WI No Plague of Justinian?

[EnglishCanuck]

I've been listening to the 'History of Byzantium' podcast by Robin Pierson recently and his conclusions on the reign of Emperor Justinian got me to wondering. What if the Plague of Justinian never happened and didn't wipe out millions in the Eastern Roman Empire?

Would Justinian have been able to make good on the war in Italy with the increased tax revenue around? Would he have needed to be so worried about the Persians in the East? With a more populous and stable empire would Justin have had such trouble with the Persians and Avars? Or would the problems left by Justinian have been so insurmountable that the decline from 565 was inevitable?

 

[Practical Lobster]

Historically the Persians (at least those living in cities) suffered from the plague of Justinian as well, though not as severely. Averting the plague means a stronger Sasanian Empire as well, in all probability.

However, I'd argue the Sasanians rarely if ever posed an existential threat to the Roman Empire, nor did they really have the ambition to become one. Khusraw Parvez, IMO, was an outlier, and his conquests were just as unsustainable as Justinian's.

 

[Caesar Biden]

First of all, define "didn't happen". Is it delayed a couple decades due to slightly different evolution/failure to transfer from rats to humans immediately, in which case the problem is being kicked down the road? Does Yersinea Pestis simply not come to be, for whatever reason (because that is an evolutionary PoD, which, although I think it should go here, belongs in ASB)? Or does it burn through its early hosts quickly, saving countless lives?

Regardless, the effects are far-reaching and huge. I tend to agree with the gist of Pierson's claims, that the Bubonic Plague was very much responsible for the Fall of Rome. Without it, the Gothic Wars will reach a conclusion sooner, and recover quickly. The Balkans will not be too depopulated, meaning Slavic and Germanic invasions are repelled fairly easily. The Persians are stronger too, of course, but as we saw IOTL, the Romans were mostly effective at holding them off, barring disaster (which was brought on in no small part due to the Plague).

However, things will not be easy. Rome is bound to get very cocky, and even if all their frontiers are secure, push for more. Spain is the logical next target, knowing how ambitious Justinian and his successors were. So the Roman resources are still going to be strained, as they defend in Syria and Mesopotamia, pay off would-be invaders and allies, defend the Danube and Italy, keep the Berbers under control, and finally now another expense in fighting wars in Spain. Maybe it will work, and Spain will be fully conquered like Italy or North Africa, but in that case it's possible they go for even more.

I don't think it's inevitable that they overextend and ruin themselves, though. It cannot be overstated how many people, and just as importantly, taxpayers, were lost due to the Bubonic Plague. Rome was the hardest hit, but they were not the only ones- Persia got it badly, too, as did what Urban areas existed outside the borders of Rome. And outbreaks continued for ages, stunting population growth and contributing to de-urbanization and instability. It's an easy guess to say that life in general in Europe and the Mediterranean would be a lot better without the Bubonic Plague, with more people, more wealth, and more minds creating new technologies and advancements.

So I guess the question becomes: Is Pax Romanica inevitable? And the answer is of course no, but it is likely in some form. Even if that form is a Rome inhabiting the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire+Italy+North Africa. The Arabs will be unable to do anything against the fully populated Sassanid and Roman Empires, that is, if butterflies don't stop them first. And instead of being perpetually in debt, the Emperors of Rome will have a large tax base to exploit and keep things together. This doesn't mean they'll restore the Old Order, or that it will last forever, but it's certainly going to be a lot more likely than OTL.

It's hard to say much else without knowing what the butterflies will do, but it is a fascinating PoD.

 

[Vasilas]

-snip-

Completely concur with this.

 

[trajen777]

One of my fav what ifs -- Justinian started the conquests based upon simple opportunity - religious fervor - belief in easier conquests then against Persia. The Persian empire was at peace with the Byz. Bel. quickly captured Cartage and destroyed the Vandal kingdom, he captured Sicily, Naples, Rome, and effectively subdued the Gothic kingdom. This all happened without tremendous property destruction. Then came the plague. Using Treadgood & Haldon as primary sources the empire lost 25 - 33% of its population however it now had significant greater borders to protect. This lose of life prob disrupted more then 50% of the income of the state.

