WI: No Justinian's conquests?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

Three questions for you guys on what would happen (politically, socially and linguistically) in these scenarios:

First Scenario: No Justinian conquest at all. Also, for the sake of this scenario, assume no large war w/ Sassanid Persia or the Avar Khaganate breaks out during his reign.

Second Scenario: Short Gothic war The conquest of Italy was as fast as that of Africa. Assume the Goths didn't have the balls to stand up to the Romans or that the Romans were far more successful earlier and the war ends before 540.

Third Scenario: Before Justinian sends out his armies to conquer, war, for whatever reason, breaks out with Persia forcing them to divert their resources to fighting the Sassanids.

Eastern Roman Empire before Justinian's conquests:

9k=
3Byzantium476lightblue.PNG


Eastern Roman Empire after Justinian's conquests:

El-Imperio-Romano-de-Oriente-565.jpg
 
I'll comment on the second scenario. It can be done easily if Justinian gives Belisarius more resources and actually lets him keep sole command for a change. As for what would happen...well first of all Rome does not get devastated like it did, Italy as a whole retains its late antiquity self instead of a fast descent into the middle ages. The ERE is in a much better position, and Justinian will probably divert more resources to conquering Spain (I believe he wanted to conquer the whole peninsula OTL but I could be wrong).

The third scenario, I feel we are in store for Belisarius going to town on the Persians.
 
Gaul and Iberia were moving away from late antique culture in the absence of the Roman state, despite the energetic efforts on behalf of the Visigoths in particular, so I don't see why Italy and Africa should be all that different. Of all the old Roman Empire, only really Constantinople itself can be considered to have more continuity than transformation in the difficult 550-800 period.
 
I did a little TL largely on point 2.

The Balkans south of the Danube remained Romanized, with more pronounced urbanization, although plague and the occasional invasion didn't really help.

Slavs stay north of the Danube, kick out the Gepids and Avars and assimilated the local Daco-Romans.

Italy was taken more swiftly, with most of the fighting taking place in Illyria (which got pretty devastated as a result). The Romans installed Amalasuntha and her son back on the Gothic throne, and had the Goths moved to southern Gaul. The plague still hits and probably kills even more people owing to the greater urban concentrations, but with the infrastructure intact, the population has a chance to rebound.

Gaul itself is pretty devasted in the ensuing war, and ends up a balkanised mess with Romans, Burgundians, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks and (having arrived in the power-vacuum created by the war) Lombards all controlling bits and pieces.

North-Africa sees a pretty grim state-sponsored genocide as Justinian's heir Germanus develops a personal hatred towards the Moors.

The Romans still get eastern Spain in the aftermath of a Visigothic civil war, though control over it is pretty shaky.

Meanwhile Persia gets the short end of the stick and gets conquered by the Hephtalites and then Turkish peoples, although assimilating both eventually.
 
and Justinian will probably divert more resources to conquering Spain (I believe he wanted to conquer the whole peninsula OTL but I could be wrong).

IIRC, Justinian had an alliance with the Franks and the Suebi (both Catholics) to remove the Visigoths (aryans) from the Peninsule. So I guess it would involve a 3-way division, if it had ever come to that.
 
I did a little TL largely on point 2.

The Balkans south of the Danube remained Romanized, with more pronounced urbanization, although plague and the occasional invasion didn't really help.

Slavs stay north of the Danube, kick out the Gepids and Avars and assimilated the local Daco-Romans.

Italy was taken more swiftly, with most of the fighting taking place in Illyria (which got pretty devastated as a result). The Romans installed Amalasuntha and her son back on the Gothic throne, and had the Goths moved to southern Gaul. The plague still hits and probably kills even more people owing to the greater urban concentrations, but with the infrastructure intact, the population has a chance to rebound.

Gaul itself is pretty devasted in the ensuing war, and ends up a balkanised mess with Romans, Burgundians, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks and (having arrived in the power-vacuum created by the war) Lombards all controlling bits and pieces.

North-Africa sees a pretty grim state-sponsored genocide as Justinian's heir Germanus develops a personal hatred towards the Moors.

