TLIAD: Nika!

This TLIAD format is one used by the Politi-Brits quite a lot, but it hasn't yet been transferred to the Before 1900 forum: nor has it been yet used for something other than British politics. This, then, will be a heavily condensed version of my always-planned TL "A Very Different Sixth Century", which I will aim to complete in the next 24 hours. I hope folks enjoy!
________________

The toppling of the Emperor Justinian I in January 532AD, in a particularly violent outburst of mob aggression in Constantinople, was a pivotal moment for the Roman state. Hitherto, Emperors had largely been able to face down the demands and desires of the rowdy citizenry of Constantinople, a feat pulled off impressively a generation previously by the Emperor Anastasius. For Justinian, though, the old formula failed badly. With attempts to reason with the crowds swatted aside, and the aristocracy lining up with the mob against the Latin-speaking peasant Emperor, Justinian had little choice but to slip away.

Arguably the biggest mistake now made was allowing the escape of Justinian and a large number of his supporters, notably his wife the Empress Theodora and Narses, the gifted eunuch general. But for the movers and shakers of Constantinople, the priority was now to calm things down after the removal of the hated Illyrian. An elderly nephew of Anastasius, a safely blue-blooded figure named Hypatius was quickly elevated to the throne, and the crowds were mercilessly mown down by the Bucelarii, the private bodyguard of a dashing young general named Belisarius. In the chaos, Justinian and Theodora fled across Anatolia, seeking refuge with the anti-Chalcedonian church of Syria before ultimately crossing the border into Iran, where the new Shah Khusro greeted the deposed Emperor magnificently. An earlier diplomatic snub of Khusro by Justinian was now forgotten, with the King of Kings eagerly welcoming his "brother" and the Roman exiles to the Iranian capital of Ctesiphon. Trouble now lay ahead.

In Constantinople, there was some awareness of this, but Hypatius wisely sought to consolidate his rule before making any rash decisions. Accordingly, the new Emperor's first target was a particularly low-hanging and tempting piece of fruit: the Vandal kingdom of Africa. Divided by civil war and roundly disliked by Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians alike for their Arian doctrines, the Vandals had been the target of a planned expedition by Justinian's regime. Hypatius, who was despite his age a shrewd enough operator, was quick to grasp the opportunity this provided. In August 532, a magnificent fleet set sail from Constantinople to Africa, led by Hypatius' dashing young general Belisarius. Belisarius and his large army landed near Carthage that autumn, and briskly smashed two Vandal armies, killing in battle the Vandal king Gelimer. A few more skirmishes followed over the next few months, but all in all, the wisdom of Hypatius in providing Belisarius with a large and well-equipped army showed: by the summer of 533, Africa was securely Roman once more, with peace treaties drafted with the Moors and Constantinople's preferred candidate for the Vandal throne Hilderic set up with a small client state in Mauretania Sitifensis.

Hypatius' first year as Emperor had been an unqualified success, and for it Belisarius was richly rewarded with a series of titles. Things could not remain smooth, however: storm clouds were gathering across the Roman world.
 

Deleted member 67076

I'm interested in how Italy's going to be affected.
 
Well at least the first of Justinian's conquests seem to be on track. I'm guessing Hypatius isn't going to be quite the same conqueror though in Belisarius he has a great general and in the general situation he has opportunity. Maybe a smaller, more cohesive Byzantine Empire that is not suffering from catastrophic overstretch and is more capable of resisting Islam?
 
Khusro of Iran needed little pretext for war with Hypatius, but the arrival of Justinian and Theodora in Ctesiphon in the summer of 532 provided the perfect pretext. At about the same time as Belisarius was being feted in Constantinople as the restorer of the Roman Empire, the Shahanshah was crossing into Roman territory and looting the cities of the Euphrates valley that refused to acknowledge Justinian as their legitimate Emperor. At Edessa, Justinian (who had followed in the wake of the armies of his "brother") went so far as to engage the clerical hierarchy of the region in a series of theological debates before the top brass of the Iranian military, intended to win them over to Christianity. In many respects, the deposed Emperor was pushing at an open door; in the 530s, what had been a trickle of converts to Christianity in the realms of the House of Sasan became, if not a flood, then at least a strongly flowing stream.

