Could Justinian Have Re-united The East And West?

I know he's not officially recognised at UNRV, but I always had great respect for Justinian (the way he re-captured many parts of the Empire, including Rome, and managed to reconstitute much Roman law, amongst many other things).

My question is, could he have succeeded in re-uniting East and West, had he been less unlucky? (With the plague, earthquake etc).

Justinian viewed himself as the next Constantine. He believed in a Mediterranean wide politically, religiously and economically united Christian Empire, ruled from Constantinople under a single Christian emperor. To this end he directed his great wars and his colossal activity in reconquering the western provinces from the Germanic tribes.

As well as causing the winning of Northern Africa, a treaty from the Sassanid Persians and the recovery part of southern Spain and Italy, he did a lot to re-instate old Roman institutions.

His bringing Belisarius out of retirement to deal with the bulgars was well thought of as well, as they were beaten and driven out of Roman territory.

Justinian was barely cold in his grave (565) when his rebuilt Empire began to crumble. Fleeing the Avars (who played much the same role that the Huns had done almost 200 years earlier), the Lombards invaded Italy in 568. When a temporary equilibrium was reached by about 605, the Romans had managed to keep almost half the country, and to prevent the formation of a unified Lombard kingdom. In 575 the Visigoths repudiated Roman suzerainty, and began the process of reducing the Imperial province in Spain, which was all but complete by 623. The Balkans were repeatedly raided by Avars, and Slav settlers immigrated in their wake. Finally, taking advantage of a palace coup in Constantinople, the Sassanid King Chosroes II of Persia invaded in 603, and had conquered Mesopotamia by 610.

Although this prompted another palace coup, and the installation of Heraclius, the Later Eastern Roman Empire would not enjoy the expanse of territory it held under Justinian. The speed with which Justinian's territories fell again show that he could never have reunited West and East under the historical circumstances. Given he suffered some bad luck, and the continuing invasions of barbarians and persians alike brought an end to things rather quickly. However, if it wasn't one nation it would be another, as Justinian's campaigns drained Constantinople's treasury badly. By the stage of Justinian, i don't believe the Eastern Empire could reunite the West and the East (i.e. Gaul to Persia.)

The problem was that the Roman troops were so overstretched at the time, and even in the campaigns led by Belisarius he at the most had only from 4000-7000 troops available at his disposal. There was also a problem with supplies, since the administration was now very centralized. The costs must have have also been astronomical in regaining and keeping such vast territories. The army was also struggling in getting recruits and had to often rely on hastily gathered conscripts to supplement the small professional army.

I believe that the Eastern Roman Empire was straining to keep the Western territories and that it could only be kept together by an extremely determined and efficient leader. I believe that they should have rather concentrated all their resources on keeping Africa or Italy instead of trying to hold on to both.

The answer is no. Justinian would not be able to recapture all the Westrern Roman lands. Not that he didnt have the power to subdue them all, his empire was huge, wealthy and with a huge population. Unfortunatelly, Sassanid Persia lurked on the East and during that time while Belisarious was reconquering the Roman North Africa and Italy, Justinian was trying to fend of Persian intrusions.

Trully, the original ROMAN empire didnt have any enemies that could even match quarter of its military power. On the Other hand during the Medieval ages, Sassanid Persia almost matched Byzantiums military capabilities, thus it presented a great danger to the empire.

I love to do alternative history exercises so here goes.

I believe Justinian could have reunited the Empire if he was someone other than Justinian.

Theodoric had a daughter who was regent for her son for a period of years (he died while still very young). If Justinian had made a political marraige with her, then he could have retaken Illyria and Italy with little to no loss of life or treasury. Her position was politically weak so I am sure she would have been highly motivated for such a union. The fact that she was a well educated, insightful woman and had proven herself to be a good leader would have made it likely that she would have been an excellent viceroy for Justinian.

