WI: Easy Gothic War

[DominusNovus]

While we regard Justinian's Gothic War as generally being an utter quagmire that drained the resources of the Empire, it very easily could have been just as easy a victory as the reconquest of North Africa was. If the Romans had not suffered setbacks in Dalmatia, then the Goths were ready to make very generous terms. If Procopius is to be believed (now there is a loaded sentence if there ever was one), King Theodahad was willing to surrender the rule of Italy entirely to the Romans, until the setbacks in Dalmatia.

So, let us assume that Mundus' army in Dalmatia suffers no such setback, he and his son aren't killed, and Theodahad is not emboldened by that small ray of hope. He and the Romans come to some arrangement, though I imagine it will be something mkre generous to the Goths than outright annexation of all of Italy. Theodahad was, after all, deposed and killed in our history, so an effective unconditional surrender might not exactly sit well with the remaining Gothic leadership. Perhaps Justinian leaves them with the Po Valley.

Things to consider:
- What do the Lombards do? Their big opening was the weakened state of Italy after the war.
- What do the Franks do? They made a mess of northern Italy during the war.
- What does Justinian do? He's not exactly likely to be humble or modest in his plans for the future after two easy victories, which reclaim the richest parts of the west for Rome. Will he overextend?
- If the Goths are reconciled to whatever treaty is made, the Romans do have a lot more manpower.
- The plague is going to hit hard no matter what, and might actually be worse in Italy, with more carriers alive to spread it. On the other hand, wars do exacerbate plague conditions, so maybe it doesn't hit as hard. If we're really lucky, Justinian is convinced to considate during the plague.
- What will the Roman goals be if they still involve themselves in Visigothic Spain?
- When the Persian War starts (under whatever circumstances), or when the Arabs invade (with or wihout a new religion), do the Goths remain loyal, or take the opportunity to break away?

 

[darthfanta]

Maybe more resources to Belisarius' army from the get go?The force given to Belisarius was extremely small considering the foes he was fighting and the scope of the operation.

 

[DominusNovus]

Maybe more resources to Belisarius' army from the get go?The force given to Belisarius was extremely small considering the foes he was fighting and the scope of the operation.

Well, even with the resources he had, the Goths were willing to surrender. It was Mundus' troubles that gave them hope, according to Procopius (gee, almost like he was shilling for Bel). But, we'll take Procopius at his word, and remove said troubles, allowing the negotiations for the Gothic surrender to proceed on favorable terms for the Empire.

This also helps Justinian's paranoia: if Mundus crushes the Goths in Dalmatia, he has two victorious generals to rely on, so he can has the peace of mind of playing them off each other (nevermind that both were apparently hyper loyal, negating the need to do such politicking).

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Maybe more resources to Belisarius' army from the get go?The force given to Belisarius was extremely small considering the foes he was fighting and the scope of the operation.

I don't think you'd even need that; IOTL the Gothic War was pretty much done and dusted after Belisarius captured Ravenna, but Justinian's governor ended up alienating everybody (by, IIRC, demanding all the country's back-taxes from 476, payable immediately). Have somebody slightly less moronic take over instead, and the Gothic War would have lasted for five years instead of nineteen.

 

[DominusNovus]

Even that scenario is still worse than the POD I suggest. Bel had only taken Sicily by this point, and Theodahad was already willing to give in.

 

[LSCatilina]

it very easily could have been just as easy a victory as the reconquest of North Africa was

It's a common misconception that the Justinian conquest of Africa was easy, but the reality was much more complex : by the time Byzantine beated up Vandals, these were already pushed back by Berbers since decades and barely holding coastal regions. It's this threat of Maur takeover that worried Africano-Romans, as Vandals were unable to protect them, and forced them to call Constantinople to the rescue and not what Byzzies argued about something something persecution something something dark side.

Justinians and his generals had a quite fantasized vision of Roman Africa, forgetting that even in the IInd and IIIrd centuries, the african limes being more porous than European's, as Mauri communities transcended the border, a bit like Ghassanids did in Syria, and formed excresences over Romania.
Ignoring this, and having won support of Africano-Romans as an "anti-Berber" protector, rather than "anti-Vandals", Constantinople was englued in a series of raids, guerillas, coups, etc. that ended up with the return to the previous situation, except with even less direct control in Africa than Vandals did.

