WI: No Plague of Justinian (mk. 2)

So it seems that G.Washington_Fuckyeah's thread on this topic has become buried in spam about whether or not getting rid of the Plague in the first place is doable, which is a shame, because the potential butterflies seem quite interesting. Accordingly I hope Mr. Washington won't mind if I start this new thread to focus on the outcome of the POD, rather than the POD itself.

Can the Roman Empire defend the conquests of Justinian (mainly Italy) against the Lombards if there is no plague of Justinian/if the plague mostly hits Persian territory and barbarian populations (Arabs, Visigoths, Lombards)?

(If anybody wants to contest the POD itself, and tell us that not having the plague is ASB, could they please do it over here.)

As for the question posed, I've heard a theory that the reason the Byzantine Empire was hit worst by the plague was that the surrounding regions were generally either too dry for the plague to flourish (Persia, Arabia) or too cold (Northern Europe). If so, it would probably be more plausible to butterfly away the plague entirely than to make it hit the Empire's enemies worse.

Interestingly enough, Justinian cancelled the pay of the limitanei frontier troops in 545, just a couple of years after the Plague struck. I wonder if this might have been due to the economic damage caused by the disease. In previous conflicts during the 4th and 5th centuries the limitanei had shown their worth, garrisoning important cities even after the Roman field armies had been badly mauled and so helping to avoid defeat turning into disaster. If the Empire was able to keep them around, it would almost certainly be in a better position both to keep hold of its new conquests, and to resist the Slavic/Persian/Arab invasions of the 6th and 7th centuries.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
A reasonably simple PoD IMO would be if some raiders set themselves up on the Red Sea - some particularly talented ones.

They raid the trade routes to Egypt, perhaps sponsored by Persia, and the traders decide to trade via Mesopotamia instead.

This prevents the fleets with rats making it to Egypt before the plague burns out in Mesopotamia, and the East (say by... 549 AD)

Eventually (say 550 AD) the pirates are destroyed, and trade resumes - the plague narrowly avoiding Egypt.

Constantinople still gets the grain from Egypt - with no/fewer plague rats.

Persia gets more trade, but stands to profit from peace with Rome due to the increased trade through their territories (plus increased plague reduces their manpower, giving Justinian time to work out west.

Simply put, no trade through Egypt during the Plague Period = Good Times for Rome. (Although it is a bit roundabout)
 
It's relatively doubtful Justinian could hold everything, or the guy after him most likely.

Bellisarius was an absolute genius and it needed nothing less to get everything back. Now I think a choice will have to be made, Justinian doesn't have the manpower to pacify both areas against external and potential internal pressure. If I had to guess, I would say Carthage would become independant, because of pirates, barbarians or berbers warbands.

Justinian could hold to Rome where it would be culturally easier. Advantage of Rome is that you're surrounded by Kingdoms who you can make treaty with, recognising your boundaries at this stage.
 

trajen777

Banned
Great question --- to bad it got hijacked -- anyway a lot of the past discussions can be read in the book Justinian Flea -- or Treadgoods Books cover this in their chapters on the debate about Justinian as an emperior

Anyway My thgouths :
1. Belisuarius conquers Africa - unchanged
2. He conquerors Italy - unchanged - but the Romans can send sufficient funds / troops to hold down Italy (Justinian made a mistake in assuming that the income present in these early conquests were sufficient to be self supporting immediately which was wrong after her removed the captured war chests from each conquest)
3. Revolts still happen in Africa - Belisuaurs goes and puts them down
4. Unrest in Italy -- but now without the plague to diminish reinforcements they are put down
5. Justinian just increased his base of taxation by 33 - 66% (pick a number) which more then compensates for the costs
6. The plague decreased his revenue by 40% - 60% while leaving troops to cover these conquests the same -- now this is well balanced -
7. IN books that i have read Justinian wished to recreate conquests based upon defensible barriers -- Italy to the Alps -- The East to the normal barriers - N Africa to the Sahara --
8 . Spain reconquered to the mountains - instead of 5000 -- u have 15000 or 20000 troops (like most of the mobile armies