With Italy secured, the Burgundian kingdom would have also been easily absorbed. In the early 530s (shortly after the political marriage I suggested above), the Kingdom of Burdundy was absorbed by the Franks. If the Romans had been able to provide a strong counterweight, however, Burgundy could have easily fallen to Rome instead. I believe the last king of Burgundy actually asked for Roman protection near the end.

If the Franks had disputed the matter, then a Gothic-Roman army led by Belesaurius could have more than held its own.

If Justinian's policy in Africa had been more old school, then he would have co-opted more of the tribal leaders into being friends of Rome and actually turning them into Roman aristocrats. He could have done this by giving substantial tracts of his private lands recovered in Africa to tribal leaders in exchange for their friendship and protection. This was a long held tradition in the early Empire and a practice that was responsible for so much of the peace and prosperity in Africa during that period.

The tribal leaders would use their infuence to hold their tribesmen in check and even have these same warriors attack tribes that remained "unfriendly" towards Rome. The end result is that Justinian could have secured a lasting peace in North Africa at a fraction of the cost of his actual efforts which were of questionable merit. Also, the manpower drain would have been a small fraction of what it actually was since so many of the tribal warriors they fought would actually be the ones protecting them instead.

As for Iberia, the Gothic kingdom went through a serious civil war in the middle of the 6th century. A tiny Roman army under an 80+ year old commander took a significant part of the kingdom during the confusion. Imagine what would have happened if Rome securely held Italy, Illyria, the former kingdom of Burgundy and northern Africa?

I seriously doubt the Romans during the time of Justinian could have taken northern Gaul or Britain without a long, bloody and costly campaign, but they still could have recovered the most populous and wealthy parts of the west.

As for the Persians, I agree 100% that they were a serious threat. Still, if Justinian could have recovered Italy by a marriage alliance and avoided outright war, then he could have completed the rest of the proposed moves without imposing a serious drain on the resources dedicated to the Persian front.

Also, lets not forget the Danube front. The way Justinian went about his reconquests in the west, the Balkans were left virtually undefended. This resulted in their constant plunder and eventual depopulation. It also forced Justinian to pay huge bribes of gold for the "friendship" of these same tribes.

That's all very well, but you forget the invasion of the Lombards. Would the union that secured Italy remain secure with an invasion by a numerous and fleeing tribe, displaced by the Avars?

That's all very well, but you forget the invasion of the Lombards. Would the union that secured Italy remain secure with an invasion by a numerous and fleeing tribe, displaced by the Avars?

14930[/snapback]

Absolutely yes for 2 reasons. First, the reason the Lombards were able to walk into Italy and set up shop was because of the weakness of Italy after decades of bloody, costly warfare. Even though Narses eventually completed the conquest, Rome could not hold it because it had been ruined during the very war that was waged to acquire it.

I contend that if Italy had remained in tact through a marriage alliance acquisition, then the pro-imperial sentiment of the "Roman" population would have remained in tact and the Gothic soldiers would have remained loyal to an Imperial house that had joined the house of their great leader Theodoric (through the marriage of Justinian to Theodoric's daughter).

Also, if you follow my whole marraige alliance alternatate history scenario, then you avoid Justinian's disasterous stripping of the Balkan defenses that created so much of the opportunity for the Lombards to invade Italy in the first place.

Ah, i concede the point

JUSTINIAN WOULD HAVE DONE ALOT BETTER IF HE HADNT PAID ATTENTION TO HIS WIFE.

Its just theory, but I believe Justinian was motivated by a raging inferiority complex. He was from a Thracian peasant family and he was trying to fit in with the sophisticated, Helenistic culture of the capital. Think of it like an intelligent, ambitous man born into a rustic bumkin family. He was ashamed of his past and felt it was something he had to overcome with massive achievements.

If you look at his massive building projects and his desire to leave legacies in the form of military conquests and legal reforms, I think you see a man who is constantly trying to prove himself to his subjects.

He spent like a drunken sailor for their amusement with lavish games and celebrations. In short, he tried to buy their love and he tried to earn their love and both are disasterous compulsions if you are a leader on the scale of an Emperor.

