The Gothic War doesn’t last as long

How could the Romans end the war with the Ostrogoths earlier and what will be the consequences of this? Justinian’s plague will still reek havoc upon the empire but will Italy be better off and strong enough to resist the Lombards?
 
There are three way to end the gothic war earlier:

1)Mundus is not defeated in Dalmatia during the second year of the war, the gothic king accept to surrender his kingdom and the few goths who refuse to give up are to weak to resist Belisarius, who would stay in Italy until the beginning of the Persian war.

2) Belisarius accept to keep the goths as a buffer state,Italy is divided between Roman Italy and its puppet.

3)Belisarius remains in Italy after the end of the first phase of the war, in order to pacify the region. Additional troops would certainly help, while someone else would be sent to deal with the Persians.

About the effects I would say that Italy and the empire would be in a better economical shape. More resources could be sent against the Visigoths and maybe a larger portion of Spain could be conquered by the Romans. With the first POD the Romans would also acquire the important Gallic city of Arelate which could serve as Italy western bastion or as a centre for further military expeditions. Finally the city of Rome would preserve the title of first (or second) largest city of the entire west, with its consequences on the Roman Senate and the Italic elements of the empire.
 
You'd really need Romans, and firstmost Justinian, have more reasonable expectations about what could be done in Italy, as IOTL anything that wouldn't gave the empire Illyricum and Italy back wasn't really considered, except in 539 when Justinian offered Goths to keep the lands north of Po; probably as a client state. Goths accepted but Belisarius firmly refused : at first glance we could consider it kept the war ongoing but Belisarius' decision was mostly sound : North Italy could be used as Goths as a temporary base to resume attacks on Italy, and it's what happened eventually with some success.

So, you have some possibilities up to the 540's :

Vandalic War goes more difficult for Romans, as proposed there, which would force Romans to have a better assessment of the situation in Barbarian kingdoms, and to act differently on Italy (the invasion of Italy might have been a consequence of the Vandalic war, as the defeat of Vandals providing the idea that dealing with troublesome kings in Central Romania would be easy enough). Maybe Justinian would be even content with taking back Sicily and Illyricum.

Another (really any other would do) king than Theodabald would provide with a better counter-attack in Southern Italy, possibly pulling a Vitiges/Totila early on and the war ceasing with a split of Italy

Belisarius dying in 537 or 538 : one one hand, it would make Roman army with a less divisive command and probably pressure Goths both more and less competently depending on the situation, and Narses would have likely abided by Justinian's proposals ending with a North Italian Ostrogothic Kingdom.

But really, as long as Justinian and/or Belisarius want still to swallow up the whole of Italy, it's going to be a long and costly war.
 
Last edited:
1)Mundus is not defeated in Dalmatia during the second year of the war, the gothic king accept to surrender his kingdom and the few goths who refuse to give up are to weak to resist Belisarius, who would stay in Italy until the beginning of the Persian war.
In spite of what Justinian might have tought after the Vandalic War and the easy campaign against an hilarously incompetent king, Goths weren't pushover as the behaviour of its aristocracy points. If Theodabald surrender his kingdom (as he most probably intended to do IOTL), then he would be overthrown by his own aristocracy. Vitiges and Totila's actions points that it wasn't exactly easy to get rid of Ostrogoths even in the face of utter defeat.

Additional troops would certainly help, while someone else would be sent to deal with the Persians.
It's really dubious, IMO, that Justinian would have trusted Belisarius (or anyone, to be honest) with even more troops. Keeping throwing soldiers in Italy mostly led to dividing the chain of command, turning it less efficient while more costly.

-future of the empire
There's nothing that really points that Justinian wanted to take back the whole empire as his original and long-lasting program : in fact, the campaign in Italy (while provoked by both the situation in Gothic Italy and political division) might have been directly inspired by the results in Africa, with an envisioned quick collapse of the Gothic kingdom. Apart from that, the control of southern Spain was mostly an "attack of opportunity" to deprive Goths (which had the only noteworthy fleet in the region) to intervene in Africa : Romans could arguably have taken deeper territory in the hinterland, but were satisfied with coastal control supplied by sea (that they never really build fortifications in the region being quite important IMO).
Even Justinian, in his plague-induced fever dreams, probably didn't went as far. Speaking of plague, if he did, the epidemic would really make a number there (remembering that it touched essentially the Mediterranean basin, especially on East, and not much most of northern and western hinterland).
 
In spite of what Justinian might have tought after the Vandalic War and the easy campaign against an hilarously incompetent king, Goths weren't pushover as the behaviour of its aristocracy points. If Theodabald surrender his kingdom (as he most probably intended to do IOTL), then he would be overthrown by his own aristocracy. Vitiges and Totila's actions points that it wasn't exactly easy to get rid of Ostrogoths even in the face of utter defeat.


It's really dubious, IMO, that Justinian would have trusted Belisarius (or anyone, to be honest) with even more troops. Keeping throwing soldiers in Italy mostly led to dividing the chain of command, turning it less efficient while more costly.


There's nothing that really points that Justinian wanted to take back the whole empire as his original and long-lasting program : in fact, the campaign in Italy (while provoked by both the situation in Gothic Italy and political division) might have been directly inspired by the results in Africa, with an envisioned quick collapse of the Gothic kingdom. Apart from that, the control of southern Spain was mostly an "attack of opportunity" to deprive Goths (which had the only noteworthy fleet in the region) to intervene in Africa : Romans could arguably have taken deeper territory in the hinterland, but were satisfied with coastal control supplied by sea (that they never really build fortifications in the region being quite important IMO).
Even Justinian, in his plague-induced fever dreams, probably didn't went as far. Speaking of plague, if he did, the epidemic would really make a number there (remembering that it touched essentially the Mediterranean basin, especially on East, and not much most of northern and western hinterland).
It won’t be easy but what I’m suggesting is that the surrender of the king would certainly help the Romans. The war wouldn’t end immediately but the Romans would be able to easily conquer some strongholds and maybe even the gothic treasure ( assuming that they reach Ravenna before the new king or Theodatus is able to flee from Italy). OTL fall of Ravenna almost brought the Gothic kingdom to its end and here Belisarius would have enough time to deal with the probable gothic resistance/counterattack, before being recalled. Not easy but definitely better than OTL gothic war.

Here I agree with you: Italy required more troops under a single leadership, something that Justinian wasn’t willing to concede. That was only my suggestion but I know that we also have to deal with Justinian’s personality/flaws. Even allowing Belisarius (or someone equally competent) to remain in Italy would certainly help.


Justinian could simply be happy with the reconquest of Italy and Africa while considering the rest of West legally part of the empire but administered by barbarian Rex. Here I can only say my opinion: personally I would secure the conquests in Italy, Africa and possibly the Danubian region. Given the opportunity I would take Arelate and that would represent the end of Roman expansion in Gaul at least for the time being. However we would probably still see Roman involvement in Spain given the opportunity (and this opportunity could be the same of OTL), just that this time the Romans are not involved in the final phase of the gothic war, exhausted and unwilling to undertake another adventure. This time they could take more of the western coast from Gibraltar to Septimania, thus acquiring almost complete dominance of the Mediterranean and its coast.

There are a lot of factors involved ( the most important one being how we end the war in Italy earlier) however we can agree that a shorter and less destructive war ( regardless of how we achieve this) can only bring benefit to the empire and to the regions recently conquered.
 
Top