The expedition of 533/34 ended as the burning summer began, and the Iranians retreated back across the frontier, badly mauling an ill-equipped Roman army sent to counter them. As the burning sun of a Mesopotamian summer burned down and enforced a degree of peace, Khusro and his guest could congratulate themselves on a job well done. The Shah himself remained intrigued by Justinian, but was never, could never be, directly sympathetic. Justinian was the humble, bold and diligent outcast, while Khusro was a blue-blooded monarch of the conservative aristocracy of the Iranian plateau. Both men were energetic reformers with deep convictions, but they were always a world apart. It is telling that every attempt by Justinian and his friends to influence the religious views of the Shah met with a polite but firm rebuff. It was perhaps due to some irritation at Justinian that in early 535, Khusro signed a five year peace treaty with the Romans.

If 534 had been a disastrous year for Hypatius, 535 opened with a promise of a return to success. Khusro's peace treaty was followed soon afterward by the accession to sole rule of the Ostrogothic kingdom of the nineteen year old Athalaric, a pro-Roman who been brought up (and rather dominated by) his formidable mother Amalasuntha. Athalaric proved himself to be a loyal friend to the Empire, offering to cede the important Sicilian city of Syracuse in exchange for a Constantinopolitan bride. This, Hypatius was happy to provide, and in the summer of 535 the "King of the Goths and the Romans" married one Placidia, a daughter of the fabulously patrician Anician family to whom Hypatius was also related by marriage. The Vandals had been swept aside by Constantinople for their heresy, but in Italy, signs of ever-increasing Romanophilia by the Ostrogothic king were met with rich reward. It was not long before Placidia was carrying Athalaric's child, the embodiment of unity and peace.

Hypatius could look back in the autumn of 535 at three and a half successful years, and look forward to more: notably the raising of a grand new domed church on the site of the flattened fifth century basilica of Hagia Sophia. But he would not live to see them, for his age and the surprisingly cold weather of a winter on the Bosphorus would see off this unexpected Emperor in November 535. The choice to replace him was an obvious one. Raised upon the shields of the palace guard, cheered to the rafters by the urban mob for whom his previous brutality had been forgotten, and accepted by an aristocracy that saw in him a a bright future, the new Emperor would be a decisive break with decades of tradition of palace-rulers. Flavius Belisarius was the new successor of Augustus and Constantine.
 
Oh wow, you've just made Belisarius Emperor, but how did that happen. Surely in the absence of a direct heir it would have gone to one of the patrician families with some claim to the throne, not some Illyrian soldier?
 
I hope folks enjoy!
Oh, I do enjoy it.
Magnificent beginning!
I hope that you won't stop this TL. It promises to be a jewel in the crown of this forum.

I always wondered what would have happened if Belisarius had become the emperor.

Oh wow, you've just made Belisarius Emperor, but how did that happen. Surely in the absence of a direct heir it would have gone to one of the patrician families with some claim to the throne, not some Illyrian soldier?
Hm, the Roman throne belongs to the guy who has the strongest support of the army. And the urban mob of Constantinople loves victorious successful generals.
So Belisarius qualifies as an emperor 100%.
Who needs some sickly patrician?
 
In April 536, the Ostrogothic queen Placidia was delivered of a healthy son, named Flavius Roderic as a nod to both his Roman and Gothic ancestry. The child was quickly sent for baptism in one of the great churches of Ravenna, but here, at this intimate religious occasion, trouble broke out. Roderic's father Athalaric, a born and raised Romanophile, had opted to baptise the boy not in the Arian baptistery with most young Goths, but instead at that of the Chalcedonian Orthodox, the faith of the majority of the native Italians, plus of course Queen Placidia. Athalaric might have hoped to stake here a symbol of his own forward looking attitude, but the result was nothing short of a catastrophe. Resistance amongst the young king's noblemen, sparking into revolt by August. The rebels, led by Athalaric's cousin Theodahad, swiftly obtained a good deal of success, and by the year's end, much of northern Italy was in their hands. Athalaric found himself besieged within Ravenna.

