WI: Byzantium keeps hold of Italy?

Say that Justin II had never lost Italy to the Lombards, what would be the result? A Byzantine Empire including Italy would have more resources, and far more strategic depth against an enemy invading from the east. Plus, it would have a larger share of Latin- as opposed to Greek-speaking subjects. How would this affect the subsequent development of the Empire? Would Latin be kept in use for longer? How would Byzantium fare in its wars against the Sassanids and Muslims (assuming these conquests aren't butterflied away, of course)? And, even if they did end up losing Syria, Egypt and North Africa, would a Byzantine state consisting of Anatolia + Greece + Italy manage to remain a great power anyway?
 
So... Rome? Which it was to begin with, people really need to stop calling it 'byzantium'. As it goes, Italy was actually poorer than Anatolia or such, it was more or less a drain on the ERE than a boon to it. That said presumably if you could get local production productive again you might be able to return Italia Magna to its place as the center of the Roman Empire.

This said, the ERE *was* a great power for the vast majority of its life.
 
The Byzantine Empire's Italian territories were weak and vulnerable - it's difficult to see how somebody wouldn't take advantage of that.

But let's say they hold on to Italy essentially in its totality and also have North Africa and all the other reconquests locked down for the time being. Latin is on its way out regardless - it doesn't matter how long they hold their western territoried, the Hellenization of the Empire is due to its core eastern territories and an ongoing cultural shift.

The Muslims are probably butterflied. I think the Sassanian wars go more or less as OTL, discounting butterflies. Maybe the Romans have more or less troops to use - either is possible. However, one thing that's important to note is that the migration of various peoples, including the Lombards but also the Slavs and Avars, is going to have a big impact on the Byzantines. I could even see the Avars managing to conquer large swathes of Italy, forcing the Byzantines back to the coast - either way the good old Eastern Romans will face increasingly difficult challenges throughout the early middle ages and will struggle to overcome them all - as in OTL.

Adding territory isn't necessarily a boon to the Byzantines. It means more commitments, and I think you'll see that Iraly, ruined and depleted, is a net sink on the ambition of any Emperor - a vast province that needs Anatolian soldiers to defend and doesn't contribute all that much in taxes.

If they lose Syria and Egypt and North Africa to some alt-Muslim expansion - or even just to Arab conquerors without unified religious affiliations - then Italy is probably on its way out too. What you're doing is creating a whole host of new naval threats for the Byzantines to react to. If an Iranian or Arab Empire gains a foothold on the Mediterranean, the Mare Nostrum becomes the Mare anyone who wants it. This will be bad for maintaining a coherent maritime empire - as Italy would be, given that overland connections are easily severed by Slavs.

Edit: Italy is only strategic depth insomuch as you could flee there if Constantinople is lost. But if Constantinople is lost, the resulting Empire is going to be very different. Constantinople anchors the Empire - holding it pretty much together no matter how much of the interior is lost. Can't get much better than that. When the Bulgars overrun the Balkans or the Turks overrun Anatolia, you have the perfect base to stand and defend... until both are overrun and you don't have any manpower.
 
Italy is naturally well-defensible, being surrounded by seas on three sides and by mountains on the fourth, and even in its disunited state it was one of the wealthier parts of western Europe throughout the Middle Ages. If the Byzantines managed to hold on to the peninsula I think it had the potential to be an important net contributor to the Imperial coffers.
 
The Byzantine Empire's Italian territories were weak and vulnerable - it's difficult to see how somebody wouldn't take advantage of that.

They were made weaker due to a botched Gothic war, partially due to underfunding, and partially due to Justinians paranoia/Narses ambition - and then Persia to boot. A successful invasion of Italy would have to circumvent all of these - and as a result, Italia is much wealthier, and at worse is only a quick sail away in friendly waters (as the Vandals are gone and any other naval powers are in the Western Med, leaving shipping nice and clear). All in all, Italia becomes quite easy to integrate once conquered. Just don't burn the blighter to the ground first!

But let's say they hold on to Italy essentially in its totality and also have North Africa and all the other reconquests locked down for the time being. Latin is on its way out regardless - it doesn't matter how long they hold their western territoried, the Hellenization of the Empire is due to its core eastern territories and an ongoing cultural shift.

I'm not entirely convinced. With Justinians new law books in Latin, Italia back under control, and a Latin Emperor who will likely be able to leave a Latin legacy - I can see Latin lasting much longer, or maintaining its dual-status. Especially with a potential West/East religious split. I can imagine the language will split along those lines, with Latin being one of the two languages of state.