The point being there that Justinian reconquests, while roughly successful strategically-wise, were badly planned and executed. The Gothic Wars's damages are such not really an happenance, but a result of Eastern Roman's shortcomings, and dreams about political-territorial exclusiveness; and it would be extremely surprising that Romans wouldn't face the consequences of these in Italy sooner or later, especially as Gothic Italy, contrary to Vandalic Africa, isn't under the pressure of another threat (in this case Berber takeover). The sheer numbers of Goths alone represented IOTL an important asset against Romans.

If Procopius is to be believed (now there is a loaded sentence if there ever was one), King Theodahad was willing to surrender the rule of Italy entirely to the Romans, until the setbacks in Dalmatia.

I don't see any reason to not follow Procopius there : Theodahad wasn't exactly a strong king, and would likely have preferred a golden exile in Constantinople at this point. I very doubt, however, that the Gothic elite would have accepted this, and probably someone like Vitigis would have overthrown Theodahad at short term.

So, let us assume that Mundus' army in Dalmatia suffers no such setback

A relatively minor setback : a precious general was lost, but Salona was kept and Goths couldn't really advance in Illyricum with Belisarius in the south of their kingdom.

He and the Romans come to some arrangement, though I imagine it will be something mkre generous to the Goths than outright annexation of all of Italy.

Point is, Justinian would probably not have accepted any arrangement that wouldn't give him Illyricum and Italy. How he refused any other settlement, even with Totila (that proposed him Sicily and Illyricum in addition of a strong tribute in a period where Goths took back the advantage) show this.
The only moment Justinian seems to have accepted a compromise was in 539, when he asked for Goths to remove themselves from territories south of Po, probably as a vassalized kingdom in facts and no longer formally. Belisarius refused, which made the deal off : but while many criticized and criticizie him for this, his decision was mostly sound as it would have given a rear base for Goths to undergo a partial reconquest (as shown by later events).

Simply said, as long as Romans planned the total conquest of Italy since the beggning as their primary objective, it would be hard to reach a settled and "generous" peace that could really last.
You need to have a different mindset in Constantinople to have easy campaigns in the West, eventually.

Things to consider:

I hesisted to answer this, and if you allow me, I think it would be better to see how we could have, not an easy Gothic War, but at least a less devastating one.

 

[DominusNovus]

Well, Theodahad seems to have been willing to give all of Italy if the Romans wouldn't budge. That would satisfy Justinian, an even he wouldn't begrudge Theodahad an estate in Thracia, would he?

 

[LSCatilina]

Well, Theodahad seems to have been willing to give all of Italy if the Romans wouldn't budge. That would satisfy Justinian, an even he wouldn't begrudge Theodahad an estate in Thracia, would he?

As speculated above, I don't think it was out-of-character for Theodahad, so Procopius is probably reliable there. But I don't see Gothic nobility accepting it, and he would probably end up overthrown.

 

[DominusNovus]

That would still leave Justinian with a potential puppet, if the Romans can get physical control of him. That should peel enough goths away to make a big difference.

 

[calvin1417]

It's a common misconception that the Justinian conquest of Africa was easy, but the reality was much more complex : by the time Byzantine beated up Vandals, these were already pushed back by Berbers since decades and barely holding coastal regions. It's this threat of Maur takeover that worried Africano-Romans, as Vandals were unable to protect them, and forced them to call Constantinople to the rescue and not what Byzzies argued about something something persecution something something dark side.

Justinians and his generals had a quite fantasized vision of Roman Africa, forgetting that even in the IInd and IIIrd centuries, the african limes being more porous than European's, as Mauri communities transcended the border, a bit like Ghassanids did in Syria, and formed excresences over Romania.
Ignoring this, and having won support of Africano-Romans as an "anti-Berber" protector, rather than "anti-Vandals", Constantinople was englued in a series of raids, guerillas, coups, etc. that ended up with the return to the previous situation, except with even less direct control in Africa than Vandals did.