At the same time Justinian
So the final subjection of the Goths was delayed, Justinian became ill and the generals around Bel. asked him to be the new emperor if Justinian died. When he recovered the trust Justinian had for Bel was greatly reduced. A little reviewed fact was this was the time when and Theodora created a second set of Bishoprics in the east creating the endless series of dogma wars in the church for 100's of years.
So no Plague
1. No mega dogma tearing the eastern church apart
2. Italian conquest is completed within 4 years not 20 and the financial disruption is minimized - resulting in a net cash flow the empire (like Italy)
3. The use of the Lombard's is not needed thereby reducing the possibility of a quick invasion after Justinian death.
4. Stable borders in N Italy with well defended lines and allies on each side - Franks and Lombard.
5. Invasion of Spain happens and is completed with the additional resources up to defensible borders - financially you have a positive cash flow back to Byz
6. IN the East the Byz had won several battles against the Persians and with the added resources from the western campaigns you would have every growing resources to better defend against the Persians

 

[Ameck16]

Elsewhere in the former provinces the Britons had been successful at rebelling the Anglo-Saxon invasion until the plague reduced the population of people, if there is no plague it could mean that the Britons may be able to hold on and survive.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The plague weakened the Persians in an absolute sense, but since Byzantium suffered worse it strengthened them relative to the Romans.

One not often mentioned outcome of the plague: a few years later, Justinian disbanded the limitanei frontier soldiers. Now, I haven't found any sources directly linking this to the plague, but given the timing I can't help but wonder if it wasn't an attempt to save money in the face of the crippling financial loss the Empire had just suffered. If so, the limitanei might well have survived in a TL without the plague, and the effects of this could potentially be very great indeed. One of the great strengths of the old comitatenses-limitanei system had been that even when the Imperial field armies were defeated the limitanei could still hold on in the cities, minimising the impact of military defeats; in the later wars against the Persians and Arabs, however, a single defeat in battle was often enough for whole provinces to be lost to the enemy. In the long run, therefore, a no plague TL might well see the Empire doing considerably better in its wars against the Persians and (assuming their rise isn't butterflied) the Arabs.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Elsewhere in the former provinces the Britons had been successful at rebelling the Anglo-Saxon invasion until the plague reduced the population of people, if there is no plague it could mean that the Britons may be able to hold on and survive.

That was in the 450s, wasn't it? Or was there a second plague?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

First of all, define "didn't happen". Is it delayed a couple decades due to slightly different evolution/failure to transfer from rats to humans immediately, in which case the problem is being kicked down the road? Does Yersinea Pestis simply not come to be, for whatever reason (because that is an evolutionary PoD, which, although I think it should go here, belongs in ASB)? Or does it burn through its early hosts quickly, saving countless lives?

My definition for 'didn't happen' due to my somewhat limited understanding of virology is that the outbreak gets kicked down the road (or somehow becomes less severe) personally.

I think that without the strain of the plague and the two front wars Justin II blundered into there could have been many of the problems from over extension avoided.

 

[galveston bay]

Typically the Plague comes via trade routes from China where it was and is endemic (northern plateau, as the virus seems to like an altitude of around 2,000 - 4,000 feet with cool dry climate). It wasn't located anywhere else endemically until it was spread to low mountains in the American West in the late 19th Century (oops).

So therefore to keep it from reaching Europe and the Near East, something has to stop trade from China. If memory serves, trade was mostly maritime at this period via the monsoonal route India to the Persian Gulf. So a different El Nino Year (shortening or shifting the monsoon for a bit) might be enough.

If its overland (once again, working on memory, my book on the history of trade is not handy, nor is my copy of Plagues and Peoples), then a couple of harsh drought years in Central Asia to reduce trade to a trickle (and thus ensure sick people die before they get anywhere).

Apparently there are some differences in this version of the Black Death from the one that came in the 14th Century, but I think the main thing to prevent it from arriving is a multi year event that reduces trade with China and India to a trickle.

Climate would seem a quick solution to that.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Typically the Plague comes via trade routes from China where it was and is endemic (northern plateau, as the virus seems to like an altitude of around 2,000 - 4,000 feet with cool dry climate). It wasn't located anywhere else endemically until it was spread to low mountains in the American West in the late 19th Century (oops).

So therefore to keep it from reaching Europe and the Near East, something has to stop trade from China. If memory serves, trade was mostly maritime at this period via the monsoonal route India to the Persian Gulf. So a different El Nino Year (shortening or shifting the monsoon for a bit) might be enough.

If its overland (once again, working on memory, my book on the history of trade is not handy, nor is my copy of Plagues and Peoples), then a couple of harsh drought years in Central Asia to reduce trade to a trickle (and thus ensure sick people die before they get anywhere).

Apparently there are some differences in this version of the Black Death from the one that came in the 14th Century, but I think the main thing to prevent it from arriving is a multi year event that reduces trade with China and India to a trickle.

Climate would seem a quick solution to that.

That seems a bit drastic; trade between China and the west went on for ages, and Plague of Justinian-level pandemics were very rare. No plagues whatsoever would be approaching ASB, but butterflying away one particular outbreak should be fairly easy.