alternatehistory.com

Hello everyone. First of all, im not asking for help writing a paper. I'm in a class about the late antique period, and i figured this would be a good resource to use for finding cracks/inconsistencies in my thesis. So the premises is this. I want to argue that the actions taken by Justinian caused the eventual downfall of the Roman Empire. This is because, when he was crowned, they had a very efficient tax collection system. Plenty of money, a healthy army. And so he gets them embroiled in the Gothic war, wastes thousands of lives and twenty years. Regaining the Italian penninsula drained the funds and weakened the Army. Now, what i've noticed, is that this set several things into motion. I beleive that had he not weakend the army, or taken the deal with the Ostrogoths, they would have been much better off when the Arabs came.

Now, i'm not incedibly versed in Roman history (or the history of the nearby empires) as this is a survey course. I was hoping to tap into the knowledge of this forum and just have someone who is more knowledgabe say "Yes, thats feasable" or not "Not at all, because your not taking into account X". That's more what im looking for, perhaps a variable that i'm not taking into account. I dont want to exhaust myself researching Syssanian, Hun, Arab, Frankish, history and so on. (well, i do, but that's someday beyond the horizon.)

So, to summerize, my question is: is it feasible to assume Justinian's poor handling of the war along with the plague helped precipitate the fall of the empire, or is there some event i'm overlooking?

Thanks for your time, and any replies
Top