The Romans still get eastern Spain in the aftermath of a Visigothic civil war, though control over it is pretty shaky.

Meanwhile Persia gets the short end of the stick and gets conquered by the Hephtalites and then Turkish peoples, although assimilating both eventually.

Sounds interesting, I'm gonna check it out.
 

Deleted member 67076

I did a little TL largely on point 2.

The Balkans south of the Danube remained Romanized, with more pronounced urbanization, although plague and the occasional invasion didn't really help.

Slavs stay north of the Danube, kick out the Gepids and Avars and assimilated the local Daco-Romans.

Italy was taken more swiftly, with most of the fighting taking place in Illyria (which got pretty devastated as a result). The Romans installed Amalasuntha and her son back on the Gothic throne, and had the Goths moved to southern Gaul. The plague still hits and probably kills even more people owing to the greater urban concentrations, but with the infrastructure intact, the population has a chance to rebound.

Gaul itself is pretty devasted in the ensuing war, and ends up a balkanised mess with Romans, Burgundians, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks and (having arrived in the power-vacuum created by the war) Lombards all controlling bits and pieces.

North-Africa sees a pretty grim state-sponsored genocide as Justinian's heir Germanus develops a personal hatred towards the Moors.

The Romans still get eastern Spain in the aftermath of a Visigothic civil war, though control over it is pretty shaky.

Meanwhile Persia gets the short end of the stick and gets conquered by the Hephtalites and then Turkish peoples, although assimilating both eventually.
I read that. It was good. You should've continued it:D
 
If the Slavs remain on the north side of the Danube, they would be in a position to form a nation within the Pannonian Plains. Although one question: would the Bulgar conquest be butterflied away?
 

Deleted member 67076

If the Slavs remain on the north side of the Danube, they would be in a position to form a nation within the Pannonian Plains. Although one question: would the Bulgar conquest be butterflied away?
Most likely. If Byzantium was at its Pre-Sassanid war strength, it would absolutely destroy them.
 
I don't think they would be able to hold Eastern Spain given Visigothic, Frankish, and Berber interests in the region. They would be contested so much and the wide area in question was literally at the end of the world for them.
 
Most likely. If Byzantium was at its Pre-Sassanid war strength, it would absolutely destroy them.

Byzantium was not really into destroying polities, especially steppe ones. Just clears the way for the ones behind them to come in.

I don't think they would be able to hold Eastern Spain given Visigothic, Frankish, and Berber interests in the region. They would be contested so much and the wide area in question was literally at the end of the world for them.

And a distraction from more vital interests.
 
I mean in a war, they'd crush them.

Eh, the whole battleground between the Byzantines and Sassanids on their fronts had pretty much consolidated holding strategic cities. Breakouts had become increasingly rare and as such the two sides had begun using proxies to attack each other beyond their borders (Ghassanids, Lakhmids, Turkics, Franks, etc).

The last war's successes for the Sassanids were based on the fact that the Byzantines were in a state of anarchy/civil war which allowed the Sassanids to consolidate and break through Byzantine positions over a period close to a decade.

Khosrau II was a thrice cursed exception and instead of just getting tribute from Heraclius he continued the conflict and ruined everyone for it!!! Fortunately, Justinian was fighting his namesake Khosrau the First and as equals the Byzantines were made to give tribute.
 
Eh, the whole battleground between the Byzantines and Sassanids on their fronts had pretty much consolidated holding strategic cities. Breakouts had become increasingly rare and as such the two sides had begun using proxies to attack each other beyond their borders (Ghassanids, Lakhmids, Turkics, Franks, etc).

The last war's successes for the Sassanids were based on the fact that the Byzantines were in a state of anarchy/civil war which allowed the Sassanids to consolidate and break through Byzantine positions over a period close to a decade.

Khosrau II was a thrice cursed exception and instead of just getting tribute from Heraclius he continued the conflict and ruined everyone for it!!! Fortunately, Justinian was fighting his namesake Khosrau the First.

I think he was talking about the Slavs.

edit: Nevermind.
 
Top