Roman Restoration

[trajen777]

These fortresses did not prevent the Avars and Bulgars and later Croats to take a large swath if not most of the northern area of Balkan (Byzantine only held the coastal regions). Fortifications should be more effective against barbaric hordes. I ask this question because castles and siege warfare were normally very nasty for the attackers in Medieval Western Europe, even for those who afford to have a specialist siege team, until the invention of gunpowder. Maybe they only concentrated around Constantinople and Thrace.

Very true, forts and fortress only support the forces to win the wars, it does slow down the raiders and make it more difficult for them as well as protecting people. What i am suggesting is that you would play the balance in the Balkans in keeping the Gepids from being destroyed by the Lombard's and the Avars so you never have an Avar or Bulgarian nation which controls the Balkans. You are right that the forts would make the raiders have a way of seizing the forts (slow them down) and be a base for the Byz to pick off straglers, control cross roads and have a defense in depth. To fully win these would bottle up and slow down the attackers until the field army could form up and fight.

 

[trajen777]

Justinian managed to get silkworms smuggled over. That does more to cut the exports east than anything else. The reality is that the Romans would do well to develop a sort of 'industrial espionage' department to find out all the secrets, and develop them in the Roman Empire. It would make the Roman Empire wealthier, more technologically advanced in many areas, AND almost collapse the Persian economy. The amount of trade to Rome that Persia enabled was huge. Cut them out of the picture with a Roman Empire and you could send it into freefall.

Good points. The silk worm production took time to get off the ground, a better way to say it would be to by pass the Persians direct to the spice areas (islands that did trade to India or India it self) and perhaps pick up other things from them - medicine, medicinal practices, sweet potatoes, pasta, compasses, and a multitude of other things form the east. Each one of these strengthening the Empire while hurting Persia.

 

[trajen777]

Justinian managed to get silkworms smuggled over. That does more to cut the exports east than anything else. The reality is that the Romans would do well to develop a sort of 'industrial espionage' department to find out all the secrets, and develop them in the Roman Empire. It would make the Roman Empire wealthier, more technologically advanced in many areas, AND almost collapse the Persian economy. The amount of trade to Rome that Persia enabled was huge. Cut them out of the picture with a Roman Empire and you could send it into freefall.

A good example is Turtledoves book "Agent of Byzantium " which details just this. The agent identifies tech that he brings back to the empire including syp glass , powder, hand grenades and other things. Each of these by them selves is major but in combination or with a gov conscious effort to identify (steal) and adapt these would make a large difference.

"In a universe where Mohammed became a Christian, the Byzantine Empire has not only survived, it flourishes--developing technology at an earlier date than in our universe. But Byzantium has many jealous enemies, and thus Basil Argyros, Byzantium's version of 007, has his hands full thwarting subversive plots."

 

[Thomas1195]

Very true, forts and fortress only support the forces to win the wars, it does slow down the raiders and make it more difficult for them as well as protecting people. What i am suggesting is that you would play the balance in the Balkans in keeping the Gepids from being destroyed by the Lombard's and the Avars so you never have an Avar or Bulgarian nation which controls the Balkans. You are right that the forts would make the raiders have a way of seizing the forts (slow them down) and be a base for the Byz to pick off straglers, control cross roads and have a defense in depth. To fully win these would bottle up and slow down the attackers until the field army could form up and figh

Well, in Medieval Western Europe, most of the fighting was about sieges rather than big field battles like Hasting or Bouville. Maybe the Byzantines should change their approach. When seeing hordes of Avars/Bulgars/Croats invading their lands, instead of rushing to battle and being defeated, they could lure them to a large fortress (large here means Gaillard in Normandy at least) and bog them down there. Forcing a battle there would be much more advantageous since we have a castle as an anvil (well, amd in case of large castle, you can even wear out the invaders there without using field armies). Emperor Valens could have done like that in Adrianople instead of being destroyed on the field. Fortifications were the advantage of proper kingdom like ERE and they should have made use of such advantage in full by placing static defense at the heart of their military doctrine. You can ask what if Manzikert was a castle siege instead of a field battle where the Romans were crushed.