The Muslims are probably butterflied. I think the Sassanian wars go more or less as OTL, discounting butterflies. Maybe the Romans have more or less troops to use - either is possible. However, one thing that's important to note is that the migration of various peoples, including the Lombards but also the Slavs and Avars, is going to have a big impact on the Byzantines. I could even see the Avars managing to conquer large swathes of Italy, forcing the Byzantines back to the coast - either way the good old Eastern Romans will face increasingly difficult challenges throughout the early middle ages and will struggle to overcome them all - as in OTL.

If the Goths can be brought onside, then Italia is easier to defend, and could provide some reinforcement. But having the invasion resolve quickly means we can have Belisarius in the eastern theatre, perhaps even before the war takes place. Solid leadership, or at least someone who might predict an invasion could make the eastern war much less costly.

Adding territory isn't necessarily a boon to the Byzantines. It means more commitments, and I think you'll see that Iraly, ruined and depleted, is a net sink on the ambition of any Emperor - a vast province that needs Anatolian soldiers to defend and doesn't contribute all that much in taxes.

Again, if the invasion is quick and harmless as Belisarius had managed to achieve in his early invasion, then this isn't a problem.

If they lose Syria and Egypt and North Africa to some alt-Muslim expansion - or even just to Arab conquerors without unified religious affiliations - then Italy is probably on its way out too. What you're doing is creating a whole host of new naval threats for the Byzantines to react to. If an Iranian or Arab Empire gains a foothold on the Mediterranean, the Mare Nostrum becomes the Mare anyone who wants it. This will be bad for maintaining a coherent maritime empire - as Italy would be, given that overland connections are easily severed by Slavs.

Yeah, an alt-Arab invasion will be a nightmare for the Empire. They'll need to approach that problem carefully. But with Africa and Italia able to provide reinforcements, and hopefully a stronger more stable Roman Empire as a result - it would be easier to rebuff the Arabs. It all depends on whether the Roman Empire can appear intimidating enough to the Persians with their new territories and manpower to avert more wars, or win alternative wars. They could take a different approach and use the Arabs to invade Persia - allying with them to set up an Arab kingdom in Mesopotamia. After that, the Arabs form a buffer between Rome and Persia.

Edit: Italy is only strategic depth insomuch as you could flee there if Constantinople is lost. But if Constantinople is lost, the resulting Empire is going to be very different. Constantinople anchors the Empire - holding it pretty much together no matter how much of the interior is lost. Can't get much better than that. When the Bulgars overrun the Balkans or the Turks overrun Anatolia, you have the perfect base to stand and defend... until both are overrun and you don't have any manpower.

*applause*

Italy isn't just strategic depth. Much as North Africa provided the Caliphate a new demographic and economic base to invade from - Italy can do the same for the Romans. If it isn't going ont he offensive, it then provides a second base for invasion. Which means any northern invasion into the Balkans is at risk of a Roman army from Italia cutting off their logistics, and invading their home territories. (I'm looking at Pannonia/Hungary/Avars here).
 
I think you're just a bit more of an optimist than me - I agree with what you're saying, but it seems to rely on a lot of things going right. The question comes down to whether or not a whole basket of structual problems with the Empire can be solved, I think - and I'm of the opinion only a series of true disasters would solve them. The relationship between Justinian and his generals, for one, was always going to be a mess.
 
I think you're just a bit more of an optimist than me - I agree with what you're saying, but it seems to rely on a lot of things going right. The question comes down to whether or not a whole basket of structural problems with the Empire can be solved, I think - and I'm of the opinion only a series of true disasters would solve them. The relationship between Justinian and his generals, for one, was always going to be a mess.

Oh totally. Justinian needs a Belisarius of the State to really help with this, or for Theodora to trust Belisarius. She certainly was instrumental in keeping the Empire intact during the plague. He had a number of brilliant and unscrupulous advisors. Perhaps he falls for someone else in the Blue Deme, or another member of the Deme proves to be such a figure. Someone stalwart enough to serve Justinian and manage his generals, but not so much as to make Theodora from feeling threatened.

But I am totally an optimist. I would like to think that the Plague could be enough. A plague where Persia, then the Empire proper is hit, then an unruly Italia tries to rebel, fights off the Lombards, and is then hit by the Plague, leading to the Empire, reforming in the wake of the Plague, and knocking out whoever rebelled in Italia, retaking it in one fell swoop. So yeah, optimist.
 
Edit: Italy is only strategic depth insomuch as you could flee there if Constantinople is lost. But if Constantinople is lost, the resulting Empire is going to be very different. Constantinople anchors the Empire - holding it pretty much together no matter how much of the interior is lost. Can't get much better than that. When the Bulgars overrun the Balkans or the Turks overrun Anatolia, you have the perfect base to stand and defend... until both are overrun and you don't have any manpower.

It would also provide strategic depth by helping to reconquer any eastern land lost. Byzantium just about managed to reconquer Anatolia/Syria/Egypt when they were taken by the Persians, and failed to reconquer Syria/Egypt when they were taken by the Arabs. Having the resources of Italy to draw on as well as North Africa and Greece would make the reconquest easier in both cases.
 