The point being there that Justinian reconquests, while roughly successful strategically-wise, were badly planned and executed. The Gothic Wars's damages are such not really an happenance, but a result of Eastern Roman's shortcomings, and dreams about political-territorial exclusiveness; and it would be extremely surprising that Romans wouldn't face the consequences of these in Italy sooner or later, especially as Gothic Italy, contrary to Vandalic Africa, isn't under the pressure of another threat (in this case Berber takeover). The sheer numbers of Goths alone represented IOTL an important asset against Romans.


I don't see any reason to not follow Procopius there : Theodahad wasn't exactly a strong king, and would likely have preferred a golden exile in Constantinople at this point. I very doubt, however, that the Gothic elite would have accepted this, and probably someone like Vitigis would have overthrown Theodahad at short term.


A relatively minor setback : a precious general was lost, but Salona was kept and Goths couldn't really advance in Illyricum with Belisarius in the south of their kingdom.


Point is, Justinian would probably not have accepted any arrangement that wouldn't give him Illyricum and Italy. How he refused any other settlement, even with Totila (that proposed him Sicily and Illyricum in addition of a strong tribute in a period where Goths took back the advantage) show this.
The only moment Justinian seems to have accepted a compromise was in 539, when he asked for Goths to remove themselves from territories south of Po, probably as a vassalized kingdom in facts and no longer formally. Belisarius refused, which made the deal off : but while many criticized and criticizie him for this, his decision was mostly sound as it would have given a rear base for Goths to undergo a partial reconquest (as shown by later events).

Simply said, as long as Romans planned the total conquest of Italy since the beggning as their primary objective, it would be hard to reach a settled and "generous" peace that could really last.
You need to have a different mindset in Constantinople to have easy campaigns in the West, eventually.


I hesisted to answer this, and if you allow me, I think it would be better to see how we could have, not an easy Gothic War, but at least a less devastating one.

The African border was weaker then Europes? How? Why? Also how many goths were there in Italy?

 

[LSCatilina]

The African border was weaker then Europes? How? Why?

Not weaker, but more porous : you didn't have a clear-cut difference of identities between populations that were considered as Mauri in the Vth (without systematically being so earlier) and the communauties established on coastal between inner and outer Mauri communities, and more interpenetrating late Roman provincial society. Roughly speaking, Late Roman Empire was in contact and relations with three kind of tribes : autonomous political entities whom relation was statuary, mode of local organisation even withing great landed properties, and outside the limes with an equivalent to european Barbarian entities (when it come to their relations with Rome, including military service, refugees, seasonal migrations, raids, etc

This complex relationship on both sides of the limes was totally ignored by Constantinople, which provoked a long and costly counter-guerilla against Berbers.

Also how many goths were there in Italy?

It's hard to say giving the Barbarian identity was as the Roman was, political-civic more than ethnic; and that nothing really prevented a Roman to serve the Barbarian king while remaining Roman after the collapse of Romans state in the west (especially as the prestige of Roman identity was significantly stronger in post-imperial, but not post-classical, Italy than in Gaul). Goths were able to mobilise ten of thousands, but even if they formed a good part of this, it's not really possible to me to tell how many idenfidied themselves as such.

PS : could you just -snip- posts you quote if they're too long relative to your answers? Thanks!

 

[trajen777]

Several options :
1. Have Amalasuntha marry into Just. family and surrender the Gothic empire as planned -- send enough troops to secure Italy (peaceful)
2. Give Belisarius 20,000 troops vs his original 7500 and meet Vittages in open combat north of Rome (defeat them) ie (win like at the Battle of the Volturnus,). This would leave Rome, central, southern Italy in good shape (productive financially) and after Ravenna surrender leave him as governor of Italy to build up the Italian tax base and defenses
3. If neither of these then have Belisarius in charge of all forces in Italy vs independent commanders so that the war could be bought to a close faster

Under these three solutions you would have war done in :
1. 535 /6
2. 537/38
3. 539/40

It is important to finish the conquest and have some base of stabilization before the plague hits in 541 /42 -- other wise the economic collapse and loss of life would drag out the war like under the real conditions (.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian)

 

[calvin1417]

So after Italy what would Justinian focus on next before the plague ruins everything?

 

[Fabius Maximus]

So after Italy what would Justinian focus on next before the plague ruins everything?

Probably Spain. He sent troops there even IOTL, and with Italy pacified he'd likely send more.