 

[trajen777]

Yet true but valans was of roman era. Byz attics were to avoid costly war. However the barbarians were more about hit and run raids not as much to conquest. RAID kill farmers take slaves and produce the flee. They were not about besiege for the most part. So the isses with this is a constant drain on tax revenue. Dead farmers do not produce crops. So forts to flea. Forts to hinder and scout enemy raids. Army to assembly ann when opportune kill.

 

[Thomas1195]

Yet true but valans was of roman era. Byz attics were to avoid costly war. However the barbarians were more about hit and run raids not as much to conquest. RAID kill farmers take slaves and produce the flee. They were not about besiege for the most part. So the isses with this is a constant drain on tax revenue. Dead farmers do not produce crops. So forts to flea. Forts to hinder and scout enemy raids. Army to assembly ann when opportune kill.

I am not talking about hiding in castles. I mean they should try to actively force the barbarians to engage in siege warfare to bog them down near a random fort. If the Byzantines could make the barbaric hordes show up near a large fort, they would win.

I talked about Valens and Adrianople, but the same could be applied to Manzikert, as well as the Avars and Bulgars. The Romans were wrecked on the field, but what if it was a siege. I mean, make Byzantine warfare similar to the West: siege warfare become a norm.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I am not talking about hiding in castles. I mean they should try to actively force the barbarians to engage in siege warfare to bog them down near a random fort. If the Byzantines could make the barbaric hordes show up near a large fort, they would win.

I talked about Valens and Adrianople, but the same could be applied to Manzikert, as well as the Avars and Bulgars. The Romans were wrecked on the field, but what if it was a siege. I mean, make Byzantine warfare similar to the West: siege warfare become a norm.

It isn't exactly easy to force someone to engage in siege warfare. Not when all they're interested is the easy fights, looting, and bugging out. No concerns about a logistics train, just in getting in and out.

However, if they raid ENOUGH, either the fortresses are forced to come and face them, or there is nobody around to pay taxes to maintain the fortresses.

On top of that, they aren't directly comparable periods. The Romans had distinct periods of peace and war, whilst the Medieval period in western europe was basically constant low-level warfare.

On another note : We remember Manzikert, and Adrianople because they were exceptions to the rule rather than typical (and hundreds of years apart). The Romans by and large were pretty damn good on the field.

Additionally, field armies can engage an intercept enemies, rather than wait for them to throw themselves upon them, which is a major advantage when your enemies don't have to maintain logistics.

On top of all of this - the Romans did force their enemies (who were interested in invasion) to commit to sieges. They just also happened to have siege engines, and knew they'd need to bring a lot.

 

[trajen777]

I am not talking about hiding in castles. I mean they should try to actively force the barbarians to engage in siege warfare to bog them down near a random fort. If the Byzantines could make the barbaric hordes show up near a large fort, they would win.

I talked about Valens and Adrianople, but the same could be applied to Manzikert, as well as the Avars and Bulgars. The Romans were wrecked on the field, but what if it was a siege. I mean, make Byzantine warfare similar to the West: siege warfare become a norm.

As rouge trader enthusiast stated the Byz were extremely successful in warfare for 1000 years. They lost some battles that will always be remembered mostly because these defined a changing of an era. But any major victory that could have turned into a loss would have been a changing of an era. Most of the tribes at the borders were focused on hit and runs not conquest. The Byz strategy for this was to
1. Take people and valuables into forts
2. have scouts and small forces harass the invaders. Pick off small groups and report to the larger units
3. In the Taurus mts they would hide in the mountains till the raiders returned and ambush them when loaded with material.
4. forts would be defended (as are fortified cities) -- and if they are besieged the Byz forces would attack the besiegers or cut their suppliers