The natural place to look for support was Constantinople, and Athalaric would not be disappointed. The new Emperor Belisarius, buoyed by the knowledge that the Iranian front was quiet after the peace treaty of the previous year, was quick to order the assembly of a very large army, perhaps thirty thousand strong, which he would lead into Italy in person the following spring, with men drawn from the Eastern armies as well as veterans of the triumphant African campaign. Preparations took place at a leisurely pace, for Ravenna was an easily defensible city, and King Athalaric's need was not great. It was not until the summer of 537, a full year after the revolt of Theodahad broke out (and by which time Placidia had given birth to a second child, a daughter), that the Emperor set out at the head of his army, the first ruler of Constantinople to command an army in the field since the distant days of Theodosius the Great.

The Emperor had long been known a commander of rare tactical genius, and in the Italian war it showed again and again. First Theodahad's armies were swept from Dalmatia, and then in October Belisarius inflicted a crushing defeat upon the rebel Ostrogoth at the Battle of Mantua. He entered Ravenna in triumph soon afterwards, lifting an eleventh month siege, and arriving just in time to attend as godfather the baptism of Athalaric's daughter Anastasia-Sunilda. A visit to Rome followed, in which the Emperor enjoyed the acclamations of the crowd and presided over games in the Colosseum, with Athalaric appearing only as a distinctly junior figure. The Gothic king never had the chance to develop his resentment, though: a few weeks later he was dead in mysterious circumstances. The new king was the two year old Flavius Roderic, hardly a figure to rally a good deal of popular support or inspire a strong regime. Suddenly, the triumphant Italian achievement was looking shakier.

Italy, though, was the least of Belisarius' worries. A little before Athalaric's death, news had reached the Emperor that Khusro and Justinian had broken the truce and once more crossed the Euphrates, and swatted aside the depleted armies of the border. The Emperor's strategic naivety was now cruelly exposed- even as his victories were being toasted in Italy, the great cities of the East were being ransacked by the vengeful Iranians. Justinian even went so far as to attempt to stir up the anti-Chalcedonians (the same "Monophysites" who had sheltered him previously) against the new regime, suggesting his exile and his wife had convinced him of the logic of their theological position. Whatever the case, by 538 the East was aflame, and the deposed Emperor Justinian sat in Antioch, crowned by the Patriarch. Belisarius' mettle would now be tested like never before.
 
It seems that TLIADs are becoming a contagious plague, spreading throughout the site. I'm interested by this TL but I don't know remotely enough about the region and period to comment much. I will definitely be following though.
 
and the crowds were mercilessly mown down by the Bucelarii, the private bodyguard of a dashing young general named Belisarius.


Why on earth did they do this ? The crowd, both blues and greens, (manipulated by the senators) were cheering Hypatius in the hyppodrome, (especially at first after rumors began circulating that Justinian had fled and BEFORE Narses, urged by a now confident Justinian, began dispensing bribes left and right). The entire foundation of the rebellion lay in their influence over the mob, and it was a fact which they surely knew, since they had used it to great effect during every moment of the crisis.

Once it would have become clear that Justinian had indeed fled, everybody would have cheered for Hypatius and the Senate some more, chariot races and/or other spectacles and celebrations would have been held and everyone would have gone home happy.

Therefore, why did the senators feel the need to potentially shoot themselves in the foot in the most idiotic way possible ?

Even, assuming for some strange reason that escapes me, the crowd, despite having gotten everything they wanted, turned against the very people they were supporting, why the hell did the Senators entrust Belisarius of all people (a key man of the old regime) to lead troops against the crowd, and not someone they knew and trusted ?
 
Why on earth did they do this ? ...

... Therefore, why did the senators feel the need to potentially shoot themselves in the foot in the most idiotic way possible ?

Even, assuming for some strange reason that escapes me, the crowd, despite having gotten everything they wanted, turned against the very people they were supporting, why the hell did the Senators entrust Belisarius of all people (a key man of the old regime) to lead troops against the crowd, and not someone they knew and trusted ?