 

[trajen777]

Justinian i have always felt was mistreated by recent writers. His strategic concept was always solid. To defend in the east while i have peace i will make conquests in the west which will increase the revenues to have solid borders. His greatest failings /bad luck i think were :
1. Plague - which nothing could have stopped or diminished. If you take this out of the picture he would have had 1/3 - 1/2 more population paying taxes with good defensible borders. Instead he needed the same number of troops with 1/3 - 1/2 the population to pay for it.
2. Holding the construction of Hagia Sophia till after the conquest of Italy
3. Not making Belisaurus cc in chief of Italy (later) - and not giving him sufficient force (not build 2 above) of lets say 25,000 - 30,000 men.

So he has conquered - defensible Africa -- Italy to Alps (defensible) -- he would continue to fortify the east and Balkans (as in real world), and finally he would look to Spain or Yemen. Each has their advantage-- Spain is a long way - but if you conquer to the Mountains you have a good province. Yemen bypasses Persia.
1. Spain
a. Treaty w Gauls - attack Spain
b. Yemen with Ethiopia on their side - to increase trade to the east (silk - spices - gold - gems etc)

 

[LSCatilina]

Probably Spain. He sent troops there even IOTL, and with Italy pacified he'd likely send more.

I'm far less certain there : Byzantines made a go at southern Spain mostly at the invitation of yet another succession crisis in Spain, and essentially to prevent Goths (who had the only noteworthy fleet after Vandals in western Med) to meddle in Africa (as they eventually did, even if poorly, when they took back Betica and as Africa got neglected in the VIIth century).

There wasn't much reasons for Romans to go for the rest, without stretching too much their capacities. If they attempted still such campaign, the aformentioned poor strategical-political conceptions they had there would have been as much an obstacle than Italy (at best, an "easy Gothic war" means a strong guerilla as you had in Africa), with even less resources at hand.

@calvin1417
I think that Romans would have probably pulled a Marcian-like policy when it comes to Goths and Franks, as in a Christian commonwealth vision, where Constantinople would have supported Chalcedonian or Roman-firendly rulers (as they did, notably with Athanagild and Gondabald in the VIIth century).

It's not impossible, tough, that in the long run you'd see coastal control of some parts of Gaul : Marcian may have tought about this after the failure of Gondovald's campaigns, as Syagrius was sent to Constantinople as an emissary of Gontran. It's not that likely to have happened IOTL, but in a different ATL, with a similar situation...

But for what matter conquests, I think the obvious strategical necessity to control the Danubian border would have led to either curb down Lombards in Illyricum, or at least reinforce their suzerainty there.

 

[calvin1417]

Justinian i have always felt was mistreated by recent writers. His strategic concept was always solid. To defend in the east while i have peace i will make conquests in the west which will increase the revenues to have solid borders. His greatest failings /bad luck i think were :
1. Plague - which nothing could have stopped or diminished. If you take this out of the picture he would have had 1/3 - 1/2 more population paying taxes with good defensible borders. Instead he needed the same number of troops with 1/3 - 1/2 the population to pay for it.
2. Holding the construction of Hagia Sophia till after the conquest of Italy
3. Not making Belisaurus cc in chief of Italy (later) - and not giving him sufficient force (not build 2 above) of lets say 25,000 - 30,000 men.

So he has conquered - defensible Africa -- Italy to Alps (defensible) -- he would continue to fortify the east and Balkans (as in real world), and finally he would look to Spain or Yemen. Each has their advantage-- Spain is a long way - but if you conquer to the Mountains you have a good province. Yemen bypasses Persia.
1. Spain
a. Treaty w Gauls - attack Spain
b. Yemen with Ethiopia on their side - to increase trade to the east (silk - spices - gold - gems etc)

Wait how is halting the construction on a ridiculously expensive church a mistake?

I'm far less certain there : Byzantines made a go at southern Spain mostly at the invitation of yet another succession crisis in Spain, and essentially to prevent Goths (who had the only noteworthy fleet after Vandals in western Med) to meddle in Africa (as they eventually did, even if poorly, when they took back Betica and as Africa got neglected in the VIIth century).

There wasn't much reasons for Romans to go for the rest, without stretching too much their capacities. If they attempted still such campaign, the aformentioned poor strategical-political conceptions they had there would have been as much an obstacle than Italy (at best, an "easy Gothic war" means a strong guerilla as you had in Africa), with even less resources at hand.