Italy had been ravaged by the Gothic Wars to an incredible extent, and would have not been a credible and useful addition to the Roman state for centuries. To make it stick and give the Romans an actual advantage, you need a softer conquest, which leaves Italy more useful and the state's coffers more full. How, though?
 
Italy had been ravaged by the Gothic Wars to an incredible extent, and would have not been a credible and useful addition to the Roman state for centuries. To make it stick and give the Romans an actual advantage, you need a softer conquest, which leaves Italy more useful and the state's coffers more full. How, though?

It would be reasonably easy, just keep giving Belisarius the reinforcements he was asking for. His initial conquest did little damage. It was the complete disaster (and the betrayal of the Goths) that made the Gothic war so ruinous. If Belisarius has the reinforcements, he can continue his invasion, and arguably do it more quickly.
 
Italy had been ravaged by the Gothic Wars to an incredible extent, and would have not been a credible and useful addition to the Roman state for centuries. To make it stick and give the Romans an actual advantage, you need a softer conquest, which leaves Italy more useful and the state's coffers more full. How, though?


going from least damaging to most damaging:

1. A significant faction of the Goths sides with the Romans early on, and Justinian wins a decisive victory. Requires Theodora out of the picture and Justinian to marry Amalasuntha

2. the above, but there is no early decisive victory

3. decisive early Roman victory

3a. Mundus is victorious in Dalmatia, and Teodahad panics and submits to Justinian
3b. Belisarius joins Mundus in Dalmatia and they win a decisive victory against the amassed Gothic army

4. More Roman troops for Belisarius. Already discussed. Requires Justinian to open up his purse earlier than OTL. Needs to butterfly away the destruction of Milan

5. Goths allowed north of the Po River as per Justinian's instructions. Requires Belisarius to follows orders and not stab the Goths in the back by pretending to accept the purple

6. Belisarius is not recalled after stabbing the Goths in the back at Ravenna

7. No Totilla, Goths remain disunited and/or settle on a weak leader that double-crosses them for good measure (hell, even Totilla himself contemplated doing just that OTL)

8. Totilla is defeat earlier than OTL, such as during what OTL became The Sack of Rome (many POD's possible, e.g. Belisarius getting reinforcements and/or not falling ill, the resupply mission financed by the Pope is not intercepted, etc)

9. OTL
 
1. A significant faction of the Goths sides with the Romans early on, and Justinian wins a decisive victory. Requires Theodora out of the picture and Justinian to marry Amalasuntha

I do like this idea - but with Amalasuntha be able to hold the Empire together in the same way as Theodora did during Justinians near-death?

5. Goths allowed north of the Po River as per Justinian's instructions. Requires Belisarius to follows orders and not stab the Goths in the back by pretending to accept the purple

To be fair, Belisarius was being pressured to go to Persia at this point, but wasn't being allowed to complete his conquest. Justinian not pressuring him, or Belisarius getting more troops earlier and more constantly would mean he doesn't destroy his reputation. Until this point he was reknown for his good reputation. The guy literally asked politely for a town to surrender because otherwise he'd have to let his mercenaries sack it.
 
To be fair, Belisarius was being pressured to go to Persia at this point, but wasn't being allowed to complete his conquest. Justinian not pressuring him, or Belisarius getting more troops earlier and more constantly would mean he doesn't destroy his reputation. Until this point he was reknown for his good reputation. The guy literally asked politely for a town to surrender because otherwise he'd have to let his mercenaries sack it.

OTOH, even if Belisarius keeps his good reputation, he'll leave Italy sooner or later, and if his replacements act like they did IOTL there'd inevitably be dissatisfaction. (I'm not sure whether Justinian was negligent in his appointments here, in which case it should be possible to rectify this with quite a simple POD, or whether Byzantine governors of this period were generally corrupt and heavy-handed, in which cast solving the problem might be rather more difficult.)
 
OTOH, even if Belisarius keeps his good reputation, he'll leave Italy sooner or later, and if his replacements act like they did IOTL there'd inevitably be dissatisfaction. (I'm not sure whether Justinian was negligent in his appointments here, in which case it should be possible to rectify this with quite a simple POD, or whether Byzantine governors of this period were generally corrupt and heavy-handed, in which cast solving the problem might be rather more difficult.)

Well, if we have Justinian trust Belisarius more, he might put allies/trusted subordinates of Belisarius in place as governors. As much to seperate them from Belisarius (not total trust), as knowing that Belisarius didn't just have lackeys.

That could lead to military men that were good commanders, but probably not great governors - but are less likely to be as corrupt, and aware of the balance of power between Roman and Goth on the Peninsula.

OTOH, you're completely correct.
 
Top