WI: Justinian dies of plague

In the early 540s, the great Byzantine emperor Justinian I contracted bubonic plague, but in the end he survived and went on to rule the empire for another quarter century or so. He is generally considered as one of the most important rulers in Byzantine history. What do you think would have happened if he had succumbed? Would the reconquest of the West have gone better? (Or would the Byzantines have given up on it immediately?) Who would have become emperor? Narses? Belisarius? Does this affect the later Arab (attempted?) conquests? Discuss!
 
If I am not mistaken, the army in the east was ready to proclaim belisarius emperor, which further increased justinians distrust of him when he recovered.


So, Belisarius would probably become emperor I imagine.
 
IIRC, the armies of the East (which Belisarius was in command of at that point) had declared that they wouldn't accept any of Theodora's choices for Emperor unless the army consented. Theodora, as the wife of Justinian, can remarry and declare her new husband emperor, but he'd be lacking major support. Belisarius, on the other hand, seems to have been disinterested in the throne (see his refusal to be crowned Emperor of the West), but if the army proclaimed him Emperor at the same time Theodora attempted to banish him or strip him of his command, he might just take the purple.

Narses was a eunuch, and therefore could not be Emperor.

If Belisarius did become Emperor, I have a feeling it would be similar to Basil II's reign. He's a brilliant general, but I always got the feelin that he wasn't superb in diplomacy or the complex workings of the Rhomanion government. He'd probably end te Gothic Wars rather quickly, and might be able to stabile the Persian frontier. Beyond that, though, I don't think he'd be able to start a stable dynasty, because too many nobles and courtiers would see their opportunity in this strong but foolish (politically) Emperor.
 
IIRC, the armies of the East (which Belisarius was in command of at that point) had declared that they wouldn't accept any of Theodora's choices for Emperor unless the army consented. Theodora, as the wife of Justinian, can remarry and declare her new husband emperor, but he'd be lacking major support. Belisarius, on the other hand, seems to have been disinterested in the throne (see his refusal to be crowned Emperor of the West), but if the army proclaimed him Emperor at the same time Theodora attempted to banish him or strip him of his command, he might just take the purple.

Narses was a eunuch, and therefore could not be Emperor.

If Justinian dies and the army proclaims Belisarius emperor, he'd have a tough time refusing. Not to mention, if he turns back then, Theodora is going to certainly find a way to do away with him.

So I don't think he would have much choice.
 
If Belisarius did become Emperor, I have a feeling it would be similar to Basil II's reign. He's a brilliant general, but I always got the feelin that he wasn't superb in diplomacy or the complex workings of the Rhomanion government. He'd probably end te Gothic Wars rather quickly, and might be able to stabile the Persian frontier. Beyond that, though, I don't think he'd be able to start a stable dynasty, because too many nobles and courtiers would see their opportunity in this strong but foolish (politically) Emperor.

That seems to be the opposite of Basil II! Basil (who I'm a big fan of) was emphatically not a good battlefield commander, and himself recognised this: that's why the conquest of Bulgaria took the form of a methodical, cautious expansion over a generation, rather than a quick and ultimately unstable lightning conquest like that of John I before. Basil then proved himself adroit at dealing with the aftermath, allowing the defeated Bulgarians a distinctly generous peace settlement, and aiming for cordial external relations with the Fatimids: witness his failure to respond to the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in 1021.

Belisarius will be the polar opposite to this, I reckon. The man was an enormously talented commander on the battlefield, but personally seems to have been something of a weak and politically naive character if the accounts are to be believed.

Anyway, in a scenario where Justinian dies of plague, Theodora will notionally have first choice of a new Emperor, and the obvious candidate is Germanus, a member of the imperial family who has the major advantage of actual being in Constantinople at the time. I think it's slightly more likely that the Senate will line up behind Germanus than Belisarius in this scenario; we're not yet in the period where the army can put the Emperor on the throne of Constantinople at will.
 
Wasn't Germanus a decent commander as well?

A relationship between Theodora and anyone but Justinian on any level would be fascinating as I doubt she'd be willing to step back in terms of power but doesn't have the support to rule alone.
 
That seems to be the opposite of Basil II! Basil (who I'm a big fan of) was emphatically not a good battlefield commander, and himself recognised this: that's why the conquest of Bulgaria took the form of a methodical, cautious expansion over a generation, rather than a quick and ultimately unstable lightning conquest like that of John I before. Basil then proved himself adroit at dealing with the aftermath, allowing the defeated Bulgarians a distinctly generous peace settlement, and aiming for cordial external relations with the Fatimids: witness his failure to respond to the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in 1021.

Belisarius will be the polar opposite to this, I reckon. The man was an enormously talented commander on the battlefield, but personally seems to have been something of a weak and politically naive character if the accounts are to be believed.

That's a good point. What I meant by the comparison was that both, as Emperors, would be/were essentially battlefield Emperors, and both disinterested in the politics of Constantinople.
 
Top