@calvin1417
I think that Romans would have probably pulled a Marcian-like policy when it comes to Goths and Franks, as in a Christian commonwealth vision, where Constantinople would have supported Chalcedonian or Roman-firendly rulers (as they did, notably with Athanagild and Gondabald in the VIIth century).

It's not impossible, tough, that in the long run you'd see coastal control of some parts of Gaul : Marcian may have tought about this after the failure of Gondovald's campaigns, as Syagrius was sent to Constantinople as an emissary of Gontran. It's not that likely to have happened IOTL, but in a different ATL, with a similar situation...

But for what matter conquests, I think the obvious strategical necessity to control the Danubian border would have led to either curb down Lombards in Illyricum, or at least reinforce their suzerainty there.

um could marcian idea of Christian commwelth been feasible though? Like what really changes if they go with that?

 

[trajen777]

Wait how is halting the construction on a ridiculously expensive church a mistake?

um could marcian idea of Christian commwelth been feasible though? Like what really changes if they go with that?

The chuch was started pre the Gothic invasion by utilizing these funds for troops in Italy you would have been able to put a force in excess of 25,000 with Bel. thus allowing for him to attack the Gothic forces north of Rome (90% win) and not have Rome and middle Italy become a waste. His victory would have then forced the Goths into Ravenna. A small beseigeing force could have bottled them up allowing forces to capture Milan and N Italy. Instead you have years of back and forth with Rome, Milan, etc etc devastated.

 

[LSCatilina]

um could marcian idea of Christian commwelth been feasible though?

It mostly asks for a delayed or at the very least shortened Roman-Persian war after Marcian, as it really depleted economical and exchange relationship with the West.
Of course, this conception of a "Christian commonwealth" led by Constantinople is more of a conceptualisation of what the empire more or less tried than any comprehensive diplomacy, far less something acknowledged and abided by western kingdoms.
Still, it could work at least for the VIth and VIIth centuries without too much trouble, with a smoother development from Late Antique world in western Europe; while sooner or later the development of North Sea trade network will impair peripherical Roman influence.

Like what really changes if they go with that?

Assuming a no-Islam TL, a slower and smoother differenciation of Latin and Greek Christiendom : they would be still pretty much different, but maybe thinking themselves as part of a same (if gradually distinct) ensemble. As for the Empire proper, at least the fiction of western kingdoms as sortof clients or allies would be maintained longer. You could see, as aformentioned with the aftermath of Gondovald's revolt, the appearance of semi-exarchates, on the other end of the possibilities.

 

[calvin1417]

The chuch was started pre the Gothic invasion by utilizing these funds for troops in Italy you would have been able to put a force in excess of 25,000 with Bel. thus allowing for him to attack the Gothic forces north of Rome (90% win) and not have Rome and middle Italy become a waste. His victory would have then forced the Goths into Ravenna. A small beseigeing force could have bottled them up allowing forces to capture Milan and N Italy. Instead you have years of back and forth with Rome, Milan, etc etc devastated.

So halting it wasn't the mistake it was building it at all before your conquest spree was? If so that obvious

It mostly asks for a delayed or at the very least shortened Roman-Persian war after Marcian, as it really depleted economical and exchange relationship with the West.
Of course, this conception of a "Christian commonwealth" led by Constantinople is more of a conceptualisation of what the empire more or less tried than any comprehensive diplomacy, far less something acknowledged and abided by western kingdoms.
Still, it could work at least for the VIth and VIIth centuries without too much trouble, with a smoother development from Late Antique world in western Europe; while sooner or later the development of North Sea trade network will impair peripherical Roman influence.


Assuming a no-Islam TL, a slower and smoother differenciation of Latin and Greek Christiendom : they would be still pretty much different, but maybe thinking themselves as part of a same (if gradually distinct) ensemble. As for the Empire proper, at least the fiction of western kingdoms as sortof clients or allies would be maintained longer. You could see, as aformentioned with the aftermath of Gondovald's revolt, the appearance of semi-exarchates, on the other end of the possibilities.

um I thought only the last Persian war really took away the power to influence the west. How did the ones before it also do that?