Roman Balkans

How urbanized were the Balkans before the Slavic/Bulgarian migrations in the area? With the frontier on the Danube, was the Balkan peninsula worth keeping, in terms of revenues and manpower, in the late roman era?

Also, how hard was the impact of the Slavic migrations in the urban texture? Can the Balkans become a powerhouse of some sort, given some centuries to develop?
 
The invasions destroyed classical Greco-Roman civilisation in the Balkans and replaced it with a primitive Dark Age culture. The impact was similar to the fall of Roman Britain.

The Balkans was definitely worth keeping, it was a good naturally defensible frontier and there is strong farmland. It was also a good source of Roman soldiers.

Could the Balkans become a powerhouse? It depends. Ancient Greece did emerge in the Balkans, so if you include that area then there was obviously some potential there. On the other hand, the land is not ideal because it is so mountainous, and competition over the fertile valleys and narrow coastal strips is intense.

Anatolia seems a more natural base for a great empire, due to its size and easily defensible frontiers.
 
There were quite a few major cities in the Romans Balkans; it seems to have been more urbanized than, say, Roman Britain.
 
How urbanized were the Balkans before the Slavic/Bulgarian migrations in the area? With the frontier on the Danube, was the Balkan peninsula worth keeping, in terms of revenues and manpower, in the late roman era?

Also, how hard was the impact of the Slavic migrations in the urban texture? Can the Balkans become a powerhouse of some sort, given some centuries to develop?

They say the guy who lost the Balkans was Justinian, the same guy who conquered North Africa and Italy. At the same time the Balkans were devastated by the Barbarians. That was Justinian's greatest mistake.

For a few hundred years the Balkans had been the main source of manpower for the Roman army, the core territory, the heartland. A shitload of Roman emperors started their career as a soldier recruited in the Balkans.
If Justinian had paid attention to keeping core territories instead of chasing a wild dream of reconquering West, the ERE would have been in better position later in the wars against Persia and the Avars, the Arabs and later the Ottomans.
If the Balkans had not been so foolishly lost... well, I guess there could have been the Roman Empire in the Balkans now in 2015, or the successor state to the Eastern Roman Empire.
 
For a few hundred years the Balkans had been the main source of manpower for the Roman army, the core territory, the heartland. A shitload of Roman emperors started their career as a soldier recruited in the Balkans.

I think Anatolia was the heartland for the Eastern Roman Empire. You've got more land there, it's a huge area, and the coastal plains are good, fertile farmland. But you're right that a lot of Roman soldiers did come from the Balkans in the 6th century. It was a bit of a disaster to lose those lands.

Really the empire was in a tailspin from about 600AD onwards. It only emerged around the time of Empress Irene c.800AD. When it recovered, the empire consisted of Anatolia and parts of Greece and Thrace, plus a few ports in south Italy and the island of Sicily.
 
They say the guy who lost the Balkans was Justinian, the same guy who conquered North Africa and Italy. At the same time the Balkans were devastated by the Barbarians. That was Justinian's greatest mistake.

For a few hundred years the Balkans had been the main source of manpower for the Roman army, the core territory, the heartland. A shitload of Roman emperors started their career as a soldier recruited in the Balkans.
If Justinian had paid attention to keeping core territories instead of chasing a wild dream of reconquering West, the ERE would have been in better position later in the wars against Persia and the Avars, the Arabs and later the Ottomans.
If the Balkans had not been so foolishly lost... well, I guess there could have been the Roman Empire in the Balkans now in 2015, or the successor state to the Eastern Roman Empire.
The heart of the Eastern Roman Empire?

Serious changes would need to be made to maintain the Balkans and hold it against the slavic migrations, but it shouldn't be impossible?
 
Serious changes would need to be made to maintain the Balkans and hold it against the slavic migrations, but it shouldn't be impossible?
Actually no serious changes were needed. You see, the (Northern) border of the Balkans was very defensible. The only reason why the Slavic migrations into the Balkans happened was that Justinian took nearly all the available imperial troops into Italy.
Actually Justinian changed the Balkans for Italy.
But as the (Eastern) Roman Empire eventually lost Italy it appeared that Justinian had changed the Balkans for nothing.

So if the (Eastern) Romans had kept the Balkan border properly garrisoned the slavic migrations would not have been a problem. That might have been an advantage of a sort as a source of cheap slaves.
 
Actually no serious changes were needed. You see, the (Northern) border of the Balkans was very defensible. The only reason why the Slavic migrations into the Balkans happened was that Justinian took nearly all the available imperial troops into Italy.

The timing is off, no? Slavs didn't begin pouring into the Balkans until the 580s.
 
There were Slavic invasions during the reign of Justinian, but these were unorganized efforts that were easily dealt with once professional armies returned from the East or the West. The real problem began later in the 6th century, with the Avars, who promptly became overlords of the Slavic tribes north of the Danube. It was they who would fight the Romans, and then let the Slavs wander into the Balkans.

But really, the bottom just fell out after Heraclius pulled the armies of the Danube away from their bases in order to fight the Great War in the East.
 
There were Slavic invasions during the reign of Justinian, but these were unorganized efforts that were easily dealt with once professional armies returned from the East or the West. The real problem began later in the 6th century, with the Avars, who promptly became overlords of the Slavic tribes north of the Danube. It was they who would fight the Romans, and then let the Slavs wander into the Balkans.

But really, the bottom just fell out after Heraclius pulled the armies of the Danube away from their bases in order to fight the Great War in the East.

People tend to forget that the Romans had more in their plate than just the Slavs to contend with. The Slavic invasions coincided with the Arab invasion/before that the persian wars which did not help the large frontier the Romans needed to protect.

Had the Arabs been beaten like in Yarmouk, Slavs continue as in OTL, the Romans would have the resources, the strength to actually expel the Slavs. The Arabs were more of a threat to the Romans due to them being more organized upto the point of even having the capability and resources of taking Constantinople and the rest of the empire.
 
Question that I have: What are the natural borders of the Roman Balkans? The Danube seems obvious in the east, but what about the western border? Would you follow the Sava west to Istria? Would it include Istria? Or would the border be further south in the west?

Also, by maintaining the Balkans as full Roman territory, (at which point would it be best to call it Illyria? Moesia? ah well) would that enable the Romans to at some point venture forth into the rest of the Carpathian basin?
 
Top