I think that is very reasonable -as to longer

1. No Lombard invasion
2. Justin 2 still goes to war vs Persia
3. Justin still lets the Lombard's and the Avars destroy the Gepids -- but the Lombard's do not migrate to Italy or are driven back by the stronger Roman troops - perhaps they are allowed to settle in Anatolia etc
4. he goes nuts and Tiberias and Maurice after take over - but they have resources to fight Persia and the war peters out with out the disruption in the Balkans
5. Stronger defense vs Arabs -- initial battles were very closely fought -- add another 25,000 + Roman troops in the battles or defenses -- you are in a very good situation as well as no massive destruction of the Roman / Persian world
6. Arabs held in check (initial invasion force of Eqypt was 6000)
7. So good relations with Franks - stable Africa -- periodic wars with Persia - Arabs in check -- Spain secure
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
It's relatively doubtful Justinian could hold everything, or the guy after him most likely.

Bellisarius was an absolute genius and it needed nothing less to get everything back. Now I think a choice will have to be made, Justinian doesn't have the manpower to pacify both areas against external and potential internal pressure. If I had to guess, I would say Carthage would become independant, because of pirates, barbarians or berbers warbands.

Justinian could hold to Rome where it would be culturally easier. Advantage of Rome is that you're surrounded by Kingdoms who you can make treaty with, recognising your boundaries at this stage.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. In order to really pacify the west, those tribes that ruled it, those Kings and Kingdoms, are going to need to either have their institutions obliterated, or integrated into Exarchates/Themes - AND in both scenarios, the population integrated - and the best way would be to recruit them into the army - but instead of a Foederati Army, proper Roman Armies. Bring many of them east, but keep them scattered. Moors, Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Franks all subsumed in Greek, Syrian and Egyptian troopers can still be strong soldiers - and helps integrate them for when they go home. It worked for the Romans before, it can work here.

However, after Belisarius/Justinian/Narses have conquered the West (assuming they can.) Other than the Moors, who is the current threat? The Moors can be chased off into the desert if the Mediterranean and Spain are secure. Spain would be secure if even Southern Gaul is in Roman hands - leaving Northern Gaul and N.Italy. The Lombards? They'd need to have been defeated by this point, and then who is left?

I guess the point I'm making here is that to reconquer the West minus Africa, all comers will need to have had their teeth kicked in - and then Africa is an easier reconquest. Is that possible? With additional manpower from no plague? I'd say so. The main question - who is the main threat across the Rhine at this point?
 
I guess the point I'm making here is that to reconquer the West minus Africa, all comers will need to have had their teeth kicked in - and then Africa is an easier reconquest. Is that possible? With additional manpower from no plague? I'd say so. The main question - who is the main threat across the Rhine at this point?
I agree with the conquest part, I am just doubtful if it's possible to hold them completely, both of them.

My point is: does the Roman Empire have enough manpower to hold those regions, defend the East and go conquer?
Is there a valuable trade off between holding those regions and conquering more (retaking complete control over the balkans, Gaul, Spain...)?

Roman history has proven times and times again that the only threat isn't external, ambitious generals do happen, and they happen often, so you need troups to put them down too, draining the rest of the Empire.


Again, this is a very interesting discussion to have as my knowledge is somewhat lacking about this :)
 
A reasonably simple PoD IMO would be if some raiders set themselves up on the Red Sea - some particularly talented ones.

They raid the trade routes to Egypt, perhaps sponsored by Persia, and the traders decide to trade via Mesopotamia instead.

This prevents the fleets with rats making it to Egypt before the plague burns out in Mesopotamia, and the East (say by... 549 AD)

Eventually (say 550 AD) the pirates are destroyed, and trade resumes - the plague narrowly avoiding Egypt.