In the words of Harvey Firestien, "All he wanted was to be loved. Is that so wrong?"

A more secure man and a more pragmatic leader would not have over reached and committed his Empire to more than its resources could handle. Even when you consider Justinian's remarkable abilities, I think his desire to win the approval of his people made him a disaster for the Empire. Shortly after his death, it all came apart as a result of the exhausted state he left it in.

The answer is no. Justinian would not be able to recapture all the Westrern Roman lands. Not that he didnt have the power to subdue them all, his empire was huge, wealthy and with a huge population. Unfortunatelly, Sassanid Persia lurked on the East and during that time while Belisarious was reconquering the Roman North Africa and Italy, Justinian was trying to fend of Persian intrusions.

 

Trully, the original ROMAN empire didnt have any enemies that could even match quarter of its military power. On the Other hand during the Medieval ages, Sassanid Persia almost matched Byzantiums military capabilities, thus it presented a great danger to the empire.

14808[/snapback]

Let's nos forget about Islam. The battle of Yarmuk in 636 AD led to the Arab conquest of large portions of the Eastern Empire. They were much more on the defensive after this.

Justinian was before Islam, mate.

Justinian was before Islam, mate.

15093[/snapback]

You're right about that. I was thinking too far ahead of the issue at hand. My point was that no matter what the Byxantines accomplished against the Sassanids or The Germanic Kingdoms, it would all be eclipsed with the rise of Islam in the following century. Justinian came close to reunifying the empire, but it was temporary. His successors lost some of his gains. The wars with the Sassanids were back and forth. When the Arabs took over much of the East as well as North Africa in the following century, the Byzantines lost any hope of reconstituting the old empire.

Here's an alternative viewpoint. Let's say Justinian and his successors had managed to reunify the old empire. Let's say they had found a way to consistrntly mobilize large armies, as in the old Empire. Would they have subsequently been able to hold off the threat of Islam?

I don't believe so. Even after Heraclius' victories against the Persians, the armies (of both the Byzantines and the Persians) were exhausted. They could not hold back the flood of people, united under the word of Mohammed. I don't believe that even a rebuilt empire could have held them off, not one so recently rebuilt anyway.

I don't believe so. Even after Heraclius' victories against the Persians, the armies (of both the Byzantines and the Persians) were exhausted. They could not hold back the flood of people, united under the word of Mohammed. I don't believe that even a rebuilt empire could have held them off, not one so recently rebuilt anyway.

15097[/snapback]

If the west had been reunited under my alternate scenario, I think the answer is yes. The Persians were only able to take Syria, Egypt and a very large part of Asia Minor because of the weakness brought upon by Justinian's search for glory. He exhausted the empire.

Without this drain on manpower and finances, it is very likley that the eastern front would have held and the Roman/Persian conflict would have remained one of raids and periodic siege warfare around upper Mesopotamia. If this happened, then the people of Syria and Egypt would have likely been far less unhappy with their Roman overlords and the Arab tribal leaders would have been far less likely to have gone unpaid by their Roman benefactors.

Don't forget that Islam was only able to hold Syria and Egypt in the early years because of the active aid of the citizens of those regions. Also, its important to note that Heraclius, as a measure of economy for his nearly bankrupt treasury, had stopped paying his arab allies who were monphysite Christians. Without the unhappiness and ultimate change in allegiance of Rome's Arab allies, it is also highly unlikely that the arab raiders from the interior could have held Syria or even beaten the Roman forces there.

The Moslem conquest was a very delicate business in the early years. Many things had to go right for them all at the same time for it to work so it would be very easy to create a believable alternate timeline where it did not work.

So if the Roman Empire had not been so exhausted by Justinian, then the sequence of events that led to its being exhausted under Heraclius would have been far less likely. And that would have meant that Rome's Arab allies would have been better paid and most likely kept their loyalty to Rome in sufficient numbers to repel the invaders or to have even discouraged their attack in the first place.