If you are intentionally looking for the most idiotic ways and strange reasons you will most definitely find them. Sure thing.

As for me I did not have problems to find a reasonable explanation of that passage in the story of Basileus Giorgios:
1) the rebellion in this alternative TL did not necessarily go as in our TL
2) some crowds were mown down somewhere by the troops of Belisarius on the orders from Justinian but it did not help and the rebellion flared up
3) Justinian fled, Belisarius felt betrayed and he wisely switched allegiance to the new regime.
4) Hypatius was wise as well and he was happy to greet a capable general and his troops among his supporters.

That's what I made out of this. It really makes sense...
 
The war of the 538-43 was among the most devastating in Romano-Iranian history. In 539, Belisarius abandoned Italy to its fate, leaving the loyalist Gothic regime with a few hundred Roman soldiers as notional protection for them. The East was always, in the final analysis, more important, but the Emperor's innate lack of strategic vision hampered him badly. An Iranian army attempting to cross the Taurus was heavily defeated, and its remnants pursued deep into Asia Minor, with Belisarius eventually choosing to return to the capital for the winter a military hero. In the meantime, though, he had handed Justinian a propaganda coup, as the Illyrian pretender entered Jerusalem to take communion in the Holy Sepulchre.

The next few years followed a similar pattern. Whenever Belisarius caught an Iranian army on the battlefield, it was duly destroyed, and whatever Roman losses there were were made up by extracting soldiers from the peaceful Danubian frontier. Belisarius' two closest allies also proved themselves militarily: his stepson Photius, and his godson Theodosius, both of whom were raised to the rank of Caesar in 541. But overall, the war seemed stuck. Khusro and Justinian had the services of the eunuch Armenian Narses, who was a battlefield commander of capability if not genius, and he was able to deliver the sympathies of the local Christians to the cause.

The outbreak of plague in 541-42 slowed the war's progress, and in that nightmarish summer, both Constantinople and Ctesiphon suffered badly, with Belisarius' wife Antonina perishing amongst millions of others. This, more than anything, was enough to end the war, and the Peace of Amida was eventually signed in March 543. The impact of war and plague had cost both empires dearly, and a period of calm was clearly needed by both sides. It helped, furthermore, that Justinian died the following year, allowing for the pardon of Theodora and their young daughter Vigilantia. His energy and dynamism had dominated the Roman Empire's politics for decades, and he would have a truly transformative legacy, as the "Father of the Iranian Church". But the middle of the 540s, his death can only have been greeted with sighs of relief.

The Emperor Belisarius' attentions now turned to attempting a reconciliation of the Church after the troubles caused by the Council of Chalcedon. While genuine resentment amongst the faithful of Syria and Egypt was for now relatively limited and confined to the fanatical fringes, the trouble stirred up in the East by the Monophysite-sympathising Justinian had shown the damage a serious revolt from that direction could cause. The reconciliation of the proudly Monophysite Theodora in 545 began the process, but from the outcome, Belisarius was hampered by the stubborn hostility to compromise from the western bishops, particularly the Patriarch of Rome. In this, the Roman Patriarch was eagerly support by the Gothic queen Placidia, who saw the opportunity to unite her wounded people in a policy of opposition to eastern compromises. In 548, a compromise was eventually hammered out at the Council of Constantinople, but it attracted the signature of only three African bishops, and a solitary Italian. Issues, then, continued to rankle.

By this point, rumours were flying that the Emperor had lost his appetite for rule. Belisarius was a man intrinsically more comfortable on the battlefield than negotiating court politics and imperial-level diplomacy, for which he had little understanding and less patience. Instead, administrative duties increasingly came to be shouldered by his godson Theodosius, mirroring the rise of Justinian thirty years previously. By 550, Belisarius was seldom seen outside the walls of the Palace, and seems to have fallen into a state of depression. What the Emperor urgently needed was a good crisis. In the year 552, fate happily obliged.
 