Constantinople still gets the grain from Egypt - with no/fewer plague rats.

Persia gets more trade, but stands to profit from peace with Rome due to the increased trade through their territories (plus increased plague reduces their manpower, giving Justinian time to work out west.

Simply put, no trade through Egypt during the Plague Period = Good Times for Rome. (Although it is a bit roundabout)

I think you could go for an even simpler POD -- just have the pirates sink whichever ship(s) happen to be carrying the plague, and hey presto, the Plague of Justinian never reaches the Empire.

It's relatively doubtful Justinian could hold everything, or the guy after him most likely.

Bellisarius was an absolute genius and it needed nothing less to get everything back. Now I think a choice will have to be made, Justinian doesn't have the manpower to pacify both areas against external and potential internal pressure. If I had to guess, I would say Carthage would become independant, because of pirates, barbarians or berbers warbands.

Justinian could hold to Rome where it would be culturally easier. Advantage of Rome is that you're surrounded by Kingdoms who you can make treaty with, recognising your boundaries at this stage.

I think actually that the Romans, if forced to choose, would probably try and hold North Africa over Italy. It was notably richer during this period, easier to defend (the Berbers were more of a nuisance than anything else, and never posed as much of a threat as the Franks and Lombards did to Italy), and the valuable coastal parts were quite Romanised as well, so no culturally harder to hold than Italy would have been.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I agree with the conquest part, I am just doubtful if it's possible to hold them completely, both of them.

My point is: does the Roman Empire have enough manpower to hold those regions, defend the East and go conquer?
Is there a valuable trade off between holding those regions and conquering more (retaking complete control over the balkans, Gaul, Spain...)?

Roman history has proven times and times again that the only threat isn't external, ambitious generals do happen, and they happen often, so you need troups to put them down too, draining the rest of the Empire.


Again, this is a very interesting discussion to have as my knowledge is somewhat lacking about this :)

Well, Justinian thought so, and his council as well. If the major issue is manpower, there is manpower aplenty and money without the plague - and since the East was able to be held with the Plague hitting the Empire, and the Empire still held parts of the West (African coast, S.Spain, and S.Italy) then if anything, this should be easier, and less stressful on the Empire financially and militarily. Anything more than taking their judgement into account requires some serious numbers that I don't have right now.

Also, with Italy? The Balkans is an easier conquest up to the Danube than before.

Well, Belisarius is known to be hopelessly loyal - and Narses not quite as hopelessly loyal, but loyal nonetheless - which would suggest that the two major generals are not a risk.
 

trajen777

Banned
The other ramification was that Justinian almost died from the plague and was incapacitated for almost 1 year. In that time Theodora supported and appointed the bishops that woudl cause such a religious split in Egypt and Syria in the future. Besides the extra resources, extra troops, and undamaged infrastructure from the Persian wars you have a unified religious front (or more unified)
 
Also, with Italy? The Balkans is an easier conquest up to the Danube than before.

Well, Belisarius is known to be hopelessly loyal - and Narses not quite as hopelessly loyal, but loyal nonetheless - which would suggest that the two major generals are not a risk.

Well, Italy mostly because of Rome, for the symbol I guess? Justinian seemed keen on that but that's all I can say. Might not be the best strategic thing indeed.

And Belisarius is insanely loyal but he is not eternal. I am more imagining long term, for the next emperor if a choice had to be made. But more knowledgeable people have taken over the discussion so I shall retreat in the shadows and read the thread with attention!
 

trajen777

Banned
Actually not true -- you have three reasons :

1. Religious - it was a different sect vs Byz
2. Opportunity -- their was massive discord with the Goths and Justinian felt it would be an easy conquest --- if you take the plague it would have been a 2 year conquest
3. Wealthy -- the conquest would have offered a very positive cash flow to Byz after paying for itself
4. Easy defensible borders with a friendly Frank nation / the Alps / And at that time a friendly Lombard nation
 
Top