WI: Decisive Roman defeat at Dara (530)

The Battle of Dara was a quite important battle during the Roman-Persian Iberian War, the Roman forces successfully repelled the Persian offensive, gave rise to Belisarius and eventually lead to a stalemate of the war, where Rome agreed on an "Eternal Peace" (that lasted 8 years) with Persia and on subsiding the Caucasian gates against nomadic invaders.

But what if Belisarius falls before even rising? His plan on dividing and flanking the Persian cavalry and Immortals fails, his cavalry is routed, the infantry is surrounded and Belisarius himself is killed, Dara falls and there is no significant army between the Persians and Antioch.

How was the military situation of Rome at the time? Does Justinian relocates troops from the Balkans and Egypt to defend Syria and Armenia? How far can Kavadh and the Persians go? Does such drama in the East gives the Vandals and Ostrogoths a breathing space?
 
Bumping, in the situation in which Justinian recalls troops from the Balkans could we see Avar/Gepid/Lombard activity there? Also could further loses against the Sassanids even lead to Justinian being deposed?
 
Honestly, at this point what Romans?
That's just not relevant to the question.

Now, to answer the OP,
My bet is that the empire's stability will be undermined, and Justinian will prefer to divert forces towards the Euphrates. While this does obviously give some breathing space for the Vandals and Ostrogoths, i doubt it would be that big of a direct change, since they already had a lot of breathing space in the previous decades, squandered by succession struggles.
However, if the war goes very smoothly for Persia and ends in a victory for them, then i'd bet that Justinian would be challenged by more usurpers than Hypatius, who he faced in the Nika Riots.
 
While this does obviously give some breathing space for the Vandals and Ostrogoths, i doubt it would be that big of a direct change, since they already had a lot of breathing space in the previous decades, squandered by succession struggles.
True but it could at least save them from Roman reconquest, as the East would surely be the priority of Justinian or whoever deposes him, at least for the next few decades.
 
What would be really bad is if Persia taking Antioch inspires a group like the Heruli to try to settle in the Byzantine Empire by force now that the Byzantines are at full panic mode trying to keep the Persians from taking, say, Jerusalem again.
 
What would be really bad is if Persia taking Antioch inspires a group like the Heruli to try to settle in the Byzantine Empire by force now that the Byzantines are at full panic mode trying to keep the Persians from taking, say, Jerusalem again.
oh yeah, absolutely horrible.
 
I would say that in the long term, this could actually end up being a net benefit for the Empire. One of the greatest problems that Justinian generated for his successors was the need to garrison strategically vulnerable locations following easy victories. While Tunisia could have been viably maintained, the leapfrogging to Italy and then Spain before properly consolidating his gains significantly diverted attention and resources that the Empire could scantly afford. By having the attention maintained in the East, I would venture that Justinian would be compelled to focus his attentions closer to home. While this might not generate the reconquest of western territories, it could make for a more consolidated empire. With the Plague still ten years away, a smaller version of the great war of 602-628 could still take place, with both sides battering each other into exhaustion when the disease rips through their ranks. I would agree that Justinian would need to continuously focus his efforts on maintaining internal stability, hoping that the Persians would eventually collapse from internal strife. An interesting POD, because the ripples would echo in how well the Empire would deal with the rise of Islam a century later.
 
Top