mesopotamia) or the whole region (like under Trajan)?
As much as possible.The dominate province Mesopotamia (that is only nothern Mesopotamia) or the whole region (like under Trajan)?
At the time most of them was a net loss for the Empire. However Africa is key for later survival and because of that its absolutly woth it. Remember that later Heraclius the Elder rebelled there. Basically without Africa the whole of the Empire would be under occupation in 626 except the capital. That would need an even greater miracle than OTL and im not sure they are capable of one.
Because of this i voted no.
Because of this i voted no.
Red Orm
Banned
Really unlikely though. For all of the Roman Empire's strength at this time, Mesopotamia is just geopolitically unsuited to defense from the west. Armies have to march across mountains and deserts to get there, or else be garrisoned there permanently and get food constantly shipped or diverted to/bought for them. Compound this with the fact that any state dominating the Iranian plateau can just swoop down out of the Zagros and onto the plain, wreaking havoc and kicking ass, for a force to invade the Zagros from the west, with all its forts and the uphill climb and unfamiliar terrain, is an absolute nightmare.
So, not impossible, but if Justinian was too incompetent to take half of Italy without slaughtering half of the people living there, I don't see what he can do with Mesopotamia, one of the wealthiest, most densely populated, and religiously unwilling-to-be-ruled-by-bigoted-fanatics areas at this time period.
An Italy united under a surviving Ostrogothic Kingdom would have posed a threat to the East Romans, just as southern Italy and Sicily wound up doing to the Byzantines after the Normans set up their kingdom. Even partial Byzantine control of Italy prevented this for five centuries.
Except for Narses' invasion in the 550s, the conquests were all done on the cheap anyway, which is why success wasn't complete. The priority was always the eastern and the Balkan fronts, even under Justinian. They seemed more ambitious than they were because Justinian and his commanders were able to opportunistically take advantage of divisions among the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Visigoths to grab more territory than the forces committed really warranted. Justinian's building program probably did more to bankrupt the empire, along with the plague of course which would have happened anyway.
I don't see an Anastasian style empire avoiding a war with the Western Mediterranean kingdoms, probably against the Ostrogoths.
Except for Narses' invasion in the 550s, the conquests were all done on the cheap anyway, which is why success wasn't complete. The priority was always the eastern and the Balkan fronts, even under Justinian. They seemed more ambitious than they were because Justinian and his commanders were able to opportunistically take advantage of divisions among the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Visigoths to grab more territory than the forces committed really warranted. Justinian's building program probably did more to bankrupt the empire, along with the plague of course which would have happened anyway.
I don't see an Anastasian style empire avoiding a war with the Western Mediterranean kingdoms, probably against the Ostrogoths.
We also know that Persia without Mesopotamia is more or less crippled.The point here is that if Justinian if too incompetent to take half of Italy without salguthering half of the people living there,why not do the so in Mesopotamia,except make Persia,the archenemy of the ERE crippled.
Red Orm
Banned
If he's too incompetent to conquer half of Italy, how can he hope with even a million prayers to cripple Persia? Keep in mind that this is the same Persia that regularly received tribute from Rome, which meant that it was cheaper and less strenuous to pay them exorbitant amounts of gold than to fight them. Make no mistake, Persia and Rome were on the same footing for almost their entire existence. There's a reason that, while the Romans regularly invaded Mesopotamia and sacked the Shahs' winter palaces/capitals, they never managed to hold onto that land.
He's got some really talented general.Unlike in Italy,the troops would likely be divided between different generals,not concentrated in the hands of a single general.
Red Orm
Banned
I edited my post. Anyway, having very talented generals is one thing. Just look at Hannibal, unarguably, I mean seriously without a doubt, one of the greatest generals in all of history. And yet he couldn't use his victory, was terrible at politics and maybe a lukewarm administrator. You don't conquer territory with just armies. You invade and pillage with armies, but you need armies and administrators to conquer, to make provinces out of enemies. The ERE's policy of allowing their priests and governors to run rampant abusing provincials and their various religions doesn't bode well for any kind of conquering.
By beating Persia, the Romans could very well ironically cause the Mesopotamians to do anything they can to welcome the tolerant Persians back.
But Hannibal almost won. I don't think that's a good example, Pyrrhus would be better.
That's assuming the Persians are even united.A country that just lost it's capital and it's heartland is unlikely to be very united.Some generals and nobles see it as an opportunity to gain political power.We know for a fact that's exactly what happened in otl with Persia after they lost Mesopotamia.
Red Orm
Banned
The Persian heartland is Persia, not Mesopotamia. As for when they lost Mesopotamia, do you mean the several times that Rome held it for five years or less, or when it was lost to the Islamic conquests? Because the Islamic conquests took a lot more than Mesopotamia off the Persians' hands.
The Persian heartland was Mesopotamia.It's where most of their taxes comes from.It's also where their capital's located.Rome has never conquered Mesopotamia from the Sassanids.
Not only that, but Persia proper was actually strikingly non urbanized for most of its imperial existence. Mesopotamia was definitely the center.
Red Orm
Banned
Yet every time Rome took even half the province, Persia retaliated in full force. What makes you think that any successful general fresh out of a civil war wouldn't utilize every resource possible to reconquer this wealthy land? Again, how can Justinian hold Mesopotamia when he could barely hold onto Italy?
If he delegates more to Belisarius and Narses, RIP Persia.
If he tells Belisarius to come back at random arbitrary points instead of pressing the advantage, RIP East Rome.
The Persian capital was in Mesopotamia, and their economic base was also in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia was by far the most valuable province within the Sassanian Empire.
That's because each time the Romans were only able to take the outlying regions of Mesopotamia,they never succeeded in taking the wealthiest portions,which is around Ctesiphon.
You are also assuming that someone can even unify the Persian plateau,instead of the region getting balkanized into several successor states.