 

[John Farson]

From what I've read, the ERE was actually doing quite fine until Phocas revolted and overthrew Maurice, which was then followed by Khosrau II using the coup and the deaths of Maurice and his family as an excuse to restart Persia's war against the Romans (Maurice had helped Khosrau win back his throne, resulting in an advantageous treaty for the ERE). Here's a map of the ERE in 600, two years before Maurice's overthrow and death:

Areas in light pink are the Ghassanids and Armenia. The Visigoths were steadily pushing the ERE out of Hispania, but the Romans didn't really need it. Without a war against Persia - or at least without a devastating one - sapping their strength, they should have little problem holding onto the rest of their areas, and mabe even making advances elsewhere, like Italy for example. Just have Maurice somehow avoid cutting the military's wages, have him pay the ransom to free the 12,000 or so Roman soldiers held captive by the Avars, and have him allow the forces on the Danube to return to winter quarters rather than order them to start a new offensive.

 

[Russian]

as an excuse to restart Persia's war against the Romans

As you said it was an excuse, it was not the reason.

As the Roman empire had focused on the West, the Eastern and the Balkan fortifications were not paid adequate attention.

So the Byzantines having problems on the Balkan frontier was natural (with the Avars/Slavs or anyone else) sooner or later, thus withdrawing the Roman forces from the Persian border.
A Roman general revolting against a Roman emperor was in the nature of the Roman statehood.

So considering the above the big Byzanto-Persian war was quite inevitable, give or take a few years.

But the results of this war might have been different, there might have been less exhaustion from both sides, if the peace had been made earlier.
And the Arabs would not have been so successful.

But keeping the Roman Empire that big as on your map is damn hard under the given circumstances.
There were other challenges for the Byzantines (even if the Persian and Arab problems are a little bit butterflied away), the Khazar Khanate for example (if it hadn't been beaten by the Arabs it would have destined to become a superpower - right on the Roman border).

 

[EmperorOfTheNorthSea]

I think you have several options (the plague was devastating) so you need to have the following occur (basically a quick conquest of Italy pre plague which is possible)
First :
1. Justinian wanted conquests up to defensible borders (Treadwell ) ie: Italy to the Alps, Spain up to the Pyren. , Africa to the desert.
2. Justinian wanted to keep the budget in balance (did an excellent job)
3. Justinian mis-understood that their was a time frame till the conquests could be self supporting (big mistake)

So to give a better chance you would need :
1. Conquest of North Africa happens 533 - 534
2. Delay construction of Hagia Sophia (est that if this was completed after the Italian conquest you would have Belisaurus with a force of up to 30,000)
3. Keep some of the captured $$ from the Vandals treasury to support the troops in N Africa so no rebellion by troops (So Bel stays in Italy in 536)
4. Bel with 30,000 troops (mercs etc) does not have defend Rome in 537 - 8 but wins a battle vs the Goths (he did repeatedly in open battle with a much smaller force of 7,000 vs 25 - 30,000 Goths)
5. With the open field victory in 536 he would capture Ravana (capital of the Goths and their king) in 537 vs 540.
6. Then mopping up operations in 537 - 541 and troops (he had a much stronger force now)
7. In 541 Bel recalled to fight the Persians -- however he leaves a non war ravaged and prosperous Italy (leave 20 % of Goth Treasury to support the new province )
8. Plague hits in 541 / 542 but you can take the hit with a restored Italy.
9. With the extra resources you have the ability to send 17,000 + troops vs 5,000 to Spain and instead of conquering 1/3 of Spain you end up with all of it

So you have a non devasted Italy, Spain, and North Africa. You are in great financial shape (build Hagia Sophia in 545) and can support far larger forces to defend the East. Now you have Gaul and England to consider. I think you need a long stabilization time before you attempt this

If someone made a TL based around this I would die with no Regrets