Why on earth did they do this ? The crowd, both blues and greens, (manipulated by the senators) were cheering Hypatius in the hyppodrome, (especially at first after rumors began circulating that Justinian had fled and BEFORE Narses, urged by a now confident Justinian, began dispensing bribes left and right). The entire foundation of the rebellion lay in their influence over the mob, and it was a fact which they surely knew, since they had used it to great effect during every moment of the crisis.

Once it would have become clear that Justinian had indeed fled, everybody would have cheered for Hypatius and the Senate some more, chariot races and/or other spectacles and celebrations would have been held and everyone would have gone home happy.

Therefore, why did the senators feel the need to potentially shoot themselves in the foot in the most idiotic way possible ?

Even, assuming for some strange reason that escapes me, the crowd, despite having gotten everything they wanted, turned against the very people they were supporting, why the hell did the Senators entrust Belisarius of all people (a key man of the old regime) to lead troops against the crowd, and not someone they knew and trusted ?

I broadly defer to your knowledge of the facts behind Nika.

That said, I don't think it's particularly implausible that the riots could have spiralled out of control once the rioters had apparently achieved their objective of toppling an Emperor, and I don't think it's unlikely that their next targets would have been the houses of the Senate; not out of any ideological campaign, but out of sheer greed. Once that happened, they would have to be crushed.

As for Belisarius, he's hardly a man renowned for either his close loyalty to Justinian or his political acumen. I don't think it's unlikely he'd fall into place behind the new regime. After all, at this point he's just a promising young general, not a legendary conqueror.
 
Eh, I thought he was a man renowned for his loyalty to Justinian. Or at least, Justinian did a lot of shit to him and Belisarius as far as I know, just took it and never rebelled. I suppose it Justinian is already out he would make his peace with a new regime but still.
 
Eh, I thought he was a man renowned for his loyalty to Justinian. Or at least, Justinian did a lot of shit to him and Belisarius as far as I know, just took it and never rebelled. I suppose it Justinian is already out he would make his peace with a new regime but still.

There's the fact he marched on Ravenna and prolonged the Gothic war for a decade unnecessarily, in direct ignorance of orders from Justinian to halt and negotiate. That lack of strategic sense, in direct contrast to his undoubted tactical mastery, is something I've tried to reflect upon here.
 
There's the fact he marched on Ravenna and prolonged the Gothic war for a decade unnecessarily, in direct ignorance of orders from Justinian to halt and negotiate. That lack of strategic sense, in direct contrast to his undoubted tactical mastery, is something I've tried to reflect upon here.

To be fair though, his gamble would have worked (and to a point did), had it not been for Justinian (and to some extent the Persians). Had he stayed in Italy and been properly reinforced, victory over the Goths would likely have been total, leading to everyone praising Belisarius for his strategic genius and for knowing when to gamble for total victory.

Regarding the riot, if you really really want it to end in a bloodbath, maybe only have the "Blues" turn against the new regime ? After all Justinian did support them, and Hypatius is said to have liked the "Greens", who stood by him even as Imperial troops were butchering them left and right.

Also, what is the POD exactly ? Theodora failing to convince Justinian not to flee ? In that case, Belisarius (who according to Procopius was in favor of fleeing) would have gone along with him. Is the POD Belisarius betraying Justinian and thus tipping the balance ? Or is it even further back, leading to a completely different sequence of events ?
 
Whenever Belisarius caught an Iranian army on the battlefield, it was duly destroyed, and whatever Roman losses there were were made up by extracting soldiers from the peaceful Danubian frontier.
If I remember correctly the Danubian frontier was never too peaceful in OTL. In this ATL all the forces of the Empire were concentrated first in Italy then in the East which was provocative enough for the Northern barbarians.

What made this border quiet in this ATL?

Belisarius was a man intrinsically more comfortable on the battlefield than negotiating court politics and imperial-level diplomacy, for which he had little understanding and less patience.
My opinion that this kind of man if he gets his hands free on the Iranian border would start a war somewhere else immediately:
- in Italy, in Africa (to deal with some unruly Berbers), in Spain or on the Danubian frontier.
That's what Belisarius likes and is made for.
 
Top